Embrace Multiculturalism As it Embraces, Or Anyway Gropes, You

And a Happy New Year to the Euro elites who are busy pretending that vast cultural differences with Muslim immigrants won't be much of a problem:

Reports of Attacks on Women in Germany Heighten Tension Over Migrants

BERLIN — The tensions simmering beneath Germany’s willingness to take in one million migrants blew into the open on Tuesday after reports that scores of young women in Cologne had been groped and robbed on New Year’s Eve by gangs of men described by the authorities as having “a North African or Arabic” appearance.

Taking advantage of the New Year’s Eve street party, hundreds of young men broke into groups and formed rings around young women, refusing to let them escape, the authorities said. Some groped victims while others stole wallets or cellphones.

Witnesses described the atmosphere around the city’s central train station as aggressive and threatening, with firecrackers being thrown into the crowd. The women who were attacked screamed and tried to fight their way free, a man who had struggled to protect his girlfriend told German public television.

The Cologne police added that they had received 90 complaints from victims, including one who said she had been raped. No arrests have been made.

Somewhat surprisingly, most of the Times commenters have not embraced this opportunity to broaden their cultural horizons and instead are belaboring such stale 20th century topics as women's rights. However, a few commenters have managed to channel their counterpart to Stephen Colbert's character:

Most of the comments here malign the behavior and culture of some of the migrants. But this shows that the authors have assimilated the idea that their Western culture is somehow superior to that of the migrants. Why not be more liberal and agree that the migrants have the right to their ages-old attitudes and behaviors?

Insisting that the newcomers behave "properly" is just a sign of Western cultural imperialism.

Exactly. On New year's the assault victims were women; later it will be gays, or Jews, and so what - surely these ambassadors from the Third World have the right to their cultural observances? And as another astute commenter noted drolly, Germany has had a troubled history with immigrants.

But before we ride too far on our high horse, let's remember that yes, this can happen here. And did, in Central Park on a hot day in June:

35 Scary Minutes: Women Tell Police Of Assaults in Park

By C. J. CHIVERS and KEVIN FLYNN

Hmm, a younger CJ Chivers gets the byline.

One woman, a newly wed French tourist, had two gold chains snatched from her neck as chanting men removed her skirt. Three others, teenagers from London, were surrounded by the group of men, who sprayed them with water, tore at their clothing and sexually abused one of them. Another woman, on in-line skates, was pulled to the ground by her backpack by the men, who then desperately tried to pull down her shorts.

These were among the accounts the authorities were sorting through yesterday as they struggled to find members of a wild, cheering mob that attacked at least seven women in Central Park on Sunday evening after the National Puerto Rican Day Parade.

In 35 riotous minutes that terrified the victims and have perplexed public officials and the police, the men, whose number has been estimated variously as 15 to 25, overwhelmed and groped at women in four separate attacks. It was a bizarre sequence of lawlessness in a park whose revival has been emblematic of the city's rebirth.

''I never felt in my entire life that I couldn't protect myself until then,'' said the skater, Peyton Bryant, 29, a kickboxing teacher who lives in Manhattan. ''I felt confused. I felt terrified. I felt traumatized.''

The authorities made two arrests, charging Dave Rowe, 24, of Hempstead, N.Y., and Tremayne Bain, 23, of Brooklyn, but they were still trying last night to determine who else was involved. The two arrested were charged with the second-degree robbery, first-degree sexual abuse and second-degree aggravated sexual abuse of a British tourist. The police said the men, as part of a larger group, had surrounded the tourist, groped her and robbed her of $200.

Hard to tell from the reporting, but the assailants might have been an out-of-control rugby club from the suburbs. Or maybe it was some Duke lacrosse players.

Or maybe not. This is the aftermath as of  May 1 2001:

Mr. Garcia was among 33 men arrested after the melee, which was videotaped by several paradegoers who turned the tapes over to the police.

Of the men arrested in the attacks, 30 were indicted, 16 pleaded guilty, 3 went to trial and 2, Mr. Garcia and Abel Ortiz, 24, were convicted. One was acquitted. Charges against 11 of those arrested were dismissed.

Twenty-two women testified at trial that they had been beaten, dragged, groped and penetrated vaginally and anally with their attackers' fingers. Though few identified the defendants as their attackers, Mr. Garcia and Mr. Ortiz, both of the Bronx, were held responsible for the actions of the mob they were part of.

