Zompist Bboard Again

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Feb 21, 2026 4:33 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Feb 21, 2026 4:24 pm
So if some other country would want to see a specific US citizen whom it doesn't like - perhaps a politician or political commentator or a businessperson - to be stripped of their US citizenship, all that country would have to do would be to pass a law saying "This person is hereby granted the citizenship of our country, whether they agree to it or not"?

This actually happened in Australia a few years ago, because members of Parliament are forbidden from holding dual citizenship: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%8 ... ity_crisis

Oh, thank you, interesting!

Did I say across-the-board 10% tariffs? Turns out they're 15%, which is the maximum allowed under the Trade Act. "Fun".

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Feb 21, 2026 4:24 pm

lëtzeshark wrote: ↑Sat Feb 21, 2026 5:43 am like one bill I saw proposed to outright ban double citizenship (this question was litigated long ago: Afroyim v. Rusk, Vance v. Terrazas...).

So if some other country would want to see a specific US citizen whom it doesn't like - perhaps a politician or political commentator or a businessperson - to be stripped of their US citizenship, all that country would have to do would be to pass a law saying "This person is hereby granted the citizenship of our country, whether they agree to it or not"?

Under current law and precedent, a person can only lose US citizenship if they take one of a number of actions voluntarily and with the intention of losing their US citizenship*. My guess is that, should such a law be enacted, this could then be litigated to contest that there was no intention to lose US citizenship (that the nationality was not acquired voluntarily and so on) and that there's an attempt to give the involuntarily imposed nationality up. But given how some of the current situation feels like Calvinball, who really knows what'd happen: they're still litigating the birthright citizenship issue, for one.

*Notably, this currently requires payment of a loss of citizenship fee of ~$2300 for "administrative processing", even if the loss of citizenship is presumably automatic.

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Feb 21, 2026 4:33 pm This actually happened in Australia a few years ago, because members of Parliament are forbidden from holding dual citizenship: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%8 ... ity_crisis

I remember reading about that saga as well as some people trying to do what they could to find possible links that would disqualify people. For better or for worse, the US does not have that provision (and such a provision would require a constitutional amendment).

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Feb 21, 2026 4:24 pm So if some other country would want to see a specific US citizen whom it doesn't like - perhaps a politician or political commentator or a businessperson - to be stripped of their US citizenship, all that country would have to do would be to pass a law saying "This person is hereby granted the citizenship of our country, whether they agree to it or not"?

There's some convention limiting involuntary grants of citizenship. It makes the Irish citizenship of people from Northern Ireland of uncertain legality, and this convention is one reason why Donald Trump isn't British. When the criteria for acquiring British citizenship at birth have been widened, people born before the change date who satisfy the new criteria have had to obtain British citizenship by registration.

I'm not sure how widely this convention is adhered to. On the face of the Kenyan law permitting dual citizenship, it seems that President Obama acquired Kenyan citizenship whilst in office.

@lëtzeshark: I guess someone could argue that the laws providing for giving up US citizenship are unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment clearly says "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." It doesn't say anywhere "[...]except if they have chosen to renounce their citizenship". But I'm still in favor of keeping that option, on personal freedom and choice grounds.

Richard W wrote: ↑Sat Feb 21, 2026 9:31 pm
There's some convention limiting involuntary grants of citizenship. It makes the Irish citizenship of people from Northern Ireland of uncertain legality, and this convention is one reason why Donald Trump isn't British. When the criteria for acquiring British citizenship at birth have been widened, people born before the change date who satisfy the new criteria have had to obtain British citizenship by registration.

I'm not sure how widely this convention is adhered to. On the face of the Kenyan law permitting dual citizenship, it seems that President Obama acquired Kenyan citizenship whilst in office.

Well, conventions seem to matter less and less these days.

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Feb 22, 2026 1:57 am @lëtzeshark: I guess someone could argue that the laws providing for giving up US citizenship are unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment clearly says "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." It doesn't say anywhere "[...]except if they have chosen to renounce their citizenship". But I'm still in favor of keeping that option, on personal freedom and choice grounds.

While that is arguable, it's never been litigated in court (so who knows if that'd hold up), and even then there are also other people to whom a renunciation procedure could apply (people who get citizenship by descent from a US citizen, for example). The other thing is that US law repudiated a part of the old British doctrine of "perpetual allegiance", i.e. the notion of "once a subject always a subject" (a sticking point in the early years of independence and UK–US relations), and a lot of US laws since then have since been interpreted with that in mind.

