niceph link
By REBECCA SANTANA WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump has promised to end birthright citizenship as soon as he gets into office to make good on campaign promises aiming to restrict immigration and redefining what it means to be American. But any efforts to halt the policy would face steep legal hurdles. Birthright citizenship means anyone born in the United States automatically becomes an American citizen. It’s been in place for decades and applies to children born to someone in the country illegally or in the U.S. on a tourist or student visa who plans to return to their home country. It’s not the practice of every country, and Trump and his supporters have argued that the system is being abused and that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen. But others say this is a right enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, it would be extremely difficult to overturn and even if it’s possible, it’s a bad idea. Here’s a look at birthright citizenship, what Trump has said about it and the prospects for ending it: During an interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Trump said he “absolutely” planned to halt birthright citizenship once in office. “We’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous,” he said. Trump and other opponents of birthright citizenship have argued that it creates an incentive for people to come to the U.S. illegally or take part in “birth tourism,” in which pregnant women enter the U.S. specifically to give birth so their children can have citizenship before returning to their home countries. “Simply crossing the border and having a child should not entitle anyone to citizenship,” said Eric Ruark, director of research for NumbersUSA, which argues for reducing immigration. The organization supports changes that would require at least one parent to be a permanent legal resident or a U.S. citizen for their children to automatically get citizenship. Others have argued that ending birthright citizenship would profoundly damage the country. “One of our big benefits is that people born here are citizens, are not an illegal underclass. There’s better assimilation and integration of immigrants and their children because of birthright citizenship,” said Alex Nowrasteh, vice president for economic and social policy studies at the pro-immigration Cato Institute. In 2019, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that 5.5 million children under age 18 lived with at least one parent in the country illegally in 2019, representing 7% of the U.S. child population. The vast majority of those children were U.S. citizens. The nonpartisan think tank said during Trump’s campaign for president in 2015 that the number of people in the country illegally would “balloon” if birthright citizenship were repealed, creating “a self-perpetuating class that would be excluded from social membership for generations.” In the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress ratified the 14th Amendment in July 1868. That amendment assured citizenship for all, including Black people. “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,” the 14th Amendment says. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” But the 14th Amendment didn’t always translate to everyone being afforded birthright citizenship. For example, it wasn’t until 1924 that Congress finally granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S. A key case in the history of birthright citizenship came in 1898, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the states. The federal government had tried to deny him reentry into the county after a trip abroad on grounds he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act. But some have argued that the 1898 case clearly applied to children born of parents who are both legal immigrants to America but that it’s less clear whether it applies to children born to parents without legal status or, for example, who come for a short-term like a tourist visa. “That is the leading case on this. In fact, it’s the only case on this,” said Andrew Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports immigration restrictions. “It’s a lot more of an open legal question than most people think.” Some proponents of immigration restrictions have argued the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment allows the U.S. to deny citizenship to babies born to those in the country illegally. Trump himself used that language in his 2023 announcement that he would aim to end birthright citizenship if reelected. Trump wasn’t clear in his Sunday interview how he aims to end birthright citizenship. Asked how he could get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action, Trump said: “Well, we’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it.” Pressed further on whether he’d use an executive order, Trump said “if we can, through executive action.” He gave a lot more details in a 2023 post on his campaign website . In it, he said he would issue an executive order the first day of his presidency, making it clear that federal agencies “require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident for their future children to become automatic U.S. citizens.” Related Articles National Politics | Trump has flip-flopped on abortion policy. His appointees may offer clues to what happens next National Politics | Honor after exoneration: Port Chicago sailors’ fight for justice isn’t over National Politics | In promising to shake up Washington, Trump is in a class of his own National Politics | Election Day has long passed. In some states, legislatures are working to undermine the results National Politics | Trump taps his attorney Alina Habba to serve as counselor to the president Trump wrote that the executive order would make clear that children of people in the U.S. illegally “should not be issued passports, Social Security numbers, or be eligible for certain taxpayer funded welfare benefits.” This would almost certainly end up in litigation. Nowrasteh from the Cato Institute said the law is clear that birthright citizenship can’t be ended by executive order but that Trump may be inclined to take a shot anyway through the courts. “I don’t take his statements very seriously. He has been saying things like this for almost a decade,” Nowrasteh said. “He didn’t do anything to further this agenda when he was president before. The law and judges are near uniformly opposed to his legal theory that the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States are not citizens.” Trump could steer Congress to pass a law to end birthright citizenship but would still face a legal challenge that it violates the Constitution. Associated Press reporter Elliot Spagat in San Diego contributed to this report.