 A few weeks back the Times boldly acknowledged the obvious as it described a new assimilation program in Norway:

Norway Offers Migrants a Lesson in How to Treat Women

...

Fearful of stigmatizing migrants as potential rapists and playing into the hands of anti-immigrant politicians, most European countries have avoided addressing the question of whether men arriving from more conservative societies might get the wrong idea once they move to places where it can seem as if anything goes.

But, with more than a million asylum seekers arriving in Europe this year, an increasing number of politicians and also some migrant activists now favor offering coaching in European sexual norms and social codes.

More "conservative" societies. Uh huh - that is why visitors to Amish country tremble in fear.

Comments

[Threadkiller]

I am asking if it is an authority on naturalization.

You seem to think it is an authority on more.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--Until everything else in 301 besides (a) gets copied from the Constitution, it will get different treatment.--

So then an American Indian born in the US can't be president?

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

By it's very terms declaring those born outside the US NBC, it is more than only about naturalization.

Do you believe the Affordable Care Act was about providing affordable care because that's its name?

[Threadkiller]

Do you see "Affordable Care Act" in Article I Section 8?

[Threadkiller]

Goodnight.

I'll check in in the AM.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--Do you see "Affordable Care Act" in Article I Section 8?--

Huh?
I was responding to your point about the name of the Naturalization law of 1790 meaning it was only about citizenship by naturalization; said act also not being in Article I Section 8.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

I'm not sure what's left to say.
You have what seems to me is an insoluable problem that isn't addressed by all the small stuff these conversations fall into.

There are, as even Minor acknowledges, two kinds of citizens. Citizens by [or at] birth and naturalized citizens.
Consequently you must assert that the children of one US citizen and a non citizen are not citizens at birth and need to be naturalized to become US citizens or your position fails.
Since WKA is not going to be overturned, even if we were able to outlaw birthright citizenship for the children of illegals, you are stuck with arguing that the children of non citizens born here should be citizens while the children with an actual citizen for a parent should not if they're born over the border. How does that position solve the allegiance issue you raise?
Now, you may disagree with WKA just as I do, but since in the real world it almost certainly will never be overturned regarding the children of legal aliens or nationals, the practical effect of your stance would be to penalize the child of an actual citizen in a way the child of two non citizens is not.

There is to my knowledge not one iota of case law or Constitutional language or research for a third form of citizenship that is neither NBC nor naturalized. Without that you are then stuck arguing for something else that doesn't exist and for which, consequently, there is also no evidence; naturalization by [or at] birth.

Until you have resolved those two irresolvable problems all the rest of the arcana about dicta and holdings and statute and what some Frog or Limey said about what other countries did or didn't do or what the definition of some preposition is doesn't matter.

[Threadkiller]

We discuss the small stuff poorly because the ACA gets thrown into the conversation for no reasonable reason.

I do not have a conflict by discussing The Naturalization Act of 1790 with regards to Cruz's citizenship status because it has been repealed for 175 years prior to Cruz's moment of birth.

I am explaining it relative to how Minor read it. Minor, while writing about how a person becomes a citizen through naturalization(B), states two very different things.

1. Appling and getting accepted equals "citizen" whose children are "considered citizens."

2. A citizen's child born overseas will be "considered as natural-born citizen."

Do you see the distinction?

As far as "at birth" vs "by birth" I submit that "at" is important to make clear that a test/process will take place at a specific moment in time. For example:

SEC. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

If the citizen parent was "physically present" for only 6 months "at" the moment of the child's birth, the test is failed and the process determines the child is not a citizen. Maybe they can go to another test within the code, and maybe it will be more lenient, but the parents location circumstances, not their citizenship status, will have caused the child to have permanently fail the process outlined in subsection (b).

[Threadkiller]

...parent's location...

...permanently failed...

[Threadkiller]

Drain cleaning today. And then gutter repair.

Gone for a bit.

[Threadkiller]

To reiterate in the form of a question, how do you solve the conflict to your position stemming from the language of subsection (d) and its apparent disregard for "birthright citizenship"(by birth) being true all of the time?

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--We discuss the small stuff poorly because the ACA gets thrown into the conversation for no reasonable reason.--

You said;

The 1790 act was a "naturalization" act.

And that's not authority enough?

