The GOP Nomination--The Donald and So Much More!

[3rdnlng]

Most countries do not allow birthright citizenship. Why is it that reasonable people can't question the practice leading to "anchor" or "jackpot" babies without being called a xenophobic nativist? The mere mention of doing away with birthright citizenship supposedly stirs up such rancor amongst legal hispanic citizens (you know, the ones that can vote) that they will forego their natural conservative convictions and side with lawbreakers.

 

Here's another take on the 14th Amendment:

 

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

 

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14^thAmendment 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.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14^thAmendment 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."

Edited August 22, 2015 by 3rdnlng

[Magox]

I didn't know you were King of Latinos and could speak for everyone. Personally, I'll wait for the exit polling. Not saying Trump will win >50% of their vote, but I think he'll do better than Romney and Dole and maybe a few other establishment guys that have been shoved down our throats.

 

 

 

 

I only wish the Republican Party had taken a "whites-only strategy" over the years. I would loathe them much less.

 

Opinions like mine, up until this election cycle, had been fringe. (They might still be fringe, to be fair; we'll see when primary voting actually is conducted.) The vast majority of the GOP has been trying to win the minority vote over the past couple of decades, and it's gotten you nowhere.

 

Your example of the Asians actually serves MY point that the Left can't be overcome on winning the non-white vote. Asians should be Republicans -- family-oriented, successful and don't use welfare for the most part. Leftist policies like affirmative action quotas HURT the Asians with regard to stuff like college admission, and yet the Asians are still trending leftwards.

It doesn't serve your point to anyone who has the ability of reason. Keep turning a blind eye to what's really happening. Your post exemplifies what is wrong with the Nativist portion of the GOP. If you had it your way, you'd have "white only" strategy. Guess what, xenophobe? Minorities already believe rightly or wrongly that many in the GOP shares your views.

[Rob's House]

No, you're just a little kitty once confronted. Now answer the question, show me what part of my post, copy and paste it and explain to me in your Best Cro-Magnon interpretation specifically how I was pandering?

 

Go

 

Project much?

 

First off, my original comment about pandering wasn't even directed at you. You're the one who chose to jump on it. I was referring to the ongoing national debate about how challenging the bogus theory that the constitution mandates granting anchor baby status will cripple the GOP with Latinos. Avoiding a relevant issue to appease a faction is absolutely pandering. The fact that you took it as being directed at you, as well as the fact that you took it so personally, is telling.

 

Your response to that, as well as your emotional reaction to a simple question about your interpretation of "nativist" is also telling. But what's most telling is that you've opted for a pissing match on the topic. When you have a logical argument you usually go with that. Here you've not only opted first for the pissing match, you've actively avoided addressing anything substantive. That, along with your reference to "emotional depth" (and your propensity for projection) suggests you don't have a rational position, but rather an emotional one based on some emotional connection you feel with the illegals.

 

And although I don't know if you've specifically advocated such pandering (you may have, I haven't kept close track of your every post and I don't have the time or inclination to sift through your posts), your reaction to my post, along with your deep concerns over alienating the Latino population by cracking down on illegals, and your harping on "nativism" and "xenophobia" are strong indicators that you're on the same side of this issue as those who are actively advocating such pandering.

[Magox]

Most countries do not allow birthright citizenship. Why is it that reasonable people can't question the practice leading to "anchor" or "jackpot" babies without being called a xenophobic nativist? The mere mention of doing away with birthright citizenship supposedly stirs up such rancor amongst legal hispanic citizens (you know, the ones that can vote) that they will forego their natural conservative convictions and side with lawbreakers.

 

Here's another take on the 14th Amendment:

 

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

 

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14^thAmendment 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.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14^thAmendment 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."

Did I call you a xenophobe? Or did you also say that most illegal immigrants are rapists and criminals and that you want to round them all up with their families and ship them all home.

 

You do remember that Ozy was perfectly fine with exterminating them?

[Ozymandius]

It doesn't serve your point to anyone who has the ability of reason. Keep turning a blind eye to what's really happening.

 

How do I have a blind eye? We both acknowledge minorities are going to vote Dem. You hold the fantasy that you can somehow turn that around, despite the Left's built-in advantages. How did the GOP antagonize Asians over the years? If anything, affirmative action should antagonize them.

