Post: #26

All this reminds me is of the following:

Why does the majority worry about becoming the monority? It's not like minorities get treated like shit by the majority...right?

Post: #27

That's on the same level of intellectual honesty as questions like "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Post: #28

(01-20-2017 06:27 PM)christpuncher Wrote:  Why does everyone hate on the concept of birthright citizenship so much? Just because some Mexicans and Asians sneak in to have babies? Seems to me that the easy and proper solution is to secure the border and only let foreigners in that are invited, and kick them out if needed.

Wouldn't you feel insecure not having guaranteed citizenship in the home country of your birth? What nationality are we if not where we are born?

Is not as much to hate it as to realize it already live its use. If you check most of the unrestricted Ius Solis countries were recepting of huge inmigration waves /USA/Argentina, Brazil, etc), and you had the problem of what to do with the sons of the recent inmigrants who already have not the citizenship. Also the USA have the situation with the slaves.

The times of the nation-building inmigration ended, and now most of the inmigrants are looking for economic posibilities, with little to none expectation to integrate (or build up) the nation that is hosting them. A restricted Ius Solis, or going Ius Sanguinis (Citizenship by your parents, not the place were you born) is the right thing to do to protect your nation from that type of inmigrant. Funny part is that most of Europe follow Ius Sanguinis, but have to suffer the most of those leeches.

Post: #29

(01-20-2017 07:45 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 07:11 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  No, asinine is asking minorities and others protected by the 14th amendment to remove a key constitutional guarantor of their rights and just hope and pray that there are no negative consequences to doing so. You get real.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Do.../LA.21.htm

Sec. 21.051. DISCRIMINATION BY EMPLOYER. An employer commits an unlawful employment practice if because of race, color, disability, religion, sex, national origin, or age the employer

Texas state law right here as an example.

Why do you think without the federal government, that states are so 'wacist' and backward that minorities wouldn't be safe?

Why do you think that minorities and others impacted by the removal of equal protection should be comfortable giving up the constitutional guarantee of equal protection?

Why should they erode a protection they already have and just kind of hope that their respective states a) do not feel that the removal of federal guarantees of equal protection removes their obligation to provide similar guarantees and b) bother to maintain any such legislation at all and ensure it is as comprehensive and secure as the guarantees the 14th amendment and its associated jurisprudence already give them?

Why would they be ok with this?
Why would you even ASK them to be ok with this?

Post: #30

(01-20-2017 07:21 PM)weambulance Wrote:  I did not say we should repeal the 14th Amendment wholesale at any point in this thread. Nor does repealing the 14th Amendment necessarily require removal of equal protection, obviously.

I'm sick of dealing with people who are inherently incapable of debating in good faith. Good day.

This has got to be a joke.

When folks in this thread expressed concern about the repeal leading to a removal of equal protection, all you had to say was something along the lines of “Hey guys, obviously removing equal protection isn’t on the table. We can repeal the amendment in a way that would keep equal protection, so don’t worry about that. We change things without eliminating that protection.”

That’s it. Done. There would have been no disagreement about that and no further debate needed.

But you didn’t do that. What you did instead was try to explain why those fears held by minorities about the removal of equal protection were unjustified because, in your evaluation, the risk of systematic racism for minorities in a land completely free from constitutional equal protection wasn’t really so great.
You then went on to imply that the concern expressed about the removal of equal protection was somehow indicative or equivalent to an irrational fear/distrust of white people.
Finally, you proceeded to imply that by trying to explain why this fear was rational and justified on the part of those possibly impacted by a repeal, I was “fear mongering”.

Now, after I’ve called you out on all of that indefensible fuckery, you turn around and say I am the one arguing in bad faith. You now cite the notion that repeal wouldn’t require the removal of equal protection, as if you’d been saying that the whole time (you haven’t) and as if you did not begin this particular thread of discussion by explicitly dismissing fears expressed by those who worried about the removal of equal protection.

Quote:I did not say we should repeal the 14th Amendment wholesale at any point in this thread.

That’s true, you didn’t. All you did was imply that the removal of equal protection probably wouldn’t be so bad, minorities and others impacted by repeal were irrational and wrong for worrying so much about it, their concerns were possibly linked to anti-whiteness, and anyone arguing otherwise was “fear mongering”.

