VIDEO LINK: Breitbart FULL interview with Victor Davis Hanson

Elites Are Destroying America with Globalism, Leftism, and Tribalism That's the headline atop Breitbart's two-hour interview with American conservative commentator, classicist, and military historian Victor Davis Hanson. In examining how America is being undermined by a modern globalist aristocracy, Mr Hanson draws on analyses in his latest book, The Dying Citizen: How Progressive Elites, Tribalism, and Globalization Are Destroying the Idea of America. 

Mr Hanson warns of lessening governmental accountability to citizens via the dissolution of American citizenship. The concept of citizenship, he adds is an essential component of Western civilization.

In his book, Mr Hanson argues that the concept of the "citizen" is historically rare. Yet it was among America's most valued ideals for over two centuries. But without shock treatment, American citizenship as we have known it may soon vanish. 

The historical forces that led to this crisis (Mr Hanson writes) are:

* the evisceration of the middle class over the last fifty years, which has made many Americans dependent on the federal government

* open borders, which  have undermined the idea of allegiance to a particular place

* identity politics have eradicated our collective civic sense of self, and

* a top-heavy administrative state which endangers personal liberty, along with 

* formal efforts to weaken the Constitution.

As in the revolutionary years of 1848, 1917, and 1968, 2020 ripped away our complacency about the future. But in the aftermath, Mr Hanson believes, we as Americans can rebuild and recover what we have lost. The choice is ours.

Having watched the video, Walt's New Year's resolution -- the only one -- is to run [or ski? Ed.] to the  nearest bookstore and buy the book!

What kind of "American" is Kamala Harris

Here we go again. Senator Kamala Harris' hat barely landed in the ring when questions arose about her citizenship. Not ethnicity, but citizenship. According to Wikipedia, Ms Harris "identifies as African-American", and appears to have a good claim to being Black American, Asian American, Jamaican American and Indo-American. (The last should not to be confused with "Indian American", or "Native American", as claimed by Fauxcahontas.) But is she "American American", in the sense of being entitled to a US passport, or to succeed Slow Joe Biden should he fall permanently asleep while occupying the Oval Office?

The question is citizenship. As Walt reported earlier this week, Ms Harris was undeniably born in the Excited States of America, Oakland CA. Her parents, Donald Harris (Jamaican) and Shyamala Gopalan (Indian) were students at UC Berkeley at the time. And therein lies the problem. Neither of her parents was a naturalized American citizen!

In "Some Questions for Kamala Harris About Eligibility", published in Newsweek (not known for being unfriendly to liberals) on August 12th, Dr John C. Eastman, Professor of Law at Chapman University, cites the 12th Amendment to the US Constitution, which provides that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." Article II of the Constitution specifies that "[n]o person except a natural born citizen...shall be eligible to the office of President."

Isn't Ms Harris, having been born in (ugh, brrr) Oakland in 1964, a natural born citizen from location of birth? The 14th Amendment says so, according to Snopes (there's a red flag, right there) and others, and the Supreme Court so held in the 1898 case of United States v Wong Kim Ark.

But... argues Prof Eastman, the 14th Amendment provides that "all persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." Those who claim that birth alone is sufficient overlook the second phrase. The person must also be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, which means subject to the complete jurisdiction, not merely a partial jurisdiction such as that which applies to anyone temporarily sojourning in the United States. In other words, if the person is "just visiting", that doesn't count!

Wong Kim Ark is not to the contrary, adds Prof Eastman. At issue there was a child born to Chinese immigrants who had become lawful, permanent residents in the United States. "Domiciled" was the legally significant word used by SCOTUS. That was the extent of the Court's holding, as opposed to broader language that was non-binding dicta. Indeed, the professor says, "the Supreme Court has never held that anyone born on United States soil, no matter the circumstances of the parents, is automatically a US citizen."

