11
11
0
From "The Washington Post"
Did Republicans just give away the 2016 election by raising birthright citizenship?
It may not seem like it, but this week has seen the most significant development yet in the immigration debate’s role in the 2016 election. I’d go even farther — it’s possible that the entire presidential election just got decided.
Is that an overstatement? Maybe. But hear me out.
For months, people like me have been pointing to the fundamental challenge Republican presidential candidates face on immigration: they need to talk tough to appeal to their base in the primaries, but doing so risks alienating the Hispanic voters they’ll need in the general election. This was always going to be a difficult line to walk, but a bunch of their candidates just leaped off to one side.
After Donald Trump released his immigration plan, which includes an end to birthright citizenship — stating that if you were born in the United States but your parents were undocumented, you don’t get to be a citizen — some of his competitors jumped up to say that they agreed. NBC News asked Scott Walker the question directly, and he seemed to reply that he does favor an end to birthright citizenship, though his campaign qualified the statement later. Bobby Jindal tweeted, “We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.” Then reporters began looking over others’ past statements to see where they stood on this issue, and found that this isn’t an uncommon position among the GOP field. Remember all the agonizing Republicans did about how they had to reach out to Hispanic voters? They never figured out how to do it, and now they’re running in the opposite direction.
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- I can see how it might just possibly be a bit difficult to run for office on a platform which includes "And, of course, I'm going to say that I'm going to ignore the Constitution of the United States of America - because doing that is going to get me a whole bunch of votes but I know that I can't both do that and take the oath of office at the same time."
Did Republicans just give away the 2016 election by raising birthright citizenship?
It may not seem like it, but this week has seen the most significant development yet in the immigration debate’s role in the 2016 election. I’d go even farther — it’s possible that the entire presidential election just got decided.
Is that an overstatement? Maybe. But hear me out.
For months, people like me have been pointing to the fundamental challenge Republican presidential candidates face on immigration: they need to talk tough to appeal to their base in the primaries, but doing so risks alienating the Hispanic voters they’ll need in the general election. This was always going to be a difficult line to walk, but a bunch of their candidates just leaped off to one side.
After Donald Trump released his immigration plan, which includes an end to birthright citizenship — stating that if you were born in the United States but your parents were undocumented, you don’t get to be a citizen — some of his competitors jumped up to say that they agreed. NBC News asked Scott Walker the question directly, and he seemed to reply that he does favor an end to birthright citizenship, though his campaign qualified the statement later. Bobby Jindal tweeted, “We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.” Then reporters began looking over others’ past statements to see where they stood on this issue, and found that this isn’t an uncommon position among the GOP field. Remember all the agonizing Republicans did about how they had to reach out to Hispanic voters? They never figured out how to do it, and now they’re running in the opposite direction.
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- I can see how it might just possibly be a bit difficult to run for office on a platform which includes "And, of course, I'm going to say that I'm going to ignore the Constitution of the United States of America - because doing that is going to get me a whole bunch of votes but I know that I can't both do that and take the oath of office at the same time."
Election 2016
Politics
Law
Republicans
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 35
0
0
0
It is still a requirement to be a citizen to vote isn't it? According to What I see on the internet I'm not sure anymore... .
Honestly I see it as a non-issue... a way for the (R) candidates to fire up the (R) minions (And for the (D) candidates to rebut and fire up the (D) minions). I know people who came here illegally, became citizens through deception, and vote (R) every election... they bought the party line.
Every election it's the same damn thing... who can spin the "hot button" topics the best...
The fact of the matter is nobody has come forward with an immigration reform idea that would actually work. They just keep saying "Put this cape on and jump off the house..." I for one am sick of having my intelligence insulted (or maybe dismayed that we can't come up with a candidate that has enough intelligence to realize if you can't keep out of West Berlin with 90 miles of wall, you sure ain't gonna with 1,400 miles).
Honestly I see it as a non-issue... a way for the (R) candidates to fire up the (R) minions (And for the (D) candidates to rebut and fire up the (D) minions). I know people who came here illegally, became citizens through deception, and vote (R) every election... they bought the party line.
Every election it's the same damn thing... who can spin the "hot button" topics the best...
The fact of the matter is nobody has come forward with an immigration reform idea that would actually work. They just keep saying "Put this cape on and jump off the house..." I for one am sick of having my intelligence insulted (or maybe dismayed that we can't come up with a candidate that has enough intelligence to realize if you can't keep out of West Berlin with 90 miles of wall, you sure ain't gonna with 1,400 miles).
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC David Hannaman - Spec; It is still a legal requirement to be a citizen to cast a legal vote in a Federal election.
