Right-Wing Thinking

Post #239,508 by andread 12/27/05 10:44:33 AM Reply	Right-Wing Thinking usually when someone does something they don't like they want to amend the constitution (flag-burning, abortion) now they want to pass laws that amend the constitution even though this defies all logic (not that they don't do it with Patriot Acts and other laws) Pretty scary A Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM Reggae, African and Caribbean Music [link\|http://wxxe.org\|Tune In]
Post #239,525 by JayMehaffey 12/27/05 1:00:11 PM Reply	Not totally absurd I don't think the logic being used by the right wing will hold up here in court, but it isn't totally absurd. The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause in the admendment seems to have been added specifically to address related problems. Children born to diplomats for instance, are born on American soil but not subject to American jurisdiction. American Indians where not all American citizens until Congress passed a seperate law making them such under the same principle. More directly in this case, a foreign power that invades and occupies American soil would eventual result in children born to the invaders who can not claim American citizenship. In principle anyway, I'm not aware of any case of that last part being applied in practice. However, I don't think any court will actually accept an argument based on that. To accept it would raise the question of the US having jurisdiction over illegal immigrants in general. And even given the courts current extreme deference to Congress, that would be too fundamental a contradiction to accept. Having though about it for a while and looked at the statistics, I don't think this is a big enough problem to do anything about. Most of the children born to illegal immigrants are born to couples that have been in the US for some time. The group that intentionally cross the border to have their child in the US in very small. As a result any 'solution' would have worse consequences down the road. A narrow rule that let INS deport children if the parents specifically entered the country illegally to have their child here would create another messy legal tangle that would create as many problems at it would solve. A broad rule would create a perpetual non-citizen underclass, with so many bad consequences it becomes hard to list them all. Jay
Post #239,687 by rcareaga 12/28/05 12:04:37 PM Reply	It's a stalking horse What this lot really wants is to change the way we conduct the census, and hence [link\|http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:-YwwDFWaIVMJ:www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1206vote-amend-ON.html+census+immigrants+congressional+districts&hl=en\|how representation is apportioned.] WASHINGTON - The U.S. Constitution should be changed so that only legal citizens can be counted when determining a state's number of congressional districts, a Republican lawmaker argued Tuesday. "This is about fundamental fairness and the American ideal . . . of one man or one woman, one vote," said Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich, testifying to a U.S. House subcommittee on federalism and the census. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that, "Representatives of the (U.S.) House shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state... But Miller, backed by 29 House co-sponsors, is pushing a vote on an amendment that would change the word "persons" to "citizens," excluding non-citizens as a factor in determining how many of the 435 U.S. House seats each state gets. [snip] Recent studies, including one in May by the Congressional Research Office, show that had only citizens been counted in the most recent apportionment based on the 2000 Census, California - with more than 5.4 million non-citizens -- would have six fewer U.S. House seats. Texas, New York and Florida would each have one seat less. Lower-immigration states like Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Wisconsin and Indiana would each have one more seat. There could be a shift of 10 seats affecting 15 states if non-citizens are excluded in 2010, according to early projections by Polidata, a Lake Ridge, Va., firm that analyzes demographic information. As [link\|http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_digbysblog_archive.html#113572782972129106\|digby] notes with pardonable dryness: I think it's pretty clear which party would benefit from this, don't you? It's true that a couple of upper midwest swing states might gain a seat or two, but for the most part it's the big blue population centers that will suffer. And you can bet that the necessary gerrymandering that comes with such a scheme will be well planned to take care of Republicans in states in which immigrant communities suddenly "disappear" from the body politic. These are the little landmines that Karl and company have set throughout our political structure that are going to have reverberations for decades. Right now the immigration debate is dividing the GOP more than the Republicans and Democrats. But who knows where things will be in a couple of years? Karl and company play the long game and bet that it's always better to institutionalize their strict numerical advantage. cordially, Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
Post #239,767 by Ashton 12/29/05 12:00:27 AM Reply	..and we'unses are Troy ..it's always better to institutionalize their strict numerical advantage. Yes, being lazy about polling the countless guesstimates of 'Why', I simply assume that, whenever some piece of legislation appears ludicrous, too Draconian even to pass, or be enforced - save via some neo-Con-stitutional Convention first convening - It's almost sure to be about our futchah: All-Repo Forevermore. Most of these 'landmines' are about performing the removal-of-bed-slats-to-build-the-tunnel, as in every Stalag flic. As with abortion: no need to acually reverse Roe V. - simply render it [link\|http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/index.html?blog=/mwt/broadsheet/2005/12/27/abortion/index.html\| moot] \ufffd l\ufffd S. Dakota, and the usual suspects within the usual primitive areas. ("6000 yos." are the very def'n of 'primitives', I wot.) Well, the information on each of these ploys is very-soon out there, but Elimidate appears to attract more eyeballs. Off-hand I see no remedy for such easy and effective slogan-endorphins. Only detachment. Unless Demos break all tradition and actually coalesce? Sure..
Post #239,580 by jb4 12/27/05 4:59:42 PM Reply	...is an oxymoron jb4 shrub●bish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT

Welcome to IWETHEY!