Top Tag
Top Stories
​

'Apocalyptic'…

On By admin

BREAKING: Traffic Nightmare Continues As I-495 Inner Loop Remains Closed

(Updated at 9:45 p.m.) Traffic throughout Arlington has reached apocalyptic levels as the closure of the Beltway's Inner Loop continues well into the night.

Shortly before 2 p.m., a tanker truck overturned as part of a multi-vehicle crash just prior the American Legion Bridge. The cleanup from th

Trump Learns to Live With NATO—And Vice Versa

On By admin

Two-plus years into the Trump presidency, NATO is learning to live with the United States president, and vice versa. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has been praised for his deft touch with Donald Trump—for making him feel that his concerns are heard while still defending NATO’s value. For his part, Trump has long been skeptical of military alliances, contending that well-heeled nations shouldn’t rely on the U.S. defense umbrella without picking up more of the cost.

“In an ideal world, we would not need to spend any more on defense,” Stoltenberg told a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, displaying his dexterousness. “But we do not live in an ideal world. Freedom has enemies, and they need to be deterred.”

The Norwegian had come at the invitation of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to address a legislative body that has expressed overwhelming support for NATO —even as President Trump has criticized its members over defense spending and shaken long-held assumptions about America’s commitment to the alliance. Stoltenberg, having praised the alliance for safeguarding peace in Europe, and having thanked America in particular for its contributions to the cause, echoed the president’s message: “NATO allies must spend more on defense. This has been the clear message from President Trump, and this message is having a real impact.”

[Read: The West takes NATO for granted. One country still wants in.]

Meanwhile, the alliance faces an expansionist Russia determined to divide it. The more points of tension develop, the more opportunities Russia could have to exploit them.

Stoltenberg, twice Norway’s prime minister and the head of NATO since 2014, ticked off a list of those disagreements in his speech: over trade, energy, the Iran deal, climate change. He could have added Trump’s sudden decision to withdraw most U.S. troops from Syria; European energy purchases from Russia; creeping authoritarianism in NATO members such as Hungary and Turkey; or Turkish weapons purchases from Russia. Still, Stoltenberg noted that disputes have erupted among NATO members in the past—the French withdrawal from military cooperation in 1966, the divisive Iraq War debates in 2003. And still the alliance is poised to celebrate its 70th year on Thursday. “Open discussions and different views is not a sign of weakness,” he said. “It is a sign of strength.”

Previous presidents have raised the spending issue, though Trump has stood out for the harshness of his rhetoric, including a reported threat at a NATO conference in Brussels last summer to “go it alone” if the allies didn’t pay up. But there’s been a difference between his rhetoric and his administration’s policy. In practice, Trump’s administration has been hard on Russia and supportive of Europe, notwithstanding his stated desire to get along with Russia and his belittling of some European leaders.

[Richard Fontaine: Trump gets NATO backwards]

“There’s this argument within the policy community about policies versus words,” says Rachel Rizzo, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security who works in its transatlantic-security program. “Trump uses harsh words all the time. It’s something that we’ve gotten used to.” At the same time, she noted the administration has increased spending on the European Deterrence Initiative, which is aimed at preventing regional aggression. The U.S. has put more troops into the Baltics and eastern Europe. “Our commitment to NATO is strong,” Rizzo says.

The disconnect does, however, fuel anxiety over the U.S. commitment, especially after Trump sparked deep concern in Washington, D.C., and Brussels by initially declining to publicly endorse NATO’s Article 5 commitment to collective defense (he did so halfway through his first year in office). At times Trump has seemed at odds with the pro-alliance wing of his own government. In the summer of 2017, Vice President Mike Pence traveled to Montenegro, a NATO ally, where he reassured Balkan leaders that the U.S. would be a bulwark against Russian aggression. A year later, Trump said in an interview with Fox News that Montenegro is home to “very aggressive people” whose actions could touch off “World War III.”

Another source of tension has been Trump’s decision to withdraw most U.S. troops from Syria, which took European officials by surprise. This was followed up with a Trump-administration demand that the Europeans stay to deal with the aftermath. One European official told The Atlantic that when Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan made this expectation clear at a conference in Munich in February, the Europeans pushed back, saying: We’re in together, and we’re out together. Trump ultimately opted to leave some 400 U.S. troops in the theater.

