Green Is The New Blue - Trump Thread #166

[Spandauer]

Reflecting Pool was sabotaged!
Meloni is begging for me!
They're killing the grass!
Hormuz open!
Hormuz closed!
ICE is NICE!
Get rid of the B in dumb!
Windmills bad!
War!
Peace!
War!
I am a stable genius!

Thanks to @Justsaynonow for the thread title 😁

Trump’s Final Term Ends in: - Countdown Timer

Previous thread:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5540355-flaming-june-will-the-wheels-finally-fall-off-don-snoreleones-bus-trump-thread-165

Methinks Trump is starting to experience the law of diminishing returns.

Not sure he experiences anything anymore. No pity.

Am hearing that SCOTUS (again) referred to English Common Law.

You're welcome.

That was not the view of the Reconstruction Congress. Where the dissents see feudalism, the Framers of the Four- teenth Amendment saw emancipation. By the time of the Glorious Revolution in 1688, in fact, the tie created by birth was less a "duty" than a "right"-the foundation of the "an- cient liberties" of "free-born subjects." H. Muller, Subjects and Sovereign 16-18, 57-58 (2017). That is why Blackstone described the "privileges" owed to the "natural-born." 1 Blackstone 361-362. That is why the colonists demanded the "rights of Englishmen" more than 250 years ago. B. Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution 192 (1967). And that is why abolitionists lauded the "an- cient and universal" rule of citizenship by birth alone as "an ordinance of Heaven." Yates 36-37; see also M. Jones, Birthright Citizens 89-107 (2018).

And he is off...

"I would like to congratulate President Xi, and the Great Country of China, on their massive Birthright Citizenship WIN! President DONALD J. TRUMP"

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/us-backs-trump-v-bbc

Yet in 1981, the UK abandoned 'born on this soil' birthright citizenship in favour of descent-based citizenship. Which in a way is what Scrotus was trying to institute.

https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vjtl/vol33/iss3/5/#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20Kingdom%2C%20the%20British%20Nationality%20Act%20of%201981%20abandoned%20territorial%20birthright%20citizenship%20in%20favor%20of%20parentage%20based%20citizenship.

And BTW your comment 'do all Americans hate their children?' wrt the 2nd was extremely offensive.

I have given up reading what Trump says, because it gives me a headache.
I just read the news. RedTag I do not know how you manage it!

I have seen a picture of the Reflecting pool actually reflecting! Some return for the ten million dollars, at least!

On the war/ not war (and the price of our petrol (and fertiliser) )https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/30/us-iran-talks-6bn-iranian-assets-restart

The Guardian is not shying away from presenting this as linked to money, money, money! Not a care in the world for any human being.

It is 6 billion dollars for them to have a chat over a coffee/ tea.

I hope UK next PM continues to say firmly no to all this. And no need for niceties by now. Just plain NO.

Just bumped into someone saying that Iran was having issues selling its crude oil and found some articles
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260630-us-treasury-chief-says-only-china-buying-iranian-oil-as-others-wary-of-sanctions-risk/

There is also some noise about China and the gold market, but I do not understand enough about stock markets to get the picture.

Is China aiming to move the gold market away from the dollar? ( similarly to the oil market recently, with tolls paid in yens?)
To protect iself from the effect of Trump's crazy tariffs?

Where there is a crisis, there is an opportunity for smart cookies. I bet you they are buying Iranian oil cheaper, they manage to continue quite a bit of supply, plus their huge stockpile, sold more EVs and solar panels, yen better placed in the oil market (maybe gold too). Making their way around the problem!
I hope, at least, this shows UK the path to clean energy and self reliance!

That actually makes me feel like vomiting. Brings me right back to watching Kamala & Tim, so hopeful for the future.

Kemi Badenoch, Tory leader, was born on the right side of that. My DD was born well on the wrong side, so my DD is not British (I will explain). I am, but DD mother is not. And DD was not born in UK. And this is made more complicated because the country DD was born in does not recognize dual citizenship.

So DD is a citizen of the country she was born in. But she has a UK "certificate of entitlement" in her (non UK) passport, so that means she can live in the UK as a UK citizen if she wants, with a non UK passport. But if DD has a child, that child will not be entitled to be British unless that child is born in the UK.

And this is made even more complex because the country of DDs birth have a thing where citizenship is required for state school etc. So when DD was born, the hospital asks what citizenship do you choose, nation of birth or British. And technically, if British is chosen, then the baby instantly becomes an illegal alien. But they have an "unofficial" rule where if another nationality is put on the birth cert, then that is ignored, and child can decide for themself at 18. But it is not ignored when it comes to passports. So if we had registered her as British, she would have needed a Brit passport to travel, But if she had a Brit passport she would not be able to exit the country of birth, because it has no entry visa, and she would need a visa to return. There is a way around that though, called an "emergency travel document", that her birth country issues.

Phew.... my noggin is spinning. But yeah. This is why "Reformers" wind me up a bit. Because they have no clue about just how difficult it can be to even get into the UK, and so on. It is a fucking complex minefield. Esp when places like HK are thrown into the mix. Folk born in HK while that was under Brit rule have an even more complex thing to deal with.

