According to CBC President Donald Trump says he wants to end the constitutional right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born in the United States.
The president's comments to Axios on HBO come amid a renewed push for hardline immigration policies before the midterm elections. Trump believes focusing on immigration will energize his supporters and help Republicans keep control of Congress.
"Now how ridiculous: we're the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits," Trump said in the interview scheduled to air on Nov. 4.
•Trump made them his target, but Central American migrant caravans are nothing new
•U.S. military deploying 5,200 troops to Mexico border
Trump's comments were incorrect, however.
Canada, for one, is among countries that grant citizenship by birthplace, although there has been a push here and in several other countries in recent years to modify an automatic birthright based on conditions, or to end it outright.
Britain and Australia in the 1980s modified their laws, requiring a parent to be a citizen or permanent resident in order for a newborn to qualify for citizenship, in part to prevent so-called birth tourism.
Revoking birthright citizenship in the U.S. could spark a court fight over the president's unilateral ability to change the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which guarantees that right for children born in the U.S.
The first line of the amendment states: "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."
Asked about the legality of such an executive order, Trump said "they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."
Trump says White House lawyers are reviewing his proposal. It's unclear how quickly he'd act on an executive order to fulfil the idea he first proposed on the campaign trail in 2015.
During a campaign stop in Florida, he said: "The birthright citizenship — the anchor baby — birthright citizenship, it's over, not going to happen."
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Tuesday in social media posts he would introduce legislation in the Senate "along the same lines as the proposed executive order."
Graham called the policy absurd and said it was a "magnet for illegal immigration" which is "out of the mainstream of the developed world."
'False narrative'
Trump, seeking to energize his supporters and help Republicans keep control of Congress, has stoked anxiety about a caravan of Central American migrants making its way to the U.S.-Mexico border. He is dispatching additional troops and saying he'll set up tent cities for asylum seekers.
In the final days before the Nov. 6 midterms, Trump has emphasized immigration, as he seeks to counter Democratic enthusiasm. Trump believes that his campaign pledges, including his much vaunted and still-unfulfilled promise to quickly build a U.S.-Mexico border wall, are still rallying cries for his base and that this latest focus will further erode the enthusiasm gap.
•AnalysisTrump missed his 'last, best chance' for a wall, so he's turning to the troops
•AnalysisTrump could reform immigration and make history — but he'd rather fire up his base
But some believe it will also energize turnout for those who were appalled at the administration's separation of migrant parents from children at the border, and who have pointed out that asylum seekers are a fraction of the number of applicants in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware on the Senate's foreign relations committee, said on Tuesday that Trump "was driving a false narrative on immigration" in many ways to stoke fear ahead of next week's vote.
(Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-birthright-citizenship-1.4883589)
Topic: Trump wants to end birthright citizenship (Read 1187 times)
so U.S. citizens who will give birth in a different country will not be granted jus soli, too?
I have no idea. It varies by country.This is an interesting discussion on the subject.
https://cis.org/Report/Birthright-Citizenship-Children-Foreign-Diplomats
A lack of direction from Congress has resulted in children born to foreign diplomats on U.S. soil receiving U.S. birth certificates and Social Security numbers (SSNs) — effectively becoming U.S. citizens — despite the limiting language within the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
That's clearly wrong. A foreign diplomat exempted from US law has a birth here, and the child gets US citizenship?
so U.S. citizens who will give birth in a different country will not be granted jus soli, too?
According to CBC President Donald Trump says he wants to end the constitutional right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born in the United States....
The first line of the amendment states: "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 first line of the amendment states: "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."
Bolded above is the issue.
I support Trump on that cause the are so many instances where the birthright citizenship does not have basis e.g a tourist who just visit a country and happen to give birth within the period of her stay in the U S will have the baby as a citizen of the state but in the real fact this happen just as an accident and many people are now taking advantage of this.
I see. So unless I can define American culture to your satisfaction, it
A lot of the people flooding into this country are from nations which are pro-socialist and pro-Communist. They flea the misery that these systems create, not understanding the cause, then come here and vote for entitlement programs and overburden public systems. You do this enough times and before you know it the USA is just like all those failing Communist/Socialist states.
This is just an example, as this could occur in many different ways. We can see this pattern play out on a smaller scale as people flea the more socialist policy heavy areas of the US such as California and Illinois bleeding residents to more conservative states like Texas and Tennessee. They then go there and keep voting for the same broken policies they had from where they left as they begin debasing those systems.
This is just one way I know it is happening, because America is a large place, and we deal with this issue internally between the states as well as internationally.
