What are your thoughts on amending the US Constitution in order to allow naturalized US citizens to become US President?

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I think I'm frankly starting to get to the point where I'm beginning to advocate imperialism. the amount of immigration to the US vs emigration is like a thousand to one and the countries who don't want to be our allies seem to be falling under their own instability. If we have to hold up and pay for the rest of the planet, why shouldn't we own said planet lord only knows we spend the capita like we own it.

The issue I have with it is that that much power is bound to corrupt even the best to the point of becoming mindless bureaucrats, and we already have issues with an idiot native population that seems to think that there's two nations in this world, the US and not the US. (No Virgina not all pale skinned humans are the same. try telling a Scott he's the same as a German or a brit) if we conquered the world that's bound to get worse.

I would be fine having satellite nations throughout the world though. To those who'd say that would be destroying their culture.

1. If their culture is so great why are people moving here instead of staying over there and "Fighting the good fight for their homeland"?
2. Nothing would keep America from integrating and assimilating the aspects of other cultures we find beneficial, aesthetically, pleasing, or even just harmless while leaving the crappier aspects to rot in the sands of time. Most great empires throughout history have done this.

Our main problem isn't interventionism so much as it's half-baked interventionism that's designed to prolong war as long as possible to fuel the for-profit military industrialization complex, and contrary to what the media will tell you the democrats profit from that as much if not more so than the democrats.

 

[Cherico]

I think I'm frankly starting to get to the point where I advocate imperialism the amount of immigration to the US vs emigration is like a thousand to one and the countries who don't want to be our allies seem to be falling under their own instability. If we have to hold up and pay for the rest of the planet, why shouldn't we own said planet lord only knows we spend the capita for it.

The issue I have with it is that that much power is bound to corrupt even the best to the point of becoming mindless bureaucrats, and we already have issues with an idiot native population that seems to think that there's two nations in this world, the US and not the US. (No Virgina not all pale skinned humans are the same. try telling a Scott he's the same as a German or a brit) if we conquered the world that's bound to get worse.

I would be fine having satellite nations throughout the world though. To those who'd say that would be destroying their culture.

1. If their culture is so great why are people moving here instead of staying over there and "Fighting the good fight for their homeland"?
2. Nothing would keep America from integrating and assimilating the aspects of other cultures we find beneficial, aesthetically, pleasing, or even just harmless. Most of all the great empires throughout history have done this.

Our main problem isn't interventionism so much as it's half-baked interventionism that's designed to prolong war as long as possible to fuel the for-profit military industrialization complex, and contrary to what the media will tell you the democrats profit from that as much if not more so then the democrats.

Empire is a mixed bag.

Its a simple deal the perfifery sends wealth to the center in exchange for protection. The perfifery grows as it enjoys stability and joins the center until the empire is knocked down by something or collapses under its own weight.

America could become a empire instead of the hedgemon it is now and do a decent enough job of it, the problem is the people who want the empire are not fit to rule it, and the people who would rule it dont want it.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Empire is a mixed bag.

Its a simple deal the perfifery sends wealth to the center in exchange for protection. The perfifery grows as it enjoys stability and joins the center until the empire is knocked down by something or collapses under its own weight.

America could become a empire instead of the hedgemon it is now and do a decent enough job of it, the problem is the people who want the empire are not fit to rule it, and the people who would rule it don't want it.

fair point but I mean what we are doing here isn't working either. If a race war does break out it won't be because of supremacist but because of immigration and frankly my primary two concerns is ensuring my place in America and ensuring it's prosperity. I'm not moving to Europe just because my family tree indicates my great great great grandfather might have moved here sometime in the 1800s. I'm no more scott-Irish then a man on the moon, I was born and more importantly raised in America all my life and I'd rather die before leaving it. I'm sure many Americans' 2nd gen and beyond feel exactly the same way. if the way to make sure our place in America is secure is manifest destiny again and expand our boarders, i'm for it. don't worry about coming to us, we'll come to you.

 

[Bacle]

1. We did not 'kill off most of the natives.' The worst population damage native americans suffered was due to diseases, and despite some modern revisionists claiming otherwise, there was no intentional campaign to do that, it was the same kind of results as what happened to Europeans who tried to travel deep into Africa before medical science advanced enough to deal with the diseases found there.

2. Being born on US soil does not mean that you will be raised with the values and culture that have historically defined America. Sadly, in this day that is true whether you're born here because of birth tourism or your parents are citizens, but whatever way you want to deal with this issue, it is a very real issue.


No. Just because a non-citizen wants their child to grow up in the US, does not mean they have a right to do that.

I will agree that our immigration system is broken, but we have zero obligation legal or moral to let hordes of people enter our nation willy-nilly because it's the most prosperous nation on Earth. If they want to, for example, spend 5-10 years in the military to earn citizenship, I respect that. If they're willing to wait patiently for legal resident admittance, and we have that throttled to a reasonable pace, I respect that.

