http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/15/arizona.immigration.children/index.html?hpt=C1

Quote :

" A proposed Arizona law would deny birth certificates to children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents. The bill comes on the heels of Arizona passing the nation's toughest immigration law. John Kavanagh, a Republican state representative from Arizona who supports the proposed law aimed at so-called "anchor babies," said that the concept does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution. "If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," said Kavanagh, who also supported Senate Bill 1070 -- the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers. Under federal law, children born in the United States are automatically granted citizenship, regardless of their parents' residency status. "

This was WAY over due. If only the federal government had enough common sense to adopt this federally. Sneaking into america to squirt out babies should not give you a free pass to stay and your kids the full rights and privileges of a normal citizen.

6/15/2010 8:53:56 AM

Can two wrongs make a right?

6/15/2010 9:07:18 AM

If you go back to the original intent of the constitution, you would count your slaves as 3/5ths of the population, women couldn’t vote, and you were a lesser class of citizen if you don’t own land.

And i’m skeptical that the original intent of the constitution was to stop people who were born here from being citizens, because at that time they were trying to get settlers to come and settle the land, and would have welcomed all the hard working anchor babies they could find.

Basically Kavanagh is entirely talking out his ass, and is just trying to rationalize his xenophobia by manufacturing his own delusional version of history.

6/15/2010 9:41:28 AM

^

6/15/2010 9:49:58 AM

Quote :

"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens"

lol, I don't think the drafters intended to bestow our current immigration policy either. If they are healthy, willing to work, and able to find work, I think our framers would have welcomed them and their families, and certainly intended to bestow citizenship to their children.

6/15/2010 10:04:43 AM

^
I didn't know babies were "willing to work, and able to find work".

6/15/2010 10:14:51 AM

Quote :

"If they are healthy, willing to work, and able to find work, I think our framers would have welcomed them and their families, and certainly intended to bestow citizenship to their children."

This is true, because manifest destiny was still in full effect and they needed to overwhelm the indigenous population.

[Edited on June 15, 2010 at 10:16 AM. Reason : oh shit... turnabout is fair play?]

6/15/2010 10:16:29 AM

That's exactly the point. These are both equally valid statements:

If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens

If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended not to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens

or more accurately, the drafters never considered illegal aliens.

Our current woes with immigration are not addressed by the constitution. I don't see any reason why we can't fix this situation without changing birthright citizenship.

[Edited on June 15, 2010 at 10:23 AM. Reason : ?]

6/15/2010 10:22:47 AM

If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens Arizonians

6/15/2010 10:27:19 AM

It was originally put in bc of slaves. We are the only country that has this law/rule. Its probably time to change it.

6/15/2010 10:38:15 AM

huh, explain?

I see, birthright citizenship comes from the 14th amendment. How was citizenship defined before then?

[Edited on June 15, 2010 at 10:50 AM. Reason : ?]

6/15/2010 10:45:01 AM

can't we just make it illegal because intentional abuse of the system is wrong?

Why not just say you are granted citizenship if you are born to current citizens and leave it at that?

6/15/2010 10:47:47 AM

If you entered America illegally, I don't care how many children you give birth to on American soil. You are an illegal alien and should be deported. If you want to leave your American citizen-by-birth children in an orphanage, your prerogative.

However, broadly saying that the children, born on American soil, of illegal alien parents are also illegal aliens causes some problems. What happens if an American citizen knocks up an illegal alien? Do we flip a coin - "Sorry, Josefina, tails. Back to Guatemala." - What happens if an illegal alien is raped by an unknown attacker and gives birth to a resulting child? For now, I think you have to give children born on American soil citizenship, if only for lack of a better way to regulate.

6/15/2010 10:57:56 AM

I really like how folks here are encouraging punishing a child for the sins of the parent. On both sides of this discussion.

6/15/2010 11:05:19 AM

all this dumb shit is a response to our broken immigration system. It needs to be far far easier for someone looking to contribute to the country to enter legally and gain citizenship.

6/15/2010 11:07:23 AM

Quote :

"I really like how folks here are encouraging punishing a child for the sins of the parent. On both sides of this discussion. "

I guess if you are going to classify deportation as punishment. But I don't see how we are responsible for that? there are plenty of kids living in other countries - they can be one of them

6/15/2010 11:12:28 AM

its a punishment to live anywhere thats not america :fsmug:

6/15/2010 11:20:06 AM

We should let people come here, live here, and work here as they please, provided we have decent border security. If we did that, Mexico and the United States would be much better off. I don't see a problem with children born here becoming citizens.

