Quote from: Oliver the Second on October 10, 2025, 04:39:46 PMIf a law were passed saying "Ater this date automatic citizenship no longer applies..." then I could accept that. But if that kid is already a citizen then nope, he has the same Constitution rights as the rest of us. Stripping someone of their citizenship just because of who their parents are, that's way too Hitler/Stalin/Orwellian to even think about considering.

This problem is very similar in nature to Social Security.

At what point do we change a broken system and how do we handle the problem fairly for all of those who have paid into it for decades

Myself for instance. For me social security has capped out at the maximum for the last 30 years. So at a rate of approximately 18,000.00 per year multiplied by 30, adjusted for inflation and factoring in earned interest I'd accept a pay out of 750K right now in lieu of the 5424.00 a month they are set to owe me upon retirement.

Provided a few conditions exist of course. they cannot tax that 750K payout and all payments into social security must end immediately.

Under such an arraignment I would happily take my money and go

otherwise, fuck that, I'm expecting my monthly payouts when I retire.

I think the dilemma surrounding birthright is similar. From today forward it must end but how do we properly handle previous cases justly?

I don't have an answer for that one.

Quote from: Oliver the Second on October 10, 2025, 04:39:46 PMIf a law were passed saying "Ater this date automatic citizenship no longer applies..." then I could accept that. But if that kid is already a citizen then nope, he has the same Constitution rights as the rest of us. Stripping someone of their citizenship just because of who their parents are, that's way too Hitler/Stalin/Orwellian to even think about considering.

And right there is the angle the left will use to beat you into submission. Sorry friend, but the line you draw in all likelihood represents the vector that will be used to render these anchor babies as your grandchildren's eventual rulers and slave drivers.

I do get it though; the US constitution iand its associated bill of rights is an important document for you as it is for many Americans. But it is also being weaponized against you. In time you may even come to understand how. I hope it is not too late for you to push successfully for an amendment to patch against the danger the US is in.

One thing I'm interested in hearing from you, and it's this; just how do you determine my proposal to be "way too Hitler/Stalin/Orwellian"? Hitler as I understand it was into sending his "undesireables" to camps to be gassed, experimented upon, worked to death, shot et al, Stalin was a proponent of gulags and "disappearing" his. Orwell? His was a fiction that included torture and wholesale brainwashing, not too dissimilar to what the left is being forced to endure.

I guess I'm trying to see how you arrive at the conflation of totalitarianism with deportation of children whose parents are illegally within US borders and subject to deportation themselves. I submit that the granting of citizenship to the children of those people ostensibly outside of the constitution's provisions (itself a document for the people of the US and not its invading hordes... is a mistake the founding fathers never foresaw coming. I am certainly not calling for the death of anchor babies, nor any privations regarding them or indeed their parents, criminals as they assuredly are.

Are you certain you are not buying into the left's rhetoric on the matter?

And we wonder why illegal immigration is where its at?

We either have immigration laws or we don't. Congress can change those laws at any time. Until then the laws on the books are the law.

The weak knees I see hear mystify me. We need to send a resounding message to the world: Don't come here illegally. Failure to carry through because illegals had babies here is sending the opposite message.

PS> it is not Stalinesque to protect your borders. To think so is to join with the Liberals who decry the work of ICE.

Quote from: Lokmar on October 10, 2025, 09:29:54 AMWhy, because they broke the law longer?

Because they have shown they can contribute to the US.

Quote from: DKG on October 11, 2025, 05:37:44 AMBecause they have shown they can contribute to the US.

Like helping to force wages down and decrease living standards? Yeah, I think you'd be singing a totally different song if your income got impacted by a slave underclass forced to undercut your service/product at every turn just so they could eat.

And what of the 30,000+ illegal immigrant children that went missing during the Biden administration? Perchance we might consider their contribution to the American way of life. Sweatshop labour is likely their best outcome, it sure beats the sex work that Epstein's replacements are doubtless flourishing with, or being farmed to the Hollywood elite as blood bags and their organs harvested for the international body parts racket maybe.

Wherever you draw the line on illegal immigrants contributions, you will find people pushing for more. Stop kidding yourself that you are doing these people favours, you're sounding like a bloody leftie.

