Head-Spinning Political Shit!

[JustJo]

Hey...I was traveling and in and out of airports all night Friday and early Saturday, and kept hearing snippets of some crazy stuff about a push to prevent illegal immigrants from having "anchor babies" in the U.S. Since this would require a constitutional amendment, and is also just basically ridiculous, I'm alarmed....but I didn't hear enough to have the whole story.

Was anyone following this? Have more info? Know who's behind this insanity?

[rlin]

Originally Posted by rlin

here is the direct link... just in case....
( tommi!!!)

[MsDemeanor]

Originally Posted by JustJo

Hey...I was traveling and in and out of airports all night Friday and early Saturday, and kept hearing snippets of some crazy stuff about a push to prevent illegal immigrants from having "anchor babies" in the U.S. Since this would require a constitutional amendment, and is also just basically ridiculous, I'm alarmed....but I didn't hear enough to have the whole story.

Was anyone following this? Have more info? Know who's behind this insanity?

Oh yeah, I know about this. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1, first sentence, states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Conservatives love the Constitution, except for the parts that they want to change (and they want to change a lot). In this case, they want to repeal this part of the Constitution so that being born on American soil does not grant citizenship.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

Oh yeah, I know about this. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1, first sentence, states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Conservatives love the Constitution, except for the parts that they want to change (and they want to change a lot). In this case, they want to repeal this part of the Constitution so that being born on American soil does not grant citizenship.

Oh yeah, conservatives want to change a lot in the Constitution! A lot of them think it just fine to interject the 2nd Amendment as a means to eliminate politicians they don't like either.

And we now have Rand Paul really wanting to go at the Constitution.

[Nat]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

Oh yeah, I know about this. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1, first sentence, states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Conservatives love the Constitution, except for the parts that they want to change (and they want to change a lot). In this case, they want to repeal this part of the Constitution so that being born on American soil does not grant citizenship.

It would also be a handy blow against the gays if they repealed the 14th amendment. The equal protection clause and the due process clause were both cited in the Loving vs Virginia decision which ended laws against interracial marriage.

A bit from the court's decision back then:

The Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination. The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.

...

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

Oh yeah, I know about this. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1, first sentence, states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Conservatives love the Constitution, except for the parts that they want to change (and they want to change a lot). In this case, they want to repeal this part of the Constitution so that being born on American soil does not grant citizenship.

Ugh....thanks....makes me wonder what they think the "effective date" should be. After all, an awful lot of us could trace our families back to somebody who hid on the ship or didn't quite have their papers in order. Does that mean we're all getting booted out too? And, if so, where exactly do we belong? Craziness. If you're born here, you're an American in my book....I don't care if your mother was 2 feet on the other side of the line for a minute and a half before you arrived.

[MsDemeanor]

It's actually kind of interesting. There are two widely recognized methods of determining citizenship - jus soli (right of the soil) and jus sanquinis (right of the blood). In the Americas, jus soli seems to be prevalent, which makes sense in a large land mass surrounded by oceans that contains folks who predominantly came from somewhere else. European countries tend to use jus sanquinis, which, to me, makes more sense the goal of preserving national heritage in a region with a lot of little countries with free movement between them. If your parents are Spanish, you're Spanish, even if you're born in France. There's also lex sanquinis, which allows citizenship based on other blood ties. For example, if my great grandparents had my grandmother before they left Ireland, rather than after they arrived in the States, I could get an Irish passport (stomps foot), and the Israeli Law of Return grants the right to citizenship to all Jews.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

It's actually kind of interesting. There are two widely recognized methods of determining citizenship - jus soli (right of the soil) and jus sanquinis (right of the blood). In the Americas, jus soli seems to be prevalent. European countries tend to use jus sanquinis, which, to me, makes more sense the goal of preserving national heritage in a region with a lot of little countries with free movement between them. If your parents are Spanish, you're Spanish, even if you're born in France. There's also lex sanquinis, which allows citizenship based on other blood ties. For example, if my great grandparents had my grandmother before they left Ireland, rather than after they arrived in the States, I could get an Irish passport (stomps foot), and the Israeli Law of Return grants the right to citizenship to all Jews.