And now that you’ve been called out on that, your line suddenly becomes “well, repeal doesn’t necessarily mean ending equal protection, obviously”. Great, just say that from the get go and we’re done. Why was that so hard for you? Why did you instead feel the need to act as though minorities were being irrational for not wanting their constitutional guarantor of equal protection to be eliminated and imply that their concerns were somehow tacitly anti-white?

Again, if you had just said from the get go “removal of equal protection isn’t on the table” and repeal was on the table without it, you’d have a great argument right now. That would have been easy to say. But that isn’t what you said. Now you sit here and act as though that was your argument this whole time. Do you call that arguing in good faith?

I don’t. I call that intellectual fuckery.

I too am sick of dealing with folks who can’t argue in good faith, so hopefully you evolve out of that category in due time and leave this kind of fuckery behind. The forum doesn't need it.

Post: #31

Amendments can be amended, right? So just amend the 14th amendment, take out the part about soil citizenship, or declare an interpretation that says this is for slaves only, not anchor babies.

Post: #32

As a concerned outsider I would say "waste of political capital" is absolutely correct.

Trump may have garnered a lot of cross votes from Democrats but that's a whole lot of cattle that will spook real easy when stuff like this gets bandied around.

If you want to keep the elections clean and toss out the straphangers then you don't need to revive the ghosts of racism to do it.

Proper border controls, stack the SCOTUS with conservatives, take another run at "anchor babies" and institute full voter identification laws. Toss out the illegals leaving them nothing but the shirts on their backs and the rest will follow of their own accord (they already are).

This will give the impression that Trump is returning power to the hands of genuine Americans, rather than trying to strip genuine Americans of something they once had.

Winning is not in tweaking a word here and there. Winning is in the doing. A failure to get hands dirty is what led to this. Not some unfortunate wording on a piece of paper.

Post: #33

(01-21-2017 01:52 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 07:21 PM)weambulance Wrote:  I did not say we should repeal the 14th Amendment wholesale at any point in this thread. Nor does repealing the 14th Amendment necessarily require removal of equal protection, obviously.

I'm sick of dealing with people who are inherently incapable of debating in good faith. Good day.

This has got to be a joke.

When folks in this thread expressed concern about the repeal leading to a removal of equal protection, all you had to say was something along the lines of “Hey guys, obviously removing equal protection isn’t on the table. We can repeal the amendment in a way that would keep equal protection, so don’t worry about that. We change things without eliminating that protection.”

That’s it. Done. There would have been no disagreement about that and no further debate needed.

But you didn’t do that. What you did instead was try to explain why those fears held by minorities about the removal of equal protection were unjustified because, in your evaluation, the risk of systematic racism for minorities in a land completely free from constitutional equal protection wasn’t really so great.
You then went on to imply that the concern expressed about the removal of equal protection was somehow indicative or equivalent to an irrational fear/distrust of white people.
Finally, you proceeded to imply that by trying to explain why this fear was rational and justified on the part of those possibly impacted by a repeal, I was “fear mongering”.

Now, after I’ve called you out on all of that indefensible fuckery, you turn around and say I am the one arguing in bad faith. You now cite the notion that repeal wouldn’t require the removal of equal protection, as if you’d been saying that the whole time (you haven’t) and as if you did not begin this particular thread of discussion by explicitly dismissing fears expressed by those who worried about the removal of equal protection.

Quote:I did not say we should repeal the 14th Amendment wholesale at any point in this thread.

That’s true, you didn’t. All you did was imply that the removal of equal protection probably wouldn’t be so bad, minorities and others impacted by repeal were irrational and wrong for worrying so much about it, their concerns were possibly linked to anti-whiteness, and anyone arguing otherwise was “fear mongering”.

And now that you’ve been called out on that, your line suddenly becomes “well, repeal doesn’t necessarily mean ending equal protection, obviously”. Great, just say that from the get go and we’re done. Why was that so hard for you? Why did you instead feel the need to act as though minorities were being irrational for not wanting their constitutional guarantor of equal protection to be eliminated and imply that their concerns were somehow tacitly anti-white?

Again, if you had just said from the get go “removal of equal protection isn’t on the table” and repeal was on the table without it, you’d have a great argument right now. That would have been easy to say. But that isn’t what you said. Now you sit here and act as though that was your argument this whole time. Do you call that arguing in good faith?