So you still haven't defined in any way what American culture is for you... hence I don't see how you magically know it's "breaking apart" as you say. Especially if there are already large differences inside your nation.A lot of the people flooding into this country are from nations which are pro-socialist and pro-Communist. They flea the misery that these systems create, not understanding the cause, then come here and vote for entitlement programs and overburden public systems. You do this enough times and before you know it the USA is just like all those failing Communist/Socialist states.
This is just an example, as this could occur in many different ways. We can see this pattern play out on a smaller scale as people flea the more socialist policy heavy areas of the US such as California and Illinois bleeding residents to more conservative states like Texas and Tennessee. They then go there and keep voting for the same broken policies they had from where they left as they begin debasing those systems.
This is just one way I know it is happening, because America is a large place, and we deal with this issue internally between the states as well as internationally.
So here you are, as predicted, after I have already defined in detail why culture is important and how I know it is changing, and this is you claiming it is irrelevant because I have not defined it to your satisfaction. Some how now I must meet some unspecified and ever changing metric of definition until you approve before you will acknowledge the argument.
Wonderful so now you not only force words in my mouth but also claim I mean things I haven't written about. Native means being born somewhere so the term seems pretty much adequate when discussing birthright citizenship. Stop your paranoïa for a second and maybe you will find not everyone is yelling racist at you...
I didn't speak for you. Oh yes, its just paranoia now. Claiming racism certainly is not a documented pattern of behavior of the left! Also you didn't answer my question. What do you suppose are my motivations if you believe they are not racist?
Violent rhetoric isn't advocating for violence but being violent in a discussion. If you don't understand that a discussion can be civil and another can be violent, you're either a saint always being civil in every situation or a crazy asshole always being violent in all situations.
It is physically impossible for words to be violent. You use this language in a pathetic attempt to associate words with violent savagery. The fact you find my words offensive or disturbing is no ones fault BUT YOUR OWN.
I have no power over you, you have COMPLETE CONTROL over these feelings, and whether you choose to read what I write or not. You comparing this to violence is nothing short of lying to try to manufacture the crime of upsetting your delicate sensibilities and your weak constitution.
It's not mustering a few words, it's having to take your eyes and put them in front of the numerous sentences you decided to ignore while continuing the discussion. Making it extremely difficult to try to speak to you because when you're facing something you don't like, you just ignore it and continue your own agenda.
Poor you. I don't care what your bias opinion of me is. Argue specific facts.Then here is an idea:
You are ignoring facts that you don't like. And when you're really cornered and can't do more you just stop answering and continue on the next thread.
What facts exactly am I ignoring? Please do tell me EXACTLY. use quotes if possible. ACTUAL QUOTES not your bullshit lazy half quotes. BTW just because you can shit it out, doesn't mean every little thought you have is valid or a fact.You are ignoring facts that you don't like. And when you're really cornered and can't do more you just stop answering and continue on the next thread.
Well shit, when you make a claim like that maybe you should provide some informations if the person you're discussing with doesn't know about it?
Doesn't it work like that? You say A and if I disagree with it you're supposed to provide some kind of evidence or at least logic?
Or maybe that when discussing with you, people are supposed to know what you talk about and if they don't you're the one being right without having to provide context or explanations?
It is fascinating to me that as you in the same breath accuse me of "ignoring facts" you then proceed to yourself ignore that I sourced a bill, a summary of that bill, a break down of hypothetical scenarios which could result from that bill, and even the origin of the legal precedent of presumption of innocence. I am working over time to ignore those facts aren't I? Doesn't it work like that? You say A and if I disagree with it you're supposed to provide some kind of evidence or at least logic?
Or maybe that when discussing with you, people are supposed to know what you talk about and if they don't you're the one being right without having to provide context or explanations?
Unfortunately this is the result of Socialist and Communist indoctrination, a totally disabled ability for critical thought, and anytime you have too much cognitive dissonance just make everything upside down world and all your problems melt away! Right out of Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals, accuse your opponent of what you yourself are guilty of.
Seriously? You ask "when was the last time you saw conservatives show up to a leftist event?" and I answer "I've seen them here but I don't know about all situations" and your answer is "yes you don't know shit"?
If you don't see a problem here I can't do anything for you.
I've stopped here. There is nothing to do about you if you don't see where the problem is.
If you don't see a problem here I can't do anything for you.
I've stopped here. There is nothing to do about you if you don't see where the problem is.
Yeah, I mean its not like you have access to Youtube where you could view footage of American demonstrations, protests, and rallies now is it? My answer is you don't know shit, because on this subject, you don't know shit. You have no problem acting like you do though.
