Fascinating.
Some Duke-related frivolity back atcha: When Duke was the Republican nominee for governor of Louisiana (yes, that actually happened), the Democratic nominee was the infamously crooked, and famously womanizing, Edwin Edwards. Speaking of his opponent, Edwards quipped, “Mr. Duke and I do have one thing in common–we’re both wizards under the sheets.”
Maybe it doesn’t; I wasn’t there when it was written or ratified. I’m just trying to get clarification: Your assertion is that “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” can be deleted from the text of the 14th Amendment without effect?
Now that is funny!
Correct, because they were non-citizens and did not satisfy the two conditions of the 14th Amendment that granted outright citizenship to former slaves.
Quoting since it seems relavent again.
My assertion is that kids born in the US to illegal immigrants are subject to US law, therefore they qualify as citizens via every part of the 14th.
Obama canned Flynn too if I recall. Trump should have listened to the most conservative democrat that was ever elected to the Presidency…err ED do I have that right? No? Hmm
Do you think the law should be rewritten to prevent citizenship for anchor babies here on out or think it is fine as written?
If the second, do you have a limit that you feel acceptable, or if millions can get here annually, that’s fine also?
In a perfect world I’d like to see the law not give default citizenship to anchor babies, but instead give something akin to an “automatic green card status.” I’m also not opposed to the children of green card holders being declared citizens. I think of it as you’re born 1 level up from your parents, but I have no idea how something like that would be implemented.
I believe this would stop (in most cases, but prob not all?) illegals from getting access to US social programs, as the criteria to qualify for a green card holder is more strict compared to US citizens.
That being said, we’re realistically never going to see a change to the wording of the 14th unless you want to see Dems control congress and POTUS for the foreseeable future. Shit you rewrite
I say let the anchor babies stay.
But if their parents are illegals/felons then punish the parents accoridngly.
If I go rob or murder someone or use fake documents I will be separated from my kids when they put me in jail. A judge won’t grant me any discretion because I have kids. Why afford that discretion to illegals?
But this is well covered ground here.
Flynn’s gone! Did Trump “cave” or did he fire someone who screwed up? I expect Trump will be quick to fire people (right or wrong), so even if he isn’t “draining the swamp” he’s keeping the water moving.
Does anyone else feel reassured by the fact that Flynn has resigned and been replaced by Kellogg for acting and that Petraeus and Harward are in contention for the position (neither being huge supporters of Trump)? The fact that he has one less “yes-man” in the crowd and that the pro-Russia ties (at least this one) are diminishing allow me to breathe a bit easier.
I’m not sure which scenario is scarier.
DoJ warns Trump about Flynn’s Russia problem (that Trump should have known about, jesus) a month ago and does nothing about it until it’s in the public eye (saying to me he had no intention of replacing Flynn unless he got caught).
DoJ warns Trump about Flynn’s Russia problem (that Trump should have known about, jesus) a month ago, doesn’t care because he already knew, and waited to let Flynn fall on his sword after it became public (saying to me he had no intention of replacing Flynn unless he got caught).
I wish Trump could do 1 fucking thing that wouldn’t make me question the shit out of him. I’m really trying here.
He doesn’t make the shit easy, that’s for sure. But the more solid, capable men and women around him (does it matter how they get there?) hopefully the less those type of scenarios can occur because I’d like to believe that someone like Mattis is going to hold everyone to a higher professional standard, Harward served under him and has the same style and bearing, and while The Donald does not appear to exercise sound judgement at all times, the more cool heads there are around him, the better I personally feel. And hopefully those cool heads are not afraid to push back against policies when necessary.
This might be the scariest scenario of all. The leader of the free world needs to be surrounded by “cool heads” just to level him out (assuming he actually listens).
It’s not exactly comforting, but here’s my take- Businesses, virtually all of them push the limits of legality. On one side of the line is seedy but legal, on the other side- just barely illegal. And they don’t back off until someone proves that what they’re doing is illegal.
That is how he’s going to run shit.
Are you in favor of running a country that way or just saying that’s probably how he’ll do it?
For clarity, if you are in favor of him running it that way, would you also be in favor if that’s how Obama ran things?
I’ll probably regret asking, but I’ll ask anyway, Zeb…
What was the point you were trying to make?
Just saying that is how he will do it.
Whether or not Obama pushed anything that was illegal or unconstitutional is inconsequential at this point.
God fucking bless you. I wish I could like this part more than once.
That was an inside joke between me and another poster who claims that the democratic party actually has moved to the right.
That’s all. Now tell me do you regret asking your old pal Zeb?