The Official 2024 Presidential Thread

[pulmonarymd]

Sept 3, 2024 10:09:55 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 3, 2024 10:01:52 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

She was born here. She is a natural born US citizen. What else does she need to be qualified to run? You think an insurrectionist felon is qualified. This pales in comparison

blah blah blah false insurrectionist crap. I said before Trump with all his faults is still better than anyone the Dems could put fourth. I didn't say she wasn't legal to run I said it would be great if she couldn't

If she is so bad, you should want her to run, because Trump should beat her easily

[minnesotapaintlady]

Sept 3, 2024 10:11:48 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 3, 2024 8:11:10 GMT -5 busymom said:

     Then you'd get Walz, and he doesn't take sh*t from anyone.  Either Harris or Walz works for me. That's the advantage of picking a strong VP.  Trump should be taking notes on the selection process.  

Walz is a turd. Infact anything in blue is no good. Hell I would take crazy Marg over Walz. 

The only reason I am against Walz running is that we'll lose him as governor.  He's an amazing guy. 

Man, if all republicans were like you...   Thankfully, I know many and most are good people, and not hateful and angry all the time.

If Trump was running as a democrat I would not vote for him either. 

[swamp]

Sept 3, 2024 0:09:53 GMT -5 Opti said:

Sept 2, 2024 23:49:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

did you realize that it doesn't matter?  

Yes, but that's what the MAGAs will talk about.

Let them talk.   They just keep spouting more and more bullshit.  

[tallguy]

Sept 3, 2024 11:02:34 GMT -5 swamp said:

Sept 3, 2024 0:09:53 GMT -5 Opti said:

Yes, but that's what the MAGAs will talk about.

Let them talk.   They just keep spouting more and more bullshit.  

Well, you know they're not very bright to start with....

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2024 0:22:00 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Sept 2, 2024 22:56:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i just heard that a Republican group is trying to disqualify Harris based on their interpretation of natural born citizen (14th amendment) to NOT mean jus soli.

i have heard this argument before. in fact i think that at least one member of this board has expressed it.

this will probably require a separate thread.

Who would that be?  If you are thinking about me I would suggest that my position is perhaps a little bit more nuanced.  If it is someone else, then...never mind.    

refresh our memories, tallguy .  

edit: while you are at it, please quickly peruse the following article and offer your comments:


www.thebulwark.com/p/kamala-harris-is-the-birthright-citizenship-candidate

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2024 7:37:17 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 2, 2024 23:53:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it would be very interesting for the SCOTUS to take this issue up NOW, given all that has happened in the last (160) years. but i would not put it past THIS court.

Oh it would be great if they ruled she couldn't run.

why?  

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2024 9:00:59 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Sept 3, 2024 7:37:17 GMT -5 scgal said:

Oh it would be great if they ruled she couldn't run.

donald trump's mother was born in Scotland and was not a natural born U.S. citizen. Good for Harris? Then good for trump.

different issue.
you only need ONE citizen parent, according to the 14th.
that is why Obama is a citizen.  it would not matter if he were born on Mars.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2024 10:11:48 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 3, 2024 8:11:10 GMT -5 busymom said:

     Then you'd get Walz, and he doesn't take sh*t from anyone.  Either Harris or Walz works for me. That's the advantage of picking a strong VP.  Trump should be taking notes on the selection process.  

Walz is a turd. Infact anything in blue is no good. Hell I would take crazy Marg over Walz. 

Why?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2024 10:38:29 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Many factors determine how people participate in their civil rights and what political parties they support. Foremost among these is, by a wide margin, family — specifically the parents who might shape the ideological beliefs of their children during their formative years either directly (e.g., through political discussion) or indirectly (e.g., through modeling). Then you have things like gender, religion, race and ethnicity.

However, a new study would like to point out an often-overlooked factor in this discussion, one that goes beyond upbringing. Researchers have found that both IQ scores and genetic markers associated with intelligence can have a significant role in shaping our political affiliations. The researchers at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities found that “intelligence is correlated with a range of left-wing and liberal political beliefs.

“Polygenic scores predicted social liberalism and lower authoritarianism, within-families. Intelligence was able to significantly predict social liberalism and lower authoritarianism, within families, even after controlling for socioeconomic variables. Our findings may provide the strongest causal inference to date of intelligence directly affecting political beliefs,” the researchers wrote in the journal Intelligence.

