Why the GOP really wants to alter the 14th Amendment
in [Toyota]
|
From: Kali on 11 Aug 2010 21:17 In article <i3ve7d$v48$1(a)tioat.net>, =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B $B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= anonymous(a)not-for-mail.invalid says... > > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:11:02 -0400, Kali wrote: > > > > > Must read Op-Ed by Harold Meyerson. > > Excellent arguments; well researched. > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- > > dyn/content/article/2010/08/10/AR2010081004586.html > > > > Excerpts > > ------------------------------- > > By pushing for repeal of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, > > the GOP appears to have concluded: If you can't win them [Latinos] > > over -- indeed, if you're doing everything in your power to make > > their lives miserable -- revoke their citizenship. > > Um, who said "revoke Citizenship"? the writer of the Op Ed piece? > > These people aren't Citizens. They aren't Resident Aliens. They're not > even "Undocumented Aliens". They are illegal immigrants. By the 14th amendment, everyone born in the USA is a citizen. Can you figure it out from there, or should I explain? > Since it is becoming more and more apparent you only hear/read what > supports your issues, the repeal of the 14th Amendment refers to illegals > coming here and haviung children, who then become "anchor babies" and make > it easier for the illegals to get through the immigration process, which > they totally bypassed in the first place. /face palm You going to toss out everything under the 14th because of the 1,000 per year Mexican "anchor babies", or just the part about who is, and who isn't, a US citizen? Do you want to repeal that bit about equal protection, too? > Also, "Baby Tours" from around > the world that cater to pregnant women from everywhere, bring them here > when their about ready to pop, they have the kids who are now "US > Citizens", and then return home. Well, at least that's better, since when > the kid becomes of age (s)he has to decide whether to stay where they > reside or excercise their US Citizenship. LMAO! Compassionate cracker. > That's what's being targeted in the 14th Amendment, and not what Randi > Rhodes told you to think it meant. Hmm who is Randi Rhodes? per wiki "Randi Rhodes is an American progressive talk radio personality..." I don't get Air America. But Rachel Maddow is an excellent journalist, and it is my understanding that is where she got her start. I think Al Franken had something going on there, too. > Basically, if an illegal alien comes and has a kid, the kid will be > treated as illegal since IT NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN BORN HERE IN THE FIRST > PLACE. > > What's so hard to understand about that? Our constitution holds that anyone born in the USA is a citizen. This much is obvious: You didn't bother to read the article. You didn't think, either. You just regurgitated Rush Lungbag's greatest hits. -- Kali
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 11 Aug 2010 21:41 On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:17:17 -0400, Kali wrote: > In article <i3ve7d$v48$1(a)tioat.net>, =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B > $B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= anonymous(a)not-for-mail.invalid says... >> >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:11:02 -0400, Kali wrote: >> >> > >> > Must read Op-Ed by Harold Meyerson. >> > Excellent arguments; well researched. >> > >> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- >> > dyn/content/article/2010/08/10/AR2010081004586.html >> > >> > Excerpts >> > ------------------------------- >> > By pushing for repeal of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, >> > the GOP appears to have concluded: If you can't win them [Latinos] >> > over -- indeed, if you're doing everything in your power to make >> > their lives miserable -- revoke their citizenship. >> >> Um, who said "revoke Citizenship"? the writer of the Op Ed piece? >> >> These people aren't Citizens. They aren't Resident Aliens. They're not >> even "Undocumented Aliens". They are illegal immigrants. > > By the 14th amendment, everyone born in the USA is a citizen. Can > you figure it out from there, or should I explain? No. I quite understand it. And it goes back to the 1700's when a lot of people here were fresh from (mostly) England, and had come here to make this their home. Usually legally. What they're trying to change is illegals coming here and having babies to get a foothold. Once again, if you were here *illegally* then your baby will be considered an illegal alien, too. And, amendments can be changed. Did you have wine with dinner? > >> Since it is becoming more and more apparent you only hear/read what >> supports your issues, the repeal