President is really winding up the anti-immigrant crowd - order to end birthright citizenship

[ivwshane]

No. If there is anything I've learned from the left, it is that an item in the Bill of Rights / an amendment can mean one thing for several hundred years, then mean something different today.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the left's hatred of the 2A undid them here?

If you want irony how about an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that was seen as a states right issue for 150 years of precedent only to be reinterpreted by a federalist society member, that ignored 150 years of precedent to rule that the 2nd amendment was an individual right, and did so by ignoring the standard use of a phrase that had been in use for hundreds of years!

It appears that the party you swear your allegiance to is actually the one guilty of doing the very things you claim you hate.

Now that's irony!

 

[Starbuck1975]

So you dont have anything left? Got some Clinton hate to toss in?

I am still on the point you failed to refute. Poor Clintons.

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course they won’t complain. The point is that liberals look the other way because they benefit from the low cost of services they would not otherwise enjoy if they had to pay a fair market value for the labor providing those services.

That's bullshit. Libs don't look the other way. We're all about illegals who've been here for years not living in fear & demanding better wages. We're all about enabling them to better care for their American kids & families. If we have to pay more, we'll pay more & won't whine about it.

Your whole take here is akin to the "you're the real Nazis!" routine.

 

[ivwshane]

Of course they won’t complain. The point is that liberals look the other way because they benefit from the low cost of services they would not otherwise enjoy if they had to pay a fair market value for the labor providing those services.

Do you say this knowing that it's liberal states that want to/have issued state ID's to illegals, specifically to bring illegals out from the shadows so that they can be paid a fair wage? Do you say this knowing that it was a senate controlled by Democrats that passed an immigration reform bill that not only secured the border before granting any kind of immunity but that also made using e-verify mandatory and punished businesses that hired illegals (the bill died in the Republican controlled house btw, where it wasn't even given a vote)?

Or are you saying this from a standpoint of ignorance like most of shit posts you make on this forum?

 

[Aegeon]

interesting to say the least. One of the drafters of the 14th amendment (THE drafter?) says it was not intended for children of aliens.

https://twitter.com/dmartosko/status/1057278193344897024

If you look more closely, he immediately following that up with stating "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers". That is the one category of people whose children do not get citizenship by birth, so it is not at all clear he meant it more broadly, (keep in mind it was a verbal statement in the first place) and the Supreme Court explicitly did not take a broader view with the Wong Kim Ark decision. (There is nothing in the statement which would specifically support a view that undocumented immigrants or the like would be the one other category whose children would not get citizenship.)

 

[Jhhnn]

If you look more closely, he immediately following that up with stating "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers". That is the one category of people whose children do not get citizenship by birth, so it is not at all clear he meant it more broadly, (keep in mind it was a verbal statement in the first place) and the Supreme Court explicitly did not take a broader view with the Wong Kim Ark decision. (There is nothing in the statement which would specifically support a view that undocumented immigrants or the like would be the one other category whose children would not get citizenship.)

It's entirely clear that he did not mean more broadly. He deliberately narrowed it to the children of foreign diplomats & dignitaries.

 

[Indus]

Trump: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend desecrate, defile and try to undermine the Constitution of the United States."

 

[Starbuck1975]

Do you say this knowing that it's liberal states that want to/have issued state ID's to illegals, specifically to bring illegals out from the shadows so that they can be paid a fair wage?

Those IDs are meaningless without the will to impose penalties on businesses that continue to employ undocumented workers. The practical use of those IDs is to make it easier for undocumented workers to participate in the economy by purchasing things such as houses and cars. If the economic incentive wasn’t there, those IDs would not exist.

Do you say this knowing that it was a senate controlled by Democrats that passed an immigration reform bill that not only secured the border before granting any kind of immunity but that also made using e-verify mandatory and punished businesses that hired illegals (the bill died in the Republican controlled house btw, where it wasn't even given a vote)?

I’ve never made excuses for the GOP. Their obstructionism is indefensible.

Or are you saying this from a standpoint of ignorance like most of shit posts you make on this forum?

I say this from the standpoint of recognizing that affluent liberals may favor more sensible immigration laws, but are also quite good at erecting barriers to keep them out of their neigborhoods. There is an undeniable hypocrisy to it all. That is why in places like CA, you will find an affluent neighborhood with good schools that is predominantly white and Asian on one side of a freeway, and a predominantly hispanic neighborhood with high levels of homelessness and failing schools on the other side.

Of all the waterboys, you are my favorite.

 

[fskimospy]

That is how we beat the rest of the industrialized world to the atom bomb, but we also probably wouldn’t have a migrant crisis if the best minds of the world helped to better their own societies. Iran comes to mind.

I read an article the other day that video game message boards have become a fertile alt-right recruiting platform for targeting disgruntled middle class white males. Why do you suppose that is?

