Republicans Push To Revise 14th Amendment

[quadraginta]

<snip>

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.

Okay. I think you're out of line.

A little ways back upthread you said,

<snip>

This is not some issue of common knowledge or current events that anyone should be expected to know.

<snip>

It's tough these days to be sure what "common knowledge" consists of, but if you are going to take issue with points of fact concerning history then that standard is different than it is if you are talking about what happened last week with Mel Gibson and Oksana.

If you are going to offer opinions concerning the motivations of major historical figures a century or more in our past then the standard of "common knowledge" requires that you devote at least some effort to learning what actually happened then. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air.

It isn't arcane knowledge. When Steven Ambrose wrote Nothing Like It In the World, a book about the transcontinental railroad, it was a New York Times best seller, not an obscure work of academia. He went into no small detail about the Chinese immigrants, their treatment and their legitimacy. He even discussed a little about Leland Stanford's successful bid for California governor on an anti-Chinese platform while he was busy shipping them into the country by the boatload to build the railroad.

That's just one little example of what can happen when you actually set out to learn some history.

You might not pick this up by watching Oprah or Dr. Phil, or even Fox News, but if you want to participate in informed debate there is some diligence beyond that required on your part.

 

[Region Rat]

Okay. I think you're out of line.

A little ways back upthread you said,




It's tough these days to be sure what "common knowledge" consists of, but if you are going to take issue with points of fact concerning history then that standard is different than it is if you are talking about what happened last week with Mel Gibson and Oksana.

If you are going to offer opinions concerning the motivations of major historical figures a century or more in our past then the standard of "common knowledge" requires that you devote at least some effort to learning what actually happened then. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air.

It isn't arcane knowledge. When Steven Ambrose wrote Nothing Like It In the World, a book about the transcontinental railroad, it was a New York Times best seller, not an obscure work of academia. He went into no small detail about the Chinese immigrants, their treatment and their legitimacy. He even discussed a little about Leland Stanford's successful bid for California governor on an anti-Chinese platform while he was busy shipping them into the country by the boatload to build the railroad.

That's just one little example of what can happen when you actually set out to learn some history.

You might not pick this up by watching Oprah or Dr. Phil, or even Fox News, but if you want to participate in informed debate there is some diligence beyond that required on your part.

Point taken, and I'll accept that. I would like to say, however, that I was not offering the opinion on the historical figure. The quote from the historical figure came out of the blue, and was explained to be something other than what the quote actually said. I thought it should be clarified. I did not dispute it, and even said that it may very well be true. But again, I'll take the critique to heart.

 

[quadraginta]

Point taken, and I'll accept that. I would like to say, however, that I was not offering the opinion on the historical figure. The quote from the historical figure came out of the blue, and was explained to be something other than what the quote actually said. I thought it should be clarified. I did not dispute it, and even said that it may very well be true. But again, I'll take the critique to heart.

An honorable response. I respect you for that.

 

[pgwenthold]

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?

Apparently the thought is that the reason so many people are immigrating is so that their kids can be born here and be citizens of the US, and then to use that citizenship as a means to get citizenship for the parents. It's all part of a carefully devised plan, see?

I mean, it couldn't just be an attempt to prevent hispanic babies from being US citizens or anything.

So if their kids can't gain citizenship, apparently those mexicans won't be lured to the US by the promise of jobs by sleazy companies and stuff.

 

[drkitten]

Apparently the thought is that the reason so many people are immigrating is so that their kids can be born here and be citizens of the US, and then to use that citizenship as a means to get citizenship for the parents. It's all part of a carefully devised plan, see?

Well, this is easy enough to check empirically. If it was anything other than the promise of citizenship for kids, we'd never see married males illegally enter the States to work for companies, while leaving their families behind. There would be no point if you didn't bring your wife so she could give birth on US soil.

And since we know that Fox News is infallible, this must mean that there are a hell of a lot of Mexican women working construction and agriculture in drag.

 

[eeyore1954]

Well, this is easy enough to check empirically. If it was anything other than the promise of citizenship for kids, we'd never see married males illegally enter the States to work for companies, while leaving their families behind. There would be no point if you didn't bring your wife so she could give birth on US soil.

And since we know that Fox News is infallible, this must mean that there are a hell of a lot of Mexican women working construction and agriculture in drag.

I don't understand. There is only one reason people would come here?

