White House Spokesperson on the Issue of Birthright Citizenship
[guest post by Dana]
Today at the White House press conference, new press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded to questions about the Trump administration and birthright citizenship:
Q: . . .22 state attorney generals have said that this is unconstitutional. A federal judge has just agreed with their argument. What’s the administration’s argument for doing away with birthright citizenship?
A: The folks that you mention have a right to have that legal opinion, but it is in disagreement with the legal opinion of this administration. This administration believes that birthright citizenship is unconstitutional and that is why President Trump signed that order. Illegal immigrants who come to this country and have a child are not subject to the laws of this jurisdiction. That’s the opinion of this administration. We have already ruled, uh, appealed the lawsuit that was filed against this administration and we are prepared to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, if we have to, because President Trump believes that this is a necessary step to secure our nation’s borders and protect our homeland.
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
—Dana
Hello.
Dana (499eaa) — 1/28/2025 @ 2:18 pmHere’s the law the confers birthright citizenship:
…doesn’t explicitly mention to confer it on children of illegal immigrants.
Rather, that law reproduces the language of the 14th Amendment by saying that a “person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a citizen.
By signing this EO, Trump isn’t actually claiming he is changing the law. Rather, he is claiming that, as the President entrusted with executing the law, the law as properly interpreted does not include within its term the children of illegal immigrants.
It will thus be up to the Courts to decide whether this interpretation is correct.
Here’s a useful exercise: What was the law as it was understood at the time?
This may give some insights:
https://archive.org/details/cu31924018811426/page/n91/mode/2up
Read just pages 70 and 71.
Tell me what you think.
whembly (c87394) — 1/28/2025 @ 2:37 pm…..as the President entrusted with executing the law…..
He stopped doing that on Day One.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/28/2025 @ 3:02 pmYeah, this one is going to be hard to push through. Especially the way they are doing it. But at least the battle will consume much of the opposition’s time, and when the opposition wins, they will have won …. nothing.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/28/2025 @ 3:57 pmI happen to believe that children of tourists and students who are required to return to their own country ought not be given US citizenship by birth. To the degree this is gamed, it makes a mockery of US immigration law.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/28/2025 @ 4:00 pm“Read just pages 70 and 71.”
Seems open and shut to me
I think the disconnect comes from this section on naturalization. Look how simple it used to be to become naturalized:
Because there was no concept here of an illegal alien
So, if you moved to the United States with the intent of becoming a permanent resident, your children were citizens at birth. We’ve made it a lot harder for people to naturalize, but the intent is still there.
Davethulhu (14e9e4) — 1/28/2025 @ 4:04 pmKevin M (a9545f) — 1/28/2025 @ 4:00 pm
The 4th amendment was passed before there was any law that limited immigration.
Citizenship mainly conferred the right to vote and the right to be employed by the government. There were few other discriminatory laws.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 1/28/2025 @ 4:43 pm1790 called and they want their legacy returned.
BuDuh (7a5fe0) — 1/28/2025 @ 5:01 pmIt’s a Living Constitution.
lloyd (72406a) — 1/28/2025 @ 5:10 pmThe 4th amendment was passed before there was any law that limited immigration.
Or any cars and airplanes. The ease. low cost and general safety of long-distance travel made immigration laws necessary. In 1865, nobody traveled from Europe and back in the same week.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/28/2025 @ 5:10 pmCitizenship mainly conferred the right to vote and the right to be employed by the government. There were few other discriminatory laws.
There were few other laws, period.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/28/2025 @ 5:11 pm@6
Illegal aliens are not “permanently domiciled”.
Permanently domiciled means there was some prior authorization.
whembly (c87394) — 1/29/2025 @ 6:46 amI’m wondering about this quote: “Illegal immigrants who come to this country and have a child are not subject to the laws of this jurisdiction.” [emphasis added] That would seem to suggest that illegal immigrants shouldn’t be held accountable for violating federal law. Of course, I’m not an attorney, so this may involve a legal term of art I’m not familiar with.