Researchers have proposed various theories about how political beliefs and intelligence interact. For instance, some studies suggest that individuals with conservative ideologies might, on average, have lower intelligence. Conservatives generally value tradition, respect for authority, and social order, and tend to be skeptical of innovation and change. Meanwhile, liberals typically prioritize values such as equality, social justice, and the protection of civil liberties. They are often more open to change and innovation.

These studies argue that the conservative emphasis on maintaining the status quo could reflect cognitive inflexibility, making such ideologies more attractive to those who struggle with intellectual challenges, especially those involving new information. Some evidence indicates that people holding more conservative views typically achieve lower scores on IQ tests and possess lower educational levels.

Other research has produced different views. German-British psychologist Hans Eysenck proposed a theory suggesting that people with higher intelligence tend to avoid extreme political ideologies. According to this theory, smarter individuals are likely to hold moderate or centrist political views. The reasoning behind this is that both right-wing and left-wing extremes are often linked with dogmatism and rigidity, traits that supposedly attract less intelligent people.

People with a higher IQ and favorable genes for intelligence are more likely to be liberal

This might be a good subject for its own thread, but for right now I can't think of a better place to put it.

this has been known for decades.

[Opti]

Sept 3, 2024 10:54:40 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

Sept 3, 2024 10:11:48 GMT -5 scgal said:

Walz is a turd. Infact anything in blue is no good. Hell I would take crazy Marg over Walz. 

The only reason I am against Walz running is that we'll lose him as governor.  He's an amazing guy. 

Man, if all republicans were like you...   Thankfully, I know many and most are good people, and not hateful and angry all the time.

If Trump was running as a democrat I would not vote for him either. 

I am hoping the only reason she thinks this is all her "news" about Walz is from RW pundits lying about who he is.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2024 10:44:49 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Sept 3, 2024 10:09:55 GMT -5 scgal said:

blah blah blah false insurrectionist crap. I said before Trump with all his faults is still better than anyone the Dems could put fourth. I didn't say she wasn't legal to run I said it would be great if she couldn't

If she is so bad, you should want her to run, because Trump should beat her easily

she doesn't want Trump to win, either, pmd.

there are lots of good third party candidates for those that can't stomach either.  i have voted that way for 3 decades.

[tallguy]

Sept 3, 2024 12:35:57 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 3, 2024 10:38:29 GMT -5 tallguy said:

This might be a good subject for its own thread, but for right now I can't think of a better place to put it.

this has been known for decades.

Of course, and I've said it here myself for a decade, but it just seemed a particularly good time to post it for some reason.   

[tallguy]

Sept 3, 2024 12:29:07 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 3, 2024 0:22:00 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Who would that be?  If you are thinking about me I would suggest that my position is perhaps a little bit more nuanced.  If it is someone else, then...never mind.    

refresh our memories, tallguy .  

edit: while you are at it, please quickly peruse the following article and offer your comments:


www.thebulwark.com/p/kamala-harris-is-the-birthright-citizenship-candidate

Maybe when I get back.  I have to make an airport run.

[Tennesseer]

Sept 3, 2024 10:11:48 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 3, 2024 8:11:10 GMT -5 busymom said:

     Then you'd get Walz, and he doesn't take sh*t from anyone.  Either Harris or Walz works for me. That's the advantage of picking a strong VP.  Trump should be taking notes on the selection process.  

Walz is a turd. Infact anything in blue is no good. Hell I would take crazy Marg over Walz. 

BLess your trump loving insurrectionist heart. Of course you would, dear.

[happyhoix]

Since SC mentioned MTG, I’ve been curious because I haven’t heard anything from her lately. Normally she’s insulting someone or pushing conspiracy theories or referring to Petri dishes as Peachtree dishes. It’s been weirdly quiet.

So I googled it and found that she is massively unpopular with the local voters.

www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-bad-news-poll-unfavorable-rating-mike-johnson-1904388

Something like 42 negative feels versus 20% positive. Yikes.

I don’t think it matters for this election cycle. This is an area that will vote for a broom if it’s a Republican broom. But maybe she’s trying to scrape together some remnants of a reputation.

Could also be that she’s subdued because she didn’t get picked to be Trump’s VP. She was also talking about being one of his cabinet picks, or running for Senate, but I’m sure whoever she’s hit up for advice on that, they’ve told her someone with such a low favoribility rating is not going to be a good pick for either job.

I know she isn’t very self aware - she’s complained frequently about how mean people are towards her. Can’t figure out why that is, I guess.

I’m hoping Trump loses, and I’m hoping when he does, all the MAGA politicians get flushed out with him, including Marge.