Right...and those make sense to me too. I guess I like taking the broadest possible definition. If your parents are Irish citizens, and you're born here...then I guess I'd like the choice to be yours, and I have no issue with granting dual citizenship or whatever until that choice is made by the people involved.

The interesting part, to me, of the 14th amendment is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." My understanding is that was included because diplomats (for example) might have a child while residing in the US, but that child was not technically born American, because they (the diplomats and their offspring) were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Take that argument to the children of illegal immigrants (which is what these wingnuts are trying to prevent)...are they actually going to argue that the children of illegal immigrants aren't subject to U.S. jurisdiction in the way that diplomats aren't? It's hogwash.

[Glenn]

WTH are all these folks going to do? AFLCIO.org2010/11/18

[MsDemeanor]

Originally Posted by popcorninthesofa

WTH are all these folks going to do? AFLCIO.org2010/11/18

The repugs are gonna give all their rich buddies a tax break and the rich buddies will use the tax break to create jobs for all these folks.

[Bacardi]

I'm a Libertarian....

...not a liberal or a conservative, as I carry both views in different ways on different issues.

This will be interesting. Anyone else not liberal?

[Nat]

Originally Posted by Bacardi

I'm a Libertarian....

...not a liberal or a conservative, as I carry both views in different ways on different issues.

This will be interesting. Anyone else not liberal?

I considered myself a libertarian for years, but I'm pretty far to the left now. My only hold-over is that I do believe in the right to keep and bear arms. I do consider myself independent, and it's possible I'd vote for somebody like Meghan McCain one day.

PS. Bacardi - do you feel like Tea Partiers have subverted the libertarian message at all? The Libertarianism I identified with was the "pro-choice on everything" type. But it seems like there is some cross-over in rhetoric between the Tea Party and Libertarianism / Objectivism and I do not see the Tea Party as pro-choice on most things.

PPS. The point at which I came to a dead stop with Libertarianism was the moment I began considering shared resources such as air and water. I have diverged further and further from Libertarianism since then. But, as a Libertarian, how do you think shared resources should be managed/treated by the government?

And another question: What should happen with those who are incapable of taking care of themselves - and who are far too unlikable to ingratiate themselves well with charities?

And what are your feelings on public education? on public libraries? on discrimination and hate crimes?

These are the questions that I couldn't answer to my own satisfaction through the Libertarian lens.

[Passionaria]

Originally Posted by Bacardi

I'm a Libertarian....

...not a liberal or a conservative, as I carry both views in different ways on different issues.

This will be interesting. Anyone else not liberal?

Everytime my eyes read Libertarian my mind say's Libertine. Sorry, my minds in the gutter, carry on......

[Bacardi]

Originally Posted by Nat

I considered myself a libertarian for years, but I'm pretty far to the left now. My only hold-over is that I do believe in the right to keep and bear arms. I do consider myself independent, and it's possible I'd vote for somebody like Meghan McCain one day.

PS. Bacardi - do you feel like Tea Partiers have subverted the libertarian message at all? The Libertarianism I identified with was the "pro-choice on everything" type. But it seems like there is some cross-over in rhetoric between the Tea Party and Libertarianism / Objectivism and I do not see the Tea Party as pro-choice on most things.

PPS. The point at which I came to a dead stop with Libertarianism was the moment I began considering shared resources such as air and water. I have diverged further and further from Libertarianism since then. But, as a Libertarian, how do you think shared resources should be managed/treated by the government?

And another question: What should happen with those who are incapable of taking care of themselves - and who are far too unlikable to ingratiate themselves well with charities?

And what are your feelings on public education? on public libraries? on discrimination and hate crimes?

