Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Laurence Phillips's avatar

I been traveling routinely to the United Kingdom since the mid-1970s. A few years ago in Oxford my wife and I enjoyed a conversation with a young man — early 20s, articulate, well educated. I asked him what he and his peers thought about their future in the UK? His response: Everyone wanted to emigrate, as they saw no reason to believe that the economic and cultural situation in the UK would improve. He was correct. The situation hasn’t improved. The young man I spoke

with wanted to emigrate to the U.S., but his friends were thinking about Canada and Australia. When your young talent seeks to flee your country, it has serious problems.

BenK's avatar

Alex T can't be so ignorant as to place birthright citizenship on the list of purely symbolic issues - rather, it is a counterthrust to a particular lawfare topic in what is an acknowledged demographic strategy by the progressives. Is it important? If you ask the progressives, yes, it is important to their strategies; it seems unreasonable to claim that countering it in the courts is simply hysteria on the part of the opposition. Yes, it is far outside the Overton Window to roll back the concept of birthright citizenship on the basis of plots around illegal immigration - but so should be those same plots, and the other abuses of birthright citizenship (by heads of state, for example, in other nations) have long been cause for upset by onlookers. Alex apparently can't find any good objections to purely symbolic activities on the right, given his focus on one thing that is easily understood and justified. That's reason for pause.

112 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?