Richard W wrote: ↑Sat Feb 21, 2026 9:31 pm There's some convention limiting involuntary grants of citizenship. It makes the Irish citizenship of people from Northern Ireland of uncertain legality, and this convention is one reason why Donald Trump isn't British. When the criteria for acquiring British citizenship at birth have been widened, people born before the change date who satisfy the new criteria have had to obtain British citizenship by registration.

I'm not sure how widely this convention is adhered to. On the face of the Kenyan law permitting dual citizenship, it seems that President Obama acquired Kenyan citizenship whilst in office.

Many times, when those citizenship criteria are widened, you still have to take an active step to claim or "activate" the citizenship, so Obama's case is more likely that he could claim Kenyan citizenship if he wished and not that it was granted outright. Ireland's a bit of a special situation, given the situation of the division of the island and how Ireland (the country) still claims the whole island of Ireland (though not actively) as their territory (and until recently, there wasn't a significant difference in rights between Irish and British citizens vis-à-vis the EU).

That said, involuntary grants happen all the time, especially in a lot of New World countries with jus soli provisions where, if you're born there (with limited exceptions), you have that country's nationality. That also happened in Australia to one of the people who was disqualified (if I recall correctly) when it turned out that she actually had Canadian nationality due to being born in Canada and not realizing that the citizenship had to be actively renounced.

lëtzeshark wrote: ↑Sun Feb 22, 2026 9:58 am Many times, when those citizenship criteria are widened, you still have to take an active step to claim or "activate" the citizenship, so Obama's case is more likely that he could claim Kenyan citizenship if he wished and not that it was granted outright.

I couldn't wring that interpretation out of the act.

Richard W wrote: ↑Sun Feb 22, 2026 2:59 pm

lëtzeshark wrote: ↑Sun Feb 22, 2026 9:58 am Many times, when those citizenship criteria are widened, you still have to take an active step to claim or "activate" the citizenship, so Obama's case is more likely that he could claim Kenyan citizenship if he wished and not that it was granted outright.

I couldn't wring that interpretation out of the act.

Either way, even if Kenya did claim him as a citizen, he would need to take an active step to claim a passport (they won't just mail one to him) or exercise his rights as a citizen... though, indeed, anything related to nationality can sometimes be a mess. (Especially vis-à-vis UK nationality and its multiple flavors...)


In random US stuff, we're down to about a week and change before the primaries in the state in which I vote (North Carolina). The senate race still looks rather competitive, though favoring the likely Democratic candidate (ex-governor Roy Cooper), who's polling quite highly both in the primary and in the predicted match-ups for the general election. In fact, Maine and Ohio could be rather competitive as possible pick-ups for the Democrats, while Michigan and Georgia are possible Republican targets.

Also, funnily enough, in NC, two of my former classmates are running for election: one's running for State House of Representatives (though on the opposite side of the state to where my family lives/where I vote) and the other's running for a local county commissioner position.

I've been looking at the Section 122 of Trade Act of 1974 and I don't see how it makes the new 15% tariffs lawful. The authorisation depends on there being a balance-of-payments problem, but it also talks of balance-of-trade problems, as though they were indeed different things. As far as I understand, there isn't actually a balance-of-payments problem, because trade surpluses are being spent in other ways. The clause Whenever fundamental international payments problems require special import measures to restrict imports does seem to be tethered to reality, not to the President's reasoning powers.

The latest "controversy" spun up by the right-wing rage machine related to Zohran is that the City of New York requires two forms of identification for paid emergency snow shovelers and how this is "hypocrisy" on the part of Zohran and the Dems (because the Dems are of course against the SAVE act and its onerous citizenship verification requirements), even though these two forms of identification are required by the federal government for all legitimate work and are not something pulled out of thin air by the City of New York...

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Feb 25, 2026 9:41 am The latest "controversy" spun up by the right-wing rage machine related to Zohran is that the City of New York requires two forms of identification for paid emergency snow shovelers and how this is "hypocrisy" on the part of Zohran and the Dems (because the Dems are of course against the SAVE act and its onerous citizenship verification requirements), even though these two forms of identification are required by the federal government for all legitimate work and are not something pulled out of thin air by the City of New York...

They can never make any points without either lying, or leaving important information out, or playing Telephone.

Richard W wrote: ↑Sun Feb 22, 2026 6:54 pm I've been looking at the Section 122 of Trade Act of 1974 and I don't see how it makes the new 15% tariffs lawful. The authorisation depends on there being a balance-of-payments problem, but it also talks of balance-of-trade problems, as though they were indeed different things. As far as I understand, there isn't actually a balance-of-payments problem, because trade surpluses are being spent in other ways. The clause Whenever fundamental international payments problems require special import measures to restrict imports does seem to be tethered to reality, not to the President's reasoning powers.

