How would you like to state it, then? “Immigrants are attracted to social welfare systems as a general matter?”
Ah, fuck. I used quotation marks again.
I will be interested in hearing about others. To clarify your example though, the person in your first example wants to have an affair, right?
He doesn’t because he thinks it would be immoral, right?
Where does this morality come from? What is it’s foundation? Why does he value it more than the pleasure he would get from cheating?
How can you say that doesn’t view being immoral as possessing negative value?
Receiving a negative value consequence is punishment.
What were those other reasons?
How about the “welfare magnet effect?”
I have a cite showing the causative relationship.
Nonsense. When you have to redefine terms to support your position your position is wrong.
The main reason that decent people choose not to be a horrible people is empathy.
Another reason is believing that social order is superior to anarchy - it may be awesome if you can freely rob others, but it gets less awesome if you are constantly having to fend off robbers yourself. So you take a stance to try to get robbery banned, and nobody will listen to you if you’re being an overt hypocrite about it.
Another reason is because you value the opinions of others, and wish to be deserving of their respect - which requires you to at least somewhat comply with their expectations of a respectable person.
And then you have fear of punishment. The most base and ignoble of reasons not to do something.
Oh. I’m sorry. What was the previous definition of punishment before “negative value consequence?”
What’s that? How’s that work exactly?
[quote{Another reason is believing that social order is superior to anarchy - it may be awesome if you can freely rob others, but it gets less awesome if you are constantly having to fend off robbers yourself. [/quote]
So they don’t rob because they would view living in such a world as a punishment. Next?
So being a hypocrite and having nobody listen you is the punishment you get for trying to get others to follow a morality you do not. Next?
Loss of respect as punishment. Next?
Look. Everybody picks their nose when they are alone.
This is undoubtedly true. But I worry about what kind of havoc can be wreaked and how many innocent lives might be ruined before the issue gets before the Supreme Court. The wheels of justice turn slow in this country.
Can someone walk me through the practical effects of such an EO? Can some judge immediately put a “stay” on the order until a federal court can review it? I seem to recall something like that happening with the Muslim ban. But for all I know millions of US citizens can be deported and/or disenfranchised before SCOTUS decides to review the order in a few years, if ever. Is that a realistic fear?
In Australia, parents file the birth certificate. If the parents are citizens, the child automatically has citizenship, but you might need to prove it for certain things. When I got passports for my children, I had to show my birth certificate as well as theirs.
I can’t see even Clarence Thomas voting for this one. If you seriously think the president should be able to nullify amendments of the US constitution with an executive order you have no place on the supreme court, or indeed any position that requires you to make the oath of allegiance.
Yes as with the “Muslim ban” the lower courts can put an injunction on it pretty quickly, which would stay in place while case makes its way up through the court system. And this (if it happens which I doubt to be honest, he’s just trolling to gin up the base before the midterms), would make that abomination seem well considered constitutionally sound.
Note that when we’re not pulling the definition out of our asses, punishments are inflicted by somebody else as a deliberate response to the infraction. (The suffering/injury/pain is a different use of the word - but even if it wasn’t mild displeasure or decreased happiness don’t cut it, outside of bullshit-land.)
I’m going to pretend to be surprised you don’t know what empathy is.
Doesn’t meet the non-bullshit definition. Fail.
Doesn’t meet the non-bullshit definition. Fail.
Doesn’t meet the non-bullshit definition. Fail.
I don’t, actually. Because of the other reason no to do “bad” things - because they don’t make you happy. Why would I want to gunk up my finger?
My definition fits within there.
You just made that up.
So now there is a severity requirement to qualify as punishment? I guess if you are making stuff up, you might as well go big.
[quoteI’m going to pretend to be surprised you don’t know what [empathy]
(Empathy Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster)
[/quote]
I was looking for you to bridge the explanatory gap about how empathy stops you from breaking the law.
