Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Or the bizarre interpretation of an amendment that was supposed to force Southern States to give citizenship to freed slaves that made babies of illegal migrants citizens?

---

There's nothing bizarre about it. It was the intended interpretation and has been supported by the courts for as long as the amendment has been around.

---

Absolutely bizarre that a pregnant woman can illegally enter the country and then squat out a child and that child becomes an American citizen.

---

This feels like a strange way to speak about the miracle of birth / life.

---

Dehumanization is a necessary step to prejudice.

---

Oh they're definitely human, they're just not Americans. That's not a pejorative any more than saying I'm not Japanese.

---

So why refer to them giving birth as "squatting out" kids? And the Constitution clearly says those kids ARE Americans.

---

The Constitution can be made to say whatever anyone wants it to say, I guarantee you the Trump admin's lawyers will make a case that the 14th amendment does not confer birthright citizenship in all circumstances, just as US vs Wong Kim Ark did.

With regards to the squatting out comment, I've already explained above.

---

That's a cute way of admitting the 14th amendment confers birthright citizenship.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Zobel said:

---

---

Quo is very clearly making claims about the ethnic/racial makeup of people and labeling immigrants after 1965 as somehow inferior.

---

Were the immigrants before 1965 inferior? Or is everyone magically the same?

---

Are you saying the immigrants after 1965 are inferior? Because that's what it sounds like. I tend to take people as individuals rather than pretend that their ancestry magically makes them unable to be good Americans.

---

Yes I would say they were inferior, even the proponents of the bill would say as such. As mentioned earlier, the bill was sold as not impacting the demographics of the country, even going so far as to call saying it would a "racist canard". Seems Ole Teddy Kennedy knew that many Americans would have valid reasons to worry about losing their supermajority and decided it best to lie to them.

So why are they inferior? Because they're different to a much greater degree than the immigrants who made up the nation prior to 1965. We had a hard enough time getting the Irish and the Italians to assimilate, open the flood gates to Latin America, Africa and Asia, and your assimilation becomes an order of magnitude more difficult.

Just a quick question to you. Who will assimilate into being an American easier; a Canadian from Kelowna, British Columbia; or one of the Sentinelese?

What does it mean, to you, for someone to assimilate?

What does American Culture mean to you?

So American culture is white/anglo?

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

So American culture is white/anglo?

---

I wouldn't narrow it down to just Anglo, but if you want to use White as a fill in for European, yes. American culture is broadly European.

---

ok, but you know, in the not too distant past, Italians and Spaniards, to name two, we're not part of the "white club".

Sapper Redux said:

---

Zobel said:

---

---

Quo is very clearly making claims about the ethnic/racial makeup of people and labeling immigrants after 1965 as somehow inferior.

---

For the record, I haven't been following this thread close enough to determine whether I agree with the above or not.

We write laws making undocumented immigration illegal. And we write laws making it illegal to hire illegal immigrants. And then we hire a bunch of illegal immigrants because they are a cheaper source of labor. And then we fail to enforce those laws because the people that control the purse in industry doesn't want those laws enforced. And then we offer welfare and aid and help to illegal immigrants in the hopes that it will yeild some political favor.

Our politicians have no interested in solving the problem. As long as its an issue, its a rallying point for both parties. Our industry has no interest is solving the problem. Their interest is in cheap labor.

I recognize that the mother coming across the border and 'squatting out a baby' has committed a crime and that rewarding that crime with citizenship for the child is problematic. But, between her, her child, employers that hire undocumented workers, industry lobbyists that argue for more immigration or less penalty for hiring undocumented persons, politicians that haven't the appetite to enforce penalties against businesses, politicians that haven't the appetite to address massive immigration backlog, and politicians feeding the fire in this issue because it earns them votes. . . . . . I gotta say that of all those people, I kinda hate the mother and her kid the least. That doesn't mean she or her kid 'deserve' citizenship. But, I'm not going to drag desperate people trying to help their kids through the mud.

F#$% the politicians and industries benefitting off this woman, her kid, and the political situation created by her being here.

Well said.

