Food for Your Brain: Trump’s Jamestown Visit and American Citizenship

President Trump is visiting today our nation’s birthplace for … birthright citizenship.

Birthright citizenship means anyone born on the king’s soil (today, this means U.S. soil) is a citizen.
The legal doctrine is called jus soli (right of the soil).

Some conservatives want to take this right away. 
They say that U.S.-born children of unlawful immigrants should not be U.S. citizens just because they are born here.

What’s their alternative? A doctrine called jus sanguinis—citizenship by blood, or descent. 
Their view is that the descendants of English people who settled here are citizens at birth. They can consent to others being citizens … or not.

Critics of their view, myself included, say this is a legal formula for white citizenship. Period. Everyone else can be given lawful permanent residence but not the right to vote. Conservatives do not deny it but instead shift the discussion to racially degrading terms, for example "anchor babies" and "chain migration." 

Back to Jamestown. King James issued a charter to a company to settle in Virginia.

The deal included birthright citizenship: The new settlers wanted to ensure that they and their children and descendants had English citizenship—partly to aid in inheriting and bequeathing property, and partly as a safety line to return home.

What was the view of birthright citizenship 400 years ago? England had it. They extended it to the children of foreigners. Repeat that line. That undermines the argument for limiting citizenship at birth to the descendants of English natives.

This is a very consequential issue. It has been settled in the U.S. for hundreds of years.

President Trump will likely try to change that in his quest to make America white again.

The American Workforce Without Birthright Citizenship: A Bleak Future Awaits U.S.

Credit: Daryl Cagle

President Trump and policy-shapers such as Stephen Miller, Tom Cotton, Chris Kobach and others want to end birthright citizenship.

My study, “The Labor Origins of Birthright Citizenship,” examines three scenarios that would result if they end birthright citizenship.

Here are excerpts:

This study shows birthright citizenship in a new light. First, three empires granted birthright citizenship as part of broad policies for competitive labor advantage (Rome, England, and U.S.). Second, birthright citizenship has existed much longer than its critics acknowledge. Third, birthright citizenship has multiple and diverse sources. Fourth, birthright citizenship has always been part of broader immigration policies. In all three empires, birthright citizenship and naturalization co-evolved. These laws diversified homogenous societies by adding people of different races and color, languages, ethnicities, religions, and cultures.

The labor origins of birthright citizenship implicate troubling questions about the U.S. workforce, if this constitutional right is limited or ended.

Nine Month Entry Bar: This approach would deny citizenship to all children born to non-citizen mothers who enter the U.S. within nine months of giving birth. This policy would address birth tourism.

This nine-month entry exception is more complicated than it seems. It could apply to every child born within nine months of unlawful entry. However, if the purpose of the policy is to discourage illegal immigration, a strict nine-month exception would affect people who enter the U.S. on work visas. A strict nine-month bar would deny citizenship to children of Lawful Permanent Residents, and employees with temporary work permits, some who work for years in the U.S. for years.   

To evaluate the impact of a nine-month entry rule on the U.S. workforce, I consider data from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) for temporary workers and families. In 2017 alone, the U.S. admitted 849,727 females of childbearing age.  The more relevant statistic— U.S. births to these women— is unknown. However, it is reasonable to suppose that the U.S. would lose some foreign workers— foreign mothers and foreign fathers— to other countries simply because of this rule. Canada, for example, has birthright citizenship.

U.S. Born Children to Unlawful Immigrants: This is a common policy prescription from birthright critics. Citizenship without Consent favors a prospective denial of this right to children on unlawful immigrants. However, retroactive application is also possible. This severe approach would require stripping of citizenship. Adding to this muddle, birthright opponents do not specify whether their unlawful immigrant citizenship bar applies to a child of an immigrant mother, or a child of either an immigrant mother or father, or a child of two immigrants. 

The large group of immigrant parents under DAPA offers one way to imagine workforce effects from implementing this exception to birthright citizenship. President Barack Obama implemented Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) as a postponed enforcement policy— a way of deprioritizing removal on unlawful immigrants. 