Chris Leach (0c03f0) — 1/29/2025 @ 6:54 am@13
Its a legal term of art of the time.
Jurisdiction in this context means what allegiance does this person hold, or what claims does the foreign state have over that person.
whembly (c87394) — 1/29/2025 @ 7:12 amIt seems more likely that she bungled her words and inadvertently set up a clever “gotcha.”
But if it brings life to this comment section, maybe it was purposeful.
One never knows when Hanlon’s razor gets applied around here..
BuDuh (7a5fe0) — 1/29/2025 @ 7:23 am“Illegal aliens are not “permanently domiciled”.
Permanently domiciled means there was some prior authorization.”
No it doesn’t and I explained why. There was no need or requirement for prior authorization at the time it was written.
Davethulhu (d57f86) — 1/29/2025 @ 7:27 am@17 Davethulhu (d57f86) — 1/29/2025 @ 7:27 am
No, your explanation doesn’t make any sense.
The writers of the time had a term for the illegal immigrants… aliens. More specifically, “Alien-friend” or “Alien-enemy”.
Because you’re making the case that I could “permanently domiciled” in your living room and you’d have no recourse.
whembly (c87394) — 1/29/2025 @ 7:46 amTaking it further, “Alien-enemy” would be also be the illegal migrants today as they broke the laws by entering this country.
whembly (c87394) — 1/29/2025 @ 7:48 am“The writers of the time had a term for the illegal immigrants… aliens. More specifically, “Alien-friend” or “Alien-enemy”.
Because you’re making the case that I could “permanently domiciled” in your living room and you’d have no recourse.”
I feel like I’m repeating myself. There were no “illegal immigrants” as the term is understood today.
“Taking it further, “Alien-enemy” would be also be the illegal migrants today as they broke the laws by entering this country.”
The text defines “alien-enemy”, and it’s not your definition.
Davethulhu (14e9e4) — 1/29/2025 @ 8:06 amWhat did they have?
BuDuh (7a5fe0) — 1/29/2025 @ 8:09 amDavethulhu, the strict originalist.
lloyd (f0afd6) — 1/29/2025 @ 8:52 am@19
Because you are wrong.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924018811426/page/n91/mode/2up
See pg 70, 1st paragraph:
See pg 71, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence:
The illegal migrants are not “Citizens”.
Then, they must be an “Alien”.
As understood by this logic, today’s illegal migrants ARE the “Alien” described here.
See pg 70, 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence:
If the illegal migrant’s parents are not citizens, then this doesn’t apply.
You want to hand wave away the meaning of “permanently domiciled”, a phrase that is repeated in this book, is arguing in bad faith.
Permanently domiciled has meaning in this context, and it means an “authorization” was given for that alien to be allowed to live in this country.
Which does NOT apply to illegal migrants.
So, to recap, I’ve demonstrated that when that book was published in 1875, a few years after the 14th was ratified, that:
a – legally, there was understanding what was the difference between an alien vs a citizen.
b – by simple logic, today’s illegal migrants are those “Aliens” as understood at the time.
c – the phrase “permanent domicile” cannot be applied to today’s illegal migrants.
d – today’s illegal migrants were NOT a class of people who would be covered by birthright citizenships, as understood at the time of the publishing of this book.
The fact the subsequent courts seems to get this wrong, doesn’t mean courts today couldn’t fix it. (the real fix, is really congress passing statutory law clarifying who is covered under the birthright citizenship).
whembly (c87394) — 1/29/2025 @ 8:53 amI think I will let the Courts dispose of this one. Trump thinks the courts are wrong and this is how he gets his viewpoint through. Bet we don’t get a ruling based on the 14th amendment though. The SC (because that’s where this is going) will base their ruling on legislation which contains language similar to what’s in the 14th.
