A Trump appointed judge took DOJ lawyers to task yesterday when denying their motion for an extension on the legal effort to strip birthright citizenship from our Constitution. There was mention of DOJ having had two months to meet it’s filing deadlines and that the plaintiffs had long ago proverbially handed in their homework. That’s in effect why DOJ got an open court scolding – they had (so judge Kelly) pointed out plenty of time to respond, and with time running out didn’t even meet the deadline for telling the judge they’d wind up filing for an extension!
That’s the gist of this article from Law and Crime I found this morning. It seems U.S. District Court judge Timothy Kelly has, despite having been appointed by Trump lost his patience. It’s been too slow with too few judges (both state and federal) getting fed up with Trump’s antics but more and more are saying in open court, on the record they are fed up with the type of foot dragging and manipulation of the legal system Trump has gotten away with all his life. Trump has gotten some wins early in his second term but more often he’s lost when things get before a judge. Even a judge HE appointed. Maybe judge Kelly has noticed what I and others have – that Trump PAINTS HIS FACE ORANGE and why should anyone take someone who every day does something so weird seriously? Whatever the reason Kelly let Team Trump have it. He didn’t just deny the request from the DOJ for an extension, he “discouraged” them from trying in the future for extensions. In legal terms he was like a teacher saying ‘Don’t give me silly excuses about the dog eating your homework. You had plenty of time to get it done and didn’t so GET IT DONE. NOW!’:
“Defendants appear to have had access to the relevant pleadings — both in this case and in the other identified cases — for at least two months,” a minute order read from U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly on Wednesday. “And despite Defendants’ conclusory assertion of ‘good cause shown,’ they do not explain why they were unable to file any response to the Complaint — or the contemplated motion to stay — before the expiration of the current deadline,” the minute order said.
I’d call that a judicial smack-down and I’ll bet you agree. Trump’s desires to end birthright citizenship are well known and he keeps doubling down on it. In fact there was another Executive Order on the topic recently. However in court EVIDENCE is what matters, and the rules of the court. Trump doesn’t want to have to play by any rules but whatever ones HE say ‘count’ on any given day. Like others, judge Kelly is saying ‘Not in MY courtroom.’ Nope. He’s in effect chastised those DOJ lawyers for ‘not having done their homework’ and telling them they’d better stay up late catching up because things are going to move along the way they were scheduled to happen.
The last time I checked there was no reaction from Trump on this but maybe with all the other news (tariffs, the stock market etc.) Trump missed this and no one wanted to have to go ducking flying catchup bottles. Let’s face it, with immigration and ramping up deportations so near and dear to the lump of whatever Trump has instead of a heart learning a federal judge HE appointed dressed down HIS DOJ lawyers in open court over his intent to strip birthright citizenship from the Constitution will provoke a reaction.
This shouldn’t be an issue at all. The 14th Amendment says quite clearly, in fact in the very first sentence “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” There’s more but that’s the at the heart of all this. The 1898 SCOTUS ruling in United States v Wong Kim Ark established precedent that has guided policy ever since. There have been challenges from conservatives long before Trump came along, mostly over so-called “anchor babies”, children born to “illegal immigrants” and we know how Trump feels on the subject of immigration. Only WHITE people, from WHITE countries (remember him inviting Scandinavian countries to come? And them saying ‘thanks but NO thanks dude!’) to come here. This is already getting longer than I want so here’s a link to a good article from the National Constitution Center that gives a balanced take on the debate.
Here’s why this is so important. Trump and his people have grown less subtle about what they’d like to see happen. DE-naturalization of Naturalized citizens to make it easier to deport them. Any excuse, or the most minor of glitches in paperwork or any type of misrepresentation of their reason for entering the U.S. and/or getting a Visa is pounced upon.
Unless you happen to be an aspiring model with absolutely NOTHING that made her stand out from tens, even hundreds of thousands of other models being granted an “Einstein Visa” (a handful are allocated for people with special, critical knowledge/skills each year) but have a rich guy with connections looking for his next trophy wife. (Looking at YOU “Melanie”). Or how about Elon Musk who got a student Visa but didn’t go to the university he told authorities he was attending? Of course, he had plenty of money for lawyering that got it all smoothed over. I don’t see ICE manhandling Musk or Melania onto a deportation plane for El Salvador.
The thing is, Trump has sometimes said people should be stripped of their citizenship. And in his second term in his mind criticism of him, going ‘Harry Truman’ (“I just tell the TRUTH on them and they THINK it’s hell!) on him, or even opposing him is criminal behavior. Treason even! If you think I’m being hyperbolic consider the recent trial balloon floated where Trump doesn’t even want to bother with the step of taking away citizenship, but just go ahead and send U.S. citizens to prison in El Salvador. I’m not kidding and you can see ‘Baghdad Barbie Karoline Leavitt talk about it in this article from PBS News. (there’s a video clip in it)) What’s scary is that she doesn’t try the ‘he was just kidding/joking’ routine. She does attempt to pass it off as ‘merely’ an idea that was floated but that’s bad enough all on it’s own. I for one would bet all I’ve got that this has gotten serious discussion and consideration at the top levels of this administration.