Northland Power Inc. (NPIFF) To Go Ex-Dividend on December 31stToo early to celebrate – Arne Slot keeps leaders Liverpool focusedBy REBECCA SANTANA WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump has promised to end birthright citizenship as soon as he gets into office to make good on campaign promises aiming to restrict immigration and redefining what it means to be American. But any efforts to halt the policy would face steep legal hurdles. Birthright citizenship means anyone born in the United States automatically becomes an American citizen. It’s been in place for decades and applies to children born to someone in the country illegally or in the U.S. on a tourist or student visa who plans to return to their home country. It’s not the practice of every country, and Trump and his supporters have argued that the system is being abused and that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen. But others say this is a right enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, it would be extremely difficult to overturn and even if it’s possible, it’s a bad idea. Here’s a look at birthright citizenship, what Trump has said about it and the prospects for ending it: During an interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Trump said he “absolutely” planned to halt birthright citizenship once in office. “We’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous,” he said. Trump and other opponents of birthright citizenship have argued that it creates an incentive for people to come to the U.S. illegally or take part in “birth tourism,” in which pregnant women enter the U.S. specifically to give birth so their children can have citizenship before returning to their home countries. “Simply crossing the border and having a child should not entitle anyone to citizenship,” said Eric Ruark, director of research for NumbersUSA, which argues for reducing immigration. The organization supports changes that would require at least one parent to be a permanent legal resident or a U.S. citizen for their children to automatically get citizenship. Others have argued that ending birthright citizenship would profoundly damage the country. “One of our big benefits is that people born here are citizens, are not an illegal underclass. There’s better assimilation and integration of immigrants and their children because of birthright citizenship,” said Alex Nowrasteh, vice president for economic and social policy studies at the pro-immigration Cato Institute. In 2019, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that 5.5 million children under age 18 lived with at least one parent in the country illegally in 2019, representing 7% of the U.S. child population. The vast majority of those children were U.S. citizens. The nonpartisan think tank said during Trump’s campaign for president in 2015 that the number of people in the country illegally would “balloon” if birthright citizenship were repealed, creating “a self-perpetuating class that would be excluded from social membership for generations.” In the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress ratified the 14th Amendment in July 1868. That amendment assured citizenship for all, including Black people. “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,” the 14th Amendment says. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” But the 14th Amendment didn’t always translate to everyone being afforded birthright citizenship. For example, it wasn’t until 1924 that Congress finally granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S. A key case in the history of birthright citizenship came in 1898, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the states. The federal government had tried to deny him reentry into the county after a trip abroad on grounds he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act. But some have argued that the 1898 case clearly applied to children born of parents who are both legal immigrants to America but that it’s less clear whether it applies to children born to parents without legal status or, for example, who come for a short-term like a tourist visa. “That is the leading case on this. In fact, it’s the only case on this,” said Andrew Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports immigration restrictions. “It’s a lot more of an open legal question than most people think.” Some proponents of immigration restrictions have argued the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment allows the U.S. to deny citizenship to babies born to those in the country illegally. Trump himself used that language in his 2023 announcement that he would aim to end birthright citizenship if reelected. Trump wasn’t clear in his Sunday interview how he aims to end birthright citizenship. Asked how he could get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action, Trump said: “Well, we’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it.” Pressed further on whether he’d use an executive order, Trump said “if we can, through executive action.” He gave a lot more details in a 2023 post on his campaign website . In it, he said he would issue an executive order the first day of his presidency, making it clear that federal agencies “require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident for their future children to become automatic U.S. citizens.” Related Articles National Politics | Trump has flip-flopped on abortion