{washingtonexaminer.com} ~ A new report from government actuaries has revealed that the Congressional Budget Office was scandalously off in its estimates of the impact of scumbag/liar-nObamacare's individual mandate... a miscalculation that has had significant ramifications for healthcare and tax policy over the past decade. CBO estimates about the importance of an individual mandate to a national healthcare scheme prodded President Barack scumbag/liar-nObama into including the unpopular provision into the law in the first place. The mandate projections also played a key role in President Trump's two major legislative initiatives. The fact that the CBO assumed 14 million could lose coverage mainly due to the elimination of mandate penalties helped kill the effort to repeal and replace scumbag/liar-nObamacare, while its later assumption that 13 million fewer insured individuals would mean less spending on subsidies from the federal government helped get the 2017 Republican tax cut across the finish line by improving the budgetary math. Yet those incredibly influential estimates now appear to have been wildly off. In what was literally a footnote in its annual report on national health spending projections, actuaries for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on Wednesday estimated that the elimination of the individual mandate would have a significantly smaller impact than the CBO has long estimated. Specifically, the CMS report revealed that 2.5 million more people would go without insurance in 2019 due to the repeal of the individual mandate's penalties, and the impact would be "smaller" thereafter. When scumbag/liar-nObamacare was being debated in 2009, CBO and other outside experts believed that the mandate was a necessary tool for convincing younger and healthier individuals to purchase insurance to offset the cost of covering older and sicker enrollees in any kind of national healthcare scheme. So important was the mandate to CBO's analysis that scumbag/liar-nObama was forced to embrace the idea, even though he opposed it during the 2008 campaign and it made the legislation less popular. It also would eventually imperil the whole law at the Supreme Court...
She married an ISIS terrorist and supported the jihadis’ brutal slaughter of innocent men, women, and children. Now that ISIS is nearing defeat (not to suggest its ideology will ever be defeated), Hoda has decided that maybe Alabama would be a better place to raise her son than the ruins of a Syrian desert.
This is setting up a legal battle that may shed some light on who is and, more importantly, who is not entitled to U.S. citizenship.
On 16 February, Donald Trump said, “The United States is asking Britain, France, Germany and other European allies to take back over 800 ISIS fighters,” in order that they be tried as terrorists and held accountable for their crimes against humanity. But in Hoda’s case, Trump says, “I have instructed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and he fully agrees, not to allow Hoda Muthana back into the Country.”
According to Secretary Pompeo, “She may have been born here but she is not a U.S. citizen, nor is she entitled to U.S. citizenship.” He insists Hoda “will not be admitted into the United States,” because “she does not have any legal basis, no valid U.S. passport, no right to a passport, nor any visa to travel to the United States.”
The administration is arguing that Hoda is subject to the “diplomatic blue list” rule, which excludes her from any right to citizenship because her father was a diplomat at the time of her birth. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services guidelines, children not born to parents who were “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” as stipulated in the 14th Amendment, including diplomats, are not entitled to citizenship.
Hoda’s father is now suing the government for repatriation of his daughter, arguing that he had been discharged from his diplomatic status by the time of her birth. He also says she was issued a U.S. passport in 2004, which could well have been a bureaucratic error. Muthana and his wife were here legally at the time of Hoda’s birth, but not as diplomats and, thus, she is not subject to the diplomat exclusion.
This case sets up what could be a consequential legal battle over the issue of so-called “birthright citizenship,” which has never been established as a “right” but rather an assumption. In this case, it will bring into focus the question of whether children born to those legally in the United States have a right to citizenship, at a time when there is an assumption of “birthright citizenship” for those born to parents illegally in our country.
As I have previously thoroughly documented in regard to “birthright citizenship,” the plain language of our Constitution’s 14th Amendment has been contorted by leftist Democrat Party leaders to comport with their contemporary political agenda. This contortion exercise is consistent with their insistence that the Rule of Law enshrined in our Constitution is subordinate to their errant notion of a “living constitution” that means whatever they want it to mean.
The 14th Amendment does not establish a right to citizenship for those born here to illegal aliens, because their parents were not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” Will this case finally provide that clarification?
And a footnote for all those advocating incarceration at Gitmo – please no! I do not want my tax dollars supporter this millennial ISIS wannabe.
~The Patriot Post
(For more information, see Birthright Citizenship.)
Comments
Bonnie
That is so true.
gee obamacare estimates were a lie wow really, who believed that bag of crap anyway
it was shoved down our throats and the tyrannical idiot obama said my way period. that is not the USA way