Is it a coincidence that all the tea party candidates have overtly extreme outrageous policies?
Answers.Yahoo.com
It's hard to say which one of their whacked ideas is the most extreme because they're all up there. But Angle's "same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt children" is one of the wackiest. Talk about STEPPING on Americans "rights"! Pffft! And why does Mike Lee want to change the 14th amendment after it's been in PLACE all these CENTURIES?! That amendment, is how HIS ancestors from Europe or wherever, became citizens! And "REPUBLICANS wrote it back there in 1868! Talk about somebody not doing his homework!
"As part of Reconstruction, the first clause of 14th Amendment states "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."
It's a matter of perspective.
The tea party candidates' stands were mainstream a generation or two ago, and many of those positions remain mainstream. Like the Constitution, they have not changed. Political correctness, for example, has only forced approval (first it was tolerance, then it was acceptance; now it is approval, and next it will be affirmative action) of homosexuality during the last generation. Applying the label of extreme to the straight-parenthood lobby demonstrates a misinformed (or dishonest), extreme perspective. Moreover, for an extreme leftist to call a centrist position "extreme" adds hypocrisy to the previous faults.
The country has moved miles to the left since the 1960s. From the perspective of the left, therefore, those actually in the former center now appear to be on the right, and to those on the extreme left, those in the former center appear to be on the extreme right. This serves their purposes by grouping the center with the real extreme right. To those in the mainstream, however, opposition to adoption by homosexuals remains neither extreme nor wacky.
The left began using terms such as 'extreme' in order to demonize and marginalize the center-right. Such ad hominem attacks alleviate any need to deal honestly with the issue and to argue the unsupportable. They are intended to elicit over-reaction from opponents in order to discredit them. The are also intended to whip up often-violent fervor in their allies. Such verbal aggression has polarized the public, agitated emotional responses on both sides, and inhibited reasoned discussion. Hypocritically, the left is usually the first to protest against accurate labels such as liberal, radical, socialist, and Marxist.
The questioner states that Mike Lee's ancestors became citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to former slaves. Lee is Caucasian. What was that about doing one's homework?
Congress intended the 14th Amendment to prevent denying citizenship to former slaves, not to bestow citizenship on children of illegal aliens.
The author of the Citizenship Clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, stated..., 'This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers....'
"In 1873, The United States Attorney General ruled the word "jurisdiction" under the 14th Amendment meant... 'absolute and complete jurisdiction.... Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent.'" (Wikipedia)
Note that even though such persons were born in the US, they were considered aliens.
This did not change until United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, in 1898, when the Supreme Court ruled that a child born to non-citizen parents legally and permanently in the US was a citizen. That still did not give birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens. (Wikipedia)
Even Native Americans, considered subjects of "Indian" nations, did not receive citizenship until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. The Supreme Court had ruled in 1884 (Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94) that American Indians born in the United States could not claim citizenship because they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Birthright citizenship for illegal aliens today exists as a de facto practice without major legal precedent. Many falsely claim that 1982's case Plyler v. Doe conferred citizenship on children of trespassing aliens. Plyler v. Doe merely extended equal protection and required the states to provide free benefits to such children.
According to Congressional Research Service, "The courts apparently have never ruled on the specific issues of whether the native-born child of illegal aliens... may be a U.S. citizen."
Congress has responsibility to interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in order to enforce it. People like Mike Lee remaine completely within the legal and social mainstreams for wanting to refine the provisions of the 14th Amendment.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment clearly excluded children of legal aliens from citizenship. It therefore excluded the children of trespassing aliens. What the questioner claims has existed for "centuries" came about only recently.
The mainstream and historical positions of tea party candidates are extreme only to those on the extreme left, outrageous only to those with an un-American perspective, and 'whacked' only to those with fractured knowledge of history. The question is truly a case of the iron pot calling the stainless steel kettle 'black.'
