Candidate Match Game

[JakeStyle]

Link

Kind of fun, I ended up with Perry 66%, Newt 60%, and Bachmann 53%.

[rustybayonet]

Was interesting - numbers one and two were my choices and in order.  Number 3 was a surprise, because at this point I feel he's a loose cannon.  No surprise who came in dead last --- Obummer, the scourge of the country.

[Karin]

Bachman and Gingrich were my 1 & 2. 

[NHSparky]

Meh--USA Today trying to push-poll again.

[DefiantSix]

Meh--USA Today trying to push-poll again.

No shit; they tried to tell me that I'm a Paul 'tard. 

[Eupher]

No shit; they tried to tell me that I'm a Paul 'tard. 

Yeah, me too. Pissed me off so much I turned off the damned computer for awhile. 

[Rebel]

Paul --- 60.1%  5/11 issues

Perry --- 53.4% 4/11 issues

Bachmann 46.8% 3/11 issues

They didn't ask enough foreign policy questions. The one they did about Afghanistan, I disagreed with him on.

[docstew]

Paul --- 60.1%  5/11 issues

Perry --- 53.4% 4/11 issues

Bachmann 46.8% 3/11 issues

They didn't ask enough foreign policy questions. The one they did about Afghanistan, I disagreed with him on.

pretty much the same three for me too... I detest Ron Paul. He is the only one of the current candidates I would not even hold my nose to vote for.

[Rugnuts]

No shit; they tried to tell me that I'm a Paul 'tard. 

 

[DefiantSix]

Paul --- 60.1%  5/11 issues

Perry --- 53.4% 4/11 issues

Bachmann 46.8% 3/11 issues

They didn't ask enough foreign policy questions. The one they did about Afghanistan, I disagreed with him on.

They even cherry-picked which domestic issues to ask about.  80% of what Dr. Nutz says is just fine; right on the button, even.  But that's the shit he puts out there just so he can get the uninformed conservatives to think that he believes what they believe, when the other 20% SCREAMS "YOUGOTTABE****INKIDDINME!!!!!"

The devil himself will tell you 999 verifiable truths, just to get you to swallow the one lie.  (Yes, Paul 'tards, that's a character assessment on Dr. Nutz).

[Rebel]

The questions are too damned vague.

"Abolish the welfare state that encourages illegal immigration, deny amnesty, and end birthright citizenship"

Ok, I'm fine with 2/3rds of that, but end birthright citizenship? That's not how I read anchor baby. That looks to me to be ending birthright citizenship. Hell no I don't agree with that, but I totally agree with ending the anchor baby policy.

[Rugnuts]

That's not how I read anchor baby. That looks to me to be ending birthright citizenship. Hell no I don't agree with that, but I totally agree with ending the anchor baby policy.

so you dont want to end birthright, but you want to end anchor babies.
your issue is with the technicalities of the wording then becasue the "anchor baby policy" is "birthright citizenship", no?

[Eupher]

Rugnuts, I'd offer that the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't anticipate the sheer number of those who would game the system and use the sanctity of the beginning of human life for personal and financial benefit.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the intent of the 14th Amendment. Unfortunately, they didn't think to preclude those who would deliberately take advantage of the Amendment. Ergo, the survey's question isn't targeted enough to allow somebody to support birthright citizenship versus the "just drop the kid in the USA and presto-change-o, we got a free ticket to paradise."

[Rugnuts]

but is there an additional law/right that says "if your kid was born here, he/she is a US citizen, there for you are now a citizen" ? if there is that needs to go.

if not the birthright amendment needs to changed. that's what this question is about. that's how i understand it. so you cant stop "anchor baby-ing" with changing "birthright citizenship" which rebel is afraid to SAY.
i will agree using the word "end" instead of "change" has big implications. "replace" might be a better choice.

[Rebel]

but is there an additional law/right that says "if your kid was born here, he/she is a US citizen, there for you are now a citizen" ? if there is that needs to go.

if not the birthright amendment needs to changed. that's what this question is about. that's how i understand it. so you cant stop "anchor baby-ing" with changing "birthright citizenship" which rebel is afraid to SAY.
i will agree using the word "end" instead of "change" has big implications. "replace" might be a better choice.

I'm not afraid to say shit. When I was born, to my American parents, I was automatically an American citizen. Two Mexicans crossing illegally and downloading a kid at Grady Memorial on the taxpayer's dime, should not be an American citizen.

[Eupher]

but is there an additional law/right that says "if your kid was born here, he/she is a US citizen, there for you are now a citizen" ? if there is that needs to go.

if not the birthright amendment needs to changed. that's what this question is about. that's how i understand it. so you cant stop "anchor baby-ing" with changing "birthright citizenship" which rebel is afraid to SAY.
i will agree using the word "end" instead of "change" has big implications. "replace" might be a better choice.

No, I believe it's all part of the 14th Amendment which reads:

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The part we're talking about is in Section 1. The Amendment would have to be revised and/or completely thrown out (much like the failure of Prohibition resulted in repealing the 18th Amendment by ratifying the 21st Amendment). I can't see the entire Amendment being repealed - only the part of Section 1 that results in anchor babies.

Here's more information and a link:

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

[Rugnuts]

I'm not afraid to say shit. When I was born, to my American parents, I was automatically an American citizen. Two Mexicans crossing illegally and downloading a kid at Grady Memorial on the taxpayer's dime, should not be an American citizen.

well when i read your reply, you said you are against ending "birthright citizenship". but wanted to end anchor babying. cant have both.
i assume we all have the same idea in our heads. we want "born to citizen parents" added to the birthright clause. but that indeed "ends" what we have today in the 14th ammdt.
irregardless... in the way i read the question, you actually agree with it. but yet you say you dont. that is what originally made me reply abou your post.