What did Democrats do wrong?

[arthwollipot]

Are you naive enough to imagine that if a legal loophole is presented to oil companies, they will refuse to exploit it on principle?

Even one so breathtakingly transparent as this? And they will be allowed to get away with it?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

And yet you're giving me grief because Trump hasn't done anything to fix the economy in their first 10 days of office because...? I don't even ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ know why you think that's relevant to anything I've said anywhere.

No, I'm "giving you grief" because your suggestion that Trump's supporters are mainly motivated by concerns about the economy, rather than his "racist transphobic evil poohead" agenda, doesn't seem borne out by evidence. Trump's early actions have been heavy on RTEP stuff while being extremely light to non-existent on things intended to improve the economic prospects of the folks who voted for him, and yet his support hasn't tanked as a result. That Trump has done SFA to address the economy is a preliminary observation, not the main complaint, which is about Trump supporters, not Trump himself. HTH

 

[Reformed Offlian]

"About 59% of respondents – including 89% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans – said they opposed ending birthright citizenship."

Well gosh. I oppose ending birthright citizenship. I do, however, support denying it to the children of illegal immigrants.

And to forestall the predicable nonsense: I support it being done via legislation, and applying only to children born after the law is passed.

You want to deny somebody their rights because of something their parents did before they were born? Really? Forget the legal implications; how is this morally defensible?

 

[thaiboxerken]

You want to deny somebody their rights because of something their parents did before they were born? Really? Forget the legal implications; how is this morally defensible?

It's because they are brown. That's on them.

 

[Solitaire]

I just don't feel like playing this partisan game. This isn't a mystery, it's not shrouded in confusion. In the words of James Carville (yes I had to look it up) "The Economy, Stupid".

Dems have been in control for four years, and to the average person, everything in their bank account has gotten worse. So they swap out the party that hasn't been effective in their eyes, and will try the other for a while. But nobody expects everything to magically turn around in a week. Which is why I said give it a bit, and if people's ability to afford their basic lives hasn't improved, they'll be pissed at Republicans too.

You know... that's a perfect recipe for consternation and frustration.
Since neither party cares that much about economic effects.

If they they wanted to stop inflation for example then all they have
to do is just take money out of the economy, don't put in a bank,
just store it on a table in Fort Knox and a couple of months later
prices will drop down in response.

 

[Donal]

Not at all synonymous with, nor implied by, what I said.

It perfectly sums up what you said.

 

[d4m10n]

And to forestall the predicable nonsense: I support it being done via legislation, and applying only to children born after the law is passed.

So what Democrats did wrong was fail to clearly message that the 14th Amendment cannot be amended by mere legislation?

 

[ahhell]

So what Democrats did wrong was fail to clearly message that the 14th Amendment cannot be amended by mere legislation?

I don't think it would actually work but... I could see how they might define what it means to be under the jurisdiction of the United States. Don't think it would actually get passed the SCOTUS but maybe.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You want to deny somebody their rights because of something their parents did before they were born? Really? Forget the legal implications; how is this morally defensible?

Can we please use some basic common sense here?

Birthright citizenship had a fairly clear original intent. It was intended so that the children of legal immigrants would be considered natural born citizens, and wouldn't have to go through the naturalization process or get a green card. The underlying premise was that foreign nationals would immigrate through the legal process and become full-fledged citizens of the US through the existing process, and that any children they had while in the US would be considered natural born. Those immigrant parents are allowed to hold several political and government positions, but they are precluded from serving as president... but their children would be able to serve as president.

What's happened is a bastardization of that intent. There are now two common situations that are abuses of the goodwill behind birthright. One is that of parents who enter the US illegally, are not actually allowed to be here... but if they have a kid that child gets birthright citizenship. That was never the intent. The other situation is one where parents who are in the US legally on Visas, but who are NOT actively seeking permanent residency, have kids while they're here to serve as anchors and make it easier for them to travel to the US, own property in the US, etc.

The intent behind birthrights was essentially "Hey, if you un-ass yourself and immigrate to the US, your kids won't be considered immigrants, they'll be considered full-fledged citizens in their own right!". Only a few developed countries have unconditional birthright citizenship... none of Europe btw.

 

[Random]

Can we please use some basic common sense here?

Birthright citizenship had a fairly clear original intent. It was intended so that the children of legal immigrants would be considered natural born citizens, and wouldn't have to go through the naturalization process or get a green card. The underlying premise was that foreign nationals would immigrate through the legal process and become full-fledged citizens of the US through the existing process, and that any children they had while in the US would be considered natural born. Those immigrant parents are allowed to hold several political and government positions, but they are precluded from serving as president... but their children would be able to serve as president.

