Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

smac97

Contributor
  • Posts

    18,717
  • Joined

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    My name is Spencer Macdonald

Recent Profile Visitors

33,875 profile views

smac97's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Well Followed Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges

27.3k

Reputation

  1. I square my appreciation for Rauch's sentiments this way: Absent a particular endorsement or ratification, I am not beholden or responsible for broad rhetorical excesses and recriminations from people toward my end of the political spectrum, and I would extend the same courtesy and exculpatory expectation to folks like you. If you can point me to instances where I have endorsed or ratified characterizations of people as "an enemy or potential enemy to the US," then I would retract such endorsements and apologize. As it is, though, I don't think I've done that. Thanks, -Smac
  2. I agree. And a big part of finding that "place of harmony" involves the parties doing this: I think BYU graduates, such as myself, and even all Latter-day Saints, can do that, too. My positions on sociopolitical issues are not based on who is or is not in political power. My positions are, instead, based on my own research and assessments, guidance from scripture and from modern prophets and apostles, my legal training and experience, and so on. Yep. I'm willing to make compromises. But hard feelings and personal antipathy, such as how I think SU feels about me, can obscure that reality. Oh, well. Thanks, -Smac
  3. Yes. And posters here like com bluebell, blue dreams, mustard seed all exemplify this. So do I. I have repeatedly praised the Utah Compact (see, e.g., here and here). I have repeatedly quoted and endorsed the Church's position on illegal immigrants ("an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship") (see here, here, here, here). I have frequently voiced support for limited exceptions to laws prohibiting elective abortions (see here and here). And so on. I am so much a part of the problem Rauch is describing that I have started two threads about, and complimenting and endorsing, Rauch: Perspective: Jonathan Rauch underscores ‘civic theology’ of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the University of Virginia Jonathan Rauch, "Civic Theology" and the Church Mr. Rauch has noted that the Church has both counseled in favor of, and has itself demonstrated, a "capacity for compromise," and I have been attempting to follow that counsel and find room for compromise. You do not, or cannot, see that. Again, from Mr. Rauch: "But if you hate them, if you fear them, if they're a threat to your country, to your very existence, we're in a different world." For some, anything short of Side A's utter capitulation to, and full-throated support for and endorsement of, Side B's position on sociopolitical issues (abortion, gay rights, illegal immigration, etc.) is "intolerance." Disagreement alone, no matter how reasoned or on what grounds, is bigotry. Other people, however, can discern and appreciate efforts to compromise on these issues. Thanks, -Smac
  4. From your article: I am working to avoid posting political commentary on this board. Thanks, -Smac
  5. Sure, but you and your fellow church members support of the guy in the White House directly contradicts Rauch’s praise for the church and its leaders. It directly undermines Rauch’s position. From Rauch's speech at BYU: I think we should, to the greatest extent possible, avoid political polarization on this board. I would have preferred a more substantive evaluation of the Church's position and public advocacy of the things Mr. Rauch is saying would be good for the United States (and other countries as well). Again, from Mr. Rach: "But if you hate them, if you fear them, if they're a threat to your country, to your very existence, we're in a different world." Mr. Rauch seemingly owns the notion that he is not altogether immune from the effects he is describing. This comment about Mr. Rauch's speech ("What I Learned From an Atheist at BYU") makes some pretty solid points: Seems like we all have room to improve. I am working to avoid posting political commentary on this board. Thanks, -Smac
  6. I am working to avoid posting political commentary on this board. Thanks, -Smac
  7. The Tribune weighs in: If Christianity were ‘more Christian,’ scholar says, it would be ‘good for the church and great for the country’ I continue to be intrigued by Mr. Rauch's commentary. I would like to hear responses from our resident crop of secularists who, like Mr. Rauch did in 2003, think that secularism is the answer to most/all of humanity's woes. I quite agree with Mr. Rauch here. I am curious, though, why he himself seems to hold the answers to these "fundamental questions" at arm's length, at least for himself. Hmm. I would like to hear our resident secularists respond to this statement. I agree with this. In the Latter-day Saint paradigm, I think it is the Light of Christ. This is an interesting formulation. What a great comment this is. Here is a transcript of Pres. Oaks' speech: Going Forward with Religious Freedom and Nondiscrimination A gay atheist praising the moderation and reasonableness of Pres. Dallin H. Oaks. What a nice thing to see. "I don’t know any other major church that’s going down this road of civic peacemaking." I think if our critics were to pause and reflect a bit, they would start to see what Mr. Rauch has seen, and is emphasizing and praising, in the Church's words and deeds. Good points, these. Sage words, particularly in 2025. What a great homily. Thanks, -Smac
