Rob's House

You're so out of your depth on this that it would be embarrassing if you even knew enough to understand what to be embarrassed about. "The Congress shall have power...To establish a uniform rule of naturalization..." - Article 1, Sec 8.

Most, if not all of the "conservative" lawyers that subscribe to this theory are either wholly ignorant on the topic, or more likely, they're simply saying what they find to be more politically advantageous. It actually takes a great stretch of the imagination, and some interesting mental gymnastics, to arrive at the conclusion that the constitution guarantees citizenship to any child born on US soil regardless of the situation. Most of these guys know this, but like you said, that position is politically toxic, and these guys are in the business of politics first. What you just described is exactly why the constitution is essentially a dead letter. Any constitution is only effective to the extent it is followed by men, which means it is only effective to the extent that the government respects it, which means it's only effective to the extent that the public holds the government accountable to it. The public, however, has accepted the Supreme Court's self-given power of Judicial Review, which has become a process by which the constitution is amended, often and materially, by a bare majority of 9 politically appointed lawyers in robes who are accountable to no one. That's not a legitimate, nor constitutionally prescribed role for the judiciary, but the public has accepted that it is. Therefore, in effect it is. That means that if the Supreme Court tomorrow declares that the constitution provides for, or even mandates an authoritarian, libertarian, or totalitarian government, then it is so. Because even if the constitution says nothing of the sort, the constitution is now just a body of case law that the public accepts as legitimate. And that case law can and does change all the time on a 5-4 vote. And that ever-evolving body of case law is the only limit on the power of congress and the power of the President. And we've all seen how willing the court is to grant new and expansive powers to both, just as it has done for itself. That's the constitution. Edit: It's worth mentioning that the issue in question isn't whether it's unconstitutional for congress to grant citizenship to anchor babies, but rather if it would be unconstitutional for Congress to deny such citizenship. So it would only reach the court if Congress actively sought to change current procedure. A responsible reading of the constitution would acknowledge that the decision is left to the discretion of Congress, but it's not a given that the Supreme Court justices would rule responsibly. Edit 2: It's also worth noting that you can support the continued practice of birthright citizenship while acknowledging that it is not a constitutional right without any concern of hypocrisy or contradiction. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The real question that never gets answered is: how do you implement this in an economically viable way? Sure, more education (assuming it's focused on teaching marketable work skills) is good and student debt is bad. These are universally accepted truisms. But how do you provide more education with less student debt that doesn't have a net cost to society that exceeds that of the current system? Because it sounds like this proposed system will exponentially increase costs and at a far greater rate than it will increase educational output, it's just that the cost will be hidden in a collective system where it's impact on the individual is just as great, but not as easily identifiable. On something of a side note, what do you think about modern American political correctness and the systematic destruction of those who step over a PC line?

Your post just made me think of you dedicating this to Hogan:

Whatever you say, Beyonce.

He states as a matter of fact that the 14th grants birthright citizenship for the children of illegals, which is incorrect. The link 3rd put in the OP actually does a pretty good job of explaining some of the legislative history that informs the issue, but aside from that the wording itself is in conflict with Krauthammer's interpretation. The relevant portion of the amendment reads "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." It's relevant that is says AND rather than OR because it shows that they are two distinct conditions, both of which must be met, before citizenship is conferred. If mere presence on US soil were sufficient to establish jurisdiction then it would be unnecessarily cumulative to include the language about jurisdiction. There is a presumption that such language is not superfluous. Plus, "jurisdiction" in this context refers to control; the kind of control a government has over its citizens and resident aliens. The government does not exercise that control over people who are undocumented and within the country illegally. It can't. Ostensibly, it doesn't even have records or knowledge of their existence. Like I said, the rest of the article is pretty sensible, but on this issue he's off the mark.

His constitutional analysis is wrong, but otherwise I think it's a pretty sensible piece.

Wrong again. The matter is within the discretion of Congress, not a constitutional mandate.

