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?
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
Why do you hate babies so much you want to deny them freedom?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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 sums up my feelings on the matter:
Well, well, well, 'luci. Haven’t *we *lost our nerve?
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).
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?
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.
And you would see this amendment as an “increase” in rights??
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?
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?