 

Guess what, xenophobe? Minorities already believe rightly or wrongly that many in the GOP shares your views.

 

Correct. The Left is going to successfully paint the Right as racists and xenophobes no matter what we do.

 

So we might as well start acting the part.

[Tiberius]

 

 

 

I only wish the Republican Party had taken a "whites-only strategy" over the years. I would loathe them much less.

 

Oh? And how would this have worked? "If your skin isn't lilly-white, we don't want your vote!"

[Magox]

Project much?

 

First off, my original comment about pandering wasn't even directed at you. You're the one who chose to jump on it. I was referring to the ongoing national debate about how challenging the bogus theory that the constitution mandates granting anchor baby status will cripple the GOP with Latinos. Avoiding a relevant issue to appease a faction is absolutely pandering. The fact that you took it as being directed at you, as well as the fact that you took it so personally, is telling.

 

Your response to that, as well as your emotional reaction to a simple question about your interpretation of "nativist" is also telling. But what's most telling is that you've opted for a pissing match on the topic. When you have a logical argument you usually go with that. Here you've not only opted first for the pissing match, you've actively avoided addressing anything substantive. That, along with your reference to "emotional depth" (and your propensity for projection) suggests you don't have a rational position, but rather an emotional one based on some emotional connection you feel with the illegals.

 

And although I don't know if you've specifically advocated such pandering (you may have, I haven't kept close track of your every post and I don't have the time or inclination to sift through your posts), your reaction to my post, along with your deep concerns over alienating the Latino population by cracking down on illegals, and your harping on "nativism" and "xenophobia" are strong indicators that you're on the same side of this issue as those who are actively advocating such pandering.

Do you know what the term nativism means? It means that anyone who advocates policies that favor native inhabitants against those of immigrants. Now tell me how the policies proposed and rhetoric coming out are not of a nativist nature.

 

In regards to calling some people xenophobic, don't get so easily offended. There are plenty of xenophobes in this country, look at Ozy, but he's actually much worse than that. Xenophobic is basically the fear of foreigners or strangers. It's not as malignant as it sounds. Plus Trumps opening salvo, that most illegal immigrants are rapists and criminals is by very definition xenophobia. And the fact that it was this rhetoric that is what initially attracted these folks speaks volumes. In any case just like the base of the democrats have plenty of religious bigots and have their own structural biases, so do the right. Let's stop pretending that it doesn't exist.

 

Also, I didn't even believe you were initially referring to me until you mentioned me as a panderer. In which you couldn't even back up. Psss psss don't call someone something if you can't even attempt to back it up. I sure as hell can back up my declarative statements. You originals said " as opposed to pandering to illegals? I asked you, who and how? Specifics?

Edited August 22, 2015 by Magox

[3rdnlng]

Did I call you a xenophobe? Or did you also say that most illegal immigrants are rapists and criminals and that you want to round them all up with their families and ship them all home.

 

You do remember that Ozy was perfectly fine with exterminating them?

No, I don't believe you did but I was called that for questioning birthright citizenship here though. I can't remember the inconsequential person that did. Anyway, I wanted to have a reasonable, frank, civil discussion regarding the practice since logically I can't wrap my arms around it, but it seems so important to the hispanics.

 

Ozy doesn't speak for me.

[Rob's House]

Do you know what the term nativism means? It means that anyone who advocates policies that favor native inhabitants against those of immigrants. Now tell me how the policies proposed and rhetoric coming out are not of a nativist nature.

 

In regards to calling some people xenophobic, don't get so easily offended. There are plenty of xenophobes in this country, look at Ozy, but he's actually much worse than that. Xenophobic is basically the fear of foreigners or strangers. It's not as malignant as it sounds. Plus Trumps opening salvo, that most illegal immigrants are rapists and criminals is by very definition xenophobia. And the fact that it was this rhetoric that is what initially attracted these folks speaks volumes. In any case just like the base of the democrats have plenty of religious bigots and have their own structural biases, so do the right. Let's stop pretending that it doesn't exist.

 

Also, I didn't even believe you were initially referring to me until you mentioned me as a panderer. In which you couldn't even back up. Psss psss don't call someone something if you can't even attempt to back it up. I sure as hell can back up my declarative statements. You originals said " as opposed to pandering to illegals? I asked you, who and how? Specifics?

