Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (5300)	11/14/2005 1:23:24 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541787

Just wanted to present a balanced view of Carroll's background (his bio) and by another observation of his ideas....I can't speak for the blogger. And bringing up the slavery issue is probably a straw man argument. From the research I've done, and history of slavery, that "institution" had been around for thousands of years. The "sellers" in Africa were some of the very tribesmen of the people they were selling into slavery. Did anyone think anything about them? I certainly do today! How could one's own people sell their own brothers and sisters into slavery? What would you call that? Besides, I'm just finding that one of my great grandfathers and his family may have been involved in helping the slaves from the south via the Underground Railroad..... People didn't want to be caught then....fines of $250 (a princely sum in those days when $100 a year was a lot of money)...plus prison sentences, which would have destroyed the family. It is VERY difficult to prove, and I am researching that now. As to your question: >>>Does it improve the argument to attack the person you are arguing with, rather than the ideas?<<< I'm assuming you are just asking that, and not saying that I personally was attacking anyone. I wasn't. But yours is a great question. Maybe it is we have all gotten so used to "attacking" the person, particularly our public figures, like Cheney and Bush, that we forget the niceities of not attacking the person, and just their ideas.... If people stop to realize what has been going on for several years, they will realize that we have been surrounded with people around us, in the media, radio, TV, cable, newspapers, etc that attack the PERSON and NOT just their ideas..... Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Maybe more people will realize what they are hearing on a daily basis.

To: Ilaine who wrote (5300)	11/14/2005 2:31:58 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541787

Did you see the Post editorial on birthright citizenship? It dismissed the notion of changing the citizenship requirements as "ugly." There was no discussion at all on the merits of the question or even an explanation of how they came to dismiss it as "ugly." I was really disappointed in that from the Post. I almost sent them a comment. Citizens, All Saturday, November 12, 2005; Page A24 REP. TOM TANCREDO (R-Colo.) has a bold idea to stop illegal immigration: Deny automatic citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants. "There is general agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be bestowed on people who are children of folks who come into this country illegally," he told the Washington Times. General agreement? Perhaps among Mr. Tancredo's friends in the House but not among the framers of the 14th Amendment. Indeed, any such modern consensus would have a small problem in the text of the Constitution, which is, inconveniently for anti-immigrant demagogues, not subtle on the point. The 14th Amendment begins: "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." Not "all persons except children of illegal immigrants," not "all persons except those Congress exempts in moments of nativism." All persons. How does Mr. Tancredo propose to get around this language? Like diplomats, illegal immigrants are not truly subject to American jurisdiction, he contends, and their children therefore don't satisfy the constitutional test for birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court rejected this thesis more than a century ago. "Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States," the court wrote. Diplomats, as a consequence of the lack of jurisdiction Mr. Tancredo would extend to aliens, cannot be arrested or charged with crimes. Is that what Mr. Tancredo has in mind for illegal immigrants? Members of Congress ought not follow him on this ugly and fruitless path. © 2005 The Washington Post Company