Trump has been particularly focused on the idea that the U.S. bears an unfair share of the burden to protect Europe—an argument that resonated with his core voters in the 2016 presidential campaign and is part of his broader complaint that the U.S. had been exploited in trade pacts and in a host of dealings with other nations. Europeans have actually been stepping up spending since the Russian annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2015, although Trump has taken credit for some of the increases, with Stoltenberg’s encouragement. Still, Trump has continued to insist that the allies meet a defense-spending target they all said they’d aim for back in 2014—when each country committed to move toward spending 2 percent of GDP on defense, without specifying a timeline.

Germany has recently been a flash point in this debate, and it shows why it’s difficult even for a wealthy country to simply raise defense spending. Vice President Mike Pence met privately with German officials in Munich in February, and pressed them to boost their country’s financial contribution to NATO. Germany is wealthy enough to comply with the 2 percent goal, administration officials believe.

When Pence made his case, his German counterparts balked, citing their own domestic politics, according to a White House official familiar with the matter. And they made clear it could be years before they were able to raise military-spending levels.

The German position was very much, “Thank you for what you’re doing. We need you to do more because our own domestic politics makes it impossible for us to get there,” the White House official said.

In an Oval Office meeting on Tuesday with Stoltenberg, the president returned to the same sore point: Germany. The country, he told reporters, is “not paying what they should be paying.”

Appearing at a NATO summit meeting in Brussels last year, Trump upbraided Germany for its natural-gas-pipeline deal with Russia. He tweeted: “What good is NATO if Germany is paying Russia billions of dollars for gas and energy. Why are there only 5 out of 29 countries that have met their commitment? The U.S. is paying for Europe’s protection, then loses billions on Trade.”

One Western diplomat told The Atlantic that Trump should avoid the appearance of bullying Germany on military spending. Such aggressive messages can boomerang. The diplomat said that “it can actually be harder for Germany to spend more if it looks as though they are bowing to U.S. pressure.”

Apart from that, Trump’s tight focus on the 2 percent goal minimizes other contributions that aren’t measured in financial terms.

“As an example,” the diplomat said, “Greece has met the 2 percent threshold, Denmark has not. However, Denmark has sacrificed a significant amount and has been an invaluable member of the alliance.”

Strains were evident during Vice President Mike Pence’s afternoon speech at an international conference marking the 70-year anniversary. Echoing the president, Pence again took aim at Germany and cautioned that NATO is not a “unilateral security guarantee.”

He received polite applause throughout the 25-minute address from the European and NATO diplomats in attendance. But when Pence sought to celebrate Trump—crediting the president with “resolute leadership” that had strengthened NATO—no one clapped.

Yara Bayoumy contributed reporting.

Rahm to Bill Jussie for Police Work…

On By admin

Jussie Smollett Case: Mayor Rahm Emanuel Plans To Bill ‘Empire’ Actor For Police Costs, Tells Trump ‘Stay Out Of This’

CHICAGO (CBS) — Mayor Rahm Emanuel said Thursday he plans to have the city’s Law Department bill “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett for the costs of the Chicago Police Department investigation that determined he was lying about being the victim of a hate crime in January.

The mayor said CPD is still calculating the total cost of the investigation, and when it’s done, the mayor will have the city’s Corporation Counsel send a bill to Smollett and his attorneys to try to recoup those costs.

“Given that he doesn’t feel any sense of contrition and remorse, my recommendation is when he writes the check, in the memo section, he can put the word ‘I’m accountable for the hoax,’” Emanuel said at an unrelated event on Thursday.

“My recommendation is when he writes the check, in the memo section he can put the word, I’m ‘accountable’ for the hoax.” @ChicagosMayor Rahm Emanuel says Jussie Smollett “doesn’t feel any sense of contrition and remorse” after charges against him dropped. pic.twitter.com/Bv1ttslmUO

— CBS Chicago (@cbschicago) March 28, 2019

Emanuel also responded to President Donald Trump’s claim on Twitter that the FBI and Justice Department will review the Smollett case, after Cook County prosecutors dropped the charges against Smollett this week.

Although Emanuel himself has criticized that decision, saying police had solid evidence Smollett was guilty, the mayor said Trump should butt out.

