my wife was born in german hospital to american parents. does that make her german? this has all the intelligence of saying that a duck hatched in a chicken coop is a rooster (derp) the amendment would not affect anyone who had one american parent, regardless of where they were born. does not affect legally adopted children to american parents, in fact the only people affected by this would be illegal immigrants who get to american soil to have their children. and i would guess that the founding fathers, had they been stupid enough to include entitlement programs into the constitution, would have shot dead anybody attempting to claim them who did not have american parents. it is absurd to me the sense of entitlement that humans have. the very notion that any government would ever need to take care of me in anyway is offensive. i can't understand how this doesn't piss more people off. all of it, every single entitlement program out there is a big FUCK YOU to the notion of self reliance and self determination. I can honestly say that i would rather move my family into a cardboard box than take a handout from anyone...public or private. and the truly unfortunate part of the whole thing is: I have to fucking pay for it even though i will never use it!
Is Germany America, the America that prides itself on tolerance and opporunity? Get that lame shit out of here. Save the race card for somebody who thinks everyone who disagrees with him on immigration or Obama's birth certificate is racist. The all-wise founding fathers, the most brilliant minds of their time, established lawyers chasing ideals of legitimate freedom and equality, the people responsible for structuring an entire nation, whom so many patriots love to quote for their ageless wisdom, didn't consider overpopulation? Lame, empty, partisan, disingenuous blather.
Hmmm i dont think you adressed his german hospital arguement properly. I think your anger has clouted your vision on the subject.
Ya they probably did consider overpopulation, I dunno. Do you know what would happen if two foreigners came to the US and had a baby back then?
I have. Germany isn't the fucking United States. My anger arises out if the frustration of hearing how we can't change anything substantial because we'll be fucking socialists but we can make an effort to go against a fundamental idea of opportunity that this country was founded on.
I dont think our founding fathers would have wanted people to come here, try to pop out a kid, then live off the government the rest of their lives. Lets agree its debatable?
Other countries have quite complex citizenship laws (just footnoting) Expat baby limbo more: The baby born one day too soon for a British passport - Times Online BBC NEWS | UK | England | Leicestershire | Battle over baby's citizenship
no you didn't. look insert any country in that slot and the logic is the same funny, i thought that this country was founded on the fundamental idea of freedom???? look i don't give a fuck how many immigrants come here to lay their babies....as long as i don't have to fucking pay for it. i hate the fact that we have to pay for americans to sit on their asses and pump out crying mouths to feed, but if we are going to do that shit we have to have strict immigration laws. it can't be both. the socialist countries that most people reference in respect to this issue have some of the strictest immigration policies there are. want a good read? check out new zealand's, they will deny immigration to citizens of the commonwealth for being too fat (state funded medicine you see). i would be fine with laws that prevented immigrants and first generation americans from enrolling in entitlement programs. make them pay for it and never use it...see how they like that shit. (i can hear the hearts bleeding already). ideally we would have zero entitlement and social programs and open immigration, until then we have to choose. it can't be both.
Now you're just playing a game of petty semantics. It doesn't matter who actually puts pen to paper. He supports changing the Constitution to better support his political ends. The parts that already support his political ends are sacred. Better? Who is ignoring the Constitution in regards to immigration? Everyone interprets the Constitution to mean what they think it should mean. Everyone claims that interpetations that counter their political viewpoint is "ignoring" it. Rand Paul is not ignoring it. He's outright rejecting it. Just as a Democrat might outright reject the 2nd Amendment. Paulites would tell those people that it makes them un-American. But there a million things that could be done, many on a state level, to rectify perceived problems with the current immigration paradigm WITHOUT amending the Constitution to take away rights specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Once you start Amending the Constitution to take rights away from a Constitutionally legitimized group of Citizens, where does it end? If 2/3 of the States agreed to take away gun rights, would that be right? If 2/3 of the States agreed to take away voting rights to non-land-owners or minorities or women, would that be right? I reject that argument. Millions of immigrants come here and do not give birth. And some people who come here and give birth only do so because our hospitals are way better than hospitals in their home country. The people that fall into that third category of people who just come here to give birth just so they can get on entitlement programs is a negligibly small percentage. Far too small to legitimize taking birthrights away from the innocent infants. [/quote] We are in complete agreement there. This is what really bothers me about this and Rand: "Citizenship is a privilege, and only those who respect our immigration laws should be allowed to enjoy its benefits," That's a direct quote from Rand. A. That requires Rand to be "IGNORING" the 14th Amendment. Unless his plan for this Amendment also includes repeal/amendment of the current 14th amendment. So there goes that argument about others ignore the Constitution but Rand is above that because he isn't ignoring it, he wants to change it. And what's next. "Citizenship is a privilege, and only those who respect our [drug? / decency? / sodomy? / traffic?] laws should be allowed to enjoy its benefits," It would set an UGLY precedent to amend the Constitution to take rights away. Sure, 90% of Paul's voters would be OK with that... Until the next NeoCon proposes amending the Constitution to take their gun rights away. I used to respect the Pauls. But in order to win McConnell's support in his election, Rand made a deal with the devil. He bargained with Mitch and he will forever be Mitch's bitch for it. Co-signed with Vitter? Could he have given any bigger of a knod to the NeoCons?
