He doesn’t care, about those other countries. It’s just posturing.
Even if it were just posturing -- which frankly I don't believe based on the fact that they are now going into effect -- do you at least see how disruptive it is to American companies for him to continuously change his position? There have been 10 executive orders related to tariffs since February 1st. How can American companies possibly make any short, medium, or long term plans when the administration is constantly changing critically important things to their business on Trump's whim?
If it is just posturing, do you worry Trump will improperly benefit from it? UAE invested $2BN in his memecoin today. Maybe the posturing will lead to other countries making similar "investments."
> The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/36/
Wong Kim Ark, meanwhile, is a weird fucking case that spends a huge number of pages analyzing everything except the 14th amendment.
Cool, but the 14th amendment was ratified. At least we can agree on that. And this is what it says:
> 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.
You can try to weasel out all you want, but it's at the disrespect to the words of our constitution. Whatever interpretation you are justifying this month, it is radical and lonesome.