  8. Uh-huh. Sure. But some of them come here to have babies, and many of those who do so come illegally. Because of the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment. That interpretation therefore creates a perverse incentive to break the law. I have said nothing about any "baby boom." The numbers appear difficult to accurately assess. Regardless of the numbers, the perverse incentive remains. The breaking of U.S. laws remains. The seemingly problematic interpretation of the 14th Amendment remains. And torturing puppies for fun and profit seems to be your problem. And yet another accusation of racial hatred. How tiresome. That's the defining feature of a strawman, which is what you are presenting here. I do start with that premise. It doesn't change my perspective on the lack of on-point precedent regarding "birthright citizenship" under the 14th Amendment as pertaining to children born to illegal aliens. Quit torturing puppies. I think you are bereft of logical or reasoned analysis for your position, so you are left with resorting to ugly attempts and character assassination and emotional manipulation. Whether or not the current reading of the 14th Amendment is correct does not have a racial dimension. That you want to import one only indicates how bereft of substance your position is. When the law is not on your side, pound the facts. When the facts aren't on your side, pound the law. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, yell "Racist!" over and over. That's all you're doing. At this point I'm honestly questioning if you are really an attorney. Thanks, -Smac
  9. Malarky. Frankly, I find it offensive that, by your reckoning, a baby born to, say, Mexican nationals is "punished" by inheriting Mexican citizenship from his parents. Yeesh. So American citizenship is a blessing, and any other citizenship is "punishment"? Are you sure you want to go with that? No. But I think people will be substantially less incentivized to break U.S. immigration laws. I have read many articles describing the horrific things involved in illegal border crossings (which crossings some folks apparently want to keep happening). See, e.g., here: ‘You Have to Pay With Your Body’: The Hidden Nightmare of Sexual Violence on the Border Horrific. Most political/legal acts involve tradeoffs. Event he most sensible and well-intentioned laws can have unintended harmful side effects. Here, however, we have large numbers of Americans who are opposed to laws which, if enforced, would obliterate the "coyote" industry, and all the horrible things that go with it, such as what is described above. BIRTH TOURISM IN THE UNITED STATES We can't even call this an "open secret," since there is nothing secretive about it. Some specifically acknowledge and facilitate specific and calculated efforts with "birth tourism." See, e.g., here: Doctors Para Ti: Is having my baby in the United States Legal? Can't get much clearer than that. If there is a constitutional right to citizenship for a child born in the U.S. to illegal aliens, I have no qualms with that itself (though I do have qualms with the perverse incentives that approach creates). The more I review the matter, though, the more I see weaknesses and flaws in the status quo interpretation of the 14th Amendment. If there was a statute passed to grant such "birthright citizenship," I would have no qualms with that, either (though, again, the perverse incentives remain). Conversely, if the status quo interpretation of the 14th Amendment is in error, we need to address that (along with the perverse incentives created by this erroneous interpretation). Says the guy who tortures puppies for fun and profit. I don't see how you can sleep at night. Thanks, -Smac
  10. I do not. I see jus soli as creating perverse incentives to break the law. I will acknowledge that "anchor baby" has, for many, a pejorative connotation. I apologize for using it. The underlying phenomenon, however, remains an issue. I notice you do not take exception (yet) to "birth tourism"). It too is a documented phenomenon: If "birth tourism" is a thing, then I think it's fair to surmise that there have been instances of illegal aliens specifically timing the birth of a child to happen in the U.S. so as to take advantage of Jus Soli. Both of these phenomena happen, and both would stop happening if Birthright Citizenship is found to not be a constitutional right. The "perverse incentives" to break the law (and/or to risk traveling while pregnant) would be gone. It is these perverse incentives and the calculated and intentional violation of U.S. law which I find troubling. Thanks, -Smac