While I also tend to agree, the issue is that (a) apparently the act delegates authority to the President to decide if the balance-of-payments issue does exist (at the President's discretion), so it could be declared no matter how torturous the reasoning, and (b) the tariffs would first have to be enacted and enforced before they could be challenged (in US federal courts, there has to be an actual "case" or "controversy" in order for a court to act on an issue, and the party has to have "standing", meaning they are an injured party). Notable is that these tariffs are time-limited even if upheld, and extending the tariffs in July (even if they end up being ruled as lawful) just seems like a hot potato the leadership in Congress may not want to deal with in the lead-up to the midterms in November.

In the state of the union address, Trump spun on a dime from saying that "affordability" is a fake word made up by the Democrats, to that actually he's been the best president on affordability this whole time!
- https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/13/us/trump-news
- https://jacobin.com/2026/02/trump-sotu- ... -democrats

Democrats should take note, but I doubt that they will.

jcb wrote: ↑Wed Feb 25, 2026 11:58 pm In the state of the union address, Trump spun on a dime from saying that "affordability" is a fake word made up by the Democrats, to that actually he's been the best president on affordability this whole time!
- https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/13/us/trump-news
- https://jacobin.com/2026/02/trump-sotu- ... -democrats

Democrats should take note, but I doubt that they will.

Do you know what the Democrats said? Half the problem is that the news media, ignores or misrepresents what the Democrats do and say. It's a longtime problem with the NYT, but Jacobin should know better, if they're actually on the antifa side.

Found this, from someone named " @kleinman.bsky.social " on Bluesky:

In the not too distant future
In two thousand six AD
There was a guy named Jeffrey
Very different from you and me
He funded a bunch of institutes
Spent some time in a prison jumpsuit
He sent emails all over the place
So his bosses decided that his cellmate
Would kill him to his face

We'll send him lots of emails
The worst we can write
He'll have to sit and read them all
And we'll keep them out of sight
Now keep in mind Jeffrey can't control
When his own life ends
So we'll have to do a cover up
With the help of a few friends

COVER UP ROLL CALL
Pam Bondi!
Donald!
Todd Blanche!
Pirrooooooo!

If you're wondering about the trafficking
And other legal facts
Then too bad they're heavily redacted
So you should just relax
For Epstein Files Coverup three thousanddddddddddd

gavin newsom once again throwing trans people under the bus for no reason. when 2028 comes around i better not hear any of you telling me i have any obligation to vote for this asshole

Emily wrote: ↑Thu Feb 26, 2026 10:49 am gavin newsom once again throwing trans people under the bus for no reason. when 2028 comes around i better not hear any of you telling me i have any obligation to vote for this asshole

So you would rather the fascists win than have someone who isn't 100% on board with you on every point of LGBTQ+ issues in office. Yeah. If the non-fascist choice isn't perfect you'd rather just have fascism. Thanks for warning us ahead of time (even though this shouldn't be surprising considering the position you IIRC took last election).

And yes, it is people like you who let Trump win last time. Don't forget that. Trump didn't win because he was especially popular but because people like you who decided to not vote, because they were upset about things like Gaza or the price of eggs. And don't make the excuse that your vote didn't matter then -- everyone like you makes the excuse that you were only a drop of water in the bucket.

Emily wrote: ↑Thu Feb 26, 2026 10:49 amgavin newsom once again throwing trans people under the bus for no reason. when 2028 comes around i better not hear any of you telling me i have any obligation to vote for this asshole

Honestly this is one issue where I am increasingly undecided. I have always believed in defending liberalism, despite its many shortcomings, against the onslaught of fascism. Nonetheless that still requires that liberals defend the people under threat from fascism. It feels like we are constantly grovelling for stays of execution (for crimes we never even committed no less) while forgetting that the alternative to hanging is still prison.

Putting it another way, what does Newsom intend to do for us apart from refraining from the active harm that Trump and his henchmen are currently pursuing?

One must remember that the perfect is the enemy of the good, and frankly with your guys' attitude, you'll let the fascists win because the candidates you have to choose from aren't perfect.

malloc wrote: ↑Thu Feb 26, 2026 12:18 pm Putting it another way, what does Newsom intend to do for us apart from refraining from the active harm that Trump and his henchmen are currently pursuing?

Well, that’s in and of itself a pretty significant thing, isn’t it? Considering how abysmally bad Trump is…