Quote from: . on October 11, 2025, 06:03:29 AMLike helping to force wages down and decrease living standards? Yeah, I think you'd be singing a totally different song if your income got impacted by a slave underclass forced to undercut your service/product at every turn just so they could eat.

And what of the 30,000+ illegal immigrant children that went missing during the Biden administration? Perchance we might consider their contribution to the American way of life. Sweatshop labour is likely their best outcome, it sure beats the sex work that Epstein's replacements are doubtless flourishing with, or being farmed to the Hollywood elite as blood bags and their organs harvested for the international body parts racket maybe.

Wherever you draw the line on illegal immigrants contributions, you will find people pushing for more. Stop kidding yourself that you are doing these people favours, you're sounding like a bloody leftie.

This the result of overpopulation which the Republican Party is promoting or pushing.

50 years ago before some of ya like Shen Li Shen were born, the world population was less than half of what it is today.

Surprise Surprise...the world was in much better shape.

Fast forward 50 years....the population has doubled to over 8 billion. Illegal migration is just another symptom of overpopulation which should have been addressed 50 years ago when the Club of Rome was warning us about it.

I remembered that back in 1973 or 74 and nobody was listening. They just wanted to make fucking babies.

We've added more people in half a century to this planet than existed for all the prior millennia. No wonder there isn't enough to go around.

50 years ago organizations like UNICEF were pushing feed the hungry children in Africa when they should have been feeding them a cocktail of birth control instead.

The funny thing about Malthusian economics... it's adherents almost never offer to be a part of its solution by offing themselves.

Quote from: . on October 10, 2025, 05:25:23 PMOne thing I'm interested in hearing from you, and it's this; just how do you determine my proposal to be "way too Hitler/Stalin/Orwellian"?

"We're taking away your citizenship because your parents were illegal aliens" - once you accept that it becomes "because your parents are jews", "because your parents are Republicans", "because you have green eyes"...

When the kid was born the law clearly stated the child is automatically a citizen. Was the law mistaken? Perhaps. But it was the law of the land at the time and we must honor it. Because if we don't follow the law then why do we even bother making any.

Just the way I see it.

Quote from: Oliver the Second on October 11, 2025, 11:38:30 AM"We're taking away your citizenship because your parents were illegal aliens" - once you accept that it becomes "because your parents are jews", "because your parents are Republicans", "because you have green eyes"...

When the kid was born the law clearly stated the child is automatically a citizen. Was the law mistaken? Perhaps. But it was the law of the land at the time and we must honor it. Because if we don't follow the law then why do we even bother making any.

Just the way I see it.

Here is how I see it. If your parents were in the country illegally you were given citizenship for political reasons.

That was a mistake and now you have to get the hell out because your citizenship was improperly granted. Nice knowing you, adios.

Both sides make good arguments

but I tend to lean more in favor of Ollie's position. The law of the land at the time of birth states clearly that a person born here is a citizen. there was no room for interpretation as the verbiage is very clear

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

is it a provision that has been abused like any other well meaning provision? yes. But are we allowed to temporarily dispense of any portion of the constitution because we don't like the outcome? no. For that would be no different than the argument libtards attempt to erect regarding the second amendment. Namely, that our forefathers never envisioned automatic weapons of war this deadly and had they seen such firepower in it's unmitigated form they would have never supported the idea of bearing arms in the first place. that is a complete assumption which has no basis in fact or fairness and is ludicrous on it's face.

Same with the 14th amendment. ANY PERSON BORN HERE is what the text states. that is clear and unambiguous and NOT subject to any alternative interpretation. So either we respect it or we don't and if we decide not to where does that line end.

The goal should be NOT to allow them to get here in the first place. NOT to punish the sons and daughters of people who have committed past crimes .I cannot support that.

Quote from: Brent on October 11, 2025, 12:02:50 PMHere is how I see it. If your parents were in the country illegally you were given citizenship for political reasons.

That was a mistake and now you have to get the hell out because your citizenship was improperly granted. Nice knowing you, adios.

If it was a mistake then that's our fault, not the kids fault. We have to accept the consequences of our mistake, learn from our mistake, adjust the laws accordingly, and move on from there.

You can't go to a roulette wheel and put twenty bucks on number 17 and when number 18 comes up say "Oh, I made a mistake, I really meant to put it on number 18" and expect a payout. Doesn't work that way. If a kid gains citizenship because of a mistake we made, well that lucky kid just hit the jackpot.