  11. A surprising update: Viewers Are Taking 'The Oath' As Historical Action Drama Scores Huge Streaming Hit While this may all sound thrilling, The Oath became another movie that drew completely different reactions from audiences compared to critics. On the Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer, The Oath scored just 33%, with complaints of a “tedius” and “soulless” production that left Jeff Mitchell of Art House Film Wire feeling that he could “appreciate the filmmaker’s intentions, but pledging to watch The Oath may cause severe regrets.” Oddly enough, that was not how audiences saw this historical action epic. Audiences Were Happy to With 'The Oath' Starring Darin Scott, Nora Dale, Karina Lombard, Eugene Brave Rock and Billy Zane , The Oath may not have had a blockbuster cast, but it managed to enthrall audiences with its adaptations of stories from The Book of Mormon. While critics can often look for specific things in the movies they are employed to watch, audiences tend to gravitate to movies they already know they are going to like. That seemed to be the case with The Oath, as the film scored a high 84% score from its watchers. In a stark contrast to the consensus of critics, audiences heaped praise on the film’s message, the performances of its cast, and even the “well-plotted” storyline that so many critics just did not have time for. One thing that comes across in many of the positive reviews is that viewers were not quite prepared for the story that was told, but were happy to embrace it. Audience reviews that did not provide one of the positive scores, tended to drift off into the realm of not being interested in something based on The Book of Mormon. Now prominently featured on Starz, The Oath having topped the platform’s movie chart in the last few days does suggest that it has found a waiting audience that it failed to capture during its disappointing 2023 theatrical release and its subsequent VOD drop in March 2024. It seems that The Oath has become another of those movies that only manages to find its feet when it becomes available on streaming. https://flixpatrol.com/top10/starz/united-states/2025-02-14/ See #3: Huh. Thanks, -Smac
  12. If that were the case, the problems would be popping up in the future. Not really. Again, these days it's pretty easy to establish A) maternity, B) paternity, C) the citizenship of the mother and father, and D) the geographical location of the birth of a child. That being the case, I'm not sure what "problems" you are referencing here. Illegal aliens will no longer have an incentive to break the law so as to have a baby on U.S. soil. The perverse incentives and their attendance consequences disappear. "Birth Tourism." "Anchor Babies." "Chain Migration Expansion." Unequal treatment as compared to legal immigrants. National security risks. All gone. Of the foregoing "labels," it looks like you may be taking exception to "anchor babies" as being pejorative. I intended for its use to be clinical, not pejorative. However, per ChatGPT the alternatives for this concept are "children of undocumented immigrants" or "children born to noncitizen parents in the U.S." Those are a bit more clunky, but okay. You really don't like these people, do you? And again, the racism accusation. How very tiresome. And you claim not to enjoy torturing puppies for fun and profit. And yet here we are. I am describing phenomena, not people. Oh, nonsense. This is a constitutional issue. I think you should stop torturing puppies, regardless of how much joy and financial reward you accrue from doing so. Getting rid of Jus Soli would not result in what you describe above. I think it would only have prospective effect. Thanks, -Smac
  13. And if you don't like the way the 14th Amendment has been interpreted, the proper way to address that supposedly interpretation would be to mount a legal challenge to it. And one way to mount a legal challenge to it is for the Chief Executive to issue an Executive Order which conflicts with the questioned interpretation, and then litigate the merits of both the interpretation and the EO challenging it. I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Actually, I think the wording does not really support Jus Soli. At least, there is a pretty solid argument to that effect, based on both precedent and legislative history. I cited a few resources which address this legal issue here. I suspect that if SCOTUS were to nullify the constitutionality of Jus Soli-based birthright citizenship, it would not do so retroactively. I think a nullification of birthright citizenship would only have prospective, not retroactive, application. If that happens, the perverse incentives and their attendance consequences disappear. "Birth Tourism." "Anchor Babies." "Chain Migration Expansion." Unequal treatment as compared to legal immigrants. National security risks. All gone. If you are aware of on-point SCOTUS precedent on this issue (the citizenship of a person born in the U.S. to illegal aliens), I would like to see it. Thanks, -Smac ETA: @Danzo, it looks like most - if not all - of your concerns about re-visiting birthright citizenship center on what would happen if A) birthright citizenship born in the U.S. to illegal aliens was found to not be a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment, and B) the SCOTUS decision were to be applied retroactively (hence all your "prove your ancestry" commentary above). I think there is a way forward for SCOTUS to both nullify birthright citizenship and avoid the seemingly and wide-rangingly dire consequences of applying such a decision retroactively. That would be . . . by not applying the decision retroactively. SCOTUS clearly has that authority. Per Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969) : I think a decision nullifying birthright citizenship can and should include such a "holding of nonretroactivity." Thanks, -Smac
