Santa Barbara to ban….plastic straws

In a move to make California coastal elites feel good about themselves the city of Santa Barbara is moving to ban plastic straws, with JAIL TIME as a potential sentence for repeat offenders.  Via Fox News:

A California coastal city has become the latest municipality to ban plastic straws, enacting what is potentially the strictest plastic prohibition in the country.

Santa Barbara earlier this month passed the ordinance authorizing hefty fines and even a possible jail sentence for violators who dole out plastic straws at restaurants, bars and other food establishments.

According to the ordinance, violators on their first offense will be given a written warning notice. But the second time a purveyor of plastic straws defies the ban is when the heavy hand of the law could clamp down.

In that case, the ordinance cites penalties from the city’s municipal code for a “fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), imprisonment for a term not exceeding six (6) months.”

In comparison, Seattle, which in the beginning of July became the first major city in the U.S. to ban plastic straws, only fines businesses $250 per offense.

Not that I’d expect anything less from the Communists running this state.  This isn’t the first time California has passed stupid plastic rules.  In 2014, California voted to add a 10 cent fee for every plastic bag purchased in stores.  For various reasons it didn’t go into effect until years later in some cities.  It went into effect in 2016 in San Diego and due to this homeless people began defecating in the streets rather than into what used to be free plastic bags.  This led to a hepatitis A outbreak in San Diego.  Quite the virtue signal backfire.

Further down in the article:

On Tuesday, the board of supervisors in California’s second-largest city, San Francisco, gave unanimous approval to a measure banning plastic straws alongside carryout containers and wrappers treated with fluorinated chemicals.

Supervisor Katy Tang called the negative environmental impact of single-use plastics astronomical.

“San Francisco has been a pioneer of environmental change, and it’s time for us to find alternatives to the plastic that is choking our marine ecosystems and littering our streets,” she said in a statement.

The legislation requires a second approval, which is expected next week, and the ban would go into effect July 1, 2019, along with a new requirement to make napkins, utensils and other to-go accessories available only upon request, unless a self-serve station is available where people can take what they need.

California has a lot of problems.  Plastic straws is not one of them.  It’s hard not to chuckle at San Francisco being “a pioneer of environmental change” given their massive shit problem at the moment.  Probably not the environmental change they’re dreaming about.

Incorrect interpretation of Birthright Citizenship?

Brian Lonergan at American Thinker has written a great post about how we’ve misinterpreted the 14th Amendment regarding birthright citizenship, specifically of illegals and those coming over in what is being deemed as birth tourism.  An excerpt from Mr Lonergan’s post:

For decades, many agencies have treated virtually all children born in the United States – even the children of illegal aliens or tourists – as citizens at birth under the Constitution.  This all-inclusive interpretation of birthright citizenship, repeated endlessly in the mainstream media, is what gave rise to the “anchor baby” phenomenon.  With children born in the United States to illegal alien parents instantly qualifying for welfare and other state and local benefit programs, the incentive for aliens to have their children born in the U.S. is immense.

Yet under Supreme Court precedent, neither the children of illegal aliens nor those of tourists are citizens at birth.  In the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court found that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment because his parents, when he was born, were legally residing in the United States.  The holding of this case is widely misread as conferring citizenship at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment on all persons whatsoever born in the United States, with the narrow exceptions of children of diplomats, members of an invading force, and Indians born in the allegiance of a tribe.  The brief shows that this reading is wrong; the Court clearly excluded the children of illegal aliens and non-U.S. residents from constitutional birthright citizenship.  The Court’s decision has been incorrectly applied for 120 years.

Based on Wong Kim Ark and an earlier decision in Wilkins v. Elk, the still controlling rule of the Supreme Court is clear: whether one is a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment depends on whether one was born in the United States to a U.S. resident parent who, at the time, both had permission to be in the United States and owed direct and immediate allegiance to the United States.  This rule happens to exclude the children of both illegal aliens (who do not have permission to be in the country) and tourists (who do not “reside” here) from constitutional birthright citizenship.

Immigration law in general needs to be reviewed and revamped.  The system simply cannot continue in its current form if we’re to survive as a country.  The spirit of too many of our laws is no longer respected, and loopholes have been abused such that programs that were initially created to help those in dire need are now seen as the prize for getting to America.  We cannot survive as a welfare state with our current immigration policies.  One has to go.  Ideally both.