Winning

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by jamf

Fuck This Guy

Where's the outrage from "normal citizens"?
If you don't want to be called a racist then you should probably speak up at some point.

There's more than enough faux outrage from the left. Recall that Harry Reid(I know it's a talking point name) once proposed ending birthright citizenship.

I won't say I know much on the topic, but I do know that Trump loves to push liberals to hypocritical positions, especially on immigration. It's why dems are pretty silent over the issue, because they all supported most of the positions - until Trump was the one suggesting it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthr...ht_citizenship

Both Democrats and Republicans have introduced legislation aimed at narrowing the application of the Citizenship Clause. In 1993, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) introduced legislation that would limit birthright citizenship to the children of U.S. citizens and legally resident aliens, and similar bills have been introduced by other legislators in every Congress since.[79] For example, U.S. Representative Nathan Deal, a Republican from the State of Georgia, introduced the "Citizenship Reform Act of 2005" (H.R. 698) in the 109th Congress,[80] the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007" (H.R. 1940)[81] in the 110th Congress, and the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009" (H.R. 1868)[82] in the 111th Congress. However, neither these nor any similar bill has ever been passed by Congress.

Some legislators, unsure whether such Acts of Congress would survive court challenges, have proposed that the Citizenship Clause be changed through a constitutional amendment.[83] Senate Joint Resolution 6, introduced on January 16, 2009 in the 111th Congress, proposes such an amendment;[84] however, neither this, nor any other proposed amendment, has yet been approved by Congress for ratification by the states.

In terms of racist mentality how about HRC's joke that all blacks look the same, and the raucous laughter it got?

Oh Outrage wherefore art thou.

[Back2RFK]

Originally Posted by MTK

What an amazing idea, paying people more helps the economy. Wonder where we’ve heard that before.

Paying people more when business are thriving is one thing forcing a business to pay higher wages usually has a negative affect.

[Back2RFK]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

There's more than enough faux outrage from the left. Recall that Harry Reid(I know it's a talking point name) once proposed ending birthright citizenship.

I won't say I know much on the topic, but I do know that Trump loves to push liberals to hypocritical positions, especially on immigration. It's why dems are pretty silent over the issue, because they all supported most of the positions - until Trump was the one suggesting it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthr...ht_citizenship

In terms of racist mentality how about HRC's joke that all blacks look the same, and the raucous laughter it got?

Oh Outrage wherefore art thou.

The left was also for building a wall and protecting our boarder. You pick any top Democrat and I can find a clip of them wanting tougher immigration laws.

[jamf]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

There's more than enough faux outrage from the left. Recall that Harry Reid(I know it's a talking point name) once proposed ending birthright citizenship.

I won't say I know much on the topic, but I do know that Trump loves to push liberals to hypocritical positions, especially on immigration. It's why dems are pretty silent over the issue, because they all supported most of the positions - until Trump was the one suggesting it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthr...ht_citizenship

In terms of racist mentality how about HRC's joke that all blacks look the same, and the raucous laughter it got?

Oh Outrage wherefore art thou.

it's disgusting but Conservatives have tuned out Liberals while Liberals have done the same to Conservatives.
Why not stand up to your own party instead of just going along with this bigotry?

Maybe this is more appropriate for the Enough... thread.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

No, it's the reverse, a growing economy helps raise all the boats. It worked with Reagan's tax cuts, and it's working now.

We've had several quarters of positive GDP growth, lower unemployment, and those pressures, not government interference are what lead to wage growth.

Please don't try to sell us on trickle down BS. A tax cut on it's own doesn't help everyone.

Just like wages alone don't raise an economy, but low wages have been a problem for a long time. When giant corporations pay garbage wages that force people to stay on assistance programs it's a lose/lose for everyone. Nothing wrong with pressuring companies to pay their employees a livable wage.

[jamf]

Originally Posted by Back2RFK

The left was also for building a wall and protecting our boarder. You pick any top Democrat and I can find a clip of them wanting tougher immigration laws.

This isn't about a wall or National Security; This is just a racist dog whistle before primaries to drum up votes.


Edit: Deleted the part about morals. That was a low a blow.

