Left-Wing, Right-wing, or Central?

[Lisnpuppy]

Just an FYI, Lincoln's was a member of the National Party, the precursor to the Republican Party. He freed the slaves, in case anyone here missed that. Andrew Johnson ratified the 14th Amendment and was impeached by DEMOCRATS for being a "Radical Republican". Calvin Coolidge was President in 1924 when Native Americans were included in the 14th Amendment. He was a Republican too. Ronald Regan's Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 granted amnesty to thousands of illegal immigrants. The track record for REPUBLICANS taking on citizen birth outweighs what Democrats have done. The only thing liberals have is Obama's law-breaking Executive Order pen. In what retarded social justice world is open borders and general amnesty a good idea?

 

If anything the liberal posts in this thread are good for a laugh, God knows they aren't worth anything more.

 

 

I consider myself liberal and I hope you found my post most amusing. I do not find your post here to be so. You do fine when you are talking policy. The points you make of the policies made by 'republicans" deserve response and debate. Your last line is unnecessary and unwelcome.

 

edit: Oh and "you people" don't know what the 14th amendment is? No....I know exactly what they are. Pointing out Constitutional interpretation is fine, I think your phrasing could be better?

[RGMage2]

Well I don't know what the 14th amendment is, don't know and don't care, it means nothing to me. But I do wonder why, if you Americans are so concerned about illegal immigration, then why are you not targeting the businesses that employ them. These illegal immigrants come to your country for jobs, a better standard of living for themselves and the children, and I can't hold that against them. They do find employment, and that is the magnet that draws them to you. If the jobs aren't there then the people will not come.

 

I realize it is a radical idea to go after the wealthy and powerful who profit from these poor souls, but that is where the solution can be found.

[WursWaldo]

I consider myself liberal and I hope you found my post most amusing. I do not find your post here to be so. You do fine when you are talking policy. The points you make of the policies made by 'republicans" deserve response and debate. Your last line is unnecessary and unwelcome.

 

edit: Oh and "you people" don't know what the 14th amendment is? No....I know exactly what they are. Pointing out Constitutional interpretation is fine, I think your phrasing could be better?

I don't find your posts amusing or compelling. As for unnecessary, unwelcome or better phrasing there are posts in this thread made by your fellow liberals that go far beyond what I have said or implied and you have not seen fit to correct them; even though you have read those posts. Chastising me while leaving the others unaddressed is biased and hypocritical. When you're done publicly calling your like-minded friends to task then I'll be willing to heed your advice. But since they are your fellows, I will not hold my breath.

 

As for pointing out constitutional interpretations; is there another one that's legal? The Constitution is the basis and the governing foundation law. There is no other way to interpret the 14th or any other Amendment.

Edited August 28, 2015 by WursWaldo

[colourwheel]

 

Bben's debate rules

A good debate can be fun. Just remember that everyone is allowed their own opinion whether you agree or not. You do not have to agree. You do have to respect each others opinions.

Like any referee, The moderators (supposedly) have no interest in the outcome. Our job is to keep it fair - or as fair as we can. So, No hitting below the belt, no gouging, no head butting, no hair pulling. When we say break, break clean and step back. Any attack on the referees will be fatal.

Terms of engagement:

Stay on topic. trying to drag in some other topic as a part of your argument shows a lack of focus. And poor focus can hurt in a debate.

The first one who degenerates to a personal attack - such as name calling - loses. if you have to attack the individual, you obviously have no real counter to their argument. If the attack is serious it could get you banned.

If you don't really know anything about the subject, it's probably a good idea to refrain from posting until you do. It's no fun being caught in a crossfire.

If you cannot argue with respect for the opposite side, then don't argue. You will lose.

When you throw out a statement be prepared to back it up with documentation - You will be called on it.

Don't try to 'prove' anything with statistics - It will blow up in your face. The first thing I was taught in a graduate level statistic course was how to spin statistics to show whatever I wanted to show.

Don't expect to convince anyone that your side or your idea is right and theirs is wrong. Most people have already made up their minds and no amount of reason or logic will sway them.

These rules are very general and subject to change on my whim. Any suggestions for changes or additions are appreciated and may even be considered.

One last rule - Play nice - or else.

Bben46, Moderator

 

 

@WurWaldo

 

I am surprised you haven't been called out yet for breaking the forum debate rules. I have seen several times where you have been disrespectful to others who disagree with you as well as in my opinion attacking me personally too. Regardless if I disagree with your opinions or anyone else's on this forum there is still a certain degree of respect I still hold even when someone goes on the offence and tries to insult me personally.

[Lisnpuppy]

Looking back through the thread I am missing any blatant pot shots at other members of the thread. If someone made comment about liberals or conservatives (as there seems to be both sides equally represented in this thread) it was about the politicians and general public and not pointing to any post in this thread saying the post are worthless except for a chuckle.

 

That being said I think you could ask just about any person in this thread and they can tell you what an equal opportunity chastiser I am. I also don't find the "everyone is doing it so they should all get into trouble" argument particularly compelling. However I'll keep it to myself from now on except to say you seem intelligent and it is a pity you have taken what was some valid point and distracted from them by making clear your personal opinion.

 

As for interpretations, the Supreme Court and lower courts interpret the Constitution all the time. This is one of the reasons that the Constitution is referred to as a living document. It is also why things have changed (legally speaking) over the years even when the actual amendments have not. Look at any of civil rights cases before the courts prior to the 1950s and you will see a drastically different interpretation of the same language.