Appalled (4684fe) — 1/29/2025 @ 8:53 am“Davethulhu, the strict originalist.”
lloyd, the whitenoise troll
Davethulhu (14e9e4) — 1/29/2025 @ 9:13 am“Permanently domiciled has meaning in this context, and it means an “authorization” was given for that alien to be allowed to live in this country.”
Permanently domiciled is not defined in the text.
“arguing in bad faith”
GFY
Davethulhu (14e9e4) — 1/29/2025 @ 9:20 am@25
Ah, so when losing an argument elicit such a response.
How about…
No.
whembly (c87394) — 1/29/2025 @ 9:31 am@’thulu
Words have meaning… not necessarily what you wished it to be.
If you were one who argued in the past that the 2nd amendment “A well regulated Militia” meant only something like a state unit like the national guard, and not an individual right, only to be proven wrong by evidence of what it meant when it was drafted… then, I would ask that you refrain from asking others to GFY and reconsider.
whembly (c87394) — 1/29/2025 @ 9:36 am“If you were one who argued in the past that the 2nd amendment “A well regulated Militia” meant only something like a state unit like the national guard, and not an individual right, only to be proven wrong by evidence of what it meant when it was drafted… then, I would ask that you refrain from asking others to GFY and reconsider.”
If I had, then perhaps you might have a point, but you’re making assumptions that you can’t back up, which is the definition of arguing in bad faith.
Davethulhu (14e9e4) — 1/29/2025 @ 9:55 amThere is an argument that an illegal alien in a sanctuary city or state is NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States — or even of the locality given the willingness of local authorities to look the other way.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/29/2025 @ 10:03 amDave, I promise you my question was in good faith.
BuDuh (7a5fe0) — 1/29/2025 @ 10:13 amComparing immigration between a period where there were no tourists or casual travelers and where the difficulty and expense of international travel was a once-in-a-lifetime endeavor, to the modern era where one can travel from Podunk Nevada to South Africa in at most two days is just not reasonable.
In 1790 or 1890 if you traveled to America the odds were great you were staying and making a home here. If there were any rules, it was that you did not bring disease. The numbers of immigrants were low even at the height of Ellis Island — at the peak, less than 1 million a year were entering. Numbers were limited by cost and hardship.
Today, similarly open borders would result in 10s of millions showing up at our door each year. The results of that would be horrific.
So, yes, in 1865 there were no immigration rules. That does not mean that extending that to today is wise or proper.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/29/2025 @ 10:17 am@28
You see… I didn’t say that you did.
I said, which you pointed out, “If you had…”.
More bad faith from you it would seem.
whembly (c87394) — 1/29/2025 @ 10:39 am“Dave, I promise you my question was in good faith.”
My answer would be substantially the same as Kevin’s @31. Immigration was essentially unrestricted.
The second amendment stuff is really you guys telling on yourselves. You know you’re making the same argument as some (not me) make for repealing or restricting the second amendment. For transparency’s sake, I consider the 2nd a lost cause, and don’t bother to engage on it.
Davethulhu (14e9e4) — 1/29/2025 @ 10:39 amThe meaning of amendments and the constitution itself does change with time. This depends on the reason for the original rules and the state of the world today. To say that the Free Press only applies to newspapers, or the right to arms is limited to muskets is silly.
To impose citizenship rules that were developed for a largely immobile population onto a highly mobile one is not the slam dunk some people think it is.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/29/2025 @ 10:51 amI mostly agree. But what about naturalization? I am pretty sure that those rules were in place since 1790 guarding citizenship because they fully accepted that foreigners could be present in the United States with no entitlement to citizenship for them or their children. Immigration laws weren’t really necessary.
Here is another question: Why do you think the founding fathers did not allow a naturalized citizen to be president? What was their fear?
BuDuh (7a5fe0) — 1/29/2025 @ 10:52 amHaving said that, I think that it will take an Amendment. I would like to hear the reasons why people would oppose any such.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/29/2025 @ 10:52 amthey fully accepted that foreigners could be present in the United States with no entitlement to citizenship for them or their children.