The DAPA-eligible population is about 3,605,000.  This figure is large because birthright citizenship applies to any child born in the U.S. to a qualifying immigrant parent. Because this parent must prove continuous U.S. residency for five years, there is a good possibility that long-term resident immigrants had a U.S.-born child (a birthright citizen).

The most restrictive form of the unlawful immigrant bar to birthright citizenship would apply to most DAPA parents and their U.S.-born children. Starting with DAPA parents: Even if courts or a different president restore DAPA— an outcome that would temporarily legalize the presence of parents and allow them to apply for work authorization— this birthright ban would expose anew up to 85 percent of three million DAPA parents to deportation.  This is because retroactive citizenship stripping for DAPA children would make the entire immigrant family’s immigration and citizenship status unlawful. This would have large workforce effects, as DAPA-parents lost work authorization and face deportation. A study of potential-DAPA eligible immigrants— unlawful immigrants who were parents from 2009-2013— found that 95% of these fathers were in the labor force and 93% had jobs.

This exclusion to citizenship would have large second-order effects on the American workforce, this one affecting children who lose their birthright citizenship. With unlawful status, they would be stateless children facing deportation. Massive citizenship stripping of this young cohort would ripple destructively in the U.S. labor market.

Statistics show the magnitude of this crippling effect. While the number of DAPA children is unknown, about 2.5 million DAPA parents have a U.S.-born child. This suggests that the child cohort facing citizenship stripping is in the millions. The DAPA child cohort appears to have birthdates ranging from January 1, 2010 through November 20, 2014.

By the mid-2020s, they will start entering the U.S. labor force. The Department of Labor (DOL), in a study that does not differentiate the workforce by immigration or citizenship status, showed that Hispanics registered the largest gains in the American workforce, increasing from about 12.0 million in 1994 to 25.4 million in 2014.  DOL estimates this group will reach 32.5 million in 2024, thereby growing the share of Hispanics in the total labor force from 13.1 percent in 2004 to nearly 20 percent of the labor force in 2024.  Removal of millions of DAPA parents, and millions of DAPA children, from the legal workforce would have unpredictable but unavoidably massive effects on the American economy.

European-Origin Exception: Some immigration opponents explicitly seek a whites-only America.  A slightly milder version anchors American identity in Eurocentric heritage. 

Compared to the nine-month and unlawful immigrant disqualifications for citizenship— which themselves devolve into definitional quagmires— the European-origin exception to birthright citizenship is enigmatic. Whatever form this would take, Eurocentric birthright citizenship would produce an American apartheid. This systemic inequality would weigh heavily on the American workforce. Whites have the nation’s lowest birth rates. Whites also registered the greatest decline in labor force participation, from 67.1 percent in 1994 to 63.1 percent in 2014. The DOL projects that this rate will drop to 60.8 percent in 2024. Viewing the European-origin form of birthright citizenship simply through the lens of national workforce composition, this scenario recalls a stagnant but ethnically homogenous England in the fifteenth century, stuck with labor force deficits that were remedied by more open naturalization.

***

Opponents of birthright citizenship say that Americans must consent before the U.S.-born children of unlawful immigrants can be citizens. While my study produces extensive evidence of the labor utility of universal birthright citizenship, the economics behind this fundamental right also reveal a fundamental morality. Consent based on racial sameness is immoral and destructive of economic growth and international trade. Rome tempered its conquests with inclusive marriage, naturalization, and citizenship laws that correspond to America’s sense of strength through pluralism. England was a hungry, depressed, and depopulated island nation until it owned up to the shortcomings of its restrictive naturalization laws. England only began to prosper when it became a haven for religiously oppressed Europeans who had sophisticated skills that opened new industries in and around London. When Congress debated the birthright citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, disagreement arose as to whether to include the children of foreign laborers. A majority in Congress approved a universal form of birthright citizenship that included the “child of the Asiatic.” The reemergence of the birthright citizenship question puts two versions of morality on trial, one centered on racial superiority, the other founded on human equality. If economic history helps to determine this debate, this ancient narrative will prove that a nation’s wealth depends on preferring the human race to the white race.