  14. First, no, I don't "object to the 14th amendment." Second, I do not know what you are referencing by "a law" that is "a 'good idea.'" Third, my comments have been about birthright citizenship, which I explicitly acknowledged "as the constitutional status quo," but that I am "ambivalent" about there being a "constitutional right" to it due to such a right purportedly coming from a troubling interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which "troubling interpretation" arises from A) the perverse incentives it creates to break the law (as we have seen for a very long time), B) the apparent conflict between that interpretation and the legislative history of the 14th Amendment, and C) the apparent absence of on-point precedent (Wong Kim Ark does not address the status of children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens). Fourth, my observation that a constitutional question exists (I certainly did not originate it) is not a basis for you to once again accuse me of racism. I hope you will stop doing that, as it is wholly false, unfair, ugly, and impedes reasoned discourse. Again, I don't know what "good idea" you are referencing here. No, I don't think you know that. Because I have never said anything about it. I will do so now: In 2025, it's pretty easy to establish A) maternity, B) paternity, C) the citizenship of the mother and father, and D) the geographical location of the birth of a child. My understanding is that Jus Soli, the legal concept that a person born on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizen, even where both parents are illegal aliens, is likely to be challenged as to its constitutional bona fides. The foregoing scenario (U.S. citizenship being conferred to a child born in the U.S. to illegal aliens) has huge ramifications. I think this is less likely to be applicable to currently-existing scenarios, as I doubt SCOTUS would retroactively negate the citizenship of who-knows-how-many people who have Jus Soli-based citizenship. However, the status quo creates a huge incentive for non-Americans to break our laws. This is the most obvious "perverse incentive" which Jus Soli creates. "Birth Tourism." "Anchor Babies." "Chain Migration Expansion." Unequal treatment as compared to legal immigrants. National security risks. The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved individuals, not to incentivize illegal immigration, birth tourism, or chain migration. As there seems to be no directly on-point precedent regarding the the foregoing scenario (U.S. citizenship being conferred to a child born in the U.S. to illegal aliens), I think this is an issue which is ripe for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Regarding the foregoing, I'm pretty ambivalent about it. I dislike its perverse incentives to break the law, but it's the law of the land. My recognition that legal issues and disputes exist re: Jus Soli is not a basis for you to once again accuse me of racism. The "good idea" being . . . elimination of Jus Soli? Is that what you have been referencing? Again, my preliminary assessment is that Mr. Trump's legal challenge on this issue has some real legs. However, constitutional questions are determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is SCOTUS, not Mr. Trump or his EO, which will decide the fate of Jus Soli. Thanks, -Smac
  15. I am pretty much on board with that view. I think it is not in our interests to continue it but if it is to be changed the process for amending the constitution should be followed and the EO recently issued should be tossed out. The thing is, "Birthright Citizenship" is, it seems, a matter of interpretation of the existing Constitutional text, particularly the following clause in the 14th Amendment: "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." How this "subject to" provision relates to children born to illegal aliens is, it seems, open for debate. My understanding (and I am open to correction here, since I seldom play in this area of constitutional waters), an executive order cannot unilaterally overturn constitutional provisions or long-standing Supreme Court interpretations. However, by POTUS issuing such an order, his administration can prompt judicial review, potentially leading the Supreme Court to reconsider or clarify the interpretation of the foregoing clause. In other words, the EO seems to be a legitimate way to get the ball rolling for judicial review. And the more I look at it, the more I see some real potency for the argument against Birthright Citizenship as to children born to illegal aliens. The primary decision on this issue, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) does not directly address the issue of birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens. At the time of the decision, U.S. immigration law did not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants in the way it does today. Nevertheless, this case is widely cited as precedent for the broad interpretation of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. This broad interpretation, though, creates perverse incentives, and also seems to significantly conflict with legislative history re: the 14th Amendment. My preliminary assessment is that Mr. Trump's legal challenge on this issue has some real legs. If and when SCOTUS affirms the broad interpretation that has been the status quo, then pursuing an amendment may be appropriate (or perhaps both options could be pursue concurrently). Thanks, -Smac ETA: I am commenting on this because I do not see my post as being "political" in a partisan sense, but rather an impartial assessment of the legal landscape. I will continue to avoid "political" posts so as to better comply with the board rules.
×
×
  • Create New...