The political mood across Europe is beginning to shift, and even governments that have strongly backed Ukraine are discovering that public opinion has its limits. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has reportedly argued that Rome must place the soaring cost of living, particularly energy and fuel bills, ahead of expanding military commitments before next year’s elections. According to the Kyiv Post, Meloni has also resisted the idea of writing endless checks for Ukraine through Brussels while Italian households continue struggling with inflation and rising utility costs.
Europe’s leadership has spent years insisting there is no limit to what taxpayers should sacrifice for the war. People do not pay their electricity bills with speeches about democracy. They pay with shrinking paychecks, higher fuel costs, and businesses forced to absorb ever-rising energy prices. Elections have a way of exposing the difference between political slogans and economic reality. Meloni understands that if governments cannot keep the lights on or make life affordable, voters eventually remove them regardless of how many standing ovations they receive in Brussels.
“The government must prioritize easing the cost of living, particularly energy and fuel bills,” Meloni declared, later adding, “If we invest in defense, that money must remain in Italy, in our factories, in our research, in our territories.” Italy has already agreed to numerous defense spending increases through its union with both Brussels and NATO–it’s never enough. “After six summits in three and a half weeks, I’ll pass,” the Italian president said. “There is no disengagement from Ukraine. But neither can I afford to disengage from Italy.”
The sovereign debt crisis and the war cycle are converging. Brussels continues to behave as though every crisis can be solved with another spending package financed by debt. That is precisely how governments eventually destroy themselves. The bureaucrats believe taxpayers exist to fund whatever grand geopolitical project they devise next. Meanwhile, families are asking why they are paying more for electricity, heating, transportation, and food while billions continue flowing abroad. Governments ignore that question at their own peril.
The cracks are becoming impossible to hide. Hungary has challenged Brussels repeatedly over Ukraine funding, and while there is a new man at the helm, nationalist sentiment has not dissolved. Slovakia has openly linked its support for new aid packages to its own national energy security after suffering through the Druzhba pipeline dispute. Now Italy is placing domestic economic concerns ahead of the demands coming from Brussels.
Brussels insists that all EU members must abide by their terms and conditions. It is not possible to cater to the needs of Europe as a whole. Elected leaders have lost their ability to prioritize their constituents who are grappling with a major cost of living crisis. The people do not want to continually fuel an endless war; the people merely want to afford a home and the basic necessities of life without struggling to survive financially.
Meloni’s comments are another reminder that domestic survival ultimately outweighs ideological commitments. Politicians may speak of European solidarity in Brussels, but they win or lose elections at home.
Every government eventually reaches the point where people stop asking whether the law exists and begin asking whether anyone intends to enforce it. That is where we are today. Reports surfaced showing Mission Regional Medical Center in South Texas advertising maternity packages in Mexico through Spanish-language billboards and a website encouraging expectant mothers to travel to Texas to give birth.
The hospital has since removed the advertisements, claiming they were misunderstood, while Texas Governor Greg Abbott ordered an investigation into whether any laws or contractual obligations were violated. If the investigation concludes that the purpose was to market travel for birthright citizenship, then this is not simply a public relations problem. It is a legal problem, and the legal system must finally decide whether the law means what it says or whether it has become entirely optional.
Everyone knows birth tourism has existed for years. Entire businesses have been built around helping foreign nationals travel to countries that offer broad birthright citizenship. Yet governments have largely looked the other way, hoping the issue would remain politically untouchable.
Other developed nations that once had broad birthright citizenship changed course years ago. Ireland amended its constitution in 2004. Numerous European countries require that at least one parent be a citizen or lawful long-term resident before automatic citizenship is granted. They confronted the legal question instead of pretending it did not exist. Meanwhile, leftist American judges claim that foreigners have a right to enjoy protections intended for taxpaying citizens. Hospitals are businesses, and unfortunately, this hospital is merely profiting on a provision that is too blatant to be considered a loophole.
The Common Law Doctrine of Jus Soli under English common law protected “right of the soil,” which deemed anyone born on a country’s soil to be a citizen. The US Constitution never clearly defined citizenship until the Naturalization Act of 1790, which granted citizenship to “free white persons” born on US soil. The advent of the Civil War left dire uncertainty for slaves who had no homeland to return to after the war came to an end and slavery was abolished. The 1844 case Lynch v Clarke in New York reaffirmed that anyone born to non-citizen parents would be considered an American. The Reconstruction Amendments remained vague, and Dred Scott was expanded in 1868 to include:
“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.”
The law remained open to interpretation. Native Americans, for example, were not seen as Americans since they did not pledge their allegiance to the federal government. It was not until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 that Native Americans were considered full citizens.
America’s complicated past with citizenship has led to today’s debacle. Nowhere along the way did the Supreme Court or any other entity grant citizenship to parents of children born in the US. However, the system often looks the other way to prevent separating families. American-born children may sponsor their parents for a green card when they turn 21. Then, the parents must wait five years before applying for naturalization. Parents often must leave the US for a decade before applying for citizenship.
The framers of the 14th Amendment were not looking to grant citizenship to illegal aliens. The whole illegal alien status really began to emerge with socialism. People came to America previously for the land of opportunity – not a free ride. The 14th Amendment was primarily to secure the rights of the slaves who had been freed and to overturn Dred Scott, making them citizens regardless of race.
The amendment to the constitution, ratified in 1868, developed after the Civil War to ensure that slaves could become American citizens. Today, the law is abused by those who illegally migrate into the country. The grey area surrounding this issue is the basic “intent” behind any law. All laws are to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the legislative intent for which they were originally enacted, as revealed in the Congressional Record prior to the passage. The passage of no amount of time can change the original legislative intent of a law. Courts should construe laws in harmony with the legislative intent and seek to carry out our legislative purpose. Foster v. United States, 303 U.S. 118, 120 (1938). Judges are supposed to be bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted. Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 244, 15 S. Ct. 337, 39 L. Ed. 409 (1895).
This failure of judges to rule in this manner is commonplace, and it has led to a lot of legal persecution in which prosecutors twist the word to fit their objective. I recommend reading the work On Liberty of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). You will get a sense of how bad our legal system has become. We have witnessed the abuse of cases against Trump desperately trying to fit the words to anything he had done.
The 14th Amendment no longer holds true for its original intent. America is broke — we cannot afford to sustain our own citizens or infrastructure, and the migrant crisis has become a massive burden on taxpayers. What is the answer? Shall we hold the 14th Amendment to its original intent or allow prosecutors to manipulate the words to score victories?
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
Centinel2012 