If Ms Harris' parents were lawful permanent residents at the time of her birth, under the actual holding of Wong Kim Ark, she should be deemed a natural-born citizen at birth, and thus eligible for highest office. But if they were just temporary visitors -- in the country on student visas -- then "derivatively from her parents" Ms Harris was not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States at birth, but instead owed her allegiance to a foreign power or power -- Jamaica and/or India -- and was therefore not entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment as originally understood.

It will be recalled, as Walt told you, that Ms Harris' mother moved, with her two daughters, to the English-speaking enclave of Westmount, Québec, Canada, where Ms Harris graduated from high school in 1981, when she was 17 years old. Under US law at the time, one or both of her parents would need to have become naturalized American citizens before Ms Harris' 16th birthday in order for her to become naturalized herself.

Donald Harris' bio page at Stanford University identifies his citizenship status as "Jamaica (by birth); U.S. (by naturalization)." But, says Prof Eastman, there is some dispute over whether he was in fact ever naturalized, and it is also unclear whether -- Shyamala Gopalan Harris -- ever became a naturalized citizen.

If neither was ever naturalized (or at least not before Ms Harris' 16th birthday), then she would have had to become naturalized herself in order to be a citizen. That does not appear to have ever happened, yet without it, she could not have been "nine Years a Citizen of the United States" before her election to the United States Senate.

Prof Eastman concedes that such arguments may be dismissed as mere lawyerly nitpicking. It would help, though, if Ms Harris and her parents (who have not yet been heard from, as nearly as I can tell), came forward with papers proving her eligibility, just as Barack Hussein Obama [Who? Ed.] eventually produced what purported to be a birth certificate proving that he was born in Hawaii to a parent who was... Well, I forget the rest, but Mr Obama eventually became POTUS, after which the question was moot.

Prof Eastman concedes that could well happen with Ms Harris too. In the US of A, just as in Russia and Zimbabwe, winning an election makes everything all right.

Disclaimer: Newsweek has added this footnote to Prof Eastman's article: Eastman ran in the 2010 Republican primary as a candidate for attorney general [of California]; he lost to Steve Cooley, who lost to Kamala Harris in the general election.

Hey "migrant"! Been on welfare? No citizenship for you!

Some 15 years ago, Walt had the pleasure of travelling, on business, in the western part of Switzerland, to Genève and the canton of Vaud. I remember it being an exceptionally clean, orderly and prosperous place, bordering on the ideal. And white. Very white. The few immigrants I met may have been from North Africa, but spoke excellent French (the language of that region) and could have passed for Swiss-born. And they were working, apparently nicely assimilated into Swiss society.

That was then; this is now. 15 years later Switzerland, like the rest of Europe, is having a problem with scruffier, darker, "refugees" and asylum-seekers entering the country across its southern border with Italy.

Some of these While Switzerland is not a member of the European Union, asylum seekers have attempted to flood into the country through the southern Italian border. Many of these "irregular" migrants come without any form of identification, making it difficult to process their asylum claim or deport those not approved for asylum status. In face, the Swiss government is unaware of the true identity of 90% of the asylum-seekers in the country. It wouldn't be a problem if they were just using Switzerland as a transit country to reach Merkeland, where German hospitality awaits them, but many are choosing to remain in Switzerland, which is safer and richer.

That such scum should be able to live for years on state handouts, even after their asylum claims have been denied, galls the good burgers of Switzerland. There has been a huge anti-immigrant backlash. Unlike the governments of the AABC countries (America, Australia, Britain and Canada), the Swiss government is actually listening to the voice of its native-born citizens, and doing something to push back against the tide of migrants by making it less appealing for them to come to the country.

Late last year, the city of Zurich voted to dramatically cut benefits to failed asylum seekers who had been given so-called "F-status", under which they cannot be deported. And now, under the sub-headline "An idea for Austria?", the Swiss newspaper Kronen Zeitung reports on the coming into force of a new civil rights act that prevents residents who have been on welfare in the past three years from becoming citizens unless they pay back to the state (read: taxpayers!) the money they received.

