tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-275230780828402208.post1818022163637608250..comments2023-10-15T04:29:11.521-07:00Comments on Liquids Reign: Hypocrisy and the 14th Amendment - twofer.Liquidmicrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06652186443929265510noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-275230780828402208.post-24311113792332495022009-02-02T05:32:00.000-08:002009-02-02T05:32:00.000-08:00If you read some of the debates leading up to the ...If you read some of the debates leading up to the passage of the 14th amendment, it is easy to see that this amendment was meant to confer citizenship upon the newly freed slaves and their children after the Civil War. They really went to great lengths to try to exclude people who were here as citizens of another country. However, this was in the 18th century and our country not even fully formed!<BR/><BR/>I cannot imagine that those voting on the 14th amendment would have ever imagined a day when there would be a massive influx of foreign nationals here illegally and that their children would become automatic citizens. It is just not common sense.<BR/><BR/>At the very least, the parents--if not citizens--should be here in legal status. Is that too much to ask?<BR/><BR/>Also, don't forget that Mexico confers citizenship to children born here of Mexican parents. So they are dual citizens, not merely U.S. citizens.<BR/><BR/>And as for the "bigot" factor: once again this is meant to intimidate. I can't think of anything more bigoted than advocating for illegals from your own ethnic group. However the reinterpretation of the 14th amendment would apply to ANY child born to ANYONE here illegally from ANY nation in the world, whether Mexico, Ireland, Canada, Europe, China, etc. Equally applied to everyone. Which one is really "bigoted?"<BR/><BR/>The double standards and hypocrisy never end, do they?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-275230780828402208.post-73904522032361624072009-02-01T20:30:00.000-08:002009-02-01T20:30:00.000-08:00It is becoming quite comical reading the spin put ...It is becoming quite comical reading the spin put on her rhetoric of which she claims to be factual, yet can't even copy and paste an article or paragraph correctly without spinning it.Liquidmicrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06652186443929265510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-275230780828402208.post-18188356657579534352009-02-01T20:11:00.000-08:002009-02-01T20:11:00.000-08:00Another point is that we honor the 14th Amendment ...Another point is that we honor the 14th Amendment with the birthright citizenship clause in its present form. What we are advocating is getting it re-interpreted. How is that being against the rule of law as Dee is claiming? Isn't she and her pro-illegals buds trying to get our immigration laws changed? How is that any different than us wantiing the 14th Amendment changed? Her hypocricies never stop do they? <BR/><BR/>We aren't even asking that those who were born from illegal alien parents already be stripped of their citizenship. What we are asking is to have birthright citizenship changed to require that at least one parent be a citizen for their newborn to gain instant citizenship and only for those who were born AFTER the change to the 14th has passed. Dee twists and spins and lies and is such a hypocrite that it makes you sick to even read her tripe in her blog anymore. Bet she deleted every refute to her nonsense after that. What a coward!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-275230780828402208.post-43539236873405448052009-02-01T13:49:00.000-08:002009-02-01T13:49:00.000-08:00As if the PRO idiots could understand the actual "...As if the PRO idiots could understand the actual "case law" they cite.<BR/><BR/>From the Indigenous Xicano (IX) in response to Dee's 14th Amendment propaganda.<BR/><I>What part of legal do these bigots not understand? I thought they were for the rule of law. Or is it just the laws that are congruent with their bigotry?<BR/><BR/>Bigots were trying to take the rights afforded from the 14th amendment away from the Chinese as early as the latter part of the 1860s.<BR/><BR/>These guys are funny.</I><BR/><BR/>Lets pick apart IX's ignorance, shall we.<BR/><I>1) <I>What part of legal do these bigots not understand?</I> Well, since you brought it up, Wong Kims parents were "legal" LPR holders during Wong Kims birth, also they fall under the Burlingame Treaty, which you obviously have no clue about.<BR/>2) <I>I thought they were for the rule of law. Or is it just the laws that are congruent with their bigotry?</I> The "Rule of Law" has yet to be determined, since according to your picking and choosing o information in regards to the 14th Amendment, you fail to accept the statements of <B>The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark. Neither in that decision nor in any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the Amendment, although it has generally been assumed that they are.</B><BR/>3) <I>Bigots were trying to take the rights afforded from the 14th amendment away from the Chinese as early as the latter part of the 1860s.</I> Actually, what you are referring to is the Chinese Exclusion Act from 1882, not from the 1860's. Please get your information correct.</I><BR/><BR/>And then the ignorant Dee comes in and praises IX.<BR/><BR/><I>IX,<BR/>You've hit the nail on the head! They are not for Rule of Law. They are only for Rule of Law they agree with and this proves it!!</I><BR/><BR/>Again, the "Rule of Law", from your own wiki link you used, states:<B>It has been suggested by some critics of U.S. citizenship policy relating to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants that Wong Kim Ark does not hold such children to be U.S. citizens, because Wong's parents were legal non-citizen residents of the United States at the time of his birth. Those advocating this view assert that a subsequent case before the courts, dealing with U.S. born children of undocumented immigrants, would easily be distinguished from Wong Kim Ark by virtue of this difference in the parents' legal status.</B><BR/><BR/>So Wong's parents were legally here when he was born, kinda makes for a whole different argument now doesn't it?Liquidmicrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06652186443929265510noreply@blogger.com