Birthright Citizenship 14th Amendment

[Mikeoxenormous]

So what is a FAIR WAGE? $15 , $20 , $25 and if that is enacted do we get rid of WELFARE since everyone is getting a FAIR WAGE?

$15.00 would seem fair to me.

So what if we did have a world were everyone had a job making a living wage? One where you had job protections and couldn't be fired by a capricious boss without cause?

That would probably eliminate the need for welfare, except for the disabled.

But the problem is, most 'entitlements' go to middle class white people- Unemployment, Social Security, Medicare. What poor people get in "Welfare' is really less than 1% of the GDP. Some of it like SNAP is designed specifically to prop up certain industries.

You know Joe, in a country that is supposed to be free, isn't up to the person to get the wages that he deserves? Why is it up to the company to provide wages a person demands? If someone is worth 50 cents to do a job, shouldn't that wage be 50 cents? Why pay 15 dollars to someone who isn't worth that much? If someone is worth 15 dollars be paid the same as someone only worth 50 cents? Do you think that the person worth 15 dollars would be resentful of the person who makes the same but only worth 15 cents?

The Pilgrim’s Failed Socialist Experiment

Few realize that New England’s first form of government under the Pilgrims was communalism (socialism) where “each produced according to his ability and each received according to his needs,” more than two centuries before Karl Marx first penned the above script. The result of “share the wealth” then and now was, and always will be, shared poverty.

The first two years the result was shortages and starvation. About half the colonists died. No one did more than the minimal because the incentive to excel was destroyed. The industrious were neutralized. Bradford wrote of the scarcity of food “no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any.” The socialist experiment Bradford added, “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to the benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense….” In other words, socialism made strong men lazy.

After two years of such, with the survival of the colony at stake, they contemplated upon “how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery.” They opted to abandon the incentive killing socialist contract in favor of the free market. And so they “assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end…”

A delighted Governor Bradford wrote: “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor… could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.” In other words, the free market is a much greater stimulus than governmental force. The Pilgrims now wished to work because they got to keep the benefits of their labor. “Instead of famine now God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God…. Any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.”

Which is why you liberals are the stupidest mother fuckers in the universe and will never learn.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't, because the right wing is usually just clueless and Causeless. It is a "risk management" issue.

I think the conservative movement did have some good ideas, at least until they were tried.

Today, it's just about stoking the anger of people like Andy and Con65 to distract them from the real reason their lives are miserable.

 

[Conservative65]

So you support rewarding people due to a criminal act? Do you support the kids of a bank robber keeping the money?

Not really a good comparison. It assumes that the citizenship they get rightfully belongs to someone else.

Money taken from a bank was someone else's money. That's why you order restitution.

Who is harmed by a baby being born here getting citizenship?

Citizenship given as a result of a crime is something that should be given. Not my fault you don't see the excellent comparison. Anyone that's cause businesses to go out of business wouldn't get it.

Anyone that did it legally and the right way is harmed. Why do you reward criminal activity?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I don't, because the right wing is usually just clueless and Causeless. It is a "risk management" issue.

I think the conservative movement did have some good ideas, at least until they were tried.

Today, it's just about stoking the anger of people like Andy and Con65 to distract them from the real reason their lives are miserable.

Only miserable ones are you liberals, who never can never be happy.

 

[Conservative65]

Only would be an idiot and not know what the 14th amendment was created for. But then Southern White Democrats fought against it because those liberals didn't like blacks and wanted them to stay as slaves, so today, you liberals want the latino's to continue to be slave like labor(because when people don't come here legally, they have to hide in shadows), so you don't have to pay them full wages. Liberals, once a racist, always a racist.

Just right wing projection?

Just the truth about the history of the US and why Liberals love the ignorant, uneducated masses.

Dear, right wing projection is useless. It is the right wing that wants to abolish the department of Education.

The Dept. of Education should have never b

I'm fine with anchor babies. If you are born on US soil then you are an American.

So you support rewarding people due to a criminal act? Do you support the kids of a bank robber keeping the money?

Thank you for acknowledging the right wing prefers ignorance to education; conspiracy or coincidence.

Thank you for confirming you support criminal activity and rewarding people for crimes their piece of shit parents commit. Typical lefty.

 

[Conservative65]

I don't, because the right wing is usually just clueless and Causeless. It is a "risk management" issue.

I think the conservative movement did have some good ideas, at least until they were tried.

Today, it's just about stoking the anger of people like Andy and Con65 to distract them from the real reason their lives are miserable.