747Ag said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Or the bizarre interpretation of an amendment that was supposed to force Southern States to give citizenship to freed slaves that made babies of illegal migrants citizens?

---

There's nothing bizarre about it. It was the intended interpretation and has been supported by the courts for as long as the amendment has been around.

---

Absolutely bizarre that a pregnant woman can illegally enter the country and then squat out a child and that child becomes an American citizen.

---

This feels like a strange way to speak about the miracle of birth / life.

---

Dehumanization is a necessary step to prejudice.

---

Oh they're definitely human, they're just not Americans. That's not a pejorative any more than saying I'm not Japanese.

---

So why refer to them giving birth as "squatting out" kids? And the Constitution clearly says those kids ARE Americans.

---

The Constitution can be made to say whatever anyone wants it to say, I guarantee you the Trump admin's lawyers will make a case that the 14th amendment does not confer birthright citizenship in all circumstances, just as US vs Wong Kim Ark did.

With regards to the squatting out comment, I've already explained above.

---

That's a cute way of admitting the 14th amendment confers birthright citizenship.

---

The 14th Amendment, Section 1 opens with: "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." The point of contention, from what I have read thus far, is what "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/15/opinion/trump-birthright-citizenship.html

Quote:

---

It is widely agreed that "subject to the jurisdiction" excluded the children of diplomats, Native Americans subject and with allegiance to tribal authority (this changed with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924) and members of invading armies. The common-law principle of jus soli also excluded these groups. The crucial question is, why?

---

Quote:

---

In Wong Kim Ark, the leading case on birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court explained that "jurisdiction" referred to being born "within the allegiance" of the sovereign. The court held that a child born of parents with a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States" was a birthright citizen. Wong Kim Ark's parents, as persons who came in amity, had entered into the social compact and were entitled to all the benefits of that compact, including not only the protection of the laws but also the benefits of citizenship for their children. Under the common law, the court observed, "such allegiance and protection were mutual."

---

I don't think it's as cut-and-dry as you seem to be saying. There are obvious exceptions and precedent seems to point to what they call amity of the immigrants towards their adopted home.

---

Immigrants, legal or not, are subject to the laws of the United States. Unless you're claiming illegal immigrants can claim diplomatic immunity? The amendment is completely cut and dry.

Macarthur said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

So American culture is white/anglo?

---

I wouldn't narrow it down to just Anglo, but if you want to use White as a fill in for European, yes. American culture is broadly European.

---

ok, but you know, in the not too distant past, Italians and Spaniards, to name two, we're not part of the "white club".

---

Nor were any Catholics. And that's not ancient history. The second KKK was anti-Catholic and had millions of members.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

What does it mean, to you, for someone to assimilate?

What does American Culture mean to you?

---

English speaking, broadly/generically Christian values influenced by both Greek and Roman philosophy. That's the backbone. Culture is really just a catch all for the manifestations of a race over time, coupled with geographic nuances and idiosyncrasies.

---

That may be the most ahistorical thing I've seen you say. Which is an impressive feat.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Or the bizarre interpretation of an amendment that was supposed to force Southern States to give citizenship to freed slaves that made babies of illegal migrants citizens?

---

There's nothing bizarre about it. It was the intended interpretation and has been supported by the courts for as long as the amendment has been around.

---

Absolutely bizarre that a pregnant woman can illegally enter the country and then squat out a child and that child becomes an American citizen.

---

This feels like a strange way to speak about the miracle of birth / life.

---

Dehumanization is a necessary step to prejudice.

---

Oh they're definitely human, they're just not Americans. That's not a pejorative any more than saying I'm not Japanese.

---

So why refer to them giving birth as "squatting out" kids? And the Constitution clearly says those kids ARE Americans.

---

The Constitution can be made to say whatever anyone wants it to say, I guarantee you the Trump admin's lawyers will make a case that the 14th amendment does not confer birthright citizenship in all circumstances, just as US vs Wong Kim Ark did.

With regards to the squatting out comment, I've already explained above.

---

That's a cute way of admitting the 14th amendment confers birthright citizenship.

---

Does it? What about to children of invading armies or foreign rulers/diplomats?

