Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Dec 10, 2005.
ahhhh, the new wedge issue.
The new GOP talking point? "Repeal the Fourteenth Amendment!"? That ought to go over big.
fascinating how the GOP is saying the constitution is being interpreted incorrectly (and what do they say about the 2nd amendment?). also fascinating how the legislative branch is taking it upon themselves to "correct" it, rather than letting the courts deal with it.
so why new legislation when the problem, apparently, is the constitution itself? the more straightforward approach is to amend the constitution. of course, that's politically untenable, so perhaps they proceed knowing that the SCOTUS fix is in.
This is only marginally about actual immigration problems. Right or wrong, the Republicans probably see those illegal immigrants' children as growing up to become members of the dreaded "welfare state". So this is about money as much as anything else.
But there are other "side benefits" to the GOP from this issue, too. Think about this:
We're talking primarily about folks from south of the border here. Latinos tend mostly to vote with the Democratic party. Over a period of a couple of decades, eliminate the citizenship birthright of these illegal immigrants' children, and you eliminate a whole class of potential Democratic voters.
yep. imo, that's the real reason, and any immediate benefit they can get from the wedge issue is the icing.
Could it be because democrates think every minority deserves a handout?
Very clever indeed.
they do? please provide documentation. a link to a bill specifying this will suffice.
Would this mean, that refugees who come this country and have kids, their kids would not be U.S Citizens? I like the idea of birthright citizenship, it is just one of the things that makes this country what it is. "If you are born here, you are promised all the rights that citizens are give, and that includes all the freedom that they are given"...
These are parts of the issue being debated, whether or not illegals and their subsequent, U.S. born offspring are covered with that entitlement clause. Gestation is not nine tenths of the law, according to some.
Maybe it's because Republicans are, at best closeted racists. The jury's still out on you yet.
I remember many of them typing (screaming in all-caps and in bold text) "What part of 'shall not be abridged' do you not understand!"
Given that, I'd ask which part of "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." do they not understand?
Yep. No problems getting their way on the courts for the next 20-40 years.
Yeah, that does seem awfully straightforward, doesn't it?
It takes a special kind of "interpretation" to see it otherwise. In which case, I have to ask...just exactly who is being judicially activist? (Hint: it's not liberal judges.)
It's only bad if liberals do it.