-->
@Savant
Do you need to be a mod to know the debate
Birthright citizenship.
Posts
Total:
70
-->
@Greyparrot
In your opinion what is the debate here
-->
@Greyparrot
There is a difference between thinking something is a good idea, and admitting that the law as a fixed meaning that cannot be altered except by changing the law.45 years later, America still thinks it's a good idea to have millions of babies with no path to real assimilation.
For instance, the 2nd amendment means a certain thing based on the words and the context in which it was written. It is not permissible (i.e. legal) to say "well that doesn't make sense anymore so lets just pretend it means something else."
The 2nd amendment means citizens have a right to own a tank, and the 14th amendment means anchor babies are a thing.
-->
@Greyparrot
I do think we should get rid of birthright citizenship. From to approach it from a differing angle from you, what about dreamer babies? Both babies that came here undocumented after birth or even those who came at birth without documented parents. They assimilate to our culture and fit in no where else yet we plop them down deported to totally foreign countries. They did what u complained by assimilating yet still have problems
-->
@AdaptableRatman
The debate is whether America can rise up against the corporate interests to preserve American culture, or unlike England who took steps in 1981, is American culture just not worth saving?
-->
@Greyparrot
Ironically I can definitely say that British culture has ended up far more diluted than America's as has a lot of Western Europe.
However, is your stance Fascistic or liberty based? You seem to fuse them, they are opposites overall.
-->
@Greyparrot
In 1898, Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan were the only two of the Supreme Court, then with 8 total justices, including Chief Justice Fuller, on the US v. Wong case that established American birthright citizenship, but it was done so by ignoring a key phrase in the 14A: "“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 key phrase is bolded. Anyone not born in the United States, and not of at least one US citizen parent, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US just because they happen to be here; they are subject to wherever they came from, and their children born here follow that jurisdiction. Otherwise, the bolded phrase means nothing at all, and is a worthless, actionless phrase, which is exactly how the Fuller Court's 6 assenting Justices viewed it; by ignoring it.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The 2nd amendment means citizens have a right to own a tank
From your post #33:
Wrong, you apply the wrong syntax. The word "arms' in the 18th century, applied to weapons a person can carry, as in or on their arm[s]. Get it? Got to know the language of the Constitution according to the syntax of the era when articles and amendments are written, and not assume it all magically converts to 22st century syntax.. That is the only way to read the document, or really any document of history. You cannot just assume words maintain the same meaning over time. A linguistics course would tell you that. I have a linguistics degree, among a set of degrees, so I know whereof I write.
and the 14th amendment means anchor babies are a thing.
No, it does not. Otherwise, the bolded phrase I quoted in my post #37 does not need to be there, but it is there and must be accounted for, which he 6-2 majority of the Fuller Court in 1898 flailed to account. They decided as if the bolded phrase was not there.
-->
@fauxlaw
have a linguistics degree,
Before or after you learned to stop using conditional clauses?
among a set of degrees, so I know whereof I write.
You are exactly the sort of person I am talking about when I argue against appeals to authority.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What is wrong about conditional clauses? They are a legitimate form of language. For example, the speech by Trump which most of the media misinterpretted as wanting to ditch the Constitution, but it was entirely based on a conditional clause stated further back in the speech that all who malign the speech ignore, just like most who misinterpret the 2A because it, too, is a lengthy conditions clause before it gets to the meat. Conditionals are perfectly acceptable language, or are you unfamiliar with the Chicago Manual of Style? A conditional phrase satisfies the need to discuss what might happen [not will, because that's future prediction which can be statistically unsound, and I also happen to be a Six Sigma Black Belt, retired]. Authority means something too, regardless of your discontent. Freedom, my friend, is fraught with necessary authority because it is the nature of man to wander from proper behavior unless they throttle themself appropriately..
-->
@Greyparrot
America still thinks it's a good idea to have millions of babies with no path to real assimilation.
Brown people can fool themselves all day long into thinking they're "real Americans", but it's pure fantasy.
Oh and I'm not a bigot either, how dare you suggest such a thing.
-->
@Greyparrot
you can’t export freedom to cultures that don’t want it
I mean, the US did do that? Ending slavery was by no means easy, but it did happen.
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Do you need to be a mod to know the debate
I thought you meant the title of the thread...I don't think we're arguing past each other just yet.
-->
@Savant
Ending slavery was by no means easy, but it did happen.
