Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[barmar]

Trump is first and foremost a megalomaniac. Second he is a show(off)man and third he is the quintessential "ugly" American.

But he's also a very successful businessman.

 

He's like a modern P.T. Barnum. People like them understand human nature very well.

[billw55]

Trump is right on the most important issue of our time, illegal immigration. His policy is spot-on: Trump's Immigration Plan

 

He also isn't bought & paid for like the rest of the corporate-media-supported candidates.

 

As for the rest, who knows & who cares. If he's got a 5% chance of turning America around, I'll take that over the 0% chance that Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton have.

But what if he also has a 50% chance of crashing America, versus 10% for Bush or Clinton? Not every alternative is better than the status quo.

 

His "immigration plan" is nonsense, and really does not even deserve the name. He proposes very expensive things with no hint of how to pay for them. A border wall is useless, and trying to make Mexico pay for it is laughable. He wants to end birthright citizenship, but offers no alternative definition of a citizen. He is appealing to ignorance and racism, and apparently caught you in the net. The whole thing smacks of Poe's law.

 

Again, he is not a serious candidate, just a showman who loves the attention. You are falling for it.

[Winstonm]

Trump is right on the most important issue of our time, illegal immigration. His policy is spot-on: Trump's Immigration Plan

 

He also isn't bought & paid for like the rest of the corporate-media-supported candidates.

 

As for the rest, who knows & who cares. If he's got a 5% chance of turning America around, I'll take that over the 0% chance that Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton have.

 

 

There is one eeny, tiny, problem with the Trump plan - although he claims we must follow the Constitution, he also wants to abolish the 14th amendment to that Constitution, which resolved the dread Dred Scott decision and gave African Americans born in the U.S. guaranteed citizenship, a question of birthrights for which we happened to fight a long and bloody civil war to decide.

 

The Republican party has become a farce, a sideshow of intolerance and radical insurgency, owned and paid for by a select few.

[billw55]

The Republican party has become a farce, a sideshow of intolerance and radical insurgency, owned and paid for by a select few.

Well, Trump is farce, along with a couple others. I don't think the whole party is a farce ... yet. But the farce does seem to be spreading.

[jonottawa]

There is one eeny, tiny, problem with the Trump plan - although he claims we must follow the Constitution, he also wants to abolish the 14th amendment to that Constitution, which resolved the dread Dred Scott decision and gave African Americans born in the U.S. guaranteed citizenship, a question of birthrights for which we happened to fight a long and bloody civil war to decide.

 

The Republican party has become a farce, a sideshow of intolerance and radical insurgency, owned and paid for by a select few.

Whether the 14th amendment applies to anchor babies or not is an open question. But even if it does, the rest of the plan on its own is still leaps & bounds better than what we have now and it's far more likely that someone who isn't owned by his corporate/billionaire donors will get it done than that anybody else will.

 

The Democratic party, Republican party & MSM have become a farce, a sideshow of corporate funded propaganda, mismanagement & cultural marxism, owned and paid for by a select few. - FTFY

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ4SSvVbhLw (George Carlin, a couple of F-bombs if you're at work.)

 

For a more in-depth look at immigration, I recommend this. FWIU Senator Sessions collaborated with the Donald on his plan.

 

Anyway, I understand that 40+years of brainwashing has worked so I'm not going to go back-and-forth here. Have a nice day!

 

Edit: Oh alright, here's a nice jpg for Cherdano!

http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1437455537l/25437276.jpg

[billw55]

Anyway, I understand that 40+years of brainwashing has worked so I'm not going to go back-and-forth here. Have a nice day!

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

[kenberg]

I have not ead the Trump plan, although I have read a bit about it. Some thoughts on immigration, citizenship by birth, etc.