My life is wonderful. I'm not a pussy and a coward like you. I've offered to provide something to disprove your claim and you refused. You made excuses. Try being a man sometime in your life, Joe. It's refreshing.

 

[danielpalos]

So what is a FAIR WAGE? $15 , $20 , $25 and if that is enacted do we get rid of WELFARE since everyone is getting a FAIR WAGE?

$15.00 would seem fair to me.

So what if we did have a world were everyone had a job making a living wage? One where you had job protections and couldn't be fired by a capricious boss without cause?

That would probably eliminate the need for welfare, except for the disabled.

But the problem is, most 'entitlements' go to middle class white people- Unemployment, Social Security, Medicare. What poor people get in "Welfare' is really less than 1% of the GDP. Some of it like SNAP is designed specifically to prop up certain industries.

You know Joe, in a country that is supposed to be free, isn't up to the person to get the wages that he deserves? Why is it up to the company to provide wages a person demands? If someone is worth 50 cents to do a job, shouldn't that wage be 50 cents? Why pay 15 dollars to someone who isn't worth that much? If someone is worth 15 dollars be paid the same as someone only worth 50 cents? Do you think that the person worth 15 dollars would be resentful of the person who makes the same but only worth 15 cents?

The Pilgrim’s Failed Socialist Experiment

Few realize that New England’s first form of government under the Pilgrims was communalism (socialism) where “each produced according to his ability and each received according to his needs,” more than two centuries before Karl Marx first penned the above script. The result of “share the wealth” then and now was, and always will be, shared poverty.

The first two years the result was shortages and starvation. About half the colonists died. No one did more than the minimal because the incentive to excel was destroyed. The industrious were neutralized. Bradford wrote of the scarcity of food “no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any.” The socialist experiment Bradford added, “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to the benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense….” In other words, socialism made strong men lazy.

After two years of such, with the survival of the colony at stake, they contemplated upon “how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery.” They opted to abandon the incentive killing socialist contract in favor of the free market. And so they “assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end…”

A delighted Governor Bradford wrote: “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor… could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.” In other words, the free market is a much greater stimulus than governmental force. The Pilgrims now wished to work because they got to keep the benefits of their labor. “Instead of famine now God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God…. Any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.”

Which is why you liberals are the stupidest mother fuckers in the universe and will never learn.

Just more proof we are simply not moral enough, if even Pilgrims could not do it.

 

[danielpalos]

So you support rewarding people due to a criminal act? Do you support the kids of a bank robber keeping the money?

Not really a good comparison. It assumes that the citizenship they get rightfully belongs to someone else.

Money taken from a bank was someone else's money. That's why you order restitution.

Who is harmed by a baby being born here getting citizenship?

Citizenship given as a result of a crime is something that should be given. Not my fault you don't see the excellent comparison. Anyone that's cause businesses to go out of business wouldn't get it.

Anyone that did it legally and the right way is harmed. Why do you reward criminal activity?

It is not a crime to be born. Residency is the only legal requirement for State citizenship since 1808. Simply appealing to ignorance of the law, is immoral.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't, because the right wing is usually just clueless and Causeless. It is a "risk management" issue.

I think the conservative movement did have some good ideas, at least until they were tried.

Today, it's just about stoking the anger of people like Andy and Con65 to distract them from the real reason their lives are miserable.

Only miserable ones are you liberals, who never can never be happy.

lol. I could smoke pot and be euphoric when arguing with the right wing, all day long.

 

[Conservative65]

So you support rewarding people due to a criminal act? Do you support the kids of a bank robber keeping the money?

Not really a good comparison. It assumes that the citizenship they get rightfully belongs to someone else.

Money taken from a bank was someone else's money. That's why you order restitution.

Who is harmed by a baby being born here getting citizenship?

Citizenship given as a result of a crime is something that should be given. Not my fault you don't see the excellent comparison. Anyone that's cause businesses to go out of business wouldn't get it.

Anyone that did it legally and the right way is harmed. Why do you reward criminal activity?

It is not a crime to be born. Residency is the only legal requirement for State citizenship since 1808. Simply appealing to ignorance of the law, is immoral.

It's a crime to possess something done as a result of a criminal act.

 

[JoeB131]

You know Joe, in a country that is supposed to be free, isn't up to the person to get the wages that he deserves?

I think it really depends on one's definition of freedom. Slave holders before 1865 probably thought as long as they provided their slaves with food and shelter and only raped the pretty ones, they were giving them what they deserved.

