• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Repubs say they want to end birthright citizenship - bye, bye, 2016 election

shira

Diamond Member
Paul Waldman makes a good analysis of how Repub's xenophobic rants about ending birthright citizenship will alientate Latino voters more and more, and make it almost impossible for them to attract enough Latino votes to win the Presidency in 2016.

For months, people like me have been pointing to the fundamental challenge Republican presidential candidates face on immigration: they need to talk tough to appeal to their base in the primaries, but doing so risks alienating the Hispanic voters they’ll need in the general election. This was always going to be a difficult line to walk, but a bunch of their candidates just leaped off to one side.

After Donald Trump released his immigration plan, some of his competitors jumped up to say that they agreed. NBC News asked Scott Walker the question directly, and he seemed to reply that he does favor an end to birthright citizenship, though his campaign qualified the statement later. Bobby Jindal tweeted, “We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.” Then reporters began looking over others’ past statements to see where they stood on this issue, and found that this isn’t an uncommon position among the GOP field. Remember all the agonizing Republicans did about how they had to reach out to Hispanic voters? They never figured out how to do it, and now they’re running in the opposite direction.

Here is the list of Republican candidates who have at least suggested openness to ending birthright citizenship, which would mean repealing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution: Donald Trump, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Lindsey Graham, and Rick Santorum. That’s nearly half the GOP field, and more may be added to the list.
.
.
.

This discussion about birthright citizenship sends an incredibly clear message to Hispanic voters, a message of naked hostility to them and people like them. It’s possible to argue that you’re “pro-immigrant” while simultaneously saying we should build more walls and double the size of the Border Patrol. But you can’t say you’re pro-immigrant and advocate ending birthright citizenship. You just can’t.

I promise you that next fall, there are going to be ads like this running all over the country, and especially on Spanish-language media:

“My name is Lisa Hernandez. I was born in California, grew up there. I was valedictorian of my high school class, graduated from Yale, and now I’m in medical school; I’m going to be a pediatrician. But now Scott Walker and the Republicans say that because my mom is undocumented, that I’m not a real American and I shouldn’t be a citizen. I’m living the American Dream, but they want to take it away from me and people like me. Well I’ve got a message for you, Governor Walker. I’m every bit as American as your children. This country isn’t about who your parents were, it’s about everybody having a chance to work hard, achieve, and contribute to our future. It seems like some people forgot that.”

Will it be different if they nominate one of the candidates who doesn’t want to repeal birthright citizenship, like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio? Somewhat, but the damage among Hispanic voters could already be too great even for them to overcome.

Under even the most absurdly optimistic scenario for Republicans — that white voters consolidate behind the Republican Party at levels that were observed in 2014; that black participation and Democratic support returns to pre-Obama levels; and the expected growth in the Latino vote does not fully materialize — the Republican candidate would need 42 percent of the Hispanic vote to win. As a point of comparison, according to exit polls Mitt Romney got 27 percent of Hispanic votes in 2012, while John McCain got 31 percent in 2008. Under a more likely scenario, with an electorate that votes something like in 2012 but with African-American turnout reduced, the Republican would need 47 percent of the Hispanic vote. In their worst-case scenario for Republicans — an electorate that votes identically to the way it did in 2012, but adjusted for changes in population — the Republican would need a stunning 52 percent of Hispanic votes.

So to sum up: even in the best possible situation when it comes to turnout and the vote choices of the rest of the electorate, the Republican presidential candidate in 2016 is going to have to pull off an absolutely heroic performance among Hispanic voters if he’s going to win.
 
Very good article.

Conservatives probably want to move to Australia and enjoy the Australia Immigration Policy in full bloom where they dump illegals in Papua New Guinea if they lose this election.

Will they have fun with the inland taipan and other things while there?
 
Last edited:
Demographic changes are one cold hard reality that no amount of republican denials will overcome. What's funny is that this has been quite obvious for some time, yet they double down on the same xenophobic rhetoric every election cycle.

Let's hear it apologists, how Is your party going to overcome these numbers? Maybe you'll finally manage to convince voters how dirty those Mexicans really are? Maybe there's a trove of undiscovered old white people somewhere?
 
I'll admit I am fairly ignorant of what it takes to become naturalized in the USA. What is the main reason someone would choose to enter illegally vs legally?
 
Demographic changes are one cold hard reality that no amount of republican denials will overcome. What's funny is that this has been quite obvious for some time, yet they double down on the same xenophobic rhetoric every election cycle.

Let's hear it apologists, how Is your party going to overcome these numbers? Maybe you'll finally manage to convince voters how dirty those Mexicans really are? Maybe there's a trove of undiscovered old white people somewhere?