[happyhoix]

Also, Trump described his speech habits (where he jumps down rabbit holes, then races off to other rabbit holes) as ‘weaving’ as in, he has all these various branches out to different topics that he ends up, eventually, bringing back and weaving into a final stunning point. According to his English professor friends, they are amazed at his outstanding weaving skills. They tell him “Sir, I’ve never seen anything like it!!”

I’d like to know who these English Professor friends are. I need a list or I call bullshit.

Actually, I’m going to go ahead and call bullshit. .

[thyme4change]

Sept 2, 2024 23:45:42 GMT -5 Opti said:

Sept 2, 2024 23:38:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

she was born in Oakland.  according to jus soli citizenship, she is a citizen by birthright.  naturalized citizens are not eligible to become president.  it is why Schwarzenegger and Musk can't run.

I knew she was born in Oakland. I did not realize though that neither parent was naturalized at the time. 

Were they here legally or illegally?

Not that it matters for her citizenship status - but if they were here legally, then all those people who whine that immigration is fine - as long as it is legal…should be cool.

It takes a long time to get through the system, and often you are here working on a visa or green card or whatever while you are going through the process.

[Opti]

Sept 3, 2024 18:27:44 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Sept 2, 2024 23:45:42 GMT -5 Opti said:

I knew she was born in Oakland. I did not realize though that neither parent was naturalized at the time. 

Were they here legally or illegally?

Not that it matters for her citizenship status - but if they were here legally, then all those people who whine that immigration is fine - as long as it is legal…should be cool.

It takes a long time to get through the system, and often you are here working on a visa or green card or whatever while you are going through the process.

I believe legally. Her dad even worked at several big 10 colleges when she was young. Given her dad's work history he could have even been invited here based on the work he did. Her mom did amazing stuff as well and I think settled in CA after the divorce with the kids.

[Opti]

Sept 3, 2024 18:27:44 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Sept 2, 2024 23:45:42 GMT -5 Opti said:

I knew she was born in Oakland. I did not realize though that neither parent was naturalized at the time. 

Were they here legally or illegally?

Not that it matters for her citizenship status - but if they were here legally, then all those people who whine that immigration is fine - as long as it is legal…should be cool.

It takes a long time to get through the system, and often you are here working on a visa or green card or whatever while you are going through the process.

They were here three to four years before she was born. Not my image of an "anchor" baby as their intention to be here was not based on having kids but following their various paths of work.

[tallguy]

Sept 3, 2024 12:29:07 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 3, 2024 0:22:00 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Who would that be?  If you are thinking about me I would suggest that my position is perhaps a little bit more nuanced.  If it is someone else, then...never mind.    

refresh our memories, tallguy .  

Okay, so I am not in favor of birthright citizenship, and do not believe it should be the law of the land.  The key for me is of course the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...."  There was a narrow exception carved out for foreign diplomats and agents not subject to U.S. laws and for Indians on reservations subject to treaty rather than law.  This is okay, but not sufficient. 

It should be remembered first that there was originally no such concept as an illegal alien.  In fact, there was no restriction on immigration at all and one of the charges in the case for independence (if I remember correctly) was that the King was restricting people from emigrating to America.  We WANTED to add people, and as many as we could.  That is not the case today, and has not been in my lifetime.  We have long had an immigration system and process to both limit the number of persons entering the country and control who they are and where they come from.  We simply cannot afford to bring in as many as wish to come, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.  I don't pretend to know what the numbers should be, but the fact remains that there is a system in place and it is a violation of law to avoid that process.  At any rate, there is no reason to think that because illegal aliens were not specifically named earlier that they should automatically be allowed to benefit.  The concept did not exist.

My primary objection to jus soli is to the idea that the children of illegal immigrants should be U.S. citizens simply because they were born on U.S. soil.  This flies in the face of logic.  By entering and remaining in the country illegally, the parents never subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States.  If they had, they would have been deported.  Their entry into the country was a violation of law, and their mere existence in this country is a continuing violation of law.  One of the basic tenets of jurisprudence is that one should not be allowed to profit from the committing of an illegal act.  That is the entire raison d'etre for the existence of Son of Sam laws.  Those were created to prevent David Berkowitz from potentially profiting by selling his story.  Similarly, American citizenship is a huge benefit to someone from another country.  Many people try for decades even after arriving and remaining here legally, working and supporting this country.  Logic and justice dictate that nobody should be allowed to receive citizenship as the "profit" from an illegal act.

