Why the sudden surge in Xenophobia?

[Blalron]

Apparently, Republicans are now unhappy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_republicans_birthright_citizenship) with the 14th amendment they passed 145 years ago. More specifically, the provision that guarantees citizenship to all persons born in the United States.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Tuesday he supports holding hearings on the 14th Amendment right, although he emphasized that Washington's immigration focus should remain on border security.

His comments came as other Republicans in recent days have questioned or challenged birthright citizenship, embracing a cause that had largely been confined to the far right. [emphasis mine]

So why the sudden hard-on against illegal immigrants? What's made it so important now that the Overton Window is being pushed to the point that the 14th amendment needs to be changed?

Could it be that in these troubled economic times, people are bitter and pissed off, and need someone to blame? Obviously the GOP doesn't want their base to point fingers at the greed of big business in the wake of financial deregulation, so they chose a different target: Illegal immigrants. They're different from us! THEY TOOK OUR JOBS! :rolleyes:

[Squink]

The Republicans need something to hold their base until they roll out new* product, after Labor Day. (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/112383-mcconnell-gop-will-detail-election-year-agenda-in-late-september)






*Fansites in the know suggest it'll be "Return to Bush, the Nostalgia Edition."

[asterion]

I hate to say it, but Simpsons did it. And that's exactly what it is: election-year demonization for the base.

[Gustav]

I'm not positive as to the exact reason, but I'm pretty sure it's middle name is "Hussein".

[dalej42]

Because banning same sex marriage for the 4th time doesn't sell as well to the base?

[Bryan Ekers]

Is it feasible to blame minorities for the upsurge in the blaming of minorities?

[bup]

What do you mean, sudden? Xenophobia always sells.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - not Sinclair Lewis, nor Huey Long, apparently, but still pithy and applicable.

[gravitycrash]

Nasty fucking Republicans. Of course the Democrats have only noble intentions in wanting all of these illegal and coincidentally poor aliens becoming citizens as soon as possible.

[Euphonious Polemic]

In times of economic hardship, populations often need a scapegoat to blame for their economic woes. Minorities are often used in this role, because it's quite convenient to blame the "other" or the "newcomer". People search for an explanation about why they are having troubles, and it's very comforting to blame someone else rather than uncontrollable complex externalities for your problems.

I'm sure that when mammoths were in short supply, some Cro-magnon leader came up with the idea of killing Tharg, because he came from the Turgto tribe, and everyone knows that the Turgto tribe are dirty, smelly and cause bad luck with the hunt.

[hajario]

EP just beat me to it. Unemployment and xenophobia are directly correlated.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Because nobody gives a fuck about prayer in schhols when they're broke.
What do you mean, sudden? Xenophobia always sells.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - not Sinclair Lewis, nor Huey Long, apparently, but still pithy and applicable.
Maybe it was Huey Lewis.

[Beware of Doug]

Because nobody gives a fuck about prayer in schhols when they're broke.
What do you mean, sudden? Xenophobia always sells.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - not Sinclair Lewis, nor Huey Long, apparently, but still pithy and applicable.
Maybe it was Huey Lewis.They say the heart of yahooism's still beatin'. And from what I've seen, I believe 'em.

[NDP]

In times of economic hardship, populations often need a scapegoat to blame for their economic woes. Minorities are often used in this role, because it's quite convenient to blame the "other" or the "newcomer". People search for an explanation about why they are having troubles, and it's very comforting to blame someone else rather than uncontrollable complex externalities for your problems.

It's also rather ironic in this instance because the number of illegal immigrants has actually decreased the last couple years when the economy went in the tank.

In any case, the right-wing has been cultivating xenophobia for years. The scapegoating of illegal immigrants is just one example. You can also see it in the demonization of Muslims in instances like the proposed mosque to be built near Ground Zero. It was also evident in their campaign against health care reform when one of their arguments was that such a plan would make America be like those godless and sexually degenerate socialists in Europe.

[Digital Stimulus]

Nasty fucking Republicans. Of course the Democrats have only noble intentions in wanting all of these illegal and coincidentally poor aliens becoming citizens as soon as possible.
Well, you got the first sentence right...

[DianaG]

Because banning same sex marriage for the 4th time doesn't sell as well to the base?
Pretty much.

Some people suck, and require someone to hate at all times. Some people suck even more than that, and require someone to actually persecute at all times.

[Turek]

Beats me, I stopped reading after Ender's Game.

[Bricker]

This is quite a coincidence, because I myself was wondering what was up with Republicans' thinking on this issue. So naturally, I thought I'd check the Straight Dope Message Board, an excellent source of unbiased and neutral analysis of the subject.

Hmmm... let's see... "racism," "racism," and "more racism," seem to be the favorite theories.

Also, the only theories.

Well, that's it. Must be racism.

[DianaG]

Of course not. Look how doggedly they're chasing down white kids on expired student visas.

Oh... wait....

Nope, they only care about the brown ones.

[Hyperelastic]

Some people suck, and require someone to hate at all times.

You would know, wouldn't you? Of course, I'm sure you only hate people who suck, and deserve it.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Hmmm... let's see... "racism," "racism," and "more racism," seem to be the favorite theories.

Also, the only theories.

Well, that's it. Must be racism.

n times of economic hardship, populations often need a scapegoat to blame for their economic woes

Hmmm.... You read "racism" into this, did you?

What is your alternate explanation? Fine, upright citizens have suddenly decided (in the middle of a recession and high unemployment) that they must uphold the letter of the law, and the best way to do this is to demonize anyone who is in your country without all the "t's" crossed. Is that your explanation?

Or do you have an explanation? Did you just come into this thread to shit and laugh?

[Llama Llogophile]

Well, that's it. Must be racism.

In reviewing the thread responses, it seems to be more about scapegoating.

[DianaG]

Some people suck, and require someone to hate at all times.

You would know, wouldn't you? Of course, I'm sure you only hate people who suck, and deserve it.
Pretty much. Why do YOU hate people?

[BrainGlutton]

The sad thing is that there are perfectly rational, legitimate, non-racist reasons to want immigration restricted -- not as a general principle, but at this particular period in American history: Cheap immigrant labor drives down wages and accelerates the ongoing immiseration of American workers; it's good for the overclass, not so great for the rest of us. But doubt very much there are many Minutemen who consider that consideration a top priority, just as I doubt there are many Minutemen who would be making any fuss at all if the illegal-immigration pressure were coming from Canada instead of Mexico. It's the racists who have the megaphones right now.

[Chicagojeff]

Here where I am.. when the construction was rollin and they needed the brown people to create beautiful landscapes nothing was said.. Then when things tightend up suddenly there was this organization called the Dustin Inman Society.. sprang up outta nowhere really. Then what happened was they focused on the occasional story of a drunk illegal causing some sort of wreck.. trust me.. drinking and driving here is a fucking way of life down here..
Then they told me at work.. start arresting those you stop without driver's license.. they started doing roadblocks in hispanic areas and stopping the men who were even walking by on foot on the way to work.. I've watched the noose tighten.. we usually use Nazi germany in 1935 as a fallback analogy..and subsequently its played out. But historically I would have to instead point to post recontruction south.. when the North left and pretty much stopped enforcing the constitution. So lets try Southern United States.. 1890's-1900's.. when the gloves were taken off. YOU are no longer needed.. or wanted..

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Maybe it was Huey Lewis.

I want a new right
Carrying a big cross
Wrapped up in an American Flag
To make up for our election loss

[elucidator]

Good move, Republicans! Now, for a generation of Latino voters, you'll no longer be the Party of No, but the Party of La Migra. Smooth.

[Bricker]

n times of economic hardship, populations often need a scapegoat to blame for their economic woes

Hmmm.... You read "racism" into this, did you?


Of course not. Look how doggedly they're chasing down white kids on expired student visas.

Oh... wait....

Nope, they only care about the brown ones.

Call me crazy. :rolleyes:


What is your alternate explanation? Fine, upright citizens have suddenly decided (in the middle of a recession and high unemployment) that they must uphold the letter of the law, and the best way to do this is to demonize anyone who is in your country without all the "t's" crossed. Is that your explanation?

Or do you have an explanation? Did you just come into this thread to shit and laugh?

Demonize? And "without all the "t's" crossed?"

Both are unfair statements that do not represent the position of the party.

And I came into this thread to laugh, yes. This ludicrous echo chamber is absurd.

"Say, folks, why do you suppose the Republicans are doing X? Racism? Evil? Or just heartless and thoughtless?"

"Racism!"

"Racism!"

"Racism!"

"Evil!"

"Racism! And evil!"

"Now, now, let's be fair, maybe they're just heartless!"

Yes, it deserves a laugh.

And a correction, which I'm happy to provide.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Call me crazy. :rolleyes:

That would be a step up for you, no doubt, but I'm sure I'll still think of you as a guy with no integrity rather than a guy who finally gained some sanity.

Demonize? And "without all the "t's" crossed?"

Both are unfair statements that do not represent the position of the party.

And I came into this thread to laugh, yes. This ludicrous echo chamber is absurd.

"Say, folks, why do you suppose the Republicans are doing X? Racism? Evil? Or just heartless and thoughtless?"

"Racism!"

"Racism!"

"Racism!"

"Evil!"

"Racism! And evil!"

"Now, now, let's be fair, maybe they're just heartless!"

Yes, it deserves a laugh.

And a correction, which I'm happy to provide.

So correct it. Answer the OP.

[Duke]

So, Bricker, your thoughts on why the Republicans are, after a century and a half, suddenly wanting to "review" the 14th? Got anything for us?

[elucidator]

And so we see, once again, that the only issue worth our consideration is the dreadful prevalence of liberal hypocrisy. We are grateful to friend Bricker for bringing this to our attention. Once again.

[BrainGlutton]

Hmmm.... You read "racism" into this, did you?




Call me crazy. :rolleyes:


What is your alternate explanation? Fine, upright citizens have suddenly decided (in the middle of a recession and high unemployment) that they must uphold the letter of the law, and the best way to do this is to demonize anyone who is in your country without all the "t's" crossed. Is that your explanation?

Or do you have an explanation? Did you just come into this thread to shit and laugh?

