There’s
a
new
Superman
movie
out
this
week
and
it’s
proving
to
be
the
right-wing’s
kryptonite.
In
the
lead
up
to
the
film’s
release,
the
folks
behind
the
movie
have
been
up
front
that
it’s
an
immigrant
story.
This
shouldn’t
come
as
a
shock
since
the
character
is
almost
a
century
old
and
has
been
an
immigrant
THE
WHOLE
TIME,
but
since
the
conservative
movement
is
just
a
bad-faith
book
club
for
people
who
never
read
the
book,
they’ve
launched
a
broadside
against
the
movie.
What
does
that
even
mean?
Orphans
from
other
countries
cease
to
be
immigrants?
That’s
would
be
news
to
the
3-year-olds
defending
themselves
in
immigration
court
if
they
were
allowed
social
media
in
their
cages.
Is
he
making
a
scienter
argument
that
a
child
arriving
in
this
country
through
no
act
of
their
own
deserves
citizenship?
The
Fifth
Circuit
disagrees.
But
even
DACA
is
about
a
path
to
legal
status…
they’re
still
immigrants.
As
an
aside,
imagine
being
Steeze
and
knowing
that
no
matter
what
vile,
insipid
garbage
you
put
out,
you’ll
never
even
be
the
most
vile
or
insipid
Stephen
Miller
out
there.
That’s
got
to
be
rough.
Superman’s
creators,
Jerry
Siegel
and
Joe
Shuster,
drew
upon
their
experience
as
the
children
of
Jewish
immigrants,
unveiling
an
American
hero
who
came
to
the
country
as
a
refugee.
It’s
a
message
that
hit
hard
in
the
late-1930s
as
American
nativism
closed
doors
on
European
Jews
trying
to
flee.
That
the
purest
expression
of
all-American
idealism
is
an
immigrant
is
the
core
of
the
character
—
he’s
compelling
because
he’s
America’s
savior
not
because
he
was
born
here,
but
because
he
believes
in
what
“here”
can
be.
Stripping
the
character
of
that
context
is
like
having
Peter
Parker’s
Uncle
move
to
Boca
and
die
of
old
age.
It’s
one
thing
to
not
understand
the
character,
but
—
the
even
greater
sin
—
it
doesn’t
make
any
sense
legally.
Clark
Kent
was
not
born
in
the
United
States.
Neither
of
his
parents
were
citizens.
He
arrived
as
an
undocumented,
unaccompanied
minor.
That
sure
seems
like
an
immigrant
under
all
applicable
laws.
The
Kents
took
on
the
job
of
raising
him,
adoption
doesn’t
automatically
confer
citizenship
under
U.S.
law.
Even
if
the
Kents
tried
to
go
through
the
legal
process
of
adopting
him
instead
of
just
lying
about
it.
If
they’re
just
sponsoring
an
undocumented
minor,
they’d
best
watch
their
back
because
the
Trump
administration
has
begun
a
systematic
crackdown
on
those
sponsors
too
—
ostensibly
for
child
safety
—
looking
to
separate
kids
from
their
caregivers
and
then…
oops,
there’s
no
one
to
watch
them
so
it’s
time
to
send
them
back!
Where
would
they
even
send
Clark
with
Krypton
gone?
Well,
South
Sudan
is
lovely
this
time
of
year.
Clark
could
potentially
benefit
from
the
Foundling
Statute
—
8
U.S.
Code
§
1401(f)
—
providing
that
anyone
of
“unknown
parentage
found
in
the
United
States
while
under
the
age
of
five
years”
is
presumptively
a
U.S.
citizen
unless
proof
of
being
born
elsewhere
is
established
prior
to
turning
21.
But
the
proverbial
ship
on
that
one
sailed
when
the
Kents
found
his
literal
ship.
It’s
a
difficult
presumption
to
maintain
when
you’re
holding
the
kid’s
interstellar
Uber
in
the
barn.
And
the
Foundling
law
is
predicated
on
birthright
citizenship
—
since
it
turns
on
the
idea
that
a
4-year-old
in
the
country
was
probably
born
here
and
therefore
a
citizen
—
and
the
same
people
who
don’t
want
Superman
to
be
an
immigrant
aren’t
too
crazy
about
birthright
citizenship.
There’s
actually
a
dumb
alternate
Superman
origin
where
his
escape
pod
was
actually
a
birthing
module,
meaning
he
was
actually
“born”
in
Kansas.
Randy
Barnett
and
Ilan
Wurman
are
already
working
on
the
op-ed
explaining
why
that
shouldn’t
matter.
There’s
just
no
legal
argument
for
Clark
being
anything
but
an
immigrant.
In
the
past,
this
didn’t
bother
conservatives
who
would
celebrate
Superman
for
being
a
“good”
assimilationist
immigrant.
Clay
Travis
is
at
least
trying
that
angle,
though
his
arguments
(technically
his
wife’s)
for
Superman
as
MAGA-certified
immigrant
are
almost
as
bad
as
the
arguments
that
he’s
not
an
immigrant
at
all.
Oh,
Superman
is
an
asylum
seeker?
Great
point.
The
administration
is
nabbing
asylum
seekers
from
court
hearings
and
disregarding
orders
barring
deportation.
He
has
nowhere
to
go
back
to?
DHS
is
happy
to
find
a
third
country
for
him…
indeed,
they
won’t
even
let
him
seek
asylum
without
checking
in
with
another
country
first.
He
has
unique
talents
that
benefit
the
country
as
described
by
the
EB-1A
visa?
That
requires
pre-existing
acclaim
in
the
candidate’s
specific
field.
DHS
requires
the
immigrant
to
show
up
with
an
Oscar
or
a
Pulitzer
in
hand
to
qualify
(seriously,
those
are
specific
examples
from
the
USCIS
website).
Superman
didn’t
have
pre-existing
acclaim
as
a
baby.
As
a
baby
he
was
just
a
potty
training
nightmare
for
the
Kents.
And
as
for
his
talents
outside
of
superpowers,
I
think
Lois
is
the
one
winning
a
Pulitzer,
not
Clark.
But
at
least
Travis
is
trying
to
make
MAGA
accept
immigrant
Superman
instead
of
reject
him
out
of
hand.
But
what
he
doesn’t
get
is
that
they
don’t
want
to
accept
an
immigrant.
Now
that
they’ve
thrown
off
the
hood
—
or
put
it
on
as
the
case
may
be
—
and
decided
good
immigrants
don’t
exist
unless
mail-ordered
by
an
incel.
The
assimilationist
narrative
that
Travis
wants
has
always
been
there
for
Superman
too,
but
what’s
raising
conservative
hackles
is
they
don’t
want
assimilation,
they
just
want
them
out.
So
they’re
tying
themselves
in
knots
trying
to
figure
out
how
the
last
son
of
Krypton
is
really
a
son
of
Kansas
because
they
don’t
want
EB-1A
Clark
Kent,
they
need
him
to
not
be
an
immigrant
at
all.
And
there’s
no
good
argument
for
that.
And
just
wait
until
they
hear
about
his
cousin
Kara
chain
migrating.
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.