“My recommendation is the president go to Opening Day baseball, sit on the sideline, stay out of this. You created a toxic environment,” Emanuel said.

The mayor pointed to President Trump’s comments about a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va., where a counter protester was killed. The president said there were “very fine people on both sides” of the protests.

“The only reason Jussie Smollett thought he could take advantage of a hoax about a hate crime is from the environment, the toxic environment that Donald Trump created. This is a president who drew a moral equivalency between people who are trying to perpetuate bigotry and those who are trying to fight bigotry,” Emanuel said. “President Trump should literally take his politics, move it aside. He’s created a toxic environment, now he’s created a toxic, vicious cycle.”

The unusual move by prosecutors to drop the charges without a plea deal allowed Smollett’s attorneys to get the case sealed. If he wants to get his case formally expunged, his lawyers would have to file a motion with Presiding Cook County Criminal Court Judge LeRoy Martin. If and when that happens, the records in the case would be briefly unsealed, and anyone could file an objection to expunging the records.

The Cook County State’s Attorney’s office volunteered to notify the media if and when Smollett’s attorneys file a motion to expunge the case, so they would have an opportunity to object. Martin said it typically takes 70 days to close out an expungement request, and the law allows a 60-day period for objections to be filed.

STATEMENT FROM JUSSIE SMOLLETT’S ATTORNEY, PATRICIA BROWN HOLMES

“We support the court files being preserved. We have not and will not file a motion for destruction of any records in this case.”

— Charlie De Mar (@CharlieDeMar) March 28, 2019

In a statement Thursday afternoon, Smollett’s attorneys said they “have not and will not file a motion for destruction of any records in this case.”

“We support the court files being preserved,” attorney Patricia Brown Holmes stated in an email.

Smollett has maintained his innocence.

The actor, who is black and openly gay, had told police he was attacked as he was walking home around 2 a.m. on Jan. 29. He claimed two masked men – one of them also wearing a red hat – shouted racist and homophobic slurs as they beat him, put a noose around his neck, and poured a chemical on him.

Police said, in reality, Smollett had paid the two brothers $3,500 to stage the attack, because he was upset with his salary on “Empire.”

Emanuel said Smollett owes the city an apology, not just for the financial costs of the case, but for the damage to the city’s reputation.

“I think we’ve got to be clear about this, that there was an action here, in my view, that is a hoax,” Emanuel said. “The grand jury believed that. They were shown a sliver of evidence, and they came to a conclusion.”

“He has cost not only the city financially, that’s just one,” he added. “Also, a sense of the wrong he’s done by taking advantage of our values as a welcoming city that welcomes people of all walks of life and all backgrounds to feel comfortable in the city. So when he does pay the city back, on just purely what the taxpayers have fronted, in that memo section he can write ‘I’m sorry, and I’m accountable for what I’ve done.’”

Prosecutors have said, although they agreed to drop charges, they do not believe Smollett is innocent. They have said they dropped the case because Smollett had no previous violent criminal record, agreed to forfeit his $10,000 bail, and performed 16 hours of community service.

Why touchy-feely Uncle Joe Biden isn't funny anymore

On By admin

WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Joe Biden has a reputation for being a good retail politician who likes shaking hands, kissing babies and giving hugs. But his overly familiar style is getting new scrutiny in the #MeToo era.

It started with former Nevada State Assemblywoman Lucy Flores, who accused Biden of awkwardly smelling her hair and kissing the back of her head as he was standing behind her in preparation to go on stage for a 2014 campaign event. That was followed by a smattering of other accusations of inappropriate touching by three more women.

While these stories are news because Biden is contemplating a 2020 run for president, these stories are not new. It’s not hard to find photos and videos of the former vice president cheekily stroking someone’s hair or putting his hands on a woman’s shoulders. In D.C., people have been joking about this for years.

But his old-school political style is now being re-examined in a modern era where respecting a woman’s personal space is a recognized issue. That’s somewhat in conflict with the political reality that Biden is topping the early 2020 polls, even before he’s technically announced.

Other 2020 Democratic hopefuls and the party don’t want to damage the person who might have the best chance of beating Donald Trump, so Democrats who are being asked about Biden are choosing their words carefully.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who is the de facto leader of the party until there’s an official Democratic candidate for president, told Politico Tuesday that she doesn’t believe Biden’s actions are “disqualifying.”

