The only other country in the world that has it only has the US and vast tundras for neighbors. Even those enlightened, diversensitolerant European countries don't have it.
Discuss.


I agree with this. Europe has flat out dropped the ball on how to handle immigration and there's no reason why we should try to emulate that failed model. We are different and we can have a different immigration policy than the rest of the world. It's not impossible to police and control the flow of illegal immigration, we just need to be committed to doing that while also doing everything we can to facilitate legal immigration. When we have millions of people wanting to come to this country, we should be doing everything we can to let in the best and the brightest - it can only help this country going forward. Both parties have the immigration question wrong at this point because they are both just looking at the political ramifications of their decisions. Not a surprise, of course, but reality.∞∞∞ wrote:I think we need immigrants to feel like they're truly members of our society and that their investments, which children are a major part of, will have the same opportunities. If we marginalize our immigrants (like Europe did after WWII), we can end up creating this permanent underclass with non-citizens contributing nothing to the greater society (like Europe's done).


I like this mind set…except conks aren’t using it when talking about the 2nd amendment (or any other Constitutional arguments). Convenient right?Pwns wrote:I'm not a hardline anti-immigration guy, but I still want to know if anyone here has a good reason for why we should still have it? It's a very different world today than it was when the 14th amendment was put in place.
The only other country in the world that has it only has the US and vast tundras for neighbors. Even those enlightened, diversensitolerant European countries don't have it.
Discuss.

Unaltered Pics, without reference to owls, 9/11 or the moon, or STFUexpandspanos wrote: Also, one of the hottest girls I have ever met was a mexican/Norwegian mix, if that counts for anything..

So...Pwns wrote:I'm not a hardline anti-immigration guy, but I still want to know if anyone here has a good reason for why we should still have it? It's a very different world today than it was when the 14th amendment was put in place.
The only other country in the world that has it only has the US and vast tundras for neighbors. Even those enlightened, diversensitolerant European countries don't have it.
Discuss.

If you're referring to gun laws, I don't think opposing them " cuz the kawnstitution " is really a good argument. It's not really a good argument for anything, because let's face it, there aren't many things that couldn't potentially be rationalized under either the general welfare clause, interstate commerce clause, or the 14th amendment if you get the right person in the judges robes.Chizzang wrote:So...Pwns wrote:I'm not a hardline anti-immigration guy, but I still want to know if anyone here has a good reason for why we should still have it? It's a very different world today than it was when the 14th amendment was put in place.
The only other country in the world that has it only has the US and vast tundras for neighbors. Even those enlightened, diversensitolerant European countries don't have it.
Discuss.
You're going to use the old "Its a different world today" tactic
Fascinating - I don;t disagree - it is indeed a different world
But doesnt that same "open minded approach" you just launched this thread with
apply to a whole bunch of amendments and philosophical issues..?
Curious

Nobody has a real problem with amending the Constitution to reflect changes in society. Even the Founders envisioned the U.S. conducting a constitutional convention every generation. Madison planned to hold a constitutional convention but the War of 1812 got in the way and subsequent presidents neglected to hold conventions.Chizzang wrote:So...Pwns wrote:I'm not a hardline anti-immigration guy, but I still want to know if anyone here has a good reason for why we should still have it? It's a very different world today than it was when the 14th amendment was put in place.
The only other country in the world that has it only has the US and vast tundras for neighbors. Even those enlightened, diversensitolerant European countries don't have it.
Discuss.
You're going to use the old "Its a different world today" tactic
Fascinating - I don;t disagree - it is indeed a different world
But doesnt that same "open minded approach" you just launched this thread with
apply to a whole bunch of amendments and philosophical issues..?
Curious



I didn't imply you are opposed to the second amendment. However, I think you have to acknowledge that many who are opposed to it use the "outdated" argument pretty frequently. It was just one example.Chizzang wrote:JEEZUS TITTY FUCKING CHRIST... For the THOUSANDTH TIME
I am 100% in support of the 2nd amendment
I am in no way making inferences to the 2nd amendment
I am referring to ALL amendments and all the issues that confront America today
I'm asking how it is we can so selectively "open our minds" in one way and not another...
Why would anybody who is Religious or Conservative begin a debate
arguing from the point of "Opening your mind"


CitadelGrad wrote:I didn't imply you are opposed to the second amendment. However, I think you have to acknowledge that many who are opposed to it use the "outdated" argument pretty frequently. It was just one example.Chizzang wrote:JEEZUS TITTY FUCKING CHRIST... For the THOUSANDTH TIME
I am 100% in support of the 2nd amendment
I am in no way making inferences to the 2nd amendment
I am referring to ALL amendments and all the issues that confront America today
I'm asking how it is we can so selectively "open our minds" in one way and not another...
Why would anybody who is Religious or Conservative begin a debate
arguing from the point of "Opening your mind"
JESUS H. TITTY FUCKING CHRIST!