Can You Advise? Strip Club Asks For Compensation Model That Won’t Bankrupt It

Photo Credit: New York Times (July 25, 2019)

Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 6:23 PM
To: Leroy, Michael H <mhl@illinois.edu>
Subject: News Article

Mr. LeRoy:

I read your comments in a recent New York Times article regarding adult club entertainers and the compensation programs under which they perform.

We have found that most dancers refuse to perform under an employment model because they don’t like the impact on their taxes (i.e. they are required to report 100% of tips earned), nor do they like having to work within a schedule (an unfortunate necessity of operating a business with high hourly payroll).  They also seem to reject not being able to take breaks at their leisure and having to wait for a bi-weekly paycheck.  I know from extensive experience with both models.

I was wondering since you seem to have done legitimate research on the topic, what you feel would be a workable compensation model that would not leave a club bankrupt?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/style/strip-clubs.html

--

Ryan

***

For context, I was interviewed in connection with a feature article on the pay and working conditions of strippers.

My 2017 study found that strippers won 93% of their wage lawsuits.

Common practices in strip clubs: Performers are required to share their pay with bar tenders, DJs, “house moms,” and bouncers—and, pay a rental fee for a changing room, and pay a fee to be on the stage, and be docked pay for being late to work. Dancers cannot, however, set their tips above house-imposed levels.  Some women in my cases earned negative wages (paid out, received no pay).

These conditions are especially exploitative for strippers but there are clear signs that more mainstream jobs are going to this pay-the-boss model.

Examples: Insurance agents pay their employer fees for office cubicles; cable installers are docked when customers complain of service; ride-share drivers and delivery couriers pay for gas, insurance, vehicles; nurses are docked hourly pay for not meeting standards. The list goes on.

***

If you have advice for Ryan, send it to me at mhl@illinois.edu. Think about adopting a professional alias, since that is a common way that Ryan interacts with his employees. I call dibs on Witch Hunt … and yes, I like to cover up when I work!

Photo with UIUC Colleague at a Residence Hall

Penn Law Professor: U.S. Better Off with More Whites, Fewer Nonwhites

Credit: Daily Pennsylvanian and Alice Heyeh

American universities provide platforms for far-right professors, as well as far-left ones. Meet Prof. Amy Wax. At an academic conference last week, she reportedly said:

“Conservatives need a realistic approach to immigration that … preserves the United States as a Western and first-world nation. We are better off if we are dominated numerically … by people from the first world, from the West, than by people who are from less advanced countries.”

Wax was speaking at the inaugural National Conservatism Conference. 

Speakers included National Security Adviser John Bolton, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, and tech billionaire Peter Thiel, among others.

Reaction: More than 1,000 student groups and individuals at Penn have signed a petition calling for Wax to be relieved of all teaching duties. Wax’s dean, Ted Ruger, condemned her remarks.

“At best, the reported remarks espouse a bigoted theory of white cultural and ethnic supremacy; at worst, they are racist. Under any framing, such views are repugnant to the core values and institutional practices of both Penn Law” and Penn.

History Note: There is nothing new about professors at elite universities embracing racially-tinged viewpoints and theories.

In 1912, New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson (by then, former professor and president at Princeton) published a book that singled out the “sturdy stocks of North Europe” for contributing to America’s early success while disparaging “multitudes of men of the lowest class from the south of Italy and men of the meaner sort out of Hungary and Poland.”

Many academic economists were strong believers in eugenics, a field that gave scientific justification to racism. 

A political scientist, Lothrop Stoddard, published The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy (1920), portrayed a world dominated by rapidly multiplying yellow, brown, and black people that threatened to end the white race’s domination of civilization. 

Stoddard concluded: “People as they are wholly or mostly by whites, they have become parts of the race-heritage, which should be defended to the last extremity no matter if the costs involved are greater than the mere economic value.”

More recently, a former colleague at UIUC, Prof. Robert Weissberg, was fired from the conservative National Review for delivering a talk on “viable alternatives” to white nationalism, including the creation of “Whitopias.”