I don’t. I call that intellectual fuckery.

I too am sick of dealing with folks who can’t argue in good faith, so hopefully you evolve out of that category in due time and leave this kind of fuckery behind. The forum doesn't need it.

Do you know how to say things in less than novel length? Or is one of your tactics to try to overwhelm people with your sheer verbosity while only actually making one or two points? Very often, less is more.

You and Kona immediately jumped on the idea of "OMG minorities about to be thrown in concentration camps" with your emotional overreaction to the idea of removing the 14th Amendment. Yours was modestly worse than Kona's but he specifically said, and I quote,

Kona Wrote:Since the right wingers have some pull now, are they going to use every chance they can to force this white supremacy stuff into existence?

Just read the first sentence of this post. Maybe not the ops intent but it says to me "Hey since our side has the votes, maybe its time to make state sanctioned descrimination legal again.

I'm sick of constantly seeing this sort of ridiculous kneejerk response. So yes, I pointed out the wild, baseless, implicitly biased overreaction. And seeing how my first motherfucking post was:

weambulance Wrote:It's obvious we need to get rid of the "if you're here and you have a kid, that kid is a citizen no matter what" nonsense. That's not what the 14th Amendment intended and was a later unchallenged "interpretation".

Yes, my argument from the start was that was what we needed to do. Not remove equal protection. That fact that I did not explicitly promise to grasp equal protection to my bosom for safekeeping does not mean that I meant to repeal it.

So nice try, but I'm sorry the actual facts are inconvenient for your narrative of systematic oppression and dismissal. You make enormous assumptions and put words in peoples' mouths, rely on straw man arguments, and then try to play the morale high ground game. It's absurd.

If you didn't react with outrage to simple questions and responded with less emotionally loaded language--perhaps try to inform rather than criticize once in awhile--maybe people would be more willing to engage in a dialogue with you rather than dismiss you.

Post: #34

(01-21-2017 03:44 AM)weambulance Wrote:  Do you know how to say things in less than novel length?

Do you know how to make a sensible argument in good faith that doesn't rely on a logical fallacy to hold itself up?

Quote:Or is one of your tactics to try to overwhelm people with your sheer verbosity while only actually making one or two points? Very often, less is more.

You could stand to take your own advice here.
Fewer logical fallacies are better than more logical fallacies in dialogue. Less deflection is better than more deflection. Less backpedaling and obfuscation beats more backpedaling and obfuscation. Overall, less is more.
Try it.

Quote:You and Kona immediately jumped on the idea of "OMG minorities about to be thrown in concentration camps" with your emotional overreaction to the idea of removing the 14th Amendment.

And the simple response from you should have been: "Nah, any repeal of the 14th amendment wouldn't need to end equal protection. That's not happening, nobody should support that."

Done.

What do we get from you? Defensiveness.

All you had to do was own up to the fuckery, firmly disavow it, and say "my bad, I was off".
Instead, you try to shift the blame over to us and act like we're the ones with the problem.

Quote:Yours was modestly worse than Kona's but he specifically said, and I quote,

Kona Wrote:Since the right wingers have some pull now, are they going to use every chance they can to force this white supremacy stuff into existence?

Just read the first sentence of this post. Maybe not the ops intent but it says to me "Hey since our side has the votes, maybe its time to make state sanctioned descrimination legal again.

I'm sick of constantly seeing this sort of ridiculous kneejerk response. So yes, I pointed out the wild, baseless, implicitly biased overreaction.

Nothing wild and nothing baseless about it. That presumption and its defensiveness is the problem.

Again, all you had to do was say "nah, equal protection is staying no matter what."
It wasn't hard. But did you say that? No. You went on defence instead before proceeding to attack those who expressed concern.
Again, why was simply disavowing the fuckery in the first place so difficult for you? Can you explain to us why you didn't just do the straightforward, common sense thing and say "hey, equal protection isn't going anywhere - any repeal will keep it around, so don't worry about it"?
Was it just too hard for you? If so, why?

Quote:And seeing how my first motherfucking post was:

weambulance Wrote:It's obvious we need to get rid of the "if you're here and you have a kid, that kid is a citizen no matter what" nonsense. That's not what the 14th Amendment intended and was a later unchallenged "interpretation".

