Cato Institute Constitutional Studies Director Ilya Shapiro–and dual U.S.-Canadian citizen–joins the Remnant for the second year of what we are hoping will become his annual Supreme Court end-of-term roundup. And he gets in some celebrations of Canada for an episode recorded on Canada Day.

Shownotes

Subscribe to The Remnant with Jonah Goldberg in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

There are 15 comments.

  1. JuliaBlaschke Coolidge

    Love the exit music.

    • #1
    • July 3, 2019, at 2:47 PM PDT
    • Like
  2. kedavis Member

    Ilya Shapiro is okay, but I think Ben Shapiro would be even better.

    • #2
    • July 3, 2019, at 4:36 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  3. Al Sparks Thatcher

    I was first introduced to the concept of dual citizenship by a forgettable James Michener book, The Drifters, published in 1971.

    One of the characters is born in Israel of at least one American parent, and has until he’s 18 (or maybe 21), to choose whether to take United States citizenship or Israeli.

    From my quick googling, I find that actually dual citizenship was legal in the United States, by Supreme Court ruling, in 1967.

    According to this, any naturalized U.S. citizen is supposed to give up the citizenship of the other country because of the oath they take, and could have their U.S. citizenship removed if they don’t. Someone who acquires U.S. citizenship without taking the oath (e.g. born in the United States, or of a U.S. parent at the time of birth) could have dual citizenship legally.

    I’m aware that some prominent Canadians have naturalized in the U.S. without giving up their Canadian citizenship, with Peter Jennings being one example. So Ilya Shapiro is probably safe.

    During my rabid libertarian phase, I came accross the idea that maybe a person should not be required to be a citizen of a particular country. Presently, a foreigner can’t enter the United States without a passport, or to put it another way, without some sort of sponsership of a country recognized by the United States. For all practical purposes you have to be a citizen of some country to be able to cross borders legally.

    I thought that was wrong. I’m still not sure that it is right to, for all practical purposes, require that someone have an allegiance to some country to get around.

    • #3
    • July 3, 2019, at 6:00 PM PDT
    • Like
  4. Al Sparks Thatcher

    I was first introduced to the concept of dual citizenship by a forgettable James Michener book, The Drifters, published in 1971.

    One of the characters is born in Israel of at least one American parent, and has until he’s 18 (or maybe 21), to choose whether to take United States citizenship or Israeli.

    From my quick googling, I find that actually dual citizenship was legal in the United States, by Supreme Court ruling, in 1967.

    According to this, any naturalized U.S. citizen is supposed to give up the citizenship of the other country because of the oath they take, and could have their U.S. citizenship removed if they don’t. Someone who acquires U.S. citizenship without taking the oath (e.g. born in the United States, or of a U.S. parent at the time of birth) could have dual citizenship legally.

    I’m aware that some prominent Canadians have naturalized in the U.S. without giving up their Canadian citizenship, with Peter Jennings being one example. So Ilya Shapiro is probably safe.

    During my rabid libertarian phase, I came accross the idea that maybe a person should not be required to be a citizen of a particular country. Presently, a foreigner can’t enter the United States without a passport, or to put it another way, without some sort of sponsership of a country recognized by the United States. For all practical purposes you have to be a citizen of a country to be able to cross borders legally.

    I thought that was wrong. I’m still not sure that it is right to, for all practical purposes, require that someone have an allegiance to some country to get around.

    • #4
    • July 3, 2019, at 6:02 PM PDT
    • Like
  5. Al Sparks Thatcher

    I enjoyed the ending song. I bought the sounddtrack album of Patton when it first came out. I listened to that song over and over.

    • #5
    • July 3, 2019, at 6:05 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  6. Al Sparks Thatcher

    One other thing. The only reason to naturalize to U.S. citizenship is for very strong idealistic reasons and/or if you plan on living in the United States for the rest of your life, especially if you hold First World country citizenship (e.g. Canada, Australia, or most of the Europe countries).

    An American citizen living overseas making a lot of money has some distinct tax disadvantages, and the United States is the only major Western country that taxes its citizens regardless of whether they live in or out of the U.S.

    In recent years the number of people renouncing U.S. citizenship has gone up (though still only a few hundred a year). And the United States also makes it harder than most to renounce citizenship.

    It’s something I’ve never considered doing, but that doesn’t mean I don’t resent U.S. paternalism towards its citizens that I don’t see with the other democracies.

    • #6
    • July 3, 2019, at 6:16 PM PDT
    • Like
  7. kedavis Member

    What Jonah and Jack talk about at the end, the first part about hearing telephone “dialing” tones and figuring out the numbers, was a trick used by the genetically-enhanced “Max” (played by Jessica Alba) in the series “Dark Angel.” I believe in the very first episode, “Max” uses that ability to solve a kidnapping/hostage situation. And later, talking about using clicks and tones to “crack” the phone system and get free long-distance calls etc, was known as “Phone Phreaking.” It also included people cobbling together special tone-generator boxes – called “blue boxes,” I believe- to make that easier.

