@HTM , now @fchowd0311 is straightened out on homos, you can answer his question wrt Haitians and their proclivity for eating pets, and thus making the US a **** hole country and poisoning the blood of our country.
So we had this policy for how many decades now? This is what we call a "case study". We have a "case study" of decades of this policy in tact. So I will appreciate some legwork on your part to show how my type of citizenship harmed this country to a point where we need to reverse this policy? Show your work.
I actually don't. Its abusive and detracts from the quality of the conversation. But I'm actually not trying to tell people what they can or cannot discuss here. I was telling you that your particular theme was dreamcasting.
Does it really take a study to prove this point? If we were to implement free college education and universal basic income (UBI), it’s logical to assume that people worldwide would want to move here. With free money for life, one could live comfortably in a third-world country without the need to work. If we aim to improve the quality of citizenship and sustain these benefits, we must establish limits on how citizenship is obtained. Birthright citizenship, while well-intentioned, is too easily abused and becomes impractical in the long run when paired with expanded benefits. Thoughtful reforms are necessary to ensure such systems remain equitable and sustainable.
The USA does have control over who is eligible for citizenship. That is what the Fourteenth Amendment is - and 150 years of case law. Of course. People will do what is best for themselves and their loved ones - especially ambitious people that want a better life. There already is a level of control over who qualifies for citizenship - again - the Fourteenth Amendment. It sounds like you do not like the current level of control and want to change that. I support your right to consider changing it, and that can be accomplished by following the Constitution and passing a Constitutional Amendment.
Yes absolutely it does. If a claim is so self evident you believe its basic common sense, that means it would be even easier to do the leg work to show the need to reverse birthright citizenship. Right now you are working with presuppositions and assuming they are correct at face value... why? Because you were probably told these assumptions since birth and now you believe this concept that this country is having a issue with anchor babies is a actual issue harming Americans. If it is so self evident, the evidentiary aspect of this should be a breeze for you.
Sure - get a Constitutional Amendment passed and ratified to change the Constitution. It isn't about "limits on citizenship", it is about how you go about it.
1 in 200 people are trans. I think that we should run the entire federal government on some trans stance or another, since it is by far THE GREATEST THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY. Using this "well-intentioned, but too easily abused" logic, the next D POTUS should issue an XO banning all assault rifles ... since the Framers providing the right to bear arms was "well-intentioned, but too easily abused". Are you feeling me?
Sure. Using homophobic slurs isn't a positive. But nobody in this thread is the leader of a major political party or the president of the United States. Do you not understand what Trump meant when he said, "They're poisoning the blood of our country"?
The unfortunate reality is that the Constitution will likely never be amended as long as there’s a political party that advocates for illegal immigration. It seems like some arguments are not made in good faith, demanding studies to prove what is essentially common sense. Do I really need to commission a study to show that the majority of citizens in third-world countries—and even China—would move to the U.S. if given the chance? You should be grateful to your parents for securing your U.S. citizenship. I’m sure they endured significant challenges to make that possible. While we may not currently be in a position to provide citizens with benefits like free college education or universal basic income (UBI), establishing better control over who can obtain citizenship lays the foundation for future improvements in the quality of life for U.S. citizens. Limiting who can acquire citizenship will ultimately benefit the descendants of current citizens—including you, your children, and your grandchildren. Ending birthright citizenship is a necessary step to ensure that future generations enjoy greater opportunities and resources.
Do you ever feel the need like at midnight getting the munchies drive to a 24/7 hour convenient store to buy some Doritos and Mountain Dew Code Red for 8 dollars total and always assume there will be a store within a 5 mile radius at the most random time at the night that will be fully staffed, open and full of treats and goods that are constantly resupplied? Is this something you just expect to exist in society no matter what? Also do you know what the average birth rate is of a female American citizen? Then do 2+2 and figure out why I asked you these two questions consecutively and how it pertains to the subject matter at hand.
Some condemnation. I am sure your response would be this mild if I had called a left leaning member of the forum a homophobic slur. I already answered your question on this directly.
I am sure there are people that make arguments in bad faith. However - we have a Constitution and that Constitution has a procedure that has been followed for well over 200 years. Pass an Amendment and get it ratified and the law is changed. My parents didn't secure my citizenship but I am grateful I was born in the USA. We don't have free college and UBI and President Trump isn't pursuing such policies. I don't agree. A falling population and birth rate will limit the growth of the USA. Having said that - you are entitled to your opinion and there is a way to go about implementing such policies - through an Amendment.
Like I said in my original post. A lot of people were happy to look the other way. I’m not saying I support Trumps EO. I know the precedent behind Roe v. Wade wasn’t enshrined or codified but we saw decades of progress reverse there in a matter of months. With this Supreme Court, legislature, and admin anything is up for grabs, anything can be challenged. Even things in the constitution, do you trust the govt. in its current state to uphold the current interpretation of the constitution? Wild times.
I’m rambling but ultimately nothing is sacrosanct in the next four years other than the 2nd amendment with the current state of the government. lol.
its is always easier to grant citizenship when needed than taken it away, I don't think there will be an issue in the future getting new citizens if the birthrate is the limited factor in the growth of the country
