Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can one be a "rightist" or conservative and believe in the long-held American value that anyone born here is automatically a US citizen (first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution). Or can that part of the Constitution and deep-rooted American values be ignored?
Can one be a "rightist" or conservative and believe in the long-held American value that anyone born here is automatically a US citizen (first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution). Or can that part of the Constitution and deep-rooted American values be ignored?
Who the hell knows
I have an out-of-the-box thought and not necessarily conservative, discussed in Solution for Problem of "14th Amendment" Birthright Babies; pass a law (not sure if it should be Federal or state-by-state) providing that if a baby is born in the U.S. to two non-citizen parents those parents have two choices; 1) return to their native lands with the baby; or 2) baby is deemed surrendered for adoption to U.S. citizens or legally resident non-citizens, and the parents go back without their children.This seems to be countenanced by law. The 14th Amendment states:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14th Amendment
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Nothing in that Amendment applies to the parents, nor gives them rights. However, the decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark construes the 14th Amendment to require that babies born in the U.S. are citizens. Thus the conundrum posed by "birthright" or "anchor" babies.
My proposal to give the parents a choice between returning to their countries with their babies or leaving them here but returning themselves isn't as heartless as it sounds. The parents can always keep their children; by returning to where they should be. Remember, the parents created a dangerous situation by deciding to have a baby in a country in which they were not legally present, or if legal, only on a very temporary basis.
But they don't exist in the Constitution. Like the right to free speech, religion, etc. Those are the enumerated rights that are the ones states can not infringe. Privacy, free contracting, etc. are not in the Constitution.
That is the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals when it comes to the Constitution. Liberals will put rights in it because they like them (privacey) or because putting them in eliminates other rights they don't like (like free association and free contract).
Not all rights are comprehensive. Neither must they exist everywhere. They can exist in some places and not others. In many states, workers have the right to stay out of unions. In others, they must associate with unions.
By my reckoning, all great and philosophically momentous documents are necessarily ambiguous, open to interpretation and application differing with the times. They are more poetry than recipe, more epic lore than scientific tract. For them to be otherwise, cheapens and profanes them. I am not a Constitutional scholar, but my layman’s reading of the Constitution finds no rights that are absolutely immutable, and no statement that such-and-such is the exclusive roster of rights, such that any further ones are peripheral and transitory. The rights that are enumerated, are not a prescription of the relationship between Man and State, but a paean to lofty ideals. What we ultimately do with them, is a matter of inclination and context.
I have an out-of-the-box thought and not necessarily conservative, discussed in Solution for Problem of "14th Amendment" Birthright Babies; pass a law (not sure if it should be Federal or state-by-state) providing that if a baby is born in the U.S. to two non-citizen parents those parents have two choices; 1) return to their native lands with the baby; or 2) baby is deemed surrendered for adoption to U.S. citizens or legally resident non-citizens, and the parents go back without their children.This seems to be countenanced by law. The 14th Amendment states:
Nothing in that Amendment applies to the parents, nor gives them rights. However, the decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark construes the 14th Amendment to require that babies born in the U.S. are citizens. Thus the conundrum posed by "birthright" or "anchor" babies.
My proposal to give the parents a choice between returning to their countries with their babies or leaving them here but returning themselves isn't as heartless as it sounds. The parents can always keep their children; by returning to where they should be. Remember, the parents created a dangerous situation by deciding to have a baby in a country in which they were not legally present, or if legal, only on a very temporary basis.
I guess you aren’t a fan of this concept:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Statue of Liberty
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
I am terribly far from the other poster's position. But the statue of liberty dates to 1886. It's now 2018. More than a century has passed. Times are different now. We can no longer be an open door.
I often speak about needed to put what our forefathers put together over two centuries ago into a modern perspective. We have to do the same with our laws about immigration.
I am terribly far from the other poster's position. But the statue of liberty dates to 1886. It's now 2018. More than a century has passed. Times are different now. We can no longer be an open door.
I often speak about needed to put what our forefathers put together over two centuries ago into a modern perspective. We have to do the same with our laws about immigration.
We can be an open door, if we don't have a welter of benefits for arriving immigrants. In 1886 there were few or no government benefits. Even free public education wasn't universal.
Also under the current setup "dreamers," or people brought in illegally, often as infants, would be considered in less politically correct times as child abuse victims. They are brought to a place that isn't safe in the sense that their legal status is not vouchsafed.
I am an liberal or leftist (not sure of which is a better term) who believes in the Constitution, supporting democracies as allies, and many deep-rooted American values. Mostly, I am an American and believe this is one of the greatest countries on earth.
America got that way because of the people it has drawn from other countries. Until the 1930's the U.S. has offered almost no social "safety net." Coming to a country where the minute you set foot you had to work like crazy and, to boot, in most cases learn a new language was a daunting prospect. Though it is a fictional work, Fiddler on the Roof was based upon historical fact. Its setting, the Western part of Czarist Russia, and now modern Moldova, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were always what should have been paradoxical, despotic, anarchic and chaotic at the same time. The "government" such as it was provided few if any services, and did not enforce law and order. The famous Kishinev Pogroms were a well-known highlight of this state of affairs. People who wanted to make something of their lives simply had no future among drunken peasants that wanted nothing more than to kill them.