Why is it up to the company to provide wages a person demands? If someone is worth 50 cents to do a job, shouldn't that wage be 50 cents? Why pay 15 dollars to someone who isn't worth that much?

Why pay a CEO an 8 figure salary when he crashes his company into the ground and the government has to bail it out?

The fact is, the economy works better and is stronger when people get a fair wage.

Do you think that the person worth 15 dollars would be resentful of the person who makes the same but only worth 15 cents?

He shouldn't be. He should be more resentful of the guy who makes six figures and only puts in a few hours a week when he's not at the golf course.

My opinion, you put in a 40 hour week, you should get a living wage. period.

Which is why you liberals are the stupidest mother fuckers in the universe and will never learn.

Well, if you are going to keep repeating mythology as history, that's kind of on you. The reason why the Pilgrims weren't terribly productive is because most of the proceeds of their work went to investors in England.

The Right-Wing Myth That Thanksgiving Celebrates the Pilgrims’ Triumph Over Socialism

Communal farming arrangements were common in the pilgrims’ day. Many of the towns they came from in England were run according to the “open-field” system, in which the land holdings of a manor are divided into strips to be harvested by tenant farmers. As Nick Bunker writes in 2010’s Making Haste From Babylon: The Mayflower Pilgrims and Their World, “Open field farming was not some kind of communism. All the villagers were tenants of the landlord.”

There was no local baron in Plymouth, but it was a commercial project as much as a religious one, and the colonists still had to answer to their investors back in England. It was this, not socialist ideals, that accounted for the common course. Bunker writes, “Far from being a commune, the Mayflower was a common stock: the very words employed in the contract. All the land in the Plymouth Colony, its houses, its tools, and its trading profits (if they appeared) were to belong to a joint-stock company owned by the shareholders as a whole.”

The pilgrims’ transition—which, again, happened after the first Thanksgiving—can indeed be used to illustrate the benefits of individualism or the tragedy of the commons. But the Rush Limbaugh crowd should note that the settlers at Plymouth were rebelling against the rules set by a corporation, not against the strictures of some Stalinist collective farm or a hippie commune.

 

[danielpalos]

So you support rewarding people due to a criminal act? Do you support the kids of a bank robber keeping the money?

Not really a good comparison. It assumes that the citizenship they get rightfully belongs to someone else.

Money taken from a bank was someone else's money. That's why you order restitution.

Who is harmed by a baby being born here getting citizenship?

Citizenship given as a result of a crime is something that should be given. Not my fault you don't see the excellent comparison. Anyone that's cause businesses to go out of business wouldn't get it.

Anyone that did it legally and the right way is harmed. Why do you reward criminal activity?

It is not a crime to be born. Residency is the only legal requirement for State citizenship since 1808. Simply appealing to ignorance of the law, is immoral.

It's a crime to possess something done as a result of a criminal act.

It is not a crime to be born. Residency is the only legal requirement for State citizenship since 1808. Simply appealing to ignorance of the law, is immoral.

10USC246 is federal law as well; should we grab, gun lovers guns, if they refuse to muster and be well regulated?

 

[Conservative65]

So you support rewarding people due to a criminal act? Do you support the kids of a bank robber keeping the money?

Not really a good comparison. It assumes that the citizenship they get rightfully belongs to someone else.

Money taken from a bank was someone else's money. That's why you order restitution.

Who is harmed by a baby being born here getting citizenship?

Citizenship given as a result of a crime is something that should be given. Not my fault you don't see the excellent comparison. Anyone that's cause businesses to go out of business wouldn't get it.

Anyone that did it legally and the right way is harmed. Why do you reward criminal activity?

It is not a crime to be born. Residency is the only legal requirement for State citizenship since 1808. Simply appealing to ignorance of the law, is immoral.

It's a crime to possess something done as a result of a criminal act.

It is not a crime to be born. Residency is the only legal requirement for State citizenship since 1808. Simply appealing to ignorance of the law, is immoral.

10USC246 is federal law as well; should we grab, gun lovers guns, if they refuse to muster and be well regulated?

When YOU are man enough to start grabbing, please try.

 

[JoeB131]

Citizenship given as a result of a crime is something that should be given. Not my fault you don't see the excellent comparison. Anyone that's cause businesses to go out of business wouldn't get it.

Anyone that did it legally and the right way is harmed. Why do you reward criminal activity?

Well, except tha the person who did it the "Wrong" way (not that a baby has any say in the matter) takes nothing away from the person who did it the 'right' way.

Also, there's a lot of things that people do that are against the law,every day. Most of us aren't punished for it. I think you need to get off your high horse.

