Why the GOP really wants to alter the 14th Amendment
in [Toyota]
|
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 12 Aug 2010 13:00 On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:10:23 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote: >> 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. >> > > > That's wrong. > > A Resident Alien is a legal immigrant with a Green Card. Children of > resident aliens (arguably) should be granted automatic citizewnship, > especially if the parents are actively seeking to become citizens > themselves. I suppose that if a resident alien was not seeking to become a > citizen, then the child should not be granted citizenship, although that > would be a very small number of children, and the impact would not amount to > much. I was referring to the parents, not the children.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 12 Aug 2010 13:00 On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:15:11 -0600, §ñühw¤£f wrote: >> 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? >> >> > Heh, if you had half a klew you'd know that there are Chinese websites > where they advertize "come to america, have a child" so it will have > american citizenship. > ITs not just a mexicans-only issue. People want their kids to have US > citizenship for the benefits, regardless of country. Who said it was just Mexicans? I already touched upon the issue of birth tours.
From: pandora on 12 Aug 2010 13:06 On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:34:06 -0400, Kali wrote: > 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. And don't forget, after that he insults and then runs away.
From: pandora on 12 Aug 2010 13:13 On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:24:05 -0700, edspyhill01 wrote: > On Aug 11, 11:58 pm, Hachiroku ハチロク <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:08:05 -0700, edspyhill01 wrote: >> > On Aug 11, 10:21 pm, Hachiroku ハチロク <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. >> >> Where in the Constitution does it say people who are born here are >> Citizens?- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Oh oh. We are going deep in rightwing world. He doesn't seem to understand that an Amendment then becomes part of the Constitution. Of course, Hachoo would like the 19th amendment to be repealed as well.
From: edspyhill01 on 12 Aug 2010 13:28
On Aug 12, 12:29 am, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:24:05 -0700, edspyhill01 wrote: > > On Aug 11, 11:58 pm, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:08:05 -0700, edspyhill01 wrote: > >> > 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. > > >> Where in the Constitution does it say people who are born here are > >> Citizens?- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Oh oh. We are going deep in rightwing world. > > Ed, I know you have Liberal ideas, but I always thought you had a spark. > Don't disappoint me...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I have a lot of conservative ideas and beliefs but they are pre-neo- conservative claptrap. For instance, the right wants to lower taxes on income over $10m. Fine, but you either find another way to bring in the money or cut spending someplace else. Anything else is spin. |