You eat it. Clean finger, no problem. Good and good for you.
I’m formally dropping this hijack. Apologies all.
It is definitely not a frivolous argument. Let’s say that the sneaky Canadians (because we never watch them well enough) launch a surprise attack and take over Niagara Falls, NY because they want to have BOTH falls and spread national health care. They are regular military in uniform and bring their families with them because the residents of Niagara Falls, NY are so surprised, that they do not resist.
Niagara Falls, NY is under Canadian military occupation for six months while we try to diplomatically work things out. Are children of Canadian soldiers and their spouses, born in Niagara Falls, NY, citizens under the 14th Amendment?
They are legally (according to our law) under our jurisdiction and the soldiers can be arrested and deported. Even killed actually, right?
BPC, I’m only going to say this once.
Bringing up other posters just to take a shot at them is perilously close to trolling for effect. Do it again and it’s warning time. Do not take shots at a position you THINK another poster might take.
This is certainly a scenario that deserves some deep pondering. Hmmmmmmmmmm
Paul Ryan says basically the same thing many in this thread have said. From CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/politics/birthright-citizenship-executive-order-trump-paul-ryan/index.html
Lindsay Graham not so much:
Seriously it is a measure of the constitutional crisis currently enveloping the US, that saying “The president can’t directly overrule an amendment in the US Constitution with an executive order” is remotely surprising or controversial statement.
Doubly galling as we’ve had to put up with the GOP screaming blue murder about Obama riding roughshod over the constitution everytime he did something they disagreed with.
The idea that Trump would be ‘overruling the Constitution’ here is not as certain as several people are assuming, AFAIK. There have not been any cases directly on point, ie whether Congress in particular, can pass laws saying the children of non-permanent resident, or illegally resident, foreign nationals fall outside ‘under [United States] jurisdiction’ for the purpose of birthright citizenship. Courts did find that it applied to permanent residents (US v Wong Kim Ark).
The bigger problem for doing this via an executive order is that Congress has passed citizenship laws in furtherance of the amendment. The EO could be viewed as unacceptable on separation of powers grounds because it should up to Congress to clarify those statutes as to the meaning of ‘under the jurisdiction’, rather than necessarily saying that the common recent interpretation is the only Constitutional one.
IOW Trump could fail here by being found to have overruled Congress rather than the Constitution. If Congress were to pass a law excluding the children of foreign nationals from automatically being citizens it’s not 100% clear that’s unconstitutional. Not to say it’s necessarily a good policy, but the idea it requires a constitutional amendment is less than 100% airtight.
If he can overturn this amendment with an executive order, he could turn others over too. The short answer is no.
If presidents could do that, then they could eliminate other amendments. Here’s just a sample:
Second Amendment, the “Right to Bear Arms”: a Democratic president could overturn this. And a Republican president could put it back. It would get ridiculous really quickly.
Fifth Amendment: Now you can put someone on trial over and over and over again.
Sixth Amendment: You can be put on trial, and they don’t have to tell you what you’re being charged with. Didn’t Kafka write a novel where this happened?
Eighth Amendment: You can face cruel and unusual punishment now that this amendment has been overturned.
Thirteen Amendment: This amendment outlawed slavery. The impact of overturning this is obvious. Also, who could be enslaved? It could be political prisoners, people with certain characteristics, people who mock a president on Twitter, etc, as far as I can tell.
Sixteenth Amendment: No more income tax. Starve the beast! Errr… starve the government!
Nineteenth Amendment: Women couldn’t vote anymore.
Twenty-first Amendment: Bring back Prohibition. What could go wrong?
Obviously, none of that is going to happen. Trump just hates the foreign-born, which isn’t a surprise considering how he started his campaign.
The 22nd Amendment. If a president had facist/authoritarian tendencies, he could eliminate presidential term limits by fiat. By restricting the vote to his supporters (gerrymandering, purging voting lists, etc.) he could become President for Life.