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!
Is your policy on who you hate different? Do you just hate indiscriminately? You must be a load of laughs… :rolleyes:
You’re mistaken. You should be picturing me laughing my ass off at your pathetic little self being oppressed and persecuted by Metro employees.
Anchor babies …
Harrumph.
Fuckin’ Canadians.
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.
Anchor babies: replacing welfare queens in the public consciousness.
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.
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). 
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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:
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?
OK, I jumped the gun here. Xenophobia is not racism. I apologize and withdraw that charge, except as to DianaG.
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?
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:
It’s happened recently before…
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.
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.
Do you think it should be changed?