I was right: President Elect Trump

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

[dondub]

The GOP has not run a conservative candidate since 1984.

They didn't run one in 1984 either.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 17, 2015 22:16:41 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Birth right citizenship is supported by the 14th Amendment. I don't know what it would take for Trump to end that.

I would contend again that it is a misreading of the 14th Amendment to say that the children of illegal aliens qualify.  The key should be in the phrase, "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...."

Illegal aliens by the very fact of their existence here have not subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States.  If they had in fact done so, they would not in fact be here.  Since the parents have not subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States, any children born of them while here cannot be said to be subject to that jurisdiction either.  Thus they should not qualify for citizenship.  Their citizenship should follow that of the parents.  

section 1401 of the US code clarifies the 14th amendment (that is why it begins 14XX).  it is quite clear about anchor babies, and specifies when they are citizens.  there is nothing left to interpretation whatsoever. 

this is the old "jus soli" -vs- "jus sanguinis" argument, and it fails miserably in face of the facts.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 18, 2015 11:07:30 GMT -5 dondub said:

The GOP has not run a conservative candidate since 1984.

They didn't run one in 1984 either.

Reagan was more liberal than any GOP nominee since then.  he would have to run as a Democrat if he ran today.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 18, 2015 6:00:40 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Conservatives are still the largest ideological group- 38%. 

true, but conservatives have been treading water for two decades, whereas liberals are soaring by identity:


nothing suggests that this trend will not continue.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 18, 2015 11:16:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 18, 2015 11:07:30 GMT -5 dondub said:

The GOP has not run a conservative candidate since 1984.

They didn't run one in 1984 either.

Reagan was more liberal than any GOP nominee since then.  he would have to run as a Democrat if he ran today.

You know I'm not susceptible to this nonsense.  Go try it on someone else.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 18, 2015 11:50:23 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 18, 2015 11:16:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Reagan was more liberal than any GOP nominee since then.  he would have to run as a Democrat if he ran today.

You know I'm not susceptible to this nonsense. 

i wasn't replying to you.  i was replying to dondub.

Go try it on someone else.

sure thing.  but one question first:

how did Reagan feel about amnesty, Paul?

[djAdvocate]

when you get done answering that, answer THIS:

www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/obama-is-a-republican/

[dondub]

You know I'm not susceptible to this nonsense truth.

Blinders are wonderful, but nothing that has been said about Reagan is not true.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 18, 2015 11:57:20 GMT -5 dondub said:

You know I'm not susceptible to this nonsense truth.

Blinders are wonderful, but nothing that has been said about Reagan is not true.

forgive him, don.  Paul was just a teen when Reagan was president.  he wasn't paying attention. 

[dondub]

He can bone up here:

prorev.com/reagan.htm

[Wisconsin Beth]

Aug 18, 2015 11:15:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 17, 2015 22:16:41 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I would contend again that it is a misreading of the 14th Amendment to say that the children of illegal aliens qualify.  The key should be in the phrase, "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...."

Illegal aliens by the very fact of their existence here have not subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States.  If they had in fact done so, they would not in fact be here.  Since the parents have not subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States, any children born of them while here cannot be said to be subject to that jurisdiction either.  Thus they should not qualify for citizenship.  Their citizenship should follow that of the parents.  

section 1401 of the US code clarifies the 14th amendment (that is why it begins 14XX).  it is quite clear about anchor babies, and specifies when they are citizens.  there is nothing left to interpretation whatsoever. 

this is the old "jus soli" -vs- "jus sanguinis" argument, and it fails miserably in face of the facts.

I wonder if this is the story I saw but either didn't read or didn't retain.  And now I can't find it. 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 18, 2015 12:07:03 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Aug 18, 2015 11:15:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

section 1401 of the US code clarifies the 14th amendment (that is why it begins 14XX).  it is quite clear about anchor babies, and specifies when they are citizens.  there is nothing left to interpretation whatsoever. 

this is the old "jus soli" -vs- "jus sanguinis" argument, and it fails miserably in face of the facts.

