Rex Kickass

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 16, 2010 -> 01:48 PM) I'll ignore the "Obama's crazy spending" part since his spending has been no more crazy than his predecessor. But you are right on the first part - there is very little difference. The Dems ran in 2008 on, primarily, we aren't Bush. The GOP is running primarily in 2010 on "we aren't Obama". There is some subtle difference, in that the GOP has been a lot more about blockading and bringing government to a halt, where as the Dems capitulated to a lot of GOP s*** in Bush's time - for good or for bad. But the overall themes are mostly similar. Actually, I'll add one more important difference, and this one is one of the reasons why its been a lot harder for me to vote GOP the last few cycles. The GOP has focused a lot more on fear and anger, the lowest common denominators, than the Dems have. That does bother me. Actually, Obama ran on a platform of change in 2008. He rose a pretty high bar for himself that year, and he's paying the price now. You could say that 2006 the Democrats ran primarily on a "We're not Bush" platform, but I would argue that 2008 was very different. In 2008 there was a platform that won. Lily Ledbetter, repeal of DADT, health care reform, wall street reform, shifting the focus of the military from Iraq to Afghanistan were all key parts of his platform and many of these things were enacted. Many of these things were in the platform of 2006, but got drowned out by the frustration. You can even make an argument that the platform of rooting out corruption has, more or less, been honored as well. True, you can point to Rangel and Waters as examples of how that's not true. But in reality, the fact that two very powerful congresspeople have essentially been sidelined to the backbench due to ethics violations, and are literally being put on Congressional trial within three months of an election is a testament to how serious the Democrats have been in this regard. How many ethics trials were you seeing in 2006 held by the House of Representatives? None, because the ethics committee wasn't actually active. What's different between 2006, 1994 and today is that in previous years, when you peeled back the motivating anger - there was real, serious policy. Even in 1994 with the Contract on America - there were significant policy initiatives and goals that the GOP sought to pass in their first term. This year, when you peel back the anger - you only find more anger.

It's just proof that the GOP really has nothing to run on. There's no plan to help get the economy moving with them. Their strategy has and will be obstruction, period. 80 days out and instead of the focus being on the economy, the focus is on mosques.

If you want proof that this is all about election posturing? Look no further than Right Wing talker WABC, the flagship of Hannity, Imus, and Rush. Over the weekend, they decided to interview a dude from Hamas about his views on it. Not surprisingly, he supports it. Cover of today's New York Post? "HAMAS BIG BACKS MOSQUE" Again and again, a significant part of the Republican party drives to victory by exclusion, rather than inclusion. Moving to exclude gays from marriage, "Border Security" (which isn't really about all our borders, just our Mexican border), and now trying to prevent muslims from building a place to worship. And frankly I don't know what's worse. The fact that the second largest political party does this? Or the fact that it seems to work.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 14, 2010 -> 05:41 PM) If this were a 'Christian' center, would he have stood up as strongly for this? We all know the answer to that. Again, this is all just a big show. If it came up at all, I'd wager that he would, actually. But if this was a "christian" center in Lower Manhattan, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have fearmongering political hacks generating fake outrage about it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 04:16 PM) Its the opposite really. Giving away more citizenships make amnesty easier to grant. If that's the case, why hasn't there been a second amnesty issued in the last generation? After all, we've had birthright citizenship all this time. BTW, Mike Huckabee came out against this within the last 24 hours - saying that it doesn't really fix anything.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 01:45 PM) It would be easier to oppose amnesty, and I do. It historically does not work. The last amnesty was 24 years ago. Literally a generation ago. Opposing blanket amnesty seems to have worked well in D.C. Further, I don't understand how changing the definition of who can and can not become a citizen would make amnesty more difficult to take place.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 10:02 AM) Its all a part of the big picture. Giving out birthright citizenship for nothing establishes "families". You have already seen Balta tipping the Dems strategy here by already talking about harming families. Are you really trying to tell me that the anchor babies won't be a part of giving amnesty to people? There is about zero chance of that being reality. It is all the same linear strategy. I get where you're going, but wouldn't it just be easier to oppose amnesty than it would be to change the constitution to eliminate a possible political strategy for amnesty? I understand the frustration, but I'm having a hard time seeing an argument that makes sense in terms of why the constitution needs to be altered to define who can and can not be a US citizen. Changing the constitution is hard for a reason, it shouldn't be done unless its necessary. I have a hard time seeing a convincing argument that a constitutional change is necessary.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 12:06 AM) Let me put it this way. If you can tell me that turning 10,12, 15, or whatever million people who are here illegally won't get paid social security, or any other social service, after getting amnesty, without paying a lifetime into it, I will be for it . Until then, I will consider the cost savings a fact. What does amnesty have to do with birthright citizenship? One is a concept and policy not put into place since Reagan, one is enshrined in the constitution Those are two different arguments, IIRC.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 11:53 PM) There are PLENTY of ways around this. Please show me a legal way of this, and how changing the 14th amendment would prevent a legal way of getting money from SSI without paying into it?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 09:03 PM) lol, I just saw one of those Facebook polls that said "should we build a Mosque and Islamic Supercenter at Ground Zero?" WalMosque?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 08:54 PM) And demoloshing it, and taking what will end up being hundreds of millions and turning it into a religious attention whore. THAT location is muslireligous in nature, after all. Sacred ground and all. I'm sure now I'm a scared anti-Muslim freak now. They might be building it in Lower Manhattan because its cheaper there than elsewhere in the borough. Funny, a poll came out today talking about how people view Cordoba House in New York City. The top line is more people in NYC are against it than for it. But in Manhattan, the borough of the city that has to live with it, that borough approves of it - 53 to 31. Breakdown by borough on page 7. http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/mi...nd%20Tables.pdf

