Birthright citizenship and objectivity
Aaron Walker’s article in the DI on Sept. 22 was interesting in many ways, but primarily, he deserves praise for addressing a controversial issue in an objective way. That in itself is a rare jewel in any form of journalism these days.
I appreciated his quote by Associate Professor Tim Hagle, too, challenging my preconceptions that UI professors as a group that leans so far to the left that they tend to travel in counterclockwise circles. You’ve convinced me that Hagle as no trouble in navigating a straight sidewalk. An example of the left-wing slant is on Page 4 of this DI edition: 1. “News Descends a Staircase,” by Beau Elliot, a column ridiculing GOP candidates with a few adjectives and slurs that is supposed to pass as wit, and 2. Views by Hannah Soyer, producing a pathetic defense of a chart produced by Planned Parenthood that declares that the number of abortions performed by them is 3 percent of all patient cases. And those who believe those figures are supposed to be the SMART ones in the upcoming generation?
I was particularly interested in the balance given to the issue of birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment. Mark Levin, legal adviser to Ronald Reagan, has made an astute observation that seems to have been missed by the candidates as well as the pundits: Levin pointed out that “birthright citizenship” has never been adequately tested by the Supreme Court. It has to do with the expression “… the jurisdiction thereof” in the first sentence of that amendment. Levin says “jurisdiction” has nothing to do with the country in which the mother gave birth, but to the citizenship and national loyalty of the parents. IF this was to be clarified by the Supreme Court, no further amendment would be necessary. In a real sense, however, the point is moot, because the court now has a dismal record of deciding cases according to law, but to the political persuasion of the nine justices. So it’s not likely that any future court decisions will go contrary to the mobs in the streets.
If my perception of this is wrong, I will appreciate your comments for further discussion.
Steve Hufferd
Group to stop big money in elections on campus today
My name is Patrick Snell and I am a recent graduate of the University of Iowa with a degree in economic policy. I have always wanted to make a difference in the world, particularly when it comes to environmental issues.
However, when it comes to even the most reasonable solutions for protecting our natural resources, communities and working lands—like developing renewable energy technologies and investing in local food systems — big money seems to stand in the way of progress. I am now convinced that until we do something to curb the influence of wealthy special interests in our political system, pressing issues like this will never be addressed. This issue affects more than just our renewable energy choices, as well. Issues across the board like the national deficit, criminal justice reform, and LGBTQ rights are all affected by the impact of big money lobbyists.
That is why I am very excited about a new issue advocacy group I’ve started volunteering for, Iowa Pays the Price. This nonpartisan organization is highlighting the issue of money in politics to potential caucus goers and holding presidential candidates responsible for providing solutions to the problem.
As students and as young people we will never be fully served by our government until we remove the influence of big money. This group will be on campus on the T. Anne Cleary Walkway today, from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. Be on the lookout, and learn what you can do to help get money out of politics and return the power to the people.
Patrick Snell