Yes, my argument from the start was that was what we needed to do. Not remove equal protection. That fact that I did not explicitly promise to grasp equal protection to my bosom for safekeeping does not mean that I meant to repeal it.

That first post said you sought to get rid of birthright citizenship. It made no mention at all of equal protection. Your very next post contains your first mention of equal protection (following multiple posts expressing concern on the topic), and that post is designed explicitly to attack those concerned about losing it.

This is not merely about the fact that you did not "grasp equal protection to your bosom". It is about the fact that your very first word in this thread with regard to equal protection (and your only word until I called you out) was not a defence of it, but an attack on those who expressed concern about losing it.

And you wanted people to think that, just because you were silent on the topic of equal protection in your very first post, there was no issue with your stance here and everyone who called you out was just "fear mongering"?

Is this your argument in "good faith"?

Quote:So nice try, but I'm sorry the actual facts are inconvenient for your narrative of systematic oppression and dismissal. You make enormous assumptions and put words in peoples' mouths, rely on straw man arguments, and then try to play the morale high ground game. It's absurd.

There is no "narrative of systematic oppression and dismissal". That is you putting words in my mouth to cover up for your nonsensical stance. All we see here is you talking nonsense and getting called out on it. That's it. There is no straw man, and there is no "enormous assumption". My argument is based on facts, and the facts are your written word, which is in this thread for all to see.

Quote:If you didn't react with outrage to simple questions and responded with less emotionally loaded language--perhaps try to inform rather than criticize once in awhile--maybe people would be more willing to engage in a dialogue with you rather than dismiss you.

If you argued in good faith instead of backpedaling, obfuscating, deflecting, and putting words in people's mouths while pretending that their very legitimate concerns aren't worthwhile at all, maybe people would be more willing to engage in a dialogue with you.

Post: #35

All you Francises need to relax. I was reading the "Hadron Collider = demons" thread and that was a shit show, and this one is too.
Keep it simple, no more anchor babies. If they want their fucking kids to be US citizens, then they themselves need to go through the proper process like everyone else. I think there are pregnant rich chinese chicks who have their kids here so they can have dual citizenship.

Everyone is just abusing our laws so they can get free gravy. It just needs to stop. Tighten the bow, less work for the bilge pump.

Post: #36

(01-20-2017 06:16 PM)weambulance Wrote:  What I care about is the removal of birthright citizenship for children who are born to non-citizens who happen to be on US soil. That is nonsensical.

^^^ Totally agree.


Perhaps repeal is the wrong term. But it certainly needs a "fix".

A child born here, who has 13 dependents, when they are 3 minutes old?
How is that the purpose, or intent of the 14th Amendment?
Should not one parent be a US citizen?

An amendment, with clarification, is the logical progression.
This should probably be discussed again, after Trump is able
to have his 2nd justice seated on the Supreme Court.

Fix the 14th.

Post: #37

I think tempers have unnecessarily flared here, due only to different frames of reference and misunderstandings.

"Repealing the 14th Amendment" is impossible and absurd, period. Even to suggest such a thing shows just how dangerously uninformed so many people in the US are about the nature of the republic, the idea of civic duty, and US history in general. I really hope EDantes was just trolling when he made this thread.

The 14th Amendment is one of the cornerstones of American constitutional law and cuts right to the very heart of what living in a free republic means. I'm not going to lecture anyone on the law; go look it up on Wikipedia. The case law on the 14th Amendment is what shaped most of the rights that Americans take for granted.

So when someone just tosses out the idea of "repealing" it, it's understandable that the reaction is going to be quick and heated. It's only natural. And yes, abuses would happen. Anyone who understands the nature of power knows that unless it is watched, monitored, and checked constantly, it will inevitably do bad things. That's how the world works. The 14th Amendment is there for ALL of us, and all of us need it.

BOTH the right and the left need to be watched, and watched closely, to prevent them from abusing their power over us.

But--having said all that--I think weambulance was making a valid, unrelated point that somehow got buried. I completely agree with him that US citizenship should not be automatic for anyone who just happens to be born here. In most countries in the world, you have to earn your citizenship. In the US right now, any human being born on US soil becomes a citizen, and that is wrong. People are taking advantage of this by coming to the US to have children. This issue could very easily be solved by Congress (if it wanted to) without trying to "repeal the 14th Amendment." That would be like curing a headache by cutting off one's head.


.