“He has to understand in the world that we’re in now that people’s space is important to them, and what’s important is how they receive it and not necessarily how you intended it,” she said.

For some progressive voters, Biden’s actions will turn them off from him. Especially when you couple it with his support of the 1994 crime bill and his treatment of Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings. But in trying to figure out where the disqualification line is, it’s unlikely that the other 2020-ers or Pelosi or the party is going to make his touchiness a litmus test, especially if Biden is the best guy to beat the current president.

This segment originally aired April 2, 2019, on VICE News Tonight on HBO.

Woke Corporate Tyranny

On By admin

Reader MichaelGC writes:

Last week I found this in Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post regarding some legislation in Austin, legislation that has barely even been drafted:

Some of the world’s biggest companies are back to oppose a range of new Texas legislation they say is discriminatory, two years after Apple, Facebook and other Fortune 500 companies banded together with gay rights activists in defeating the state’s “bathroom bill” targeting transgender people.

The corporate giants, which also include Google, Amazon, and IBM, joined Texas businesses and more than a dozen local chambers of commerce in a letter to lawmakers Wednesday urging the Republican-controlled Legislature to focus on other legislation.

I’m getting sick of those out of control snots, and the bossy condescension of casually telling the Texas lawmakers to “focus on other legislation” just takes it. Furthermore:

John Graham, the president and CEO of American Society of Association Executives, said any legislation that would weaken protections for the LGBTQ community would have severe economic consequences in terms of lost jobs and event bookings across Texas.

“And that’s exactly what happened in North Carolina when they passed that bill and they lost billions of dollars and they’re still paying that price,” Graham said at a Wednesday press conference.

“The American Society of Association Executives” — can you get any more comically bureaucratic than that? More from MichaelGC:

Livid, I spent the weekend drafting a letter to John Graham and Fed-Ex’ed it today, copies going to my state senator, the governor, and lieutenant governor (my rep in the house is a Dem and a big LGBT booster, so I won’t waste my time there). I can’t believe that Republicans have just shut up completely and never say anything about anything anymore, no matter how much this stuff goes on 24/7. The corporate SJWs actually have the nerve to try and tell the statehouse to stop considering legislation or face a repeat of North Carolina. This needs to be called out when it happens, there needs to be a chorus of denunciation directed at that creep lobby.

I don’t know if my letter will even register, but I basically told Graham that Texas is not North Carolina or Indiana, that they are playing with fire, and will find themselves in a fight they wish they hadn’t started if they don’t back off. At least, I think I read Texas right. I hope they back me up if and when it comes to that.

What kind of movement is it that attempts to deny the presence and validity of anybody that holds an opinion contrary to their own? Disagree with them, and they will try to make you a nonperson. They do this in part by construing opposition to their political and cultural views with danger to their “wellbeing.”

I dwelt on that all last weekend long. We’ve got these gargantuan tech companies and they are ideologically aligned with each other, so in a way it’s like one massive activist organization. In their hive mind world view, they completely lack self-awareness. Worse, they have a rainbow-hued hammer and everything looks like a nail to them. When it gets to the point where they coerce states by threatening to damage their economies when lawmakers don’t heel for them, there needs to be an intervention. There needs to be a RICO case brought against them, and/or they need to be broken up for the sake of the nation. They need a whipping, and I hope I’m one of those who is around when it happens and gets to watch.

This is something I’m going to be talking about in my next book. So many people — conservatives as well as liberals — think of tyranny as coming from government. This is a mistake, though a forgivable one, as our understanding of tyranny has been conditioned by the 20th century’s examples of totalitarian states.

What happens when private corporations become so big that they can dictate social policy to the entire nation? A while back, I was told by a religious liberty activist that state legislatures are feeling a lot of pressure from these big companies to do their bidding on LGBT, at the expense of religious liberty. Wokesters may be glad to have Apple, Amazon, and the rest on board for a crusade they support, but they would be wise to stop and think what they would do if all this corporate power were aligned against them.

Similarly, conservatives who took in free-market ideology with their mother’s milk should strongly reconsider their views. This does not mean they have to quit believing in the free market, of course, but they should recognize that the stale old GOP view that Big Business Is Always Right And Big Government Is Always Wrong is completely idiotic today. (It was always unwise, but now it is absurd.) What’s going to happen when your corporation decides to fire you because it deems you and your retrograde religious, cultural, or political views a bad fit for the company? It might well be only the law that protects your job.

