All Canadian Shopping Spree

I went on one

Good Evening:

---

Today on #DogShirtTV, I celebrated my new career as a make-up influencer (#getreadywithme #tariffsarecringe).

Also, the estimable Eve Gaumond told us about her train journey across Canada, and the estimable Holly Berkley Fletcher predicted imminent crisis in South Sudan:

---

The Situation

In my “The Situation” column today, I reflect on the rudeness and polarization on display during a Republican lawmaker’s pointed misgendering of Rep. Sarah McBride (D-De). I emphasize the importance of respect and politeness in maintaining a liberal society, calling attention to the way that even small actions—such as calling a Catholic priest “Father” despite one’s not being a Catholic and disbelief that the fellow in question is one’s father—increase civic peace:

Consider the normal congressional vocabulary. It is customary to refer to a member of Congress as “The Honorable.” It may shock the reader to learn that at least some members of Congress are not, in fact, honorable, but I’m afraid it is the truth.

In the British Parliament, the custom is to refer to members of the opposing party as “the honorable gentleman”—even if the person is neither honorable nor a gentleman—and to members of one’s own party as “my honorable friend” even if the person is a contemptible enemy.

People don’t balk at doing this, as Rep. Self balks at referring to Rep. McBride as a woman, just because it is manifestly untrue in so many cases. It’s simply a social convention, a politeness one shows to fellow members of a tribe.

And the politeness does not end with a uniform manner of address to fellow members of a tribe either. It routinely crosses tribal boundaries.

Consider, for example, a Catholic priest. Normally, one addresses a priest as “Father” and the Pope as “Your Holiness,” and one does this whether or not one is Catholic. One addresses a king or queen as “Your Majesty” whether or not you find the person majestic.

This is actually a strange thing to do. I do not happen to believe that a priest is my “father”—even figuratively, let alone literally—nor do I believe that the Pope is any holier than I am. Royalty, in my experience, does not shroud itself in majesty. Indeed, in my opinion, such addresses are every bit as false as calling Rep. McBride a woman is to Rep. Self.

And yet I do it without any sense of betraying my own identity or beliefs whenever I interact with a priest. Why? Because I’m not a jerk. And being polite matters, and that means often interacting with people on the bases on which they want to be engaged, even if their sense of their own reality seems batty to me.

---

Today On Lawfare

Compiled by the estimable Caroline Cornett

How to Lose a Green Card

Matthew Boaz details the two statutory provisions that permit immigration authorities to remove legal permanent residents such as Mahmoud Khalil, who was recently detained for his role in pro-Palestine activism at Columbia University. Boaz emphasizes that although a procedure for removal on the grounds of political speech exists, green card holders like Khalil are still entitled to due process:

The most likely relevant provision for this case provides that a legal permanent resident is deportable if the “Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that his or her presence or activities in the U.S. would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences of the U.S.” INA § 237(a)(4)(C). While it may seem surprising that political speech can serve as the basis for deportability, under the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 (also known as the Immigration and Nationality Act), political beliefs have served as a grounds of deportability, preventing the entry of celebrated novelists for their espoused political beliefs. While many of these limitations were lifted following the passage of the Immigration Act of 1990, membership in the Communist Party is still grounds for prohibiting naturalization in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1424.

No, Native American Citizenship Does Not Support Limits on Birthright Citizenship

Bethany Berger evaluates the Trump administration's argument that the exception of Native Americans from the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship clause legitimizes attempts to deny birthright citizenship to children of persons who are in the United States illegally. Berger explains that this argument misconstrues the exclusion, which recognized the sovereignty of tribal nations, and noted that Native Americans do receive birthright citizenship under a 1924 law:

The government’s attorneys claim that “[i]llegal aliens and temporary visitors have far weaker connections to the United States than do members of Indian tribes,” so if the link with Indian tribes is not enough for birthright citizenship, “its weaker link with illegal aliens and temporary visitors even more obviously does not do so.” And if Indians’ “direct and immediate” allegiance to their tribes was enough to prevent their birthright citizenship, so too is the status of children born to parents here temporarily or illegally.

This argument misses the point. As Elk v. Wilkins recognized, the original intent of the 14th Amendment exception reflects the distinct sovereign status of tribal nations even within the borders of the United States. It does not apply to children whose parents come from different countries, but who, upon entering the U.S., become fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Podcasts

On Lawfare Daily, Jack Goldsmith sits down with Zachary Price following the release of the latter’s new book, “Constitutional Symmetry: Judging in a Divided Republic,” which advocates that judges make decisions that work “symmetrically” across major partisan and ideological divides. Goldsmith and Price discuss the concept of “constitutional symmetry,” the implications of the unitary executive theory, and the effects of the Impoundment Control Act on congressional authority:

On Rational Security, Natalie Orpett and Alan Rozenshtein join Scott R. Anderson to discuss the week’s major national security news, including President Donald Trump’s targeting of leading law firms Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie, the administration’s announcement revoking $400 million in government grants to Columbia University, and the temporarily delayed tariffs on Canada and Mexico:

---

The Cause Of The Day

Today’s organization, apropos of Holly’s comments on #DogShirtTV today, is the Sudan Relief Fund, an organization dedicated to providing humanitarian and development aid in South Sudan. (Having been founded in 1998, long before South Sudan was a separate country, the organization has a somewhat deceptive name.)

Sudan Relief Fund works on a broad spectrum of issues, partnering primarily with local Catholic organizations. About a third of its spending goes towards medical care, especially providing medicine in isolated locations. In 2023, for instance, SRF supplied all the medicine for the Mother of Mercy Hospital, which is the only hospital available for over 1.3 million people living in the Nuba Mountains. Another third of its funds go to education, including building new primary schools, funding teacher training, and supporting South Sudanese women training as health care professionals. The remaining third goes to a mix of clean water initiatives, including well building, funding for orphanages and a leper colony, and to crisis assistance. Their most dramatic project in 2023 was in this sector: when refugees fleeing from conflict in Sudan began entering South Sudan through dangerous river travel, SRF secured a ferry boat to transport these refugees safely, bringing 800 people to safety every two days for months. You can read the group’s most recent annual report for more details on its work.

---

Today’s #BeastOfTheDay is the Australian Macroctopus, seen here imprisoning a shark in order to eat the parasites living on it:

Video Source

In honor of today’s Beast, attend to your personal hygiene, before the octopus has to do it for you.