Apparently the thought is that the reason so many people are immigrating is so that their kids can be born here and be citizens of the US, and then to use that citizenship as a means to get citizenship for the parents.

The thought is that a lot of people come here and the hope that their children can become American citizens is one the reasons some come . I don't think to many are thinking about citizenship for themselves by having children here.

A lot of people also come here strictly to find work and do not bring their families. Some 35 years ago I lived with a few.

a hell of a lot of Mexican women working construction and agriculture

I worked in the fields of the California central valley many years ago and there were in fact many very hardworking Mexican women along side of me. Even more so at fruit picking time.

 

[Drysdale]

Well, this is easy enough to check empirically. If it was anything other than the promise of citizenship for kids, we'd never see married males illegally enter the States to work for companies, while leaving their families behind. There would be no point if you didn't bring your wife so she could give birth on US soil.

And since we know that Fox News is infallible, this must mean that there are a hell of a lot of Mexican women working construction and agriculture in drag.

Well, to be fair. Many illegal males that come here do so with the intent of eventually bringing their family. After they have found work,living quarters,etc. I've worked with many that do exactly that. Not sure that's a solid argument.

 

[bynmdsue]

Harry Reid tried to fix this problem long ago...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/aug/12/1993-flip-flop-senreid-introduced-bill-clarifying-/

 

[Brainster]

Harry Reid tried to fix this problem long ago...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/aug/12/1993-flip-flop-senreid-introduced-bill-clarifying-/

But he said he was really, really sorry for doing it. So can we get back to bashing the Republicans as bigots?

 

[dudalb]

I am in favor of clarifying a la Harry Reid, but I don't think scare tactics like the "Terror Babies" are going to help matter much.

 

[pipelineaudio]

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.

How does an illegal get a restraining order put on her?

And the one who was deported after her stay was over just backs up my point about how the system punishes people who try to do things legally.

So yes I am still asking for the name of a woman who was deported after having an anchor baby

 

[pipelineaudio]

I mean, it couldn't just be an attempt to prevent hispanic babies from being US citizens or anything.

Yes, that's exactly why, I mean hey we hispanics would HATE to have other hispanics around! And we LOVE it when you people lump us in with the criminal invaders

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, that's exactly why, I mean hey we hispanics would HATE to have other hispanics around! And we LOVE it when you people lump us in with the criminal invaders

Right.. you're hispanic, and I'm a Chinese jet pilot.

 

[Drysdale]

Right.. you're hispanic, and I'm a Chinese jet pilot.

You're calling someone a liar because they are saying they are hispanic and have a view which you disagree with?

If I may ask, why?

 

[bynmdsue]

But he said he was really, really sorry for doing it.

Harry Reid can't even apologize correctly.http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/08/harry-reids-birthright-non-apology.html

 

[Drysdale]

OK, is it ok to fine companies heavily to deter illegals?

If so, is it ok to prevent auto citizenship just because a child is born on USA soil, via someone that has broken the law to do so.

If not why? Is'nt the objective the same?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yes, that's exactly why, I mean hey we hispanics would HATE to have other hispanics around! And we LOVE it when you people lump us in with the criminal invaders

Right.. you're hispanic, and I'm a Chinese jet pilot.

You're calling someone a liar because they are saying they are hispanic and have a view which you disagree with?

That's sure how it looks to me.

Just to add another data point. My brother, and his wife both have about the same opinion of illegal immigration that I do—similar to what pipelineaudio expressed.

My brother's wife is an immigrant (legal) from Mexico.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You're calling someone a liar because they are saying they are hispanic and have a view which you disagree with?

If I may ask, why?

I know people who claim to be Native American because they have a 4th removed grandfather who was a Native.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I know people who claim to be Native American because they have a 4th removed grandfather who was a Native.

I'm a Native American, because I was born a citizen of this country, as were my parents, my grandparents, and my great-grandparents. If you go back far enough, all my lines lead to ancestors that came over from Europe.

 

[EvilSmurf]

By the way, all you anti illegal immigration folks, I have one question. Are you aware of how to immigrate to this country legally? I'll give you a hint:
1) Be married to an American, or have an American family member (oh, and let me point out as has been mentioned in this thread 12748932574389 times, an "anchor baby" makes this requirement a little more punitive).
2) Have a high-paying job lined up that the employer has advertised and been unable to find an American to fill.
3) Beat statistically improbable odds and win the INS lottery.
4) There is no 4.