I have far less of an issue (and can indeed see both sides) when referring to the children of those here legally.  They subjected themselves to the process, and the law, and have supposedly done everything asked of them to earn their place here.  I may prefer that citizenship follow the mother*, but would likely not argue for or against either side.  That is certainly not the case for those in the country illegally, and that status alone is sufficient for me to reject the idea.   


* To clarify, I would suggest that the children of non-citizens in the country legally should be allowed legal residency as their parents have, but citizenship should not be conferred simply by virtue of being born here. 

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Sept 3, 2024 18:27:44 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Sept 2, 2024 23:45:42 GMT -5 Opti said:

I knew she was born in Oakland. I did not realize though that neither parent was naturalized at the time. 

Were they here legally or illegally?

Not that it matters for her citizenship status - but if they were here legally, then all those people who whine that immigration is fine - as long as it is legal…should be cool.

It takes a long time to get through the system, and often you are here working on a visa or green card or whatever while you are going through the process.

My former boss was a permanent resident because he didn't want to give up his German citizenship.

All above board, legal and there wasn't a ton of difference in regards to his rights vs becoming a citizen.

Lots of people choose the PM route for a variety of reasons. Doesn't make them less legal.

[Opti]

Just saw this and like Mark Hamill's take.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/don-t-call-him-don-mark-hamill-taunts-trump-with-a-biting-new-first-name/ar-AA1pTIIy?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=3503bece36464a4088fab23c25fa065e&ei=42


x.com/MarkHamill/status/1830676373154996295?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1830676373154996295%7Ctwgr%5E32b3b49fe58e69c273cf5d5254259a12cf51dd3d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Fmark-hamill-donald-trump-name_n_66d6a172e4b0f968d26d92f5

[Tennesseer]

George Conway on Trump’s claim he had ‘right’ to interfere in 2020: ‘Frankly incriminating

Conservative attorney George Conway slammed former President Trump for claiming he had “every right” to interfere with the 2020 election, calling it “frankly incriminating.”

“If I were a lawyer, I tell him he has the Fifth Amendment right to stuff a sock in his mouth but he’s not capable of doing that, and he continually makes remarks that are frankly incriminating,” Conway said Tuesday on CNN.

Trump, in an interview that aired earlier this week on Fox News’s “Life, Liberty & Levin,” said, “It’s so crazy, that my poll numbers go up. Whoever heard you get indicted for interfering with a presidential election, where you have every right to do it, you get indicted, and your poll numbers go up. When people get indicted your poll numbers go down.”

“His statement there in that interview with Mark Levin that to the effect that he had the perfect right to interfere with the election, is an admission that he tried to interfere with the election and that he wasn’t trying to enforce federal law and act in his capacity as president of the United States,” Conway said. “He was trying to win an election that he clearly lost.”

Rest of article here: George Conway on Trump’s claim he had ‘right’ to interfere in 2020: ‘Frankly incriminating’

[billisonboard]

Sept 3, 2024 18:00:51 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Also, Trump described his speech habits (where he jumps down rabbit holes, then races off to other rabbit holes) as ‘weaving’ as in, he has all these various branches out to different topics that he ends up, eventually, bringing back and weaving into a final stunning point. According to his English professor friends, they are amazed at his outstanding weaving skills. They tell him “Sir, I’ve never seen anything like it!!”

I’d like to know who these English Professor friends are. I need a list or I call bullshit.

Actually, I’m going to go ahead and call bullshit. .

A term I have heard for some teacher's lecture style and I think is a better descriptor is "birdwalking'

[tallguy]

Sept 3, 2024 19:15:39 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 3, 2024 18:00:51 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Also, Trump described his speech habits (where he jumps down rabbit holes, then races off to other rabbit holes) as ‘weaving’ as in, he has all these various branches out to different topics that he ends up, eventually, bringing back and weaving into a final stunning point. According to his English professor friends, they are amazed at his outstanding weaving skills. They tell him “Sir, I’ve never seen anything like it!!”

I’d like to know who these English Professor friends are. I need a list or I call bullshit.

Actually, I’m going to go ahead and call bullshit. .

A term I have heard for some teacher's lecture style and I think is a better descriptor is "birdwalking'

Well, he is a dodo.  And would have to be walking because nothing that fat could ever fly.  So yeah, I can see it.  Now if only he would go extinct it would make a perfect analogy.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2024 18:37:24 GMT -5 Opti said:

Sept 3, 2024 18:27:44 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Were they here legally or illegally?

Not that it matters for her citizenship status - but if they were here legally, then all those people who whine that immigration is fine - as long as it is legal…should be cool.

It takes a long time to get through the system, and often you are here working on a visa or green card or whatever while you are going through the process.

I believe legally. Her dad even worked at several big 10 colleges when she was young. Given her dad's work history he could have even been invited here based on the work he did. Her mom did amazing stuff as well and I think settled in CA after the divorce with the kids.

her parents never left.
her mom died here, and her dad lives in DC.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2024 18:40:56 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Sept 3, 2024 12:29:07 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

refresh our memories, tallguy .  

Okay, so I am not in favor of birthright citizenship, and do not believe it should be the law of the land.  The key for me is of course the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...."  There was a narrow exception carved out for foreign diplomats and agents not subject to U.S. laws and for Indians on reservations subject to treaty rather than law.  This is okay, but not sufficient. 

It should be remembered first that there was originally no such concept as an illegal alien.  In fact, there was no restriction on immigration at all and one of the charges in the case for independence (if I remember correctly) was that the King was restricting people from emigrating to America.  We WANTED to add people, and as many as we could.  That is not the case today, and has not been in my lifetime.  We have long had an immigration system and process to both limit the number of persons entering the country and control who they are and where they come from.  We simply cannot afford to bring in as many as wish to come, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.  I don't pretend to know what the numbers should be, but the fact remains that there is a system in place and it is a violation of law to avoid that process.  At any rate, there is no reason to think that because illegal aliens were not specifically named earlier that they should automatically be allowed to benefit.  The concept did not exist.

My primary objection to jus soli is to the idea that the children of illegal immigrants should be U.S. citizens simply because they were born on U.S. soil.  This flies in the face of logic.  By entering and remaining in the country illegally, the parents never subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States.  If they had, they would have been deported.  Their entry into the country was a violation of law, and their mere existence in this country is a continuing violation of law.  One of the basic tenets of jurisprudence is that one should not be allowed to profit from the committing of an illegal act.  That is the entire raison d'etre for the existence of Son of Sam laws.  Those were created to prevent David Berkowitz from potentially profiting by selling his story.  Similarly, American citizenship is a huge benefit to someone from another country.  Many people try for decades even after arriving and remaining here legally, working and supporting this country.  Logic and justice dictate that nobody should be allowed to receive citizenship as the "profit" from an illegal act.

I have far less of an issue (and can indeed see both sides) when referring to the children of those here legally.  They subjected themselves to the process, and the law, and have supposedly done everything asked of them to earn their place here.  I may prefer that citizenship follow the mother*, but would likely not argue for or against either side.  That is certainly not the case for those in the country illegally, and that status alone is sufficient for me to reject the idea.   


* To clarify, I would suggest that the children of non-citizens in the country legally should be allowed legal residency as their parents have, but citizenship should not be conferred simply by virtue of being born here. 

tallguy - i actually have been begrudging you your position because i didn't understand it until now.

so you are saying that so long as the non-citizen parents are pursuing a path to citizenship, that the children of those non-citizens should be granted citizenship?

note that i saved us the more lengthy explanation of why to bottle the point neatly.

also, did you read the article in Bulwark?  i think it is interesting.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2024 19:11:52 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

George Conway on Trump’s claim he had ‘right’ to interfere in 2020: ‘Frankly incriminating

Conservative attorney George Conway slammed former President Trump for claiming he had “every right” to interfere with the 2020 election, calling it “frankly incriminating.”

“If I were a lawyer, I tell him he has the Fifth Amendment right to stuff a sock in his mouth but he’s not capable of doing that, and he continually makes remarks that are frankly incriminating,” Conway said Tuesday on CNN.

Trump, in an interview that aired earlier this week on Fox News’s “Life, Liberty & Levin,” said, “It’s so crazy, that my poll numbers go up. Whoever heard you get indicted for interfering with a presidential election, where you have every right to do it, you get indicted, and your poll numbers go up. When people get indicted your poll numbers go down.”

“His statement there in that interview with Mark Levin that to the effect that he had the perfect right to interfere with the election, is an admission that he tried to interfere with the election and that he wasn’t trying to enforce federal law and act in his capacity as president of the United States,” Conway said. “He was trying to win an election that he clearly lost.”