Post: #38

Quintus, how could the issue be easily solved in congress without an amendment of sorts? A simple clarification on what it means?

As far as I know the birthright citizenship thing has never been adjudicated properly either.

Post: #39

^^^

They can always find a way if they really wanted to. The constitution doesn't say anything about the citizenship rule applying to people here unlawfully or illegally. They could use executive orders, admin regulations, and the US Code to do whatever the hell they want. Like they always do. All it takes is some creative thinking and balls.

"Involuntary rendition", torture, and illegal detention are all supposed to be illegal under the constitution. But we all know they do it, using various games and tricks of legal legerdemain. And they get the Attorney General to sign off on it. If there is a will, they will find the way.

Post: #40

(01-20-2017 04:49 PM)Libertas Wrote:  The birthright citizenship clause of the 14th has never been properly interpreted, I'm almost completely confident in that.

There is a strong chance that the current court plus Trump's appointee would interpret it as to its original meaning - that people born here to people that have deep ties to the country are citizens, not that anyone in the world can just come here, pop out a baby, and have it be granted citizenship.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


I don't see any reference to "deep ties" except possibly "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; which might prevent something like the Chinese birth tourists.

Are there other writings, perhaps by the Authors supporting this?

The idea of removing the requirement for "due process of law" seems utterly idiotic, and as a perfect and necessary setup for a totalitarian government.

Post: #41

The clause's original meaning was to overturn Dred Scott and say that slaves and their children who had been here for a very long time would be citizens. It wasn't meant to mean that anyone can just come here, pop out a baby, and then that baby becomes a citizen.

Post: #42

Quoted in part from this website:

Quote:The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

Perhaps not the most unbiased source but there are citations at the site to check out for anyone who has the time and interest.

Post: #43

The due process and equal protection clauses in the 14th Amendment interfere with the states' serving as laboratories of democracy and choosing the policies that they feel are best suited for their unique situations and characteristics. The U.S. Supreme Court forces all the states to adopt similar policies, through decisions such as:

• Kennedy v. Louisiana, citing the 14th Amendment in support of the proposition that executing a man for raping a child is cruel and unusual punishment
• Roe v. Wade, citing 14th Amendment due process rights as grounds for legalizing abortion nationwide
• Obergefell v. Hodges, citing equal protection rights as grounds for forcing every state to recognize gay marriage
  

(Leftists, on the other hand, might decry the use of the 14th Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller to force every state to legalize possession of guns.)

The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to prevent federal tyranny. State tyranny was viewed as not so serious of a danger, because people who feel the state they live in is infringing their rights can just move to another state. It's not as challenging as moving to a new country, which might require getting a visa and/or learning a new language.

People's voting with their feet in this way would tend to change national politics. States with better policies would tend to attract a larger number of people to move there, which would cause them to get more representation in the U.S. House and the Electoral College. Those more populous states could then be in a better position to block the less populous states from trying to regain their competitive advantage, without fixing their broken policies, by using the federal government to impose one-size-fits-all policies across the country. At the same time, the states' equal suffrage in the Senate, and juries chosen from local populations, would prevent the more populous states from getting too overbearing.

Now, though, the U.S. Supreme Court acts as a super-legislature, imposing precedents that, because of stare decisis, are hard to change even as old Justices die or retire and are replaced with Justices who would have decided their cases differently. We hear politicians and Supreme Court nominees describing decisions they think were wrong as "settled law" that shouldn't be messed with, now that so many other decisions have been based on those precedents. With the states' being less able to act as laboratories of democracy, we have less basis for comparison by which we could judge whether one policy works better than another. For example, leftists say that gay marriage is better, but how can they prove it, if we can't compare a state with gay marriage to a state without it, and see which state people prefer to live in?

As a result, ideological arguments consist largely of empty speculation about what policies would work better if states were allowed to implement them. Also, while Supreme Court justices are vetted based on how they would apply the 14th Amendment, there's no way to hold them accountable in the way that state legislators can be, since they serve a life term. So basically, the 14th Amendment broke what was once a decentralized, federalist scheme and caused stagnation in policymaking.

I'm not entirely sure why the drafters of the 14th Amendment felt the need to establish jus soli as a basis for citizenship. What's the point; why didn't they just grandfather in the freed slaves by saying anyone born in the U.S. before a certain date would be a U.S. citizen, and the children of U.S. citizens would also be U.S. citizens? The Constitution of the Philippines has a grandfather clause that's a little like that.

