@arthur-dent brother i love you and i would come to bloomington at a moment's notice to fund any idea you have and fight with you to the end agaisnt anyone but you are an anachronism. you have to come to the modern era. what you consantly resort to is of zero moment in the current milieu
Birthright Citizenship upheld.
Supreme Court ruling today: US court upholds birthright citizenship
Quick hot takes:
1. Obviously the correct decision, legally.
2. Thomas' dissent is a mess.
3. Alito's dissent is much more intriguing and well-done.
4. Gorsuch tries to thread a pretty fine needle in his little addendum, but he's still basing his opinion on the same strange obsession with domicile that Thomas is.
Looks like Marv is fighting the good fight.
I know I should be happy the Court ruled as they did, but I'm still frightened to see that four of the Justices were perfectly willing to ignore the plain text of the Amendment and rewrite it to suit some interpretation that could only be considered a reach. Kavanaugh voted to shoot down Trump's Executive Order, but would have been happy to gut the provision if Congress had drafted a bill instead. So much for the Higher Law doctrine.
@aloha-hoosier dbm is right and you are wrong and not for the stated reasons. their intent doesnt' matter. reality matters. and dbm is right at the end of the day as 60 percent of noncitizen head of households are taking public assistance. markedly higher than us citizens. we cannot afford these people. why do dems love them? because it's a party of bottom of feeders? people who can't do for themselves. betas. cucks. people who need the government to provide for them so they attract and promote and reach out for people who are desperate to garner their votes: i.e. immigrants.
get off trump bullshit and get with the program. again you're stepping over dollars to chase pennies
at the end of the day as 60 percent of noncitizen head of households are taking public assistance.
Got a cite?
at the end of the day as 60 percent of noncitizen head of households are taking public assistance.
Got a cite?
55% of NYC residents in the working age group are on Medicaid. I could work the drive through at McDonald's and as a family of 4 with my wife not working we would earn too much to qualify. Think about it.
@aloha-hoosier dbm is right and you are wrong and not for the stated reasons. their intent doesnt' matter. reality matters. and dbm is right at the end of the day as 60 percent of noncitizen head of households are taking public assistance. markedly higher than us citizens. we cannot afford these people. why do dems love them? because it's a party of bottom of feeders? people who can't do for themselves. betas. cucks. people who need the government to provide for them so they attract and promote and reach out for people who are desperate to garner their votes: i.e. immigrants.
get off trump bullshit and get with the program. again you're stepping over dollars to chase pennies
They account for far less welfare spending dollar-wise, however. Especially the undocumented, because the only programs they are eligible for are nowhere near the largest drivers of welfare spending (like, say, school lunch and EITC, and so forth).
I'd flip your question around: Why don't Repubs love them? A lot of immigrants - especially Hispanic immigrants - are natural Republicans. They are socially and religiously conservative. Culturally, they have a work ethic that is centered on working hard and keeping what you earn. They are not big fans of big government (bad experiences with big government is one of the reasons they are here). If the GOP had targeted them and gotten them on board with their Pull Yourself Up Por Sus Propios Medios ideology, you'd have a generation of young Hispanic Americans having been raised on the dream of the City on the Hill. Instead, that generation has drifted off into Marxworld, having received zero welcome from the right.
- All Immigrant Households: 53% of households headed by immigrants (including naturalized citizens, legal residents, and unauthorized immigrants) use at least one major welfare program, compared to 37% of U.S.-born households .
- Non-Citizen Households: The usage rate rises to 59% for non-citizen households (e.g., green card holders and unauthorized immigrants) . [1]center for immigration studies
@bar-down I am opposed to my core to racism and xenophobia. That isn't going to change.
And in my absence you never once mentioned Clarkson's Farm. That damn soccer has destroyed your brain to not bring it up.
I could work the drive through at McDonald's and as a family of 4 with my wife not working we would earn too much to qualify.
That's not true. Do the math. If you work a McD's drive through in NYC at average wage, for 40/hours every single week, you'll still fall $10K below the cutoff for Medicaid eligibility for a family of 4.
@goat that's a different conversation and relates to what groups better align with our "values." that's a population the united states should covet imo. but the dem approach is throw it against the wall. open it up to anyone thereby increasing the odds of desperation and the welfare state that the socialist dem party so loves
@goat that's a different conversation and relates to what groups better align with our "values." that's a population the united states should covet imo. but the dem approach is throw it against the wall. open it up to anyone thereby increasing the odds of desperation and the welfare state that the socialist dem party so loves
Maybe, but when you've got folks like dbm on the other side itching to just paint giant red X's over entire countries, what's the alternative? I go back to my claim that extremists are basically reactive. The far right and the far left are reacting to each other by becoming more...well, far.
@arthur-dent at some point racism and pattern recognition become muddled. okay you won't like what i have to say. i love that show and i love everyone involved and i love everything about it and i think the entire crew is just so engaging that i eat it up. however. HOWEVER! first did you see the last episode as i dont' want to spoil anything? but by way of background i absolutely LOVED gold rush on discovery. the first season was just so damn great. a neighborhood of broke goofballs at the end of their rope pooling their pennies together to chase somehting. to find gold! NO GUTS NO GLORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I couldn't wait to watch it on friday nights in our left and my daughter fell asleep. it was so damn good! but now parker is probably worht 30 million. they did it. they accomplished the goal. it lost its luster. that's how i felt a bit with clarksons' farm this year. it's no longer an adventure. it's no longer a novelty. it's just watching another business.
@snarlcakes So eliminating Brown immigration while limiting White isn't any sort of reflection on Brown people?
And why were Chinese blocked 40 years before if there was NO racism?
Marv, laws limiting non-white immigration were already on the books. And almost all the immigration was coming from white people. If it was because of racism why would the white people pass a new law that cut white immigration by 80%?
What law blocking immigration of non-Whites existed before 1921? What law other than the Chinese act of 1881 prohibited non-Europeans?
American xenophobia eventually, in 1921, included Europe. That isn't proof xenophobia did not exist, it is proof at how advanced it was. Look at the Know Nothings, they hated Germans, Irish, and Catholics. When the New York anti-Draft riots broke out in the Civil War, it was Irish who were convinced the emancipation would bring Blacks North and the Irish would be even lower in the pecking order. That is how hated the Irish were, they felt they were beneath slaves.
Xenophobia existed and exists.
That's a small win. I at least got you to move away from racism to Xenophobia.
Now let's discuss Xenophobia. The 1924 immigration act still allowed for immigration. They just cut back on the amount.
What's the magic number for immigration in Marv's brain that makes one a Xenophobic? Or do you have to be for open borders and no limits like Marv in order to not be labeled Xenophobic?
@goat i will argue that the far left is actually the locus of the dem party at this point and the policies they promote are so polar to what we stand for as a country that they bear no comparison to whatever the right is today. the president of the board of alderman of my city wants to defund the police and end cash bail in the most dangerous city in america where bullets fly at our soccer stadium. she's a proud socialist. the right bears no resemblance to the insanity of this iteration of dem. as i said in another thread both carville and bill maher said they want no part of this party if that's what they stand for now
I’m sure it was just an oversight that you didn’t answer yet, but were all Asians banned or just Chinese? Why are you listing countries of origins for Europeans but just races like blacks, browns, & non-whites for all others?
It started with Chinese, the second bill was all Asia. Here's the thing, more Chinese were coming than Japanese, Vietnamese, Koreans, etc. We had brought in Chinese to build the Transcontinental Railroad, then for mining.
What is wrong with pointing out Germans, Irish, Italians were all hated too? But largely speaking, African borders did not mean much. The Zulu tribe didn't give a damn what country someone in America thought they were from, they were Zulu. British and French mapmakers kept redrawing lines. Europe went through this up until the end of WW2, though less. Let's recall a major demand of Hitler's was all those territories that had Germans had to be returned to Germany. Heck, isn't that what Putin is saying today in Ukraine?
Have you answered which Black cultures you feel can be let in?