In reviewing the thread responses, it seems to be more about scapegoating.
Pretty much. Why do YOU hate people?
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.
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…
I want a new right
Carrying a big cross
Wrapped up in an American Flag
To make up for our election loss
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.
Call me crazy. :rolleyes:
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.
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.
So correct it. Answer the OP.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Bull-fucking-shit. Let me just run over to the US-VISIT 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.
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.
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.
Wow, you got all that from that link? All I get is the main page of a Homeland Security website.
Well, that and revoking the citizenship of the descendents of former slaves. Those guys are a big democrat demographic.
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.”