You can't look at the intent of the founders without looking at how they might view our current system. They wouldn't be happy with it. Relations between the United States and Mexico are worsened by our laws. The minimum wage here provides an incentive for immigrants to come here and work illegally, because it's illegal to work for less than 7.25 an hour. Many illegals are more than happy to work for less than that. Drug prohibition has created a drug trade that must come through Mexico and Latin America, which has resulted in more violent crime and human suffering than prohibition has ever prevented. Also, we inflated a housing bubble here, resulting in artificially high demand for construction jobs. Now, we're attempting to re-inflate the bubble, and we foolishly wonder why there's an influx of immigrants.

We should never be discouraging people from coming here and being productive. We all benefit from that. However, the free market is being distorted by government mandates, and one of the negative consequences of that is higher immigration and a black market for labor.

6/15/2010 11:29:59 AM

Maybe we should put land mines on the border like Tom Mullins (R) suggested.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/15/new-mexico-republican-candidate-suggests-land-mines-mexico-border/

Quote :

"In the May 18 interview with KNMX radio in Las Vegas, N.M., Mullins says the U.S. could mine the border, install barbed wire and post signs directing would-be border jumpers to cross legally at designated checkpoints."

6/15/2010 11:53:08 AM

Quote :

"huh, explain?"

Patman, the 14th came after the civil war and was used to override Dredd Scott(blacks couldnt be citizens)

The 13th ended slavery. But if they could not be citizens, they basically had no country of thier own to call home. THe 14th took care of that. It was much needed then, not so much now.

google for more links.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_14th.html

6/15/2010 12:06:42 PM

Arizona has totally lost it as of late. It's as if they're trying to win a xenophobia contest.

6/15/2010 12:42:55 PM

Quote :

"It was originally put in bc of slaves. We are the only country that has this law/rule. Its probably time to change it."

We are certainly not the only country with Jus Soli citizenship.

Quote :

"Jus soli is common in developed countries that wish to increase their own citizenry, as well as in countries of the Western Hemisphere who sought to increase their populations through settlement.[citation needed] It is also recognized in some developing countries. States that observe jus soli include: Antigua and Barbuda[3] Argentina[3] Barbados[3] Belize[3] Bolivia[3] Brazil[3] Canada[3] Chile[4] (children of transient foreigners or of foreign diplomats on assignment in Chile only upon request) Colombia[3] Dominica[3] Dominican Republic[3] Ecuador[3] El Salvador[3] Fiji[5] Grenada[3] Guatemala[3] Guyana[3] Honduras[3] Jamaica[3] Lesotho[6] Malaysia[3] Mexico[3] Nicaragua[3] Pakistan[3] Panama[3] Paraguay[3] Peru[3] Saint Christopher and Nevis[3] Saint Lucia[3] Saint Vincent and the Grenadines[3] Trinidad and Tobago[3] United States[3] Uruguay[3] Venezuela[3]"

Yeah, it's a bunch of Western Hemisphere countries.

[Edited on June 15, 2010 at 1:57 PM. Reason : Copied straight from Wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli]

6/15/2010 1:56:01 PM

western hemisphere, bestern hemisphere

6/15/2010 2:25:23 PM

Quote :

"I really like how folks here are encouraging punishing a child for the sins of the parent. On both sides of this discussion. "

Who is punishing children?? Arizona is just saying that if you are born to illegal parents than you should not
automatically have citizenship. Someone made the comment about the "US citizen dad" and the illegal mom. I am sure this law
asserts taht having one legal parent still makes one a citizen. In this case though the child may have to stay with
daddy if mom gets deported.

Quote :

"all this dumb shit is a response to our broken immigration system. It needs to be far far easier for someone looking to contribute to the country to enter legally and gain citizenship. "

This still would not stop illegals from coming....

Quote :

"We should never be discouraging people from coming here and being productive"

I agree with this. My problem is you have no idea what someone is up to when they are coming to this country by sneaking
across the fence at 1am.