Not so. It was fully accepted that foreigners could be present but DAMN FEW of them were going back home. Diplomats, British soldiers, etc, excepted. But children born here WERE considered citizens even at the Founding.
This implies that being born here conveys a form of citizenship that is more than naturalization. Prior to Adoption, citizenship was by state, under state laws.
This essentially defines national citizenship as being conferred by state citizenship.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/29/2025 @ 11:00 amAnd then you quote an amendment that was ratified three quarters of a century latter.
Try again.
BuDuh (7a5fe0) — 1/29/2025 @ 11:07 amSource?
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/29/2025 @ 11:09 am“But what about naturalization?”
Wembly’s document listed the processes, which were pretty simple.
“Why do you think the founding fathers did not allow a naturalized citizen to be president? What was their fear?”
The stated intent, I think, was to guard against foreign influence. As a possible guess, I’d consider how inter-related european royalty was, and that they didn’t want anything to do with that.
Davethulhu (14e9e4) — 1/29/2025 @ 11:11 amWell said whembly. Thank you for your educated comments.
NJRob (bb9d53) — 1/29/2025 @ 11:13 amI think we agree, Dave. Now considering that, and that an Oath fo Allegiance has been around since the first naturalization act in 1790, does it cause you some concern that foreigners who wholly renounce foreign allegiance were not allowed to become president, but a dual citizen newborn had no such restrictions?
You could almost say that they preferred unquestionable allegiance over the possibility of foreign influence.
BuDuh (7a5fe0) — 1/29/2025 @ 11:18 amNo there isn’t-whether in a sanctuary state/city or not, they are still illegally in the country and can be arrested, as we have seen in the past couple of weeks.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/29/2025 @ 11:27 amState and local governments are not obligated to enforce federal laws, nor can they be compelled to do so. For example, New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc. are sanctuary jurisdictions, yet ICE has is continuing to conduct arrests.
You may want to examine this statement in the context of the current administration.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 1/29/2025 @ 11:51 amICE has is continuing to conduct arrests.
When the city is not playing 3 card monte with them.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:05 pmAnd then you quote an amendment that was ratified three quarters of a century latter.
Pretty sure I did not. Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 1
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:07 pm@39
https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/defining-citizens-congress-citizenship-and-the-meaning-the-fourteenth
whembly (b7cc46) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:15 pmYou got me, Kevin. I completely apologize for that error on my part.
Are you saying that a “natural born citizen” can have two allegiances?
BuDuh (7a5fe0) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:16 pmState and local governments are not obligated to enforce federal laws
This is true. But 8 U.S.C. § 1324 says
The punishments can be harsh.
Cities that declare themselves sanctuaries and have contact with one or more illegal aliens are in violation of some of these. Up to now, the federal government has refrained from such prosecutions. Bet you we see some soon.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:18 pm“…suggesting…” is better than “…saying…”
I am just trying to flesh out your reasoning without causing a situation where you think I am trying to put words in your mouth. Thanks.
BuDuh (7a5fe0) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:18 pmChurch volunteers are exempted.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:19 pmAre you saying that a “natural born citizen” can have two allegiances?
For all I know they can have 10. But, at least at the founding, a child born here to anyone other than a diplomat was born to folks who intended lifetime residency, so it’s hard to see how they would still have allegiance to the Old Country. Maybe if they were born to British sleeper agents.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:22 pmSo Loyalist were given the go ahead to be President by mere location of birth?
BuDuh (7a5fe0) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:26 pmIs that in conflict with the restrictions of a naturalized citizen becoming President?
BuDuh (7a5fe0) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:29 pmOdd thought: Is someone pardoned for all crimes during a period of time “under the jurisdiction of the United States” during that time? Hunter Biden was pardoned for all acts between 2014 and 2024. During that time he had 2 children. Arguably, they do derive citizenship from him, although both mothers were citizens at the time of birth.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:32 pm*Arguably, they do NOT derive citizenship
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:32 pmIs that in conflict with the restrictions of a naturalized citizen becoming President?