Demonize? And "without all the "t's" crossed?"

Both are unfair statements that do not represent the position of the party.

I think you know as well as I do that the position of the party does not represent the position of the party. I.e., it's not the rule of law that they really care about.

[woodstockbirdybird]

So, Bricker, you respond to Euphonious Polemic's question, which referred to the explanation he gave in his post, by quoting someone else's post which supports your view? I'm sure there's a name for this debating tactic. Hm. What could it be?

If you don't agree with the reasons being offered, offer up some of your own.

[Duke]

So, Bricker, you respond to Euphonious Polemic's question, which referred to the explanation he gave in his post, by quoting someone else's post which supports your view? I'm sure there's a name for this debating tactic. Hm. What could it be?

It's called "being a fucking coward who can't give you a straight answer to a question if the question was 'what color is the sky?'" He'll dress it up in legalese, but the truth is he's forgotten what truth is.

[Caffeine.addict]

Bricker, did you read the article cited in the OP? The article states that the Republicans want to amend the 14th Amendment and revoke birthright citizenship. I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt on the argument for illegal immigration, but birthright citizenship? What argument do they have for revoking birthright citizenship? What possible reason do they have?

[Chessic Sense]

Of course not. Look how doggedly they're chasing down white kids on expired student visas.

Oh... wait....

Nope, they only care about the brown ones.

Bull-fucking-shit. Let me just run over to the US-VISIT (http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/usv.shtm) office and check with them.

Yep, yep. Just as I thought. They don't sort their overstays by nationality. In other words, you make shit up.

[elucidator]

....have for revoking birthright citizenship? What possible reason do they have?


Well, there is the question of family disruption. If we accept that a child is a US citizen, we are in the awkward position of deporting her parents to protect her from illegal immigrants.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Anchor babies, dude. The fact that the anchor baby phenomenon is largely non-existent doesn't matter; they're playing to the base.

Anyway, birthright citizenship for the children of non-residents is kind of unusual.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Bull-fucking-shit. Let me just run over to the US-VISIT (http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/usv.shtm) office and check with them.

Yep, yep. Just as I thought. They don't sort their overstays by nationality. In other words, you make shit up.

Wow, you got all that from that link? All I get is the main page of a Homeland Security website.

[Squink]

Anchor babies, dude.Well, that and revoking the citizenship of the descendents of former slaves. Those guys are a big democrat demographic.

[DianaG]

Bull-fucking-shit. Let me just run over to the US-VISIT (http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/usv.shtm) office and check with them.

Yep, yep. Just as I thought. They don't sort their overstays by nationality. In other words, you make shit up.
Oh look, Chessic Sense is here. I'm sure we're all about to be overwhelmed by his awesomeness.

Seriously dude, you're a retard. You have never once, in any context, said something that made me think anything other than "Damn that boy is stupid."

ETA that I take that back, and apologize. Upon further consideration, I realize that you have occasionally made me think "What a weaselly little shit that kid is."

[Algher]

We are in a recession, so people are focused on immigrants. I used to hear about H1-B visa workers in Silicon Valley taking away good programming jobs from citizens, and depressing the wages of coders.

On TV this morning in my hotel room, I listened while the Republican talking head mentioned anchor babies and wealth birth tourists. Anchor babies is around 300,000 per year according to most Googled guestimates. Whether you consider that to be a risk or a problem is another question. Whether it is enough of a problem to amend the US Constitution - not by my standards.

Birth tourism is when the Hong Kong folks came to the US to give birth. My son's school has a fair number of kids born in the US to foreign parents. However, these are kids from money, their parents buy nice houses, and they are sticking around. I don't see them as a threat - they are a benefit. We are cash positive from these people.

[Euphonious Polemic]

So, Bricker, you respond to Euphonious Polemic's question, which referred to the explanation he gave in his post, by quoting someone else's post which supports your view? I'm sure there's a name for this debating tactic. Hm. What could it be?

If you don't agree with the reasons being offered, offer up some of your own.

My favorite part of his reply is....

The post he quoted (which was not mine) actually came AFTER his charge of "liberals are all crying racism".

I guess his time travel machine told him that DianeG was going to post to this thread.

Priceless.

[Czarcasm]

Bricker, did you read the article cited in the OP? The article states that the Republicans want to amend the 14th Amendment and revoke birthright citizenship. I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt on the argument for illegal immigration, but birthright citizenship? What argument do they have for revoking birthright citizenship? What possible reason do they have?Nope, that can't be what they are doing, because it isn't in the official platform of the Republican Party. :rolleyes:

[Lightnin']

Of the 16 threads right now on the Hannity forums, 5 of them are directly race-related (the others can, of course, be summed up as "Liberals suck").

But I'm sure that Bricker will be along any moment now and offer us a different, more Conservative-friendly explanation.

[jsgoddess]

Hmmm.... You read "racism" into this, did you?




Call me crazy. :rolleyes:

Your defense is a post that came after your initial claim.

I feel like I'm watching Daffy Duck as Robin Hood take on Porky Pig as Friar Tuck.

[Suburban Plankton]

I'm not positive as to the exact reason, but I'm pretty sure it's middle name is "Hussein".

I am a registered Republican (for now). And I am ashamed to say that I believe you've hit the nail right on the head.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Anchor babies is around 300,000 per year according to most Googled guestimates.
What Googled guesstimates? The only ones I can find that are so absurdly high are on "resistance" and Minutemen-type websites.

[Chessic Sense]

Bull-fucking-shit. Let me just run over to the US-VISIT (http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/usv.shtm) office and check with them.

Yep, yep. Just as I thought. They don't sort their overstays by nationality. In other words, you make shit up.

Wow, you got all that from that link? All I get is the main page of a Homeland Security website.

No, I didn't get that from a link. I got that from the US-VISIT people. They work right ::turn around:: there.

Oh look, Chessic Sense is here. I'm sure we're all about to be overwhelmed by his awesomeness.

Seriously dude, you're a retard. You have never once, in any context, said something that made me think anything other than "Damn that boy is stupid."

ETA that I take that back, and apologize. Upon further consideration, I realize that you have occasionally made me think "What a weaselly little shit that kid is."

When I read your posts, I can't help but imagine tears streaming down your face. I don't know how you have the time to imagine all sorts of persecutions going on in the world. First its "Women are so oppressed" and now it's "we only deport the brown people". Both statements are utterly retarded. The world would be a better place if you just shut the fuck up.

[Algher]

Anchor babies is around 300,000 per year according to most Googled guestimates.
What Googled guesstimates? The only ones I can find that are so absurdly high are on "resistance" and Minutemen-type websites.

You have to sift (and I have not looked since our last thread on this):

BusinessWeek[400,000] http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2009/07/anchor_babies_no_more_us_citizenship.html

CBS [300,000] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/07/eveningnews/main4000401.shtml?source=mostpo p_story

Houston Chronicle [360,000] http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4209908.html

All of these claim estimates. I welcome a counter-number or a different estimate if you have one.

[Bricker]

So, Bricker, you respond to Euphonious Polemic's question, which referred to the explanation he gave in his post, by quoting someone else's post which supports your view? I'm sure there's a name for this debating tactic. Hm. What could it be?

If you don't agree with the reasons being offered, offer up some of your own.

Here is what Euphonious Polemic said: n times of economic hardship, populations often need a scapegoat to blame for their economic woes
Hmmm.... You read "racism" into this, did you?

What is your alternate explanation? Fine, upright citizens have suddenly decided (in the middle of a recession and high unemployment) that they must uphold the letter of the law, and the best way to do this is to demonize anyone who is in your country without all the "t's" crossed. Is that your explanation?

Or do you have an explanation? Did you just come into this thread to shit and laugh?

No. But My post was not intended to read into that quote, but to the tone of all the posts up to that point. It's true that the first post I chose to illustrate the trend appeared later, but it certainly proved the point.

Or... are you contending that no one, until DianaG, was ascribing racism or evil to the Republicans?

Really?

[Bricker]

Your defense is a post that came after your initial claim.

I feel like I'm watching Daffy Duck as Robin Hood take on Porky Pig as Friar Tuck.

So YOU feel that, until Diana's second post, no one was suggesting racism on the part of Republicans?

You can also see it in the demonization of Muslims in instances like the proposed mosque to be built near Ground Zero.

No hint of an accusation of racism there?

Because banning same sex marriage for the 4th time doesn't sell as well to the base?

Not a single hint or whiff of a suggestion of 'evil' there? Really?

[Hyperelastic]

Good move, Republicans! Now, for a generation of Latino voters, you'll no longer be the Party of No, but the Party of La Migra. Smooth.

Democrats can't win with the electorate they've got, so they need to import a new one more congenial to their agenda.

[Blalron]

So, Bricker, you respond to Euphonious Polemic's question, which referred to the explanation he gave in his post, by quoting someone else's post which supports your view? I'm sure there's a name for this debating tactic. Hm. What could it be?

It's called "being a fucking coward who can't give you a straight answer to a question if the question was 'what color is the sky?'" He'll dress it up in legalese, but the truth is he's forgotten what truth is.

I've long held out the hope that Bricker doesn't believe all his own arguments, but is simply playing a Devil's Advocate, defending the indefensible. He is a lawyer after all, that's what they do for a living: argue stuff, even if they don't neccesarily agree with it.

[The Great Sun Jester]

Anyway, birthright citizenship for the children of non-residents is kind of unusual.I wouldn't want to hijack such a well-directed thread as this one, but...how many/which other countries have this?

In response to the OP: I'm no racist, but why not review a 145 year-old law? It served a purpose when Tom Sawyer was relevant, our flag only had 37 stars, our map had 50% of its area, and automobiles, machine guns, HP Lovecraft and interstate highways had not yet darkened our landscape. Perhaps our role in international politics and our socioeconomic profile has changed just a bit since the time when this seemed like a good idea.

And yes, that means why not review portions of that document that are nearly a century older still? I can't speak with any degree of certainty, but I have to wonder if The Founding Fathers ever truly believed their work would have endured this long.

[Blalron]

No hint of an accusation of racism there?

I used the word "Xenophobia". A distinct concept from racism, although I admit there is a fair amount of overlap between the two terms. Must I draw a Venn Diagram for you?