 

@RGMage-Though you don't maybe wish to know the 14th amendment it is I will mention it anyway. It was part of the Reconstruction amendments put into place after the Civil War. They were put in place (thought not only) in the light of the suddenly emancipated slaves who were being denied basic rights and especially the right to vote. As such Congress believed that they had to make it plain that they were indeed citizens with all the rights therein. The text (the part we are discussing) reads:

 

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

There is no amendment at present that changes this language and it has thus far been upheld. This may change in light of current circumstance.

 

I also agree with you entirely. The same folks that are screaming the loudest about the issue are the same ones that sometimes employ illegals. If we really wish to address the issue we should follow the money and come down harder on these folks. Perhaps offering some limited amnesty of deportation but allowance to re-apply for proper citizenship if they give info on those illegal employments would help. As of now I do not know if much followup on these things until perhaps election time.

[HeyYou]

The 14th amendment doesn't make any distinctions in parentage for birthright citizenship. Children of foreign nationals, whether they are here legally or not, CAN and DO get american citizenship. That is a fact, and easily proven to be so with a simple google search.

[WursWaldo]

@Linsnpuppy

Taken with a grain of salt as I have no intention of expounding on who said what and where. I would be wasting my time.

 

Now then, back to the discussion at hand;

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I have no doubt someone with the authority to do so will try to evoke the 14th Amendment in a quasi-legal way to give illegal aliens U.S. citizenship in a real and tangible way. This issue will most likely go before SCOTUS without review from Congress. I also have no doubt SCOTUS will attempt to redefine something as key as what jurisdiction is in an attempt to rewrite the 14th Amendment to satisfy their own tender liberal sensibilities. Only Congress can append Amendments and there is no need to make illegal aliens automatic citizens. There are other solutions, namely immigration reform and securing the borders from further incursions.

 

WursWaldo's Comprehensive Plan

1) Secure the borders with existing resources. Executive directive to allow Immigration and ICE to do the jobs they were hired for. Do not interfere with border state governors using their state guards to assist in border patrols. If they want to do it, they have to pay for it.

2) Defund sanctuary cities of federal tax dollars and do not remit apportioned tax dollars to states that allow sanctuary cities.

3) Use the tax dollars no longer going to sanctuary cities and states to build strategic fencing on the borders. Deem it a Defense project and have the Army Corps of Engineers do the work. No private contractors will be used. Any fiscal short-comings will have to be made up for with existing tax dollars. No new taxes to fund this.

4) Once the borders are secure address the illegal problem. Illegal aliens who wish to stay must become United States citizens, attend the classes, pay the fees and otherwsie be productive members of society. Crimminal aliens will serve their time and then be deported. We don't want you here.

5) Illegal aliens who wish to become citizens will be at the back of the line, not the front. The people who have started the legal immigration process before them will get priority.

6) Double legal immigration. If we allow 1 million people each year to immigrate, make it 2 million.

7) Establish a migrant worker program where non-resident aliens may come to the U.S. to work for a set ammount of time. This is not a Work Visa or a path to citizenship. They will be taxed as citizens but are not entitled to government aid or other programs. If these workers abscond they forfeit any future work program participation and will be fined and deported.

 

EDIT:

I think my plan will work and it might pay for itself. :tongue:

Edited August 29, 2015 by WursWaldo

[Aurielius]

The 14th amendment doesn't make any distinctions in parentage for birthright citizenship. Children of foreign nationals, whether they are here legally or not, CAN and DO get american citizenship. That is a fact, and easily proven to be so with a simple google search.

Hey You is correct, a simple perusal of United States vs Wong Kim Ark will illuminate the facts...it's settled case law. Being a strict constitutionalist I have to abide with the precedents set by the seven wise men whether I like what they decided or not.

[colourwheel]

 

The 14th amendment doesn't make any distinctions in parentage for birthright citizenship. Children of foreign nationals, whether they are here legally or not, CAN and DO get american citizenship. That is a fact, and easily proven to be so with a simple google search.

 

Exactly HeyYou. This is why If you start messing around trying to rid of birthright citizenship applying for only those whose parents are undocumented it can be easily interpreted to legislation that would easily demonize anyone who happens to give birth to a child in the country undocumented or not. There is no logical reason to even try to change this when there isn't any statistical data showing this being a huge problem. Messing with the 14th Amendment could be a huge disaster. Might as well add a sign on the statue of liberty saying "Immigrants are not welcome" because that's the real message that is given off when you try to rid of Birthright citizenship in this country to anyone.

Edited August 29, 2015 by colourwheel

[WursWaldo]

 

The 14th amendment doesn't make any distinctions in parentage for birthright citizenship. Children of foreign nationals, whether they are here legally or not, CAN and DO get american citizenship. That is a fact, and easily proven to be so with a simple google search.

Hey You is correct, a simple perusal of United States vs Wong Kim Ark will illuminate the facts...it's settled case law. Being a strict constitutionalist I have to abide with the precedents set by the seven wise men whether I like what they decided or not.

I've been wrong before. Water off a duck's back as I do not want the responsibility or headache of having to be right all of the time. :ermm:

 

Edit:

I recant. After a little research I'm under the impression the Ark case is not a precedent for children of illegal aliens who do not have permanent residence. In Ark's instance he was the child of Chinese immigrants who domiciled in the United States. For children born to illegal aliens who live in this country permanently, Ark's case law would indeed apply. It would not apply to the 'anchor babies' or illegal aliens who do not reside in the United States. Back to my point, being born in the United States does not guarentee citizenship as provided by the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Jus sanguinis.

Edited August 29, 2015 by WursWaldo