    • #7
    • July 3, 2019, at 7:27 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  8. Mister Dog Coolidge

    My Japanese wife was naturalized at a ceremony with immigrants from about 20 other countries. The woman who was officiating made a point of noting my wife was only one who was not now a dual citizen, as Japan does recognize dual citizenship. I too noted the discrepancy with the oath of citizenship.

    • #8
    • July 3, 2019, at 11:16 PM PDT
    • Like
  9. Arahant Member

    Good show. Enjoyed Ilya. I would say you need to beat @jackbutler more, but he’s a runner. He likes that sort of thing. So, withhold the beatings for a week.

     

    • #9
    • July 4, 2019, at 12:08 AM PDT
    • Like
  10. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member

    I like these guys, but they are frustratingly obtuse on the French-Ahmari disagreement.

    They argue that Ahmari is wrong because if our side departs from what the French (and Goldberg and Shapiro) folks consider to be important norms, then the Democrats will do so as well.

    I can completely understand this argument, and I understood it before they said anything.

    The problem is that they seem categorically unable to grasp the counter-argument — that the other side has already abandoned such norms. This completely undermines their argument. This is what Victor Davis Hanson means when he talks about the President’s popularity, among his supporters, for not playing according to the Marquess of Queesnbury rules.

    The frustrating part of the French-Goldberg-Shapiro side goes beyond a frustrating insistence that we follow the rules, even when the other side is not. It is an apparent inability to even understand that this is the fundamental argument being made by the Ahmari side.

    We could have a useful discussion if good guys like Goldberg and Shapiro could see this. They could make a good argument that, for example, there are good reasons to follow the rules even though the other side doesn’t, and even though we pay a price for it, because it might lead the opposition to return to the rules. The Ahmari side could then argue that no, in these circumstances, that’s not likely to be effective, so we should break the rules also in order to both: (1) advance our agenda, and (2) put pressure on the other side to return to the rules.

    There can also be a legitimate argument about whether the other side has abandoned its commitment to the relevant rules.

    This seems to be a very simple concept to me. If the other side is “cheating,” you “cheat” in return. I am flummoxed by the inability of really smart guys like French, Goldberg, and Shapiro to even grasp that this is the argument Ahmari is making.

     

    • #10
    • July 4, 2019, at 10:29 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  11. JuliaBlaschke Coolidge

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    This seems to be a very simple concept to me. If the other side is “cheating,” you “cheat” in return. I am flummoxed by the inability of really smart guys like French, Goldberg, and Shapiro to even grasp that this is the argument Ahmari is making.

    And you end up with a cheat. One would wish the electorate was wise enough to see through all this cheating, but obviously they are not. That’s how we end up with Obamas and Trumps.

    • #11
    • July 4, 2019, at 11:49 AM PDT
    • Like
  12. kedavis Member

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    This seems to be a very simple concept to me. If the other side is “cheating,” you “cheat” in return. I am flummoxed by the inability of really smart guys like French, Goldberg, and Shapiro to even grasp that this is the argument Ahmari is making.

    And you end up with a cheat. One would wish the electorate was wise enough to see through all this cheating, but obviously they are not. That’s how we end up with Obamas and Trumps.

    The only true alternative – even if you don’t realize it or don’t want to call it what it is – amounts to unilateral disarmament.

    Perhaps a (re-)watching of the original Star Trek episode “A Private Little War” would be educational.

    • #12
    • July 4, 2019, at 10:32 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  13. Penfold Member

    My 35 year career has been spent as an information security tech. Before the internet became a thing, there was hacking of standalone computers and communication systems. One particularly interesting character was John Draper who became a “phone phreak”. His hacker name was Captain Crunch because he discovered that the toy whistle that used to come in boxes of Captain Crunch cereal had the exact correct pitch, when blown into a telephone handset, to put an AT&T telephone switch into “operator mode” which allowed one to do many interesting things such as call routing.

    As to Cult of the Dead Cow, I remember it fondly as a repository of free software utilities that enhanced the ability to manipulate the nascent internet. Hacking? Maybe. But at the time, the internet was this wild and free playground that offered endless possibilities and not just this cesspit of social media and commercialism. It was going to bring about a new age of enlightenment, then humans got involved……….. 

    • #13
    • July 5, 2019, at 8:51 AM PDT
    • Like
  14. Arahant Member

    Penfold (View Comment):
    then humans got involved……….. 

    They always do.

    • #14
    • July 5, 2019, at 9:03 AM PDT
    • Like
  15. LibertyDefender Member

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):

    And you end up with a cheat. One would wish the electorate was wise enough to see through all this cheating, but obviously they are not. That’s how we end up with Obamas and Trumps.

    Right. Because before Obama, no presidential candidate ever cheated. Certainly not Bill Clinton, he would never cheat. Or Lyndon Johnson – no cheater there, no way. John F. Kennedy didn’t cheat either.

    Again, Julia is so upset with those darned voters – they voted for Trump! <Gasp!> 

    • #15
    • July 6, 2019, at 4:24 PM PDT
    • 1 like