One of my four great-grandfathers, and the only one I know anything about was a jeweler in Kiev, Ukraine. A conscript in the Czar's army, he fled when the Army wanted to force a renewal of his term because of his skills. He and my great-grandmother (an arranged marriage in the Jewish tradition of Fiddler on the Roof) fled to New York by way of Montreal. He became a shoemaker in Yonkers, and never really struck it rich. One of their daughters was my maternal grandmother. She married my grandfather, a dentist. They bought a small house in Yonkers. While their lives were not perfect (I understand a bad marriage and alcohol abuse on the part of my grandfather were involved) they put their son (my uncle) and my mother through Syracuse University. My uncle became an executive at a major TV network. My mother became a housewife, and spurred my father to success as an interior architect after an unsuccessful Cornell education as an engineer. I went to Cornell and Boston University Law School and became a lawyer. Only in America would this levitation be possible.
And it was mostly through "the Constitution," (through grudging tolerance for Jews) and hard work, as well as a belief that there really are no limits to growth (except I'm short and didn't grow to the sky), that made all of this possible. Their was no real money in the family and we received little government assistance, except Navy-paid and GI Bill education for my father, and a small amount of unemployment assistance for brief periods between jobs for me.
My OWN life has not been perfect. However, I don't look to find fault or place blames for any of my misfortunes on other people, the government, Donald Trump, etc.
How do I rate myself a left-winger and a liberal? I believe that governments should raise money openly through taxes and not through speed traps, petty regulations and fines, etc. I support integration in the schools and work place, though I am against affirmative action. I am pro-choice. I believe in the public school system. And I support causes anathema to many conservatives, including legalized marijuana and reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone.
I believe this is consistent with progressivism.
To define oneself, one must understand the terms: Democrat means laws should be applied (liberal) across the States, Republican means laws are according to (conservative) States or the smallest unit of government.
The terms, liberal and conservative are viewpoints held by the citizen. They do not apply to either being Democrat or Republican. That said, the media, namely Fox news has been incorrect all these years. It's called programming for a reason.
Commentary aside, a State can be Republican but have liberal ideals such as legalized prostitution. Conversely, a State can be Democratic and consistently vote against prostitution.
However, both parties can and are consistently bought by wealthy special interest groups. These groups warp the original intent of constitution by leaving out pertinent words, give money to law-makers and even help draft some bills that end up becoming law. On that basis alone, the meaning of being Democrat or Republican is a mere shadow of what they once were.
I have an out-of-the-box thought and not necessarily conservative, discussed in Solution for Problem of "14th Amendment" Birthright Babies; pass a law (not sure if it should be Federal or state-by-state) providing that if a baby is born in the U.S. to two non-citizen parents those parents have two choices; 1) return to their native lands with the baby; or 2) baby is deemed surrendered for adoption to U.S. citizens or legally resident non-citizens, and the parents go back without their children.This seems to be countenanced by law. The 14th Amendment states:
Nothing in that Amendment applies to the parents, nor gives them rights. However, the decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark construes the 14th Amendment to require that babies born in the U.S. are citizens. Thus the conundrum posed by "birthright" or "anchor" babies.
My proposal to give the parents a choice between returning to their countries with their babies or leaving them here but returning themselves isn't as heartless as it sounds. The parents can always keep their children; by returning to where they should be. Remember, the parents created a dangerous situation by deciding to have a baby in a country in which they were not legally present, or if legal, only on a very temporary basis.
So if they escaped from a war-ravaged country where their families were starving, that is their choice?
Go back to Syria or Central America to deal with warlords and Isis and no food and rampant disease, with or without their baby?
I love how people want to mess with the Constitution when it suits them, but when it comes to gun rights, it is untouchable because "It's in the Constitution" and so cannot be messed with in any way. Again this reinforces my belief that many do not feel the Constitution is sacrosanct in any way in an of itself, it is only the second amendment they value under the guide of being Constitutionalists.
To define oneself, one must understand the terms: Democrat means laws should be applied (liberal) across the States, Republican means laws are according to (conservative) States or the smallest unit of government.
The terms, liberal and conservative are viewpoints held by the citizen. They do not apply to either being Democrat or Republican. That said, the media, namely Fox news has been incorrect all these years. It's called programming for a reason.
Commentary aside, a State can be Republican but have liberal ideals such as legalized prostitution. Conversely, a State can be Democratic and consistently vote against prostitution.
However, both parties can and are consistently bought by wealthy special interest groups. These groups warp the original intent of constitution by leaving out pertinent words, give money to law-makers and even help draft some bills that end up becoming law. On that basis alone, the meaning of being Democrat or Republican is a mere shadow of what they once were.
There would be some merit to your argument if you didn't confuse the use of capital letters in the first paragraph.
So if they escaped from a war-ravaged country where their families were starving, that is their choice?
Go back to Syria or Central America to deal with warlords and Isis and no food and rampant disease, with or without their baby?
I love how people want to mess with the Constitution when it suits them, but when it comes to gun rights, it is untouchable because "It's in the Constitution" and so cannot be messed with in any way. Again this reinforces my belief that many do not feel the Constitution is sacrosanct in any way in an of itself, it is only the second amendment they value under the guide of being Constitutionalists.
I agree with your idealism; not paying for it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