 

14th amendment. There was a problem. Slaves were freed, beyond that what was to be their status? This was an entirely different problem than the current one. Africans were brought here against their will, they did not decide it would be a really neat idea to hop a ship and come here to pick cotton. I gather the 14th amendment proclaimed that if someone was brought here as a slave and now freed, he was still not a citizen but his children, if born here, were. A reasonable solution to a massive problem of status.

 

 

Whether or not I am right about how the 14th amendment came into being, clearly there is a distinction between saying that the children fo former slaves who were here legally but unwillingly are citizens, and the children of people who are here illegally are citizens. At the very least, the difference should be acknowledged.

 

 

Now should we redo the 14th amendment to something along the lines of "children born in the US to mothers who are legally entitiled to be in the US are citizens by birth". It seems reasonable to me to do so. The current situation means that we can deport the mother but not the child. I understand that current policy is to d, but this seems out of whack. The mother comes illegally and has a child. We can't deport the child because s/he was born here and then we can't deport the mother becuase a child needs his/her mother. No one would intentionally set things up this way, we have stumbled into it and it should be addressed.

 

Now there is always past, present and future to be considered. Past is past. That's that. The present has to be addressed realistically, which to me would be accommodating the presence of the parents but I see no reason to bestow citizenship. It's the future that we can do something about, and dealing with the problems caused by having citizenship bestowed om the children of illegal immigrants would seem sensible. What's done is done, I would not support taking the citizenship away from those who already have it, I doubt that many would support it. But "what's done is done" doesn't mean that we have to keep doing it. .

[cherdano]

And jonottawa returns to remind everyone that he is still a xenophobic arrogant pr**.

 

(I am sure I'll be chided for not engaging him in a discussion of the issues. That would be an argument if anyone had ever successfully engaged this fellow in a discussion.)

 

Meanwhile, more on Trump's immigration plan can be found here:

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/16/9162905/trump-immigration

[mikeh]

But he's also a very successful businessman.

 

 

That is not necessarily true. He inherited a vast fortune, but has seen his net worth increase at a rate significantly lower than if he had just invested in some reasonably well managed mutual funds. I wish I could embed a link to the article on which I base this, but I can't recall the source, other than that it was a fairly respectable one.

 

One of the realities of life once wealth becomes very disproportionately distributed is that it becomes extremely difficult for very wealthy people to not get richer.

[mikeh]

Trump is right on the most important issue of our time, illegal immigration.

 

what a truly, truly bizarre view of the world you must have to believe that illegal immigration into the US is the 'most important issue of our time'.

 

How would that compare to the fact that right now we are living through what is possibly the faster-occurring mass extinction event of all time, other than the (probable) asteroid impact that killed off the dinosaurs (other than the ones that evolved into birds)?

 

Personally, I think that global warming (the real term, not this mealy-mouthed, neutral sounding 'climate change') is the most important issue of the past 50,000 years, but that's just me, I suppose. It is nothing to compare to the possibility that that dark-skinned fellow cutting your neighbour's yard lacks a visa.

[akwoo]

jonottawa - In other words, you want the US to behave like a gang of robbers. (Reference to St. Augustine deliberate.)

[hrothgar]

That is not necessarily true. He inherited a vast fortune, but has seen his net worth increase at a rate significantly lower than if he had just invested in some reasonably well managed mutual funds. I wish I could embed a link to the article on which I base this, but I can't recall the source, other than that it was a fairly respectable one.

 

One of the realities of life once wealth becomes very disproportionately distributed is that it becomes extremely difficult for very wealthy people to not get richer.

 

On September 12, 1975 (earliest date I can easily find and approximately when Trump inherited his money, the S&P 500 was trading at $83.30

Close of business today, the S&P was at 2035.75 (A 24.43 fold increase)

 

Trump's father provided him with roughly 200 million about the same time.

If Trump had been able to equal the performance of the S&P, he would have ended up with a little under 5 billion dollars, which is about a billion more than the usual estimate for his net worth

[hrothgar]

Trump is right on the most important issue of our time, illegal immigration. His policy is spot-on: Trump's Immigration Plan

 

He also isn't bought & paid for like the rest of the corporate-media-supported candidates.