[jsgoddess]

Your defense is a post that came after your initial claim.

I feel like I'm watching Daffy Duck as Robin Hood take on Porky Pig as Friar Tuck.

So YOU feel that, until Diana's second post, no one was suggesting racism on the part of Republicans?



No hint of an accusation of racism there?

Because banning same sex marriage for the 4th time doesn't sell as well to the base?

Not a single hint or whiff of a suggestion of 'evil' there? Really?

Xenophobia. You know, the subject of the thread?

Ho! Ha ha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! THRUST!

[Hyperelastic]

What do you mean, sudden? Xenophobia always sells.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - not Sinclair Lewis, nor Huey Long, apparently, but still pithy and applicable.

Are you talking about the real America, which has taken in hundreds of millions of immigrants from every corner of the globe, far more than any country in human history, and continues to take in hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants a year?

Or are you talking about AmeriKKKa(TM), the evil empire that invaded Iraq so Halliburton's private army could rape a peasant girl and then harvest her heart for Dick Cheney?

[BrainGlutton]

What do you mean, sudden? Xenophobia always sells.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - not Sinclair Lewis, nor Huey Long, apparently, but still pithy and applicable.

Are you talking about the real America, which has taken in hundreds of millions of immigrants from every corner of the globe, far more than any country in human history, and continues to take in hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants a year?

Or are you talking about AmeriKKKa(TM), the evil empire that invaded Iraq so Halliburton's private army could rape a peasant girl and then harvest her heart for Dick Cheney?

There's no need to choose. The British legacy includes Runnymede and Amritsar.

[elucidator]

A willingness to exploit the racism of others is not proof of racism, only a breathtaking moral bankruptcy. Good point, Bricker, a fine distinction indeed.

[Lemur866]

Maybe it's just me, but I can't think of any reason to repeal the 14th Amendment that can't be boiled down to Xenophobia, of which, as has been pointed out, there is a certain intersection with racism. But in this particular case xenophobia is a better descriptor than racism.

[Euphonious Polemic]

You see Bricker? Different words have different meanings. Xenophobia /= Racism.

I sometimes wonder if your schtick of "you libs all play the racism card all the time" is not a ploy to try to pro-actively remove any future valid charges against the morally bankrupt section of your party.

Thhhhhhat's all folks!

[Snowboarder Bo]

Some people suck, and require someone to hate at all times.

You would know, wouldn't you? Of course, I'm sure you only hate people who suck, and deserve it.

Is your policy on who you hate different? Do you just hate indiscriminately? You must be a load of laughs... :rolleyes:

[DianaG]

When I read your posts, I can't help but imagine tears streaming down your face. I don't know how you have the time to imagine all sorts of persecutions going on in the world. First its "Women are so oppressed" and now it's "we only deport the brown people". Both statements are utterly retarded. The world would be a better place if you just shut the fuck up.
You're mistaken. You should be picturing me laughing my ass off at your pathetic little self being oppressed and persecuted by Metro employees.

[Jack Batty]

Anchor babies ...

Harrumph.


Fuckin' Canadians.

[foolsguinea]

Nasty fucking Republicans. Of course the Democrats have only noble intentions in wanting all of these illegal and coincidentally poor aliens becoming citizens as soon as possible.The difference is that tradition & the constitution are on the side of relatively easy naturalization. The GOP have their own electoral intentions in preventing illegal & poor immigrants from becoming citizens. It's a way of removing the vote from someone who, according to the constitution, would be a citizen in the future.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Anchor babies: replacing welfare queens in the public consciousness.

[Plan B]

Let me get this straight. Are Dems saying that it's OK for a pregnant woman to come into the US illegally, have the baby, and the baby should be a citizen? And what percentage of Dems feel this way?

[The Great Sun Jester]

Let me get this straight. Are Dems saying that it's OK for a pregnant woman to come into the US illegally, have the baby, and the baby should be a citizen? And what percentage of Dems feel this way?It's The Constitution that has said that since 1868. It really transcends party affiliation. But the Amendment, unless I am mistaken, was originally advanced by The Republican Party.

ETA: I don't think immigration reform and the many flavors of sprinkle that go along with it is necessarily a party issue.

[Apollyon]

All of these claim estimates. I welcome a counter-number or a different estimate if you have one.300-400k per year? When the total birth numbers for the US is a bit over 4 million? So, every tenth or twelfth baby born in the US is an "anchor baby"?

(Just stunned by the figures. All of the figures actually... coming from a country with about 4 million people). :)

[Plan B]

It's The Constitution that has said that since 1868. It really transcends party affiliation.

I know that about the Constitution, but my questions were: Are Dems saying that it's OK for a pregnant woman to come into the US illegally, have the baby, and the baby should be a citizen? And what percentage of Dems feel this way? BTW, I don't mind your responding to my questions by something other than an answer to my questions. In fact I agree with what you said. I'm just pointing out that the questions haven't been answered, so perhaps someone else might give it a shot.


But the Amendment, unless I am mistaken, was originally advanced by The Republican Party. I'm not sure what the point in bringing that up is. Are you saying that some of us are bound by the decisions made by some group of people 142 years ago? Are Dems required to defend everything that Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson did?

[Chessic Sense]

Let me get this straight. Are Dems saying that it's OK for a pregnant woman to come into the US illegally, have the baby, and the baby should be a citizen? And what percentage of Dems feel this way?It's The Constitution that has said that since 1868. It really transcends party affiliation. But the Amendment, unless I am mistaken, was originally advanced by The Republican Party.

ETA: I don't think immigration reform and the many flavors of sprinkle that go along with it is necessarily a party issue.

I love how when it's immigration, today's Republican Party equals yesterday's GOP, but when it's civil rights we're talking about, oh all of a sudden it doesn't count because the GOP was liberal then, right?

Pick one. Does the GOP get credit for the Civil Rights Act or is it independent of the GOPs that have gone before, and thus can disagree with the 14th Amendment hypocrisy-free?

[Snowboarder Bo]

I know that about the Constitution, but my questions were: Are Dems saying that it's OK for a pregnant woman to come into the US illegally, have the baby, and the baby should be a citizen? And what percentage of Dems feel this way?

No, to the best of my knowledge, not every single Dem says it's OK for a pregnant woman to come into the US illegally, have the baby, and the baby should be a citizen. How in fuck should I (or anyone else) know what percentage of Dems feel that way. Why don't you conduct a poll?

I'm not sure what the point in bringing that up is. Are you saying that some of us are bound by the decisions made by some group of people 142 years ago? Are Dems required to defend everything that Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson did?

Actually, we are all bound by the decisions made by some group of people 142 years ago. A couple hundred years ago another group did it, and we're bound by those decision. Are you sure you know about the Constitution? I mean, do you just know it exists, or have you actually looked at what it says? Further, do you know why it says those things and not other things? I mean, we've had the same form of government in the US for like, oh 235 years and most of us are taught in schools how laws are crafted and passed, and why you have to obey them. I would have thought they covered the whole "oh now we're gonna have to do what some bunch of dead dudes said?" thing in high school, at least.

Of course Dems aren't required to defend everything that Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson did. Why would they be?

So are you saying that the decision made in 1868 was a bad one? Why?

Why do you hate babies so much that you won't give them freedom?

[Squink]

Let me get this straight. Are Dems saying that it's OK for a pregnant woman to come into the US illegally, have the baby, and the baby should be a citizen? And what percentage of Dems feel this way?Well, if that's the price we pay to ensure that no one takes away citizenship from dildos such as yourself, so be it.
I'm certain the Republicans have examined this thorny constitutional issue with the same dilligence president Bush focused on rebuilding post-conquest Iraq. What could possibly go wrong with changing the constitution in a paroxysmal panic of xenophobia?
Can you imagine? :dubious:

[DianaG]

Let me get this straight. Are Dems saying that it's OK for a pregnant woman to come into the US illegally, have the baby, and the baby should be a citizen? And what percentage of Dems feel this way?
Well, I'm a Democrat, and I don't much care whether she was pregnant when she got here, for what that's worth. The Constitution unambivalently says that anyone born here is a citizen, and who am I to argue?

[Bricker]

OK, I jumped the gun here. Xenophobia is not racism. I apologize and withdraw that charge, except as to DianaG.

[Czarcasm]

Let me get this straight. Are Dems saying that it's OK for a pregnant woman to come into the US illegally, have the baby, and the baby should be a citizen? And what percentage of Dems feel this way?Let me get this straight. Are Cons saying that it's o.k. to ignore the Constitution of the United States when it is expedient?

[The Great Sun Jester]

Pick one. Does the GOP get credit for the Civil Rights Act or is it independent of the GOPs that have gone before, and thus can disagree with the 14th Amendment hypocrisy-free?Which one?
Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced by JFK (Democrat)
Civil Rights Act of 1874 was championed largely by Charles Sumner (Republican) Of course, back then Republicans were all about equal rights in a more ... well, more than they are today.

But as for whether one needs to be accountable for what one's group did over a century ago, I have already noted it can make sense to change your mind over time:In response to the OP: I'm no racist, but why not review a 145 year-old law? It served a purpose when Tom Sawyer was relevant, our flag only had 37 stars, our map had 50% of its area, and automobiles, machine guns, HP Lovecraft and interstate highways had not yet darkened our landscape. Perhaps our role in international politics and our socioeconomic profile has changed just a bit since the time when this seemed like a good idea.

And yes, that means why not review portions of that document that are nearly a century older still? I can't speak with any degree of certainty, but I have to wonder if The Founding Fathers ever truly believed their work would have endured this long.

Let me get this straight. Are Dems saying that it's OK for a pregnant woman to come into the US illegally, have the baby, and the baby should be a citizen? And what percentage of Dems feel this way?Let me get this straight. Are Cons saying that it's o.k. to ignore the Constitution of the United States when it is expedient?
It's happened recently before....

[boytyperanma]

Let me get this straight. Are Dems saying that it's OK for a pregnant woman to come into the US illegally, have the baby, and the baby should be a citizen? And what percentage of Dems feel this way?

Most Dems can fairly argue it's inappropriate and unconstitutional to take the sins of the parents out on infants. Those babies start crawling over of their own free will the argument to deny them citizenship might start to make more sense.