Quote :

"Arizona has totally lost it as of late. It's as if they're trying to win a xenophobia contest. "

My Girlfriend is pretty liberal, all about helping others, boohooing over poor people, supports affirmitive action,
labor unions, believes in more progressive taxation, and even she thinks the law is a Good idea.


I think it is stupid that illegal immigrants just have to make a baby in order to be able to stay in the country. This is probably a good thing to change this.

6/15/2010 2:40:18 PM

Wouldn't this bill get struck down by the courts anyway? It's blatantly unconstitutional.

6/15/2010 2:51:00 PM

timswar, thanks for the info/link.

6/15/2010 3:19:39 PM

Quote :

"Wouldn't this bill get struck down by the courts anyway? It's blatantly unconstitutional."

Amendment 14

1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I think one could argue that someone who sneaks in is not under the jurisdiction of the US.

6/15/2010 3:38:31 PM

If they're born here they are under the jurisdiction of the US, and therefore citizens. I'm actually in favor of this. Yes, it would suck for the kid, but one person's citizenship should have no effect on the legal status of their parents regardless of age.

6/15/2010 4:29:37 PM

With your logic Raul Castro could come via envoy to the US for a diplomatic confrence. His wife tags along 8 months pregnant. Oh Know's! She gives birth, so now Fidel's new nephew is a US citizen! YAY!

Is it really fair that an engineer coming from India has to spend years working for his naturalization while greatly contributing to our society. Meanwhile Juanita simply has to hop the fence, have a baby before INS catches her, and this kid gets handed a free citizenship card (most likely Juanita gets to stay now since we don't want to seperate a kid from his mom)

[Edited on June 15, 2010 at 4:38 PM. Reason : a]

6/15/2010 4:36:25 PM

Quote :

"Oh Know's!"

6/15/2010 4:43:19 PM

Quote :

"I agree with this. My problem is you have no idea what someone is up to when they are coming to this country by sneaking across the fence at 1am."

Right. That's why I don't think there should be any kind of "cap" on how many people can come into the United States. Everyone should be required to go through border security, though. If the immigration cap were removed, there would be no real incentive to "hop the fence" and pop out a baby, because you could legitimately enter the country at any time and have access to the same opportunities as anyone else. If, at the same time, we removed any kind of trade barriers between us and Latin America, we could really see our (and their) economy flourish.

6/15/2010 4:44:41 PM

"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens,"
Right, because back then there was no such thing as an alien, legal or otherwise. Your physical presence alone in the land of the founders made you a citizen.

6/15/2010 5:09:13 PM

Quote :

"Is it really fair that an engineer coming from India has to spend years working for his naturalization while greatly contributing to our society. Meanwhile Juanita simply has to hop the fence, have a baby before INS catches her, and this kid gets handed a free citizenship card (most likely Juanita gets to stay now since we don't want to seperate a kid from his mom)"

No its not fair, and this "no more anchor babies" seems like a really good idea. Hell its about time someone got serious about immigration.

6/15/2010 5:19:37 PM

How common do people think this anchor baby thing is?

6/15/2010 5:53:07 PM

^
good point

an uncommon thing is less of a thing []





[Edited on June 15, 2010 at 6:28 PM. Reason : my turn for a strawman?]

6/15/2010 5:59:15 PM

Quote :

"How common do people think this anchor baby thing is?"

I'd say very very common....

Quote :

"liot is one of an estimated 300,000 children of illegal immigrants born in the United States every year, "

http://www.wral.com/news/education/story/7790621/

Quote :

"America recorded about 4,247,000 births last year, down about 68,000 from 2007, according to a new report from the National Center for Health Statistics."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-08-07-baby-bust_N.htm

Even if you say the 300,000 is exaggerated and deduce to be closer to 200,000; this is still 5% of baby births in the US.

5% That means about 1 student in every 20 person Kindergarten class-room.

[Edited on June 15, 2010 at 7:05 PM. Reason : l]

6/15/2010 6:59:02 PM

Quote :

"women couldn’t vote"

really? I don't recall there being any section in the original Constitution that said women couldn't vote. dumbass.


anyway, yeah, pretty blatantly unConstitutional. Not helping their case at this point. Do I agree with the idea of the law? Hells yeah. Is it Constitutional? Hells no

6/15/2010 7:01:24 PM

Quote :

"an uncommon thing is less of a thing"

Well, if we're going to get worked up about something, spend political capital on it, anger a large number of people because of it, possibly violate the constitution in the process, reverse more than 200 years of policy, spend money enforcing it, and all the way around give government more power, I just feel like maybe it should be something that happens enough to really matter.