I know what nativism is; I asked what it meant to you. And I'm not offended by the use of the word xenophobic, but I see it most often used the same way "racist" and "misogynist" are used.

 

And I didn't directly accuse you of pandering. Reread our initial exchange on the matter. I've said nothing I can't back up here - except maybe the part about being your dad.

[Magox]

No, I don't believe you did but I was called that for questioning birthright citizenship here though. I can't remember the inconsequential person that did. Anyway, I wanted to have a reasonable, frank, civil discussion regarding the practice since logically I can't wrap my arms around it, but it seems so important to the hispanics.

 

Ozy doesn't speak for me.

In order to have a reasonable FRANK discussion, we need to call out a driving force in Trumps campaign, which is this nationalistic nativist and very divisive tone and policies that he is proposing. I think most of us agree in what needs to be done, but the political will to do it gets destroyed by people who have this fear of illegal immigrants. Again, no one here or even the politicians from the right are advocating open borders. People want to secure the borders, that's not in dispute. What is holding up the process is what to do with the illegals here. You can do one of three things 1) deport them all home 2) let them keep staying here in the shadows not paying into SS and federal state income taxes or 3) Attempt to fix the system and give them legal status. Which means they couldn't vote.

[Tiberius]

Now he's going after the oil companies! Donald is asking aloud why the price at the pump isn't lower with $40 a barrel oil? Used the phrase "price manipulation"

 

Pretty sure I alreadey heard Bernie argue this also

[Magox]

Now he's going after the oil companies! Donald is asking aloud why the price at the pump isn't lower with $40 a barrel oil? Used the phrase "price manipulation"

Pretty sure I alreadey heard Bernie argue this also

Link? I want to see the idiocy that you are referring to from Trump? As if the price of oil is an arbitrary figure determined by the oil companies. This guy is no free market capitalist, he is an autocratic player who practices crony capitalism that is a huge proponent to f interventionism. He's hoodwinking his followers. By the time his campaign flames out, his followers beliefs will no longer be recognizable of what it once was.

[Tiberius]

Link? I want to see the idiocy that you are referring to from Trump? As if the price of oil is an arbitrary figure determined by the oil companies. This guy is no free market capitalist, he is an autocratic player who practices crony capitalism that is a huge proponent to f interventionism. He's hoodwinking his followers. By the time his campaign flames out, his followers beliefs will no longer be recognizable of what it once was.

Sorry, no link, he was just blathering away in an interview with some dude on CNN.

[DC Tom]

Now he's going after the oil companies! Donald is asking aloud why the price at the pump isn't lower with $40 a barrel oil? Used the phrase "price manipulation"

 

Pretty sure I alreadey heard Bernie argue this also

 

Pandering assininity. There are a shitload of factors that go in to the price of gas other than the price of oil, and he damn well knows it.

[Who is Yuri?]

 

Pandering assininity. There are a shitload of factors that go in to the price of gas other than the price of oil, and he damn well knows it.

 

Right.

 

Like the government subsidies we give to the oil companies. And the CEO's bonuses. And the environmental disasters.

[Magox]

Right.

 

Like the government subsidies we give to the oil companies. And the CEO's bonuses. And the environmental disasters.

 

I've been easy on you, figured I'd at least see what you could contribute to the board. After further review, you are an idiot.

[Who is Yuri?]

I've been easy on you, figured I'd at least see what you could contribute to the board. After further review, you are an idiot.

 

I've tried to be friendly. I've tried to learn the culture. That's a compliment around here, right?

 

You're an idiot too, buddy.

[Magox]

I've tried to be friendly. I've tried to learn the culture. That's a compliment around here, right?

 

You're an idiot too, buddy.

Tell me how CEO pay and oil subsidies factor into the price of oil?

[Who is Yuri?]

Tell me how CEO pay and oil subsidies factor into the price of oil?

No thanks. I'm going to turn in early. You factor those things, or not, and I'll nitpick it to death, or not, in the morning. Don't let any of the hardliners know - I hope you enjoy your evening, good sir.

[TakeYouToTasker]

No thanks. I'm going to turn in early. You factor those things, or not, and I'll nitpick it to death, or not, in the morning. Don't let any of the hardliners know - I hope you enjoy your evening, good sir.

Do you wear a trilby? I bet you wear a trilby.