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 09:20 PM) What's "fair"? Taking trillions of dollars and handing it to people? Does punishing "wealthy people" make you happy and only count toward making you more complete? Do people who make the choice to come here illegally, knowing that they have to go through what they do and it's not legal or proper, take risks that benefit you? What the hell is that? You don't know them any different then I do, so don't go there on that judgement call. Could you please define how giving undocumented residents an opportunity to work legally in our country and pay into our system will cost us trillions?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 06:33 PM) Not giving out millions more instances of medicade, social security, and every other social program under the sun isn't a significant cost savings? The minimum amount of social security paid is something like $500 a month. start multiplying that out, and tell me again how that is "anecdotes". How does restricting citizenship by birthright affect giving out Social Security benefits to people who don't pay into the system? It doesn't. If anything, it precludes additional people from being part of the system. Social Security is not provided to you unless you pay into the system, in most cases. Ask my mother. She taught for universities in Illinois and had an option of paying into social security because she paid into a state pension. She can't receive Social Security today, because she didn't pay into the system. And yes what you're describing is "anecdotes" because you're telling a story, you aren't offering proof. How would changing the 14th amendment save money? How many people are in the system because of birthright citizenship who aren't paying in?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 04:09 PM) I think they were provided, but cost savings would be the biggest one. Taking away a benefit of coming here illegally (so hopefully a decrease in illegal immigration in general) would be another. Also keep in mind that I think a lot of people would argue that you can amend the 14th as part of a larger immigration overhaul. For those that do things the right way, it should be easier to gain citizenship or long term resident status. It's not like people (at least i'm not) are arguing that we do away with the birth right while also making immigration as a whole more difficult. This is where we get into fundamental disagreements. I can't justify changing the way someone is considered a US national based on cost. In fact, I can't justify amending the constitution in a way that affects the legal status of any person for the sake of a deficit. Economics and the rights of persons are two things that should remain mutually exclusive.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 04:04 PM) All good points, and should be part of the longer, more detailed discussion about the best policy to have. Actually they should be part of the discussion about whether a policy change is necessary. Under the best of circumstances, this kind of change in policy would require huge growth in INS and grow government bureaucracy to a large extent, because INS' tentacles would now have to literally reach every medical facility and county clerk's office in the country. And its a big country!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 02:31 PM) You didn't start that thread, and you didn't start the 14th amendment discussion. Do you think we'd be having this discussion at all if having people afraid of Hispanic people wasn't an effective electoral strategy? This is very true actually. If it wasnt for SB 1070, there would be very few people even thinking about this kind of possibility today.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 03:59 PM) Really? So a pain in the ass process to prove something to the government is an argument against it? You've worked with the government before right? And what about non-citizens who are permanent legal residents? What about their kids? Do we make them eligible for citizenship when their parents are? Do they have to apply for babygreencards?