I wonder if this is the story I saw but either didn't read or didn't retain.  And now I can't find it. 

it's the old birther argument, and it has been tested over and over in court, and never passed muster.

edit: which brings us nicely back to Trump, and his birther insanity. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 18, 2015 11:52:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 18, 2015 11:50:23 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

You know I'm not susceptible to this nonsense. 

i wasn't replying to you.  i was replying to dondub.

Go try it on someone else.

sure thing.  but one question first:

how did Reagan feel about amnesty, Paul?

We've been over this.  It's like tipping and gas prices- the topic bores me.  I know the answer- and you won't listen to it, so why should I bother?

[djAdvocate]

Aug 18, 2015 13:28:49 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 18, 2015 11:52:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

sure thing.  but one question first:

how did Reagan feel about amnesty, Paul?

We've been over this.  It's like tipping and gas prices- the topic bores me.  I know the answer- and you won't listen to it, so why should I bother?

we have not been over this, actually.  if we had, i would not be asking you.  this is the FIRST TIME i have asked you this question.

we have been over many other aspects of the Reagan administration, but not this one.

and i ALWAYS listen, Paul.  ALWAYS.  many posters send me IM's asking me WHY i always pay attention, even when the poster doesn't merit it. 

[Value Buy]

Aug 18, 2015 11:15:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 17, 2015 22:16:41 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I would contend again that it is a misreading of the 14th Amendment to say that the children of illegal aliens qualify.  The key should be in the phrase, "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...."

Illegal aliens by the very fact of their existence here have not subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States.  If they had in fact done so, they would not in fact be here.  Since the parents have not subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States, any children born of them while here cannot be said to be subject to that jurisdiction either.  Thus they should not qualify for citizenship.  Their citizenship should follow that of the parents.  

section 1401 of the US code clarifies the 14th amendment (that is why it begins 14XX).  it is quite clear about anchor babies, and specifies when they are citizens.  there is nothing left to interpretation whatsoever. 

this is the old "jus soli" -vs- "jus sanguinis" argument, and it fails miserably in face of the facts.

dj,
The fact of the matter, the 14th Amendment dealt with slavery issues.
Anchor babies of illegal aliens were never anticipated by the Amendment.
That said, I do agree there is nothing left to interpretation.

[dondub]

There are plenty of kool-aid filled hot tubs in Florida.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Aug 18, 2015 14:51:22 GMT -5 dondub said:

There are plenty of kool-aid filled hot tubs in Florida.

What does that mean?

[djAdvocate]

Aug 18, 2015 14:13:45 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Aug 18, 2015 11:15:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

section 1401 of the US code clarifies the 14th amendment (that is why it begins 14XX).  it is quite clear about anchor babies, and specifies when they are citizens.  there is nothing left to interpretation whatsoever. 

this is the old "jus soli" -vs- "jus sanguinis" argument, and it fails miserably in face of the facts.

dj,
The fact of the matter, the 14th Amendment dealt with slavery issues.
Anchor babies of illegal aliens were never anticipated by the Amendment.
That said, I do agree there is nothing left to interpretation.

the 14th also didn't deal with corporations, but it was used in that capacity as well.  it is quite a broad amendment, and much like the 2nd, it has been expanded to case law well beyond it's original intent.  i am not sure that is all bad.  and i am even more unsure that it is all good.

[tallguy]

Aug 18, 2015 11:15:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 17, 2015 22:16:41 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I would contend again that it is a misreading of the 14th Amendment to say that the children of illegal aliens qualify.  The key should be in the phrase, "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...."