Well... yes, legally, it was ended. Behaviorly, I observe it is still with us in not-so-subtle ways. I do not mean. to say I believe we still have systemic racism, because that implies law and policy have racist content, and they do not. Not one word in current law or policy can be found to substantiate. What we battle is inidividual racism, even if it is fostered among government employees. Their policies do not agree with their rhetoric, so it must be individual. We have wandered far from Madison's dream of "a more perfect union." By studying his thoughts in the Federalist Papers, and in numerous letters to colleagues, he made it clear that his vision was that the Constitution was a generous and purposeful consequence, a delight for the heart, mind, and soul. Then, all of us would sit at that grand table where all foods are enjoyed, all laws respected, all hands joined, all cultures embraced, all colors celebrated, and all deities honored. What else could we ever want or need?
-->
@fauxlaw
What is wrong about conditional clauses?
If/then logic is almost always the first wrong step into a morass of illogic, because in most conditions of if/then, the "if" clause is not currently true, and, therefore, cannot justify "then" unless "if" is changed to a valid statement, but then, there goes then, entirely, because it is still not justified.
All "if/then logic" isn't, simply because whatever follows "if" is not currently true, and will not be true until "if," whatever it is, is altered, and thus, cannot justify "then," regardless of what is claimed as "then," even when "then" is not identified by such a moniker, but is merely a statement of result. Glad you're amused.
In case it isn't obvious, there is pretty much nothing you can say to make me take you seriously after those two.
-->
@Savant
you can’t export freedom to cultures that don’t want itI mean, the US did do that? Ending slavery was by no means easy, but it did happen.
Tell me, exactly which African nation did we export our culture to successfully and ended the ongoing slavery in Africa?
The idea that America can simply export its culture, especially American liberty and democracy, is one of the most persistent and dangerous myths of the last hundred years. It assumes that freedom is a global system, as if handing culturally diverse people a constitution, an election, and some NGOs will automatically produce a stable republic. But that’s not how culture works.
Every time we’ve tried to export American-style liberty to foreign nations, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Africa, it’s ended in failure or chaos. These efforts ignored the truth: freedom isn’t a system, or a set of laws, it’s a culture. And it only survives in places where people have been raised, generation after generation, to value individual rights, free speech, civic duty, and moral restraint like the founders demanded.
Even Europe despite being culturally close never fully adopted the American view of liberty. Most European countries restrict speech, enforce hate speech laws, and criminalize dissent they deem socially disruptive. If our First Amendment ideals couldn’t even fully take root among people with shared history and values, what makes anyone think it can succeed in societies built on tribal loyalty, religious absolutism, or authoritarian tradition? JD Vance was right, we don't have a shared culture anymore, so even importing white fuckers from the EU without assimilation will result in the 1st Amendment going byebye.
The reality is this: liberty can’t be exported. It has to be cultivated. And importing cultures that fundamentally don’t believe in liberty undermines the very foundation the Constitution depends on. We didn’t build freedom by mailing pamphlets overseas. We built it by sustaining and promoting a culture willing to live, fight, and die for it. When we forget that, we stop being champions of liberty and start being morticians.
America, fuck yeah.
-->
@Greyparrot
Tell me, exactly which African nation did we export our culture to successfully and ended the ongoing slavery in Africa?
You said culture, not nation. If it's nations you care about, then the US influenced Japan's culture to a large extent following WW2. If it's African countries that count, the US has significantly impacted Nigerian culture. As for ending slavery in Africa, I'm not sure why the US needs to have accomplished that to prove my point.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Thank you for falling into a trap. Those discussions you cited, https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/12811/posts/521976 & https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/12739/posts/519959, both discuss if/then logic, but if/then is not the only launch of a conditional, is it?
When x is true, then...
is not an if/then statement, because it begins with a true condition which may not be current, but has been a past conditi0n observed with the "then" results also observed. That';s not if/then, my friend, so both your barbs do not apply.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is the conditional of the 2A, and is an example of "When x is true, then...". It's "then" is:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
other examples;
Unless you pass the bar exam, even after attending law school, you cannot be an attorney.
Until you read Moby Dick, you will not know how the Pequod sank.
However you approach life, it must be approached to be successful.
"Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy Name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." That is a conditional, too, phrased, as it were, as a command: "...thy will be done." It amounts to a command to us to assure that God's will is the will that is accomplished, but it is entirely conditional on us.
None of these, while being conditional clauses, are if/then clauses. They can be worded as such, but if/then necessitates that the conditional clause, "if" be currently not true. IN these statements above, it is imperative to pass the exam, read Moby Dick, approach life, and bring the kingdom of God, and all of therm may already be true statements that we have done these things.
