Political Roundtable Part XXIII

[Pointgod]

Perfectly put. They're either happy to look the other way, or they're active participants.

Which makes this whole Blexit thing so utterly ridiculous. (Side note: Tough break about Kanye.) If any minority wants to crap on or criticize the Democratic party for not doing enough to help them out, I completely get that. Like, completely.

But to turn around and actively throw your hat in the ring with a party that is still actively seeking to disenfranchise you, and runs out unabashed scumbags like Trump and King and holy sh*t how much time do we have, and sees you as little more than a prop to disguise their own racism, I'll never understand that.

Then again, history is littered with people who were happy to sell themselves out, so it's probably not all that surprising.

Well it’s a tale as old as time. You’re seeing it all over the world, Brazil is the most recent example. People are willingly throwing away their rights as long as it gaurantees other people suffer. I’m honestly curious if there’s an example of where a far right wing government left a country better off than they found it. I’m genuinely curious if there’s an example in recent history.

The Blexit is such a joke and naked cash grab by con artist Candace Owens. It’s also horribly stupid branding why not Blaxit? There are 13 million black people in the US and the fact that there’s enough to fill a small room is a Blexit? **** joke.

There's a historian I follow on Twitter, Kevin Kruse, who routinely dismantles conservative BS. Not with memes or pithy insults, but cold, hard facts. Just the other day he took apart some of the BS being pushed on their web site. (Stacey Dash decided to jump in and challenge him and, well, it didn't go very well for her.)

This is the first tweet in a long thread. Trumpism at its finest: Just make up a bunch of BS and capitalize on people's ignorance because they don't know any better. She's just another in a long, long line of con artists, like Milo and Cernovich before her, and of course Trump himself, who figured out how to make careers out it.

Read on Twitter

Click on the date and you can see the rest. It's pretty enlightening.

This man is a treasure. Thank God I’m not on Twitter it’s like arguing with a bunch of STDs. Mind boggling

[nate33]

any other republican posters want to weigh in on this citizenship issue? popper? nate? lurkers?

trump doe snot have the power to change it via an executive order, that's ridiculous for him to claim. But Lindsey Graham, an actual conservative, said it best:

"The United States is one of two developed countries in the world who grant citizenship based on location of birth.

This policy is a magnet for illegal immigration, out of the mainstream of the developed world, and needs to come to an end."

As I understand it, Trump wouldn't be changing anything. He already has plenary authority granted to him by Congress to enforce immigration rules as he sees fit. He would simply be enforcing the existing law as he interprets it. Now, it's certainly possible that he is interpreting it wrong by claiming anchor babies are not citizens, and I'm sure it will be challenged. It will then go to the Supreme Court, which hasn't yet opined on the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment as it relates to illegal aliens. The Supreme Court will make it's decision, and then we will have clarity.

[Pointgod]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-admin-will-apparently-not-renew-program-fight-domestic-terror-n926361?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

The Trump administration, which already canceled a grant for a group that fights white supremacist terror, now appears unwilling to renew the anti-domestic terror program under which it was funded, despite recent high-profile attacks like the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting and data showing a spike in attacks on religious minorities.

Trump wouldn’t want to lose his any of his base.

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

any other republican posters want to weigh in on this citizenship issue? popper? nate? lurkers?

trump doe snot have the power to change it via an executive order, that's ridiculous for him to claim. But Lindsey Graham, an actual conservative, said it best:

"The United States is one of two developed countries in the world who grant citizenship based on location of birth.

This policy is a magnet for illegal immigration, out of the mainstream of the developed world, and needs to come to an end."

As I understand it, Trump wouldn't be changing anything. He already has plenary authority granted to him by Congress to enforce immigration rules as he sees fit. He would simply be enforcing the existing law as he interprets it. Now, it's certainly possible that he is interpreting it wrong by claiming anchor babies are not citizens, and I'm sure it will be challenged. It will then go to the Supreme Court, which hasn't yet opined on the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment as it relates to illegal aliens. The Supreme Court will make it's decision, and then we will have clarity.

Nate. With respect, please tone it down. I appreciate a difference of opinion regarding immigration policy and even enforcement. But using terms like anchor babies and illegal aliens is a bridge too far.

[daoneandonly]

Haha, that could be true, but as I live in the now, I'm pretty happy the new car I purchased isn't really having an impact on my spending habits or bank account as my extra income is essentially paying for it

"Living in the now" on financial matters sounds suspect coming from the guy preaching accountability and responsibility.

Must be quite the hoopty you managed to buy yourself from those extra $200.

Once again, its my money, i work a crap job so i want every dollar i can from it, not 1 cent going to planned parenthood or other crap i dont use. And its 200 a paycheck, meaning 400 a month. That's a good chunk.