---

Hur -- I can't find that line anywhere in the article that link took me to, which was about the NAACP protest.

But I don't doubt that you found the figure somewhere, and it is possibly exaggerated. But even if it isn't, it tells us relatively little about actual anchor babies.

Of those 300,000, how many were born to...
-Parents who already had a kid in the United States? As I'm sure you're aware, Hispanics do like making babies.
-Were born to people who do not intend to permanently reside in the United States?
-Were born to people who just wanted to have a kid, not enact some nefarious plot to seal their place here?

Because none of those would be anchor babies. Those would just be brown kids, and citizens or not they'd still get to go to fucking school. And if you want to change that, too, then I'll just say you're insane for intentionally attempting to increase illiteracy and crime.

I think that when you pare down "children of illegals" to actual anchor babies you get left with a pretty small number, I don't think that getting rid of that "loophole" will put a noticeable dent in illegal immigration. They'll still come here, they'll still have kids; it'll just be a little easier to deport a small percentage of them in the event that we actually find them, which is not that often.

You want to reduce illegal immigration (and, apparently, immigration in general)? Try something that doesn't basically give the government the power to one day tell me that my kids aren't citizens.

6/16/2010 12:50:05 AM

[Edited on June 16, 2010 at 1:39 AM. Reason : ]

6/16/2010 1:23:26 AM

^
[before the edit: "Arizona should go ahead and start ethnic cleansing, because that's clearly their end goal."]
Tell that to the many Hispanic Arizonans that support the law.


It's sad how much some idiots want to think everything is racism-driven...
Also sad is how opponents of the law want to punish [all of] Arizona, because clearly the law had 100% support, not 52%.


[Edited on June 16, 2010 at 1:35 AM. Reason : ]

6/16/2010 1:31:18 AM

you can roll your eyes all you want, holmes. this, along with the illegal immigration bill, along with the state schools not being allowed to teach minority classes, along with the desire to fire school teachers who's "accents are not up to the standards of this guy demonstrate the state's paranoid agenda.

Quote :

"Tell that to the many Hispanic Arizonans that support the law."

I would happily tell that to the hispanics who support the law. what, because they are hispanic, they can't be accused of the same xenophobia permeating the entire state? fuck that. having hispanic friends doesn't make the lawmakers less racist.

this bill, like the handful of bills before it, reeks like the devil's asshole. arizona fucking sucks.

[Edited on June 16, 2010 at 1:48 AM. Reason : ]

6/16/2010 1:38:09 AM

Quote :

"you can roll your eyes all you want, holmes."

okay

Quote :

"this [law]"

is likely constitutional(?), and is supported by 52% of Arizonans. You got a problem with democracy?
Even if it's not constitutional, since when do liberals care about that?

Quote :

"along with the illegal immigration bill"

We'll see what happens...

Quote :

"along with the state schools not being allowed to teach minority classes"

Banning racist classes? Sounds like a good thing. OH RIGHT! RACIAL PREJUDICE IS ONLY BAD WHEN IT'S NEGATIVE -- IT'S OKAY TO TEACH CONCEPTS SUCH AS "BLACK CULTURE", "BLACK MUSIC", ETC.

Quote :

"along with the desire to fire school teachers who's "accents are not up to the standards..."

I'd like schools to also fire teachers with redneck or other accents -- proper English is important.
Are you telling me that you've never had a professor from India or Japan or somewhere and you couldn't understand them? Students don't need that shit. BUT OH WAIT, THIS ISN'T ABOUT UNDERSTANDING ENGLISH, IS IT? -- IT'S REALLY RACISM, RIGHT?

Quote :

"shows the state's paranoid agenda"

No. But your paranoid agenda is showing... OMG OMG OMG RACISTS ARE OUT TO GET US!!

[Edited on June 16, 2010 at 2:29 AM. Reason : ]

6/16/2010 2:09:26 AM

Quote :

"You got a problem with democracy?"

only when it's blatantly unconstitutional. perhaps we should count these american born babies as 3/5's citizens?