These are the questions that I couldn't answer to my own satisfaction through the Libertarian lens.

Wow, that is a lot of loaded questions. All right, I'll answer them to the best of MY opinion. Bare with me, as I have a feeling this will get long...

Here is what I believe about Tea Parties:

I don't believe Tea Parties are solely Libertarian venues. Due to this, there is a conflict of interest. I am finding that, more often than not, there are more right wing conservatives at these Tea Parties (the big ones that Sean hosts and the smaller local ones) than any other representatives. I believe the purpose of Tea Parties NOW is to promote conservative agenda, especially since we have a Democrat for President. The feeling among many conservatives that I know is the belief that through these meetings, they will increase the voter outcome and give themselves and others something to "believe in". I have issues with Tea Parties because I absolutely feel that the original, true purposes have been forgotten and now they are more like propaganda.

Shared Resources:

My belief, if you mean shared resources being water, air, land, minerals, etc, on shared resources is that we all, as human beings, have a right to them - as they are NOT created by humans. However, I do believe that we must protect these shared resources so that we do not lose them due to human mistakes - pollution, etc. I do believe the free market is the answer for this. While we all benefit from these natural shared resources, we all must pay for them as well. And, we already do. The problem is, our government seems to be held accountable by many for environmental problems that should be put into the hands of corporations, etc that cause them (ex: BP oil spill), and we all know it's not wise for them to have control of it, anyway. I can discuss this in depth, if you'd like, but I'm expounding at the moment on what I believe you meant.

Taking Care of Self:

This is where most people get pissed off. So, if you cannot respect my opinion, I'd suggest you not read the following.

I one hundred percent believe in personal responsibility. I do not believe our government owes a citizen, anything. The government itself was not established to help it's people in a monetary manner, but to strengthen the country with honest law and keep the citizens safe.

Who exactly is "incapable" of caring for themselves? Are we speaking of the eldery? This is another debate in itself.

I believe that most people are able to take care of themselves. And, quite frankly, I do believe that because our government has been helping the individual out financially, for so long, that some do not mentally understand how to take care of themselves, or family.

I know there are many men and women unemployed. I know there are many families out there struggling just to keep the roof over their head and clothes on their body. But, when does the government aiding people that are doing nothing to aid themselves, stop?

If you are actively looking for work and have done everything within your own power to make your situation better, then the government has programs (and these programs need to be worked on, heavily) to assist you.

But, I am done being "okay" with the people who no longer try to better themselves because they know our government will take care of them. Better yet, WE - the ones working every day, are taking care of THEM. So tell me, if you made no attempt at finding work and making ends meet on your own, why should anyone help YOU? If you don't care, why should we?

My father busts his tail six days a week to make ends meet for him and my mother. My mother is extremely ill and neither of them have health insurance. She can not possibly work and he's getting older. So, they did what they had to do and applied her for Medicare, which she receives.

And let me tell you, do you know how many people who DO want to work and are trying their hardest to make it in this world, get turned away from the very systems they have been paying into since they were old enough to be taxed?

This subject gets me riled up. I believe the government programs need to be revamped, reevaulated, and changed. If your son/daughter, niece/nephew, knew that you would give them a $10 allowance each week, for doing nothing, and then one day you sat them down and said, "Here is a list of chores. Complete them each day and for each chore completed you will receive a certain amount of allowance on Friday, which will be greater than the $10 allowance you get for doing nothing", what do you believe would come of it?

Public Education and Public Libraries:

I believe WE have the right to decide how OUR money is used in public education, without a doubt. I do not believe the government should have a hand in education, at all. I believe this should be done on a local level and that government interference is not acceptable when it comes to a parent having the right to decide what their children should be learning. If you think about it, I believe giving public schools the same capabilities as private schools would actually reduce the discrimination in zoning laws. If public education were more like a free market, giving parents the right to options for their OWN children, I believe we would see an increase in appreciation for the teachers, as well as fiscal appreciation (because teachers are the absolute most under appreciated group of people in this country, by far).