[CRedskinsRule]

A tax cut, reduced regulations, a business friendly environment all encourage businesses to make capital investments as well as increases competition for quality employees, which raises wages. We had eight years of stagnant growth, and no wage increase, we have 1 1/2 years of fiscal conservative approach and we see wage growth. You can call it BS all you want but the wage increases, and rising gdp say otherwise. (Tariffs help wages too because US employers don't compete against outside labor practices but don't tell that to the press)

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

A tax cut, reduced regulations, a business friendly environment all encourage businesses to make capital investments.

..............and that is where it is ending . I love the reduced regulations but hey people don't need drinking water we got 20's dollars back in our checks .

[Chico23231]

I don't think there has ever been another issue like Illegal Immigration/Immigration with so many garbage narratives on both sides.

Step 1

Should we have a secure border which should keep our people and country safe? Yes

Step 2

Should we have people who want to come into this country legally through Port of Entry?

Yes

Step 3

Should we have people who have lived here illegally have some sort of pathway of citizenship? Yes

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by jamf

it's disgusting but Conservatives have tuned out Liberals while Liberals have done the same to Conservatives.
Why not stand up to your own party instead of just going along with this bigotry?

Maybe this is more appropriate for the Enough... thread.

I would prefer that people acknowledge what the reality on the ground is. That is that most Americans, conservative or liberal, are NOT racist. That not every misspoke word is meant to slander or demean. That political correctness is not free speech but controlled speech. And that this country is great BECAUSE of every citizens unique makeup combined with our National heritage. The being American IS worth a damn, and that we are Americans first, and our cultural heritage second. That when the song says and I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free, they are talking about every person, white black, rich poor.

There are a percentage of Americans who are racist, a smaller percentage that are hate filled racists, they make themselves known, and should be dealt with by law enforcement when they act out, but we as Americans should recognize that they ARE the small percentage of population - the bad eggs so to say.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I don't think there has ever been another issue like Illegal Immigration/Immigration with so many garbage narratives on both sides.

Step 1

Should we have a secure border which should keep our people and country safe? Yes

Step 2

Should we have people who want to come into this country legally through Port of Entry?

Yes

Step 3

Should we have people who have lived here illegally have some sort of pathway of citizenship? Yes

Should kids born here be citizens, of course

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by MTK

Should kids born here be citizens, of course

yes


Should we have open borders where people flow through?

No

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

Should kids born here be citizens, of course

I won't say of course, I won't say no, but only 30 countries in the world do that. If you cross from morocco, and have morrocan citizenship, into spain, and have a baby - guess what - it's not a spanish citizen. They don't have unfettered birthright citizenship

In fact other than the countries in the America (and yes Trump got his talking point wrong - shocking) the rest of the world basically doesn't have birthright citizenship.



I think there are good arguments both ways, but surely we all know this is a Trump talking point more than a real portion of debate.

[mooby]

There seems to be a real theme on that map, can't quite pinpoint what it is though...

S/N who has definitely said we should literally allow everyone in who dares to come to our border?

I'm all for giving the caravan due process when they apply for asylum, which seems to be their plan. Surely they weren't thinking of swimming 4k strong across the Rio Grande at night.

Also, I know Reddit isn't exactly a trusted source, but I thought this breakdown of the 14th Amendment and why Trump is full of shit on his latest immigration proclamation was pretty good:

https://np.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop...dment/e8rnuhx/

Originally Posted by u/Portarossa

Let's break this down into a couple of questions, because context is king:

What's the Fourteenth Amendment, anyway?

Basically, the rule is that if you're born in the USA, you're a US citizen. The Fourteenth Amendment states it pretty clearly. It begins:

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.

If you're born in the USA, you have what's known as jus soli citizenship: citizenship by place of birth, as opposed to jus sanguinis citizenship, which comes from blood (that is to say, from your parents' citizenship). (There are some exceptions to this, like for example the children of diplomats who aren't 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof', but these are rare. Generally speaking, if you pop a sprog between Canada and Mexico, that kid has US citizenship by birthright.) This has been considered pretty much a settled question in jurisprudence ever since about 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Why's everyone talking about this now?

Trump noted in an interview that he wants to prevent the children of people who aren't US citizens who are born on US soil from automatically becoming US citizens themselves.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump said, declaring he can do it by executive order.

When told that's very much in dispute, Trump replied: "You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."

"We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits," Trump continued. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end."

"It's in the process. It'll happen ... with an executive order."

Is that right?

Not even close.