Quote :

"Banning racist classes? Sounds like a good thing. OH RIGHT! RACIAL PREJUDICE IS ONLY BAD WHEN IT'S NEGATIVE -- IT'S OKAY TO TEACH CONCEPTS SUCH AS "BLACK CULTURE", "BLACK MUSIC", ETC. "

pfffff. you really think concepts like black culture, black music, etc are racist? if that's true, then we have a completely different understanding of what racism is.

Quote :

"I'd like schools to also fire teachers with redneck or other accents -- proper English is important. Are you telling me that you've never had a professor from India or Japan or somewhere and you couldn't understand them? Students don't need that shit."

please, answer me this, i'm begging you: how do you objectively qualify someone's accent? you can't, because language and communication are contextual. you may have a hard time deciphering one's "accent" while the person sitting right next to you has no problem. and as it stands, the egregious accents are up to one man who looks like he's trying to stuff as many billiard balls into his face as possible. and did you honestly think that because you threw in "redneck accent" that i'm going to sit back in my chair and say, "hmm....well at least this indy cat is consistent across the board." ?

Quote :

"No. But your paranoid agenda is showing..."

the writing is on the fucking wall, and you want to resort to the 'ole "i know you are, but what am i?" tactic. two thumbs down, sir. two thumbs all the way down.

[Edited on June 16, 2010 at 2:50 AM. Reason : ]

6/16/2010 2:36:55 AM

so will there be a constitutional amendment?

6/16/2010 8:32:29 AM

^
I guess we'll see.

Quote :

"only when it's blatantly unconstitutional. perhaps we should count these american born babies as 3/5's citizens?"

We're talking about the Arizona law, not the current Arizona bill.
I'm not sure that the Arizona law is unconstitutional -- where is the thread for that? I've heard legal scholars weigh in on both sides...

Quote :

"pfffff. you really think concepts like black culture, black music, etc are racist? if that's true, then we have a completely different understanding of what racism is."

No shit, and your understanding is inadequate. There are 2 definitions of racism:
1) racial prejudice -- the idea that race intrinsically means something
2) racial superiority -- the idea that one or more races is superior to others

The concept of culture or music being "black" (or "white", etc.) is inescapably racist. There is nothing intrinsic about black skin pigmentation that has to do with soul music. We don't call Historically Black Colleges simply "black colleges", as though black skin pigmentation is intrinsic to that college -- but we do acknowledge history. That's the difference. You liberals can't tell the difference between that which is merely a fact of history or of the ephemeral status-quo and that which is intrinsically true about the nature of something. Pointing out that 90% of _____ [some race] is currently ______ [something] is an observation of the status quo... where history has led us. Suggesting that that "something" is apart of the identity of that race is racist -- that something is not an intrinsic part of the race. The distinction of race is meaningless anyway -- that's the point. Liberals want the distinction of race to mean something.... namely that each race has its own culture. If an individual of a particular race is born... oh well, they're "destined" to be a part of that specific culture, right? No. We are individuals first, not members of race-defined anything.

Quote :

"please, answer me this, i'm begging you: how do you objectively qualify someone's accent? you can't, because language and communication are contextual. you may have a hard time deciphering one's "accent" while the person sitting right next to you has no problem."

Who am I? The accent police?
Relative or not, everyone would agree that at some point, being able to understand your teacher is important, and so in general their accent must be understood by a maximum of students. Certainly this differs from region to region, but you're acting like any effort at all to limit teachers' accents is wrong -- clearly there's a line somewhere. (Again, I'm not the accent police, so I don't and shouldn't have to know where that line is exactly.)

Quote :

"and as it stands, the egregious accents are up to one man who looks like he's trying to stuff as many billiard balls into his face as possible."

Well, a lot is done in our system by only one official -- and sometimes they get it wrong and we replace them. Democracy for the win. How about presenting some evidence (other than your childish criticism of his appearance,) that his standards are excessive? I'm only defending the existence of some standards -- if his go too far, that's one thing.... but some are needed.

Quote :

"and did you honestly think that because you threw in "redneck accent" that i'm going to sit back in my chair and say, "hmm....well at least this indy cat is consistent across the board." ?"

I don't care what you think. You're a racism defender. Why should I care about you?
Also interesting is that you highlighted "redneck accent" but not Indian or Japanese as I also mentioned. (There you go again with your racial intent..... you racist.)