Anything else, ask. Oh, and if I need to further explain, let me know. Sometimes I ramble and make sense to only myself.

Chas

[Nat]

Chas - thanks very much for your response.

as far as people being unable to take care of themselves - I meant the mentally and physically impaired, including some elderly people and children.

[Nat]

This spun my head a bit:

[theoddz]

I found this today where Michael Moore talked to the State of California Legislature about health care reform and his movie, "Sicko". I wish that everyone who votes Republican and all the naysayers could hear this.

Even if I have to play it on my Blackberry to my coworker (who ALWAYS votes Republican and NEVER really understands what she is voting for), I'm going to try to change the mind of just ONE of "them". If we all would do that......just ONE at a time.....



~Theo~

[Medusa]

So Niceguy and I were sitting around flipping channels while we waited on Jackhammer to get home and we came across that show on TLC "Sarah Palin's Alaska".



Couple of things:

* She seems incredibly upset that the "mean guy who bought the house next door and who is writing a mean book about her" exists, yet she mentioned him and they panned to his house and blurred image no less than 5 times in 30 minutes.

* She said that she "does her research and reading" out on her patio.

* The show is so packed full of cheesy Palin-isms that it's unbearably ridiculous.


I didn't mean to watch as much of it as I watched, it's just that it was such a friggin' train wreck and circus of freakery that it was hard to turn away.

I hope she does run for President because I cant WAIT to see President Obama take her down in a debate.

[MsDemeanor]

Originally Posted by Medusa

I hope she does run for President because I cant WAIT to see President Obama take her down in a debate.

Yeah, but there are a few problems. Problem #1 is that the debate questions will be drawn up in advance so that the answers are scripted for Palin to recite. Of course, they won't be actual "answers", just the sound bite empty dribble that marks Palin's entire history of public discourse.

Problem #2 is that ignorance is king in this country and educated people are scorned for being "elitist". Faux Newz and the conservative MSM will spin a debate in to her being picked on by the misogynistic "liberal media".

Problem #3 is that the same ignorant masses who put Shrub in to office twice because he seemed like someone they'd like to have a beer with will continue to be smitten by the meaningless sound bites that gush from Palin's scripted speeches. As with problem #2, the underlying issue is that intelligence and reasoning skills are undesirable traits in conservative elected officials in this country.

Problem #4 is two aspects of -isms, racism and sexism. Part A is the swarms of "I want a woman president" folks who will not look beyond the existence of Palin's ovaries mixed with 24/7 accusations of sexism whenever someone points out that she is wrong about something. Part B is the rampant racism in this country that has become vocal and grown more violent since a black man was put in the White House.

The conservative media and the financial elite behind it in this country will continue to prey upon the ignorant masses in this country, convincing the poor fools that they should vote against their best interests.

[girl_dee]

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will announce a two-year pay freeze for federal employees Monday, a move White House officials say is the first of many difficult decisions that must be made to reduce the nation’s mounting deficit.


The White House said Monday that the freeze would apply to all civilian federal employees, including those working at the Department of Defense, but would not affect military personnel. The freeze is expected to result in more than $5 billion in savings over two years, according to Jeffrey Zients, a deputy director at the Office of Management and Budget.

That would make only a small dent in the $1 trillion-plus budget deficit. But with voters voicing their anger over Washington’s spending during the midterm elections, even a symbolic gesture would show the White House got the message.

Zients said that while the freeze is necessary in order to put the country on sound fiscal footing, the president recognizes the impact it will have on federal employees.

"The president is clearly asking them to make a sacrifice," he said. "We believe it is the first of many difficult steps ahead."

Obama is expected to announce the pay freeze at the White House later Monday.

The chairman of Obama’s bipartisan deficit commission has proposed a three-year freeze in pay for most federal employees as part of its plan to reduce the nation’s growing deficit. The commission’s final report is due to be released later this week.