Maybe you should hunt down an authority that says "naturalization" means "birthright citizenship."

Your implication seemed to be fairly clear that since the act was called a "naturalization act" everything in it had to be about naturalization and was therefore an authority supporting your position.
My pointing out lot's of laws have names that have little to do with their contents was perfectly reasonable.
It was especially reasonable when I pointed out an act named a "naturalization" act in fact declared who was a natural born citizen. You cited it as authority in support of your position and I used reasonable means to show why it isn't.
Now, the act you cited as your authority, you claim to be completely irrelevant because it was repealed five years later.

--Do you see the distinction?--

I see the distinction but not the relevance because;
1. Cruz meets the test of 2, and;
2. Minor was most certainly not only "writing about how a person becomes a citizen through naturalization".
The Minor court was discussing citizenship as it had been understood and legislated by Congress "Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization...." Under that power congress certainly may note what citizens are and are not naturalized or natural born. And if anyone with standing disputes those notions the courts will then rule on whether congress was correct.
When that occurs we will have a definition of NBC and I'm pretty sure it will be one you won't agree with and probably neither will I.

--the test is failed and the process determines the child is not a citizen--

That sucks for them but it still is irrelevant to the present discussion, again because;
1. Cruz meets the tests established, and;
2. Everyone admits there are certain circumstances or tests under which one is either an NBC or naturalized.
You may think those rules incorrect or arbitrary but that's the nature of democracy and life itself.

--but the parents location circumstances, not their citizenship status, will have caused the child to have permanently fail the process outlined in subsection (b)--

So now you're arguing for absolute birthright citizenship? Because it only considers the location of birth not the citizenship status of the parents.
Perhaps a reasonable way to go about it is to consider both issues and reach a probably slightly messy and somewhat arbitrary dividing line, but one that adapts to real world conditions.

--how do you solve the conflict to your position stemming from the language of subsection (d)--

There is no conflict in my position because I recognize that necessarily there are tests and circumstances on either side of which one may either be an NBC or naturalized.
I also note you asked me a question in lieu of resolving the ones I posed to you; is there citation, authority or evidence to support the notion of a third type of citizenship?
Or is there citation or authority that such a thing as naturalized at birth exists.

The basic problem I believe is you have staked out a literalist and absolute point on this subject. There may very well have been founders who agreed with this absolutist view. I suspect many did not.
In any event literalist and absolutist positions can be noble and even courageous, but in the real world they nearly all crash on the shoals of reality and practicality. Each of us has to decide if the absolute position we have staked out is, usually figuratively, worth dying for or is it one that is insufficiently a world changing or saving issue that we can recognize that other people of good will have come to a different conclusion than we have.
Apparently you have chosen this hill to make your stand.
I have not.

We now have an entire party with a leadership and a substantial portion of its rank and file which has gone far beyond mere corruption and aggrandizement to actually working to undermine and destroy our country as a free republic. The other party is almost completely useless in countering them and has taken over the others former role of corruption and aggrandizement.
The danger of foreign influence through accident of birth of our chief executive is so overwhelmed by the looming destruction visited upon us by millions of nutjob natural born citizens that I really don't care that much about it.
The issue of birthright citizenship is one that needs to be addressed, especially regarding illegals and non permanent residents, but these discussions always devolve to debaters points about narrow issues. This one has and so I consider it not worth pursuing further.
We both made our points and we disagree. C'est la vie.

[Threadkiller]

I'm sorry, I did not mean to not answer your question. And I certainly don't want to answer it so poorly that the conversation has to veer any further from the points that are necessary to this debate.

What are the three types of citizenship I'm to find authorities for? And would you please state your question again?

I will do my best to answer before I move on to the rest of your 12:18.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

Not sure how much this dead horse needs beating but IIRC my basic questions were;

1. What is the basis for the claim naturalization at birth is a thing?

Naturalization is either a process or a collective grant, such as when a territory or possession becomes a state.
Those who do not gain citizenship by or at birth are either aliens or nationals. To become citizens either must be naturalized in one way or another; either by their parents application if they are minors or by the naturalization process for adults.

2. If there is no such thing as naturalization at birth [and seems to me clearly there is not] then what is the basis for excluding from eligibility someone who statute and precedent says gained their citizenship through birth rather than through naturalization?