Eventually, the Republican party will turn toward succession politically, either outright succession, or de facto. It's the eventual outcome of any large union over time that starts to Balkanize. Might be a century or two but eventually the U.S. will fracture over ethnic lines, or turn into Brazil where all the white people hide in one corner of the country (Santa Catarina and Rio Grande).
 
Last edited:
I'd agree, citizenship should be changed to something sane for the modern age. You have 1 parent that is a US Citizen in good standing, doesn't matter where you're born, you are a US Citizen. I don't know why it needs to be any more complicated than that.
 
Eventually, the Republican party will turn toward succession politically, either outright succession, or de facto. It's the eventual outcome of any large union over time that starts to Balkanize. Might be a century or two but eventually the U.S. will fracture over ethnic lines, or turn into Brazil where all the white people hide in one corner of the country (Santa Catarina and Rio Grande).

The Republican coalition wont survive a century or two. It likely wont survive another decade. The demographic problems facing Republicans are not something isolated to the north. They are being overwhelmed everywhere. There is also a generational problem facing Republicans. Younger people tend to be more liberal and more progressive. The Republican party is going to eventually moderate or be relegated to a permanent opposition party that is unable to capture the white house.
 
I'll admit I am fairly ignorant of what it takes to become naturalized in the USA. What is the main reason someone would choose to enter illegally vs legally?

There is no way to naturalize illegally except amnesty.

US-Green-Card.jpg


To get a permanent resident (green) card there are primarily 6 ways:
1. Marriage - naturalization in 3 years
2. Family - naturalization in 5 years
3. Work that cannot be done by US citizens - naturalization in 5 years
4. Investment based (bringing in $500,000 and employing US citizens) - naturalization in 5 years
5. Religious worker - naturalization in 5 years.
6. Political Asylum

You can speed up naturalization to 1 year by serving in the army.

No one can get a green card without the 6 clauses.. so many remain illegals until they qualify for one of these.

To sponsor as family (which most conservatives are afraid of i.e. birthright baby sponsoring family) a person must be 21 years of age, have taxes paid for the last 5 years and be above the poverty limit and show they can provide for the people being sponsored in terms of assets or income.

For naturalization after a person gets their green card, they have to wait the time under their category and then undergo a citizenship interview where they have to show they have not at any time in the last 5 years been a burden on the US (claimed benefits, unemployment, food stamps etc) and have paid all their taxes on time and not been convicted of a crime. Then and only then after they pass the interview do they become US citizens.

U.S.-passport.jpg
 
I'll admit I am fairly ignorant of what it takes to become naturalized in the USA. What is the main reason someone would choose to enter illegally vs legally?

Because the US immigration system is hopelessly broken, and has been for a long time. Also, if you've ever been to a poor area of Mexico, you would understand why they want to come here.
 
The Republican coalition wont survive a century or two. It likely wont survive another decade. The demographic problems facing Republicans are not something isolated to the north. They are being overwhelmed everywhere. There is also a generational problem facing Republicans. Younger people tend to be more liberal and more progressive. The Republican party is going to eventually moderate or be relegated to a permanent opposition party that is unable to capture the white house.

Some of the biggest issues for Republicans with demographic shift are in Texas.

Right now it's being held in check by gerrymandered districts, but the dam is going to burst sooner than later.
 
No one can get a green card without the 6 clauses.. so many remain illegals until they qualify for one of these.
-- the way this reads is you need to meet each and everyone o0f the 6 clauses....that is NOT True!!
 
Seems a little foolish to grant citizenship by birth. No Euro countries do this, and we have very few Mexicans. You do the math...
 
Seems a little foolish to grant citizenship by birth. No Euro countries do this, and we have very few Mexicans. You do the math...

There could be a middle ground between our birthright system and the European
jus sanguinis system, although I don't know what the details would or should entail. My main problem with the idea is that the people suggesting it don't seem to be working in good faith but rather on simple xenophobia. Part of any possible changes to citizenship rules should also include a way for those with "accidental citizenship" to easily renounce it so they're not subject to U.S. taxation for the rest of their lives even though they've never lived in the country.
 
Seems a little foolish to grant citizenship by birth. No Euro countries do this, and we have very few Mexicans. You do the math...

I don't think there is a country in the world with shitty ass immigration laws, and enforcement, like the US. All of the bleeding heart liberals want to invite anybody and everybody into this country. Yay, we get a country as corrupt as Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, El Salvador and Argentina for our future generations.

Great job fuck faces.
 