I'm sure yours would be more entertaining. Please, do share.

If someone's talking with great arrogance or condescension of their own, particularly about something they don't know much about, I'd say it might warrant a condescending response from someone in the know. When someone makes a reasonable statement that you happen to disagree with, I don't think it's warranted.

I'm pretty clear on it, thanks. I imagine the part that !@#$s you up is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." But like I said before, you're an idiot.

I agree. The constitution does not in any way confer citizenship on the child of an illegal immigrant born on US soil. A straight reading of the amendment makes that clear. You're an idiot.

It's a lot simpler than you make it out. You have a right to vote. If you want the government to pay your bills you have to voluntarily forfeit the ability to exercise that right during the time in which the government is paying your bills. No one is taking any right away from you; it's a choice.

Would have been a better nickname than 7/11, lmo.

I could see Hogan being to this team what Ricky Proehl was to the Rams ca. 2000. He was a WR3/WR4 who didn't have a particular elite skill, but was a solid well rounded player who was a big part of that team's success.

I know what nativism is; I asked what it meant to you. And I'm not offended by the use of the word xenophobic, but I see it most often used the same way "racist" and "misogynist" are used. And I didn't directly accuse you of pandering. Reread our initial exchange on the matter. I've said nothing I can't back up here - except maybe the part about being your dad.

Project much? First off, my original comment about pandering wasn't even directed at you. You're the one who chose to jump on it. I was referring to the ongoing national debate about how challenging the bogus theory that the constitution mandates granting anchor baby status will cripple the GOP with Latinos. Avoiding a relevant issue to appease a faction is absolutely pandering. The fact that you took it as being directed at you, as well as the fact that you took it so personally, is telling. Your response to that, as well as your emotional reaction to a simple question about your interpretation of "nativist" is also telling. But what's most telling is that you've opted for a pissing match on the topic. When you have a logical argument you usually go with that. Here you've not only opted first for the pissing match, you've actively avoided addressing anything substantive. That, along with your reference to "emotional depth" (and your propensity for projection) suggests you don't have a rational position, but rather an emotional one based on some emotional connection you feel with the illegals. And although I don't know if you've specifically advocated such pandering (you may have, I haven't kept close track of your every post and I don't have the time or inclination to sift through your posts), your reaction to my post, along with your deep concerns over alienating the Latino population by cracking down on illegals, and your harping on "nativism" and "xenophobia" are strong indicators that you're on the same side of this issue as those who are actively advocating such pandering.

Still can't address the topic, I see. You should show some respect. For all you know I could be your father.

Says the guy who's crying like a pu$$y over someone questioning his "nativist" rhetoric. In answer to your question, how about your recent posts about fear of alienating the Hispanic vote by challenging this anchor baby bull ****. Also, I consider tossing around the term "xenophobic" the way you do to be indistinguishable from the way the liberal PC crowd throws around "racist." And while I've not heard anyone overtly phrase their position as supporting an open border policy, it seems to be the logical conclusion of many proposals. If we're not going to secure the border and aren't going to deport illegals, then what is the practical distinction between that and open borders?

You prefer pandering to illegals? And what do you mean by "nativists"? Does that term encompass everyone who doesn't support an open border policy?

That, along with the fact that he came into the league with almost no NFL experience, indicates that we don't know what his ceiling is. Maybe he's there, maybe he'll continue to improve. But even if he never becomes a pro-bowler, he could be a very valuable WR2 or WR3.

I don't mind rough discourse at all. Quite the contrary. Unwarranted condescension just rubs me the wrong way.

I don't see how that's all that different from my assessment. A guy with good fundamentals and about average physical ability for an NFL starter - above average quickness, average to below average strength). We could squabble over the margins, but the disparity between our assessments isn't so glaring that it rises to the level of knee slapping condescension. IIRC, Badol's big on treating people on the board the way you would in person. If that's how he truly acts in person I imagine he has few friends and even fewer teeth.