 

As for the rest, who knows & who cares. If he's got a 5% chance of turning America around, I'll take that over the 0% chance that Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton have.

 

Trump is a deeply corrupt individual. (I recommend taking a look at the scandal ridden history of "Trump University")

I can't believe anyone is silly enough to believe that this self promoting can or should be allowed anywhere near the reins of power.

 

About the best things one can say for the bloviating idiot is that, for a change, the republican party isn't relying on dog whistles to hide their racist clap trap.

[blackshoe]

The fourteenth amendment nowhere mentions slavery or slaves. The relevant (to this discussion) text is: "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."

 

Are illegal aliens subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? IANAL, but I believe they are. Are the children of illegal aliens, born in the United States, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? IANAL, but I believe they are. If so, they (the children, not the aliens) are by the quoted sentence above, citizens of the United States and of the State in which they live. The only way to change that is via a Constitutional Amendment. I would not support such an amendment.

[Al_U_Card]

what a truly, truly bizarre view of the world you must have to believe that illegal immigration into the US is the 'most important issue of our time'.

 

How would that compare to the fact that right now we are living through what is possibly the faster-occurring mass extinction event of all time, other than the (probable) asteroid impact that killed off the dinosaurs (other than the ones that evolved into birds)?

 

Personally, I think that global warming (the real term, not this mealy-mouthed, neutral sounding 'climate change') is the most important issue of the past 50,000 years, but that's just me, I suppose. It is nothing to compare to the possibility that that dark-skinned fellow cutting your neighbour's yard lacks a visa.

Quite appropriate for this thread, as the UNFCCC/IPCC scam about the catastrophic effect of [CO2] on global temperatures/weather is a direct threat to democracy in general and our individual liberties and freedoms in particular. Much ado about nothing as the Bard would say, but it has been very effective in brainwashing a large number of caring, credulous individuals into forking over their cash for pretty much the worst "science" (non-falsifiable theory so not really science by definition) this side of Lysenkoism.

[kenberg]

The fourteenth amendment nowhere mentions slavery or slaves. The relevant (to this discussion) text is: "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."

 

Are illegal aliens subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? IANAL, but I believe they are. Are the children of illegal aliens, born in the United States, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? IANAL, but I believe they are. If so, they (the children, not the aliens) are by the quoted sentence above, citizens of the United States and of the State in which they live. The only way to change that is via a Constitutional Amendment. I would not support such an amendment.

 

Right, it does not mention slavery. I am guessing that the freeing of the slaves played a role in writing and passing it. There was a huge problem, or I assume that there was, as to just what status the former slaves had, now that they were no longer property.

 

This guess seems reasonable to me, historians no doubt have a more learned take on it.

 

Whether or not this is so, we are still free to examine the way it is playing out in our modern world. I seriously doubt that the intention was to give citizenship to children born of illegal aliens, wiht the result that the children cannot be deported and then the mother cannot be deported without depriving the child of a mother. This would be dumb.

 

So I am guessing they were concentrating on the status of the freed slaves and did not envision the developments of today.

 

Whatever they were thinking, we can re-think it.

 

 

There are various possibilities for a more sensible approach, but the one that seems to combine simplicity with sense is to give citizenship to the child of a mother if the mother is legally entitled to be here, and not give citizenship to the child if the mother is not legally entitled to be here.

[Winstonm]

Right, it does not mention slavery. I am guessing that the freeing of the slaves played a role in writing and passing it. There was a huge problem, or I assume that there was, as to just what status the former slaves had, now that they were no longer property.

 

This guess seems reasonable to me, historians no doubt have a more learned take on it.

 

Whether or not this is so, we are still free to examine the way it is playing out in our modern world. I seriously doubt that the intention was to give citizenship to children born of illegal aliens, wiht the result that the children cannot be deported and then the mother cannot be deported without depriving the child of a mother. This would be dumb.

 

So I am guessing they were concentrating on the status of the freed slaves and did not envision the developments of today.

 

Whatever they were thinking, we can re-think it.

 

 

There are various possibilities for a more sensible approach, but the one that seems to combine simplicity with sense is to give citizenship to the child of a mother if the mother is legally entitled to be here, and not give citizenship to the child if the mother is not legally entitled to be here.

 

Concerning the 14th amendment, my understanding is that due to the Dred Scott ruling by the Supreme Court there was no other way to guarantee citizenship to ex-slaves born on U.S. soil than Constitutional amendment, so although it does not mention slaves or slavery it was most certainly the reaction to U.S. legal history concerning slaves that propelled its passage.

[Winstonm]

This from Nornan Ornstein, a well-respected conservative scholar:

 

The Republican Party has become a radical insurgency – ideologically extreme, scornful of facts and compromise, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. Securing the common good in the face of these developments will require structural changes but also an informed and strategically focused citizenry.

www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1057

[hrothgar]

Trump is right on the most important issue of our time, illegal immigration. His policy is spot-on: Trump's Immigration Plan

 

Trump's immigration plan is mindless impotent posturing:

 

Let's start with this whole "wall" idea. The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants in the US are individuals who are overstaying their visas.

I wouldn't say that a wall is useless, however, at best it qualifies as theater rather than a meaningful solution.

 

Then there is this whole plan to force Mexico to pay for the (useless) wall. Trump really might want to read up on little things like NAFTA and the US trade commitments. Most of Trump's plan to put pressure on Mexico is illegal.

[kenberg]

Concerning the 14th amendment, my understanding is that due to the Dred Scott ruling by the Supreme Court there was no other way to guarantee citizenship to ex-slaves born on U.S. soil than Constitutional amendment, so although it does not mention slaves or slavery it was most certainly the reaction to U.S. legal history concerning slaves that propelled its passage.

 

On this we agree.

 

However. They could have accomplished the same thing by writing the law as i suggest. If the mother was here legally, the child is a citizen. The mother, when a slave, was not here willingly but she was here legally. So her child is a citizen.

 

I strongly suspect that they simply did not think this through properly.

 

We of course are not the only country ion the world. be of interst to know what policies elsewhere are. Consider the flood of refugees into Europe. Some go through the legal process but others just land.Suppose mother X arrives illegally on the shores of Italy, or Greece, or Turkey. She arrives, she goes through no legal process entitling her to stay, she gives borth. The child is an Italian or Greek or Turkish citizen? I don't know, but if so it strikes me as bizarre.

 

Basically, our current policy is: The child is legally allowed to stay here, the mother is not legally allowed to stay here, sending the mother back and keeping the child here is repulsive, so we just say the hell with it and let them both stay. When a lot is so stupid that enforcing it goes beyond reason, it seems to be time to change the law.

[kenberg]

Trump's immigration plan is mindless impotent posturing:

 

Let's start with this whole "wall" idea. The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants in the US are individuals who are overstaying their visas.

I wouldn't say that a wall is useless, however, at best it qualifies as theater rather than a meaningful solution.

 

Then there is this whole plan to force Mexico to pay for the (useless) wall. Trump really might want to read up on little things like NAFTA and the US trade commitments. Most of Trump's plan to put pressure on Mexico is illegal.

 

I would not expect a wall to be worth the effort. And, honestly, it seems silly. I confess I have not studied the practicality of it, but I am highly skeptical.

 

It would be useful to look at just what the problem is that we are trying to solve.

 

Drug dealers: Well, drugs are a problem and drugs will continue to be a problem as long as there is a substantial market. A wall might, or might not, shift the problem. It will not solve the problem.

 

Other criminals: I am opposed to criminal behavior. But with the immigrants, legal or illegal, it's not that "some may be good people", rather it is that the vast majority are just trying to make a better life for themselves, same as everyone else. I don't mean to minimize criminality, certainly not rape and murder, and gangs such as MS are a problem, butI favor dealing directly with criminals and, importantly, spending money in ways proven to guide young people to a better path.

 

Job displacement, especially of minorities: The evidence on this is mixed at best, but I saw something that high school drop-outs are adversely affected. Well, the fact is that high school drop outs are in for a tough time no matter what, and we need to do something to help young people do better. From what I have seen of some high schools in sme areas, I can understand dropping out. They suck. We cannot entirely stop people from making bad choices, but it might help if we offered them better choices. We need to work on this.

 

Of course this is a partial list. But I think we would be very disappointed when we find what a wall would actually do.

[mike777]

Politicians do a lot of dumb things but this attack on birthright citizenship is among the worst, very worst.

 

Bithright citizenship is a big part of what makes America great. Many countries do not have this.

 

I expect to not agree with all policies a politician may run on but this is a breaking point. I could never and would never support anyone who wanted to even suggest changing this.

---

 

As for the side discussion on the 14th amendment. Keep in mind the main purpose was to overturn Dred/Scott. That decision, the worst in the history of the Supreme Court,said children of Free blacks or any blacks could never be a citizen.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

[mike777]

On this we agree.

 

However. They could have accomplished the same thing by writing the law as i suggest. If the mother was here legally, the child is a citizen. The mother, when a slave, was not here willingly but she was here legally. So her child is a citizen.

 

I strongly suspect that they simply did not think this through properly.

 

We of course are not the only country ion the world. be of interst to know what policies elsewhere are. Consider the flood of refugees into Europe. Some go through the legal process but others just land.Suppose mother X arrives illegally on the shores of Italy, or Greece, or Turkey. She arrives, she goes through no legal process entitling her to stay, she gives borth. The child is an Italian or Greek or Turkish citizen? I don't know, but if so it strikes me as bizarre.

 

Basically, our current policy is: The child is legally allowed to stay here, the mother is not legally allowed to stay here, sending the mother back and keeping the child here is repulsive, so we just say the hell with it and let them both stay. When a lot is so stupid that enforcing it goes beyond reason, it seems to be time to change the law.

 

to answer your first issue, yes the baby born this way is a full US citizen with all the rights and obligations of such. This is a good thing, whether bizarre or not, a very good thing :)

 

Your second issue is a difficult one, I do not have a perfect answer or solution. The imperfect answer is in some cases both stay and in some cases as a practical matter both go or the child stays with another legal relative. Hopefully the child will return as an adult and the mom and dad can come back in some legal way.

 

 

IN no case is even suggesting getting rid of birth right citizenship a good answer.

[jonottawa]

what a truly, truly bizarre view of the world you must have to believe that illegal immigration into the US is the 'most important issue of our time'.

 

How would that compare to the fact that right now we are living through what is possibly the faster-occurring mass extinction event of all time, other than the (probable) asteroid impact that killed off the dinosaurs (other than the ones that evolved into birds)?

 

Personally, I think that global warming (the real term, not this mealy-mouthed, neutral sounding 'climate change') is the most important issue of the past 50,000 years, but that's just me, I suppose. It is nothing to compare to the possibility that that dark-skinned fellow cutting your neighbour's yard lacks a visa.

See, even Mikeh, one of the most brilliant people I know, has been brainwashed by decades of CBC Koolaid. That's why it's fruitless for me to try to debate the issue.

 

Since I like Mike so much, I'll give it a go:

 

First, 'global warming' became 'climate change' when there were freak cold events and people used those freak cold events to ridicule 'global warming.' So it's not about mealy-mouthed, it was a case of the Al Gores of the world covering their butts.

 

Second, if you believe pollution & mass extinction are huge problems (& I do, I would also wager I have a significantly smaller carbon footprint than 99% of the people on this forum, including you.) then it is only logical to investigate the cause of these problems. In a word, what's the cause?

 

Overpopulation. You'd never know that if you get all your information from the MSM, but if you stop & think about it for 5 minutes, it's self-evident. Sustainable development with zero population growth should be the goal of any sane individual who cares about the future of our planet & the people who will populate it.

 

The first world has been very responsible with respect to solving the problem, maintaining very low (in some cases sub-replacement) birth rates.

 

The rest of the world hasn't.

 

Your solution is to let all the countries of the first world be flooded with 3rd world immigrants until they become 3rd world countries with 1st world carbon appetites & with NO appetite for curbing global warming.

 

I would call that solution bizarre.

 

tl;dr If you don't understand the connection between immigration & climate change, I suggest you turn off the CBC for a few days & have an independent think.

 

Here's a neat article about what happened to the Crocodile Hunter's daughter when she sent an essay to Hillary about overpopulation. A brief excerpt from Bindi's essay: "I believe that most problems in the world today, such as climate change, stem from one immense problem which seems to be the 'elephant in the room' that no-one wants to talk about. This problem is our ever expanding human population. We are experiencing Earth's sixth mass extinction right now. ..."

 

Here's a cool nature video. See if you can identify its relevancy to this discussion.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO1WccH2_YM

 

Or this ad:

 

https://vimeo.com/11212514

[mike777]

See, even Mikeh, one of the most brilliant people I know, has been brainwashed by decades of CBC Koolaid. That's why it's fruitless for me to try to debate the issue.

 

Since I like Mike so much, I'll give it a go:

 

First, 'global warming' became 'climate change' when there were freak cold events and people used those freak cold events to ridicule 'global warming.' So it's not about mealy-mouthed, it was a case of the Al Gores of the world covering their butts.

 

Second, if you believe pollution & mass extinction are huge problems (& I do, I would also wager I have a significantly smaller carbon footprint than 99% of the people on this forum, including you.) then it is only logical to investigate the cause of these problems. In a word, what's the cause?

 

Overpopulation. You'd never know that if you get all your information from the MSM, but if you stop & think about it for 5 minutes, it's self-evident. Sustainable development with zero population growth should be the goal of any sane individual who cares about the future of our planet & the people who will populate it.

 

The first world has been very responsible with respect to solving the problem, maintaining very low (in some cases sub-replacement) birth rates.

 

The rest of the world hasn't.

 

Your solution is to let all the countries of the first world be flooded with 3rd world immigrants until they become 3rd world countries with 1st world carbon appetites & with NO appetite for curbing global warming.

 

I would call that solution bizarre.

 

tl;dr If you don't understand the connection between immigration & climate change, I suggest you turn off the CBC for a few days & have an independent think.

 

Here's a neat article about what happened to the Crocodile Hunter's daughter when she sent an essay to Hillary about overpopulation. A brief excerpt from Bindi's essay: "I believe that most problems in the world today, such as climate change, stem from one immense problem which seems to be the 'elephant in the room' that no-one wants to talk about. This problem is our ever expanding human population. We are experiencing Earth's sixth mass extinction right now. ..."

 

Here's a cool nature video. See if you can identify its relevancy to this discussion.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO1WccH2_YM

 

Or this ad:

 

https://vimeo.com/11212514

 

I don't know what 3d world immigrants are but the USA is certainly flooded with old world and new world immigrants.

And yes over the centuries the USA carbon footprint did increase by large amounts as we were flooded. Of course our standard of living increased by large amounts over the same period.

 

 

I think the even bigger elephant in the room as far as the increasing population is that the future of mankind lies in moving out into the universe. It is very limited thinking to just confine yourself to the resources on planet Earth. I would suggest rather than so much focus on less babies, think more about moving out into the universe. Move more of the old world out onto new worlds and new resources.

 

--

 

 

As far as the discussion concerning the sixth extinction, yes nature kills and nature destroys. As you point out 5 times at least on planet earth.