"Anchor Babies" and the 14th Amendment

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Geez John. Whoever caught that still of Michelle Malkin did a tremendous job of showing her personality. It's a shame that something so caustic comes wrapped in such a nice package.

Regards,

D-Ray

And there are worse ones. She really isn't that bad looking but when she starts on the attack her inner demons take over even her looks. The same goes for Coulter and Ingram. Palin, on the other hand, maintains her looks no matter what's spewing forth from her mouth.

John

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Boreas

And there are worse ones. She really isn't that bad looking but when she starts on the attack her inner demons take over even her looks. The same goes for Coulter and Ingram. Palin, on the other hand, maintains her looks no matter what's spewing forth from her mouth.

John

Ever met a girl who is just a knockout, but when she opens her mouth her voice repulses you. Whatever might be attractive about SP, her voice is repulsive, and the content of what she says makes it worse. Makes one yearn to hear Barbara Jordan or Ann Richards, who were truly beautiful people.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Although this provides interest historical context, it doesn't provide a particularly compelling argument in favor of relaxed immigration rules, paisan.

I didn't post it as an argument for relaxed immigration. I was merely pointing out that this is not the first influx of illegals we've ever had. Nor is it the first time a wave of immigrants brought some unfortunate "baggage" with them. Not by a LOOOOOOONNNGGG shot. And you will also find that this is not the first time that immigrants have been villified and used as political pawns either.

That's why I find these emails I get from people, saying--"My grandmother came here from Upper Lutonia and she learned to speak----blah, blah, blah."
Whatever. When I was growing up my best friends Grandmother came to live with them after Grandpa died. The woman was Hungarian, 90 years old, had lived most of her life in Ohio and didn't speak a damn word of English. She was a mean, nasty old hag who didn't care for anyone who wasn't from the old country.

I just find it amazing the whitewashing that our history gets. We get a bunch of Mexicans streaming in, and suddenly "this has never happened before". Bullshit. "But Dave, some of them are criminals." Yeah, so what's new? We'll survive.

I'm not saying there aren't problems, because there are. But the only real difference I see is scale. What is the latest estimate? 12-13 million?

Buon notte, mi paisano!

Ciao,
Dave

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Boreas

And there are worse ones. She really isn't that bad looking but when she starts on the attack her inner demons take over even her looks. The same goes for Coulter and Ingram. Palin, on the other hand, maintains her looks no matter what's spewing forth from her mouth.

John

If only she would have her adnoids removed, that nasal whine is like fingers down a chalkboard.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Welcome, Whell, but what has this to do with the 14th Amendment?

John

My post was a response to a "red herring" argument earlier in the thread. The "Anchor Baby" discussion, to me, is a distraction from the true issue of border security.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

My post was a response to a "red herring" argument earlier in the thread. The "Anchor Baby" discussion, to me, is a distraction from the true issue of border security.

100% political

a non issue in practicality

[whell]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Done.

"We're" all immigrants?

Uh, no. Me, and ~1.5% of the U.S. population, have some roots.

The other model, not being uber-specific but it appears you are one of them, who now oppose the 14th Amendment?

They are immigrant-spawn who, now, have the elitist audacity to question the actions of others as part of the great, washed, protectorate.

It's incredibly hypocritical.

I guess my ancestors should have just tried harder to close the borders...

The 14th Amendment was adopted in July of 1868, born out of the period of Reconstruction following the Civil War. It was specifically adopted to redefine citizenship and enfranchise freed slaves . It did not, at that time, provide for naturalization from birth of children born to non-citizen immigrants. That camel over 30 years later, as the result of a Supreme Court decision that many believe incorrectly interpreted the law. so, to your point, I don't "oppose the 14th Amendment". I reject the interpretation of it that has been cited by many to give blanket rights and protections to those who have not earned them or applied for them via the naturalization process, a process that has its history in the laws of this country and other countries around the world.

Your invective above not withstanding, which itself is prejudicial and exhibits the same hypocrisy you decry, there is room for debate about whether or not we have watered down application and enforcement of immigration law, of which the 14th Amendment has been dragged into, to the point where our sovereignty has become fluid. This is not hypocrisy. It is a desire to preserve the rights and benefits of individuals who children of US citizens, or who have earned the right to citizenship by engaging in the process of naturalization prescribed by law.

However, this issue, as you continue to raise it, is separate and distinct, and to me unrelated, to the issue of border security. It is a red herring issue raised by those who I believe wish to divert attention from the central issue of border security.

[finnbow]

The 14th Amendment was adopted in July of 1868, born out of the period of Reconstruction following the Civil War. It was specifically adopted to redefine citizenship and enfranchise freed slaves . It did not, at that time, provide for naturalization from birth of children born to non-citizen immigrants. That camel over 30 years later, as the result of a Supreme Court decision that many believe incorrectly interpreted the law. so, to your point, I don't "oppose the 14th Amendment". I reject the interpretation of it that has been cited by many to give blanket rights and protections to those who have not earned them or applied for them via the naturalization process, a process that has its history in the laws of this country and other countries around the world.

As stated in the OP, I'm of mixed mind on this issue. On its face, I think I mostly agree with your take on it. I guess my trouble with it are the red meat nativists favoring changing the 14th Amendment and their charged, hateful rhetoric (not you - your position is well reasoned and persuasive, IMHO). I think it's the messenger more than the message that has turned me off on supporting the change.

If such issues could be discussed rationally without all the invective and hyperbole, a rational public policy response could be developed. Unfortunately, I'm starting to believe that the body politic isn't really interested in rational public policy in favor of scoring points against their adversaries and rewarding/stroking their constituents.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

My post was a response to a "red herring" argument earlier in the thread. The "Anchor Baby" discussion, to me, is a distraction from the true issue of border security.

I couldn't agree more. The whole issue of what the right wing is calling anchor babies is already covered under immigration law. The only way parents can obtain legal residency through their citizen children is through those citizens petitioning the government a: after they have attained the age of 21 and b: have lived in the US for a continuous period of 10 years.

This and the corollary issue of what I like to call "terror tots" is just more right wing bullshit to scare the unsophisticated and uninformed people they depend upon for votes.

John

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

It is a red herring issue raised by those who I believe wish to divert attention from the central issue of border security.

Are those people an identifiable group? Who are they and what, to your mind, are their motivations?

John