of the 14th Amendment refers to illegals >> coming here and haviung children, who then become "anchor babies" and make >> it easier for the illegals to get through the immigration process, which >> they totally bypassed in the first place. > > /face palm Huh? English, please. > > You going to toss out everything under the 14th because of the 1,000 > per year Mexican "anchor babies", or just the part about who is, and > who isn't, a US citizen? Do you want to repeal that bit about equal > protection, too? Amendments can be amended. Not a problem . > >> Also, "Baby Tours" from around >> the world that cater to pregnant women from everywhere, bring them here >> when their about ready to pop, they have the kids who are now "US >> Citizens", and then return home. Well, at least that's better, since when >> the kid becomes of age (s)he has to decide whether to stay where they >> reside or excercise their US Citizenship. > > LMAO! Compassionate cracker. If you're whole purpose is to come to the US to whelp a pup and then return home with your US Citizen, and you're OK with this, you need help. Think of what being a US Citizen brings with it. > >> That's what's being targeted in the 14th Amendment, and not what Randi >> Rhodes told you to think it meant. > > Hmm who is Randi Rhodes? Sure. You never heard of him, right? > > per wiki "Randi Rhodes is an American progressive talk radio > personality..." > > I don't get Air America. But Rachel Maddow is an excellent > journalist, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now I know where you're coming from. Rachael Maddow was a "housewife" to her wife in Goshen Mass when she called a local radio station that was taking calls from *anyone* in their search for a morning show sidekick. After a few months (4-6) they gave her her own show from 10-2, and shortly after that it became apparent she was the typical l00n found in this part of Mass. If that's where you're getting your info, you need a better source. 3 months after she took her own show, I turned that station off and have never gone back, and it was my favorite station. Maddow is just another Leftist k00k from Western Mass. > and it is my understanding that is where she got her > start. See above. WRNX, Holyoke, Mass. > I think Al Franken had something going on there, too. Yeah. Funny how their shows didn't last too long, isn't it? > >> Basically, if an illegal alien comes and has a kid, the kid will be >> treated as illegal since IT NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN BORN HERE IN THE FIRST >> PLACE. >> >> What's so hard to understand about that? > > Our constitution holds that anyone born in the USA is a citizen. An amendment holds that. Amendments can be altered, and it's clear that it's time to alter the 14th. > > This much is obvious: You didn't bother to read the article. You > didn't think, either. You just regurgitated Rush Lungbag's greatest > hits. Who said I heard it from Limbaugh? Or Beck? Or anyone else? I don't need them to tell me what to think.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 11 Aug 2010 22:21 On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:07:35 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>> That position completely ignores the REALITY of illegal immigrants >>>> that have no citizenship in the first place do not get citizenship for >>>> no other reason than the mother manages to plop out a baby within >>>> minutes of crawling under the wire. >>> >>> With such a policy, one would be revoking the citizenship of the >>> *baby*. You know what the Constitution says? Born *here* in the US, >>> you're a citizen. Live with it. >> >> No, it doesn't. >> > Yes, it does. Pardon me, your ignorance is showing yet again. The CONSTITUTION does NOT allow for "Born here, Citizen here". The CONSTITUTION does NOT allow for Free Speech. The CONSTITUTION does NOT allow for the right to bear arms.
From: edspyhill01 on 11 Aug 2010 23:08 On Aug 11, 10:21 pm, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:07:35 -0500, pandora wrote: > >>>> That position completely ignores the REALITY of illegal immigrants > >>>> that have no citizenship in the first place do not get citizenship for > >>>> no other reason than the mother manages to plop out a baby within > >>>> minutes of crawling under the wire. > > >>> With such a policy, one would be revoking the citizenship of the > >>> *baby*. You know what the Constitution says? Born *here* in the US, > >>> you're a citizen. Live with it. > > >> No, it doesn't. > > > Yes, it does. > > Pardon me, your ignorance is showing yet again. The CONSTITUTION does NOT > allow for "Born here, Citizen here". > > The CONSTITUTION does NOT allow for Free Speech. > > The CONSTITUTION does NOT allow for the right to bear arms. You are frothing from the mouth again. Somebody get a paper bag for Roachie can breath into.