I invite you to watch this brief interview with ASAE’s John Graham, conducted on the YouTube channel of “Meetings Today,” a trade publication for the meetings industry. In it, Graham says that ASAE is against religious freedom legislation. He claims, “We’re not taking a moral stand” — but that’s exactly what they’re doing! He goes on: “We already have religious freedom. We don’t need any more legislation around religious freedoms.”

Note the lie: that Big Business’s view on this matter is  morally neutral. I’m sure he’s a lovely man, but I bet you John Graham could no more substantively identify religious freedom than he could articulate the value of pi to the twentieth digit. So many of these corporate people just don’t care. The thing is, something like this would not affect any major corporation’s bottom line. This is something corporations are doing out of moral conviction. The key thing for you, reader, to notice is that they tell themselves, and the public, that they are not taking sides. The pose of neutrality is a key part of shifting the Overton window.

Question to readers: I don’t follow legislative matters closely. Are there any Republican members of Congress who understand the threat from woke capitalism, and are prepared to do anything about it?

 

Symposium: Questioning citizenship versus questioning the question

On By admin

John S. Baker Jr. is Professor Emeritus of Law at the Louisiana State University Law Center.

It will be interesting to see how much of the upcoming Supreme Court argument in Department of Commerce v. New York will be devoted to President Donald Trump’s tweets and other statements not vetted by his lawyers.

The Supreme Court agreed to expedited review of a district-court judgment barring Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross from including a citizenship question on the 2020 census. The court did so for very good reason. A single district judge cannot be allowed to control the constitutional mandate for a decennial census.

Without immediate action by the high court, a plaintiff-picked district judge would have usurped authority granted by Congress to the Secretary of Commerce. Printing of the 2020 census must take place by the end of June in order for distribution of the census forms to occur on time.

Six cases filed in three states challenged Ross’ decision. The plaintiffs in the two combined New York cases number 18 states, the District of Columbia, and various cities and counties, as well as a coalition of 175 nonprofit groups.

In the New York City litigation, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman opined during a July 3 hearing that he was suspicious the Trump administration was acting in “bad faith.”

What bad faith? Daring to act contrary to the opinions of career bureaucrats? If the president’s political appointees cannot override unelected civil servants in order to implement the policies of an elected president, then we no longer have the protections for self-government specified in Article 2 of the Constitution.

The dispute goes to the heart of citizenship. A headline on the American Civil Liberties Union website says it all: “The Census Citizenship Question Illegally Discriminates Against Immigrants.” This is naked newspeak. It misuses the word “immigrant.”

“Immigrants” are persons granted the legal right to reside permanently in the U.S. Federal law labels them “permanent legal residents.” They have a legal pathway to citizenship.

To “discriminate” is “to recognize a distinction.” Federal law does indeed distinguish, i.e., “discriminate,” between “immigrants” and “aliens.” Such “discrimination” is in no way illegal or unconstitutional.

This distinction/discrimination is clearly apparent to anyone — American and foreign — who enters a U.S. airport from another country. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection process provides one line for U.S. nationals (citizens and permanent legal residents) and a separate line for all foreigners because they are “aliens.”

The many foreign tourists and foreign students — all aliens — who enter the U.S. legally suffer no invidious discrimination, even though they are subject to different legal treatment. The cry of discrimination depends on lumping all foreigners/aliens together rather than differentiating between aliens who entered the United States legally and those who did not. The unstated premise of the outrage and rhetoric is that citizenship does not matter.

The census citizenship question does distinguish/discriminate between citizens and aliens. The citizenship question, asked on many past decennial censuses, is the very same question that for some time has been asked on another form that goes only to a small percentage of the population, known as the American Community Survey.

Even Furman recognized — as he must — that Congress has given the Secretary of Commerce the authority to include this question on the census. Nevertheless, Furman gave those objecting to the question unjustified latitude in searching for possible grounds to claim that Ross acted with an improper purpose.

In an earlier ruling, the Supreme Court derailed the judge’s order allowing the plaintiffs to take Ross’ deposition. Furman gave credence to the plaintiffs’ claim that Trump administration officials were intentionally discriminating against immigrant communities of color. He pointed to Trump’s comments in January of 2018 about “people from sh*thole countries.”