And as i explained in another post, i have a bleak future due to stuff i was born with, so all i can do is live in the now

[TGW]

Holy hell.

Read on Twitter

Blind Faith in any political party will undoubtedly lead to disappointment.

Particularly when you only have 'two' options to choose from.

Sent from my RC555L using RealGM mobile app

That's why I only plan to vote for the candidates that I know and researched thoroughly. I am definitely not voting for Democrats across the board. Only a partisan hack nitwit with sh*t for brains would do something like that.

[dckingsfan]

As I have stated here before, I think our immigration policy is pretty bad.

I don't like birthright or familial based immigration.

I do like what Trump is doing and pushing it to the courts. My guess is that he will win.

I like it because in the end it means that the next president can get us back on track with 3 to 5M immigrants a year to fix our demographic problem. I would hope it would be a skills/age based immigration policy. Either way, the unintended consequence of his action will drive conservatives nuts over the following years.

[dckingsfan]

Holy hell.

Read on Twitter

Blind Faith in any political party will undoubtedly lead to disappointment.

Particularly when you only have 'two' options to choose from.

Sent from my RC555L using RealGM mobile app

That's why I only plan to vote for the candidates that I know and researched thoroughly. I am definitely not voting for Democrats across the board. Only a partisan hack nitwit with sh*t for brains would do something like that.

So, I may be wrong here - but it seems like he is creating an opening salvo to begin negotiations to get us to a better policy.

I haven't done enough research on him - but you can read these tweets both ways...

[Jamaaliver]

It's the end of the world, as we know it...

or fake news by scientists with agendas.

World's oceans have absorbed 60% more heat than previously thought, study finds

A new study has found that the world's oceans absorbed 60% more heat per year than previously believed, findings that could have serious implications in the fight against climate change.

The research, published in the journal Nature Wednesday, suggests that the Earth is even more sensitive to fossil fuel emissions than experts thought.

Oceans absorb 90% of the excess heat trapped in the world's atmosphere, according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA).

The paper's author, Laure Resplandy, said she and her colleagues found that the the oceans had absorbed significantly more heat than had been estimated in a landmark 2014 study from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Climate scientists say rising ocean temperatures have fueled more powerful storms and are killing off underwater wildlife like Australia's Great Barrier Reef.

The study comes weeks after a dire report from the United Nations warned that humanity has just 10 years to act to avoid disastrous levels of global warming, urging governments to make "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society."

The UN report found that the planet will reach the crucial threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030, precipitating the risk of extreme drought, wildfires, floods and food shortages for hundreds of millions of people.

CNN

[I_Like_Dirt]

As I have stated here before, I think our immigration policy is pretty bad.

I don't like birthright or familial based immigration.

I do like what Trump is doing and pushing it to the courts. My guess is that he will win.

I like it because in the end it means that the next president can get us back on track with 3 to 5M immigrants a year to fix our demographic problem. I would hope it would be a skills/age based immigration policy. Either way, the unintended consequence of his action will drive conservatives nuts over the following years.

I'm not necessarily against immigration reform myself. Frankly, I'm generally of the mindset that solving any potential problem at the source is better overall, which means encouraging successful economies elsewhere for mutually beneficial trade and social development so that the rush for mass immigration doesn't even happened in the first place - see Mexico in NAFTA. Heck, I'm not even sure how I feel about skills/age based immigration. I support it because it's needed but honestly its needed worldwide and it's a temporary fix at best. Long term we need to solve the issue of costs of raising children because right now they are increasing exponentially and they are basically entirely foisted onto the parents/family. The sacrifices to have children that society desperately needs are massive and it really shouldn't be that way. Heck, figuring that issue out probably goes a long way towards limiting abortions some voters seem to vote for banning all the time.

I'm a little concerned at the approach by rather large swaths the current political environment and the population it represents and the ability to see reason, however. I came across this transcript of an interview with Michael Tesler and, while not necessarily surprising, demonstrates some pretty strong themes overall which has pushed issues divided along racial lines to the forefront of discussions.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/rise-white-identity-politics-didn-t-start-trump-explains-michael-ncna926191

[Induveca]

trump doe snot have the power to change it via an executive order, that's ridiculous for him to claim. But Lindsey Graham, an actual conservative, said it best:

"The United States is one of two developed countries in the world who grant citizenship based on location of birth.

This policy is a magnet for illegal immigration, out of the mainstream of the developed world, and needs to come to an end."

As I understand it, Trump wouldn't be changing anything. He already has plenary authority granted to him by Congress to enforce immigration rules as he sees fit. He would simply be enforcing the existing law as he interprets it. Now, it's certainly possible that he is interpreting it wrong by claiming anchor babies are not citizens, and I'm sure it will be challenged. It will then go to the Supreme Court, which hasn't yet opined on the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment as it relates to illegal aliens. The Supreme Court will make it's decision, and then we will have clarity.

