|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
08-05-2010, 09:42 AM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,919
|
|
"Anchor Babies" and the 14th Amendment
The issue of "anchor babies" and the citizenship conferred upon them by virtue of birth within the USA is getting a lot of exposure lately. I'm of mixed mind on this one. Most nations do not confer citizenship on the basis of birth location ( jus soli), but upon the nationality/citizenship of the parent ( jus sanguinis).
Our "jus soli" system, embodied within the 14th amendment, became law in 1868 during reconstruction and was largely a reaction to the Dred Scott decision (1857) in which the Supreme Court ruled that descendants of African slaves could never become citizens.
I understand the modern-day concerns about "anchor babies," but at the same time I have concerns about right-wing politicians stroking our darker xenophobic tendencies. Furthermore, revocation of the 14th Amendment might set a precedent for future revocation of citizenship based upon some sort of loyalty or patriotism test. As it is now, if you're born in the US, you are a American citizen and this cannot be revoked (unless you yourself choose to renounce it). In contrast, naturalization can be revoked if attained through fraud.
In that this would require a constitutional amendment (an arduous process indeed), I fear that the current GOP position on this issue is simply yet another cynical attempt to creat a wedge issue. What say you?
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Last edited by finnbow; 08-05-2010 at 08:27 PM.
Reason: clarifying wedge issue
|
08-05-2010, 10:27 AM
|
|
Resident octogenarian
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
|
|
Rather surprised that it is Lindsay Graham pushing it, I would expect it from Jug Ears.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
|
08-05-2010, 11:24 AM
|
Abby Normal
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
|
|
excellet post, it's ashame no politician arrives at their opinion in such a measured and considered manner
IMO the only reason we are even talking about this is for political reasons not because this is or has ever been a problem that needed addressing
as such I think discussion of repealing an amendment to the constitution for strictly political gain is not only ill advised but also unethical
|
08-05-2010, 01:59 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,919
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal
excellet post, it's ashame no politician arrives at their opinion in such a measured and considered manner
|
Thanks, noon. Nuanced thinking is so out of vogue, you see. Maybe because it confuses those looking for simple, red meat answers.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
08-05-2010, 03:03 PM
|
Abby Normal
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Thanks, noon. Nuanced thinking is so out of vogue, you see. Maybe because it confuses those looking for simple, red meat answers.
|
I often think of it like this, all politicians work in a micro world and never consider the macro as it is to hard to translate to a constituency consisting of one issue voters.
|
08-05-2010, 03:58 PM
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,348
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal
I often think of it like this, all politicians work in a micro world and never consider the macro as it is to hard to translate to a constituency consisting of one issue voters.
|
Their (politicians) idea of a macro world is not only getting elected, staying that way, but feathering their nests as well.
The micro world the voters see consists of a difference between the parties.
Chas
|
08-05-2010, 03:54 PM
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,348
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
The issue of "anchor babies" and the citizenship conferred upon them by virtue of birth within the USA is getting a lot of exposure lately. I'm of mixed mind on this one. Most nations do not confer citizenship on the basis of birth location ( jus soli), but upon the nationality/citizenship of the parent ( jus sanguinis).
Our "jus soli" system, embodied within the 14th amendment, became law in 1868 during reconstruction and was largely a reaction to the Dred Scott decision (1857) in which the Supreme Court ruled that descendants of African slaves could never become citizens.
I understand the modern-day concerns about "anchor babies," but at the same time I have concerns about right-wing politicians stroking our darker xenophobic tendencies. Furthermore, revocation of the 14th Amendment might set a precedent for future revocation of citizenship based upon some sort of loyalty or patriotism test. As it is now, if you're born in the US, you are a American citizen and this cannot be revoked (unless you yourself choose to renounce it). In contrast, naturalization can be revoked if attained through fraud.
In that this would require a constitutional amendment (an arduous process indeed), I fear that the current GOP position on this issue is simply yet another cynical attempt to creat a wedge issue to solidify/energize its base. What say you?
|
Well written.
And I would agree that this issue has been brought forth, at this time, to serve as a wedge issue. But it is an issue which needs to be addressed, IMHO.
Which means, it will be totally ignored as soon as the election is over.
Elections aren't about us, they're about them.
Chas
|
08-05-2010, 04:52 PM
|
|
Loyal Opposition
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles
Well written.
And I would agree that this issue has been brought forth, at this time, to serve as a wedge issue. But it is an issue which needs to be addressed, IMHO.
Which means, it will be totally ignored as soon as the election is over.
Elections aren't about us, they're about them.
Chas
|
You and some of your reasonable responses look like you're trying to make those of us who are more comfortable with party lines (OK, partisan) look bad. However, I haven't really seen the Democrats using any particular wedge issue (except perhaps wealth). Are there any that you would identify?
Regards,
D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
|
08-05-2010, 06:04 PM
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,348
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
You and some of your reasonable responses look like you're trying to make those of us who are more comfortable with party lines (OK, partisan) look bad. However, I haven't really seen the Democrats using any particular wedge issue (except perhaps wealth). Are there any that you would identify?
Regards,
D-Ray
|
Nothing new.
Race is going to be the hot ticket item this cycle. Remember Willie Horton? The Republicans were trying to show that Dukakis was soft on crime, and the Democrats turned it around and claimed that the Pubbies were trying to scare the white folks with a black man.
Now I realize that we view the world through a different prism, but the Democrats playing the race card is so blatantly obvious to me that I wonder how anyone else could not notice it. Just being honest here.
Actually, it's kind of like me going mushroom hunting. I can't find one to save my soul because I'm looking for the wrong thing. The picture in my mind is incorrect. I know what a mushroom looks like, but I don't know what one looks like in it's natural surroundings.
Then we have the old class warfare ploy. Somehow, the likes of a John Skerry on the bow of his yacht pointing out how the rich Republicans will screw me is a tough sell.
Not that the Pubbies are any better. They just tell me more lies I want to hear than the Donks do. And I only agree with them maybe 60% of the time.
Chas
|
08-05-2010, 07:08 PM
|
|
Loyal Opposition
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
|
|
I guess I define a wedge issue a little differently. It's not an issue designed to stir up one party or another's natural constituency, but to drive a wedge between people who might otherwise be attracted to a party but for one issue that drives them away. For example the gift-wrapped issue for the GOP in 2000 was gay marriage. Many who might have otherwise voted democratic opposed gay marriage and saw the democrats as more likely to support it. The Willie Horton commercial obviously meant to scare white voters and make that concern more important than pocketbook issues. A classic wedge issue is gun control. Even a moderate view on gun control laws tags a party with the idea of gun confiscation and, for some people overcomes all other issues. I remember seeing bumper sticker: "Union Member and Gun Owner." That drives a wedge between Democrats and their natural constituency.
Actually, I guess the Iraq war did turn out to be a pretty good wedge issue for the Democrats beginning in '06. Even Republicans were fed up with it by then, and the GOP was painted with it.
Sorry for rambling. Too lazy to clean this post up.
Regards,
D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:29 AM.
|