What's happened is a bastardization of that intent. There are now two common situations that are abuses of the goodwill behind birthright. One is that of parents who enter the US illegally, are not actually allowed to be here... but if they have a kid that child gets birthright citizenship. That was never the intent. The other situation is one where parents who are in the US legally on Visas, but who are NOT actively seeking permanent residency, have kids while they're here to serve as anchors and make it easier for them to travel to the US, own property in the US, etc.

The intent behind birthrights was essentially "Hey, if you un-ass yourself and immigrate to the US, your kids won't be considered immigrants, they'll be considered full-fledged citizens in their own right!". Only a few developed countries have unconditional birthright citizenship... none of Europe btw.

Not sure why we are so bound by the intention of long dead racists, but we have been doing the birthright citizenship for over a hundred years and I really haven't heard any good arguments for getting rid of it. Why create a bureaucratic nightmare and possibly stateless citizens when the bright line rule we have in place seems to take care of everything? Genuinely haven't heard an argument in favor of changing birthright citizenship that doesn't devolve to racism when you poke at it a bit.

 

[Donal]

Can we please use some basic common sense here?

This should be good

Birthright citizenship had a fairly clear original intent.

Original intent was for you to keep quiet and stay in the kitchen.

It was intended so that the children of legal immigrants rich white men would be considered natural born citizens, and wouldn't have to go through the naturalization process or get a green card.

FTFY and green cards were not a thing back then. There wasn't anything close to a coherent immigration policy until the 1930s.

The underlying premise was that foreign nationals would immigrate through the legal process and become full-fledged citizens of the US through the existing process, and that any children they had while in the US would be considered natural born. Those immigrant parents are allowed to hold several political and government positions, but they are precluded from serving as president... but their children would be able to serve as president.

What's happened is a bastardization of that intent. There are now two common situations that are abuses of the goodwill behind birthright. One is that of parents who enter the US illegally, are not actually allowed to be here... but if they have a kid that child gets birthright citizenship. That was never the intent. The other situation is one where parents who are in the US legally on Visas, but who are NOT actively seeking permanent residency, have kids while they're here to serve as anchors and make it easier for them to travel to the US, own property in the US, etc.

The intent behind birthrights was essentially "Hey, if you un-ass yourself and immigrate to the US, your kids won't be considered immigrants, they'll be considered full-fledged citizens in their own right!". Only a few developed countries have unconditional birthright citizenship... none of Europe btw.

Blah blah blah. "original intent" was meant for rich white men. We coordinated our immigration and citizenship policies after WW2 with other countries because we all agreed having millions of people roaming the earth with no claim to citizenship was a bad thing.

Would it really kill you to actually learn about stuff before firing off a long winded and worthless opinion?

 

[johnny karate]

You gotta love the totally not a Trump supporter offering several paragraphs in defense of Trump trying to override the Constitution like any centrist would naturally do.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Can we please use some basic common sense here?

Birthright citizenship had a fairly clear original intent.

To the extent that this is true, the original intent of the birthright citizenship clause was to ensure that emancipated slaves would be citizens, and to undo the mischief of the Dredd Scott decision. This included the children of slaves that might have been trafficked illegally, such as those brought aboard the Clotilda in 1860.

It was intended so that the children of legal immigrants would be considered natural born citizens, and wouldn't have to go through the naturalization process or get a green card.

Nope. See above.

And, as noted by another poster, green cards weren't a thing when the 14th amendment was passed. You're making stuff up.

 

[stanfr]

This should be good

Original intent was for you to keep quiet and stay in the kitchen.
FTFY and green cards were not a thing back then. There wasn't anything close to a coherent immigration policy until the 1930s.

Blah blah blah. "original intent" was meant for rich white men. We coordinated our immigration and citizenship policies after WW2 with other countries because we all agreed having millions of people roaming the earth with no claim to citizenship was a bad thing.

Would it really kill you to actually learn about stuff before firing off a long winded and worthless opinion?

I LOL'd at that....so true!

 

[thaiboxerken]

The democrats warned everyone about Trump's threat to democracy. Events are proving that democrats are correct. How is it the democrats fault that the public didn't take it serious?

 

[The Don]

The democrats warned everyone about Trump's threat to democracy. Events are proving that democrats are correct. How is it the democrats fault that the public didn't take it serious?

More should have been done to protect the politically disengaged from themselves....

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think Biden and Garland should've prosecuted and tossed Trump in jail in Feb, 2001.

 

[Darat]

I think Biden and Garland should've prosecuted and tossed Trump in jail in Feb, 2001.

As ever every accusation is a confession - they have totally "politicised" the Justice Department and are using it to go after their political ex-rivals.

 

[johnny karate]

The democrats warned everyone about Trump's threat to democracy. Events are proving that democrats are correct. How is it the democrats fault that the public didn't take it serious?

Trump himself warned everyone with his explicit promises to do a lot the things he’s doing now. People voted for this chaos. They wanted it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Many of them wanted it. Many of them thought it was just bluster.