Nate. With respect, please tone it down. I appreciate a difference of opinion regarding immigration policy and even enforcement. But using terms like anchor babies and illegal aliens is a bridge too far.

I’m offended that your faux offense takes 50% longer to register as sarcasm.

[gtn130]

I don't think anyone can really articulate a truly moral position on immigration. Ultimately we are citizens of the US because we were randomly born here. Turning away the rest of the world because they weren't arbitrarily born in this geographic location isn't a morally acceptable position imo, but at the same time there is not a single practical solution.

Like, what I'm saying is open borders is the only morally acceptable position, and that position is also totally unfeasible for anyone living under the guise of a nation state. This is something that liberals need to grapple with more because there is no reality in which we have a morally acceptable welfare state and a morally acceptable immigration policy. These things are in direct conflict.

[Pointgod]

As I have stated here before, I think our immigration policy is pretty bad.

I don't like birthright or familial based immigration.

I do like what Trump is doing and pushing it to the courts. My guess is that he will win.

I like it because in the end it means that the next president can get us back on track with 3 to 5M immigrants a year to fix our demographic problem. I would hope it would be a skills/age based immigration policy. Either way, the unintended consequence of his action will drive conservatives nuts over the following years.

The Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill that the House speakers have refused to even bring to a vote.

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/immigration-bill-2013-senate-passes-093530

Hmmm I wonder why that is....

If Congress passes immigration reform, it would make good on a promise from President Barack Obama and likely become his most significant policy achievement in his second term. In a statement, Obama emphasized that the bill was collaborative effort.

Oh that’s right go against anything that would make Obama look good. The Senate functioned like a good government does and passed a bipartisan bill. The house even refused to bring it up for a vote because they knew it would pass. I keep saying it. Republicans are the problem and nothing will change until voters hold them accountable for their bull.

[Induveca]

I don't think anyone can really articulate a truly moral position on immigration. Ultimately we are citizens of the US because we were randomly born here. Turning away the rest of the world because they weren't arbitrarily born in this geographic location isn't a morally acceptable position imo, but at the same time there is not a single practical solution.

Like, what I'm saying is open borders is the only morally acceptable position, and that position is also totally unfeasible for anyone living under the guise of a nation state. This is something that liberals need to grapple with more because there is no reality in which we have a morally acceptable welfare state and a morally acceptable immigration policy. These things are in direct conflict.

Extremely well said. This exact explanation would heal so much of the hate between parties if it was the starting point of finding a solution in DC.

[dckingsfan]

As I have stated here before, I think our immigration policy is pretty bad.

I don't like birthright or familial based immigration.

I do like what Trump is doing and pushing it to the courts. My guess is that he will win.

I like it because in the end it means that the next president can get us back on track with 3 to 5M immigrants a year to fix our demographic problem. I would hope it would be a skills/age based immigration policy. Either way, the unintended consequence of his action will drive conservatives nuts over the following years.

The Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill that the House speakers have refused to even bring to a vote.

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/immigration-bill-2013-senate-passes-093530

Hmmm I wonder why that is....

If Congress passes immigration reform, it would make good on a promise from President Barack Obama and likely become his most significant policy achievement in his second term. In a statement, Obama emphasized that the bill was collaborative effort.

Oh that’s right go against anything that would make Obama look good. The Senate functioned like a good government does and passed a bipartisan bill. The house even refused to bring it up for a vote because they knew it would pass. I keep saying it. Republicans are the problem and nothing will change until voters hold them accountable for their bull.

With respect, this bill really wasn't a revamp to the immigration policy. It is a band-aide to fix the "dreamer" issue.

If this bill passes, we will be in the same place 10 years from now - IMO.

[Jamaaliver]

The Senate functioned like a good government does and passed a bipartisan bill. The house even refused to bring it up for a vote because they knew it would pass. I keep saying it. Republicans are the problem and nothing will change until voters hold them accountable for their bull.

you're NOT WRONG. But THAT TYPE OF DIVISIVE RHETORIC WON'T CONVINCE ANY GOPers AND FEW INDEPENDents.

And if you can't convince any of their voters, you'll never see lasting change. Just an endless cycle of heated rhetoric and growing political polarization.

Watch on YouTube

[Jamaaliver]

With respect, this bill really wasn't a revamp...it is a band-aide.

If this bill passes, we will be in the same place 10 years from now - IMO.

Congratulations. You just described New NAFTA U.S.M.C.A.

Trump’s new NAFTA is pretty much the same as the old one — but at what cost?

More than once, Donald Trump has called the North American Free Trade Agreement “the worst trade deal ever made.” At other times, he has referred to NAFTA as a “bad joke.” As recently as Sept. 1, he claimed the whole thing was unnecessary: “We were far better off before NAFTA — should never have been signed,” he tweeted.

But now, NAFTA is gone. In its place, we have . . . the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). And it looks eerily, suspiciously, familiar.

Washington Post

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

As I understand it, Trump wouldn't be changing anything. He already has plenary authority granted to him by Congress to enforce immigration rules as he sees fit. He would simply be enforcing the existing law as he interprets it. Now, it's certainly possible that he is interpreting it wrong by claiming anchor babies are not citizens, and I'm sure it will be challenged. It will then go to the Supreme Court, which hasn't yet opined on the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment as it relates to illegal aliens. The Supreme Court will make it's decision, and then we will have clarity.

Nate. With respect, please tone it down. I appreciate a difference of opinion regarding immigration policy and even enforcement. But using terms like anchor babies and illegal aliens is a bridge too far.

I’m offended that your faux offense takes 50% longer to register as sarcasm.

Nothing faux here. I'm genuinely offended. Again, reasonable people can disagree on a complex issue like immigration.

But there is no excuse for calling a human being "illegal" or an innocent child an "anchor baby." Argue your position -- argue it with passion and conviction. But please leave this kinds of invective out of it.

[nate33]

Nate. With respect, please tone it down. I appreciate a difference of opinion regarding immigration policy and even enforcement. But using terms like anchor babies and illegal aliens is a bridge too far.

I’m offended that your faux offense takes 50% longer to register as sarcasm.

Nothing faux here. I'm genuinely offended. Again, reasonable people can disagree on a complex issue like immigration.

But there is no excuse for calling a human being "illegal" or an innocent child an "anchor baby." Argue your position -- argue it with passion and conviction. But please leave this kinds of invective out of it.

I will stand by the term "illegal aliens" because that's exactly what they are and it's the actual term used in federal documents for over a century to define that class of people. Calling them "undocumented immigrants" implies that they belong here. They don't. We have a border. We have the right to decide who belongs here and who doesn't. They're illegal because they do not have a legal right to be here.

I'll cede that the term "anchor babies" is a bit inflammatory. I didn't use the term with the intent to provoke. I used it merely because it's more concise than "children of illegal aliens".

[pancakes3]

There were a lot of agnostic responses to the issue of birthright, along the lines of "the Constitution has an ambiguity and SCOTUS will tell us if birthright is guaranteed in the U.S. or not"

Birthright citizenship (legally referred to as Jus Soli - right of the soil, as opposed to Jus Sanguinis which is right by blood) was the law of the land even before the 14th amendment. A person born in the U.S. was a citizen even if his parents were, say, British citizens. There were no statutes stating this, and no supreme court cases expressing it, but there were many state law cases upholding Jus Soli as the law of the land.

The obvious caveat to this, were slaves. Not just slaves, but anyone descendant from slaves. In the infamous Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court held that negroes, categorically, even freed, could not be citizens and had no standing to bring cases in Federal court. Dredd Scott also said that slaves were property, not people. Dredd Scott was decided in 1857.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 stated that "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power..." are citizens.

The 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, stated that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." are citizens.

Contemporary records show that the original intent of these words (and the slight difference between these wordings) was concerning children born in circumstances where they are subject to powers of a foreign nation - such as children of diplomats, or occupying military forces. However, the *real* concern was whether or not these protections extended to Native Americans, who operated on U.S. soil but still retain their own sovereignty. This was naturally brought up in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884, and the Court upheld that Native Americans were not citizens because of the "subject to jurisdiction" language. Fortunately, this case, though still valid (not overturned), was rendered moot 50 years later by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which granted citizenships for Native Americans.

It makes no sense to view "subject to the jurisdiction" to mean people other than diplomats, foreign military, or sovereign native americans. To say that children of immigrants without status are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States concedes that you can't exert other powers over them because you don't have jurisdiction over them. They can't be arrested, they can't be taxed, they can't be sued, etc. It's just a very dumb argument.

The issue of the 14th Amendment as it applies to immigrants has been tested in SCOTUS already. First in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, in 1898, where a natural born Chinese-American, was detained in San Francisco. If you believe contemporary, out-of-court records, using Chinese Americans in light of the Chinese-Exclusion Act, was a concerted effort to test Jus Soli, and force a shift to Jus Sanguinis. The Court upheld Jus Soli.

To give you an idea of the sensibilities of the Fuller Court, the same Court went on to uphold "separate but equal" in schools 1 year after Wong, and upheld literacy tests in Jim Crow Alabama 1 year after that.

There is a fact of note that both of Wong's parents did have legal status, just were not citizens.