Rest of article here: George Conway on Trump’s claim he had ‘right’ to interfere in 2020: ‘Frankly incriminating’

he is claiming the right through absolute immunity.

he leaves out the second part "for official duties" because he thinks that elections (particularly ones he is running in) are his official duty as president.

it is actually the complete opposite.  he has a better case of sanctity of elections for anyone OTHER than him.  his own case shows not only a violation of this recently created fiction, but a corrupt intent to subvert the election of his own opponent.

if we still had a rational SCOTUS, he would be barred from running.  he is a clear danger to the republic.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2024 18:50:35 GMT -5 Opti said:

Just saw this and like Mark Hamill's take.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/don-t-call-him-don-mark-hamill-taunts-trump-with-a-biting-new-first-name/ar-AA1pTIIy?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=3503bece36464a4088fab23c25fa065e&ei=42


x.com/MarkHamill/status/1830676373154996295?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1830676373154996295%7Ctwgr%5E32b3b49fe58e69c273cf5d5254259a12cf51dd3d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Fmark-hamill-donald-trump-name_n_66d6a172e4b0f968d26d92f5

Done.  Old.

[tallguy]

Sept 3, 2024 21:00:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 3, 2024 18:40:56 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Okay, so I am not in favor of birthright citizenship, and do not believe it should be the law of the land.  The key for me is of course the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...."  There was a narrow exception carved out for foreign diplomats and agents not subject to U.S. laws and for Indians on reservations subject to treaty rather than law.  This is okay, but not sufficient. 

It should be remembered first that there was originally no such concept as an illegal alien.  In fact, there was no restriction on immigration at all and one of the charges in the case for independence (if I remember correctly) was that the King was restricting people from emigrating to America.  We WANTED to add people, and as many as we could.  That is not the case today, and has not been in my lifetime.  We have long had an immigration system and process to both limit the number of persons entering the country and control who they are and where they come from.  We simply cannot afford to bring in as many as wish to come, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.  I don't pretend to know what the numbers should be, but the fact remains that there is a system in place and it is a violation of law to avoid that process.  At any rate, there is no reason to think that because illegal aliens were not specifically named earlier that they should automatically be allowed to benefit.  The concept did not exist.

My primary objection to jus soli is to the idea that the children of illegal immigrants should be U.S. citizens simply because they were born on U.S. soil.  This flies in the face of logic.  By entering and remaining in the country illegally, the parents never subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States.  If they had, they would have been deported.  Their entry into the country was a violation of law, and their mere existence in this country is a continuing violation of law.  One of the basic tenets of jurisprudence is that one should not be allowed to profit from the committing of an illegal act.  That is the entire raison d'etre for the existence of Son of Sam laws.  Those were created to prevent David Berkowitz from potentially profiting by selling his story.  Similarly, American citizenship is a huge benefit to someone from another country.  Many people try for decades even after arriving and remaining here legally, working and supporting this country.  Logic and justice dictate that nobody should be allowed to receive citizenship as the "profit" from an illegal act.

I have far less of an issue (and can indeed see both sides) when referring to the children of those here legally.  They subjected themselves to the process, and the law, and have supposedly done everything asked of them to earn their place here.  I may prefer that citizenship follow the mother*, but would likely not argue for or against either side.  That is certainly not the case for those in the country illegally, and that status alone is sufficient for me to reject the idea.   


* To clarify, I would suggest that the children of non-citizens in the country legally should be allowed legal residency as their parents have, but citizenship should not be conferred simply by virtue of being born here. 

tallguy - i actually have been begrudging you your position because i didn't understand it until now.

so you are saying that so long as the parents of non-citizens are pursuing a path to citizenship, that the children of those non-citizens should be granted citizenship?

note that i saved us the more lengthy explanation of why to bottle the point neatly.

also, did you read the article in Bulwark?  i think it is interesting.

I assume you meant non-citizen parents here?  No, that is not quite what I am saying.  I would prefer, as I stated in the clarification, that the children of legal non-citizens would "inherit" the legal status of the parents.  If they are legal residents under the law, then their children would be too.  The parents do not have citizenship so they cannot confer citizenship.  I acknowledge that they are not as easily excluded under the wording, though, so don't have nearly the same issue as with illegal immigrants.  It should be noted also that I do not stipulate that the parents must be pursuing a path to citizenship, because not all immigrants even want citizenship.  Some (or many) come here legally to work, but wish to remain citizens of their home country and plan to return later in life.  As I said, though, I do see both sides and likely would not argue for or against either if it were actually up for debate.  Does that explain it better?


I did read it.  I unfortunately went down the rabbit hole of trying to read all of the embedded linked articles as well, and then said, "Okay, that's enough" and closed it all.