The whole anchor baby concept is made up. We don't grant citizenship to those parents due to the child.

The argument to repeal the 14 amendment is an argument to make babies stateless people.

[Plan B]

Let me get this straight. Are Dems saying that it's OK for a pregnant woman to come into the US illegally, have the baby, and the baby should be a citizen? And what percentage of Dems feel this way?
Well, I'm a Democrat, and I don't much care whether she was pregnant when she got here, for what that's worth. The Constitution unambivalently says that anyone born here is a citizen, and who am I to argue?That's a little scary. You are a citizen and you certainly have the right to argue and disagree. The 14th Amendment is...uhm...an amendment. And it can itself be amended. It's been done before.

It seems like one of the themes of this thread is that the Constitution should never be questioned. Or changed.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Do you think it should be changed?

[Plan B]

Do you think it should be changed?Definitely, I think there are a lot of possible changes and additions that are worth discussing.

Do you think it's perfect as of August 4, 2010?

[The Great Sun Jester]

Do you think it should be changed?Can't resist (aimed at no one in particular):
You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know We all want to change your head

[Snowboarder Bo]

Do you think it should be changed?Definitely, I think there are a lot of possible changes and additions that are worth discussing.

Do you think it's perfect as of August 4, 2010?

Why do you hate babies so much you want to deny them freedom?

[elucidator]

I doubt that there are very many mothers who will bend the effort to arrive pregnant in America for the express purpose of delivering an American citizen. I daresay very few mothers will risk thier lives crossing the Sonoran Desert simply to risk having a child they may not be allowed to raise. Even if by such a risk, they allow that child the inestimable blessing of US citizenship.

[Llama Llogophile]

Hmm... What if we tell people like Lindsey Graham that if they repeal the 14th amendment, it might increase the number of abortions?

I have no evidence for that assertion - I just suspect the mere suggestion might cause an amusing amount of cognitive dissonance.

[BigT]

The only anchor babies I've ever heard of were the kids of illegal immigrants that were already staying here--and then they get deported, but lose the kid. What good would just dropping the kid off be? How the heck can you prove the kid was born here?

And I must admit I've called anti-immigration people racists, but xenophobia is more what I was getting at. I just hate the US vs THEM mentality. Even when I sometimes goof up and have it here.

[Plan B]

I just hate the US vs THEM mentality. Then why are you calling people xenophobic? Is it possible that people have reasons for disagreeing with you and it's not based on evil or fear?

[Onomatopoeia]

Hmm... What if we tell people like Lindsey Graham that if they repeal the 14th amendment, it might increase the number of abortions?

I have no evidence for that assertion - I just suspect the mere suggestion might cause an amusing amount of cognitive dissonance.I believe he'd be okay with it because, after all, it wouldn't be Americans who'd be getting more abortions.

Let's be real here. The increase in xenophobia comes from Republican fears that, because of an uptick in Democratic voter registrations, and the near-stagnancy of the Republican voter base numbers, we are approaching a threshold beyond which the election of Republicans in comparable numbers to Democrats will become less and less likely. Hispanics are lining up heavily behind Democrats, and because the Republicans keep shooting themselves in both feet with their xenophobic rhetoric, that trend is likely to increase. This 14th Amendment garbage is simply another short-sighted attempt by the Republicans to (a) mitigate the effects of a tsunami of future Hispanic, Democratic voters, and (b) pacify their faithful, yet fearful base, by showing that they're doing everything they can to ensure the party doesn't go the way of the Whigs.

[Princhester]

Not a single hint or whiff of a suggestion of 'evil' there? Really?

Your "evil" ploy is a transparent strawman. The subject of the thread is accused by the OP of engaging in a particular behaviour with a particular motivation. You pretend that the OP is making a simplistic accusation that the subject of the thread is "evil" and attempt to dismiss the OP as being nothing better than demonisation. Yet the only simplistic presumptive characterisation about the subject's nature ["evil"] (as opposed to the subject's behaviour and motivation) is yours*.

Either refute the OP's accusation about the subject's behaviour and/or motivation or don't, but don't think you are fooling anyone when you pretend the OP is just insulting someone so you can try to get the high ground by decrying them for doing so.

*I assume you realise that by leaping from "the 'Pubbies are stirring up xenophobia as a cynical ploy" to "you are just saying 'Pubbies are evil" you are accepting that if 'Pubbies are stirring up xenophobia as a cynical ploy they are evil?

[elucidator]

You're out of your league. Friend Bricker is the paladin of semantic distinction, the Black Knight that stands firm and says "You shall not parse." Split hairs? He can split a red pubic hair into seventeen identical segments. Lengthwise.

Don't mess.

[Snowboarder Bo]

You're out of your league. Friend Bricker is the paladin of semantic distinction, the Black Knight that stands firm and says "You shall not parse." Split hairs? He can split a red pubic hair into seventeen identical segments. Lengthwise.

Don't mess.

Aye, and it's great fun to watch because in winning each battle, Bricker loses more ground each day.

[Blalron]

I just hate the US vs THEM mentality. Then why are you calling people xenophobic? Is it possible that people have reasons for disagreeing with you and it's not based on evil or fear?

There's definitely something the Nativists are afraid of. All laws are to some extent based upon fear ("if we let people do X, bad stuff will happen!"). So I can't call all fear based legislation wrong. The issue for me is how justified the fears are, as compared with the actual threat posed. I don't see what real harm these "anchor babies" are causing anyone. But I can definitely see a downside in the long run to ending up with 5th generation illegal immigrants on our soil: a permanent underclass that can be easily exploited.

I avoid the term "evil", the following blurb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil#Is_evil_a_useful_term.3F) sums up my feelings on the matter:

Psychologist and mediator Marshall Rosenberg claims that the root of violence is the very concept of "evil" or "badness." When we label someone as bad or evil, Rosenberg claims, it invokes the desire to punish or inflict pain. It also makes it easy for us to turn off our feelings towards the person we are harming. He cites the use of language in Nazi Germany as being a key to how the German people were able to do things to other human beings that they normally would not do. He links the concept of evil to our judicial system, which seeks to create justice via punishment — "punitive justice" — punishing acts that are seen as bad or wrong. He contrasts this approach with what he found in cultures where the idea of evil was non-existent. In such cultures, when someone harms another person, they are believed to be out of harmony with themselves and their community, are seen as sick or ill and measures are taken to restore them to a sense of harmonious relations with themselves and others.

[Princhester]

Well, well, well, 'luci. Haven't we lost our nerve?

[Nava]

Let me get this straight. Are Dems saying that it's OK for a pregnant woman to come into the US illegally, have the baby, and the baby should be a citizen? And what percentage of Dems feel this way?

Well, she doesn't have to be pregnant when she gets in.

By the way, are y'all planning on giving citizenship to the children of political asylees? I have vague memories of articles about them not getting it and being in a political limbo where they could go to school until age 18 but no further and could neither get jobs nor apply for immigration/citizenship/asylum, but it's been a while, I don't know whether that got fixed (or even whether the articles were accurate in the first place).

[DianaG]

It seems like one of the themes of this thread is that the Constitution should never be questioned. Or changed.
I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that the Constitution should only be amended to ADD rights.

[ivan astikov]

It seems like one of the themes of this thread is that the Constitution should never be questioned. Or changed.
I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that the Constitution should only be amended to ADD rights.

So, if the Constitution had included rights for all parents to decide who their offspring married, you'd be good with it?

[Llama Llogophile]

Well, she doesn't have to be pregnant when she gets in.

By the way, are y'all planning on giving citizenship to the children of political asylees? I have vague memories of articles about them not getting it and being in a political limbo where they could go to school until age 18 but no further and could neither get jobs nor apply for immigration/citizenship/asylum, but it's been a while, I don't know whether that got fixed (or even whether the articles were accurate in the first place).

Come to that, what if an illegal immigrant is impregnated by a U.S. citizen?

Even if it were a good idea to think about changing the "anchor baby" rule, it's these scenarios that would make it very impracticable and cause more problems than it would solve.

[Czarcasm]

I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that the Constitution should only be amended to ADD rights.

So, if the Constitution had included rights for all parents to decide who their offspring married, you'd be good with it?And you would see this amendment as an "increase" in rights??

[DianaG]

I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that the Constitution should only be amended to ADD rights.

So, if the Constitution had included rights for all parents to decide who their offspring married, you'd be good with it?
I don't suppose I would, but since it didn't, no worries.

Could point me to anything ACTUALLY in our Constitution that would present a similar dilemma?

[ivan astikov]

So, if the Constitution had included rights for all parents to decide who their offspring married, you'd be good with it?And you would see this amendment as an "increase" in rights??

What amendment? What are you talking about? For comparison, in English law there was a statute that stated all Black Cabs(a type of taxi) had to carry a bale of hay in the trunk because of an archaic bylaw. Do you think this sort of thing should be just left in there and ignored, or excised, for the stupid piece of shit rule it is?

[emacknight]

Your defense is a post that came after your initial claim.

I feel like I'm watching Daffy Duck as Robin Hood take on Porky Pig as Friar Tuck.

So YOU feel that, until Diana's second post, no one was suggesting racism on the part of Republicans?

Unless they specifically used the term racism, the rest is just your projection onto them. Do we need to revisit the hypocrite thread?

No hint of an accusation of racism there?

Muslim isn't a race, it's a religion. Were you not aware of that? Are you working off a different definition of racism?



Because banning same sex marriage for the 4th time doesn't sell as well to the base?

Not a single hint or whiff of a suggestion of 'evil' there? Really?

So now you're switching from racism to evil?

[emacknight]

Anyway, birthright citizenship for the children of non-residents is kind of unusual.I wouldn't want to hijack such a well-directed thread as this one, but...how many/which other countries have this?

In response to the OP: I'm no racist, but why not review a 145 year-old law? It served a purpose when Tom Sawyer was relevant, our flag only had 37 stars, our map had 50% of its area, and automobiles, machine guns, HP Lovecraft and interstate highways had not yet darkened our landscape. Perhaps our role in international politics and our socioeconomic profile has changed just a bit since the time when this seemed like a good idea.