Like I said, to the extent that it neglects our own citizens such that is creates fertile ground for Trumpism, I think we need to solve that problem first.

We don’t neglect our own citizens in that way and what makes America amazing is that it’s a beacon to the whole world.

The best and smartest people on the planet come here because they think America is amazing. Right now Trump is trying to change that because he’s too small minded to see the point.

Smart and interesting immigrants are the feature, not the bug. Our culture is just sick in that we think foreigners are the problem. It’s a disease.

 

[Jhhnn]

I say this from the standpoint of recognizing that affluent liberals may favor more sensible immigration laws, but are also quite good at erecting barriers to keep them out of their neigborhoods. There is an undeniable hypocrisy to it all. That is why in places like CA, you will find an affluent neighborhood with good schools that is predominantly white and Asian on one side of a freeway, and a predominantly hispanic neighborhood with high levels of homelessness and failing schools on the other side.

You're moving the goalposts away from economic exploitation to Nimbyism. You're also making accusations about school districts & their funding you can't even begin to support. That disparity is even worse in states where school funding is predominately local rather than equalized by state level redistribution of funding.

 

[Vic]

Yes we have a migrant crisis of exploited shadow labor that disproportionally impacts the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder. Affluent liberals don’t care because how would they otherwise be able to afford their landscapers and house cleaners and nannies and organic produce and laborers for their HGTV inspired home makeovers and the hand car washes for their leased luxury cars

Europe has a refugee crisis.

Yes, the Republicans use fear to motivate their base. I suppose we could try addressing the underlying problems that fuel those fears.

Then why are those 'affluent liberals' trying to eliminate that shadow labor class by trying to create a path to citizenship for those shadow laborers?

 

[Vic]

If you look more closely, he immediately following that up with stating "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers". That is the one category of people whose children do not get citizenship by birth, so it is not at all clear he meant it more broadly, (keep in mind it was a verbal statement in the first place) and the Supreme Court explicitly did not take a broader view with the Wong Kim Ark decision. (There is nothing in the statement which would specifically support a view that undocumented immigrants or the like would be the one other category whose children would not get citizenship.)

You were expecting honesty from one of these Trumpers?

 

[Muse]

I don't know what he's been drinking or smoking but he'll never get away with that one. You know, he's gotta be the worst pres ever. He can't do anything right. If he says something that's not objectionable I figure it was spoon fed to him by a ghost writer. He's incapable of doing anything that isn't anathema to me.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Of course they won’t complain. The point is that liberals look the other way because they benefit from the low cost of services they would not otherwise enjoy if they had to pay a fair market value for the labor providing those services.

Oh please, pure intellectually lazy BS rhetoric.

Not a shred of evidence to support this position. Also impossible to defend because first you would have to define "liberal", then study all of society to see who benefits from low cost services, then prove that *somehow* liberals benefit more than non-liberals etc etc etc. You would also have to show that somehow liberals can't afford to pay fair market prices for the services they consume. And then prove that liberals look the other way more than other cohorts.

This argument is so stupid it makes my head hurt,

 

[Starbuck1975]

Then why are those 'affluent liberals' trying to eliminate that shadow labor class by trying create a path to citizenship for those shadow laborers?

I don’t believe they truly have

 

[Jhhnn]

I don’t believe they truly have

Yeh, recognizing the truth would put you in an untenable position.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Then why are those 'affluent liberals' trying to eliminate that shadow labor class by trying create a path to citizenship for those shadow laborers?

Stop, that type of reasoning causes cognitive dissonance.

 

[sportage]

As a Clinton/Obama liberal, this is one battle I hope republicans can win on.
I hate most everything trump, however.... birthright citizenship is wrong.
The US Constitution was wrong to include this, the founders fathers that is.
I don't know what they were thinking way back then except maybe to grow the newly founded United States of America by an easy citizenship clause.

But Trump is right on this. Birthright Citizenship is nuts, no other country does this, and it absolutely is a magnet to draw illegals into the US.
First, they sneak in illegally. Then they have a kid. And finally, the entire conversation revolves around THE POOR LITTLE KIDS.
"HOW CAN WE DEPORT THE PARENTS AND JUSTIFY ALSO DEPORTING THEIR KIDS WHOM ARE LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS?"
So it only follows that making the parents legal citizens, for the sake of the kids, is the only option.
In short.... this entire Birthright Citizenship ends up a total legal mess.
And I totally agree that Birthright Citizenship must be changed, ended, removed from the US constitution.
Birthright Citizenship just sounds wrong. Birthright Citizenship does not make any sense.
And frankly, I'm shocked how anyone can defend such a ridiculous law.