Illegal aliens by the very fact of their existence here have not subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States.  If they had in fact done so, they would not in fact be here.  Since the parents have not subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States, any children born of them while here cannot be said to be subject to that jurisdiction either.  Thus they should not qualify for citizenship.  Their citizenship should follow that of the parents.  

section 1401 of the US code clarifies the 14th amendment (that is why it begins 14XX).  it is quite clear about anchor babies, and specifies when they are citizens.  there is nothing left to interpretation whatsoever. 

this is the old "jus soli" -vs- "jus sanguinis" argument, and it fails miserably in face of the facts.

What is clear about it?  The same phrase is still there, and none of the other paragraphs apply.  Why should, "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" not be debated?  Even the Court's decision in Ark is not necessarily declarative, considering the parents were in the country legally. 

This is something that Congress needs to address.  My recollection is that some discussions have taken place and some legislation has been introduced, but none has ever been passed.  It needs to be.  It is asinine that this country basically encourages people to break the law and bypass legal immigration procedures to get their children born here and thus better their chances of obtaining citizenship for themselves.  Lawbreakers should not be rewarded.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 18, 2015 19:57:39 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Aug 18, 2015 11:15:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

section 1401 of the US code clarifies the 14th amendment (that is why it begins 14XX).  it is quite clear about anchor babies, and specifies when they are citizens.  there is nothing left to interpretation whatsoever. 

this is the old "jus soli" -vs- "jus sanguinis" argument, and it fails miserably in face of the facts.

What is clear about it? 

everything.  it even includes people of UNKNOWN PARENTAGE.  it includes people like Cruz, who was not even born here.

The same phrase is still there, and none of the other paragraphs apply. 

every paragraph applies to the 14th amendment.  that is what this section of the code is about.

Why should, "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" not be debated?

it has been debated, in the courts, and in congress, for almost 150 years.  that debate is codified in 8.1401.

Even the Court's decision in Ark is not necessarily declarative, considering the parents were in the country legally. 

their immigration status is immaterial to the ruling.  if Ark was born in the port while his parents were on vacation, the ruling would be precisely the same.  the Ark ruling favors my interpretation, and that in section 1401.  here is the conclusion of that ruling:

(District Court, N. D. California. January 3, 1896.) No. 11,198.

CITIZENSHIP—CHILD OF CHINESE PARENTS.

A person born within the limits of the United States, whose father and mother were both persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the emperor of China, but, at the time of the birth, were both domiciled residents of the United States, is a citizen of the United States, within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States.

This is something that Congress needs to address.  My recollection is that some discussions have taken place and some legislation has been introduced, but none has ever been passed.  It needs to be. 

no.  it doesn't.  the courts can decide, if congress doesn't.  and if congress DID decide, the courts might still end up deciding.

never took you for a birther.  you are full of surprises. 

edit: the rest of this ruling is super duper clear on this subject.  anyone who doesn't understand the 14th Amendment and how it plays out in immigration law should read the whole damn thing.  the language is less than 120 years old, and contains all of the relevant points.

[tallguy]

To be clear, I was saying with, "what is clear about it?" that it does not define the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  I believe that phrase to be very relevant.  Also, the other paragraphs do not apply to the children of two illegal aliens.  That was the meaning there.  And how much of the historical debate was on this particular point?  Much of it was about the children of slaves. 

I know what the ruling in Ark was, and whether you agree with it or not, it again is not specifically on point since the parents were in the country legally and thus had in fact subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States.  And yes, it is a matter for the courts, but Congress needs to pass a law to get it there to be challenged.  There is no possibility that it will be changed until there is a challenge to it.  

[djAdvocate]

Aug 18, 2015 20:23:46 GMT -5 tallguy said:

To be clear, I was saying with, "what is clear about it?" that it does not define the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  I believe that phrase to be very relevant.  Also, the other paragraphs do not apply to the children of two illegal aliens.  That was the meaning there.  And how much of the historical debate was on this particular point?  Much of it was about the children of slaves. 