And yes, that means why not review portions of that document that are nearly a century older still? I can't speak with any degree of certainty, but I have to wonder if The Founding Fathers ever truly believed their work would have endured this long.

To answer your second question: **GASP** how dare you question the Fathers. If you start asking if this amendment is stupid, ill-thought out, and not applicable to today's world, what happens when you look at the others?!?!

To answer your specific question: citizenship is generally passed by heritage, or by earth. In other words, your citizenship is either based on your parent's citizenship, or by where you were born. Some countries take these to extremes, while others use a bit of both. The US mainly uses earth, but Americans can also register babies born overseas.

In some Middle Eastern countries, citizenship is based on your father's citizenship. So millions of foreigners can live, work, and give birth in their country, without ever getting citizenship.

I got Canadian citizenship because I was born in Canada. But I got Irish citizenship because my grandfather was born in Ireland.

But likewise, if you gave birth in Ireland, you could get both Irish citizenship by earth, and then register American citizenship by decent.

[LonesomePolecat]

Definitely, I think there are a lot of possible changes and additions that are worth discussing.

Do you think it's perfect as of August 4, 2010?

Why do you hate babies so much you want to deny them freedom?Do you hate them so much you'll let them be killed in the womb?

[Bricker]

Unless they specifically used the term racism, the rest is just your projection onto them. Do we need to revisit the hypocrite thread?


Nope. As I cheerfully conceded above:

OK, I jumped the gun here. Xenophobia is not racism. I apologize and withdraw that charge, except as to DianaG.

I think it's clear from her subsequent post that she did mean - as of then, anyway - to accuse the GOP of racism. But as to the others, you're right: I ascribed motives that weren't stated. My bad. Withdrawn, and apologized for.

[Captain Midnight]

The 14th Amendment is stupid and badly worded and definitely needs to be changed or repealed.

Why does a child, born of a non-citizen automatically beomes a citizen? Even a foreigner on vacation in the USA could have a child there and the child would be a citizen.

Many people including myself wants this abolished because it promotes foreign pregnant women to sneak across the border to have a baby on the taxpayers. Then since the woman is a mother of a citizen, she gets to stay too. Then the mother invites all of her relatives to come.

All the welfare consumed by the invader, multiple babies and family members robs working people of their money (taxes) while forcing them to live in worse and worse conditions.

28 people in a two bedroom house, beer bottles in the yard, drunk drivers galore. Working meat packing plant jobs, on welfare and/or selling drugs. I know most of you on this board love "diversity" (as long as it is not in your neighborhood of course), well, this is it.

[MsWhatsit]

Why does a child, born of a non-citizen automatically beomes a citizen? Even a foreigner on vacation in the USA could have a child there and the child would be a citizen.

I know, right? This is a pretty great country.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Anyway, birthright citizenship for the children of non-residents is kind of unusual.I wouldn't want to hijack such a well-directed thread as this one, but...how many/which other countries have this?
The only supposedly list easily found on the internet is the one on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#Specific_national_legislation), which is taken from the website of NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA is an anti-immigration group, so I presume they define the matter as strictly as possible, and the list does not claim to be exhaustive anyway.

In any case, it is not a large number: 33, according to them.

Nearly all of the countries that confer automatic citizenship on the sole basis of jus soli are in the Americas. Most are relatively sparsely populated (like us).

Most other "developed" nations have a combination of jus soli and jus sanguinus policies. Typically, a child born on the soil of Country X to a legal resident of Country X is an automatic citizen, while a child born on the soil of Country X to a visitor or illegal resident is not. On the other hand, the latter child would automatically become eligible for citizenship at the age of 18, or at such a time as his or her parent either became a legal resident or a citizen (depends).
Do you think it should be changed?Definitely, I think there are a lot of possible changes and additions that are worth discussing.

Do you think it's perfect as of August 4, 2010?
Of course not. However, we're not really talking about the Constitution as a whole; we're talking about the portions which relate to citizenship.

On the whole, I think we're doing quite well with things as they are in that regard.

That said, the procedures for granting citizenship are frankly not in line with the Constitution as things currently stand. It's none of your business if I've ever been a member of a communist party or any other totalitarian party. Why are you asking?
Many people including myself wants this abolished because it promotes foreign pregnant women to sneak across the border to have a baby on the taxpayers. Then since the woman is a mother of a citizen, she gets to stay too. Then the mother invites all of her relatives to come.
Posting bitchy screeds about things you don't understand makes you look really stupid.

You don't get to stay in the US because you're the "mother of a citizen". If ICE picks up the mother, she gets deported, just like anyone else. The baby goes too - or she can put it up for adoption.

When come back, bring facts, moron.

[Chessic Sense]

Which one?
Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced by JFK (Democrat)
Civil Rights Act of 1874 was championed largely by Charles Sumner (Republican) Of course, back then Republicans were all about equal rights in a more ... well, more than they are today.

I'm referring to this:


By party
The original House version:[10]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%–39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[11]

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:[10]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[10]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)

[Chessic Sense]

You don't get to stay in the US because you're the "mother of a citizen". If ICE picks up the mother, she gets deported, just like anyone else. The baby goes too - or she can put it up for adoption.

When come back, bring facts, moron.

That's not true. You seem to think the U.S. deports illegal aliens they come across. What really happens is that they go to immigration court and are frequently granted relief. This is especially true in the case of citizens' parents.

However, a U.S. citizen is not allowed to petition for naturalization of a parent until they're 21 years old. So in a sense, they're more like "anchor children" than "anchor babies"

As my coworker, a 30+ year vet of immigration enforcement, says: "Judges consider whether or not deportation of the parents would cause an undue hardship on the citizen." Key words: Undue hardship.

In my experience, it's true that moms aren't going to get deported. But then again, most people don't anyway, children or not.

[Really Not All That Bright]

The point is that they are no less likely to be deported than illegal immigrants who do not have citizen children, regardless of what your friend says. Several bills have been introduced which would allow judges to consider family status in deportation cases, and they have all failed.

[SteveG1]

Of the 16 threads right now on the Hannity forums, 5 of them are directly race-related (the others can, of course, be summed up as "Liberals suck").

But I'm sure that Bricker will be along any moment now and offer us a different, more Conservative-friendly explanation.

What was that old old saying?

The simplest answer is the right one

Or something like that.

[Bricker]

Then since the woman is a mother of a citizen, she gets to stay too. Then the mother invites all of her relatives to come.


But this statement is not true. The mother can be deported, even if she has a citizen child.

ETA: which is already discussed above. :smack:

[LonesomePolecat]

Most whites know that becoming a minority can never be a good thing for us, that the rate of immigration (both legal and illegal) passed the rate of assimililation a long time ago, and that the country is becoming Balkanized. They see that America is slowly becoming a third world country, and they know the endless introduction of new immigrants is creating racial and ethnic fault lines that are likely to give way under stress. They know as well that the endless stream of immigrants complicates every other problem we have such as unemployment, failing schools, environmental degradation, overloaded infrastructure and social support systems, and crime. This is common sense, not racism and xenophobia. Snarling about how racist and xenophobic this common sense attitude is supposed to be ony shows the depths of the loathing and contempt that most white progressives feel for their fellow whites.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Not all of them. Just you, really.

[LonesomePolecat]

Not all of them. Just you, really.(shrug) I didn't say all of them. It's safe to say most of them do, as evidenced by the numerous polls which show overwhelming support for strict control of immigration.

[emacknight]

Unless they specifically used the term racism, the rest is just your projection onto them. Do we need to revisit the hypocrite thread?


Nope. As I cheerfully conceded above:

OK, I jumped the gun here. Xenophobia is not racism. I apologize and withdraw that charge, except as to DianaG.

I think it's clear from her subsequent post that she did mean - as of then, anyway - to accuse the GOP of racism. But as to the others, you're right: I ascribed motives that weren't stated. My bad. Withdrawn, and apologized for.

I also need to apologize, when I replied I thought that was the last post and didn't realize there were two more pages.

[Chessic Sense]

The point is that they are no less likely to be deported than illegal immigrants who do not have citizen children

And my point is that this is utterly false. I'd love to hang around and debate this with you, but I've got to get some work done today. These aliens aren't going to deport themselves, y'know.

[emacknight]

The 14th Amendment is stupid and badly worded and definitely needs to be changed or repealed.

While we've got the car up on the jack, and we're tinkering with the engine, perhaps we could look at some of the other retardly outdated amendments. The 1st looks fine, maybe we could address the 2nd before moving on to 3-14.

I must say, I love that all the answers to this are as simple as saying ,"It's constitutional bitch, suck it!"

[Really Not All That Bright]

The point is that they are no less likely to be deported than illegal immigrants who do not have citizen children

And my point is that this is utterly false. I'd love to hang around and debate this with you, but I've got to get some work done today. These aliens aren't going to deport themselves, y'know.
Then I'm sure you can provide a citation. Other than that guy you work with, of course.

[Jack Batty]

Most whites know that becoming a minority can never be a good thing for us ...

Us? What 'us' is that. All us whites? We all have a shared vested in interest in not having un-whites around us?

How your cranium doesn't implode foisting that bullshit and following it up with:

This is common sense, not racism and xenophobia.

... has got be a medical mystery.

[Squink]

they know the endless introduction of new immigrants is creating racial and ethnic fault lines that are likely to give way under stress.Hence the current effort to preemptively rupture those lines by rewriting the constitution?

[LonesomePolecat]

Most whites know that becoming a minority can never be a good thing for us ...

Us? What 'us' is that. All us whites? We all have a shared vested in interest in not having un-whites around us?

.Perhaps you'd care to explain how whites benefit from giving up their status as the dominant majority. I've often asked this question here and elsewhere, and all I get is either a lot of happy talk about how beautiful diversity is supposed to be or a lot of snarling about what a racist monster I am.

[Jack Batty]

Perhaps you'd care to explain how whites get the right to claim dominance over non-whites because there are currently more of us. What is this, some existential king-of-the-hill game to you?

Did you not get the memo? All men are created equal. This isn't the United States of White America, you know.

[elucidator]

I'm not black, but there's a whole lot of times I wish I could say I'm not white

Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention
Freak Out, 1966

[Bricker]

Most whites know that becoming a minority can never be a good thing for us....