The previous law allowed migrants to apply for citizenship as long as they were not on state benefits at the time of their application. The new regulations will make it impossible for asylum seekers and migrants who have lived off state handouts in the last three years to become citizens, even if they have lived in Switzerland as permanent residents for the required time to make a citizenship application. The new act requires migrants to demonstrate a greater level of integration than before, including making them prove they have a certain number of Swiss friends and acquaintances. Language requirements vary by canton with most expecting an intermediate level of language proficiency in one or more of Switzerland's official languages.

What I would like to know is how the Swiss got their governments to pay attention to the threat to European culture and civilization posed by the waves of bogus "refugees" -- economic migrants, really -- who keep washing up, literally, on the northern shores of the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas. It's not as if no-one's talking or writing about it. Read, for example, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, by Douglas Murray, recommended here not long ago. But on this subject, our governments are like the three wise monkeys. In fact they're worse. Not only do they hear nothing, see nothing and say nothing. They DO nothing! How much longer can this go on?

Further reading: "Vaticano, Papa Francesco e l'intervista bomba di monsignor Luigi Negri a Libero: 'La Chiesa si è piegata all'islam e alla sinistra'", Libero Quotidiano, 9/1/18 (in Italian) - Italian Archbishop Luigi Negri says immigration must be "rational", because uncontrolled immigration leads to the "crushing and extermination of our society.... You can't just open the doors, as if it were a party!"

Canucks try again to ban wearing niqab at citizenship ceremonies

This may be a picture of Zunera Ishaq, a Muslim lady who immigrated to Canada from Pakistan in 2008. Or maybe not. It's pretty hard to ascertain someone's identity, or even their gender, when their face is covered with the niqab.

It was for that reason that, in 2013, a Canadian judge who was about to administer the oath of citizenship to Ms Ishaq refused to do so unless she uncovered her face, as required by government policy. Ms Ishaq refused, saying that to show her face in public to men whom she did not know would violate the requirements of her religion -- Islam -- and the traditions of her culture. The culture of her adopted country didn't matter to her. Let Canada adapt itself to her, not the other way round.

As sure as God made little wormy apples and little wormy lawyers, a challenge under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms ensued. Just as surely, the politically correct Federal Court ruled this year that the ban on wearing the niqab, mandated by the Canadian Minister of Immigration was contrary to the government's own immigration laws.

The court ordered the feds to lift the ban and allow Ms Ishaq to take the oath with her face covered. Mr. Justice Keith Boswell found that "to the extent that the policy interferes with a citizenship judge's duty to allow candidates for citizenship the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation of the oath it is unlawful."

The Canuck government indicated at the time that it would appeal the ruling. But before the appeal could be heard -- today in fact -- the same government proposed a new "Oath of Citizenship Act" which, if enacted, will require all Canadian citizenship applicants to show their face while taking the oath of citizenship. Ironically, the new legislation was introduced in the House of Commons by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, Tim Uppal, seen here wearing the turban which his religion -- Sikhism -- requires.

"The Citizenship Oath is an integral part of Canada's citizenship ceremony, and where new Canadians embrace our country's values and traditions, including the equality of men and women," said Mr. Uppal. "This bill will ensure all citizenship candidates show their face as they take the Oath. We believe most Canadians, including new Canadians, find it offensive that someone would cover their face at the very moment they want to join our Canadian family."

That's if the bill given first reading today becomes law, which seems highly unlikely, given that Parliament adjourned today for its summer recess, and the House of Commons won't sit again until after the election.

Any suggestion that the bill was tabled as a sop to the majority of Canadians fed up with "cultural accommodation" is absurd. So is the suggestion that Prime Minister Steve Harper's government was inspired by polls showing widespread support for the Québec government's reintroduction of legislation to ban the wearing of the niqab, announced just last week.

"Fancy that" Dept.": On Sunday morning (21/6) CBC News posted "Conservatives' niqab ban shaped by Quebec's secular charter battle". Perhaps the CBC follows WWW?

"Culture wars" in Canada? Really?

