Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

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.

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).

∞∞∞ 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 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.

Europe doesn't seem to have a problem getting plenty of North African and Middle-Eastern Immigrants.

What does Iceland do? We should do that.

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.

I like this mind set…except conks aren’t using it when talking about the 2nd amendment (or any other Constitutional arguments). Convenient right?

Oh by the way, kiss the Team Brown vote goodbye if your candidate actually runs with this platform.

Some of the hardest working, most American people I have ever met are Mexicans, and one of my best friends (and the hardest working, most honest person I know) also happens to be a Mexican who was born south of the border, but is here legally.

Also, one of the hottest girls I have ever met was a mexican/Norwegian mix, if that counts for anything..

This is a nation of immigrants, and some of the best things about this country are from immigrants, I think Mexicans are some of the most hard working people in this country and having gotten to know a lot of them aren't as violent as they are portrayed. They generally just want to work hard and save money for their families.

Re: The wall.. might be a good idea to have a protected border.. but that same border could be keeping us in in the the future

expandspanos wrote: Also, one of the hottest girls I have ever met was a mexican/Norwegian mix, if that counts for anything..

Unaltered Pics, without reference to owls, 9/11 or the moon, or STFU

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.

So...
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

Chizzang wrote:

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.

So...
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

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.

I think gun laws (at least those that the Obama admin has tried to push through) are pointless because they won't actually deal with the root of the problem (e.g. background checks for mentally unstable Joe Schmoe who has no criminal record).

Chizzang wrote:

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.

So...
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.

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.

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"

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"

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!

CitadelGrad wrote:

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"

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)

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)

I took it from Team America: World Police, but you are welcome.

The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is where the rubber meets the road on this issue. There is some ambiguity with the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause, but the better reading of it is that all persons "born or naturalized" in the U.S. are citizens of the U.S. and of the states where they reside. So the Mexikiddies probably get a free pass -- although their parents shouldn't.

I dont think it is practical or desirable to change jus soli, but we should change our visa laws to make the intent to give birth in the US disqualifying.

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.

And, I don't think anyone is arguing that the courts should strike down the 2nd amendment. (At least, I've never seen anyone argue for this). And, I haven't read anyone proposing an amendment to strike down the 2nd amendment.

It's not an issue at all.

The issue is limitations on the 2nd amendment. I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue that there should be no limits at all on the 2nd amendment. The argument over gun rights isn't whether to uphold or completely abolish the 2nd amendment - it's over where the line should be drawn with these limitations.

I would have no problem with similar limitations being placed on visas and the like Cid suggests. There is a middle ground between completely overturning the 2nd or 14th amendments.

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.

People who might not be Americans without birthright citizenship:

Alberto Gonzales
Marco Rubio
Bobby Jindal



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bir ... a6dab31447" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Was birthright citizenship intended for both legal and illegal mothers, or is there no distinction between the two? I'm assuming the latter. And what was the immigration policy back then? Was there a clear path to legal citizenship back then, or was it in the process of being formulated? It seems that the answers to these questions would help identify the intent.

No I do not think that a child born to someone who is in the United States illegally should automatically be a citizen. I don't think there's any chance that things will change in that regard. But I don't think it should be the case.

To me it's become clear that a child born in the United States should not automatically be a citizen unless his or her mother is a citizen. I also don't think that what's going on now is what those who crafted and ratified the 14th Amendment had in mind.

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.

SDHornet 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.

Large American Corporations cannot continue to be as profitable - if the immigration laws change
we dance around that point but it is HUGE

Low Pay workers are EXTREMELY VALUABLE
Team Brown works hard for less

SDHornet 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.

Actually your #2 is a bit off

(and I don't mean diarrhea)

There are no rules or laws to enforce concerning jus soli.

If you are applying for a tourist visa to the United States and you declare that you intend to have a baby there so that it will be a US citizen, you cannot be denied a visa on those grounds.

Birth tourism is huge around the world and we are seeing it firsthand in Nigeria. There are tens of thousands of dual citizens living in Nigeria, and as much as 3/4 of them are minor children whose non-citizen parents had them while legally in the US.

Chizzang wrote:

SDHornet 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.

Large American Corporations cannot continue to be as profitable - if the immigration laws change
we dance around that point but it is HUGE

Low Pay workers are EXTREMELY VALUABLE
Team Brown works hard for less

Yep. Illegal immigrants are about keeping wages down for Americans. Throw a few employers in jail and the problem vanishes overnight.