He argued that liberals are beyond reason in matters of race: Explaining to liberals the necessity of racial consciousness for whites, according to Weissberg, “is like trying to explain to an eight-year-old why sex is more fun than chocolate ice cream.”

These statements are proof that unfiltered speech is self-revelatory. 

Does the 1st Amendment Protect FB Post AOC "Needs a Round”?

Law enforcement officers are in the news more and more for posting disturbing social media messages.

A group of 62 current Customs and Border Patrol officers are under investigation for violent, racist, and sexually explicit posts, many relating to their law enforcement mission.

In Louisiana, police officer Charles Rispoli said in a Facebook post last Thursday that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez “needs a round — and I don’t mean the kind she used to serve,” a reference to her past work as a bartender. He was fired.

These officers have First Amendment rights. The question is whether the First Amendment protects them from discipline.

They will argue that their posts occurred off-duty; did not express official policy; did not reference specific cases they are working on; and expressed political opinion or satire.

The law enforcement agencies will argue that officers give up some speech rights by working in this field; professional conduct standards require that private actions do not bring disrepute on the agency; and their posts undermine the agency’s mission by eroding public trust in the fair administration of the law.

Now you be the judge.

First, let me give you the tests that courts will use in these cases:

First, courts will balance employee speech rights against employer interests in prohibiting certain expressions.

Picture a seesaw: Employer interests are on one side of the teeter-totter, and employee interests on the other.

Now turn to the employee side. There are three areas to “score.”

First, is the speech private or public in character? If, for example, this is a gripe that the chief is incompetent, this is an employee grievance. Thus, it is private speech. It gets zero points.

If it is public—for example, flying the American flag for police, with a blue stripe— it’s public speech. In other words, it is a form of political expression. Score one point there.

Now look at the context. Was it in the town square, for example, as a demonstration? That’s public, i.e., a political view. Score another point.

If it’s private—say, a tattoo of a swastika (yes, there are police cases with this), that is private. No points there because the speech is not public in character.

Last, look at context: This usually refers to a medium for expression. A flag is usually a political statement. A KKK sticker on a lunchbox, or a bumper sticker on a pick-up (yes, there are cases), are private contexts.

Add up the score: If the employee gets three points, his or her speech will outweigh the employer’s interest.

If the employee scores only one or zero points, the officer will lose.

Cases where the employee scores two points are cliffhangers.

Courts often view Facebook as private speech. You might think that helps the employee—it’s off-duty speech! But private speech, by definition, does not convey the political expression that the First Amendment covers.

Feel free to share your scoring in these cases with me at mhl@illinois.edu.

Nominee for Secretary of Labor: Pros and Cons

Eugene Scalia, son of Justice Antonin Scalia, is an outstanding lawyer who has specialized in labor and employment. If a conventional GOP candidate in 2016 were now president— say, Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio— Scalia would be a logical pick.

Here is a quick summary of pros, cons, and “it depends”:

Pros: Smart. Experienced. Integrity.

Cons: Questions validity of science (e.g., as it applies to workplace ergonomics). Abrasive.

It Depends: Scalia is fiercely anti-union. If you want a Secretary of DOL who will require even more financial disclosures from union officers (they already report far more than CEOs about their compensation), he’s your guy.

He strongly favors deregulation. 

His agency will pursue less wage theft claims—claims by workers that they have not been paid overtime, were required to work off the clock, and were misclassified as independent contractors.

He will oppose any increase in the minimum wage on grounds that it leads to less employment (the last time the minimum wage was raised was July 24, 2009—almost exactly ten years ago).

He will likely diminish OSHA enforcement. Employers generally do not like OSHA, claiming that regulations are expensive and onerous.

This is generally true but how far does Scalia want to roll back safety standards? There are air contaminant standards that aim to limit workers’ exposure to carcinogenic agents. Want to roll that back?

What about mine safety, also under DOL control (through a sub-agency known as MSHA)? Weaken the dust standard and expose miners to the risk of explosions?

At Cabinet meetings, Scalia will be intellectually a cut-above Betsy DeVos, Ben Carson, many others, and President Trump. He doesn’t have mega-wealth. He is not a lobbyist. 
Upon confirmation the Cabinet will have 13 white men, one black man, and two women. 