I know what the ruling in Ark was, and whether you agree with it or not, it again is not specifically on point since the parents were in the country legally and thus had in fact subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States.  And yes, it is a matter for the courts, but Congress needs to pass a law to get it there to be challenged.  There is no possibility that it will be changed until there is a challenge to it.  

the legality is not an issue.  but even if it WERE, you could still have "birth tourism".  a pregnant couple, on vacation, can have their kid here, perfectly legally.  US citizen.  the Ark case makes that abundantly clear, even if you are hung up on the "legality" of the parents.  it is clear because the title of the case, and the summary BOTH state, without any ambivalence, that the fact that the parents are farners is totally irrelevant.  Ark is a triumph for jus soli- the idea that if you are born on this soil, you are a citizen of this nation, no matter what the citizenship of your parents is.

as to the first paragraph, there are over a dozen examples that indicate what subject to the jurisdiction is, or at least what it is NOT.  and what it is NOT is anything to do with the immigration status of the parents, except when the child is born outside the US.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 18, 2015 20:45:51 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

And yes, it is a matter for the courts, but Congress needs to pass a law to get it there to be challenged. There is no possibility that it will be changed until there is a challenge to it.

And we've circled nicely back to the political pipe dream part. The Dems won't do it because too many of them ideologically support open border policies. The Pubs won't do it because their corporate overlords love the cheap labor. Trump talking about it is cool and all, but even if elected he doesn't have the power to change it either.

I expect to see zero changes to the fourteenth, or any other, amendment anytime in the near future, which means people will continue to sneak across the border to get instant citizenship for their kids. Doesn't matter how many guards we put on the border, or how big a fence we build. As long as US businesses will hire them, and their kids get instant citizenship and a free education, they'll continue sneaking in.

i expect zero changes to the 14th, as well.  it would be "bad for business", to paraphrase your reply.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 18, 2015 14:01:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 18, 2015 13:28:49 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

We've been over this.  It's like tipping and gas prices- the topic bores me.  I know the answer- and you won't listen to it, so why should I bother?

we have not been over this, actually.  if we had, i would not be asking you.  this is the FIRST TIME i have asked you this question.

we have been over many other aspects of the Reagan administration, but not this one.

and i ALWAYS listen, Paul.  ALWAYS.  many posters send me IM's asking me WHY i always pay attention, even when the poster doesn't merit it. 

I didn't say you, I said we- meaning the topic has been broached. I'm sorry if you missed our discussion on Reagan signing the amnesty bill in which we got amnesty, but were betrayed on each and every one of the assurances connected to it.  Just like we never got the $1 dollar in spending cuts for every dollar in tax cuts promised by Tip O'Neil and the Democrat House and Senate.  I know you frequently RESPOND, and people ask you why you RESPOND, but responding is different than listening. 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 19, 2015 9:19:25 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 18, 2015 14:01:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

we have not been over this, actually.  if we had, i would not be asking you.  this is the FIRST TIME i have asked you this question.

we have been over many other aspects of the Reagan administration, but not this one.

and i ALWAYS listen, Paul.  ALWAYS.  many posters send me IM's asking me WHY i always pay attention, even when the poster doesn't merit it. 

I didn't say you, I said we- meaning the topic has been broached. I'm sorry if you missed our discussion on Reagan signing the amnesty bill in which we got amnesty, but were betrayed on each and every one of the assurances connected to it.  Just like we never got the $1 dollar in spending cuts for every dollar in tax cuts promised by Tip O'Neil and the Democrat House and Senate.  I know you frequently RESPOND, and people ask you why you RESPOND, but responding is different than listening. 

i thought WE meant both of us, and i wasn't part of that discussion.  so, thanks for the reply.

edit: do you think Obama could make the same deal today?  do you think any of the GOP candidates would even consider it?

[happyhoix]

Aug 18, 2015 20:45:51 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

And yes, it is a matter for the courts, but Congress needs to pass a law to get it there to be challenged. There is no possibility that it will be changed until there is a challenge to it.