policy. His appointees may offer clues to what happens next National Politics | In promising to shake up Washington, Trump is in a class of his own National Politics | Election Day has long passed. In some states, legislatures are working to undermine the results National Politics | Trump taps his attorney Alina Habba to serve as counselor to the president National Politics | With Trump on the way, advocates look to states to pick up medical debt fight Trump wrote that the executive order would make clear that children of people in the U.S. illegally “should not be issued passports, Social Security numbers, or be eligible for certain taxpayer funded welfare benefits.” This would almost certainly end up in litigation. Nowrasteh from the Cato Institute said the law is clear that birthright citizenship can’t be ended by executive order but that Trump may be inclined to take a shot anyway through the courts. “I don’t take his statements very seriously. He has been saying things like this for almost a decade,” Nowrasteh said. “He didn’t do anything to further this agenda when he was president before. The law and judges are near uniformly opposed to his legal theory that the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States are not citizens.” Trump could steer Congress to pass a law to end birthright citizenship but would still face a legal challenge that it violates the Constitution. Associated Press reporter Elliot Spagat in San Diego contributed to this report.49ers QB Brock Purdy, DE Nick Bosa out, Brandon Allen to start at Green Bay
‘Better or worse?’: Syrian refugees in Malaysia yearn for home after Assad’s fall but worry about country’s future
Chess grandmaster Magnus Carlsen returns to a tournament after a dispute over jeans is resolved
SEOUL: South Korea’s opposition said Thursday it filed an impeachment motion against acting president Han Duck-soo, in an escalating row over the composition of the Constitutional Court which would decide whether to remove his predecessor from office. South Korea fell in a political crisis when President Yoon Suk Yeol, currently suspended, declared martial law on December 3. Yoon was stripped of his duties by parliament on December 14 over the dramatic declaration, but a constitutional court ruling upholding the decision by lawmakers is necessary to complete the impeachment process. The court is however currently short of three judges. While it can go ahead with its six members on the bench, a single dissenting vote would reinstate Yoon. The opposition wants Han to approve three more nominees to fill the 9-member bench, something that he has so far refused to do, essentially leaving both sides in a deadlock. The opposition Democratic Party therefore says the acting president should be impeached too. “We have filed the motion... and will report it to the plenary session today,” MP Park Sung-joon told reporters at the National Assembly of the action against Han. “We will put it to a vote tomorrow.” Han’s refusal to formally appoint the three judges proves that he “does not have the will or qualification to uphold the constitution,” the Democratic Party’s floor leader Park Chan-dae told reporters. Han has said that he would certify the judges’ appointments only if his ruling People Power Party (PPP) and the opposition reach a compromise on the nominees. “The consistent principle embedded in our constitution and laws is to refrain from exercising significant exclusive presidential powers, including the appointment of constitutional institutions,” Han argued. “A consensus between the ruling and opposition parties in the National Assembly, representing the people, must first be reached,” added the 75-year-old career bureaucrat. If the opposition passes the impeachment motion against Han in Friday’s vote, it would mark the first time democratic South Korea has impeached an acting president. In Han’s place, Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok would step in as acting president. In the impeachment motion, the opposition accuses Han of violating his duty as acting president, citing his refusal to formally appoint the judges and promulgate two special probe bills to investigate Yoon’s short-lived imposition of martial law and graft allegations involving his wife, Kim Keon Hee. Earlier this week, Han rejected the opposition’s demand for the special bills that would establish two independent investigative bodies to probe the first couple, prompting warnings of impeachment from the Democratic Party. Han is “intentionally avoiding the special investigation to probe those involved in the insurrection and has clearly stated his intention to reject the appointments of three Constitutional Court judges,” the motion reads. Such actions, it adds, are “in violation of a public official’s duty to uphold the law... and serve the public.” If the opposition succeeds in their bid on Friday, South Korea will see its second impeachment of a head of state in less than two weeks, further destabilizing its vibrant political scene. Separately, Yoon faces criminal charges of insurrection over his martial law declaration, which could result in life imprisonment or even the death penalty. Yoon was ordered a third time on Thursday to appear for questioning on the morning of the 29th, days after he refused a summons to do so on Christmas day. — AFP