Jesus christ ... The STATE of Arizona passed its own legislation to hel themselves control immigration .... And the libtards complained that its the job of the federal government. Not to mention everyone who supported it was racist. Now that someone is trying to fix things federally ... you guys call it racist AGAIN and are complaining that they are trying to change the constitution. As if all the other measure you support don't fly in the face of the constitution. You guys give a fuck about the constitution now??? Im all for open borders... and NO government. SO don't start calling me a racist republican. Maybe you guys would look less like idiots if the word racist did not come into play every time someone mentioned immigration. " all they really care about is getting rid of the brown man." You guys have been waiting for SO LONG to find something against Rand Paul just because he is the republican's golden child these days. Now you guys are foaming at the mouth with excitement. There is no use even trying to add something useful here. Ya ... until its something YOUR irrationally afraid of ... then its ... get this one ... Progress LMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAO
Wow. Lot's of name calling in there. I hesitate to respond to it because I don't know that it was aimed at me, but if you are implying that I was against the Arizona law on based on Constitutional grounds, then you are in error and the rest of your moronic rant is void. And I guess since we are lumping everyone who disagree with Rand Paul into Libtard and Idiot categories, I guess it's OK if I lump you into the stupid, racist, redneck category... I know that the people who voted for Rand Paul are racist because I live amongst them. I've heard them articulate their problems with immigration and their support for Rand Paul in their own words. They are indeed racists. Does that make every Rand Paul supporter a racist? No. But the people that actually showed up to vote for him are very racist. They will support this bill because "Why should [they] pay taxes to support those deadbeat, lazy, job stealing, dirty Mexicans." They are much more OK with paying taxes to support lazy deadbeat white people. And they supported the Arizona law for the same reason. It doesn't apply to THEM, only to brown people. If you are all for open borders and no government, then why do YOU have so much love for the Arizona law? I mean, it's about as closed border as you can get. And it completely expands the power of Government. They can ask YOU for proof of citizenship without a warrant or a court action and arrest YOU if you don't present the right paperwork. Yeah, that's a step closer to No Government. And YOU aren't against it because it doesn't apply to you. You know that nobody will ever ask you for papers or detain YOU because of the color of your skin. So you support laws that harass other and subject them to penalties that you yourself would not put up with because you know that the color of your skin will make you exempt. Surprise! You're a racist!
I was not specifically talking about you .. however i was talking about everyone whom all the sudden is concerned with the consitution .. when everything else they support shits all over it. If thats you ... then rejoice in your libtardness Call me what you want, does not change that i think your points of view on this are garbage I don't love the arizona law ... i don't love government, and i don't love borders ... if you could get over feeling like you might be qualified under what i was calling a "libtard" you might have read the part where i said that .... And the arizona law applied to all illegal aliens. But it effects mexicans more because there are MORE mexican illegal immigrants coming in there than any other immigrant. If you were going to say the law is racist because the the statistics of the people who were going to be affected ... then it would ALSO be racist to not allow states on these borders to regulate their immirgration ... since mexicans would have it much easier to get in then anyone else. My stepdad is from germany ... he also had trouble traveling through arizona once upon a time. You do realize that as a legal alien you are required by law to carry your proof of citizenship anyway right? They can ask you anyway. They law more or less made it unquestionable, since im sure they knew everyone would call it racist. Great assumption !!! Surprise ! Your wrong ! Well, probably not all that surprising. God it feels good when people are completely incapable of understanding the point! /sarcasm
I don't understand this sentiment. So long as there are strict immigration laws then there will be "illegal immigrants" who do not pay taxes for fear of deportation. Even if they were in the lowest tax bracket (unfortunately likely) their employers would still have to pay payroll tax on their behalf (as part of the business payroll tax, not the income tax), and they would have to pay social security and medicare taxes (you don't get out of those for low income). So long as the immigrants are kept "illegal" then social security and medicare don't get money that they could use, and employers get to skirt payroll taxes. In other words, we are creating the funding problem by creating illegal immigrants - if you want them to pay for themselves, start handing out social security numbers.