The problem, at least as far as Trump is concerned, is that he can't actually do that. Changing a constitutional amendment is hard. He's claimed it just requires an executive order, but you can't overturn the Constitution by executive order and so he's shit out of luck. (If you don't believe me, you can at least believe Paul Ryan, or any of these eleven legal experts. If you think this is a bad idea, I'd urge you to consider how you'd feel if a given President felt he could overturn the First, Second or Fifth Amendments with a single, unregulated stroke of the pen, and then get back to me. Hell, what if a President felt that he could overturn the Twenty-Second Amendment and do away with presidential term limits entirely?) It's also important to note Trump's sneaky little lie:

We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits

Yes, it is true that the USA is the only country in the world where a person is (not essentially but actually and completely) a citizen of the United States, but only because it'd be pretty strange if it were the case that being born in France, Rwanda or Equatorial Guinea could grant you US citizenship. About thirty countries, including Brazil and Canada, also have unrestricted jus soli citizenship. The USA is rare, perhaps, but by no means unique in that regard.

This also butts heads with another weird little quirk of US citizenship: if you're a US citizen, by jus soli or jus sanguinis, you have to pay taxes to the US even if you're not in the country. There's only one other country that taxes non-resident citizens in this way (and it's Eritrea, so if you guessed that ahead of time I'm very impressed). This has led to the situation where people who were born in the USA to foreign parents -- say, an early birth while on holiday -- are citizens of and must legally pay taxes to a country that they haven't been to since (and also register for the draft).

Who told him he could do it?

In the interview, Trump said, 'You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order.' Who are they?

Well, no one knows as yet. The person to look out for is probably Trump's immigration doyen (read into that what you will), Stephen Miller. Most of the big Trump immigration policies have come via Miller's office, including the Muslim travel ban(s), the separation of children from their parents at the border, discontinuation of funding to 'sanctuary cities', and The Wall™. Politico has noted that this is an idea that Miller has been involved with previously in the Trump Administration, so several news outlets are suggesting his potential involvement. (This may become very interesting in the coming days, if the rumoured Trump post-election shakeup happens; if Miller has had a lot of influence on this policy decision, his continuance as one of the most prominent faces in the Trump White House may wax or wane depending on the result of the midterms.)

So what's the big deal?

I know, I know... at this point, 'Trump says he's going to do something he can't legally do' is a bit of a dog-bites-man news story, but this is coming only a week out from an extremely important mid-term election in which the Republicans are expected to lose the House (unlikely also the Senate, but the odds of that are still higher than people were giving Trump of winning in 2016, so who even knows at this point?). Tough talk on migrants riles up the Republican base, and Trump needs that turnout to have any chance of legislative victories in the two remaining years of his term.

This dovetails nicely with the migrant caravan that is currently moving through Mexico and heading towards the United States. Trump and other Republican higher-ups are using the opportunity to stoke fear into the hearts of voters, claiming -- incorrectly -- that this is an invasion (hyperbole), that Democrats want an open border, that there are gang members and Middle-Easterners using the caravan to sneak across the border (no evidence), and that people crossing in the caravan are doing so illegally. It's the last that's the most insidious, especially given that he tried to pull the same shit when it came to the child detention debacle earlier this year; in short, the caravan are not behaving illegally yet. The expectation is that when they arrive in the USA, the vast majority of them will claim asylum from the dangerous conditions in their home countries, which is a right granted by the USA to anyone on the planet.

This push for fear with regards to the caravan is pretty much everywhere because it works to get Republican-leaning individuals incensed enough to take the time out of their days to head to the polls. (Voter engagement is expected to be one of the Democrats' biggest advantages in the midterms, which are not traditionally considered a particularly sexy election cycle.) However, notable breaks from the President's rhetoric include Fox News anchor Shep Smith, who said on Monday:

There is no invasion. No one’s coming to get you. There’s nothing at all to worry about. But tomorrow is one week before the midterm election — which is what all of this is about.

There is likely no better summation of the context of the story than that.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

There seems to be a real theme on that map, can't quite pinpoint what it is though...

S/N who has definitely said we should literally allow everyone in who dares to come to our border?

I'm all for giving the caravan due process when they apply for asylum, which seems to be their plan. Surely they weren't thinking of swimming 4k strong across the Rio Grande at night.

Well one theme is 30 out of 169 countries recognize it, another theme is that the US Canada and Mexico take up a whole lot of the globe.