In sum, Eugene Scalia is a traditional, free market conservative.

Final thought: Unions split their support between Trump and Clinton in 2016. Scalia will almost certainly antagonize organized labor.

Are U.S.-Born Blacks Americans? A Citizenship Question from 1866 Returns

The president’s attacks on four dark-skinned congresswomen rekindles debates in the Senate in 1866. Radical Republicans (like progressive Democrats) wanted full civil rights for blacks. This was trickier than you might imagine.

Democrats (similar to the GOP today) had two counter-strategies. 

First, they thought that this matter should be decided by voters, not Congress (in most states in 1866, only whites had the right to vote). 

Second, Democrats used the fallback position of conceding that slavery was abolished but no further legislation was justified after the Civil War. This would leave the status of freed blacks better than property (which the Supreme Court declared they were a decade earlier in Dred Scott) but in a legal vacuum that would reduce them to serfs.

The Radical Republicans devised a clever counter-move. Avoid this discussion. Instead, pass three constitutional amendments: 13^th (abolish slavery); 14^th (creates birthright citizenship); and 15^th (allows the right to vote regardless of race or color).

Now come back to birthright citizenship: “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.”

Radical Republicans said that all slaves born in the U.S. were made citizens by passage of this amendment. (The African slave trade to the U.S. was abolished by federal law in 1808, with a large slave population already in the U.S.)

In 2019, white nationalist policy makers and lawyers refuse to concede that this is a settled question. They say the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means that each state must vote on whether someone born or naturalized in the U.S. is a citizen.

They are completely wrong. Congress used this phrase to exclude Indians as citizens because they were born in the U.S. and were members of sovereign tribes (plus, Congress had no stomach to make Indians U.S. citizens in 1866).

Back to the congresswomen, with a focus on Ilahn Omar and Ayanna Pressley. Rep. Omar is a naturalized citizen. But according to the theory of "jurisdiction thereof," Mississippi and Alabama might vote to limit naturalization by excluding people who were born in Somalia and later naturalized.

Not implausible. Examples: Deny Somalian-Americans a license or voter registration or access to public schools.

What about Rep. Ayanna Pressley? She was born in the U.S. There is no question about her citizenship, right?

Depending how far the current tweeting combines racism and citizenship, white nationalist politicians can return to the argument that was settled in 1866 by saying (for example): “We, the people of Alabama, did not ever consent to the citizenship of blacks.”

If this sounds fanciful, read Citizenship without Consent (1985), authored by two Yale professors (one of whom recently said that President Obama should be impeached for his DACA policy).

Radical Republicans understood that many American politicians equally despised blacks and dark-skinned immigrants. That is why they carefully used the words “all persons born in the United States”— not “all white persons,” and not “all persons born to U.S. citizens.”

If history is any guide, we should not assume that all U.S. born blacks always will be regarded everywhere in the U.S. as American citizens.

“Send Her Back!” Could Trump, GOP Strip Americans of Citizenship? Yes.

“Send her back!” could be the opening foray into a broad effort to strip some Americans of their citizenship. This would lead to their deportation.

Ilahn Omar was born in Somalia, fled a war with her father, and lived in a refugee camp for four years. Her father was granted asylum. He became a citizen, and so did Ms. Omar.

Now consider Melania Trump. She came to the U.S. on a “talent” visa that automatically granted citizenship (as an elite fashion model). Later, she brought her parents to America. They were naturalized in essentially the same way as Rep. Omar (family preferences in our immigration laws, also derisively called "chain migration" by some conservatives).

Now consider existing methods for stripping citizenship. They are exceedingly rare. 

One category is for war criminals (John Demjanjuk, convicted as an accessory to killing 28,000 Jews as a Nazi). 

Another category is for terrorists (Rasmi Khader Almallah, funder for Hamas and employer of 9/11 attacker).

A larger group is for marriage fraud that results in naturalization citizenship.

So, how could Trump and the GOP expand this effort to “send home” American citizens?

That would require more executive orders and favorable court rulings.

Here is one path (not the only): Declare that birthright citizenship is abolished (even though it is in the Constitution and has been upheld by the Supreme Court). 

President Trump has already stated an intention to do this.

Enforcement would be very difficult. It could begin with newborns of known or suspected undocumented immigrants. 

If the Trump administration had enough stomach: Take newborns from hospitals, detain them, and process them for deportation. That would be a method, albeit brutal, for stripping citizenship.

Take the same idea and apply it to older children, born on U.S. soil to undocumented mothers (or parents— there is inconsistency in how conservatives define an illegitimate birthright citizen).

I’ll try to blog at least one other possibility: Denaturalize family preference citizens (GOP term is “chain migration”), the method that brought Rep. Omar and the First Lady’s parents to America as citizens.

In sum: Our nation is debating the meaning of “Send her home!” That debate should look ahead to the immigration policy implications of citizenship stripping, long a prize of American nativists.

Justice Stevens Stood Up for a Soldier with a Prosthetic Leg: An ADA Case

Justice John Paul Stevens’ sarcastic and stinging dissent in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1999) offers a practical lesson on the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Brief background: The airline denied employment to twin sisters as airline pilots because of severe myopia. 

That sounds like a problem for a jet pilot … until you read on that they worked without any problem as pilots for United’s commuter airline. They wanted to fly bigger planes for more money.

For the oddest of reasons, the pilots lost before the Supreme Court. The majority opinion reasoned that because the pilots’ corrected vision was 20/20 with glasses, they were not disabled and therefore could not proceed with a disability lawsuit under the ADA.

The case had major ramifications. If a person had medications that controlled diabetes, they were no longer disabled and therefore could not sue for a reasonable accommodation. Ditto for people with prosthetic devises that restored normal function—they weren’t covered by the ADA. The list was nearly endless.

Justice Stevens wrote this caustic dissent, employing several sight metaphors (see black text in body of red text) to make his point clear:

“When it enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act), Congress certainly did not intend to require United Air Lines to hire unsafe or unqualified pilots. Nor, in all likelihood, did it view every person who wears glasses as [disabled]… Indeed, by reason of legislative myopia it may not have foreseen that its definition of “disability” might theoretically encompass, not just “some 43,000,000 Americans,” … but perhaps two or three times that number…. It is quite clear that the threshold question whether an individual is “disabled” within the meaning of the Act—and, therefore, is entitled to the basic assurances that the Act affords—focuses on her past or present physical condition without regard to mitigation that has resulted from rehabilitation, self-improvement, prosthetic devices, or medication. One might reasonably argue that the general rule should not apply to an impairment that merely requires a nearsighted person to wear glasses. But I believe that, in order to be faithful to the remedial purpose of the Act, we should give it a generous, rather than a miserly, construction.”

….

An example of a rather common condition illustrates this point: There are many individuals who have lost one or more limbs in industrial accidents, or perhaps in the service of their country in places like Iwo Jima. With the aid of prostheses, coupled with courageous determination and physical therapy, many of these hardy individuals can perform all of their major life activities just as efficiently as an average couch potato. If the Act were just concerned with their present ability to participate in society, many of these individuals’ physical impairments would not be viewed as disabilities. Similarly, if the statute were solely concerned with whether these individuals viewed themselves as disabled—or with whether a majority of employers regarded them as unable to perform most jobs—many of these individuals would lack statutory protection from discrimination based on their prostheses.

The … statute’s three-pronged definition, however, makes it pellucidly clear that Congress intended the Act to cover such persons. The fact that a prosthetic device, such as an artificial leg, has restored one’s ability to perform major life activities surely cannot mean that subsection (A) of the definition is inapplicable. Nor should the fact that the individual considers himself (or actually is) “cured,” or that a prospective employer considers him generally employable, mean that subsections (B) or (C) are inapplicable.

…. In my view, when an employer refuses to hire the individual “because of” his prosthesis, and the prosthesis in no way affects his ability to do the job, that employer has unquestionably discriminated against the individual in violation of the Act.

Farewell, Justice Stevens. Thank you for your clear vision.
PS: Congress overturned the Court's decision in Sutton. He won, after all.

Hitler-MAGA Internet Troll Hit with $14 Million Judgment

As Donald Trump reloads the machine gun of white supremacy, a Montana federal court rendered real justice yesterday in a case of anti-Semitic intimidation. Andrew Anglin was editor of the wildly popular Daily Stormer, a Nazi-American online newspaper. He targeted Tanya Gersh (pictured below with her father recently in court), a Jewish realtor in Whitefish, Montana, after she was falsely accused of running the mother of white supremacist, Richard Spencer, out of town.

I made this case a centerpiece in “Targeting White Supremacy in the Workplace,” (available here, https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/29.1-LeRoy_107-158.pdf). 

Here is sample of the vicious intimidation that Anglin and his MAGA followers directed at Gersh and her family (they threatened to have an armed march in front of her office with the intent of forcing her to leave her work):

“Anglin posted an article calling for readers to “TAKE ACTION” by contacting Gersh and her family, and instructing readers to coordinate their messaging by stating that “you are sickened by their Jew agenda.” The post provided Gersh’s contact information and included pictures of her family with a yellow Star of David, labelled “Jude.” Anglin followed up with another post: “Let’s Hit Em Up. Are y’all ready for an old fashioned Troll Storm? Because AYO – it’s that time, fam.” Typical of the torrent of e-mails, phone calls, voicemails, texts, letters and postcards that bombarded Gersh and her family, one said: “Thanks for demonstrating why your race needs to be collectively ovened (sic). You have no idea what you are doing, six million are only the beginning. We are going to keep track of you for the rest of your life. You will be driven to the brink of suicide . . . .”

Anglin has fled the U.S. 
Yesterday, a federal district court in Montana entered a default judgment for Gersh and awarded damages as follows:

(1) Economic damages in the amount of $220,680 for past lost earnings, medical expenses, and other expenses; (2) Economic damages in the amount of $821,758 for future lost earning capacity; (3) Non-economic damages in the amount of $1,000,000 for past pain and suffering, and; (4) Non-economic damages in the amount of $2,000,000 for future pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life…. 

Having considered the factors set forth in Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221(7)(b), including the particularly egregious and reprehensible nature of Anglin’s conduct, the Court finds that a punitive damages award in the amount of $10,000,000 is warranted to punish Anglin and deter him from engaging in such conduct in the future.
...

Lawyers for Gersh don’t expect to collect a dime. That’s not the point, they said: The point is to stop these monsters from operating in American society.

For “ICE Sunday”: Who Is A Citizen? Perspective from 1799

ICE raids like today occurred under prior administrations. These are targeting adjudicated immigration violators who have a criminal record.

One major difference is that these sweeps appear to target families. This means that some U.S. born children of deportees will be detained today.

That raises a serious question about birthright citizenship. It has formally been part of U.S. law since 1868, upheld in 1898 by the Supreme Court. It was part of America’s “common law” (court made law) since the 1600s!

The first Supreme Court decision on immigration appears to be from 1799 (The Williams Case). It has implications for U.S.-born children who might be swept up today.

The case involved Isaac Williams, born in the colonies and a birthright citizen by virtue of the common law. He renounced his citizenship to fight for the French navy (he was later arrested by the U.S., the concern being that his involvement would drag America into war).

The Court said two things that resonate today.

First, birthright citizenship is an American law. It is so fundamental that no one can renounce citizenship without formal permission of the government (today, there are laws to do just that). That means children who were born in America and who are detained today have American birthright citizenship, rooted in law from the 1700s:

“The common law of this country remains the same as it was before the revolution. The present question is to be decided by two great principles; one is, that all the members of a civil community are bound to each other by compact; the other is, that one of the parties to this compact cannot dissolve it by his own act. The compact between our community and its members is, that the community shall protect its members; and on the part of the members, that they will at all times be obedient to the laws of the community and faithful to its defense.” [That is exactly the idea of birthright citizenship though it was not called that at the time.]