I think it's fair to say (I hope, anyway) that I do not have a reputation here or anywhere as a player of the race card nor an apologist for illegal immigration.

So with that as a backdrop, let me say: yeah, being in the minority hasn't been a good thing for us Hispanics, pal. So why do you assume that because whites are the majority now, they have some special entitlement to continue in that role?

[DianaG]

Then I'm sure you can provide a citation.
elucidator, this seems like a good time to mention that I find your indomitable optimism inspiring.

[Normal Phase]

There was a distinct change in the tone of the public discourse on race and nationality starting around the time that George Bush became President. All of a sudden political comments that pushed what used to be the polite boundaries of bigotry or class superiority or xenophobia became commonplace among mainstream Republican politicians and speakers; it was no longer confined to the fringe. And they never got called on it, by the so-called left-wing media or anyone else. It gradually got more and more blatant.

Take the Allen guy who lost for Senator in Virginia a few years back, and his use of the word "macaca" (monkey) to refer to a journalist of Indian ethnicity who was following him around with a video camera. In 1990 someone like him might have thought that, but he'd never have said it, not even in front of a friendly crowd. By 2006 he was comfortable saying it. (If it happened today, I bet he wouldn't bother with the various dodges he indulged in; he'd just go off on a tangent about immigrants stealing "your" country or something, and it's OK to use a slur if you have a real issue you're talking about. Anyway.) Allen lost, but only barely.

All along the right wing talkers have been getting more and more aggressive with the race-baiting, the ginning up of fears of illegal immigrants, and the stoking of resentment and fear against anyone who is not just like them. The politicians have been following happily along in their wake. And then Barack Obama won the Presidency, and every racist, closet racist and "I'm not racist, but I think Limbaugh really has a point" sort of person in the country lost his or her every-loving mind.

[jsgoddess]

Us? What 'us' is that. All us whites? We all have a shared vested in interest in not having un-whites around us?

I'm afraid I'm going to have to opt-out of his White People For the Win! moment. The man I'm in love with and may at some point marry isn't white, so not having him around would be awkward. And we'd need two sets of china!

[Really Not All That Bright]

Perhaps you'd care to explain how whites benefit from giving up their status as the dominant majority. I've often asked this question here and elsewhere, and all I get is either a lot of happy talk about how beautiful diversity is supposed to be or a lot of snarling about what a racist monster I am.
In what sense are whites the dominant majority? Who is white? Are Latinos white? People with less than 50% African ancestry? Indians? Chinese?

Let's start off with a simple example: Bill Richardson. He looks white, and he's got a "white" name, but he says he's Hispanic. Is he white?

[Normal Phase]

Us? What 'us' is that. All us whites? We all have a shared vested in interest in not having un-whites around us?

.Perhaps you'd care to explain how whites benefit from giving up their status as the dominant majority. I've often asked this question here and elsewhere, and all I get is either a lot of happy talk about how beautiful diversity is supposed to be or a lot of snarling about what a racist monster I am.

It's not a zero sum game. "We" don't lose just because someone else wins.

[Blalron]

I recommend that you all watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN1kp1ggWyM) video. Even though it features talking cartoon cats, it's a brilliant and insightful analysis of the immigration issue. :D

[Onomatopoeia]

Most whites know that becoming a minority can never be a good thing for us, that the rate of immigration (both legal and illegal) passed the rate of assimililation a long time ago, and that the country is becoming Balkanized.At last, a conservative (if I may be so presumptuous) admits what he believes is at the heart of the issue. It's refreshing to see someone decide not to pollute a topic with obfuscation, prevarication, and moving the goalposts for a change. They see that America is slowly becoming a third world country, and they know the endless introduction of new immigrants is creating racial and ethnic fault lines that are likely to give way under stress.This may be a concern for them, but I don't believe it to be a major issue for them. At least it's not expressed widely that I've seen. They know as well that the endless stream of immigrants complicates every other problem we have such as unemployment, failing schools, environmental degradation, overloaded infrastructure and social support systems, and crime.They know no such thing. They believe it, but they don't know it. This is common sense, not racism and xenophobia.In the current state of affairs, it's both actually. You all but state it in the first line of your post. Snarling about how racist and xenophobic this common sense attitude is supposed to be ony shows the depths of the loathing and contempt that most white progressives feel for their fellow whites.No, it's an indication of how racist and xenophobic people, even whites, believe this attitude to be.

[jsgoddess]

All along the right wing talkers have been getting more and more aggressive with the race-baiting, the ginning up of fears of illegal immigrants, and the stoking of resentment and fear against anyone who is not just like them. The politicians have been following happily along in their wake. And then Barack Obama won the Presidency, and every racist, closet racist and "I'm not racist, but I think Limbaugh really has a point" sort of person in the country lost his or her every-loving mind.

Well, I think that as people basically lose hope that they are mainstream, they can become comfortable being seen as radical in ways they couldn't before and, of course, people who feel like they are on the losing side of a groundswell can get more and more vocal. I think we can see that in the gay marriage fights, for example. The rhetoric gets ratcheted up in an attempt to stall acceptance, but I think the James Dobsons of the world really do see the writing on the wall.

That's my feeling on it.

[BrainGlutton]

Most whites know that becoming a minority can never be a good thing for us . . .

Wait -- just why, exactly, would it be a bad thing? Sure, a lot of the white middle class and working class have slid down the socioeconomic ladder in the past few decades; but not because of any racial outnumbering. The reasons are entirely different.

. . . that the rate of immigration (both legal and illegal) passed the rate of assimililation a long time ago, and that the country is becoming Balkanized.

No, not Balkanized -- Brazilianized. From The Next American Nation, (http://www.amazon.com/NEXT-AMERICAN-NATION-Nationalism-Revolution/dp/0684825031) by Michael Lind:

The chief danger confronting the twenty-first century United States is not Balkanization but what might be called Brazilianization. By Brazilianization I mean not the separation of cultures by race, but the separation of races by class. As in Brazil, a common American culture could be indefinitely compatible with a blurry, informal caste system in which most of those at the top of the social hierarchy are white, and most brown and black Americans are on the bottom -- forever. Behind all the boosterish talk about the wonders of the new American rainbow is the reality of enduring racial division by class, something that multicultural education initiatives and racial preference policies do not begin to address.

In the absence of sustained popular pressure from below or concern about America's international status, the white overclass has no incentive to combat Brazilianization in the United States. For one thing, any serious effort to reduce racial separation by class would inevitably mean higher taxes on the affluent -- not just the rich, but the politically powerful upper-middle class. What is more, the dominance of the white oligarchy in American politics is strengthened by the emergent dynamics of a polarized society. In a more homogeneous society, the increasing concentration of wealth and power at the top might produce a populist reaction by the majority. But in a society like that of present-day America where a small, homogeneous oligarchy confronts a diverse population that shares a common national culture but remains divided along racial lines, the position of the outnumbered elite can be very secure. This is because the resentments caused by economic decline are likely to be expressed as hostility between the groups at the bottom, rather than as a rebellion against the top. In the Los Angeles riot, black, Hispanic, and white rioters turned on Korean middlemen, rather than march on Beverly Hills.

Note that, even then, most white Americans will be at the middle or bottom of the hierarchy; there ain't much room at the top. You should be thinking in terms of class, not race, LonesomePolecat.

They see that America is slowly becoming a third world country . . .

Yes, it is; but not because of an inundation of Third Worlders.

. . . and they know the endless introduction of new immigrants is creating racial and ethnic fault lines that are likely to give way under stress. They know as well that the endless stream of immigrants complicates every other problem we have such as unemployment, failing schools, environmental degradation, overloaded infrastructure and social support systems, and crime.

Similar arguments were made against every wave of immigrants in America's post-independence history, from the Irish to the Jews. Eventually they all assimilated and became productive members of our society and enrichers of our culture. Sometimes full assimilation took longer than you might expect -- Lawrence Welk spoke with a foreign accent because he grew up in a small town in North Dakota where nobody spoke anything but German -- but, so what? I'm sure nobody wishes his family had stayed in Germany. How does the current wave of immigration differ from any of the previous waves?

This is common sense, not racism and xenophobia. Snarling about how racist and xenophobic this common sense attitude is supposed to be ony shows the depths of the loathing and contempt that most white progressives feel for their fellow whites.

:rolleyes: Oh. I see.

[elucidator]

....but I think the James Dobsons of the world really do see the writing on the wall....

And its in Spanish.

[Chessic Sense]

Then I'm sure you can provide a citation. Other than that guy you work with, of course.

I'm sure I can find a cite, but I don't care enough to do that. I've got a respected, credible primary source sitting right next to me. I'm not going to go hunt around on the internet for an inferior source just to win an internet argument. So I'm going to drop a line that I don't think I've ever said before: "My post is my cite".

[Normal Phase]

If America is becoming a third world country (and in my more pessimistic moments I do believe it's trending that way), it's not because of the people who live here. It's because of cynical right-wing politicians (aided and abetted by plenty of the self-proclaimed centrists and even some of the so-called left wing) who give their all to favor policies that bring about extreme income disparity, the destruction of our economic base, and the ransacking of our environment.

Then those same politicians point at illegal immigrants, lazy welfare cheats, and over-entitled minorities as the source of all your problems. At worst they're a drop in the bucket. None of those groups, even if they were everything the right wing claims they are, amount a hill of beans in terms of power to the rich bastards who are really running the show. They show up on your front porch directing your attention to the woodchuck who's digging up your potato patch, and when you run off to chase it, they rob you blind and rape your wife. And that's not even the worst part. The worst part is, when you come back inside, you blame it all on the woodchuck.

[elucidator]

Then I'm sure you can provide a citation.
elucidator, this seems like a good time to mention that I find your indomitable optimism inspiring.

With all due gratitude, I point out that that is not the he that is me.

And, 'struth, I am a radical progressive pessimist. Ghandi said something about working for progress and justice may, in fact, be utterly futile and pointless. But that doesn't get you off the hook. Preach it, brother.

[BrainGlutton]

Us? What 'us' is that. All us whites? We all have a shared vested in interest in not having un-whites around us?