Right, onto what I think about US Birthright Citizenship... next post.

Ohh... feck Reform... again. With bells on.

I really don't care if the US has birthright citizenship or not. Nowt to do with me, up to them. But I do find it delicious that Trump was defeated. Not because I disagree with his policy on it (I don't care, nor do I agree with it), but because of how he went about it.

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.

1868 they added that. Now I ain't legal minded at all, but I can see a big loophole in that. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Why not just make a law that the laws to not apply to foreigners ? Too simplistic I know, because then we would have English football fans in the US just now with no laws. My understanding is that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is about diplomats.

Then there was the US Chinese exclusion act of 1882, and the case of Wong Kim ark in 1898. Result of the latter is that the 14th applies.

And Trump thinks he can just do an EO to cancel bits of the constitution.

It just amazes me that any SCOTUS Judge can read the 14th, and side with Trump.

Thing is, I think it is a daft system. That SCOTUS is needed to rule on these things. I think it should be congress making the laws. Not POTUS, and not SCOTUS (effectively).

Fair enough that SCOTUS rule on if the laws congress made are within the constitution, but it should really be self evident to the members of congress if the laws they make do or don't. It should defo not be rule by EO.

Ultimately I think the US messed up with how they can amend the constitution. It is held up as some sort of sacred text, unchangeable, yet it was designed to be amended. But the procedure for doing so was not updated.

Likes of Ireland have the right idea. Change the constitution by referendum.

I think the US constitution needs changing. And what needs changed is how it is amended. Will that happen? Probably not because of the 2nd ?. In fact, I think if it were not for the 2nd, the Constitution would largely be sidelined.

As evidence look at the dates. 1868 is the 14th. Chinese exclusion act 1882. So congress were not bothered about the 14th when they enacted that. Then it took till 1898 for SCOTUS to rule on the exclusion act and the 14th. So it took 30 years for them to say" hang on, we have birthright citizenship" and actually apply it.... for non whites anyway.

It does seem they were still in the mindset of the 1790 Naturalization act -

"That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,"

And yes, it does appear that Trump is of the same 1790 mindset. But thankfully most of congress are not. And that leads me back to Congress making the laws.

Thoughts on birthright citizenship and other things.

Given that Trump's mother was an illegal immigrant and he thinks that his father was born in Germany, then in his mind he should be an example of birthright citizenship.

Not relevant now, but on the other bit about being 'free white'. In line with the increasing popularity of dna testing, there will have to be an official definition of 'white'.
The case of the white supremacist, KKK man who was so sure that he was white that he submitted to a tv reveal of his dna springs to mind. The result wasn't what he thought it would be.😆

And Melania too. She was doing the tourist vias runs in the 90s while working. And that is pretty much fact. Because if she had a working visa she would still have it in her old passport to show a journalist.

I still have mine.

In fact, I still have my old passport with all the US immigration stamps, from when I was... ahem.... considering doing the same as Melania done.

Unless of course Melania "lost" her old passport.

He appears to be saying Xi controls SCOTUS ?

Proof that POTUS is a side hustle.

Trump raked in more than $1bn from his crypto businesses last year, a federal filing released Monday shows, giving a substantial boost to his annual income.
Many of the president’s crypto ventures were mere startups when he took the oath of office, but now have eclipsed in revenue much of his vast property portfolio that took decades to accumulate. This rise has been fueled by billionaire investors and Trump’s move to quash a federal crackdown on the industry.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/30/trump-1bn-crypto-businesses-2025

Blast, the article had the crapto word!

Don't worry, logicisall, we're on the case and have unhid it!

Thank you @HopeMumsnet That was quick!

Yes indeed. Now I have the Twilight Zone music in my head for some reason.

I've just been on a "Putin's Russia" course at a local centre and half the last session was on financial links between Russia and Trump. I can have a readonable guess about who is using Trumps crypto and what additional (though frankly they have plenty just based on his dealings with money laundering) leverage that gives them.

Thanks @RedTagAlan for your sterling reporting 🏆😁

What a nightmare for you and your family re the passport and 'showing your papers' procedures depending on where you are and what you're trying to do. You must need to have a Kafkaesque conversation with yourself every time you travel!

My DC were born in the U.K. but have dual UK/US citizenship. At the time of their birth we thought it was a sensible thing for them to have...
... now we're not so sure!

And this means we've 'condemned' them to a lifetime of having to file US taxes as well as U.K. ones 😫

@logicisall thanks..the scale of corruption is mind boggling the above you posted plus all the other shenanigans of which there have been many.

It's not a nightmare. More of me having an anti "anti immigration" mild rant really.

I reckon humanity should really be at the point of breaking down borders by now, not putting more up.

And I was reading/posting on a Reform type thread. Gulp. Is it my imagination by the way, that pro reform posters seem to hardly ever post sources for any data they present. But Trumpsters quite often do ? I think that is why I prefer debating Trumpsters rather then Reformers. Trumpsters do at least try.

Not that Trumpsters post very often. That pro Trump thread is still not full.