---

It's pretty explicit about who it doesn't apply to. The laws of the United States don't apply to those groups. They do apply to immigrants, regardless of legal status.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Zobel said:

---

---

Quo is very clearly making claims about the ethnic/racial makeup of people and labeling immigrants after 1965 as somehow inferior.

---

Were the immigrants before 1965 inferior? Or is everyone magically the same?

---

Are you saying the immigrants after 1965 are inferior? Because that's what it sounds like. I tend to take people as individuals rather than pretend that their ancestry magically makes them unable to be good Americans.

---

Yes I would say they were inferior, even the proponents of the bill would say as such. As mentioned earlier, the bill was sold as not impacting the demographics of the country, even going so far as to call saying it would a "racist canard". Seems Ole Teddy Kennedy knew that many Americans would have valid reasons to worry about losing their supermajority and decided it best to lie to them.

So why are they inferior? Because they're different to a much greater degree than the immigrants who made up the nation prior to 1965. We had a hard enough time getting the Irish and the Italians to assimilate, open the flood gates to Latin America, Africa and Asia, and your assimilation becomes an order of magnitude more difficult.

Just a quick question to you. Who will assimilate into being an American easier; a Canadian from Kelowna, British Columbia; or one of the Sentinelese?

---

So their race makes them inferior? If a Sentinelese man was raised in British Columbia are you cool with him immigrating here?

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

So American culture is white/anglo?

---

I wouldn't narrow it down to just Anglo, but if you want to use White as a fill in for European, yes. American culture is broadly European.

---

Except for much of our food, music, clothing, and sports, which is heavily influenced by African Americans… you know… the basics of culture.

FIDO95 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

This is the best, most balanced take on this that I have seen.

---

That was excellent. Thank you for sharing.

It is important to consider the there is no virtue in advocating for the labor of another to be forcibly taken and used for the benefit of the poor. Additionally, it would be sinful to claim high moral status for yourself on simply brandishing that position. The Christian calling is for YOU to feed the hungry and clothe the naked.

The good Samaritan would have gained nothing for standing on the street corner arguing for the Roman authorities to do more for robbery victims. And if he would have patted himself on the back for pontificating without acting himself, I suspect Jesus would think of this as the thought of the pharisees in Matt 23:27.

36 "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
37 The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."
Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise." -Luke 10:36-37

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

So American culture is white/anglo?

---

I wouldn't narrow it down to just Anglo, but if you want to use White as a fill in for European, yes. American culture is broadly European.

---

ok, but you know, in the not too distant past, Italians and Spaniards, to name two, we're not part of the "white club".

---

Nor were any Catholics. And that's not ancient history. The second KKK was anti-Catholic and had millions of members.

---

Yawn, Catholics have been a part of the country since its inception. The whole "were xyz white?" question was put to rest when you consider the marriage question. Greeks, Spaniards, Italians, were all allowed to marry fellow whites before interracial marriage was legalized.

Might as well point out Ben Franklin complaining about swarthy Germans as evidence that the Germans weren't considered white.

---

The Franklin quote is an excellent example of how whiteness isn't actually any kind of useful category but a contingent claim that evolves over time. And Catholics were absolutely seen as a threat in American history. The Quebec Act of 1763 was a lightening rod leading to the American Revolution. Why? Because it allowed the Quebecois to keep their Catholicism leading a number of Anglo-Americans in the 13 colonies to fear a Catholic plot.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Or the bizarre interpretation of an amendment that was supposed to force Southern States to give citizenship to freed slaves that made babies of illegal migrants citizens?

---

There's nothing bizarre about it. It was the intended interpretation and has been supported by the courts for as long as the amendment has been around.

---

Absolutely bizarre that a pregnant woman can illegally enter the country and then squat out a child and that child becomes an American citizen.

---

This feels like a strange way to speak about the miracle of birth / life.

---

Dehumanization is a necessary step to prejudice.

---

Oh they're definitely human, they're just not Americans. That's not a pejorative any more than saying I'm not Japanese.

---

So why refer to them giving birth as "squatting out" kids? And the Constitution clearly says those kids ARE Americans.

---

The Constitution can be made to say whatever anyone wants it to say, I guarantee you the Trump admin's lawyers will make a case that the 14th amendment does not confer birthright citizenship in all circumstances, just as US vs Wong Kim Ark did.

With regards to the squatting out comment, I've already explained above.

---

That's a cute way of admitting the 14th amendment confers birthright citizenship.

---

Does it? What about to children of invading armies or foreign rulers/diplomats?

---

It's pretty explicit about who it doesn't apply to. The laws of the United States don't apply to those groups. They do apply to immigrants, regardless of legal status.

---

Ah, so Jus Soli can be restricted, and it's not just about having a child on US soil, there are other considerations?

---

It's explicit in the amendment, genius.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Zobel said:

---

---

Quo is very clearly making claims about the ethnic/racial makeup of people and labeling immigrants after 1965 as somehow inferior.

---

Were the immigrants before 1965 inferior? Or is everyone magically the same?

---

Are you saying the immigrants after 1965 are inferior? Because that's what it sounds like. I tend to take people as individuals rather than pretend that their ancestry magically makes them unable to be good Americans.

---

Yes I would say they were inferior, even the proponents of the bill would say as such. As mentioned earlier, the bill was sold as not impacting the demographics of the country, even going so far as to call saying it would a "racist canard". Seems Ole Teddy Kennedy knew that many Americans would have valid reasons to worry about losing their supermajority and decided it best to lie to them.

So why are they inferior? Because they're different to a much greater degree than the immigrants who made up the nation prior to 1965. We had a hard enough time getting the Irish and the Italians to assimilate, open the flood gates to Latin America, Africa and Asia, and your assimilation becomes an order of magnitude more difficult.

Just a quick question to you. Who will assimilate into being an American easier; a Canadian from Kelowna, British Columbia; or one of the Sentinelese?

---

So their race makes them inferior? If a Sentinelese man was raised in British Columbia are you cool with him immigrating here?

---

Wait a minute, why wouldn't you just call him a British Columbian? You seem to be noting that a Sentinelese man raised in British Columbia is not actually a British Columbian. Seems troublesome for you.

---

I'm asking a question based on the parameters you established. You're the one who finds the people who emigrated after the 1965 act "inferior" and explicitly used someone of Sentinelese descent as an example. So I'm asking based on your criteria and you're deflecting.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

So American culture is white/anglo?

---

I wouldn't narrow it down to just Anglo, but if you want to use White as a fill in for European, yes. American culture is broadly European.

---

Except for much of our food, music, clothing, and sports, which is heavily influenced by African Americans… you know… the basics of culture.

---

Is there something about the world "broadly" vs "totally" that is giving you issue?

---

Broadly meaning what percentage? Given that you can't at all divorce African Americans from U.S. culture, how do you even claim it's a "European culture."

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Zobel said:

---

---

Quo is very clearly making claims about the ethnic/racial makeup of people and labeling immigrants after 1965 as somehow inferior.

---

Were the immigrants before 1965 inferior? Or is everyone magically the same?

---

Are you saying the immigrants after 1965 are inferior? Because that's what it sounds like. I tend to take people as individuals rather than pretend that their ancestry magically makes them unable to be good Americans.

---

Yes I would say they were inferior, even the proponents of the bill would say as such. As mentioned earlier, the bill was sold as not impacting the demographics of the country, even going so far as to call saying it would a "racist canard". Seems Ole Teddy Kennedy knew that many Americans would have valid reasons to worry about losing their supermajority and decided it best to lie to them.

So why are they inferior? Because they're different to a much greater degree than the immigrants who made up the nation prior to 1965. We had a hard enough time getting the Irish and the Italians to assimilate, open the flood gates to Latin America, Africa and Asia, and your assimilation becomes an order of magnitude more difficult.

Just a quick question to you. Who will assimilate into being an American easier; a Canadian from Kelowna, British Columbia; or one of the Sentinelese?

---

So their race makes them inferior? If a Sentinelese man was raised in British Columbia are you cool with him immigrating here?

---

Wait a minute, why wouldn't you just call him a British Columbian? You seem to be noting that a Sentinelese man raised in British Columbia is not actually a British Columbian. Seems troublesome for you.

---

I'm asking a question based on the parameters you established. You're the one who finds the people who emigrated after the 1965 act "inferior" and explicitly used someone of Sentinelese descent as an example. So I'm asking based on your criteria and you're deflecting.

---

I'm not deflecting. You're literally refusing to answer my question I posed about whether someone from Kelowna would assimilate better than someone from Sentinel Island. Did you answer and I missed it?

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Or the bizarre interpretation of an amendment that was supposed to force Southern States to give citizenship to freed slaves that made babies of illegal migrants citizens?

---

There's nothing bizarre about it. It was the intended interpretation and has been supported by the courts for as long as the amendment has been around.

---

Absolutely bizarre that a pregnant woman can illegally enter the country and then squat out a child and that child becomes an American citizen.

---

This feels like a strange way to speak about the miracle of birth / life.

---

Dehumanization is a necessary step to prejudice.

---

Oh they're definitely human, they're just not Americans. That's not a pejorative any more than saying I'm not Japanese.

---

So why refer to them giving birth as "squatting out" kids? And the Constitution clearly says those kids ARE Americans.

---

The Constitution can be made to say whatever anyone wants it to say, I guarantee you the Trump admin's lawyers will make a case that the 14th amendment does not confer birthright citizenship in all circumstances, just as US vs Wong Kim Ark did.

With regards to the squatting out comment, I've already explained above.

---

That's a cute way of admitting the 14th amendment confers birthright citizenship.

---

Does it? What about to children of invading armies or foreign rulers/diplomats?

---

It's pretty explicit about who it doesn't apply to. The laws of the United States don't apply to those groups. They do apply to immigrants, regardless of legal status.

---

Ah, so Jus Soli can be restricted, and it's not just about having a child on US soil, there are other considerations?

---

It's explicit in the amendment, genius.

---

Really? Where at?

---

Section 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.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Zobel said:

---

---

Quo is very clearly making claims about the ethnic/racial makeup of people and labeling immigrants after 1965 as somehow inferior.

---

Were the immigrants before 1965 inferior? Or is everyone magically the same?

---

Are you saying the immigrants after 1965 are inferior? Because that's what it sounds like. I tend to take people as individuals rather than pretend that their ancestry magically makes them unable to be good Americans.

---

Yes I would say they were inferior, even the proponents of the bill would say as such. As mentioned earlier, the bill was sold as not impacting the demographics of the country, even going so far as to call saying it would a "racist canard". Seems Ole Teddy Kennedy knew that many Americans would have valid reasons to worry about losing their supermajority and decided it best to lie to them.

So why are they inferior? Because they're different to a much greater degree than the immigrants who made up the nation prior to 1965. We had a hard enough time getting the Irish and the Italians to assimilate, open the flood gates to Latin America, Africa and Asia, and your assimilation becomes an order of magnitude more difficult.

Just a quick question to you. Who will assimilate into being an American easier; a Canadian from Kelowna, British Columbia; or one of the Sentinelese?

---

So their race makes them inferior? If a Sentinelese man was raised in British Columbia are you cool with him immigrating here?

---

Wait a minute, why wouldn't you just call him a British Columbian? You seem to be noting that a Sentinelese man raised in British Columbia is not actually a British Columbian. Seems troublesome for you.

---

I'm asking a question based on the parameters you established. You're the one who finds the people who emigrated after the 1965 act "inferior" and explicitly used someone of Sentinelese descent as an example. So I'm asking based on your criteria and you're deflecting.

---

I'm not deflecting. You're literally refusing to answer my question I posed about whether someone from Kelowna would assimilate better than someone from Sentinel Island. Did you answer and I missed it?

---

So you have no concerns about the race or ethnicity of the individual involved?

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

So American culture is white/anglo?

---

I wouldn't narrow it down to just Anglo, but if you want to use White as a fill in for European, yes. American culture is broadly European.

---

Except for much of our food, music, clothing, and sports, which is heavily influenced by African Americans… you know… the basics of culture.

---

Is there something about the world "broadly" vs "totally" that is giving you issue?

---

Broadly meaning what percentage? Given that you can't at all divorce African Americans from U.S. culture, how do you even claim it's a "European culture."

---

How do you make a percentage of culture? How much is country western dancing's roots in the waltz measured against twerking?

Would it be accurate to say that American citizen's country of ancestry was broadly European throughout our history? Of course. Then how would our culture not be broadly European?

---

"Broadly European." You realize the idea of Europe as a cohesive whole is something that has come around only in the last 30 years and is seriously contested?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Or the bizarre interpretation of an amendment that was supposed to force Southern States to give citizenship to freed slaves that made babies of illegal migrants citizens?

---

There's nothing bizarre about it. It was the intended interpretation and has been supported by the courts for as long as the amendment has been around.

---

Absolutely bizarre that a pregnant woman can illegally enter the country and then squat out a child and that child becomes an American citizen.

---

This feels like a strange way to speak about the miracle of birth / life.

---

Dehumanization is a necessary step to prejudice.

---

Oh they're definitely human, they're just not Americans. That's not a pejorative any more than saying I'm not Japanese.

---

So why refer to them giving birth as "squatting out" kids? And the Constitution clearly says those kids ARE Americans.

---

The Constitution can be made to say whatever anyone wants it to say, I guarantee you the Trump admin's lawyers will make a case that the 14th amendment does not confer birthright citizenship in all circumstances, just as US vs Wong Kim Ark did.

With regards to the squatting out comment, I've already explained above.

---

That's a cute way of admitting the 14th amendment confers birthright citizenship.

---

Does it? What about to children of invading armies or foreign rulers/diplomats?

---

It's pretty explicit about who it doesn't apply to. The laws of the United States don't apply to those groups. They do apply to immigrants, regardless of legal status.

---

Ah, so Jus Soli can be restricted, and it's not just about having a child on US soil, there are other considerations?

---

It's explicit in the amendment, genius.

---

Really? Where at?

---

Section 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.

---

Ah, so enemy soldiers have diplomatic immunity?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Zobel said:

---

---

Quo is very clearly making claims about the ethnic/racial makeup of people and labeling immigrants after 1965 as somehow inferior.

---

Were the immigrants before 1965 inferior? Or is everyone magically the same?

---

Are you saying the immigrants after 1965 are inferior? Because that's what it sounds like. I tend to take people as individuals rather than pretend that their ancestry magically makes them unable to be good Americans.

---

Yes I would say they were inferior, even the proponents of the bill would say as such. As mentioned earlier, the bill was sold as not impacting the demographics of the country, even going so far as to call saying it would a "racist canard". Seems Ole Teddy Kennedy knew that many Americans would have valid reasons to worry about losing their supermajority and decided it best to lie to them.

So why are they inferior? Because they're different to a much greater degree than the immigrants who made up the nation prior to 1965. We had a hard enough time getting the Irish and the Italians to assimilate, open the flood gates to Latin America, Africa and Asia, and your assimilation becomes an order of magnitude more difficult.

Just a quick question to you. Who will assimilate into being an American easier; a Canadian from Kelowna, British Columbia; or one of the Sentinelese?

---

So their race makes them inferior? If a Sentinelese man was raised in British Columbia are you cool with him immigrating here?

---

Wait a minute, why wouldn't you just call him a British Columbian? You seem to be noting that a Sentinelese man raised in British Columbia is not actually a British Columbian. Seems troublesome for you.

---

I'm asking a question based on the parameters you established. You're the one who finds the people who emigrated after the 1965 act "inferior" and explicitly used someone of Sentinelese descent as an example. So I'm asking based on your criteria and you're deflecting.

---

I'm not deflecting. You're literally refusing to answer my question I posed about whether someone from Kelowna would assimilate better than someone from Sentinel Island. Did you answer and I missed it?

---

So you have no concerns about the race or ethnicity of the individual involved?

---

Is Sentinelese not an ethnicity? Of course I have concerns, I've explained why I have concerns.

You however have not answered my question, still.