Arne Slot tries to dampen down title euphoria among Liverpool fansSACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The Sacramento Kings sent a shock wave through the organization and its fanbase Friday with their decision to fire head coach Mike Brown 20 months after he became the NBA’s first-ever unanimous coach of the year in 2023. That year, he helped the team snap the longest postseason drought in league history and followed it up with a second straight winning season in 2024. It was the first time the Kings were over .500 in two straight years since their beloved 2005-06 teams. Firing Brown came on the heels of an 0-5 home stand that included consecutive losses to the hated Los Angeles Lakers; the Indiana Pacers who include former Kings guard Tyrese Haliburton; and the Detroit Pistons, who won on Jaden Ivey’s four-point play with 3 seconds left thanks to a lackadaisical foul from De’Aaron Fox. The symbolism of losing to Haliburton and Ivey’s teams might not have been lost on Sacramento’s front office. Haliburton was sent to Indiana in the blockbuster trade that landed center Domantas Sabonis in 2022, while the Kings passed over Ivey for Keegan Murray with the No. 4 pick in the 2022 NBA draft. Ivey has been more productive during his third season with Detroit, averaging a career-high 17.5 points while shooting 38.6% from 3-point range; Murray, by contrast, is averaging a career-worst 12.1 points per game on 29.5% shooting from distance. The Kings are hoping to end their painful stretch with a road win over the Lakers on Saturday night. It would be fitting for interim coach Doug Christie, who hasn’t been shy about his disdain for the Lakers stemming from his playing days. Firing Brown continues an alarming trend for Kings owner Vivek Ranadivé: No head coach since he bought the team in 2013 has lasted more than three seasons. Christie is the Sacramento’s eighth coach of Ranadivé’s 11-plus year tenure. Here’s a timeline of notable events during Brown’s two-plus seasons as Sacramento’s head coach. May 8, 2022: Brown hired The Kings announced the hiring of Brown in the middle of his final playoff run with the Golden State Warriors as Steve Kerr’s lead assistant. Brown was in charge of a defense that season that led the NBA in defensive rating. Golden State held the Celtics to a 105.8 offensive rating during their six-game win in the NBA Finals after the Celtics averaged 114.4 points per 100 possessions during the regular season. June 21, 2022: Brown comes to town Brown was formally introduced as Sacramento’s head coach five days after the Warriors clinched their championship in Boston. “It came down to three key things for us,” Kings general manager Monte McNair said that day. “Experience, successful head coaching experience. Relationships, the ability to build relationships across the organization, and leadership. Leadership as a head coach and leadership for everything we’re trying to do here.” Oct. 29, 2022: Brown’s team lights the beam After starting the season on a four-game losing streak, the Kings beat the Miami Heat 119-113 while getting 27 points from Kevin Huerter on 7-of-8 shooting from 3-point range. Huerter was among the team’s offseason additions, coming via a trade with Atlanta. He averaged a career-high 15.2 points per game during his first season in Sacramento. But his slumping production has been among the Kings’ multitude of issues before Brown lost his job. Huerter’s down to 9.6 points per game on 31.2% shooting from deep this season and is coming off the bench in favor of Malik Monk. That night against the Heat, though, marked the first time the Kings lit their infamous purple beam from the roof of Golden 1 Center , starting a new tradition coming after every victory. March 29, 2023: Playoff drought ends The Kings beat the Trailblazers in Portland by 40 points to clinch their first playoff berth in 16 seasons , ending what had been the longest active playoff drought in major North American professional sports and is the longest-ever dry spell in NBA history. As many joked during the time, the postseason drought was old enough to get a California driver’s license. April 30, 2023: Warriors eliminate Kings The Kings’ dream season ended with a Game 7 loss to Stephen Curry and the Warriors, who outscored Sacramento 64-42 in the second half while Curry finished with 50 points, a short-lived record for most points ever in a Game 7 (Boston’s Jason Tatum broke the record two weeks later with 51 against the Philadelphia 76ers). The Kings lost the series after having a 2-0 lead and learned they needed to improve to solidify themselves as Western Conference contenders. April 16, 2024: Kings get their revenge In a game that left fans saying they ended the Warriors dynasty, the Kings thumped Golden State 118-94 in the first-round of the NBA play-in tournament in what turned out to be Klay Thompson’s last game as a Warrior. It came after the Kings finished the regular season 46-36, just two games worse than the previous year. They finished the season on a 4-7 stretch while Monk was out with a knee injury and backed into the No. 9 seed after being as high as No. 5 in the Western Conference standings in late February. April 19, 2024: Kings miss the playoffs The Kings’ 2023-24 season ended without making the playoffs when they lost 105-98 to the New Orleans Pelicans in the second game of the play-in. The Pelicans were without Zion Williamson, while only six players for Sacramento scored points. The Kings finished 0-6 against New Orleans for the year, which