As Furman and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit admitted, it was most unusual to allow the plaintiffs to go beyond the administrative record. Indeed, when one dispassionately looks at the administrative record, it becomes apparent that claiming invidious discrimination was the only possibility the plaintiffs had of prevailing below. The secretary’s memo more than explained his reasons for reinstituting a question that had been on past censuses.

Ironically, California — one of the plaintiffs — itself asks about citizenship. California’s New Motor Voter Act, allowing eligible residents to get a driver’s license, requires the driver’s-license applicant to attest that he or she is qualified to vote, in other words, that he or she is a citizen. The statute requires “[a] notation that the applicant has attested that he or she meets all voter eligibility requirements, including United States citizenship” before the person is automatically registered to vote.

So why the uproar about the 2020 census asking the citizenship question? As noted above, the Census Bureau already asks the citizenship question on what is called the American Community Survey. The ACS, however, only goes to roughly one in every 38 households. Asking the citizenship question from the ACS on the 2020 census, the count actually required by the Constitution, ought not to be controversial.

Ross, however, must have anticipated controversy over the citizenship question. The media firestorm prior to and since the announcement confirms his prescience. Fortunately, Ross’ memorandum announcing the question explains the process, rationale, and indeed the necessity for adding the citizenship question.

In addition, the Department of Commerce has produced the documents the secretary relied upon in making his decision. Those documents further illustrate his extensive review and careful consideration of the question.

Ross’ memorandum shows that the ACS citizenship estimates are very flawed. In the ACS responses, approximately 30 percent of those claiming to be citizens are in fact not citizens. Cross-referencing the ACS responses with other administrative records demonstrates the high level of false claims of citizenship. That means that the ACS 2012 estimate of 11 million illegal aliens is grossly inaccurate. The actual number of illegal aliens is millions more.

If the attorneys general of California and New York truly cared about a complete and accurate census population count, they would be encouraging their residents to be counted. But instead they are spreading misinformation and encouraging nonparticipation in the census.

Census information is protected by law. Answers to a form may not be used for law enforcement or any other purpose that would reveal the responders’ identity or how they answered a question. Census employees swear an oath to keep those data confidential for life, and impermissible uses of data may be punishable by significant fines and up to five years in prison.

Resistance by noncitizens to filling out their census forms has occurred in the past. What is new are the actions of state officials that effectively encourage noncitizens, their families and friends to resist the census. Resisting the Trump administration on the citizenship question actually jeopardizes protection of minority rights by blocking collection of more accurate data that would ensure better enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.

States need citizenship data for redistricting. Litigation over redistricting is currently before the Supreme Court. Whatever the court decides in these cases, follow-on litigation over redistricting is a certainty. States must have accurate data for defending against claims that they have diluted the right to vote. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits “vote dilution” that produces discrimination in the results of redistricting.

The strategy of California and New York is a high-risk one. An inaccurately low count risks reducing state revenue from federal funds. Congress has given the census the purpose of providing the basis for allocating much federal funding, an assignment that, although critical, is not required by the Constitution.

If their court challenges to the citizenship question ultimately fail, as they should, California and New York likely will have achieved exactly what they say they fear: lower census participation by noncitizens. Whatever political advantage and ideological satisfaction their actions may serve, those actions do not benefit the residents of California and New York.

California’s fight to prevent collection of accurate citizenship data, however, is otherwise understandable in terms of power politics. California’s population has continued to grow, although it has slowed in recent years. The increase in California’s population between 2006 and 2016 is reported to be about 3.1 million. Yet, in that same period, California is also reported to have lost about 1.2 million more people to other states than it gained from other states. Also, the number of births, minus deaths, during that period is only about 2.8 million. Thus, adding the net number of births to the net number lost to other states should produce an increase in population for the 2006-2016 period of only about 1.6 million. The additional increased population of 1.5 million during just this 10-year period came from out of the country.

The census-question litigation is simply a fight over whether the U.S. will enforce the legal distinction between citizens and aliens who enter the country illegally.

The post Symposium: Questioning citizenship versus questioning the question appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Home Ethos About Contact
Terms Policy GDPR RichTVX
© Saeculum XXI U.S. Intelligence News