 

[Conservative65]

Citizenship given as a result of a crime is something that should be given. Not my fault you don't see the excellent comparison. Anyone that's cause businesses to go out of business wouldn't get it.

Anyone that did it legally and the right way is harmed. Why do you reward criminal activity?

Well, except tha the person who did it the "Wrong" way (not that a baby has any say in the matter) takes nothing away from the person who did it the 'right' way.

Also, there's a lot of things that people do that are against the law,every day. Most of us aren't punished for it. I think you need to get off your high horse.

It slaps the face of those that did it the right way.

Oh, the everyone does it excuse? I'll get off the horse when you're man enough to knock me off. You've proven the only thing you do well is hide.

 

[danielpalos]

Not really a good comparison. It assumes that the citizenship they get rightfully belongs to someone else.

Money taken from a bank was someone else's money. That's why you order restitution.

Who is harmed by a baby being born here getting citizenship?

Citizenship given as a result of a crime is something that should be given. Not my fault you don't see the excellent comparison. Anyone that's cause businesses to go out of business wouldn't get it.

Anyone that did it legally and the right way is harmed. Why do you reward criminal activity?

It is not a crime to be born. Residency is the only legal requirement for State citizenship since 1808. Simply appealing to ignorance of the law, is immoral.

It's a crime to possess something done as a result of a criminal act.

It is not a crime to be born. Residency is the only legal requirement for State citizenship since 1808. Simply appealing to ignorance of the law, is immoral.

10USC246 is federal law as well; should we grab, gun lovers guns, if they refuse to muster and be well regulated?

When YOU are man enough to start grabbing, please try.

Should I run for public office?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[Conservative65]

Citizenship given as a result of a crime is something that should be given. Not my fault you don't see the excellent comparison. Anyone that's cause businesses to go out of business wouldn't get it.

Anyone that did it legally and the right way is harmed. Why do you reward criminal activity?

It is not a crime to be born. Residency is the only legal requirement for State citizenship since 1808. Simply appealing to ignorance of the law, is immoral.

It's a crime to possess something done as a result of a criminal act.

It is not a crime to be born. Residency is the only legal requirement for State citizenship since 1808. Simply appealing to ignorance of the law, is immoral.

10USC246 is federal law as well; should we grab, gun lovers guns, if they refuse to muster and be well regulated?

When YOU are man enough to start grabbing, please try.

Should I run for public office?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You don't have to do that to try what you say should be done. All you have to do is be a man. Are you?

 

[danielpalos]

It is not a crime to be born. Residency is the only legal requirement for State citizenship since 1808. Simply appealing to ignorance of the law, is immoral.

It's a crime to possess something done as a result of a criminal act.

It is not a crime to be born. Residency is the only legal requirement for State citizenship since 1808. Simply appealing to ignorance of the law, is immoral.

10USC246 is federal law as well; should we grab, gun lovers guns, if they refuse to muster and be well regulated?

When YOU are man enough to start grabbing, please try.

Should I run for public office?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You don't have to do that to try what you say should be done. All you have to do is be a man. Are you?

You are welcome to revisit this issue, should I ever be required to muster and be well regulated.

 

[JoeB131]

It slaps the face of those that did it the right way.

Why? "35 years ago my mom didn't have the foresight to be in America when she gave birth!"

Here's the thing. if you do it the 'right way" and you are here as a legal alien, and you have a kid, your kid gets automatic citizenship, just like the illegal's kid does.

Oh, the everyone does it excuse? I'll get off the horse when you're man enough to knock me off. You've proven the only thing you do well is hide.

And when was the last time you did something other than rant racist crap on the internet.

Tell you what, film yourself going into a black neighborhood and spew your "advise". Make sure you call your audience the N-word a lot, that always goes over well.

 

[danielpalos]

It is not a crime to be born. Residency is the only legal requirement for State citizenship since 1808. Simply appealing to ignorance of the law, is immoral.

10USC246 is federal law as well; should we grab, gun lovers guns, if they refuse to muster and be well regulated?

When YOU are man enough to start grabbing, please try.

Should I run for public office?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You don't have to do that to try what you say should be done. All you have to do is be a man. Are you?

You are welcome to revisit this issue, should I ever be required to muster and be well regulated.

Didn't think you were man enough. You've proven it once again. Guess I'll keep my gunS since you nor your buddy JoeB, another one saying the same thing, won't do what you say should be done. Guess you'll have to live with it.

This takes, real Men and real Women:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.