For instance Obama was pretty clearly born in the US to a citizen mother and an alien father. [I will not go down the PDF, Loretta Fuddy road to perdition]
Does a person born of one citizen parent within the US gain birthright citizenship? If your answer isn't yes then there is no point in going on.
If your answer is yes but that he is ineligible to be president then you are asserting there are three kinds of citizens;
1. Natural born citizens who gained their citizenship at birth and are eligible for POTUS.
2. Naturalized citizens who gained their citizenship after birth through one of the naturalization processes and are not eligible to be President.
3. Citizens who gained citizenship at birth rather than through naturalization but are not 'natural born' and are also not eligible.

What constitutional language or case law precedent has created or allowed for this third type of citizenship?

The Minor court which you sometimes use as an authority and at other times dismiss seemed to think that those born abroad to US citizens, even only one US citizen after 1855, were natural born.
If those born to one citizen in the US and those born to two citizens or only one outside the US are not NBC, what are they? They have not been naturalized since at least 1855. Were all these people wrongly counted as citizens all this time since they were never naturalized or are they in some limbo of third class citizenship?
If so who created it?
The Constitution certainly didn't. It merely says natural born citizens are the only citizens qualified to be president and congress has the power to formulate naturalization laws.

After WKA, even the children of non citizens are considered citizens at birth. Any court would give NBC status to the child of two permanent-resident non-citizens who had their child in the US even though neither was a citizen, and probably so would I.
Does it then follow logically or morally that a child who becomes a US citizen by birth to a US citizen and a previous legal resident of the US should be a lesser citizen than the child of two permanent residents who aren't and might never become citizens?

[Threadkiller]

One at a time with a simple back and forth approach may be the best way to finish the beaten horse off.

1. What is the basis for the claim naturalization at birth is a thing?

Do we agree on this definition from wiki?

Naturalization (or naturalisation) is the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country. It may be done by a statute, without any effort on the part of the individual, or it may involve an application and approval by legal authorities.

If not, please provide the definition you would prefer and I will proceed.

[Threadkiller]

[I will not go down the PDF, Loretta Fuddy road to perdition]

I have to admit that it does bother me a little that this was even suggested.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

Definition looks fine.

I brought up the road to perdition because I wrote a declarative sentence, the declaration of which I don't think you agree with.
Just boarding up a rabbit trail before we run down it.

[Threadkiller]

The reason I took offense is because I have showed no signs of mentioning his fraudulent documents.

Consider the trail off limits for the purposes of our discussion.

[Threadkiller]

Was a process used to determine that the "sucks for them" child of a US citizen would not receive citizenship at his/her birth?

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

TK,
Many of your questions are phrased in such a way I'm not even sure how to answer, like the one above.
How bout we just say neither of us convinced the other and move on?
While I think I understand your overarching position I'm not even sure what the specific or more limited position is that you're trying to defend or advance.
And I'm not sufficiently invested in the issue to spend any more brain power or time on it.

The founders used a term, didn't define it and do not appear to have been united in its meaning. The act of 1790, supposedly largely written by Thomas Jefferson, and repealed five years later and then again in 1798 by one of the Alien and Sedition Acts demonstrates there apparently was no consensus on its meaning even then.

What we may think the law should be is largely academic.
What it would be were the court to rule I'm not sure except to say it will probably not satisfy either of us.

The only part of this issue I care much about or consider sufficiently important to root for is stopping birthright citizenship for the children of illegals and those here temporarily = anchor babies.
We're not discussing that and there isn't much about it to discuss.

I hoped I could show you that there is sufficient question on the issue of NBC, both historically and legally, that an absolutist position is not justified.
Looks like I failed so let's just call it a day and assume we aren't going to convince the other.
I appreciate the discussion and debate but all I see before us are weeds that appear to be growing thicker and thicker. The call and answer method is particularly ill suited to the internet where we're away for hours at a time.
How bout we just say we respectfully, as friends, gave it a shot and did not make a lot of headway in either direction?

[Threadkiller]

Sounds good.

[Threadkiller]

I do need to add, if we concluded my series of Q&As you would see that it isn't as absolutist as you seem to think it is.

At least it would be no more absolutist than Cruz's position on the definition of "keep and bear arms" in his Heller amicus.

No big deal.

Thanks again for the exchange. Time to catch up on the newer threads.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

I learned quite a bit actually.
Thanks for the pleasant conversation, TK.