Now, as the linked article from PBS says Leavitt and the administration claim this would ONLY apply to the worst of the worst. Violent criminals and the like but again she admits it’s been discussed:
Leavitt said the president had discussed the idea both privately and publicly for “heinous, violent criminals who have broken our nation’s laws repeatedly.”
“The president has said if it’s legal, right, if there is a legal pathway to do that, he’s not sure. We are not sure if there is, it’s an idea that he has simply floated and has discussed very publicly as in the effort of transparency,” she said.
Again I want to point out what Trump has said about political opponents, experts (i.e. Dr. Fauci) who’ve made him look as stupid as he actually is, and especially lawyers who have fought him and won judgements against him. Or would have had John Roberts/SCOTUS not pulled his fat ORANGE ass from the criminal prosecution fire with that immunity ruling last year. Trump has described them as horrible, disgusting, etc. and even hung the TRAITOR label on them. And that my friends is how he hopes to get a ruling that the Constitution doesn’t say what it so clearly says. That HE can decides what the Constitution says or allows. Stripping people born of immigrants, even legal ones or who became naturalized citizens opens the door to more, and worse things. They are already testing the waters with slipping in a small number of citizens to deportations, trying to claim “oops” to see what they can get away with.
Getting what he wants on birthright citizenship would open the floodgates for Trump. Does anyone doubt that if he can get this to SCOTUS and they overturn precedent (and Thomas and Alito are already on record as wanting to go along), both the 1898 ruling and subsequent ones Trump would take it to the next level? Stripping lawyers who fought him in court or judges who’ve ruled against him would be first. But he’d want more. ANY critic or opponent would be fair game. And THEN it would be anyone who didn’t speak up forcefully enough supporting him!
No, it won’t get that far. However it matters that that’s the plan. The intention. AND that too many are afraid to admit Trump is batshit insane and needs to be removed from the Presidency and the WH. Like NOW! However, when even a judge he appointed tells Trump NO, I’m not just giving in to you because you huff and puff and threaten me we see actual hope the system might yet still hold. Damaged to be sure, but hold enough to be rebuilt. I’ll take what I can get at this point. And things like what judge Kelly has done are a LOT more than nothing.
**Zoomers, we feel guilty asking for cash, but if you can spare a small amount, it will keep us trekking through cyberspace. Many hands make light work, many small contributions add up to enough. And most of all, we thank you for coming here to read. Ursula**
And, again, Marco Rubio really needs to be worried about his own citizenship status if Drumpf keeps on with this criticism of birthright citizenship since he was born before either of his parents obtained their LEGAL citizenship after “fleeing” Cuba. (I read someplace that Rubio was 10 before his parents became legal American citizens.)
And Kash Patel’s status as an American citizen seems a bit sketchy as well. Per Wiki, he was born in 1980, “the son of Pramod Patel, a Ugandan of Indian descent who were among those expelled by Ugandan dictator Idi Amin in 1972.” Further, the Patels “returned to India after being expelled, then his family moved to Canada.” Now, there’s a general standard of 5 years of legal residence in the US before applying for citizenship and the Wiki bio doesn’t offer a more detailed timeline as to when the family moved from Canada to the US but, for Kash to have been born as a FULL American citizen (i.e., the child of at least one naturalized or natural-born American citizen), either his father or mother would’ve had to have received their citizenship sometime in that scant 8 year period (granted, as refugees of Amin’s policy, a citizenship application might have been expedited, but, at the same time, they’d fled to two other countries before settling in the US which–I think–would have precluded any urgency on a refugee claim). (For what it’s worth, a bit of reading up on Amin’s anti-Asian policy has some interesting comparisons to Drumpf’s current xenophobic policies and beliefs.)
And, I have to question some of Drumpf’s other, um, ethnic lackeys and fans regarding THEIR status as citizens. We’ve already seen how some of the deluded ethnic people who voted for him have now publicly regretted voting for him after his policies (which he’d blatantly described on the campaign trail) were put into action. I just wonder how many of his appointees would stand further deep investigations on THEIR legal status under a literal interpretation of Drumpf’s citizenship “beliefs?” (I imagine he’d have little problem letting in a murderous brown-skinned, non-English-speaking person if they can come up with that $5 million for that little “gold card”–even a known drug cartel leader. For Drumpf, cash drumpfs any “deeply held personal beliefs.”)
It *should* take a constitutional amendment to.undo birthright citizenship but with this court,,who knows?