Last edited:
There could be a middle ground between our birthright system and the European
jus sanguinis system, although I don't know what the details would or should entail. My main problem with the idea is that the people suggesting it don't seem to be working in good faith but rather on simple xenophobia. Part of any possible changes to citizenship rules should also include a way for those with "accidental citizenship" to easily renounce it so they're not subject to U.S. taxation for the rest of their lives even though they've never lived in the country.

No, people who are suggesting it aren't working off of xenophobia, but simple demographical problems. We have too much cheap labor, period. Name a country in the world that allows 100% unfettered immigration.
 
I don't think there is a country in the world with shitty ass immigration laws, and enforcement, like the US. All of the bleeding heart liberals want to invite anybody and everybody into this country. Yay, we get a country as corrupt as Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, El Salvador and Argentina for our future generations.

Great job fuck faces.

No, people who are suggesting it aren't working off of xenophobia, but simple demographical problems. We have too much cheap labor, period. Name a country in the world that allows 100% unfettered immigration.

These two posts in a row and you have the gall to claim xenophobia isn't an issue? Must be nice living in such denial.

You are correct there are exactly zero countries in the world with unfettered immigration. Including the US.
 
I'd agree, citizenship should be changed to something sane for the modern age. You have 1 parent that is a US Citizen in good standing, doesn't matter where you're born, you are a US Citizen. I don't know why it needs to be any more complicated than that.

We have Chinese birthing centers here in the U.S. set up so 8 month pregnant Chinese women can come to the U.S. on a tourist visa and leave with a child who is a U.S. citizen.

10% of births in the U.S. are to illegal immigrants. This is by far the largest lure for illegal immigration. Come here illegally, have a child, and you are set.

The problem is with people like the OP, who like much of the leftist MSM, have not figured out how to differentiate between legal and illegal immigration.
 
Apparently there are 30 countries (out of 190) with unconditional birthright citizenship, pretty much all in the Americas.
 
Nor is rejection of birthright citizenship limited to conservatives. Judge Richard Posner—a prolific scholar who, despite being appointed by Ronald Reagan, is a liberal judicial activist—wrote in 2003 in Ofoji v. Ashcroft:

"We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children. But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship….

A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but I doubt it….

The purpose of the rule was to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves, and the exception for children of foreign diplomats and heads of state shows that Congress did not read the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment literally. Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense."
 
These two posts in a row and you have the gall to claim xenophobia isn't an issue? Must be nice living in such denial.

You are correct there are exactly zero countries in the world with unfettered immigration. Including the US.

I don't give a flying fuck through a rolling donut what race you are. I enjoy indians, asians, latinos, among others, being here. The problem is, the *only* way the establishment can win this argument is to paint those who disagree as "nativists" or "racists" or "xenophobia" rather than just facing the truth. These policies have fucked the lower classes. Period. Your usage of that is proof that you can't come up with a good reason for them to be here, other than you trying to sound smarter, or better, or without a "ism" in some faux moral superiority. You aren't better for blithely ignoring supply/demand economics, or laws, you. You debase the argument to an "ism" in an attempt to marginalize. However, what you are seeing is that you can't marginalize the silent majority and this is why Trump is becoming more popular by the day. The establishment, and the left, are now trying to "ism" the supporters, but it's failing.

We do have unfettered immigration. Anybody can come into this country and stay decades and we just turn the other way while they steal jobs.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there is a country in the world with shitty ass immigration laws, and enforcement, like the US. All of the bleeding heart liberals want to invite anybody and everybody into this country. Yay, we get a country as corrupt as Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, El Salvador and Argentina for our future generations.

Great job fuck faces.

It's not xenophobia yet you single out 6 Latin American countries? No one seriously believes that "immigration reform" partisans would take such a hard stance on an illegal with more desirable (to you) origins like northern Europe, so spare us the "this isn't about ethnicity" bullshit.
 
It's not xenophobia yet you single out 6 Latin American countries? No one seriously believes that "immigration reform" partisans would take such a hard stance on an illegal with more desirable (to you) origins like northern Europe, so spare us the "this isn't about ethnicity" bullshit.

Tell me, what % of illegal immigrants currently in this country do not come from Latin America? I am curious.

Last I checked there probably aren't a whole lot of Eastern Euros coming through the southern border.

That is what we are talking about, is it not?

I have always said I don't care if Indians, Asians, or whomever, comes here *LEGALLY* and at a moderated and non-political (h1b) driven manner.
 
Hell, why bother to let smart, educate with money LEGAL immigrants such as Elon Musk in. Let more unskilled, uneducated, unable to speak English ILLEGALS in so they can compete with native poor in the US for low paying jobs. A perfect strategy for paradise, NOT!!!

Let start the race to the bottom.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top