led to McNair’s front office searching for upgrades in the offseason. July 6, 2024: Kings acquire DeMar DeRozan The losses to the Pelicans and disappointing end Sacramento’s season led to needing more of a scoring punch in clutch situations. That’s ultimately why the Kings swung on a trade for DeMar DeRozan from the Chicago Bulls. The three-team deal sent Harrison Barnes to the Spurs while Chris Duarte and two second-round picks went to Chicago. Sacramento signed DeRozan to a three-year, $74 million contract in the sign-and-trade. DeRozan had been among the best clutch scorers in the NBA; the thinking was that pairing him with Fox would make the Kings lethal late in games. The opposite has been true. The Kings entered Saturday with a 6-13 record in games where the score is within five points during the final five minutes, and have lost a league-worst nine games after leading in the fourth quarter. July 17, 2024: Brown is extended through 2027 Brown was slated to enter the final season of his initial contract, but the two sides agreed to a three-year contract extension through the 2026-27 season to avoid Brown being in a lame-duck year. The deal was reportedly worth $25.5 million with $4.5 million in incentives. Extending Brown made sense given the team’s recent instability and coaching turnover. But that decision raises eyebrows in the aftermath of Brown’s firing. Dec. 27, 2024: Brown is fired The Kings fired Brown after a 13-18 start to the season and five-game losing streak during a holiday home stand at the Golden 1 Center. Reports surfaced of Brown being let go after the Kings held a practice Friday morning before their flight to Los Angeles in the afternoon. The team announced Brown’s dismissal almost seven hours after ESPN first reported the news. ©2024 The Sacramento Bee. Visit at sacbee.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.Monument Town Council recently approved rules for healing centers that can administer psychedelics, largely banning them across town. Voters approved the new centers in a statewide ballot measure in 2022. The centers will allow those over 21 to use psychedelic mushrooms with supervision. Psilocybin in mushrooms has been used to treat depression and other mental health disorders. The ballot measure prohibited towns from banning the centers, but they can limit where they can open. In Monument, town staff drew on the same regulations in place for medical marijuana businesses to write the rules for psychedelic centers, explained town attorney Bob Cole. The town does not have any medical marijuana dispensaries. The zoning rules would limit the centers to four small areas. A town map shows the centers would be allowed at a site near Interstate 25 and Colorado 105, on land at the very northern edge of town, a site south of Eighth Street near I-25 and south of Monument Lake. The site south of Monument Lake is completely undeveloped. The council voted 6-0 in mid-December to approve rules governing the centers after hearing from only one person, a licensed professional counselor interested in the potential for psychedelics to treat veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. The council discussed the measure in early December and seemed to favor tight restrictions for the potential healing centers, floating short hours for the healing centers, such as requiring them to close at 3 p.m. The council decided to limit the hours of the centers from Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Vincent Bruno, the only interested person to speak at either meeting, highlighted the potential of psilocybin to treat PTSD in veterans, as well as hypervigilance and major depression. As a Monument resident, he said he was interested in potentially working in town. "If we don’t allow regulated practitioners to show that it can be done properly, what we are going to end up is unregulated folks who maybe aren’t as interested in harm reduction as I am," he said during the Dec. 16 meeting. Bruno referenced research from Johns Hopkins Medicine that has seen success. A recent study from the research hospital found that psilocybin reduced major depression in patients and kept its severity low. The Department of Veterans Affairs is also interested in investing in psilocybin research to treat PTSD and depression, it announced earlier this year . The National Institute on Drug Abuse outlines some risks of using psilocybin particularly in unsupervised settings, such as dangerous behavior and experiencing extreme fear and paranoia. It can also cause high heart rate, blood pressure and nausea. Councilman Steve King encouraged Bruno to return to the town council to give the board feedback on the new regulations. "We can certainly expand the areas it can go into, if we needed to at some point," he said. Mayor Mitch LaKind said the regulations needed to be in place ahead of the state allowing centers to open next year. The Colorado Natural Medicine Division expects the first centers to open early in the summer, Colorado Politics reported. The Colorado Springs City Council approved similar regulations for the centers, limiting them to areas around the Colorado Springs Airport and in the far northeast portion of the city.Giants beat Colts, avoid winless home season, put top NFL Draft position in jeopardy
India's former prime minister Manmohan Singh, architect of economic reforms, dies at 92
- Previous: niceph club login
- Next: niceph online casino