I would really want to discuss with you. But it seems like it's not possible. Here is exactly what has happened:
Techshare
m0gliE
Techshare
Which can be translated by:
Techshare
m0gliE
Techshare
How is it possible to discuss with you in those conditions?
Techshare
Quote
Mobbing, threats, coordinated de-platforming, and attacking ones ability to earn a living are the favored tactics of the left.
m0gliE
Quote
Don't know what you're talking about... Don't know a single person in the situation you're describing.
Techshare
Quote
Well shit, since you don't know anyone it must not be the case. Case closed everyone!
Which can be translated by:
Techshare
Quote
Makes a claim
m0gliE
Quote
I never have read or heard anything that support your claim
Techshare
Quote
Mocking m0gliE and not giving anything to support the claim
How is it possible to discuss with you in those conditions?
What you just did there is called using "anecdotal evidence". In short that means your personal experience is not statistically relevant. Just because you haven't seen it, or taken the time to learn about it doesn't mean it is not a fact. Just because you pretend I didn't support, explain, or source my argument doesn't magically make it true either. The post history shows otherwise. Why don't you try refuting those arguments instead of just claiming I didn't make or support them.
P.S. Stop using lazy quotes so I don't have to fix your lazy bullshit every time you post to respond in a manner that is readable.
Its not about being native, it is about culture and integration.
Oh so we're not discussing birthright citizenship then? 
We are, and this is not an argument.
Native: A person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/native
If you let people in too fast the fabric of what makes the USA the USA breaks down and becomes absorbed by the new culture.
Doesn't mean anything, can you define what makes the USA the USA? Can you define USA culture? If not, how can you see that "the fabric of what makes the USA the USA is breaking down"?I see. So unless I can define American culture to your satisfaction, it doesn't exist?
That is not ok, and the constant attempt to cast this as a racial issue is just a very useful distraction from this fact.
What? The question of race or racism wasn't even mentionned in all my posts, what are you talking about? Oo"Native" has distinct racial connotations, and a common tactic of people advocating for open borders is to insinuate or outright accuse those they disagree with as racist. What do you attribute my motives to?
Violent rhetoric and your heavy abilities to ignore facts you don't like and answering only to a small part of arguments make it easy for you to chase away any different idea from what you believe is right. You're not silencing anyone, you're simply exhausting anyone different from you, making them leave the place of discussion you occupy because you're not here to discuss.
Imagine you're in a bus, and while everyone talks politely there is someone who suddenly starts yelling at everyone, without touching them, yelling that they're not understanding shit that they're stupid that they have no logic while not listening to the person or answering any of there argument. That will make everyone leave the bus to take another one. That's what you're doing, you're making extremely exhausting for anyone to try to talk where you are because you're here to dominate the ground, not to discuss.
Imagine you're in a bus, and while everyone talks politely there is someone who suddenly starts yelling at everyone, without touching them, yelling that they're not understanding shit that they're stupid that they have no logic while not listening to the person or answering any of there argument. That will make everyone leave the bus to take another one. That's what you're doing, you're making extremely exhausting for anyone to try to talk where you are because you're here to dominate the ground, not to discuss.
"Violent rhetoric" WTF does that even mean? Advocating for violence? When have I advocated for violence? Words are not violence.
Mobbing, threats, coordinated de-platforming, and attacking ones ability to earn a living are the favored tactics of the left.
Don't know what you're talking about... Don't know a single person in the situation you're describing.Well shit, since you don't know anyone it must not be the case. Case closed everyone!
Doesn't it work like that? You say A and if I disagree with it you're supposed to provide some kind of evidence or at least logic?
Or maybe that when discussing with you, people are supposed to know what you talk about and if they don't you're the one being right without having to provide context or explanations?
When was the last time you saw conservatives show up to a leftist event? Why is it that leftists are at nearly every conservative event? It is because the left can not tolerate dissent and attempts to silence it at every turn, by any means necessary.
Every France Insoumise meeting or demonstration of the past 2 years in France... But in USA I don't know of course.Yes. You do not know. That does not stop you from claiming authority on subjects you are only casually familiar with now does it?
If you don't see a problem here I can't do anything for you.
I've stopped here. There is nothing to do about you if you don't see where the problem is.
I would really want to discuss with you. But it seems like it's not possible. Here is exactly what has happened:
Techshare
Quote
Mobbing, threats, coordinated de-platforming, and attacking ones ability to earn a living are the favored tactics of the left.
m0gliE
Quote
Don't know what you're talking about... Don't know a single person in the situation you're describing.
Techshare
Quote
Well shit, since you don't know anyone it must not be the case. Case closed everyone!
Which can be translated by:
Techshare
Quote
Makes a claim
m0gliE
Quote
I never have read or heard anything that support your claim
Techshare
Quote
Mocking m0gliE and not giving anything to support the claim
How is it possible to discuss with you in those conditions?
Its not about being native, it is about culture and integration.
Oh so we're not discussing birthright citizenship then? We are, and this is not an argument.
If you let people in too fast the fabric of what makes the USA the USA breaks down and becomes absorbed by the new culture.
Doesn't mean anything, can you define what makes the USA the USA? Can you define USA culture? If not, how can you see that "the fabric of what makes the USA the USA is breaking down"?I see. So unless I can define American culture to your satisfaction, it doesn't exist?
DEFINITION OF CULTURE
This is the definition of culture. All those things effect the functioning of societies. You claiming these qualities are irrelevant is just asinine.
A lot of the people flooding into this country are from nations which are pro-socialist and pro-Communist. They flea the misery that these systems create, not understanding the cause, then come here and vote for entitlement programs and overburden public systems. You do this enough times and before you know it the USA is just like all those failing Communist/Socialist states.
This is just an example, as this could occur in many different ways. We can see this pattern play out on a smaller scale as people flea the more socialist policy heavy areas of the US such as California and Illinois bleeding residents to more conservative states like Texas and Tennessee. They then go there and keep voting for the same broken policies they had from where they left as they begin debasing those systems.
This is just one way I know it is happening, because America is a large place, and we deal with this issue internally between the states as well as internationally.
That is not ok, and the constant attempt to cast this as a racial issue is just a very useful distraction from this fact.
What? The question of race or racism wasn't even mentionned in all my posts, what are you talking about? Oo"Native" has distinct racial connotations, and a common tactic of people advocating for open borders is to insinuate or outright accuse those they disagree with as racist. What do you attribute my motives to?
Please explain how "rethoric" gets rid of some one else's ideas and speech. The left are the ones focused on telling everyone what they are and are not allowed to say. Some one else disagreeing with you is not equivalent to them silencing you.
Violent rhetoric and your heavy abilities to ignore facts you don't like and answering only to a small part of arguments make it easy for you to chase away any different idea from what you believe is right. You're not silencing anyone, you're simply exhausting anyone different from you, making them leave the place of discussion you occupy because you're not here to discuss.Imagine you're in a bus, and while everyone talks politely there is someone who suddenly starts yelling at everyone, without touching them, yelling that they're not understanding shit that they're stupid that they have no logic while not listening to the person or answering any of there argument. That will make everyone leave the bus to take another one. That's what you're doing, you're making extremely exhausting for anyone to try to talk where you are because you're here to dominate the ground, not to discuss.
"Violent rhetoric" WTF does that even mean? Advocating for violence? When have I advocated for violence? Words are not violence.
Ignoring what facts? Just claiming I am ignoring facts is not an argument. When I answer as one longer reply you cry that I "don't address everything", even though I do, but then when I reply to you, as you reply to me, breaking everything down point by point you complain about "small packets".
You claiming I am not here to discuss does not magically make it a fact. What you experience could also be described as you running out of arguments to defend your position and giving up on defending it. Your ideas must not be very important if you can't muster a few words for its defense.
I am not preventing you from speaking. If you don't like me "dominating the ground" then perhaps you should present some ideas worth a damn. You never know I might even agree with you.
Mobbing, threats, coordinated de-platforming, and attacking ones ability to earn a living are the favored tactics of the left.
Don't know what you're talking about... Don't know a single person in the situation you're describing.Well shit, since you don't know anyone it must not be the case. Case closed everyone!
When was the last time you saw conservatives show up to a leftist event? Why is it that leftists are at nearly every conservative event? It is because the left can not tolerate dissent and attempts to silence it at every turn, by any means necessary.
Every France Insoumise meeting or demonstration of the past 2 years in France... But in USA I don't know of course.Yes. You do not know. That does not stop you from claiming authority on subjects you are only casually familiar with now does it?
10 years ago the left was actually closer to being the true definition of "liberal", in a dictionary sense. That is what the left used to mean, but the Overton Window has shifted SO FAR to the left, even left moderates are now being categorized as being on the right. This was always a Communist/Socialist ideal. It was not always a liberal ideal.
False and it's easy to prove. Simply take a look of the left political programs 20 years ago and the ones now, current political programs are SO MUCH MORE right sided. They're much more pacific and tolerant towards economic inequalities and wealth distribution. At least again in France. Current "extreme left" program is the program of the "normal left" 20/30 years ago. They seem extreme in our society because we only had right-wing politics for the last 40 years so we're more used to this politic now. Raising minimum wage seems like a communist action while it was just a normal thing to ask for 30 years ago.Again, we are talking about the US, so I don't know why you keep bringing up France. However I suspect if it is anything like it is happening here, what you are experiencing is a result of primarily 2 things. The leftist programs are failing, and negative results are stacking up, conservatives and nationalists all over the world, some times referred to as "the silent majority" are suddenly starting to call out the failure of the left in unison.
They were always there, they were just giving the left a fair shot to try these new programs, and they failed horribly. Now as the adults come to take control of the situation and get everything functional again, the media simultaneously pushes a narrative of a sudden right wing supremacist nazi explosion out of nowhere world wide. Seriously nazis are everywhere. Since these are right wing nazi usurpers, it is therefor acceptable to ignore, deplatform, and dehumanize them.
You are a victim of your television. Get rid of it.
Is that so? Is that why they are trying to make it illegal to criticize immigration now in some European countries, because they are so done with it?
Don't know which country you're talking about... You're starting to sound similar to our French "extreme right" political party who are the most interviewed and the most on TV of all the French parties and are always saying that "the media are silencing us" xDHAHAH yeah criminalizing speech is hilarious isn't it?
THE TOPIC US "TRUMP WANTS TO END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP" not m0gliE tells us about how it is in France.
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/criticism-of-immigration-will-be-banned-in-europe/
Free speech is only a RIGHT in the USA. This is not some conspiracy theory, people go to prison in Europe for saying the wrong things and having the wrong opinions.
We all know he is not talking about The Schengen Agreement, so lets not pretend this isn't about the 3rd world flooding in.
Similar, immegration laws are more and more harsh the years passing by. More and more countries are starting to put closed borders, redirecting immigrants, expulsing the ones already on the national ground... 30 years ago it was hard to arrive in a country but once the ground you were never deported, never ever.https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/le-nombre-d-expulsions-en-hausse-de-14-en-france_1974518.html
Deportation are increasing every year so I don't see what you're talking about...
The laws are getting more harsh in reaction to these reckless policies of open borders. Again you keep bringing up France. Perhaps you should start a thread about European immigration policy?
As far as proof the "left is pushing for open borders", why it it that I always see Communists groups and ANTIFA at these immigration protests?
You do realize that you're not reasonning logically right?"left is pushing for open borders" -> means left political parties and their supporters want to open border
"I always see Communists groups and ANTIFA at these immigration protests" -> the only ones pushing for open borders are at the left
It was always the case and will always be the case. You can't see nationalists and fascists pushing for open borders the only ones you'll see will always be Communists and antifa xD
What the fuck are you even trying to argue here? I literally can't even tell what your premise is, other than accusing me of being illogical without support.
Letting the 3rd world flood in fits perfectly with Communist ideology considering the entire goal of Communism is to destroy nations to make way for more Communism in the resulting chaos.
LolLetting millions of impoverished people flood into a nation is a good way to do that. Then you have plenty of poor people to vote for your entitlement programs that get paid for by magic some how or something.
Lol againYes, your ignorance is hilarious.
Is that so? Is that why they are trying to make it illegal to criticize immigration now in some European countries, because they are so done with it?
Don't know which country you're talking about... You're starting to sound similar to our French "extreme right" political party who are the most interviewed and the most on TV of all the French parties and are always saying that "the media are silencing us" xDQuote
We all know he is not talking about The Schengen Agreement, so lets not pretend this isn't about the 3rd world flooding in.
Similar, immegration laws are more and more harsh the years passing by. More and more countries are starting to put closed borders, redirecting immigrants, expulsing the ones already on the national ground... 30 years ago it was hard to arrive in a country but once the ground you were never deported, never ever.https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/le-nombre-d-expulsions-en-hausse-de-14-en-france_1974518.html
Deportation are increasing every year so I don't see what you're talking about...
Quote
As far as proof the "left is pushing for open borders", why it it that I always see Communists groups and ANTIFA at these immigration protests?
"left is pushing for open borders" -> means left political parties and their supporters want to open border
"I always see Communists groups and ANTIFA at these immigration protests" -> the only ones pushing for open borders are at the left
It was always the case and will always be the case. You can't see nationalists and fascists pushing for open borders the only ones you'll see will always be Communists and antifa xD
Quote
Letting the 3rd world flood in fits perfectly with Communist ideology considering the entire goal of Communism is to destroy nations to make way for more Communism in the resulting chaos.
LolQuote
Letting millions of impoverished people flood into a nation is a good way to do that. Then you have plenty of poor people to vote for your entitlement programs that get paid for by magic some how or something.
Lol again Natives first? What did you just get done watching "Gangs of New York" and get yourself all riled up and get yer shillelagh ready?
Natives first is litteraly the patrioc claim of far right in France. Don't know what's the equivalent for USA though.Quote
Its not about being native, it is about culture and integration.
Oh so we're not discussing birthright citizenship then? Quote
If you let people in too fast the fabric of what makes the USA the USA breaks down and becomes absorbed by the new culture.
Doesn't mean anything, can you define what makes the USA the USA? Can you define USA culture? If not, how can you see that "the fabric of what makes the USA the USA is breaking down"?Quote
That is not ok, and the constant attempt to cast this as a racial issue is just a very useful distraction from this fact.
What? The question of race or racism wasn't even mentionned in all my posts, what are you talking about? OoQuote
Please explain how "rethoric" gets rid of some one else's ideas and speech. The left are the ones focused on telling everyone what they are and are not allowed to say. Some one else disagreeing with you is not equivalent to them silencing you.
Violent rhetoric and your heavy abilities to ignore facts you don't like and answering only to a small part of arguments make it easy for you to chase away any different idea from what you believe is right. You're not silencing anyone, you're simply exhausting anyone different from you, making them leave the place of discussion you occupy because you're not here to discuss.Imagine you're in a bus, and while everyone talks politely there is someone who suddenly starts yelling at everyone, without touching them, yelling that they're not understanding shit that they're stupid that they have no logic while not listening to the person or answering any of there argument. That will make everyone leave the bus to take another one. That's what you're doing, you're making extremely exhausting for anyone to try to talk where you are because you're here to dominate the ground, not to discuss.
Quote
Mobbing, threats, coordinated de-platforming, and attacking ones ability to earn a living are the favored tactics of the left.
Quote
When was the last time you saw conservatives show up to a leftist event? Why is it that leftists are at nearly every conservative event? It is because the left can not tolerate dissent and attempts to silence it at every turn, by any means necessary.
Every France Insoumise meeting or demonstration of the past 2 years in France... But in USA I don't know of course.Quote
10 years ago the left was actually closer to being the true definition of "liberal", in a dictionary sense. That is what the left used to mean, but the Overton Window has shifted SO FAR to the left, even left moderates are now being categorized as being on the right. This was always a Communist/Socialist ideal. It was not always a liberal ideal.
False and it's easy to prove. Simply take a look of the left political programs 20 years ago and the ones now, current political programs are SO MUCH MORE right sided. They're much more pacific and tolerant towards economic inequalities and wealth distribution. At least again in France. Current "extreme left" program is the program of the "normal left" 20/30 years ago. They seem extreme in our society because we only had right-wing politics for the last 40 years so we're more used to this politic now. Raising minimum wage seems like a communist action while it was just a normal thing to ask for 30 years ago. Actually, this current push toward "open borders" wasn't part of (yes, what I call) the "left" even ten years ago, was it?
Don't even know what you're talking about... There is no push toward "open borders" rather the contrary. More and more people both from left and right ask for closed borders, especially in free moving areas like EU. I don't know all programs of all political parties of all countries but in mine the left is heavily against current state of the EU and ask either for a huge change or a Frexit.Quote
It's recent and there are specific reasons why. Ten years ago, it was part of a group of concepts being pushed pretty much only by one Soros funded organization.
Quote
And why exactly do you think today you have to believe in that idea? I didn't use the phrase "goose stepping" without some reasons, you see.
Irrelevant as you absolutely never proved in any way that "the left is pushing for open borders".Is that so? Is that why they are trying to make it illegal to criticize immigration now in some European countries, because they are so done with it? We all know he is not talking about The Schengen Agreement, so lets not pretend this isn't about the 3rd world flooding in.
As far as proof the "left is pushing for open borders", why is it that I always see Communists groups and ANTIFA at these immigration protests? Letting the 3rd world flood in fits perfectly with Communist ideology considering the entire goal of Communism is to destroy nations to make way for more Communism in the resulting chaos. Letting millions of impoverished people flood into a nation is a good way to do that. Then you have plenty of poor people to vote for your entitlement programs that get paid for by magic some how or something.
Actually, this current push toward "open borders" wasn't part of (yes, what I call) the "left" even ten years ago, was it?
Don't even know what you're talking about... There is no push toward "open borders" rather the contrary. More and more people both from left and right ask for closed borders, especially in free moving areas like EU. I don't know all programs of all political parties of all countries but in mine the left is heavily against current state of the EU and ask either for a huge change or a Frexit.Quote
It's recent and there are specific reasons why. Ten years ago, it was part of a group of concepts being pushed pretty much only by one Soros funded organization.
Quote
And why exactly do you think today you have to believe in that idea? I didn't use the phrase "goose stepping" without some reasons, you see.
Irrelevant as you absolutely never proved in any way that "the left is pushing for open borders". In my sarcastic stupid imitation of the average Left poster I can answer your question.
Because, shut up!
And this is really an answer worth pondering, because it shows the repression of free ideas and speech that is necessary to the cultish Left. All they need to go total Fascist is a leader in the open with a face to attach the ideas to, but instead they are guided by shadows in the back rooms.
Forward, goose steppers !
Because, shut up!
And this is really an answer worth pondering, because it shows the repression of free ideas and speech that is necessary to the cultish Left. All they need to go total Fascist is a leader in the open with a face to attach the ideas to, but instead they are guided by shadows in the back rooms.
Forward, goose steppers !
Corrected that for you.
Normal left poster would have answered: one fight being important doesn't mean you have to only chose this one. I know it seems incredible to the like of you who regularly explain that it must be "natives first" but you can ACTUALLY solve more than one problem at once.
Yeah I know, it's incredible. Multitasking at its best.
PS. Funny how you try to put "left" as the "we don't accept any other idea than ours being voiced about" when you and your kinds are the first one to use rethoric to get rid of ideas not following your dogma.
Natives first? What did you just get done watching "Gangs of New York" and get yourself all riled up and get yer shillelagh ready? Its not about being native, it is about culture and integration. If you let people in too fast the fabric of what makes the USA the USA breaks down and becomes absorbed by the new culture. That is not ok, and the constant attempt to cast this as a racial issue is just a very useful distraction from this fact.
Please explain how "rethoric" gets rid of some one else's ideas and speech. The left are the ones focused on telling everyone what they are and are not allowed to say. Some one else disagreeing with you is not equivalent to them silencing you.
Mobbing, threats, coordinated de-platforming, and attacking ones ability to earn a living are the favored tactics of the left. When was the last time you saw conservatives show up to a leftist event? Why is it that leftists are at nearly every conservative event? It is because the left can not tolerate dissent and attempts to silence it at every turn, by any means necessary.
....
Normal left poster would have answered: one fight being important doesn't mean you have to only chose this one. I know it seems incredible to the like of you who regularly explain that it must be "natives first" but you can ACTUALLY solve more than one problem at once.
Yeah I know, it's incredible. Multitasking at its best.
PS. Funny how you try to put "left" as the "we don't accept any other idea than ours being voiced about" when you and your kinds are the first one to use rethoric to get rid of ideas not following your dogma.
Actually, this current push toward "open borders" wasn't part of (yes, what I call) the "left" even ten years ago, was it?Normal left poster would have answered: one fight being important doesn't mean you have to only chose this one. I know it seems incredible to the like of you who regularly explain that it must be "natives first" but you can ACTUALLY solve more than one problem at once.
Yeah I know, it's incredible. Multitasking at its best.
PS. Funny how you try to put "left" as the "we don't accept any other idea than ours being voiced about" when you and your kinds are the first one to use rethoric to get rid of ideas not following your dogma.
It's recent and there are specific reasons why. Ten years ago, it was part of a group of concepts being pushed pretty much only by one Soros funded organization.
And why exactly do you think today you have to believe in that idea? I didn't use the phrase "goose stepping" without some reasons, you see.
10 years ago the left was actually closer to being the true definition of "liberal", in a dictionary sense. That is what the left used to mean, but the Overton Window has shifted SO FAR to the left, even left moderates are now being categorized as being on the right. This was always a Communist/Socialist ideal. It was not always a liberal ideal.
....
Normal left poster would have answered: one fight being important doesn't mean you have to only chose this one. I know it seems incredible to the like of you who regularly explain that it must be "natives first" but you can ACTUALLY solve more than one problem at once.
Yeah I know, it's incredible. Multitasking at its best.
PS. Funny how you try to put "left" as the "we don't accept any other idea than ours being voiced about" when you and your kinds are the first one to use rethoric to get rid of ideas not following your dogma.
Actually, this current push toward "open borders" wasn't part of (yes, what I call) the "left" even ten years ago, was it?Normal left poster would have answered: one fight being important doesn't mean you have to only chose this one. I know it seems incredible to the like of you who regularly explain that it must be "natives first" but you can ACTUALLY solve more than one problem at once.
Yeah I know, it's incredible. Multitasking at its best.
PS. Funny how you try to put "left" as the "we don't accept any other idea than ours being voiced about" when you and your kinds are the first one to use rethoric to get rid of ideas not following your dogma.
It's recent and there are specific reasons why. Ten years ago, it was part of a group of concepts being pushed pretty much only by one Soros funded organization.
And why exactly do you think today you have to believe in that idea? I didn't use the phrase "goose stepping" without some reasons, you see.
In my sarcastic stupid imitation of the average Left poster I can answer your question.
Because, shut up!
And this is really an answer worth pondering, because it shows the repression of free ideas and speech that is necessary to the cultish Left. All they need to go total Fascist is a leader in the open with a face to attach the ideas to, but instead they are guided by shadows in the back rooms.
Forward, goose steppers !
Because, shut up!
And this is really an answer worth pondering, because it shows the repression of free ideas and speech that is necessary to the cultish Left. All they need to go total Fascist is a leader in the open with a face to attach the ideas to, but instead they are guided by shadows in the back rooms.
Forward, goose steppers !
Corrected that for you.
Normal left poster would have answered: one fight being important doesn't mean you have to only chose this one. I know it seems incredible to the like of you who regularly explain that it must be "natives first" but you can ACTUALLY solve more than one problem at once.
Yeah I know, it's incredible. Multitasking at its best.
PS. Funny how you try to put "left" as the "we don't accept any other idea than ours being voiced about" when you and your kinds are the first one to use rethoric to get rid of ideas not following your dogma.
The Terrible Truth About Birthright Citizenship - Stefan Molyneux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZyqQn2Uoo8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZyqQn2Uoo8
Heres a Summary of the video:
There is no constitutional right to birthright citizenship for newborns of aliens, immigrants etc.
My thoughts...Trump is just fear-mongering for support, I do feel for the immigrants though most are simply seeking a brighter future.
What about everyone else already here seeking a brighter future, including immigrants?
Because, shut up!
And this is really an answer worth pondering, because it shows the repression of free ideas and speech that is necessary to the cultish Left. All they need to go total Fascist is a leader in the open with a face to attach the ideas to, but instead they are guided by shadows in the back rooms.
Forward, goose steppers !
Hm.
The meaning was not as it is being interpreted as of right now. This is being abused for the 'anchor babies' as Jeb Bush once said!
Quote from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/10/30/can-trump-end-birthright-citizenship/#76c466c61c44
The 14th Amendment, Section 1 begins:
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…
Sen. Jacob Howard was the author of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. On the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1866, Sen. Howard clarified the meaning of the Citizenship Clause:
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
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…
Sen. Jacob Howard was the author of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. On the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1866, Sen. Howard clarified the meaning of the Citizenship Clause:
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
The meaning was not as it is being interpreted as of right now. This is being abused for the 'anchor babies' as Jeb Bush once said!
So what should happen to a baby born in the US to an American citizen father and a non American citizen mother?
It will make the child half American, and this speaking based on experience. A cousin who lives in another country went to the United States with his wife because my cousin was assigned by his company in the country they reside in to transfer to America. They had their first child a year later, and another two years after. Their kids became American citizens automatically because they were born in the US, they, however are not and did not become citizens.
My sister, on the other hand, married an American and they have been together for 8 years. She came to the US one year after they got married and they have been living there for since then. She's still not an American citizen, but they had a baby so that makes the baby half American.
But I wonder, if this became official, will it affect those who have already been granted citizenship, just because they have parents who are not Americans even though they were born and raised in the US?
The Terrible Truth About Birthright Citizenship - Stefan Molyneux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZyqQn2Uoo8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZyqQn2Uoo8
Heres a Summary of the video:
There is no constitutional right to birthright citizenship for newborns of aliens, immigrants etc.
My thoughts...Trump is just fear-mongering for support, I do feel for the immigrants though most are simply seeking a brighter future.
What about everyone else already here seeking a brighter future, including immigrants?
The Terrible Truth About Birthright Citizenship - Stefan Molyneux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZyqQn2Uoo8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZyqQn2Uoo8
Heres a Summary of the video:
There is no constitutional right to birthright citizenship for newborns of aliens, immigrants etc.
My thoughts...Trump is just fear-mongering for support, I do feel for the immigrants though most are simply seeking a brighter future.
The Terrible Truth About Birthright Citizenship - Stefan Molyneux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZyqQn2Uoo8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZyqQn2Uoo8