You bet, EH! Not content with involving his country in a shooting war in the Middle East -- score so far: Muslims 3, Canadian troops 0 -- Canuck PM Steve Harper has quite unaccountably resurrected the debate over the "Canadian values" enshrined in Québec's Charter of Values, proposed but not enacted last year.

As Walt explained in "Multiculti types horrified as Charter of Québec Values bans religious headgear", the law mooted by the Parti Québécois government of Pauline Marois would have prohibited the wearing by public servants in public places of religious dress and symbols, including the Jewish kippa, Sikh turban and kirpan, large Christian crosses, and the hijabs, niqabs and burqas favoured by some Muslim women.

If you're not sure about the difference between hijab, niqab and burqa, check out "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?". (That post from 2010 is near the top of WWW's all-time most-read list.)  Or just study this illustration below, which includes the chador, something like a hijab extended to a full cloak.

To the consternation of the English-speaking chattering classes and the usual celebrants of diversity, polling consistently showed the proposed charter a winner with French-speaking Québec voters. But there were other issues -- a sluggish economy, corruption and (as usual) separation -- compared with which religious headgear seemed unimportant, and the PQ government went down to defeat, and with it the charter.

All was quiet for the next ten months, until the Federal Court of Canada struck down a regulation, introduced by then Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney in 2011, banning the wearing of the niqab or any other face covering while taking the Oath of Citizenship.

An immigrant from Pakistan had sent home for a bride -- as is "normal" for the clannish south Asians -- and brought to Canada a devout Muslim lady named Zunera Ishaq. In due course Ms Ishaq applied for citizenship and passed the examination ("What's a 'double-double'?") in November 2013. When it came time to take the oath, she objected to the requirement to remove the veil at the citizenship ceremony it is unnecessary for the purposes of identity or security. Worse than that, she said, it's a public event and her face would be seen by strange men.

Immigration officials subsequently offered to seat Ms Ishaq in either the front or back row and next to a woman at the ceremony, but she refused the arrangement since the citizenship judge and officers could still be male, and there could potentially be photographers at the event.

The upshot was that the ceremony was deferred and Ms Ishaq brought suit. Mr. Justice Keith M. Boswell ruled that "To the extent that the policy interferes with a citizenship judge’s duty to allow candidates for citizenship the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation of the oath, it is unlawful."

Fair enough. Freedom of religion seems to be covered by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms embedded in the Canadian Constitution. But... is the wearing of the niqab (or hijab or burqa) a requirement of Islam? No! It is just a cultural practice, the custom in certain parts of the Muslim world -- Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and places where "freedom of religion" applies only to Muslims, and not all Muslims at that!

To the surprise of many, the Harper government has decided to appeal Mr. Justice Boswell's decision. A spokesthingy for Citizenship and Immigration Canada said, "New citizens are obliged to confirm their identity when taking the Oath of Citizenship‎, which is sworn or affirmed in public. It is simply common sense to require removal of facial coverings or other items that hide new citizens’ mouths from view. The oath, knowledge and language tests, as well as years of residency, are among the basic requirements for joining the family of Canadian citizens."

The Prime Minister himself put the case rather more strongly. Speaking in the House of Commons this week, Mr. Harper called the Federal Court's move to strike down the 2011 ban "offensive", and said, "We don't allow people to cover their faces during citizenship ceremonies, and why would Canadians, contrary to our own values, embrace a practice at that time that is not transparent, that is not open and, frankly, is rooted in a culture that is anti-women?" (My emphasis. Walt)

So there you have it. Going about with your face covered, especially at a ceremony meant to show your commitment to your adopted country, is contrary to Canadian values. Minister Kenney told CBC Radio's The House today that people should pledge their allegiance to their fellow citizens publicly and openly. (Click here to listen to the complete interview, including Mr. Kenney's waffle on whether or not Canada will continue to participate in the American invasion of Iraq.)

The government view is finding a lot of favour with ordinary Canadians -- non-members of the meeja and PC mafia -- outside of Toronto, particular in... wait for it... Québec. On the same edition of The House, an imam said the niqab isn't part of Muslim culture, but only of Saudi culture. Mr. Harper told the House of Commons that he speaks for not just the majority of Canadians, but the majority of moderate Muslims. Will the Federal Court of Appeal agree? We'll see. Meanwhile, the war continues.

Speaking of broken immigration systems...

Americans who are dismayed at President Obarmy's imperial order (see previous post) to suspend enforcement of the USA's immigration laws might pause to give thanks that, broken as it is, their immigration "system" is not as bad as that of Canada.

From north of the world's longest quasi-undefended border comes word that a Canuck wannabe who received a grade of zero (0!) out of six on her citizenship language test and four (4!) out of 20 on the test’s knowledge component was nonetheless granted a Canadian citizenship certificate!

It wasn't political correctness or a desire to make nice with the Muslims that put Haheen Afzal — despite her abysmal results on the tests — before a citizenship judge in Hamilton ON to swear an oath to Her Britannic Majesty and receive a handsome certificate, suitable for framing. No, it was "a series of administrative errors".

"Comedy of errors" might be a better term. Except that Ms Afzal didn't find it so funny when the government discovered its, errr, mistake and tried to revoke her citizenship. Indeed, she fought to keep the precious parchment, all the way to the Federal Court of Canada, which resolved the dispute more than a year after the ceremony.

The facts of the case, as reviewed by Mr. Justice Donald Rennie, were that Ms Afzal failed the citizenship test not once but twice! The first time she scored 2/6 on language and 8/20 on knowledge. When she appeared before a citizenship judge and tried again, she scored even worse.

But the citizenship judge wasn't too good at the paperwork either. He noted in writing that Ms Afzal failed the tests and did not qualify but mistakenly checked the "Granted" box on the decision form. The next day, an official at the Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) office acknowledged that the judge’s decision had been "seen" and checked "Citizenship Granted" before sending the form along for processing.

A few days later, on 26 September 2013, Ms Afzal was asked to appear for a citizenship ceremony, and duly took the Oath of Citizenship. It was only after the ceremony that a citizenship clerk finally noticed the mistake. He twice phoned Ms. Afzal and left messages. Surprisingly, his calls were not returned.

Two months later, CIC cancelled the certificate. Arguing in the Federal Court, her (taxpayer-funded?) lawyer argued that CIC bureaucrats did not have authority to do that. Only the Governor-in-Council, which acts on behalf of the Crown, has such power, he said. But Mr. Justice Rennie disagreed, ruling that to accept that argument would be absurd.

Before someone can become a Canadian citizen, they are required to demonstrate linguistic competence in either of Canada’s official languages and show an adequate knowledge of Canada’s social, civic and political norms. Not too much to ask of a Muslim lady from the Middle East, surely? The judge said, "These competencies must be established before citizenship can be granted."

So, he ruled, even though a citizenship certificate was issued, the preconditions to citizenship had never been met. Therefore, citizenship was not so much being revoked as a certificate that had not been legally issued was being cancelled. And that was within the power of CIC bureaucrats.

"This interpretation also ensures that the privilege of Canadian citizenship is granted only as intended by Parliament," he said. That's good legal reasoning, judge! Nice save!

Archbishop of Chicago talks about the high price of US citizenship

On November 18th, Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I., retires from his position as Archbishop of Chicago. Widely viewed and respected as one of the more conservative of the mainstream Church's prelates, he is to be replaced by Archbishop Blase Cupich, deliberately chosen by the arch-modernist Pope Francis to lead the Windy City in the opposite direction.

In what might be seen as a parting shot, Cardinal George gave an e-mail interview to America, the national Catholic review. In the Q&A dialogue, he talked about his struggles with life-threatening cancer and the after-effects of childhood polio and a wide range of issues of the Church and the Faith, including; the role of an archbishop; the recent Synod of Bishops on the Family; the handling of sexual abuse by clerics; celibacy; and the defects of the Novus Ordo liturgy.

Here is what Cardinal George had to say about the conflict between church and state in the USA, and the criticism levelled by the secular humanists of the Church's speaking out on political issues.

