Schools are the government.
You are an extraordinarily ignorant creature to post something like this with such confidence. Go back to the shadows.
Uh, no. This is the internet, I can say a lot of shit, some of it can be stupid, some can be offensive, but whatever it is and how you FEEL about it, there is nothing you can really do about it. At the end of the day who are you to me that you, or anyone else, could break me? You couldn’t break me in person, let alone the internet, and you know this to be true. Seriously, what could you or twojar really do to me? Break me? You sound very gay.
You are so broken, you prove my point, and you don’t even realize it.
Or maybe you’re just stupid (albeit educated), in which I apologize for treating you badly.
1 Like
This is an example of ZDS. I actually agree with you in principle but you are so aggrieved and hurt you can’t see it. I’m saying it is a more complex issue that will take more than an EO or threat to fix. If you paid attention you would know that one of the reasons I no longer teach is that I couldn’t go along with all of the woke derived policies that had no science or positive results to back them up.
I think you protest too much.
The MSM is in the process of telling everyone that Tesla the company is suffering from Musk’s politics, and soon will be down in the dumps.
Just like with Twitter.
The irony is that Twitter is the source they used for their “journalism.” It is possible, but if I had to guess, it’s a case of trying to turn wishful thinking into reality.
Can you point me to that language in the constitution?
Or does it simply say all persons born in the united states are citizens of the united states without any reference to the specific scenario you described?
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
Theres a link for easy searching, I’ll wait for you to find anything in there about it only applying to freed black slaves.
Bonus question: was that your opinion based on your reading of the constitution, maybe even before a few weeks ago, or did some right winger put that idea into your head and that became your opinion this year after being told what your opinion should be ?
I’m not a constitutional scholar by any means, but this isn’t the first time this kind of thing has been challenged, and this is also how this sort of thing gets back to a higher court for some kind of ruling.
As a matter of policy, I agree it is time to re-visit the notion. I don’t predict Trump’s actions here will hold up in court. What it will do is possibly get the ball rolling on an amendment, but I’m not sure if that would ever pass.
I don’t think they can get around the language as it exists, but courts have also discovered a constitutional right to an abortion somewhere in there, so anything is possible.
As a matter of historical interpretation, do you truly believe the intention was to entice mothers from across the world to travel here to give birth?
I benefited from it, but there also wasn’t a cynical human trafficking operation taking place to flood the country with illegal migrants and empower them to vote in the 1920’s.
Of course not. And I just learned that women have come here, given birth, gone back to their home nations and collect welfare from the US. And yes, I believe there are people in the US, some are in political office, who are perfectly ok with this.
2 Likes
My comment on the take below is that often, “anchor baby” is a transactional, business term; not that often pejoratively these days.
“Anchor babies” is a term sometimes used, often pejoratively, to refer to children born in the United States to non-citizen parents, particularly when one or both parents are undocumented immigrants. The term is controversial and considered offensive by many due to its derogatory implication. Here’s a more detailed explanation:
-
Legal Context: Under the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, anyone born on U.S. soil is generally granted U.S. citizenship at birth, regardless of their parents’ citizenship or immigration status. This is known as “birthright citizenship.”
-
Purpose and Criticism: The term “anchor baby” implies that parents intentionally have children in the U.S. to secure citizenship for the child, who might then help the parents gain legal residency or citizenship later through family-based immigration processes. Critics argue this term dehumanizes families and oversimplifies the complex reasons people migrate.
-
Immigration Policy: The concept has been debated in discussions about immigration reform, with some advocating for changes to birthright citizenship laws, although such changes would require a constitutional amendment or reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment by the Supreme Court.
-
Cultural and Ethical Considerations: Many argue that the term is xenophobic and does not account for the varied motivations of immigrants, including fleeing from violence, seeking better economic opportunities, or reuniting with family.
-
Public Perception: The use of the term often reflects broader societal debates about immigration, integration, and national identity.
1 Like
This 14th Amendment issue is going to SCOTUS, I would be shocked if it didn’t.
Have fun, to all the constitutional scholars mentally masturbating the issue until then.
Education isn’t complicated. To get children to read, make them read. They aren’t against it, even when they struggle with it. To get children to write better, teach them how to write and make them. To increase information literacy, make them practice it. There are two problems with the modern education system. First of all, schools have stopped believing in children, that they can actually meet high educational standards. And secondly, schools now care more about leftist indoctrination than education.
Ohhh…I like this game. Can you point me to the language in the Second Amendment that allows the government to restrict private ownership of nuclear weapons?
It does not “simply” say that. There is more to it, so that’s not even correct from a purely textualist point of view.
They were the reason(intent) behind the Amendment.
That’s been my opinion as long as I’ve had some understanding of the Constitution. My opinion is that all citizenship questions, and pretty much all of the issues that have become the subject of national debate, should be left to the States.
Getting rid of DEI makes transgenderism no longer trendy. There are more “transgenders” today because being one is trendy.
Yes, transgenderism, or gender dysphoria is a mental illness. It is a delusion disorder. It is not solved by sex change surgery, it’s solved by getting the ill person to accept who they truly are.
I’ll take that as a no then
I don’t think DEI made it trendy. Tik tok, celebrities, the media, feminists, made it trendy. I think it’s a phenomenon that is the result of a lot of factors.
Regardless, it makes them a protected class. If not because they are transgender, because they have mental condition.
DEI didn’t make transgenderism trendy, but getting rid of it will contribute to it no longer being trendy.
Regardless, it makes them a protected class. If not because they are transgender, because they have mental condition.
I agree with that point.
Well, this is a bad look for Germany. Locking people up for mean words and bad drawings isn’t the right road, guys.
Apparently there’s also talk of banning the political party AFD, but I’m unsure of how much traction that has.
Krauts never learn, do they? Maybe they shouldn’t have banned Mein Kampf. If more Germans read it, this song of Socialism might sound more familiar to them.
I checked. Majority of the members were dems or rebs, so they are the ones to blame if you’re unhapy about the politics in Maine.
Not that the bus attack (for example) is anything that local politicians can respond straight away, sounds like a law enforcement and child social worker stuff for me.