The issue instantly reminded me of a particular section of a math class I took at State where literally more than half of the class changed sections (or dropped the class,) in the first week because the professor couldn't be understood -- some kind of Germanic accent. But no, you're right -- I'm just a closet anti-Mexico bigot -- you got me.

Quote :

"you want to resort to the 'ole "i know you are, but what am i?" tactic."

Not exactly. That conclusion is drawn from your own words, sir. Nothing I've said reveals any racism on my part, because I'm not racist. However, most of what you've said reveals that you both support racist "minority classes" and that you're fighting shadows: you're attacking perceived racism that really isn't there -- you know, as though you're paranoid about the boogeyman racists that ARE EVERYWHERE AND RUNNING THE SHOW!! OH NOES!! THE RACISTS!!! HALP!

6/16/2010 8:53:13 AM

Quote :

"The concept of culture or music being "black" (or "white", etc.) is inescapably racist. There is nothing intrinsic about black skin pigmentation that has to do with soul music. We don't call Historically Black Colleges simply "black colleges", as though black skin pigmentation is intrinsic to that college -- but we do acknowledge history. That's the difference. You liberals can't tell the difference between that which is merely a fact of history or of the ephemeral status-quo and that which is intrinsically true about the nature of something. Pointing out that 90% of _____ [some race] is currently ______ [something] is an observation of the status quo... where history has led us. Suggesting that that "something" is apart of the identity of that race is racist -- that something is not an intrinsic part of the race. The distinction of race is meaningless anyway -- that's the point. Liberals want the distinction of race to mean something.... namely that each race has its own culture. If an individual of a particular race is born... oh well, they're "destined" to be a part of that specific culture, right? No. We are individuals first, not members of race-defined anything."

Yet the Arizona law that you apparently support, wouldn’t allow schools to teach these concepts.

How do you not see this?

Are you sure you’re not hooksaw? Because you have the same naive, short-sighted thought processes as him.

6/16/2010 7:07:22 PM

Which part of the Arizona law says that?

Quote :

"only when it's blatantly unconstitutional. perhaps we should count these american born babies as 3/5's citizens?"

God damn, this has to be one of the worst liberal talking points on here. "Oh, you think we should follow the constitution? Why do you think a black person is worth 3/5s of a white person?" Seriously, the shit was amended a long time ago. We have an amendment process that allows for something that is clearly wrong to be changed.

[Edited on June 16, 2010 at 7:13 PM. Reason : ]

6/16/2010 7:11:00 PM

^what are you going on about? the 3/5 rule is a pretty apt comparison, considering the topic revolves around citizenship. could you please point me to the rule that states that once an old, racist law is amended, it is officially water under the bridge and no longer eligible for reference? so what if it was "amended a long time ago," the similarities both revolve around valuing the citizenship of someone born in the united states, and i'm not going to apologize for using it just because it offends your perceived post racial sensibilities.

Quote :

"Who am I? The accent police?"

the fact that you can acknowledge the absurdity of having an "accent police" and then simultaneously support the very existence of one is..........amazing

[Edited on June 16, 2010 at 9:27 PM. Reason : ]

6/16/2010 9:19:35 PM

Quote :

"what are you going on about? the 3/5 rule is a pretty apt comparison, considering the topic revolves around citizenship."

sure, it does revolve around citizenship. but ^^ was also referencing Constitutionality. And, since it was amended a long time ago, his comment makes perfect sense. Otherwise, let's also bitch about the income tax. Hey, maybe we can bitch about England taxing us without representation, too, while we're at it

6/16/2010 10:18:35 PM

^^ Have you read the law? It's worded so vaguely that any school program that might make mention of civil rights era violations, 9/11, or really any historical issue where race was a factor could theoretically be banned by the gov.

It's amazing that you 2 supposed proponents of small government and "libertarianism" would want any gov. authority to have such broad power to ban a class because it might promote "resentment" of a group.

ESPECIALLY when it is then subsequently used to target a single specific program, that doesn't even seem to fit what the legislation claims to be against.

So if i'm a teacher teaching a class about the atrocities that spurred the civil rights movement, how exactly do i stop kids from maybe feeling resentment at what some of the whites of the time did?

It's such an obviously dumb, vague, and overly broad law, i don't see why anyone would support it. It doesn't represent any of the tenants of freedom we are supposed to stand for. We may as well melt down the Statue of Liberty.

6/16/2010 10:24:30 PM