I don’t believe the bishops have been more politically active in recent years, but it is true that our political activity is more adversarial as the law no longer permits the “exceptions” that used to safeguard believers whose conscience will not permit them to approve of what has become lawful.

The “price of citizenship” is high when it means one must approve as human rights the killing of the unborn, the creation of false marriages between two men or two women, the universal availability of free contraceptives, especially for women from a very young age.

My own conviction is that we must be completely clear about the Gospel and how it is to change us, and then we work respectfully with individuals and groups who cannot agree with us. I do not know that we will be permitted to have that pastoral approach in the immediate future. We will not be permitted to enter into the public conversation unless we approve of what our faith knows to be morally wrong.

I've excerpted this passage from Question No. 3, which was: Do you agree that the bishops have been more politically active in recent years and what do you consider the successes/weaknesses in their activity?. Click here to read Cardinal George's full answer. The complete interview is worth reading and thinking about...twice. And, trust me, you won't hear this kind of talk from Abp. Cupich!

Only living in Canada can make you "Canadianized", sez judge

This article is not intended to be read by any would-be immigrant to the Great Not-so-white North. Already on the rustbucket boat or Air Lanka DC3? Stop reading now!

Here's how the Canadian immigration "system" is supposed to work. First, you get into Canada by lying or bribing your way through the application and interview -- or by just showing up and hollering "refugee" -- and then they give you your house and your car and the other benefits to which you are entitled as a "permanent resident".

After four years, you can apply for citizenship, which gets you another free house and car. Just kidding. What you get is a nice dark blue passport (a steal at just $120), plus the right to vote in the travesty Canada calls "elections", and serve in the armed forces if you want to go back where you came from and shoot some of your former countrymen.

But there's a catch. To pass the citizenship test, you're supposed to be "Canadianized". You have to be able to sing the first verse of O Canada in either English or French, and know how to make love in a canoe. And you're supposed to have actually lived in the nitwit country for 3 years -- 1095 days -- out of the last four.

But, says Federal Court of Canada judge Peter Annis, the law has repeatedly been interpreted incorrectly to mean that some people could become citizens by fulfilling only a fraction of the 1,095-day residency requirement. In one case, he said, a student was granted citizenship after spending only 79 days in Canada.

And then there was the case of Fatima Naveen, a medical student born in Pakistan [surprised? Ed.] who was granted citizenship after spending only about 150 days in Canada -- well below the three years called for in the Citizenship Act. Ruling that Ms Naveen had not spent enough time in Canada to qualify for citizenship, Mr Justice Annis said the intrinsic values of Canadians are unique in the world and can only be understood by those who have spent sufficient time in the country.

He went on to attempt to correct what he called "radical" interpretations of the citizenship law, setting out not only the "essential characteristics of being a Canadian" but also how one becomes "Canadianized". He wrote that being a Canadian was based on "attitudes of respect for others and a willingness to accommodate cultural, social and economic challenges to resolve our differences." Apparently the term "politically correct" didn't occur to him.

However, Mr Justice Annis expressed agreement with former Federal Court judge Francis Muldoon that "being a Canadian is something that cannot be readily learned, but only experienced by living here because 'Canadian life and society exist only in Canada and nowhere else.'"

Furthermore, the judge wrote, "If one tries to make the case that the time spent by students who attend universities around the world in those countries that share democratic principles and political and cultural experiences with Canada constitutes Canadianization, then this is to admit that Canada is no different from other countries for the purposes of citizenship or for what it stands for.

"I am satisfied that our history and unique circumstances have created a Canadian character and institutions that are significantly distinct and different from those of other countries, including that of our neighbour to the south, despite all that we share with them."

Ms Naveen's lawyer declined to comment.

Footnote: Steve Harpoon's government last week announced plans to make Malala Yousafzai an honorary Canadian citizen. As far as is known, Ms Yousafzai has never set foot in Canada. She did, however, shake the Dear Leader's hand when they met for a photo op at the Disunited Nations.