• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP leader McConnell: Fourteenth Amendment is in need of review

jamesrage said:
Section 1 of the 14th amendment was created to make citizens out of the freed slaves and their descendants. Section 1 of the 14th amendment does not apply to everyone born on US soil.Why else have the Indian citizenship act of 1924 and the nationality act of 1940 if section 1 of the 14th amendment applied to anyone born on US soil? The 14th amendment is simply misused by pro-illegals.
Click to expand...

Oh, the ramblings of fringe-right. Just like the homophobic rhetoric in the gay-rights threads, this type of nonsense will be dialogue in movies 10-20 years from now when we look back upon the tea party as an angry, paranoid, backwards movement...

People will ask, 'How did so many un-American ideas go around waving a flag, pretending to patriots.'
 
Chappy said:
Actually, that's a straw man. I don't argue that people in favor of changing the fourteenth amendment aren't numerous; it's a popular idea promulgated by irresponsible political opportunists.
Click to expand...

You claimed this is only supported by a "vicious" and "addle-brained" subset of the conservatives in this country. Unless conservatives constitute a vast majority of the country, that's clearly not possible.

I ask, is this how conservatives “conserve” American traditions and values? Or is this how conservatives betray them? I think the latter.
Click to expand...

I ask, is this actually a substantive response to the topic we're discussing? Or is it more media matters talking points? I think the latter.

Oh, it's all too easy to understand that raising Harry Reid's committee action more than a decade and a half ago gives cover to today's opponents to birthright citizenship. As Harry Reid related in 2006 on the Senate floor, he came to regret his proposed legislation almost immediately after its introduction. He described how his family and his friends all came down hard on him for his shortsightedness. He apologized.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure it's inconceivable that a politician would concoct a bull**** story like that 13 years after the fact to provide himself with political cover.

While it is relevant to raise Reid's error as indicative that even good men have proposed similar ideas, it is also relevant that he was sorry for it in the most public forum imaginable and in the most comprehensible way imaginable.
Click to expand...

Serious question: Do you actually believe a politically convenient quasi-apology by a career politician is "the most comprehensible [sic] way imaginable" to apologize? Really?

Taking those seconds to understand how the Constitution and Supreme Court's precedents regarding the fourteenth amendment specifically have played out through American history to the present day certainly do a great deal in a discussion about changing the underlying text and how even the suggestion is outrageous and irresponsible.
Click to expand...

How on earth is this a response to my point? The fact that there are years of precedents does not prove anything one way or the other about the value of the underlying issue.

There's a sublime irony in seeing a liberal such as yourself argue that we shouldn't consider changing our policies because there's an entrenched history of doing things one particular way under the constitution. If I made that same argument in regards to any of a dozen other topics, you'd be falling all over yourself to point out how regressive I am for opposing your desired changes.
 
Last edited:
Wait … before we go on … I have to know whether you two are citizens per the rules you are advocating … so, if you are legal immigrants then you two should have all the paperwork readily at hand, no problem … but, if you were actually born in this country, then I'll need to see your parents' papers, since the only way you could be considered a citizen would be if they are legal immigrants, too, right? … But, if in fact they were born in this country, then, yes, I'll be needing your grandparents' immigration documentation because your parents couldn't be citizens unless your grandparents came here legally and can prove it … And, if they were born in this country, then congratulations you're at least a fourth generation American but still not necessarily a citizen — for that status, I'll be requiring your great grandparents documentation because as you plainly understand you're not a citizen unless you can prove an unbroken chain of legal immigration.

Now if this documentation is eluding you, we'll help you out, make a quick determination of your most likely country of citizenship (obviously not the U.S.) and send you where you rightfully belong. Hope you know the language!
 
