deepthunk
Justadude with a keyboard
- Feb 19, 2011
- 313
- 48
- 66
I have little doubt that those of us who follow the news have heard the Conservatives non-stop assault on the 14th amendment under the guise of preventing illegal immigrants from using so called "anchor babies" to remain in the country illegally. Having studied the issue from every possible perspective i have come to the conclusion that the Conservative arguments are completely irrational, and when a national political party does or say's anything that appears irrational one must look beneath the surface to examine ulterior motives.
Let us begin by examining exactly why the Conservative arguments (both republican and tea-party) are in fact completely irrational.
First let us consider from an impartial standpoint that having a child in this country in no way grants the child's parents a guarantee of citizenship. In fact in order to prove that the child was born in the U.S. the child's mother must give birth in a hospital which essentially guarantees the child's mother will be deported, while the child (if allowed to remain in the U.S.) will be placed in the custody of the state.
Meanwhile, the child (in order to sponsor his or her parents for citizenship) must grow to adulthood which we all know takes the better part of two decades. During this time the child would be raised by american foster parents, leaving the child with little or no emotional connection to the parents who (from the child's perspective) essentially abandoned him or her in a foreign country.
Let us also not forget that in order for this ludicrous plan to work the way Conservatives insist it does, the child's mother would be forced to enter this country illegally no less than nine months pregnant. Ladies and gentlemen, i have known only a few ninth month expectant mothers, but those i have known could barely get up out of a chair let alone cross the rio grand or hike across open dessert. Furthermore if said expectant mother were to make such an insane attempt it would almost certainly cause a miscarriage long before they even got within sight of the U.S. border. Therefore in order to even have a baby in the U.S. an illegal immigrant would have to already have been here for more than nine months, making it unlikely the child could have been conceived for any nefarious immigration related reason.
With those facts having now been established, let us now take a long hard look at Conservative (both republican and tea-party) racism and the racial makeup of the Conservative core voting demographic.
Because of the Conservative (both republican and tea-party) stance on certain key political issues such as affirmative action and immigration, minorities make up a substantial portion of the liberal core voting base. With this in mind is it not just possible that Conservatives my wish to change the 14th amendment to disenfranchise as many minority voters as possible? I believe not only is it possible, but that disenfranchising those voters for the sole purpose of destroying the democratic party is exactly their intention and i shall go on to explain why in fact i am convinced of just that.
For a moment lets think reasonably and rationally about just how many of these so called "anchor babies" might actually exist on a national level.
Clearly far less than 50% of illegal immigrants are female, of those only a small fraction will become pregnant in any given year, and of those only a vary tiny fraction will be in the U.S. long enough to give birth as most will be deported in less than nine months. What this means is that the number of so called "anchor babies" in any given state (or on a national scale) is so small, that these children cannot possibly have any measurable fiscal or social impact.
Given these facts, concern over "anchor babies" cannot possibly be the true motive for the Conservatives desire to alter the 14th amendment of the Constitution. Logic dictates that their only motive is to prevent as many liberal voters as possible from voting.
folks, Conservatives might pee on our heads and tell us its rain, but between you and me that yellow rain smells awful funny.
Let us begin by examining exactly why the Conservative arguments (both republican and tea-party) are in fact completely irrational.
First let us consider from an impartial standpoint that having a child in this country in no way grants the child's parents a guarantee of citizenship. In fact in order to prove that the child was born in the U.S. the child's mother must give birth in a hospital which essentially guarantees the child's mother will be deported, while the child (if allowed to remain in the U.S.) will be placed in the custody of the state.
Meanwhile, the child (in order to sponsor his or her parents for citizenship) must grow to adulthood which we all know takes the better part of two decades. During this time the child would be raised by american foster parents, leaving the child with little or no emotional connection to the parents who (from the child's perspective) essentially abandoned him or her in a foreign country.
Let us also not forget that in order for this ludicrous plan to work the way Conservatives insist it does, the child's mother would be forced to enter this country illegally no less than nine months pregnant. Ladies and gentlemen, i have known only a few ninth month expectant mothers, but those i have known could barely get up out of a chair let alone cross the rio grand or hike across open dessert. Furthermore if said expectant mother were to make such an insane attempt it would almost certainly cause a miscarriage long before they even got within sight of the U.S. border. Therefore in order to even have a baby in the U.S. an illegal immigrant would have to already have been here for more than nine months, making it unlikely the child could have been conceived for any nefarious immigration related reason.
With those facts having now been established, let us now take a long hard look at Conservative (both republican and tea-party) racism and the racial makeup of the Conservative core voting demographic.
Because of the Conservative (both republican and tea-party) stance on certain key political issues such as affirmative action and immigration, minorities make up a substantial portion of the liberal core voting base. With this in mind is it not just possible that Conservatives my wish to change the 14th amendment to disenfranchise as many minority voters as possible? I believe not only is it possible, but that disenfranchising those voters for the sole purpose of destroying the democratic party is exactly their intention and i shall go on to explain why in fact i am convinced of just that.
For a moment lets think reasonably and rationally about just how many of these so called "anchor babies" might actually exist on a national level.
Clearly far less than 50% of illegal immigrants are female, of those only a small fraction will become pregnant in any given year, and of those only a vary tiny fraction will be in the U.S. long enough to give birth as most will be deported in less than nine months. What this means is that the number of so called "anchor babies" in any given state (or on a national scale) is so small, that these children cannot possibly have any measurable fiscal or social impact.
Given these facts, concern over "anchor babies" cannot possibly be the true motive for the Conservatives desire to alter the 14th amendment of the Constitution. Logic dictates that their only motive is to prevent as many liberal voters as possible from voting.
folks, Conservatives might pee on our heads and tell us its rain, but between you and me that yellow rain smells awful funny.