I think, even if you take away the morality issue of it, a bigger question is would such a rule be easily enforceable without too many issues that would be considered detrimental to society? And with long term undocumented residents, where would their children fall? How do you tell someone who has lived their entire life in the US that their very existence in the only country they know is illegal? Let's say we take away birthright citizenship tomorrow, and Svetlana, an undocumented resident originating from wartorn Whogivesacrapistan gives birth to little Mikhail. 18 years later, Mikhail, who has lived his whole life as an undocumented resident (can't exactly call him an illegal immigrant because he didn't enter illegally, nor did he immigrate to the US) wants to travel to London, and needs a passport - or wants to find legitimate employment and needs to enroll in Social Security. How does that work? He's lived here his whole life, he may have no family contact and definitely no contact with his country. He has nothing to prove his identity but a birth certificate and maybe a school ID. If he can't get the proper papers necessary to work above the board, he never will, and we've just created a permanent class of undocumented residents. Do we provide these children with a path to citizenship? Do we provide them the ability to reside legally? What do we do with them? What's more, is this necessary? If we are changing the constitution, we ought to be damn sure that its necessary. Can someone provide some actual empirical evidence that shows that birthright citizenship has been a serious drag on our country, or has had any negative effect at all? Because I've just heard some things about a birthing resort mentioned here, but nothing that isn't anything more than anecdotal.

Citizenship inquiries in the delivery room does not equal smaller government.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 01:46 PM) You have hospitals checking immigration status, you're going to wind up with a body count. Unless you think Coyotes are good at delivering babies. Or lots of dumpster babies.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 01:24 PM) I answered Baltas first question, which had nothing to do with that. Balta asked you if native born US citizens born to undocumented immigrants pay into the system. You responded, not if they get paid in cash. So my question is what makes that US citizen different than my ex who worked in the bodega on the corner under the table who was born in Connecticut to a family who was born in Connecticut? It doesn't. One of the many problems that I have in changing the rules is this. How do you determine someone's parents status at the time of their birth when they apply for a passport, or apply for their Social Security card several years into their lives? Especially if they are still living in the US? I don't think you reasonably can. You'd have to check for Mom's green card in mid-delivery so the right information is put on the birth certificate. That's if errors aren't made. And the last time I checked, its not a hospital's job to determine citizenship. It's a hospital's job to treat people and make them well again. And what happens when the baby is born outside of a hospital? Who's making that determination? And how do you differentiate between undocumented residents and non-citizen documented residents? Do those children get the benefits of citizenship in a country where their parents do pay into the system? Further, what do you do when the child in question can't obtain citizenship in his/her parent's home country - or even residency for that matter? Steps to solve the immigration issue don't involve changing the 14th amendment. They involve going after the supply of jobs that suck undocumented immigrants in for the promise of a better life that often times doesn't even materialize. Until we do that, people will still get in. And we'll still have an immigration issue.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 01:16 PM) Maybe, maybe not. If they are getting paid cash, no. At the end of the day, having a way to control costs is step number one in saving programs like social security, medicare, and forced health care. Having no mechanism at all to control the amount of people going into the programs is going to bankrupt them. Are you really arguing that the 14th amendment needs to be altered or ignored to deny citizenship to children born of non-US citizens because they might work under the table one day? Because if that's the case, half of native born Brooklyn needs to turn in their passports.

Ah the Jersey Shore. I think this is because of the "10% tax on tanning" that Obama levied, or something. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/s..._with_obam.html

Right, Harriet Miers never even made it to the floor.

That's really sad. He lost his wife in another plane crash that he survived thirty years ago too.