[[SUBMITTER'S NOTE: OP is a leftist, not a conservative, although that might be easy to tell]]
*democrat voice* AHUM ACTUALLY birthright citizenship cant be signed away by an executive order because that would be a DICTATORSHIP! instead it must be vigorously debated by a few hundred very powerful people who won’t be personally affected by any of this who will vote on it and in the event they get the needed number of votes THEN it will be done for! this is a good system of legitimate governance and i am very smart!
11 comments
Ten people in Parliament have completely fucked up 'Brexit': to the extent that, politically, it's now the 21st Century equivalent of the Suez Crisis.
And they - the DUP - who are the only ones keeping the Tories' birthright: they being in power via Theresa May Not, are the Unionist part of the Tories' full name: the Conservative and Unionist Party.
But the Unionist part of that political equation want Ireland to still be part of their country - with no customs restrictions or hard border whatsoever - economically: thus the United Kingdom as a whole would still be beholden to the EU economically, politically: and legally : the whole point of Nige FaRAGE's UKRAP wanting 'Brexit': separation from the EU.
He got what he wanted: the needed number of votes. Are you 'smart' enough to do what her closest ministers can't and advise ol' Terrie re. what is now a worse -than political clusterfuck: thus this whole sorry exercise becoming the 21st Century equivalent of Suez...?!
We have a legitimate governance: and it's done for!
And all because of ten people: who don't actually live on the mainland of the UK.
@checkmate :
You may be smart, but [...]
I don't know if you know about it, but there's a specific meme this person is invoking when they say the phrase, "i am very smart". You can see a lot of the assholes who use this meme on the subreddit /r/iamverysmart. It's a phrase intended as a sarcastic insult, to portray someone as supposedly sanctimonious. This tchaikovskaya person is pretending that anyone calling for a representative democracy technique for changing the constitution is a sanctimonious prick who merely thinks they're smart, because this tchaikovskaya person is pretending that a few hundred representatives deciding is really the same thing as one dictator deciding, so there's no difference and people who claim there is are "iamverysmart" prideful idiots.
(And this is why I despise that meme - it's more often used to portray truth-tellers as being sanctimonious know-it-alls when they slap down liars. There's a certain air of "oh, you think your so smart with yer book lernin' but that's not as gud as mah simple common sense!" The 'iamverysmart" meme, originally coined for people who pretend to be smart but aren't, has been hijacked by people who use it mostly to beat up on any fact-based post. It's now an anti-intellectualism meme, whatever its original purpose was that's what it has become now.
That said, how would you have the issue decided?
Assuming that the OP is a proper Leninist, as the header states, the correct answer is "this shouldn't even be an issue that needs deciding." The end-goal of communism is a world in which states, and thus citizenship, do not exist at all.
Actually it takes an amendment to the Constitution. Which I think debating birthright citizenship is a very dangerous thing, because if we decide that being born in this country doesn't guarantee citizenship, then what does? If we take away birthright citizenship then there's not much for any of us to be declared "not a citizen" and deported somewhere. Especially if we happen to have a record of voting for the party that's not currently in power. Or if you have skin that's darker than a paper bag or a last name that's spelled funny.
@checkmate & Nemo
Be careful. The 14th Amendment says "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."
The conservative argument is that the children of illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" of the US and therefore are an exception.
In “U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark” in 1898 the Supreme Court decided that the 14th Amendment must be interpreted based upon English Common Law and included all native-born children except for those who were: (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.
So there is a precedent for exceptions to birthright citizenship and rather than a constitutional amendment all that may be required is a packed Supreme Court to rule that the children of illegal immigrants are another exception.
I've also heard it argued that illegal immigrants, because they strain social resources and increase crime, should be classified as "enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory" which would place their children under the existing exception. The fact that neither of those two things are true has never stopped conservatives from continuously making the claims. So again, all that would be needed is a sympathetic Supreme Court.
@Alencon ,
But to use that argument means that any captured illegal immigrant is not subject to US civil law, and instead has diplomatic immunity, or is like a POW and has to be treated by Geneva Convention rules. Now, of course, that would require honesty on the part of the Supreme Court, so they of course won't care, but claiming that illegal immigrants have the same status as those not under US jurisdiction has *big* cascading consequences in a whole lot of other areas too. It amounts to a lot more than *just* a change to citizenship status.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.