vixenesque93: (politics)
[personal profile] vixenesque93
Dred Scott and the 14th Amendment.

Someone needs to remind the teabaggers that trying to change the Constitution to restrict, rather than grant the rights to others in the country doesn't go over well.

I've heard rumor that some (R)'s also would like to push so that only those whose parents are both citizens (or whose fathers are citizens) would be permitted to keep their citizenship. Uh...my bio-dad is not and never will be a U.S. citizen. So you can probably imagine I have a problem with this and I really hope they are just rumors.

Though-it's not exactly easy to change the constitution. It may be a conservative wet dream to add an amendment defining marriage, but that still hasn't happened yet (and with Prop 8 being declared a no-go, I'm feeling pretty good that it won't). So now "illegal immigration" becomes the new hot topic du jour, since they've realized banning gay marriage is a losing battle.

But something tells me my face wasn't the one the conservatives had in mind when they came up with ideas like this.



[livejournal.com profile] glitch25 just asked me what the statute of limitations on this would be...how many generations would it go back? Because really, there's only one group of people who can claim that they deserve the land and I'm sure they'd like it back.

Date: 2010-08-15 07:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] quetz.livejournal.com
My friends in the first nation want all you palefaces to know that there will be plenty of space for you on the European Reservation.

Date: 2010-08-15 07:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] quetz.livejournal.com
You won't mind moving to eastern Montana.

Date: 2010-08-15 07:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] peskipiksi.livejournal.com
Just like we won't mind walking there in the middle of winter.

...On the other hand, I think I'll take option 2: moving back to Yorkshire. :P

Date: 2010-08-15 07:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] peskipiksi.livejournal.com
Fathers? Really? This amuses me, because IIRC U.S. citizenship is currently granted automatically to kids born abroad to U.S. mothers, but if they're claiming citizenship on the grounds that Dad (rather than Mom) is a citizen, they'll need a paternity test. :P Or is this just another way of ensuring we all remain the obedient property of Teh Menz?

Overall, whoa - is this plot ever a crock of nonsense. (I am writing an editorial this week about how the Dems need to push for comprehensive immigration reform NAO, and how in addition to being good for immigrants, it'll win them back groups like the Catholic Church, which for all its anti-woman nonsense still firmly believes in the right to travel and humane immigration as a foundation of social justice. But I digress.)

Because really, there's only one group of people who can claim that they deserve the land and I'm sure they'd like it back.

SO TRUE.

Date: 2010-08-15 08:49 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vonvoncake.livejournal.com
So, am I allowed to choose which branch of my family they consider when thinking about my citizenship? Or my race? Cuz really, it could go either way with me.

Date: 2010-08-17 07:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] flasher702.livejournal.com
The 14th amendment is horribly, horribly outdated. Possibly since 1918 it's been outdated. No other modern country that I know of does it this way. And please do correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure the list of countries that don't do this includes australia, japan, canada, mexico, and the entire EU so before you claim the sky will fall and the country will be instilled with conservative, republican, anti-immigration, neo-fascism explain to me how some of these other ultra-liberal countries that don't grant citizenship based on relative location to imaginary lines on the ground at time of birth manage to have very robust immigration programs?

This isn't a "conservative" issue it's really a progressive issue. It's not the 1800s anymore. All of our citizens are documented. We don't need a catch-all citizenship granting clause anymore and that fact that the clause is abused is certainly not a reason to preserve it.

And enough with the straw-man arguments. Retroactively implemented? Where is there any credible support for this to be implemented retroactively? Or for requiring both parents for citizenship? Some other stupid article was trying to warn people that there would be immigration control agents in birth wards. I'm sure that's how they do it in the UK. They probably load all the non-citizen babies up on those funny buses and then launch them into the English channel with a catapult before the afterbirth has even dried because anyone who would deny citizienship to a baby is obviously a heartless bastard.

It seems like the main argument here is "I appose it because republicans support it." and that's a little silly.

Would be kinda funny to trap some neocons into proclaiming that where you're born doesn't matter it's who your parents are and then ask them if they also support amending the requirements to be president xD That rule is a little bit silly also. Denying the presidency to people who have been citizens and lived in the country their entire lives and both of their parents have been citizens and lived in the country their entire lives? I'm guessing they weren't thinking about jetliners, permanent foreign military bases, or that women might have careers that take them abroad when they made that rule. Sometimes things just need updating.

Profile

vixenesque93: (Default)
vixenesque93

November 2014

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
910111213 1415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 01:36 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios