I just had an old man rant at me

Post Reply New Topic

And school teachers, police officers, judges, and a host of others.

The "global community" is now at hand.

There's a difference between a simple government worker and someone in a position of power like a president. It's unconstitutional for a reason. It was meant to stop people who spent most of their lives in another country from becoming president and putting the interest of their home country over those of the US, not to mention secretly taking orders from foreign governments. I'm not saying most immigrants are like that, in fact alot of them love America more than most natural born citizens. I'm saying it's a possibility, and however remote it may seem in modern times I'm glad it's still there.

Obama's birth certificate has not been released by his people because A) he is not a citizen. B) the original was destroyed in a fire or something and therefore his citizenship can't be proved. or C) they have it but won't release it because they need those on the right to look as crazy as possible.

My problem with him is that he's a lying, cheating, corrupt, politician like almost all of them. What's worse is that he does not understand our founding principles and therefore does not really believe in them, though I'm sure he thinks he does. I think like many of our presidents his policies will do more harm than good.

Hey, wait a minute... John_Browning suggests that the birthers do have a point. But it's not longer a matter of birth--it's a matter of immigration. Was he born to US citizens who were here legally?

Wow... It makes perfect sense now. Amnesty grants legality to more immigrants, hence more of their babies are legally born US citizens and more of them give more parents a legal hold on staying within the US.

So if the Constitution is changed, that means it would be impossible for, say, Obama to be president. He'd be "grandfathered" out.

The plot thickens...

No he wouldn't. Look up ex post facto.

As for the proposed ammendment I am not aware of John Browning supporting it. You're suggestion that he supports it is specifically to get Obama out of office makes no sense at all. Even if ex post facto didn't exist there some lawyer would have to come up with new grounds or evidence of judicial bias because the original birther case was thrown out; as for congressional hearings into lawbreaking (for some reason presidents are not tried in courts by juries) the republicans would need a filibuster-proof majority to impeach him, as their's no way the democrats would turn on their own man.

I think you missed my point.

Amnesty grants special privileges to illegal immigrants, making their stay here legal and their US-born children citizens and further solidifying their hold on American ground. The Democratic Party platform does a better job of attracting minority voters, to include Hispanics as well as the labor unions. Amnesty guarantees them a stronger voter base, hence a tighter hold on power. It also guarantees the possibility that there are more foreigners who are themselves "technically" qualified to run for the top office in the country.

Changing the constitution would prevent that by limiting who can claim citizenship rights. Obama now, but never again. By further limiting the Democratic voter base, Republicans would effectively loosen their grip on power or force them to change their policies just to keep up.

That is, of course, assuming that Obama is NOT a legal citizen born to naturalized American parents. I have a feeling even the best political and legal mind games won't be enough to force Obama out of office. Constitutional amendments take YEARS to pass, and likely we won't see anything come of that until the next Democratic president, whenever that happens. We'll see how things go this November.

First of all naturalized citizens are not foreigners at all. Secondly there is no way for them to be "technically qualified" to be president, as only natural born citizens can run.

Finally, your suggestion that Republicans do not want the children of immigrants to become president is ludicrous. It assumes they are all either ignorant when it comes to the children of immigrants or bigots. That in itself is an ignorant generalization. I expected more from this forum.

Ignorant generalization? Wha???

Look, I don't know what decade or century you belong to, but you need to catch up on recent history.

Democrats favor minorities and labor unions. It's true. That is among their targeted demographic.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans are really that interested in changing their respective status quo. They DO, however, work hard to maintain their hold on power. Not only that, they want to strengthen their position into the future. Democrats have a lot to gain the more they can keep one of their own in the presidency. Even better if one of them happens to be a member of a minority group, and nothing demonstrates that better than the current administration. And the best way to ensure that they can maintain power is by strengthening their voter base. Amnesty to illegals is a good start. More than likely immigrants and naturalized citizens will influence their children to vote along the same party lines as their parents or even run for office themselves (again, case in point). This ensures the Democratic political position long into the future. It's been an effective strategy for nearly a century now and isn't looking likely to change any time soon.

To counter this strategy, Republicans have to undermine in every way they can their efforts by limiting that voter base. I'm sorry if the word "foreigner" offends you, but they ARE foreigners until they become naturalized. A constitutional amendment will stop children born to illegals from becoming US citizens automatically. FOREIGN illegals will no longer be able to gain a foothold in America through their children, so Democrats lose support from FOREIGN illegals AND potential votes from their FOREIGN domestic-born children. This will hurt Democrats at the polls and guarantee the Republicans more political leverage.

Democrats would have no choice but to change their policies and, hence, their platform to attract more voters to outweigh the Republicans.

Just so you know, I do lean in favor of Republicans when it comes to party platform, and I'm not a bigot at all. In fact, one of the main reasons I was invited to complete my graduate studies in Northern New York was that my professor was impressed that I'd spent my whole life in Mississippi and resisted the stereotype of the southern racist which, btw, most of us aren't. So I don't imagine for a second that Republicans are all bigoted (some ARE, sadly, and those just happen to be the select few that you seem to hear about a lot).

So I'm not speaking from a conservative or liberal bias as you appear to think I am. I'm just trying to shoot straight and avoid generalizations. You don't HAVE to agree with me, but you'd do yourself and everyone else a favor by examining recent history and the FACTS of our contemporary political climate. If you "expected more" from this forum, perhaps it is a good idea for you catch yourself up with the realities and ugliness of American politics and come back when you have something better-informed and more intelligent to say.