Hell, if we adopt that rule we could quadruple the size of the Republican one and really clear up some space around the Pit.
And that pretty much summarizes curlcoat’s entire contribution to SDMB.
Dear curlcoat: do you think people born in the US should automatically receive citizenship? If not, what do you think is a better qualifier for citizenship? What should be done with those that don’t meet that qualifier?
I note that you’re not actually disagreeing. 
Stop it.
If I may interject. No, I do not. Most countries do not have a rule whereby you immediately obtain citizenship merely by being born in a country. The US is relatively unique in that regard.
As for illegals, it is a complex issue but one that is eminently fixable but would require doing things that both sides of the ailse would object to (for example, real and significant deportations, imposing fines and criminal penalries of employers such as big farming, investing in places like Mexico, eliminating trade barriers).
No, at the very least the mother should be a US citizen. What do you mean “done with them”?
At least in the border cities here (S Cal), US companies have been investing in Mexico, and NAFTA was supposed to eliminate trade barriers (I have no idea if it did or not). I think that what needs to change is the economic/social structure of Mexico and what is either a religious or cultural tendency to have bunches of kids. There is simply too wide a gap between the few with money and the rest living in poverty, and way more of the latter than the country can support without help from those with money in the country (who apparently don’t want to) or from outside, which may or may not actually be used to help anything.
I don’t know what would actually work to get Mexico out of the third world, but forcing border states to support tides of illegals isn’t working out at all. I believe the changes must come from within Mexico for there to be any real, long term change for the better.
(And before some jerk comes in here and starts sniping about illegals from other countries, I don’t address them because we don’t tend to have many of them in the area I live in, so they are pretty much a non-issue. Also, I have been to Mexico many times but never to any of the other countries that supply the US with illegals so I know very little about those countries and whatever issues they have.)
Previous post, snipped to the only relevant content, follows:
That’s curlcoat, in a nutshell.
And that, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with jackasses like you. Simply because you disagree with me on a subject, you pretend there is something wrong with me. As if your inability to deal with different viewpoints is somehow a good thing, that taking things out of context is, what is it that you believe, witty? Not to mention that your - ahem - debating skills consist only of throwing insults around.
Sad. And way too common.
Yeah, curlcoat brought up the point about NAFTA already: the issue was that it allowed the US to export subsidised rice to Mexico, putting Mexican rice farmers out of work. Bill Clinton subsequently beefed up border security. Free movement of goods without free movement of people doesn’t seem to be an effective strategy.
Well, I asked because I don’t think anyone qualifies as a US citizen then, because by that criteria if one’s mother wasn’t born in the country, then she wasn’t a US citizen either (technically). Someone qualifying as a citizen because their mother happened to be born there strikes me as a little arbitrary: there’s no requirement for language proficiency or civic knowledge. In my opinion, there should be consistency: if an individual at the age of 18 or 21 fails the citizenship test, they should be entitled to precisely the same treatment illegal immigrants are. Deportation obviously isn’t an answer, unless a state willingly assigns itself to be a depot for such citizens.
Anyway, while it isn’t an idea and more of a misstatement, Obama’s recent comments on the Supreme Court arguably qualify. Though they aren’t explicitly liberal (hell, this post is probably the most bizarre liberal idea for several pages).
C’mon guys, make separate threads for pitting other posters, these threads are for politicians.
Councilman Marion Barry stirs the pot briskly.
I don’t know what’s more chilling, his words or the fact that he’s just won a Democratic primary.
“Bitch Set Me Up” is still winning elections? Jesus DC, what the hell’s your problem?
Those damn Asian businesspeople, apparently. I think aldiboronti won the thread.
Renounce, denounce, and condemn. Repeat as necessary.
Could we possibly form some sort of dipshit exchange program? Conservatives agree not to count Marion Barry against us if we look the other way on… you pick. Ted Stevens? Joe Arpaio? James Inhofe?
I’ll give Uncle Ted a pass. I don’t think he’s likely to provide much more entertainment anyway.
I am not following you here. I don’t have a problem with naturalized citizens, the issue for California is the insane amount of money we are paying out in social services, which is being covered by fewer and fewer people. Illegals are not the only reason for this issue, but they are probably the only group we can get off the dole. I don’t care where anyone comes from, just as long as they are paying in more than they are taking out.
Dirty shops?
Richly deserved pitting for this guy. Og, what an asshat.
Not sure he’s a liberal, though. This thread really should be “stupid Democratic idea of the idea.” Regardless, D.C. should feel humiliated by that fuckwit.
Yes, it is a requirement. If you have to ask you don’t deserve admittance.