No. The two are unrelated. In fact a naturalized citizen could have become president well into the 19th century. Had he not been killed in a duel, Alexander Hamilton would have had his shot.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:34 pmDYCWIDT?
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:34 pmMensel, Robert E. (2012) “Jurisdiction in Nineteenth Century International Law and Its Meaning in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Saint Louis University Public Law Review: Vol. 32: No. 2, Article 6.
whembly (b7cc46) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:40 pmAvailable at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/plr/vol32/iss2/6
That isn’t a good example unless the clause said:
Back to the conundrum. It is not in dispute that a naturalized citizen, who by law has renounced all past allegiances and has taken an oath to the US, is NOT eligible to be president.
I believe it is your contention that parents who have not taken an oath to the US, nor have they renounced their allegiances to a foreign sovereign, can have a child on US soil, and that child is eligible to be president through no allegiance or renouncing process on the part of the child throughout the child’s life.
How do you square this?
BuDuh (64098f) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:51 pmStrike through failure…
BuDuh (64098f) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:53 pmSo the definition of “subject to the jurisdiction” is someone’s opinion, not supported by case law.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:56 pmAgain, an unsupported opinion.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:57 pmRip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:56 pm
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:57 pm
I also posted the positions of the writers of the 14th Amendment.
whembly (b7cc46) — 1/29/2025 @ 1:02 pmApparently the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed with their position.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/29/2025 @ 1:05 pm@65
Actually, no.
SCOTUS has never ruled on illegal aliens with respect to birthright citizenship.
whembly (b7cc46) — 1/29/2025 @ 1:07 pm> I believe it is your contention that parents who have not taken an oath to the US, nor have they renounced their allegiances to a foreign sovereign, can have a child on US soil, and that child is eligible to be president through no allegiance or renouncing process on the part of the child throughout the child’s life.
They grew up here, in our culture and society, and are presumed to have no more allegiance to a foreign government than you or I do.
aphrael (dbf41f) — 1/29/2025 @ 1:26 pmNaturalized citizens are eligible for all elected offices(city, state, federal) except for one. They immerse themselves in the very government that they take multiple oaths to as they move upward. Lawmakers for the very same cultural and society. They overtly swear allegiance to The US while promising to renounce all previous allegiances. Why did the Founders presume the naturalized citizen to less equal in society to a dual citizen child and his foreign tied family?
BuDuh (64098f) — 1/29/2025 @ 1:45 pmOT: Former Senator Bob Menendez sentenced to 11 years.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/29/2025 @ 2:09 pmAgain, I’m trying to demonstrate what the term “jurisdiction thereof” as understood in this time.
Here’s another good research, with citations of writers of the 14th amendment:
https://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/
So, as understood at the time the 14th was passed… no, an illegal alien intending to live in the US w/o prior authorization doesn’t confer birthright citizenship to their babies born on US soil.
Do courts get it wrong at times?
Of course.
Is this one of them?
I think so, but requires final rule from SCOTUS and/or Congress passing laws.
whembly (b7cc46) — 1/29/2025 @ 2:15 pmSCOTUS has never ruled on illegal aliens with respect to birthright citizenship.
Indeed. There are a few dicta-level comments in later decisions, but the issue did not bear on the decisions.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/30/2025 @ 8:59 amStill, it would surprise me if children born to immigrants of any kind — those who wish to live and remain here — would not be covered. Temporary visitors OTOH might be excluded.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/30/2025 @ 9:00 amMy real worry is that some of the current family deportations include native-born children who are denied recognition of their citizenship in the process.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/30/2025 @ 9:02 amAs you say, the children should be given up for adoption.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/30/2025 @ 9:10 am@74
No. That should only be the last resort, as in, the parents wants to give child up.
