Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

Nah. I'm having a hard time caring much about this particular gimmick, though I also don't see how Fox can make reading the document anything approaching interesting television.

If they produce it like a VH1 Pop-Up Video with silly captions it might work, though.


Boehner: "Amendment 14: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

[Buuuu-WEEEP!] "Did You Know? This provision, which enables anchor babies, was actually snuck into the Amendment Process by Liberal Democrats who at the time received political contributions from Kenya. Tune in for more on Fox and Friends."

wasn't that to make former slaves citizens?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

Boehner: "Amendment 14: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

[Buuuu-WEEEP!] "Did You Know? This provision, which enables anchor babies, was actually snuck into the Amendment Process by Liberal Democrats who at the time received political contributions from Kenya. Tune in for more on Fox and Friends."

C'mon. "snuck in by Bingham* (D-OH)" is much more their speed.


*note--just the first framer of the 14th I came up with.

[Gattigap]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

C'mon. "snuck in by Bingham* (D-OH)" is much more their speed.


*note--just the first framer of the 14th I came up with.

Huh.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

If they were concerned about it, they'd have done something about Michael Steele a while ago. What, I'm not sure, but something.

Replaced him with Alan Keyes?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

wasn't that to make former slaves citizens?

Damn activist judges and their reinterpretations. "All persons born in the United States" shouldn't mean everyone.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

wasn't that to make former slaves citizens?

Other than the text of the amendment itself and the Supreme Court decisions holding otherwise, I can see why you think this.

Is 2011 Hank's Year of Parroting Tea Party Lines?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Damn activist judges and their reinterpretations. "All persons born in the United States" shouldn't mean everyone.

there was no history supporting the language?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

there was no history supporting the language?

"All" used to imply "to former slaves, but not to Chinese laborers or Mexicans"?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

"All" used to imply "to former slaves, but not to Chinese laborers or Mexicans"?

maybe you could go argue with your mirror and someone could answer my question?

I really don't care if people who are born here become citizens, just wondering if there is anything in the history. I wasn't a big con law student.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

there was no history supporting the language?

You may want to audit Scalia's tea-bagger course.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

maybe you could go argue with your mirror and someone could answer my question?

I really don't care if people who are born here become citizens, just wondering if there is anything in the history. I wasn't a big con law student.

By "history" I take you to mean "legislative record," which is often misleadingly referred to as legislatively history. Because non-citizen Chinese laborers seem to be pretty spot-on "history" from the time.

Or do you prefer to believe that those who drafted the amendment were not aware of these laborers?

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You may want to audit Scalia's tea-bagger course.

and the Ds may want to buy their Senators books on proofreading and basic etiquette....[what] "an embarrassment"

she almost makes Patty Murray look competent.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

By "history" I take you to mean "legislative record," which is often misleadingly referred to as legislatively history. Because non-citizen Chinese laborers seem to be pretty spot-on "history" from the time.

Or do you prefer to believe that those who drafted the amendment were not aware of these laborers?

you're not normally as much a dickhead as GGG so I'll ask you once more- was their anything in the record of the amendment that explained what they were trying to do, or was it silent. I get the language seems to cover people who happen to be in the country and give birth, but was there any discussion as to whether that was intended to be covered?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

and the Ds may want to buy their Senators books on proofreading and basic etiquette....[what] "an embarrassment"

she almost makes Patty Murray look competent.

So did Bush really call the family of every soldier who died, as is claimed in that article? That would impress me if true, but I have trouble believing he made 4,500 calls.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

you're not normally as much a dickhead as GGG

I'm confused. You sure you didn't mean to say I am dumb or something?

so I'll ask you once more- was their anything in the record of the amendment tat explained what they were trying to do, or was it silent

I don't specifically know. But GGG is right that there were other non-citizens running around having babies at the time. If someone can provide something that says "no, we didn't mean the "yellow" ones," I'm open to your point. But absent affirmative evidence on that point (which I'm only saying hasn't been provided, not that it doesn't exist), I think he has a point that there were other well-known groups of potential anchor-baby parents around at the time.

We could move to the next stage of the discussion about which matters more, the realty at the time of the amendment or the stated intentions of whatever minority of amendment supporters was recorded somewhere, but I don't think we need to get that far.

Finally, shouldn't you be watching the Spartans against the Wildcats? It seems surprisingly close at the moment.

Even more finally, I can't think about mid-19th century Chinese immigration without thinking about Ian McShane as Al Swearengen.