Quote from: Oliver the Second on October 11, 2025, 12:20:47 PMIf it was a mistake then that's our fault, not the kids fault. We have to accept the consequences of our mistake, learn from our mistake, adjust the laws accordingly, and move on from there.

You can't go to a roulette wheel and put twenty bucks on number 17 and when number 18 comes up say "Oh, I made a mistake, I really meant to put it on number 18" and expect a payout. Doesn't work that way. If a kid gains citizenship because of a mistake we made, well that lucky kid just hit the jackpot.

100%

I think our conservative brethren think we are in favor of the continued allowance to rampant abuse of a poorly worded provision in our constitution.

we are not. At least I am certain I am not.

What I am for is living up to the verbiage as it is written in the constitution and amending that verbiage through the proper provisions outlined within that very same document verbiage once it is clear that the wording was flawed at the time of writing or the landscape and passage of time has changed the circumstance so drastically so as to render well constructed verbiage obsolete or otherwise ineffective.

THAT is the process I support. Attempting to reverse the intent of the framers based upon the visible outcome is a very slippery slope which never leads to a stable outcome.

In my mind we adjust the verbiage to make abuse much more difficult, we stop electing scumbags who see illegals as votes rather than human beings, deprive idiots who cannot pass a simple questionnaire regarding the function of our system or persons with foreign interests the right to vote so that we do not end up with 1000 more Ilhan Omars and strengthen the defense of our borders.

Do all that and grandfathering in several hundred thousand, even several million, citizens who, today, are productive members of society will not have the grave consequences our conservative brethren seem to think it will have.

Quote from: Oliver the Second on October 11, 2025, 12:20:47 PMIf it was a mistake then that's our fault, not the kids fault. We have to accept the consequences of our mistake, learn from our mistake, adjust the laws accordingly, and move on from there.

You can't go to a roulette wheel and put twenty bucks on number 17 and when number 18 comes up say "Oh, I made a mistake, I really meant to put it on number 18" and expect a payout. Doesn't work that way. If a kid gains citizenship because of a mistake we made, well that lucky kid just hit the jackpot.

That is how it has to be. Children should not be punished for the sins of their parents.

And if that was the law of the land it must be honoured. I believe it should change. But, the kids that were covered under old laws must not be stripped of their citizenship. They must be granfathered in.

Quote from: . on October 11, 2025, 11:13:34 AMThe funny thing about Malthusian economics... it's adherents almost never offer to be a part of its solution by offing themselves.

Oh but I am part of the solution, "."

I've decided not to have any children which would add to the woes of the world.

The fewer babies we pump out, the fewer problems it creates later on for the planet.

If happenstance I ever get the urge to make a baby or 2, I'll make damn sure I'm self sufficient, can pay for them, grow my own food, shelter & feed them without burdening the system like many of these migrants do. They have this mentality "Fuck Now, think later."

Another alternative to having children without adding problems is to adopt or marrying someone already with children, and not having any of yer own.

Any way you look at it, having/raising children should be a net zero outcome where the would be parents don't burden the system or anyone else.

In reality those migrants from 3rd world nations are irresponsible because they pumped out babies without figgering out how to pay for em.

Even ancient peoples in biblical times the ancestorsof these 3rd world migrants figgered out a system of family planning & they knew how to ration the resources they had available

Quote from: JOE on October 11, 2025, 01:04:58 PMOh but I am part of the solution, "."

I've decided not to have any children which would add to the woes of the world.

The fewer babies we pump out, the fewer problems it creates later on for the planet.

If happenstance I ever get the urge to make a baby, I'll make sure I'm self sufficient, can grow my own food, shelter & feed them without burdening the system like many of these migrants have it do. They have this mentality "Fuck Now, think later."

Another alternative to having children without adding problems is to adopt or marrying someone already with children, and not having any of yer own.

Any way you look at it, having/raising children should be a net zero outcome where the would be parents don't burden the system or anyone else.

In reality those migrants from 3rd world nations are irresponsible because they pumped out babies without figgering out how to pay for em.

Even ancient peoples in biblical times the ancestorsof these 3rd world migrants figgered out a system of family planning & they knew how to ration the resources they had available

Sweetie, remember when we tried to adopt an African child. They said you were too old. We came home and you cried on my shoulder for an hour.