The second part has what amounts to a labor policy justification for the ruling that people cannot unilaterally renounce citizenship:

“In countries so crowded with inhabitants that the means of subsistence are difficult to be obtained, it is reason and policy to permit emigration; but our policy is different, for our country is but scarcely settled, and we have no inhabitants to spare.”  

That idea is relevant today. Is America too full to absorb immigrants and their children? Is there not enough work for people in this nation? President Trump says that is our situation today.

Judge for yourself.

Is It Legal to Fire A Woman Because She Is Attractive to a Married Boss? Sadly, Yes.

(Melissa Nelson, fired for being attractive to her boss, a dentist named Dr. James Knight.)

A GOP candidate for governor in Mississippi—a married man— has barred a female reporter from covering his campaign.

“I put my wife and my Christian beliefs above anyone else’s feelings or opinions ... and I did not want there to be a perception that I was riding with another female and that something promiscuous was going on or anything like that.”

Such public piety sounds like the Ten Commandments-in-the-courthouse pronouncements of Roy Moore, who sought to date 14 year-old girls as a prosecutor.

It also sounds like this legal case: Nelson v. Knight. Melissa Nelson worked as a dental hygienist for Dr. James Knight. She was young and attractive—and worse, she caught the eye of her employer.

Quoting now from the court opinion:

“Dr. Knight … once told Nelson that if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing. On another occasion, Dr. Knight texted Nelson saying the shirt she had worn that day was too tight. After Nelson responded that she did not think he was being fair, Dr. Knight replied that it was a good thing Nelson did not wear tight pants too because then he would get it coming and going… Nelson recalls that Dr. Knight once texted her to ask how often she experienced an orgasm. Nelson did not answer the text.”

Ms. Nelson was fired after Dr. Knight’s wife found out about her husband’s straying eyes (and mind). A minister was called in to help break the painful news to Ms. Nelson that she was being fired because she was a threat to Dr. Knight’s marriage.

Ms. Nelson sued for sex discrimination. She said she was fired because she was an attractive female— by its terms, sex discrimination.

The Iowa Supreme Court disagreed: “So the question we must answer is … whether an employee who has not engaged in flirtatious conduct may be lawfully terminated simply because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction…. Usually our legal focus is on the employer’s motivation, not on whether the discharge in a broader sense is fair because the employee did something to ‘deserve it.’ Title VII and the Iowa Civil Rights Act are not general fairness laws, and an employer does not violate them by treating an employee unfairly so long as the employer does not engage in discrimination based upon the employee’s protected status.”

What the court did not say but clearly implied is that preserving marital fidelity is a defense for throwing an attractive woman out of work because she is the problem, not the lack of self-control of her employer.

The role of religious belief in making the Iowa and Mississippi situations seem okay are part of a larger phenomenon of making women legally inferior to men.

Scabby the Rat Scares Trump the Same Day He Hosts Far-Right Social Media Wretches

President Trump’s NLRB has announced that it plans to prosecute unions for displaying Scabby the 

Rat. Scabby inflates to protest dangerous working conditions, such as asbestos exposure (See Scabby 1, above), or when contractors use nonunion, lower-wage, lower-benefit labor (see Scabby 2, below).

Scabby doesn’t talk, is non-violent, and understands that he cannot ask people to walk off the job. 
Scabby’s main idea is to shame certain employers.

The First Amendment doesn’t always protect Scabby. Earlier this year, the Seventh Circuit appeals court upheld a Wisconsin city law against Scabby because the Rat did not comply with sign ordinances.

Meanwhile, Trump held a summit for conspiracy theory media stars and right-wing trolls.

This all-star lineup included James O’Keefe. In Trumpian style, he selectively edits videos to misrepresent the context of the conversations and the subjects’ responses, creating the false impression that people said or did things they did not (e.g., false Planned Parenthood video). 

He has paid six-figures to settle defamation claims. Here is his mug shot after entering federal property under false pretenses (phone employee to work in Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (Democrat, La.) office).

Feel free to judge who is scarier, Scabby the Rat or the social media vermin at the White House yesterday. 
...

Meanwhile, it’s been reported that Scabby the Rat’s backup artist, Corporate Fat Cat, is next in line for censorship.