If it's African countries that count, the US has significantly impacted Nigerian culture.
No no no.
No, the United States certainly did not successfully export liberty to Nigeria. Sure, Nigeria has adopted many surface-level features of Western democracy, such as a constitution, elections, and formal civil rights, but those institutions exist largely on paper. In practice, the cultural foundation required to sustain liberty is weak. Freedom of speech is regularly undermined, with journalists and activists harassed or detained for criticizing the government. Religious liberty is compromised, particularly in the northern states where Sharia law is enforced, often in direct conflict with civil rights. Corruption is rampant, and loyalty to ethnic or religious groups frequently outweighs any commitment to national identity or constitutional principles. Like I said before paper liberty is far less impressive than a culture of liberty.
Despite massive investment by the U.S. and Western NGOs in democracy-building programs, Nigeria has not embraced the cultural values that underpin American-style liberty: rule of law, individual rights, civic accountability, and the restraint of state power. Liberty cannot and will never be exported through paperwork or elections alone. It has to grow from a cultural soil that respects and defends it. In Nigeria, that soil remains divided and unstable. What we exported wasn’t liberty, it was the illusion of it, disconnected from the civic fabric based on a culture of liberty needed to make it real. Nigeria: The paper tiger of all free tigers.
-->
@Savant
Its been over 150 years, and we still haven't assimilated generations of former imported slaves. That objectively shows up in poor academics, poor family values, poor criminal choices....a culture that still scorns education, scorns due process, scorns sacrifice for the whole, embraces tribalism, embraces instant gratification, embraces merit based on skin color. If we knew how much our country would degrade as a result of this failed assimilation, we would have made reservations for them like we did for the Indians 150 years ago.
I get that we have an obligation to keep trying, but we have zero obligations to do that for fence hoppers swinging Mexican flags and blasting shops with cinder blocks and gas filled bottles.
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you identify as a Fascist?
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Democratic Nationalist.
Believing in national borders, a national language, voting, and national identity based on Lockean culture doesn’t make you a fascist. It makes you a participant in a functioning democracy.
-->
@Greyparrot
The problem is people say Fascism is only tyrannical because it did arise that way.
The reality is Fascistic ideals are actually set in stone whereas the term Conservative means keeping things steady as they are or how they used to be.
A Conservative Muslim has a very different idea of the endgame to a Conservative Dane and Conservative Peruvian alike.
In contrast, while Fascism differs also based on ethnic outlook and culture, the principles are set in stone so to speak:
- Nothing comes before the nation's wellbeing.
- All are servants of the state.
- If the nation is united in ethnic background, then ethnicity must be a focus too. However, if it has been a melting pot for long enough, the focus becomes keeping the mix as it is (Spain's Falangism is an example of mixed race supremacy happening and this concept even was already there in Latin America, they believed mixing towards caramel skin amd brown hair to be optimal as it unites under the mixed race which was the only tenable ethnicity to unite under).
- Military focus
- Strong border control
- Caring very, very little for any wars or drama abroad unless it is super severe or affects the fascist nation's security.
- Nuclear Family seen as ideal but for Islamofascism that alters to be multiple wives.
-->
@Greyparrot
Democracy is why America has such open borders. Maybe you now see the clash Fascism has with democracy. It is incidental rather than direct.
Fascism requires the State Government to maintain absokute authority so as to protect against stupidity of the masses.
Antifa would actually end up with the same, it would be Marxist instead.
The problem is people say Fascism is only tyrannical because it did arise that way.
Omg Adaptable is now fascist!
Not really, idk what I am
Fascism would make you betray your religion or values if the nation's religion and your family wanted otherwise. Ultimately it fails due to that.
It puts national prowess above ALL other morals. This ends up corrupting.
I am a Meow-Fascist actually. It means I believe state should oppress all members of non-meow religions.
idk what I am
Well, try to guess now.
That amendment was made for SLAVES, not Mexicans and Indians. If they wants to use the 13th amendment they should get a lil ole taste of slavery - maybe 4 years. Yesirree, give us black folks a bunch a lil ole slaves once them anchorbaby niggas turn 18. THEN they can get they green card usin our ammendment.
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Democracy is why America has such open borders.
Lol, no. We voted long ago to assimilate migrants with various immigration acts. That was Democratic Nationalism. Welcoming newcomers into a shared culture and identity.
We have open borders only because of the tyranny of presidential fiat ignoring the laws and will of the people, or you could say it's globalist fascism.