The tea party candidates' stands were mainstream a generation or two ago, and many of those positions remain mainstream. Like the Constitution, they have not changed. Political correctness, for example, has only forced approval (first it was tolerance, then it was acceptance; now it is approval, and next it will be affirmative action) of homosexuality during the last generation. Applying the label of extreme to the straight-parenthood lobby demonstrates a misinformed (or dishonest), extreme perspective. Moreover, for an extreme leftist to call a centrist position "extreme" adds hypocrisy to the previous faults.
The country has moved miles to the left since the 1960s. From the perspective of the left, therefore, those actually in the former center now appear to be on the right, and to those on the extreme left, those in the former center appear to be on the extreme right. This serves their purposes by grouping the center with the real extreme right. To those in the mainstream, however, opposition to adoption by homosexuals remains neither extreme nor wacky.
The left began using terms such as 'extreme' in order to demonize and marginalize the center-right. Such ad hominem attacks alleviate any need to deal honestly with the issue and to argue the unsupportable. They are intended to elicit over-reaction from opponents in order to discredit them. The are also intended to whip up often-violent fervor in their allies. Such verbal aggression has polarized the public, agitated emotional responses on both sides, and inhibited reasoned discussion. Hypocritically, the left is usually the first to protest against accurate labels such as liberal, radical, socialist, and Marxist.
The questioner states that Mike Lee's ancestors became citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to former slaves. Lee is Caucasian. What was that about doing one's homework?
Congress intended the 14th Amendment to prevent denying citizenship to former slaves, not to bestow citizenship on children of illegal aliens.
The author of the Citizenship Clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, stated..., 'This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers....'
"In 1873, The United States Attorney General ruled the word "jurisdiction" under the 14th Amendment meant... 'absolute and complete jurisdiction.... Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent.'" (Wikipedia)
Note that even though such persons were born in the US, they were considered aliens.
This did not change until United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, in 1898, when the Supreme Court ruled that a child born to non-citizen parents legally and permanently in the US was a citizen. That still did not give birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens. (Wikipedia)
Even Native Americans, considered subjects of "Indian" nations, did not receive citizenship until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. The Supreme Court had ruled in 1884 (Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94) that American Indians born in the United States could not claim citizenship because they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Birthright citizenship for illegal aliens today exists as a de facto practice without major legal precedent. Many falsely claim that 1982's case Plyler v. Doe conferred citizenship on children of trespassing aliens. Plyler v. Doe merely extended equal protection and required the states to provide free benefits to such children.
According to Congressional Research Service, "The courts apparently have never ruled on the specific issues of whether the native-born child of illegal aliens... may be a U.S. citizen."
Congress has responsibility to interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in order to enforce it. People like Mike Lee remaine completely within the legal and social mainstreams for wanting to refine the provisions of the 14th Amendment.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment clearly excluded children of legal aliens from citizenship. It therefore excluded the children of trespassing aliens. What the questioner claims has existed for "centuries" came about only recently.
The mainstream and historical positions of tea party candidates are extreme only to those on the extreme left, outrageous only to those with an un-American perspective, and 'whacked' only to those with fractured knowledge of history. The question is truly a case of the iron pot calling the stainless steel kettle 'black.'
Source(s):
Birthright citizenship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States
Precedent concerning citizenship for children of illegal aliens
http://www.ilw.com/immigrationdaily/news/2005,0926-crs.pdf
1982's Supreme Court case, Plyler v. Doe (No. 80-1538)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0202_ZO.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States
Precedent concerning citizenship for children of illegal aliens
http://www.ilw.com/immigrationdaily/news/2005,0926-crs.pdf
1982's Supreme Court case, Plyler v. Doe (No. 80-1538)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0202_ZO.html
1 comment:
Wow! How refreshing to read a well-researched, intellectually honest response to such an (obviously) ill-researched/uneducated question - especially one which exemplifies the polarizing and inflammatory language & attitude(s) (and attempts at misinformation) of the Left!
Thank you! Thank you! THANK YOU!
Post a Comment