.Perhaps you'd care to explain how whites benefit from giving up their status as the dominant majority. I've often asked this question here and elsewhere, and all I get is either a lot of happy talk about how beautiful diversity is supposed to be or a lot of snarling about what a racist monster I am.

Don't you understand that someone concerned with preserving the "dominant majority" status of his racial/ethnic group is a racist by definition?

For the rest, I think what you're facing -- and, again, seem not to understand -- is rejection of the legitimacy of your question. "Perhaps you'd care to explain how whites benefit from giving up their status as the dominant majority." WTF has that to do with anything?! Arguably it was good for white people in the pre-Civil-Rights South to keep their status as the dominant majority -- to maintain Jim Crow, and maintain their own superior racial caste position over the blacks, and keep the blacks around as a pool of dirt-cheap menial labor, and enjoy the psychological benefits of a sense of superiority concomitant with white skin privilege. Arguably it was not good even for most whites, since racial division prevented the emergence of any trans-racial labor movement and kept poor whites and blacks economically dependent on the Bourbon aristocracy, who could always play the one group off against the other, divide and rule. But in either case, Jim Crow simply was not morally defensible, no more than slavery was.

[SteveG1]

The 14th Amendment is stupid and badly worded and definitely needs to be changed or repealed.

Why does a child, born of a non-citizen automatically beomes a citizen? Even a foreigner on vacation in the USA could have a child there and the child would be a citizen.

Many people including myself wants this abolished because it promotes foreign pregnant women to sneak across the border to have a baby on the taxpayers. Then since the woman is a mother of a citizen, she gets to stay too. Then the mother invites all of her relatives to come.

All the welfare consumed by the invader, multiple babies and family members robs working people of their money (taxes) while forcing them to live in worse and worse conditions.

28 people in a two bedroom house, beer bottles in the yard, drunk drivers galore. Working meat packing plant jobs, on welfare and/or selling drugs. I know most of you on this board love "diversity" (as long as it is not in your neighborhood of course), well, this is it.

Just to see what happens, and taking a wild guess at the sort of position most flag waving pseudopatriots usually take on other things, AND taking comfort in the fact that those who know my past posts will "get it", try this then:

The 2nd amendment, dealing with militias and right to bear arms,

Is also stupid and badly worded and definitely needs to be changed or repealed. Many people including myself wants this abolished because it promotes shooting and robbing and murder.

Do you agree? Or is one amendment more "sacred" than another, based on what you want (freedom for you and to hell with anyone else).

[rogerbox]

It is very important for the people at the economic top to play the middle against the bottom so that they can keep their position. LonesomePolecat admits as much (though he seems more racially motivated than economically motivated, by a touch).

I would like to get mad at someone who says basically that they want WHITE PEOPLE TO BE TOPS, but at least he is being honest about it, whereas 99.9999% of the ridiculous right wingers use racist imagery ("Obama the magic negro", etc) and racial scare tactics without outright SAYING, we don't like non-whites getting ahead in this country.

So I applaud you for being an honest, albeit horribly disgusting human being, LonesomePolecat.

[DianaG]

elucidator, this seems like a good time to mention that I find your indomitable optimism inspiring.

With all due gratitude, I point out that that is not the he that is me.

And, 'struth, I am a radical progressive pessimist. Ghandi said something about working for progress and justice may, in fact, be utterly futile and pointless. But that doesn't get you off the hook. Preach it, brother.
D'oh! Thanks.

Really Not All That Bright, this Bud's for you, man. ;)

[Really Not All That Bright]

Then I'm sure you can provide a citation. Other than that guy you work with, of course.

I'm sure I can find a cite, but I don't care enough to do that. I've got a respected, credible primary source sitting right next to me. I'm not going to go hunt around on the internet for an inferior source just to win an internet argument. So I'm going to drop a line that I don't think I've ever said before: "My post is my cite".
I happen to have Janet Napolitano on the phone right now, and she says you're full of shit. It's not that I don't believe you; it's just that I don't know who the fuck your respected primary source is.

However, since he's right next to you, I'm sure he can provide a link to a GAO, CBO or DHS Inspector General's report which provides the exact information we seek.
Really Not All That Bright, this Bud's for you, man.
First you call me luci. Then you toast me with shitty beer. Was it something I said?

[BrainGlutton]

Time to trot this out once again . . .

From Blood, Class and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies, (http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Class-Nostalgia-Anglo-American-Ironies/dp/0374114439) by Christopher Hitchens, discussing the "official English" movement of 1988:

U.S. English, it emerged, was a project of "U.S. Inc.," a tax-exempt body which underwrote a number of other groups, such as the Center for Immigration Studies, Americans for Border Control, and Californians for Population Stabilization. There was no mistaking the timbre of this joint output, which had little to do with the teaching of "the Queen's English" except as this bore upon the connection between that English and certain inherited conceptions of race and tribal security. Dr. John Tanton, the originating author of this cluster of groups and initiatives, was himself in no doubt that "the question of bilingualism grows out of U.S. immigration policy."

So much might have seemed obvious, at least until Dr. Tanton wrote a paper which, phrased in the poor and affected English which is often found among the language's more ostentatious upholders, created a crisis for his hitherto blue-chip WASP and Jewish campaign. As he coarsely put it:

"Gobernar es poblar" translates as "to govern is to populate." In this society, will the present majority peaceably hand over its political power to a group that is simply more fertile? Can homo contraceptivus compete with homo progenitiva if borders aren't controlled?

Having rather clumsily Latinized or Romanized his argument, Tanton moved to a more demotic style. He warned sternly of such alarming cultural imports as "the tradition of the mordida (bribe), the lack of involvement in public affairs, and Roman Catholicism with its tendency to "pitch out the separation of church and state." He continued to skirt around these aspects of the problem -- the most conspicuous opponents of church-state separation in the 1980s have been fundamentalist Protestants -- making an excursion through allegedly low "educability" before returning with relish to his main theme, which was, as ever, sex and fertility:

Perhaps this is the first instance in which those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down. As whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion?

This piece of inadvertence -- the shift to "white" as the key word speaks volumes in the extract above, as well as showing the secondary significance of ideas like "culture" and "language" -- led to the resignation of many of the U.S. English board members, among them Walter Cronkite and the neoconservative Hispanic Linda Chavez. It also led to closer scrutiny of the network of which Dr. Tanton was the convenor. The chairman of the Florida English campaign, for example, had advocated the elimination of emergency telephone services in Spanish in order to supply what he called an "incentive" to the learning of the tongue of Shakespeare and Dickens. His Dade County equivalent had warned that "the United States is not a mongrel nation." Rusty Butler, an aide to Senator Steven Symms of Idaho, had forwarded the senator's call for an English-language amendment to the Constitution by saying that "the language issue could feed and guide terrorism in the U.S." Finally, it was discovered that among the donors to Dr. Tanton's network was the Pioneer Fund, established in the unpropitious year of 1937 to proselytize for what it then called "applied genetics in present-day Germany."

Pioneer Fund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund)

John Tanton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tanton)

[Really Not All That Bright]

Funnily enough, I'm totally okay with making English the official language of the land. I just hate all the other people that want to do it.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Why do you hate babies so much you want to deny them freedom?Do you hate them so much you'll let them be killed in the womb?

Wow it took more than 2 full pages before LP found something come in and threadrape about.

Why don't you stick to the discussion at hand, LP.

[Snowboarder Bo]

The 14th Amendment is stupid and badly worded and definitely needs to be changed or repealed.

Why does a child, born of a non-citizen automatically beomes a citizen? Even a foreigner on vacation in the USA could have a child there and the child would be a citizen.

Many people including myself wants this abolished because it promotes foreign pregnant women to sneak across the border to have a baby on the taxpayers. Then since the woman is a mother of a citizen, she gets to stay too. Then the mother invites all of her relatives to come.

All the welfare consumed by the invader, multiple babies and family members robs working people of their money (taxes) while forcing them to live in worse and worse conditions.

28 people in a two bedroom house, beer bottles in the yard, drunk drivers galore. Working meat packing plant jobs, on welfare and/or selling drugs. I know most of you on this board love "diversity" (as long as it is not in your neighborhood of course), well, this is it.
Did you have to consume a lot of alcohol to reach this level of clarity?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Us? What 'us' is that. All us whites? We all have a shared vested in interest in not having un-whites around us?

.Perhaps you'd care to explain how whites benefit from giving up their status as the dominant majority. I've often asked this question here and elsewhere, and all I get is either a lot of happy talk about how beautiful diversity is supposed to be or a lot of snarling about what a racist monster I am.

Well, that's because you're a racist monster. At least, that's the impression I've gotten over the years reading your posts.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I'm not black, but there's a whole lot of times I wish I could say I'm not white

Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention
Freak Out, 1966

the song is "Trouble Every Day", btw... one of my favs

[BrainGlutton]

All the welfare consumed by the invader, multiple babies and family members robs working people of their money (taxes) while forcing them to live in worse and worse conditions.

:dubious: Nobody comes to America because they want to get on welfare!

[Chessic Sense]

I happen to have Janet Napolitano on the phone right now, and she says you're full of shit. It's not that I don't believe you; it's just that I don't know who the fuck your respected primary source is.

However, since he's right next to you, I'm sure he can provide a link to a GAO, CBO or DHS Inspector General's report which provides the exact information we seek.

All right, here's what I've got for you: 8 U.S.C 1229b(b)1D (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1229b.html#b)

§ 1229b. Cancellation of removal; adjustment of status
How Current is This? (a) Cancellation of removal for certain permanent residents
The Attorney General may cancel removal in the case of an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States if the alien—
(1) has been an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than 5 years,
(2) has resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status, and
(3) has not been convicted of any aggravated felony.
(b) Cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for certain nonpermanent residents
(1) In general
The Attorney General may cancel removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States if the alien—
(A) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application;
(B) has been a person of good moral character during such period;
(C) has not been convicted of an offense under section 1182 (a)(2), 1227 (a)(2), or 1227 (a)(3) of this title, subject to paragraph (5); and
(D) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

As for my coworker...dude frickin' knows everything about immigration. He's been doing it since Jesus was deported. The only reason I found the right law was because he called out the paragraph like it was nothing. "Oh, that's 1229." Then he went back to telling the other guys how to strategize the government's promotion system to get up there in the minimum number of years. I call him the "wise, old sage that sits in the corner."

[ivan astikov]

Why the sudden surge in Xenophobia?

It's nothing to do with me! I was somewhere else, I swear!

[Really Not All That Bright]

As for my coworker...dude frickin' knows everything about immigration. He's been doing it since Jesus was deported. The only reason I found the right law was because he called out the paragraph like it was nothing. "Oh, that's 1229." Then he went back to telling the other guys how to strategize the government's promotion system to get up there in the minimum number of years. I call him the "wise, old sage that sits in the corner."
Perhaps he can also tell us when the terms "attorney general" and "judge" became synonymous?
Nobody comes to America because they want to get on welfare!
I did, but then I got fobbed off with this high-payin' job thing instead. American Dream, pfft!

[Chessic Sense]

Oh, for Pete's sake. It doesn't even strain credibility. You said parents of citizens get deported at the same rate as the rest of them. Where's your cite, huh? You're the one making the claim.

[DianaG]

Dude, if you can't trust the guy who sits next to some guy on the internet, who CAN you trust? ;)

[Lemur866]

You know, if you're worried about all the Hispanics coming here and ruining the country, how about we enforce existing immigration law, rather than stripping citizenship away from American babies?

After all, if that Hispanic pregnant woman gets stopped at the border when she tries to sneak across, she can't give birth in the United States in the first place.

It doesn't make much sense to me to declare that the children of non-citizens cannot be citizens, when the borders are more or less open anyway. If we don't control the borders, it makes very little sense to just declare the second and third and fourth generations non-citizens. If we don't deport the parents, why go after the kids? And if we do deport the parents, then the problem is moot, because the number of non-citizens giving birth on US soil will be very small.

So maybe instead of changing the constitution, we could try, you know, enforcing the law and stuff.

Of course, I can imagine the reaction of a paranoid right-winger, when asked to present proof of parental citizenship at the hospital after the baby is born, otherwise the baby gets deported. That'll be a barrel of laughs. Or were they imaginging only parents who speak spanish will be asked to prove citizenship?

[The Tooth]

Us? What 'us' is that. All us whites? We all have a shared vested in interest in not having un-whites around us?

.Perhaps you'd care to explain how whites benefit from giving up their status as the dominant majority. I've often asked this question here and elsewhere, and all I get is either a lot of happy talk about how beautiful diversity is supposed to be or a lot of snarling about what a racist monster I am.

Have you encountered "Who cares?" yet?

[SteveG1]

You know, if you're worried about all the Hispanics coming here and ruining the country, how about we enforce existing immigration law, rather than stripping citizenship away from American babies?
Who needs Hispanics??? We can ruin the country just fine without help :D

[Really Not All That Bright]

Oh, for Pete's sake. It doesn't even strain credibility. You said parents of citizens get deported at the same rate as the rest of them. Where's your cite, huh? You're the one making the claim.
It's not a claim; that is the neutral position.

[foolsguinea]

Anchor babies: replacing welfare queens in the public consciousness.Similar in that neither actually exist.

[foolsguinea]

Pick one. Does the GOP get credit for the Civil Rights Act or is it independent of the GOPs that have gone before, and thus can disagree with the 14th Amendment hypocrisy-free?The modern GOP gets no credit for anything. It's a different bunch of people. I don't get credit for things my grandfather did.

What's hypocritical is a bunch of boll weevils using the GOP name.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Anchor babies: replacing welfare queens in the public consciousness.Similar in that neither actually exist.

Nope. That's my point. Thanks for understanding it.

[boytyperanma]

Oh, for Pete's sake. It doesn't even strain credibility. You said parents of citizens get deported at the same rate as the rest of them. Where's your cite, huh? You're the one making the claim.

Are you arguing the law treats the parents of illegal immigrants differently? I think you are the one that needs to provide a cite.

I know of no government policy that does that. Anchor babies is a made up concept to create a villain that deserves no rights.

However the law is implemented by humans, many who have a sense of compassion, so it would not surprise me if those enforcing the law opted not to tear families apart.

The argument against the 14th amendment in my opinion is so those so called compassionate conservatives can simply deny humanity to those foreigners and pretend like what they are doing is the right thing to do because it would be matter of law. They are stripping defenseless children of rights so they can pretend they are still good people in their xenophobia.

It amazes me how these so called Christians are looking to pass judgment on babies and condemn them to a lesser life then they would be granted in America.

[SweetLucy]

.

Of course, I can imagine the reaction of a paranoid right-winger, when asked to present proof of parental citizenship at the hospital after the baby is born, otherwise the baby gets deported. That'll be a barrel of laughs. Or were they imaginging only parents who speak spanish will be asked to prove citizenship?

You stole my thunder :) I always wondered how we would enforce denial of citizenship to newborns- demand that each new mother prove her citizenship? :mad:

[Damuri Ajashi]

Apparently, Republicans are now unhappy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_republicans_birthright_citizenship) with the 14th amendment they passed 145 years ago. More specifically, the provision that guarantees citizenship to all persons born in the United States.

These are not the same type of Republicans, they haven't been since the Southern Strategy.

[Chessic Sense]

Oh, for Pete's sake. It doesn't even strain credibility. You said parents of citizens get deported at the same rate as the rest of them. Where's your cite, huh? You're the one making the claim.

Are you arguing the law treats the parents of illegal immigrants differently? I think you are the one that needs to provide a cite.

I know of no government policy that does that.

Dude, seriously? I already did. I quoted the specific law, full text and everything. This is what I get for treating the Pit like it's GD. You don't care who's right. You just care about backslapping each other and earning your Doper points.

"Hey guys, watch this: 'Anchor babies aren't a problem'. HAHAHA, wasn't that fun?"
"Oh yeah? Well, 'anchor babies' parents receive no special treament at all'. HAHAHAHA, wow! Did you hear what I just said? High five!"
"Ahem. Stand back everyone...'There is no law or statute that even allows for special treatment of anchor babies' parents.' OMG! Did you see that! Did you see what I said! Holy crap, I'm the Dopiest Doper that ever Doped! W00t!"

Me: "Um...what about 8 U.S.C 1229b(b)1D?"

Everyone else: "Shut up, Chessic Sense."

[Rushgeekgirl]

Chessic Sense, in our quest to get my SO legal status we inquired about this one particular exception but we were told this only applies to Visa overstays, to people who entered the country legally as adults, not illegal immigrants running across the border to the nearest hospital.

I don't know if this is true or more exceptions would be made of that exception, but this was from an immigration attorney so YMMV.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Are you arguing the law treats the parents of illegal immigrants differently? I think you are the one that needs to provide a cite.

I know of no government policy that does that.

Dude, seriously? I already did. I quoted the specific law, full text and everything. This is what I get for treating the Pit like it's GD. You don't care who's right. You just care about backslapping each other and earning your Doper points.

"Hey guys, watch this: 'Anchor babies aren't a problem'. HAHAHA, wasn't that fun?"
"Oh yeah? Well, 'anchor babies' parents receive no special treament at all'. HAHAHAHA, wow! Did you hear what I just said? High five!"
"Ahem. Stand back everyone...'There is no law or statute that even allows for special treatment of anchor babies' parents.' OMG! Did you see that! Did you see what I said! Holy crap, I'm the Dopiest Doper that ever Doped! W00t!"

Me: "Um...what about 8 U.S.C 1229b(b)1D?"
You (and/or your friend) claimed that judges may consider family status during deportation proceedings. The law you cited allows the attorney general to do so.

Now, the effect may be the same, but you have not offered support for your specific contention.

[Chessic Sense]

You (and/or your friend) claimed that judges may consider family status during deportation proceedings. The law you cited allows the attorney general to do so.

Now, the effect may be the same, but you have not offered support for your specific contention.

My contention was not necessarily that judges consider it, but that having a USC child will factor into whether or not you get deported. You said "they get deported like anyone else" and I'm saying they don't. It doesn't matter if the attorney general does it or if the judge does it.

Now, with that being said, I cited a law that gives the attorney general the right to consider it a factor. And I just asked for clarification from my coworker (I like the guy and all, but he's not my friend). He said that it's not in the law per se, but a child's status has been treated as a factor by every immigration judge he's ever met. Trust me, that's a lot of judges. That's good enough of a cite for me.

Is it good enough of a cite for you? Maybe not. But since it's well-known on the Dope that I'm a federal contractor working in law enforcement (for now), I think you should give me the benefit of the doubt. I'd give you the guy's bona fides (and my own) but this is an anonymous message board and I'm not comfortable doing that just to win an internet argument.

So, again, my post is my cite. Take it or leave it, I guess.

[Algher]

Anchor babies: replacing welfare queens in the public consciousness.Similar in that neither actually exist.

Nope - while the welfare queen in her caddy cashing foodstamps for filet mignon might be a myth, there ARE children of illegal immigrants who get automatic citizenship due to be being born in the US. The term is used in an offensive fashion, and the legal application is questionable (I will let Chessic fight that one), but these children DO exist - several hundred thousand per year depending on which estimate from which source you choose to use.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Similar in that neither actually exist.

Nope - while the welfare queen in her caddy cashing foodstamps for filet mignon might be a myth, there ARE children of illegal immigrants who get automatic citizenship due to be being born in the US. The term is used in an offensive fashion, and the legal application is questionable (I will let Chessic fight that one), but these children DO exist - several hundred thousand per year depending on which estimate from which source you choose to use.

Yes, there are babies who get citizenship as you describe. The "baby" part of the phrase isn't the part that's in dispute.

[elfkin477]

So why the sudden hard-on against illegal immigrants? What's made it so important now that the Overton Window is being pushed to the point that the 14th amendment needs to be changed?
Democrats, when harried about their dismal efforts to address the unemployment rate, keep asking if Republicans have better ideas for job creation if they're so smart. It'd take a lot of people to round up 12 million illegal immigrants, so there's the answer. Not only would it put a lot of Americans to work, illegals won't be taking those jobs, no sir.


Nah, it's really the scapegoat thing mentioned on the first page.