This is one Trump promise I hope he can make headway on. But it will not be Trumps's decision.
It will take congress to change the Birthright Citizenship law.
And I know that republicans love illegal workers to clean their lawn, maintain their pools, and nanny their kids. All for pennies on the dollar.
So I doubt many republicans in congress will do much if anything at all to change Birthright Citizenship.
If republicans were serious, they could do several things to cease illegal immigration within 24 hours.
One, stop Birthright Citizenship.
Second, develop a fool proof E-Verify system that every employer in the US would be forced to follow and enforce.
Third, for private homes to stop hiring illegals to nanny their kids, homes, lawns.
And the fact republicans are totally unwilling to do any of the above just shows us how nothing will change.
And all that Donald Trump is doing is energizing his base during an election for something they well know will never happen.

 

[HurleyBird]

It's entirely clear that he did not mean more broadly. He deliberately narrowed it to the children of foreign diplomats & dignitaries.

No, in and of itself it's not entirely clear whether Howard was enumerating or elucidating. I wish people in this forum would stop assuming the most favourable interpretation of some wording as fact, always in a way that conveniently supports their position, instead of acknowledging ambiguity where it exists.

That said, one can read the transcripts directly:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

And doing so does reasonably show that lawmakers at the time interpreted the amendment as applying to everyone except foreign agents and non-taxed Indians.

 

[rvborgh]

if you read on to Cowan's comments on what Howard said... (high res image)... you'll see that it wasn't a settled question as to whether just being born on the soil was enough. That's all i am really saying... a lot of people here are assuming that it is settled somehow.

POTUS seems to think it isn't. So what is the issue with letting SCOTUS decide and bring clarity to this? Some people are overreacting to the point of calling POTUS some sort of dictator... when what he is going is start the ball rolling on some judicial clarity for this issue.

No, in and of itself it's not entirely clear whether Howard was enumerating or elucidating. I wish people in this forum would stop assuming the most favourable interpretation of some wording as fact, always in a way that conveniently supports their position, instead of acknowledging ambiguity where it exists.

That said, one can read the transcripts directly:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

And doing so does reasonably show that lawmakers at the time interpreted the amendment as applying to everyone except foreign agents and non-taxed Indians.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Oh please, pure intellectually lazy BS rhetoric.

Not a shred of evidence to support this position. Also impossible to defend because first you would have to define "liberal", then study all of society to see who benefits from low cost services, then prove that *somehow* liberals benefit more than non-liberals etc etc etc. You would also have to show that somehow liberals can't afford to pay fair market prices for the services they consume. And then prove that liberals look the other way more than other cohorts.

This argument is so stupid it makes my head hurt,

I am sorry that common sense is so painful for you.

These articles might make your head explode:

Good article on the real reasons why Democrat politicians have shifted on immigration, but have done so inconsistently and often out of political opportunism:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/

Article on how immigrants depress wages for low skill services, and those who benefit most are those paying for said services:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216

 

[Jhhnn]

No, in and of itself it's not entirely clear whether Howard was enumerating or elucidating. I wish people in this forum would stop assuming the most favourable interpretation of some wording as fact, always in a way that conveniently supports their position, instead of acknowledging ambiguity where it exists.

That said, one can read the transcripts directly:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

And doing so does reasonably show that lawmakers at the time interpreted the amendment as applying to everyone except foreign agents and non-taxed Indians.

Then why are you arguing that it was any way other than what I said? You're quibbling for no reason other than to give cover to those who would bend over backwards to make the 14th amendment mean something it was never intended to mean.

 

[senseamp]

We literally fought the Civil War over this. SCOTUS upholding this would be worse decision than Dred Scott, because effectively it would restore Dred Scott after the people fought a war over it and passed a Constitutional amendment to remedy it.

 

[HurleyBird]

Then why are you arguing that it was any way other than what I said?

Because it's better to be right for the right reasons -- and often even wrong for the right ones -- than to be right for the wrong reasons. If you fail to understand you have an intellectual and/or moral issue.

You're quibbling for no reason other than to give cover to those who would bend over backwards to make the 14th amendment mean something it was never intended to mean.

If that were my intention I could certainly be doing a better job at it. It would be significantly more productive to, say, come up with disingenuous arguments or selectively quote figures from that period of time.

 

[HurleyBird]

if you read on to Cowan's comments on what Howard said... (high res image)... you'll see that it wasn't a settled question as to whether just being born on the soil was enough.

Yes, Cowan made some good points, but his comments in context are properly interpreted as an argument against the intention of the amendment rather than an unanswered question regarding its meaning.

For reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States

"However, concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three senators, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment would confer citizenship on them at birth, and no senator offered a contrary opinion."​

and:

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/image/RollCall_681866_14thAmendment.htm

Which shows that Cowan voted against the 14th amendment. In other words all indications point to him disagreeing with its commonly agreed upon meaning. There isn't much in the way of wiggle room here.