It is NOT, however, a requirement to be a citizen to cast a ballot in an election - all that is needed is to convince the people who are in charge of the voters list that you are.
The only way around that it to have some sort of "government standard identification". This, of course, both smacks of "state control" and "disenfranchisement of the poor and forgetful". RFID chips implanted at birth might work to eliminate the second - but would REALLY smack of the first. Possibly someone is now contemplating having all babies receive a Fixed Registered Encoded Encrypted Designated Original Mandatory Number tattooed on them at birth so that they can use their FREEDOM Number as personal identification for the whole of their life.
It is NOT, however, a requirement to be a citizen to cast a ballot in an election - all that is needed is to convince the people who are in charge of the voters list that you are.
The only way around that it to have some sort of "government standard identification". This, of course, both smacks of "state control" and "disenfranchisement of the poor and forgetful". RFID chips implanted at birth might work to eliminate the second - but would REALLY smack of the first. Possibly someone is now contemplating having all babies receive a Fixed Registered Encoded Encrypted Designated Original Mandatory Number tattooed on them at birth so that they can use their FREEDOM Number as personal identification for the whole of their life.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Sir - to sidetrack a bit, it's hard to say the GOP even has a legit shot at the White House in 2016, given the current sitting of the Electoral College. I've read two studies recently, both who have utilized the last 5 to 6 Presidential elections as their basis to establish voting trends. That being said - both predicted that as it sits on election night, The Democrats start with a 242 electoral vote advantage (out of the 270 required to win), compared to low 100s electoral votes for Republicans.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LTC (Join to see) - Captain; You might be interested in:
[a] ElectoralVote.com http://www.electoral-vote.com/index.html
[b] 270towin.com http://www.270towin.com/
and/or
[c] PollingReport.com http://www.pollingreport.com/index.html
as sources for easy reviews of multiple polls. As near as I can figure out, the three of them, when aggregated, come out as being very close to neutral.
The first two offer their own analyses of what the combined polls show, but it would be best to read both analyses and then saw off the difference as (I think) that they come at their individual analyses from opposite directions. Polling Report simply gives the poll results without analysis.
Neither Polling Report nor 270towin gives you access to the polls' raw data.
As to whether the children of "illegal immigrants" if those children were born in the United States of America that was decided back on March 28, 1898 [in U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, (1898)] [ http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/169/649.html ] (6 to 2 with one abstention)
The judgment is lengthy and detailed, but - in gist - the finding of the court can be summarized as Mr. Wong is a citizen because he was born in the United States of America and the status of his parents is irrelevant.
PS - The time to appeal that judgment is long past (and there isn't any appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in any event).
[a] ElectoralVote.com http://www.electoral-vote.com/index.html
[b] 270towin.com http://www.270towin.com/
and/or
[c] PollingReport.com http://www.pollingreport.com/index.html
as sources for easy reviews of multiple polls. As near as I can figure out, the three of them, when aggregated, come out as being very close to neutral.
The first two offer their own analyses of what the combined polls show, but it would be best to read both analyses and then saw off the difference as (I think) that they come at their individual analyses from opposite directions. Polling Report simply gives the poll results without analysis.
Neither Polling Report nor 270towin gives you access to the polls' raw data.
As to whether the children of "illegal immigrants" if those children were born in the United States of America that was decided back on March 28, 1898 [in U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, (1898)] [ http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/169/649.html ] (6 to 2 with one abstention)
The judgment is lengthy and detailed, but - in gist - the finding of the court can be summarized as Mr. Wong is a citizen because he was born in the United States of America and the status of his parents is irrelevant.
PS - The time to appeal that judgment is long past (and there isn't any appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in any event).
Track the election with a red/blue map of the US updated daily using the latest state polls.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Sir...I appreciate the sources and information. I'll definitely be reading up on the information tonight. Thanks!
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LTC (Join to see) - Captain; You're welcome. When I refer people to sites (other than "news" sites) I do like to give them a choice so that they have a chance to balance out the conflicting biases.
If I forget, please feel free to remind me.
If I forget, please feel free to remind me.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Have you looked at what the Dems have. And old Hippie, Hillary who looks like she has a pin up he ass every time she is asked a hard question. And Govenor O'Mally who was booed of stage for saying all lives matter. And we're is Jim Webb? Now he could make Hillary pee her pant suit. Now for the Rebublicans, they are playing to the base. Let's see when they get whittled down to a reasonable number.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Hispanic voters here LEGALLY, don't want every Hispanic on the planet here! Same as every white person doesn't want every white person here. Do you know how stupid that sounds? That's pure RACIST and LIBERALS at work. IDIOTS!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google