From: Kali on 11 Aug 2010 23:34
In article <GjI8o.53254$3%3.22177(a)newsfe23.iad>, =?iso-2022-jp?q? Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= Trueno(a)e86.GTS says... > > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:17:17 -0400, Kali wrote: > > > In article <i3ve7d$v48$1(a)tioat.net>, =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B > > $B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= anonymous(a)not-for-mail.invalid says... > >> > >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:11:02 -0400, Kali wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > Must read Op-Ed by Harold Meyerson. > >> > Excellent arguments; well researched. > >> > > >> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- > >> > dyn/content/article/2010/08/10/AR2010081004586.html > >> > > >> > Excerpts > >> > ------------------------------- > >> > By pushing for repeal of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, > >> > the GOP appears to have concluded: If you can't win them [Latinos] > >> > over -- indeed, if you're doing everything in your power to make > >> > their lives miserable -- revoke their citizenship. > >> > >> Um, who said "revoke Citizenship"? the writer of the Op Ed piece? > >> > >> These people aren't Citizens. They aren't Resident Aliens. They're not > >> even "Undocumented Aliens". They are illegal immigrants. > > > > By the 14th amendment, everyone born in the USA is a citizen. Can > > you figure it out from there, or should I explain? > > No. I quite understand it. And it goes back to the 1700's when a lot of > people here were fresh from (mostly) England, and had come here to make > this their home. Usually legally. The 14th amendment was passed by Congress in 1866. After the Civil War. For a reason. Do you need that explained to you? (Did you read the article yet? no.) > What they're trying to change is illegals coming here and having babies to > get a foothold. Once again, if you were here *illegally* then your baby > will be considered an illegal alien, too. This is a simpleton's argument. > And, amendments can be changed. Did you have wine with dinner? Accidentally clever, given the objective of the one amendment change. > >> Since it is becoming more and more apparent you only hear/read what > >> supports your issues, the repeal of the 14th Amendment refers to illegals > >> coming here and haviung children, who then become "anchor babies" and make > >> it easier for the illegals to get through the immigration process, which > >> they totally bypassed in the first place. > > > > /face palm > > Huh? English, please. How did people who were enslaved Africans (and their children) ever become US citizens? > > You going to toss out everything under the 14th because of the 1,000 > > per year Mexican "anchor babies", or just the part about who is, and > > who isn't, a US citizen? Do you want to repeal that bit about equal > > protection, too? > > Amendments can be amended. Not a problem . Why isn't it that simple? > >> Also, "Baby Tours" from around > >> the world that cater to pregnant women from everywhere, bring them here > >> when their about ready to pop, they have the kids who are now "US > >> Citizens", and then return home. Well, at least that's better, since when > >> the kid becomes of age (s)he has to decide whether to stay where they > >> reside or excercise their US Citizenship. > > > > LMAO! Compassionate cracker. > > If you're whole purpose is to come to the US to whelp a pup and then > return home with your US Citizen, and you're OK with this, you need help. > Think of what being a US Citizen brings with it. > > > > >> That's what's being targeted in the 14th Amendment, and not what Randi > >> Rhodes told you to think it meant. > > > > Hmm who is Randi Rhodes? > > Sure. You never heard of him, right? No, but when I looked up the name, it was a woman. > > per wiki "Randi Rhodes is an American progressive talk radio > > personality..." > > > > I don't get Air America. But Rachel Maddow is an excellent > > journalist, > > > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Now I know where you're coming from. Rachael Maddow was a "housewife" to > her wife in Goshen Mass when she called a local radio station that was > taking calls from *anyone* in their search for a morning show sidekick. > After a few months (4-6) they gave her her own show from 10-2, and shortly > after that it became apparent she was the typical l00n found in this part > of Mass. If that's where you're getting your info, you need a better > source. I'll accept facts from a Rhodes scholar with a Ph.D. Why all the b.s. about her being a housewife? Do you have a Ph.D.? Were you granted any scholarships at all? Did you even go to college? You're not fit to clean Rachel's toilet, homophobic, misogynist cretin. > 3 months after she took her own show, I turned that station off and have > never gone back, and it was my favorite station. Maddow is just another > Leftist k00k from Western Mass. Can you back up your opinion with any facts? > > and it is my understanding that is where she got her > > start. > > See above. WRNX, Holyoke, Mass. > > > I think Al Franken had something going on there, too. > > Yeah. Funny how their shows didn't last too long, isn't it? Now Rachel is making millions on her own show at MSNBC, and Al had to become a Senator. Not very good examples of failure, if that's where you were headed. > >> Basically, if an illegal alien comes and has a kid, the kid will be > >> treated as illegal since IT NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN BORN HERE IN THE FIRST > >> PLACE. > >> > >> What's so hard to understand about that? > > > > Our constitution holds that anyone born in the USA is a citizen. > > An amendment holds that. How is an amendment not part of the Constitution, scholar boy? > Amendments can be altered, and it's clear that > it's time to alter the 14th. > > > > > This much is obvious: You didn't bother to read the article. You > > didn't think, either. You just regurgitated Rush Lungbag's greatest > > hits. > > Who said I heard it from Limbaugh? Or Beck? Or anyone else? > > I don't need them to tell me what to think. When you don't look up facts, you make stuff up. And when you don't know what the facts are, or the various arguments are, you are depending on others to tell you what to think. This is one of the great laws of the universe, genius. -- Kali |