I knew a guy who came to the U.S. as a baby, worked in construction for many years, and ended up in federal prison for being in the country illegally. He'll get deported when his prison term is up. I don't see a good argument for why he should get treated that way, and a kid who was born in the U.S. of illegal immigrants should not only get to stay but be eligible to be elected President.

Post: #44

(01-20-2017 03:31 PM)weambulance Wrote:  It's obvious we need to get rid of the "if you're here and you have a kid, that kid is a citizen no matter what" nonsense. That's not what the 14th Amendment intended and was a later unchallenged "interpretation".

Couldnt it be like people born in the U.S. WHO ARE BORN TO PARENTS WHO ARE BOTH US CITIZENS OR NATUALIZED CITIZENS be a better idea? I dont why youd need to repeal it when you can just edit it to prevent fraud...

Post: #45

I was interested in what you had to see untill you mentioned this:

(02-10-2017 04:24 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  I knew a guy who came to the U.S. as a baby, worked in construction for many years, and ended up in federal prison for being in the country illegally. He'll get deported when his prison term is up. I don't see a good argument for why he should get treated that way, and a kid who was born in the U.S. of illegal immigrants should not only get to stay but be eligible to be elected President.

You mean to tell me that for 20+ years of like, he never thought to take the propper tests etc to get citizenship? what was he doing all of this time? He didnt have the money? really? he coudln`t save up enough money for this? was he working slave wages? if so, why werent his employers caught and jailed as well? This doesn`t make sense, you cant expect me to have sympathy for someone screwing up in such a manner, then try to convince me becuase of this guy`s fuck up we should change immigration laws for this guys mistake.

Im not buying it. In fact, it makes me forget the rest of what you said.

Its like we dont seem to have immigration laws in our country anymore. The people didn`t decide on letting refugess in the country? Are there no laws on immigration? Why arent they being followed if they are? Sure due process is important and I agree, but arent people who break the law jailed while they`re in due process awaiting trial? Should trump just go an jail all the refugees or others coming into the country without a passport?

Whats stopping the rest of the world from just taking boats and ending up on our shores and the U.S. not doing anything about it? isnt that called an invasion?

A lot of your arguments need some fine tuning. and Make sure you dont include some silly sob story anecdote about "a guy you know" I`m sorry, but no one really cares about a "guy you know/a friend/etc. . ." when it comes to the laws of the country.

Try again. . . or don`t.

Post: #46

I've stayed away from the political side of this website bc it seems so conservative. While I respect Roosh I don't share his political views. I guess a lot of this paradigm was born out of manosphere roots?

Post: #47

What are you asking?

It's the guy's parent's fault for his predicament. I don't understand why it wasn't caught when he went to get a ID/Drivers license/social security card or signing up for selective service.

Don't want your kids to be incarcerated for your fuckup? Then don't come here illegally, go through the proper channels.

Post: #48

The problem with any philosophical approach to the law is that you can change the law, but if the culture doesn't reflect the values in the law, it will be ignored or overturned. America decided culturally that faggotry was fantastic, after years of pushing it on television in movies. If you pushed the face of AIDS, and all the pedo crap that many homos engage in, people would be absolutely outraged, and there would be no "gay marriage". The law exists because the culture has gotten soft.

Repealing the 14th Amendment has no cultural demand.

When people finally suffer enough economically, people will give up pet projects like protecting illegal immigrants, fighting for "gay rights" and all that nonsense. When a culture doesn't believe in God, go to church regularly and isn't lead by strong patriarchs within the family, the shit storm ensues. The law is downstream of culture, and the culture has failed at this current point. We will slowly have to rebuild culture before the law can be changed. Just like we will eventually have to repeal the 19th Amendment, but the time has not yet come for that.

Post: #49

Why isn't this thread "Repealing the 19th Amendment"?

That's the one I want to see gone.

Post: #50

Repealing the 19th will only be possible once the country is in shambles due to total economic collapse, Islamic terrorism gone wild (women wanting to stay home instead of go out, including to vote) or Civil War II/invasion by a much more masculine (read sexist!) culture that curtails female "rights". It may happen in our life time, but it would mean the country is utterly collapsed and rebuilding from the ashes at the point.