Good post. But what is the point of liberty if there's nothing that needs to be fought for?

Perhaps. But it might expose them for playing politics on immigration. At the moment, the GOP is letting them get away with it. Call their bluff.  Somewhere or other George Washington faulted one of the other founders for not understanding the importance of putting the other guy in the wrong.

What do you mean?  Permanent green card status, but no potential for citizenship for people who came here, or remained here, in violation of American law?  Denial of the vote as a penalty might be a reasonable way of doing it.

Fair point. But, at least in British law, the convicts sent to Australia were not breaking the law by going there.

And remember that was the age before the modern prison was invented. In the 18th century, perhaps like the U.S. lately, there was an outrageous proliferation of laws.  Hence such clemency was just and reasonable.

Part of the trouble here is that there are people with misdemeanors on their record that might be very serious, or, perhaps, the formal negotiated settlement for what is, in fact, a more serious crime.   And, at the same time, there are people who merely were caught speeding.

P.P.S. We should also revisit U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

That's the case that invented birthright citizenship. The language of the 14th Amendment, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States," does not necessarily make soil or location at birth fundamental to citizenship.  It is no conicidence that Justice Harlan signed onto the dissent in Wong Kim in 1898, two years after Plessy.  Making location at birth the criterion for citizenship is no less arbitrary than segregation by race.

And a grammar question. "The jurisdiction thereof" impies unadulterated or full jurisdiction.  No? By contrast, "any jurisdiction" or "some jurisdiction" would include mixed jurisdiction.  Hence the children of foreign nationals who are still subject to their home country's laws in some way are not citizens, even if they are born on U.S. soil, under the best reading of the 14th Amendment.

The Chutzpah here is remarkable.  Millions come here in violation of our laws, and then complain that they are "in the shadows," and should be legalized.

On the other hand, I cannot blame people from other countries for wanting to come to the U.S.  And the U.S. has not enforced the law.  "Non-User" used to be a title at common law.  A law that was not enforced was not law.  (But one use killed the claim of non-user).  It might very well be that the American people are angry that our government has not enforced the law.  That does complicate the moral calculations here, however.  I think the best solution is secure the border first. After that, think about how to normalize people who are here contrary to our laws--including a significant, and non-waveable, penalty for breaking American law.  It does not bode well for "a governemnt of laws, not of men," when a potential new citizen's first act in America is breaking our laws.

P.S. Little noted fact that  might distress the Lefties: Koch Brothers, Rubert Murdoch, big supporters of immigration reform.  That should be a headline somewhere.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., the tension between rule by the people we elect and rule by tenured administrators is also working itself out. 

But there's also the tension between the goal of helping everyone lead a fulfiling life, and the reality that life without consequences does not make us happy.

Nice post. This, incidentally, is one argument for greater federalism.  In a large country, with over 300 million citizens, there will be great diversity in opinion.  If such a country is to be a democratic republic, it must allow local law to reflect local opinions, ideas, values, etc.

It would be nice. To do that, however, we would have to allow these groups to engage in partisan activity. 

If I understand it correctly, the 501c4 status is an artifact of our whole campaign finance regime.  We regulate how much money people can give to campaigns, but educational groups can be given unlimited contributions. Hence one needs to become a certified 501c4 to receive such contributions.

If memory serves, the NAACP was investigated after a specific allegation was made over a specific act or acts.  That is very different from what we have here, which is a form of prior restraint.  After a group is approved, if there is a specific and credible complaint, the IRS should investigate.

If the law needs to be changed, it should be changed to presume that applications are people of good will, and who, therefore, deserve to have their application approved.    The IRS should only be able to check that the form is filled out correctly.  They should only be allowed to investigate such groups after they are in business and a specific charge is made.

Christie's mistake, in the eyes of conservatives, was not that he did not display hatred toward Obama, but that he, instead, kissed his ass--again contradicting the image of a man who was willing to stand on his own merit. 

Christie could have been thankful to Obama without being obsequious.  That hurt his party, just as his latest move costs the GOP a Senate seat, certainly until 2014, and perhaps (if his chosen Senator did well, and political things being changeable), beyond that.

Wasn't it largely movement conservatives who were pushing him to enter the GOP race late in the game?  Conservatives liked his first year in office a great deal.

In this case, Christie is also costing the GOP a vote in the Senate for the better part of two years, assuming Booker wins. That's bad for the party, too. 

There's a difference between covering one's backside and being a wimp.  Christie could have set the election for the same day as his own election, saving the people of his state a good deal of money.  His own re-election would almost certainly not be in jeopardy.  The only thing it would change, probably, would be the margin of his victory.   That's not prudence; it's something else.

Indeed. His popular image has been of someone who has been manly, unafriad to speak uncomfortably truths and to cut back the budget when others were too wimpy to do so.

In one step, he has made himself look wimpy and weakened his reputation for not wasting the people's money.

I think it makes more sense to read that line as meaning the children of all citizens living outside the U.S., as opposed to the children only of some citizens living abroad.  The plural was designed to designate a class (citizens outside the U.S.), not to particular couples, one at a time.

I'm curious about the case law from the time about whether that applied to fathers and mothers equally. But nowadays, since women have full citizenship rights, presumably it would apply to both. 

Deleted. Darn Ipad!