Last edited:
Chappy said:
Wait … before we go on … I have to know whether you two are citizens per the rules you are advocating … so, if you are legal immigrants then you two should have all the paperwork readily at hand, no problem … but, if you were actually born in this country, then I'll need to see your parents' papers, since the only way you could be considered a citizen would be if they are legal immigrants, too, right? … But, if in fact they were born in this country, then, yes, I'll be needing your grandparents' immigration documentation because your parents couldn't be citizens unless your grandparents came here legally and can prove it … And, if they were born in this country, then congratulations you're at least a fourth generation American but still not necessarily a citizen — for that status, I'll be requiring your great grandparents documentation because as you plainly understand you're not a citizen unless you can prove an unbroken chain of legal immigration.

Now if this documentation is eluding you, we'll help you out, make a quick determination of your most likely country of citizenship (obviously not the U.S.) and send you where you rightfully belong. Hope you know the language!
Click to expand...

Since you clearly won't address the points that have been raised (and don't appear to understand them, if this poorly constructed response is any indication), I'll take this as an admission that you're wrong.
 
One conservative has opted-out of the conversation; perhaps he no longer wishes to associate himself with the addle-brained conservatives who can't even follow the logic of their own position on the issue. Or willfully ignore how birthright citizenship historically has prevented a permanent underclass from forming here. Or how some conservatives by viciously attacking birthright citizenship, far from “conserving” American ideals, are effectively tearing them down.

Perhaps, it is anyone of these things but, no, I rather think this departing conservative has left the conversation because he didn't want to answer a simple question: under his own proposal, can he prove he is a citizen of this country? As it turns out such a simple question is not so easy to answer if a birth certificate with an American address is insufficient. One has to trace the legal status of your ancestors in this country, demonstrating an unbroken chain of citizenship to establish your own. It could get complicated. Papers get lost. Do step-fathers count? And, what if one of those ancestors turned out to be illegal. Would that make you one-quarter non citizen? One eighth? Are you less a citizen then? Maybe you only get to vote in three out of four elections. Or do you get to vote at all? And, of course, your standing as a citizen could be diminished further by one new discovery in the family's past, or, one slightly more restrictive law on citizenship requirements. America has been there, done that.

And, what of the other conservative? Will he now trace his citizenship for us so that we may know his bona fides? A simple question, yes?
 
Chappy said:
One conservative has opted-out of the conversation; perhaps he no longer wishes to associate himself with the addle-brained conservatives who can't even follow the logic of their own position on the issue. Or willfully ignore how birthright citizenship historically has prevented a permanent underclass from forming here. Or how some conservatives by viciously attacking birthright citizenship, far from “conserving” American ideals, are effectively tearing them down.

Perhaps, it is anyone of these things but, no, I rather think this departing conservative has left the conversation because he didn't want to answer a simple question: under his own proposal, can he prove he is a citizen of this country? As it turns out such a simple question is not so easy to answer if a birth certificate with an American address is insufficient. One has to trace the legal status of your ancestors in this country, demonstrating an unbroken chain of citizenship to establish your own. It could get complicated. Papers get lost. Do step-fathers count? And, what if one of those ancestors turned out to be illegal. Would that make you one-quarter non citizen? One eighth? Are you less a citizen then? Maybe you only get to vote in three out of four elections. Or do you get to vote at all? And, of course, your standing as a citizen could be diminished further by one new discovery in the family's past, or, one slightly more restrictive law on citizenship requirements. America has been there, done that.

And, what of the other conservative? Will he now trace his citizenship for us so that we may know his bona fides? A simple question, yes?
Click to expand...

:roll: Are you referring to me? Do you think I'm at your beck and call to answer your points at the exact time you want me to? If so, you are deluded beyond measure.

Also, Chappy, you have a notorious record of bailing from threads, and threads of your own creation most of the time.

But I agree with Right, and here's why: this is yet another of a long line of deflections and distractions that you've put up throughout this thread. My citizenship is irrelevant. I could grant you that I can't prove anything, and it still doesn't answer what I said, not in the least.

Continued deflection only indicates that it's you who are "opting out."
 
I'll take that as a ‘No.’ :2wave:
 
Chappy said:
I'll take that as a ‘No.’ :2wave:
Click to expand...

And I'll take that as definitive that you're not going to bother answering the actual points, and you're going to stick to your deflections, red herrings, and distraction. Thus, you bail.
 
Chappy said:
One conservative has opted-out of the conversation; perhaps he no longer wishes to associate himself with the addle-brained conservatives who can't even follow the logic of their own position on the issue. Or willfully ignore how birthright citizenship historically has prevented a permanent underclass from forming here. Or how some conservatives by viciously attacking birthright citizenship, far from “conserving” American ideals, are effectively tearing them down.

Perhaps, it is anyone of these things but, no, I rather think this departing conservative has left the conversation because he didn't want to answer a simple question: under his own proposal, can he prove he is a citizen of this country? As it turns out such a simple question is not so easy to answer if a birth certificate with an American address is insufficient. One has to trace the legal status of your ancestors in this country, demonstrating an unbroken chain of citizenship to establish your own. It could get complicated. Papers get lost. Do step-fathers count? And, what if one of those ancestors turned out to be illegal. Would that make you one-quarter non citizen? One eighth? Are you less a citizen then? Maybe you only get to vote in three out of four elections. Or do you get to vote at all? And, of course, your standing as a citizen could be diminished further by one new discovery in the family's past, or, one slightly more restrictive law on citizenship requirements. America has been there, done that.

And, what of the other conservative? Will he now trace his citizenship for us so that we may know his bona fides? A simple question, yes?
Click to expand...


Not at all Chappy, I've known you to do this exact type of thing before, it's called obfuscation, and argumentum ad ignorantiam, a proven false dichotomy. Although you think this sort of thing may work among the diversity of a message board due to the number of words you post, it doesn't work because it is a fallacy.

One of the areas you fail to address in your world without borders rants is that in the United States, under Federal laws, these are the laws that Obama want's to reign supreme in this case, also call for the carrying of a green card at all times, and able to produce said valid green card upon request of law enforcement.

So are you saying that the Federal law should be abolished? And if so, do we even have a country at that point?

The call to strengthen our borders is not one of bigotry or anything even close, it is a national security issue as it should be.

Hezbollah is using the same southern narcotics routes that Mexican drug kingpins do to smuggle drugs and people into the United States, reaping money to finance its operations and threatening U.S. national security, current and former U.S. law enforcement, defense and counterterrorism officials say.

The Iran-backed Lebanese group has long been involved in narcotics and human trafficking in South America's tri-border region of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil. Increasingly, however, it is relying on Mexican narcotics syndicates that control access to transit routes into the U.S.

EXCLUSIVE: Hezbollah uses Mexican drug routes into U.S. - Washington Times
Click to expand...

This red herring you throw out there about having every citizen prove their citizenship is a farce and you know it. We should be sticking to the issue, and that issue is border security first!

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Not at all Chappy, I've known you to do this exact type of thing before, it's called obfuscation, and argumentum ad ignorantiam, a proven false dichotomy. Although you think this sort of thing may work among the diversity of a message board due to the number of words you post, it doesn't work because it is a fallacy.

One of the areas you fail to address in your world without borders rants is that in the United States, under Federal laws, these are the laws that Obama want's to reign supreme in this case, also call for the carrying of a green card at all times, and able to produce said valid green card upon request of law enforcement.

So are you saying that the Federal law should be abolished? And if so, do we even have a country at that point?

The call to strengthen our borders is not one of bigotry or anything even close, it is a national security issue as it should be.



This red herring you throw out there about having every citizen prove their citizenship is a farce and you know it. We should be sticking to the issue, and that issue is border security first!

j-mac
Click to expand...

QFT. And this rant has to do with birthright citizenship in what way?
 
Chappy said:
QFT. And this rant has to do with birthright citizenship in what way?
Click to expand...

In that the call for this absurd repeal movement is nonsense. We must stick to controlling our borders first, then we can deal with the other aspects of who is here already.


j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom