Republicans Push To Revise 14th Amendment

Alferd_Packer said:
Because the parents want a better life for their child, you would punnish [sic] the child?

this country was built by people seeking a better life for themselves and thier children.
Click to expand...


People who are trying to enter this country legally also want a better life for themselves and their children. Why should criminals and the children thereof be allowed to cut in ahead of them?
 
Apology said:
Go ahead and do your own research. Try the footnotes in the Wikipedia article on the 14th amendment. It will lead you to a New York Times article that lays it out more clearly. If you're willing to work a little harder, you can find a complete transcript of the debate on the 14th Amendment in the Congressional Globe, May 30th, 1866, when Conness made his statement. That day's Congressional business begins on pg. 2887. If you'd like to learn more about the undocumented status of the Chinese rather than taking Conness' word for it, refer to a U.S. history book and read about the building of the Transcontinental Railroad, which you should have learned about in middle school. The information is still available if you're willing to look for it, but I doubt you'll bother.

I'd do it for you, but it's clear that you're unwilling to believe it. I'm not going to hold your hand through it any more than you were willing to hold my hand earlier in this same thread. This is a typical tactic---question every little detail down to the definition of the words, keep your opponent running in circles until they either give up the debate in disgust, or ask a question that nobody can answer because the details weren't recorded from the dawn of time, and then smugly claim victory. I'm not going to play this game with you. The information is readily available, so look it up yourself.
Click to expand...


No, that's not how it works. What you say may very well be true. I don't know. You made a claim that the Mongolian children in the speech were from undocumented workers, and that means that all undocumented workers are covered by the 14th amendment. The quote you posted does not support that. You obviously have done some research on the subject, and seem sure of your statement. All you need to do is go back to your source and post the quote that shwos what you claim. This is not some issue of common knowledge or current events that anyone should be expected to know. If you are unwilling to show your evidence, then that means to me that you are looking at a delaying tactic, where you know that I will not do the research, and the issue will be dropped. So no, show your evidence. If it shows what you claim, I will accept that this one Congressman made the claim as you state.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
People who are trying to enter this country legally also want a better life for themselves and their children. Why should criminals and the children thereof be allowed to cut in ahead of them?
Click to expand...

Well obviously, they are more ambitious and motivated. That's the kind of people we want in this country. The go-getters. Willing to go the extra mile. They'll give 110%.
 
This reminds me of the bogus efforts to insert a flag burning ban and a gay marriage ban in the Constitution ...

These so-called "hot button" issues are designed to distract people from the actual Republican governing record ... which is abysmal.

I hate to say it ... but this is, for the very short term, an effective political strategy.
 
quadraginta said:
Where ya gonna try and drag that goalpost to, this time?

Ya oughta be gettin' tuckered out by now.
Click to expand...

Beating someone up after getting a restraining order for beating someone up seems a bit nuts to me.

BTW how do you get a restraining order against you if you are here illegally?
 
Region Rat said:
No, that's not how it works..
Click to expand...
On the contrary, that is how it works. If you're allowed to tell me to look something up myself, then I'm allowed to tell you the same. If you're not willing to go through the very basic step of reading the Wikipedia article and its footnotes about the 14th amendment, which includes Conness' original statement and more, then I have nothing more to say to you.

If you believe that the Chinese workers that were present in California during the 1866 debates were documented workers, then go ahead and prove it. You're the only one who believes that this is a point of contention.
 
Sorry, I know I'm jumping back a bit in the conversation, but:
Region Rat said:
You know what? This argument makes sense to me, and in my stubbornness I actually had not considered the amendments adding rather than subtracting. Too long out of HS civics class, I guess. I stand corrected on this matter.

However, even thought the amendment route regarding citizenship is not the road to follow, I still feel strongly about repercussions for not following the law as it stands. That, as I have been told, is a subject for a different thread.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I appreciate your intellectual honesty and find it refreshing to discover in the politics subsection. The issue of immigration aside, the concept of changing the Constitution for the purpose of removing or curtailing any rights is (and I feel should be) an important consideration.
 
Cleon said:
Oh, for the love of ****, just give it up and concede the point already. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

No, I think pipelineaudio should continue with the goalpost moving. It is extremely entertaining watching someone like this run in circles, flapping their arms, yelling "you can't catch me, nyah nyah nyah!" It shows just how serious they are about their arguments.

:popcorn1
 
NoScotsman said:
This reminds me of the bogus efforts to insert a flag burning ban and a gay marriage ban in the Constitution ...

These so-called "hot button" issues are designed to distract people from the actual Republican governing record ... which is abysmal.

I hate to say it ... but this is, for the very short term, an effective political strategy.
Click to expand...

Yes, but long term, and by "long term" I mean beyond this November's elections, it is an amazingly bad strategy for the GOP to be pursuing. That's because the Republican party is losing all of the gains they've made with Hispanic citizens over the last ten years, and then some.

Sucks to be them, I suppose.
 
MattusMaximus said:
No, I think pipelineaudio should continue with the goalpost moving. It is extremely entertaining watching someone like this run in circles, flapping their arms, yelling "you can't catch me, nyah nyah nyah!" It shows just how serious they are about their arguments.

:popcorn1
Click to expand...

I'm not moving anything. Have a look at the articles he linked and tell me how its moving goalposts to reject them. Unless the articles were in serious error, at least the first two were people in this country LEGALLY

But hey, insult me instead
 
Apology said:
On the contrary, that is how it works. If you're allowed to tell me to look something up myself, then I'm allowed to tell you the same. If you're not willing to go through the very basic step of reading the Wikipedia article and its footnotes about the 14th amendment, which includes Conness' original statement and more, then I have nothing more to say to you.
Click to expand...

Fine. Way to make your point.

If I remember, without going back page by page, what I asked you to look up was the process for amending the constitution, which was not something that was even in dispute. Not quite the same thing as arguing for the content of an amendment, but whatever.

If you believe that the Chinese workers that were present in California during the 1866 debates were documented workers, then go ahead and prove it. You're the only one who believes that this is a point of contention.
Click to expand...

No, I don't even care if they were documented or undocumented. It doesn't make any difference to the argument as presented today. The point is that you put a quote out there and say it says something that it does not in fact say. You could clear up the point you were trying to make, or not. I'm not trying to 'win' the argument. I just thought you would want to clarify yours.
 
pipelineaudio said:
I'm not moving anything. Have a look at the articles he linked and tell me how its moving goalposts to reject them. Unless the articles were in serious error, at least the first two were people in this country LEGALLY
But hey, insult me instead
Click to expand...

Okay (forward to about the 1:40 mark) :)



;)
 
For those that are arguing to change the 14th, and Im not sure if this was asked but I think it pertains to the discussion


What would changing the 14th do exactly?

WE will still have illegal immigration, whether or not the woman is pregnant.
We will still have children born here, whether or not the we have birthright citizenship
We will still have these same illegals take advantage of our services because no one enforces the Federal Laws that cover illegal immigration.

So exactly what will changing the 14th do?

I dont see it AFFECTING anything at all.

All we'll have is a bunch of children who will not have any citizenship status (mexico is also a birthright citizenship country) and whether or not they are citizens, will still be a "burden" on our social services and economy
 
Region Rat said:
Fine. Way to make your point.

If I remember, without going back page by page, what I asked you to look up was the process for amending the constitution, which was not something that was even in dispute. Not quite the same thing as arguing for the content of an amendment, but whatever.



No, I don't even care if they were documented or undocumented. It doesn't make any difference to the argument as presented today. The point is that you put a quote out there and say it says something that it does not in fact say. You could clear up the point you were trying to make, or not. I'm not trying to 'win' the argument. I just thought you would want to clarify yours.
Click to expand...

Whatever makes you sleep more comfortably at night on your bed of ignorance. Now that I've proven my point, that you are too lazy and uninterested in learning to even look up an article on Wikipedia, I'll provide the quote from the footnotes for you:

Wikipedia said:
During that debate, Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania objected to the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. ''Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?'' he asked on the Senate floor.

Senator John Conness of California said the answer should be ''yes.''

''The children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens,'' Mr. Conness said.
Click to expand...

Don't try to say that Wikipedia is a spurious source, either, because the exact same quote is in the Congressional Globe, which is a verbatim transcribed record of the congressional business of the day of the debate, May 30th, 1866. The further discussion in the Congressional Globe makes it obvious that the Chinese workers were in fact undocumented workers, not that anybody doubts it, other than you.


Furthermore, from the article you were too lazy to actually read:


Wikipedia said:
There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment.[5] During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.[6] Howard further stated the term jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now"[6] and that the United States possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" over the person described in the amendment.[7][8][6] Other senators, including Senator John Conness,[9] supported the amendment, believing citizenship should cover all children born in the United States.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether birth in the United States automatically extended national citizenship. The Supreme Court held that Native Americans who voluntarily quit their tribes did not automatically gain national citizenship.[10]

The clause's meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The Court ruled that children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants possessed national citizenship by being born in United States.[11]
Click to expand...

Incidentally, I have no vested interest in educating you. It's far better for me if you stay ignorant and continue to embrace wingnut ideas that embarrass the other conservatives. That way, more moderate conservatives will desert in droves and swing towards Democratic candidates in the fall.
 
Apology said:
Whatever makes you sleep more comfortably at night on your bed of ignorance. Now that I've proven my point, that you are too lazy and uninterested in learning to even look up an article on Wikipedia, I'll provide the quote from the footnotes for you:



Don't try to say that Wikipedia is a spurious source, either, because the exact same quote is in the Congressional Globe, which is a verbatim transcribed record of the congressional business of the day of the debate, May 30th, 1866. The further discussion in the Congressional Globe makes it obvious that the Chinese workers were in fact undocumented workers, not that anybody doubts it, other than you.


Furthermore, from the article you were too lazy to actually read:




Incidentally, I have no vested interest in educating you. It's far better for me if you stay ignorant and continue to embrace wingnut ideas that embarrass the other conservatives. That way, more moderate conservatives will desert in droves and swing towards Democratic candidates in the fall.
Click to expand...

Too funny. Whining and moaning about having to back up your claim. It seems to be good form here to either show quotes that back up your claim, or at least provide a link so others can do so. I've seen it requested a million times in these forums. See, that way, anyone who reads this forum can see the evidence you presented, and everyone who reads this forum doesn't have to do the research on their own. It's not just for me, you understand. Or maybe you don't.

I'd be interested in seeing if others think I was out of line. If so, I will concede the point. I will then, however, expect others to either accept claims at face value, or be required to wiki dive on their own to check them out.
 
pipelineaudio said:
I'm not moving anything. Have a look at the articles he linked and tell me how its moving goalposts to reject them. Unless the articles were in serious error, at least the first two were people in this country LEGALLY

But hey, insult me instead
Click to expand...


First you express your disbelief that it happens at all. When offered a statement by the DHS that they have been doing it to the tune of ~10,000 times a year for the most recent decade they had compiled numbers for, numbers which by their own admission were low-balled since they weren't even trying to track that in the first place, then you asked for specific cases.

You got some.

And once those two people you mentioned were found to be here illegally by a U.S. court they are by definition "illegal". The fact that they are appealing their judgment changes nothing unless the appeal is successful. After conviction you are guilty until proven otherwise.

You're gonna need some wheels for those goalposts. Maybe you should take a break from pushing 'em around. I think all the exercise is depleting the oxygen to your brain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom