POTUS 2024 - Harris vs Trump - General Election Discussion

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Remind me again about that time Biden said he wants to end birthright citizenship and deport actual US citizens.

Trump wants to end one aspect of birthright citizenship. He'll keep the other part where at least one parent is a citizen or PR. I like this idea but admittedly, it needs to go through the courts.

Regarding deporting actual US citizens, provide a source for this? What I've read, it's de-naturalization for those that got citizenship under fraudulent circumstances, and that de-naturalization has been happening pre-2016. There may be something new that I don't know about but for my source, see below.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Trump's Immigration Reform

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Trump wants to end one aspect of birthright citizenship. He'll keep the other part where at least one parent is a citizen or PR. I like this idea but admittedly, it needs to go through the courts.

Regarding deporting actual US citizens, provide a source for this? What I've read, it's de-naturalization for those that got citizenship under fraudulent circumstances, and that de-naturalization has been happening pre-2016. There may be something new that I don't know about but for my source, see below.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Trump's Immigration Reform

Can you explain how you view the 14th ammendment in regard to birthright citizenship?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Can you explain how you view the 14th amendment in regard to birthright citizenship?

There is no doubt that 14th grants citizenship for babies born here. There is no qualification "if at least one parent is a citizen or PR".

But then the constitution/amendments is a living document (the majority of us here believe that don't we?) and subject to change. So, if we go through the legal process to change/amend the 14th, then I'm okay with it.

Why not change the constitution/amendments if the country/states deem it is in the country/states best interest? There's going to be a fight as opinions/interpretations differ for sure. So, go through the process that is provided by law.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

There is no doubt that 14th grants citizenship for babies born here. There is no qualification "if at least one parent is a citizen or PR".

But then the constitution/amendments is a living document (the majority of us here believe that don't we?) and subject to change. So, if we go through the legal process to change/amend the 14th, then I'm okay with it.

Why not change the constitution/amendments if the country/states deem it is in the country/states best interest? There's going to be a fight as opinions differ for sure. So, go through the process that is provided by law.

If we want to change an ammendment and enough states are on board with it, I'm down. My issue is using executive order to see if they've pushed SCOTUS far enough to the right to overturn over 150 years of clear and unambiguous precedent.

They can't say "shall not be infringed" is clear and at the same time try to move the goalposts on the 14th. The intent of the 14th is far clearer than the wording of the 2nd.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

If we want to change an ammendment and enough states are on board with it, I'm down. My issue is using executive order to see if they've pushed SCOTUS far enough to the right to overturn over 150 years of clear and unambiguous precedent.

They can't say "shall not be infringed" is clear and at the same time try to move the goalposts on the 14th. The intent of the 14th is far clearer than the wording of the 2nd.

This is a fair concern. Most likely Trump will try to go for an executive order first, and then that'll be fought all the way to SCOTUS.

I'm not a constitutional scholar but am ultimately okay with what SCOTUS decides. That is also the "legal process". Let me update my original statement

So, if we go through the legal process to change/amend/successfully challenge the 14th, then I'm okay with it.

[JPhillips]

Akiva Cohen's takedown of Judge Ho's ridiculous invasion exception to the 14th is worth reading if you're on bluesky.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Akiva Cohen's takedown of Judge Ho's ridiculous invasion exception to the 14th is worth reading if you're on bluesky.

Glad you brought him up. Followed him on Twitter, but hadn't added him on Bluesky.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Akiva Cohen's takedown of Judge Ho's ridiculous invasion exception to the 14th is worth reading if you're on bluesky.

I was going to say they're just going to find a half-assed legal explanation to avoid the 14th amendment, go ahead with deporting anyone they want, and there's basically going to be no recourse against it.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I was going to say they're just going to find a half-assed legal explanation to avoid the 14th amendment, go ahead with deporting anyone they want, and there's basically going to be no recourse against it.

Look, the new bill "acknowledges" the 14th amendment, what more do you want???

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I was going to say they're just going to find a half-assed legal explanation to avoid the 14th amendment, go ahead with deporting anyone they want, and there's basically going to be no recourse against it.

Long as they deport me to Denmark I'm good.

[GrantDawg]

I will claim to be a part of your family if they will deport me there with you.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I will claim to be a part of your family if they will deport me there with you.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

No problem brother

[RainMaker]

Well done

Liz Cheney Was an Electoral Fiasco for Kamala Harris | The Nation

[flere-imsaho]

I found this in the wikipedia write-up of the 1984 election, and while it may or may not be 100% correct (although, having been alive in 1984, it feels correct), it really struck me:

Psephologists attributed a factor of the Republican victory to "Reagan Democrats", millions of Democrats who voted for Reagan, as in 1980. They characterized such Reagan Democrats as southern whites and northern blue-collar workers who voted for Reagan because they credited him with the economic recovery, saw him as strong on national security issues, and perceived the Democrats as supporting the poor and minorities at the expense of the middle class. The Democratic National Committee commissioned a study after the election that came to these conclusions, but destroyed all copies of the final report, afraid that it would offend the party's key voters.

[NobodyHere]

Psephologists

I learned a new word today!

[JPhillips]

Didn't move many voters is far different than an electoral fiasco.

Again, Harris got more votes than Biden in the five eastern/midwestern battlegrounds. Trump's plan to mobilize low propensity voters worked. Lots of people came out to vote for him, and in many cases, only him.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Didn't move many voters is far different than an electoral fiasco.

Again, Harris got more votes than Biden in the five eastern/midwestern battlegrounds. Trump's plan to mobilize low propensity voters worked. Lots of people came out to vote for him, and in many cases, only him.

It is a fiasco when it hurt your standing with the base. Imagine if they hadn't spent a month targeting a non-existent demographic and focused on people who might actually vote for her.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Trump has made it very clear that tariffs are not a global tariff but industry based decisions to help the American Worker or Consumer.

The "American Worker" needs to do better.

Fuck bailing them out on 2nd rate product, 5th rate service, and 20th rate pricing.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

Long as they deport me to Denmark I'm good.

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I will claim to be a part of your family if they will deport me there with you.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

No problem brother

Hate to tell you guys this but Danes aren't that welcoming anymore ...

Denmark’s tough stance on migrants plays well at home. In Brussels, it could be a different story. – POLITICO

Denmark — under Social Democrat Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and her center-right predecessor Lars Løkke Rasmussen — has pursued some of the toughest immigration policies in Europe over recent years. Denmark’s policies were initially seen as extreme in countries such as the United Kingdom, Sweden and Germany but over recent years lawmakers in those states appear to have moved closer to Copenhagen’s line, and to some extent, followed its example.

Possibly forced assimilation

Children born to immigrants would be forced to assimilate into Danish society through mandated 25 hours of separation from their parents. One of these laws mandates forced integration of thousands of residents in these two dozen neighborhoods by demolishing housing blocks. Frederiksen has not only embraced these laws, she has pushed them forward.

And pro-tip, don't apply for asylum. Chance that may mean Rwanda or detention center somewhere remote.

In 2021, the country passed a law that could allow refugees arriving in Denmark to be moved to asylum centers in partner countries, such as Rwanda, a proposal which the European Commission criticized. It also looked hard at detaining asylum seekers on a remote island.

... Canada may be best?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It is a fiasco when it hurt your standing with the base. Imagine if they hadn't spent a month targeting a non-existent demographic and focused on people who might actually vote for her.

Again, she got more votes where it mattered than the last guy.