The default should be to keep the family together, and repatriate all of them.
whembly (b7cc46) — 1/30/2025 @ 9:29 amBoth of you miss my point. The apparent administration policy, which may be applied by ICE, is that children born to illegals are NOT CITIZENS. How they handle the children in deporting them, and any eventual attempt by the children to re-enter as citizens, will be altered by the way they approach this issue.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/30/2025 @ 9:34 amI disagree. They should be separated, so the children can grow up as Americans.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/30/2025 @ 9:40 amI disagree. They should be separated, so the children can grow up as Americans.
Suppose ICE is operating under new rules saying they CANNOT be Americans?
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/30/2025 @ 9:48 amIn any event it should be the parent’s choice, with local Child Services the default alternative. BUt ICE may assert than no child of illegals is a citizen.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/30/2025 @ 9:50 amMost of the articles I see indicate that “migrant” families are being wound up by scaremongers in the press and community. People not going to the grocery store or doctors because they’ve been told that they will be fingered for ICE. That kind of thing.
As I’ve said, TRUTH was the first casualty of this, with all sides misrepresenting and conflating.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/30/2025 @ 9:56 amTexas Public Radio
I don’t know how many of these legal remedies are operative right now.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/30/2025 @ 9:59 am>I don’t know how many of these legal remedies are operative right now.
And if they’re not operative for people who are *presumed but not proven to be illegal immigrant*, that means they’re not operative for *anyone* if the government or its agents decide to assert that you are an illegal immigrant.
Civil rights were great when we had them.
aphrael (dbf41f) — 1/30/2025 @ 11:09 amIf the courts rule that the children of illegal immigrants are not US citizens, then there is no question they are deportable. Until then, children should be separated from their parents.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/30/2025 @ 3:47 pmICE doesn’t make or interpret the rules, courts do.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/30/2025 @ 3:47 pmOr Congress.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/30/2025 @ 3:49 pmKevin M (a9545f) — 1/30/2025 @ 9:50 am
Only if Trump orders them to, and Trump has limited his order to the future. If they try, immigration judges (even them!) and federal courts will likely decide.
Anyway Trump only ordered that babies without U.S. citizen or permanent resident parents not be given passports or Social Security cards.
I don’t know what happened or what is the status of the baby who was sitting on a pile/bed of U.S. currency in the Bronx apartment to which a leading member of Tren de Aragua had fled to from Aurora, Colorado.. (which also shows you that Colorado already had the situation half in hand) He (or close relatives?) had other children there but that one could have been U.S. born.
The whole thing was a publicity stunt designed to mislead people about what was going on (and the scale of it). The only way they legally broke in was the arrest warrant for kidnapping, assault and burglary and the DEA was also there, but they asked only one question about immigration. Maybe he’ll wind up in El Salvador or maybe in Guantanamo. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem showed up at one raid in person to give the impression that it was all about arresting dangerous criminals (in other forums Homan or others say they are going after everyone)
They got an OK from Mayor Adams (that at least he would not criticise them – he says he agreed not to criticize anything ICE does in public) and in return maybe the Justice Department will drop the criminal charges against him. (the mayor)
He’s allowing himself to be used as an argument that even in blue cities they see Trump’s policy is right.
Mayor Adams was out of contact, claiming he was getting medical tests, for two or three days this week – now he says God selected him. He’s said that before. Citing Gideon in the Bible and Esther 4:14. The mayor suddenly appeared in public at some religious service.
I also had word of mouth that the Walmart in Green Acres in Nassau County was closed that day because of lack of workers. Also reported is that there are fewer people or no people standing in the street looking for work. That would be in Queens. But not in the newspapers.
I did hear and read, first Sid Rosenberg on WABC radio claiming that the mayor would resign in 72 hours, and later it was reported that there was a tape of him engaging in witness tampering. But now the news rumor is that the bribery charges will be dropped (It’s weak legally)
But there is also the straw donor fraud with him having the defense that he didn’t know his fund raising people were doing that.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 1/30/2025 @ 4:25 pm