I took it from Team America: World Police, but you are welcome.Chizzang wrote:CitadelGrad wrote:
I didn't imply you are opposed to the second amendment. However, I think you have to acknowledge that many who are opposed to it use the "outdated" argument pretty frequently. It was just one example.
JESUS H. TITTY FUCKING CHRIST!![]()
BTW: I stole that from you and have adopted it as my own...
(a belated thank you is in order)




CitadelGrad wrote: Nobody has a real problem with amending the Constitution to reflect changes in society. Even the Founders envisioned the U.S. conducting a constitutional convention every generation. Madison planned to hold a constitutional convention but the War of 1812 got in the way and subsequent presidents neglected to hold conventions.
The problem most of us non-progressives have with amending the Constitution is the when those amendments are implemented by courts and Congress -- neither has the authority to amend the Constitution. How can anyone argue that the Federal Reserve Act is constitutional?
You seem to be referring to the right to bear arms. If that right is abolished, it must be done through the constitutional amendment process, not congressional or judicial action. Of course we know that repealing the second amendment through the amendment process would never happen. It will be decades, if ever, before a super-majority of states would ratify a repeal of the second amendment. The anti-gun people know that as well. That is why they try to circumvent the amendment process through legislative and judicial action.
Scalia wrote:Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.






Large American Corporations cannot continue to be as profitable - if the immigration laws changeSDHornet wrote:Watching the resident conks spin on this entire topic is laughable. A few things come to mind:
1) the 14th amendment will never be removed so it's a waste of time even talking about that aspect of this issue. The funny thing is that the the 14th amendment isn't even an issue if...
2) the current rules on the books are enforced. Enforce the rules on the books and up the security/BP/wall/drones/etc on the border and illegal immigration becomes a trickle. This is what really should be the focus for the conk candidates. Now conks fucked themselves because instead of talking about way to reform immigration (i.e. win over Team Brown)...
3) Trump has highlighted the xenophobia (we all knew existed) of the conk base. Yeah this is the far right but still, in a crucial election that needed to win over a significant portion of Team Brown to have a shot of knocking off hildabeast (yes, she will be the donk nominee) Trump has alienated the fastest growing demographic (que voter fraud debate) in the US.
Good job conks.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()

Actually your #2 is a bit offSDHornet wrote:Watching the resident conks spin on this entire topic is laughable. A few things come to mind:
1) the 14th amendment will never be removed so it's a waste of time even talking about that aspect of this issue. The funny thing is that the the 14th amendment isn't even an issue if...
2) the current rules on the books are enforced. Enforce the rules on the books and up the security/BP/wall/drones/etc on the border and illegal immigration becomes a trickle. This is what really should be the focus for the conk candidates. Now conks **** themselves because instead of talking about way to reform immigration (i.e. win over Team Brown)...
3) Trump has highlighted the xenophobia (we all knew existed) of the conk base. Yeah this is the far right but still, in a crucial election that needed to win over a significant portion of Team Brown to have a shot of knocking off hildabeast (yes, she will be the donk nominee) Trump has alienated the fastest growing demographic (que voter fraud debate) in the US.
Good job conks.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()

Yep. Illegal immigrants are about keeping wages down for Americans. Throw a few employers in jail and the problem vanishes overnight.Chizzang wrote:Large American Corporations cannot continue to be as profitable - if the immigration laws changeSDHornet wrote:Watching the resident conks spin on this entire topic is laughable. A few things come to mind:
1) the 14th amendment will never be removed so it's a waste of time even talking about that aspect of this issue. The funny thing is that the the 14th amendment isn't even an issue if...
2) the current rules on the books are enforced. Enforce the rules on the books and up the security/BP/wall/drones/etc on the border and illegal immigration becomes a trickle. This is what really should be the focus for the conk candidates. Now conks **** themselves because instead of talking about way to reform immigration (i.e. win over Team Brown)...
3) Trump has highlighted the xenophobia (we all knew existed) of the conk base. Yeah this is the far right but still, in a crucial election that needed to win over a significant portion of Team Brown to have a shot of knocking off hildabeast (yes, she will be the donk nominee) Trump has alienated the fastest growing demographic (que voter fraud debate) in the US.
Good job conks.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
we dance around that point but it is HUGE
Low Pay workers are EXTREMELY VALUABLE
Team Brown works hard for less