And we've circled nicely back to the political pipe dream part. The Dems won't do it because too many of them ideologically support open border policies. The Pubs won't do it because their corporate overlords love the cheap labor. Trump talking about it is cool and all, but even if elected he doesn't have the power to change it either.

I expect to see zero changes to the fourteenth, or any other, amendment anytime in the near future, which means people will continue to sneak across the border to get instant citizenship for their kids. Doesn't matter how many guards we put on the border, or how big a fence we build. As long as US businesses will hire them, and their kids get instant citizenship and a free education, they'll continue sneaking in.

I agree, this is something politicians talk a lot about because it inspires a lot of passion in the voters, but it isn't something anyone will ever change, due to the reasons you pointed out.

And because Trump seems to be gaining a lot of popularity with his policy of kicking all the Hispanics out and making Mexico build a big-ass wall, many of the other GOP candidates are flocking to parrot his words, as well, but I'm certain none of them plan to actually DO anything about it.

Politicians. When will we devise a system of government that does not include them? Appointing leaders randomly from a list of literate Americans for 2 year terms is looking more and more appealing.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 19, 2015 12:19:15 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Aug 18, 2015 20:45:51 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

And we've circled nicely back to the political pipe dream part. The Dems won't do it because too many of them ideologically support open border policies. The Pubs won't do it because their corporate overlords love the cheap labor. Trump talking about it is cool and all, but even if elected he doesn't have the power to change it either.

I expect to see zero changes to the fourteenth, or any other, amendment anytime in the near future, which means people will continue to sneak across the border to get instant citizenship for their kids. Doesn't matter how many guards we put on the border, or how big a fence we build. As long as US businesses will hire them, and their kids get instant citizenship and a free education, they'll continue sneaking in.

I agree, this is something politicians talk a lot about because it inspires a lot of passion in the voters, but it isn't something anyone will ever change, due to the reasons you pointed out.

And because Trump seems to be gaining a lot of popularity with his policy of kicking all the Hispanics out and making Mexico build a big-ass wall, many of the other GOP candidates are flocking to parrot his words, as well, but I'm certain none of them plan to actually DO anything about it.

Politicians. When will we devise a system of government that does not include them? Appointing leaders randomly from a list of literate Americans for 2 year terms is looking more and more appealing.

i think that the GOP is making a huge tactical error tossing in with Donald on this.  in the 2012 post-mortem, the RNC issued a report.  it had only one serious recommendation: to work harder to court the Latino vote.  they posited- rightly, i think- that failure to do so is basically robbing them of a political future.  what Donald is feeding is the alternate view of reality- that somehow we (as white folks) can deport our way to a permanent majority.  but i think that is a fools errand. 

if the GOP doesn't choose to jettison the more overtly racist and jingoist parts of Trumps message, they are going to lose HUGE in 2016.

[happyhoix]

I saw today that Trump called out Mark Zuckerburg on the issue of H-1B visas for tech workers.

money.cnn.com/2015/08/17/news/companies/donald-trump-mark-zuckerberg-immigration/

Good move, Trump, piss off the geek with enormous discretionary spending money and access to tech geniuses.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 19, 2015 15:30:50 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

I saw today that Trump called out Mark Zuckerburg on the issue of H-1B visas for tech workers.

money.cnn.com/2015/08/17/news/companies/donald-trump-mark-zuckerberg-immigration/

Good move, Trump, piss off the geek with enormous discretionary spending money and access to tech geniuses.

Good! H1B visas are overused and the only reason businesses want them is to drive down their labor cost. There are still plenty of US citizens graduating from school with degrees in software engineering, computer science, etc. Saying they can't find any is bullshit. They want the Indian guys because they'll work for less.

They should be called out when they blatantly lie about stuff. I wish more politicians were willing to call the billionaires out on their bullshit.

I know several people here on H1B visas- big corps love 'em. It's like indentured servitude.  They have to have a sponsor, so they live in fear of losing their employment or changing jobs because it might mean losing their visa.  Employers abuse the shit out of these people- and they're the LEGAL aliens.