I'm even amenable to a reasonable number of refugees from serious life-threatening tyranny in for no other reasons than that they're refugees. So long as it is a reasonable number.

'I want in because your nation has more money' is not a justifiable reason. Especially given that people's refusal to try to make their own nation a better place (in a way that would actually work) is a key part of why so many nations are messed up in the first place.




The key part of the poem that so often gets overlooked is 'yearning to breathe free.'

If they're here because they yearn for more money, for higher social status, for a chance to just expand their business? We'll take them into consideration.

If they're here for free hand-outs, we should bar the door.

But if they're here because they want to live free? Then they have some of the essence of what it means to be American, and we can see about bringing them in and teaching them the rest of what that means.

It's not a stupid poem, but it is often an abused one.


This is a piece of leftist propaganda. Walls deter crossings, actually patrolling the border deters crossings, actually kicking out border jumpers deters crossings, I could go on.

Will it stop everybody? No.

But that does not mean it will stop nobody, and the propagandists who push the false equivalence know that.

Here's some references on deterring border crossings:

Hungarian Border Fence So Effective Illegal Immigrants Are Now At Pre Migrant-Crisis Levels

The Hungarian border fence has been a remarkable success, according to new figures made public by Viktor Orban's homeland security chief this week.

www.breitbart.com

https://i0.wp.com/www.amren.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/East-German-Immigration.png?resize=599%2C399&ssl=1

Post after post, you seem to have nothing but hollow platitudes.

There is a reason it takes a long time to become a citizen, and that's because (with the sole exception of becoming a citizen through marriage) we want people to live here long enough to actually become American. Seven to ten years is perfectly reasonable in that regard.

Now, when we're talking about years of delay because of inefficient and incompetent bureaucracy, that's another matter. Taht does seriously need to be reformed.

On the whole, we already have tens of millions of immigrants that have not assimilated into our culture. There are areas where Spanish is spoken more often than English. We cannot remain a coherent nation if we do not limit the intake to a rate where people 'melting pot' into the local culture over the generations, we will cease to exist as a nation. Especially given all the other problems we're having that damage our national cohesion.

I agree with most of this, except complaining about how wide spread Spanish is. Spanish as the US's second language is no skin off my back; people learn to read and understand, if not always speak, Spanish as sort of a second nature in much of the American west.

Enough of the West was Mexican territory before the Mexican-American War that trying to remove Spanish as a language in common use would be pointless and unnecessarily petty.

I mean just look at how many place names for states, counties, cities, and private entities utilize Spanish language or words.

Hispanic culture is just as much a part of the US as Anglo culture.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I agree with most of this, except complaining about how wide spread Spanish is. Spanish as the US's second language is no skin off my back; people learn to read and understand, if not always speak, Spanish as sort of a second nature in much of the American west.

Enough of the West was Mexican territory before the Mexican-American War that trying to remove Spanish as a language in common use would be pointless and unnecessarily petty.

I mean just look at how many place names for states, counties, cities, and private entities utilize Spanish language or words.

Hispanic culture is just as much a part of the US as Anglo culture.

probably more so if you include the aztecs

thing is I wouldn't mind Spanish being a second language if immigrants actually treated English as a first.

 

[Bacle]

probably more so if you include the aztecs

thing is I wouldn't mind Spanish being a second language if immigrants actually treated English as a first.

It's not just immigrants who speak Spanish regularly, though.

Plenty of native born citizens speak Spanish regularly, and the American west has more Spanish influence than Anglo in many regards and aspects.

Its also why Day of the Dead, aka Mexican Halloween, is such a big deal out here, same with Cinco De Mayo.

 

[Cherico]

probably more so if you include the aztecs

thing is I wouldn't mind Spanish being a second language if immigrants actually treated English as a first.

that is happening, 3rd generation mexican imigrants are more or less completely assimulated, the problem is we have had non stop illegal imigration for decades now and that obscures the progress but it is happening.

 

[49ersfootball]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there some hype about amending the US Constitution around 2003 when then-CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) was in office ?

 

[WolfBear]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there some hype about amending the US Constitution around 2003 when then-CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) was in office ?

Yep, but even some Democrats, such as Dianne Feinstein, opposed this back then, saying that one's loyalty is determined by one's birthplace. That's the single reason that I voted against her andin favor of Kevin DeLeon in 2018. As an immigrant to the US, I was simply outraged by that statement of hers.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Yep, but even some Democrats, such as Dianne Feinstein, opposed this back then, saying that one's loyalty is determined by one's birthplace.

to dianne feinstein:

 

[49ersfootball]

Yep, but even some Democrats, such as Dianne Feinstein, opposed this back then, saying that one's loyalty is determined by one's birthplace. That's the single reason that I voted against her andin favor of Kevin DeLeon in 2018. As an immigrant to the US, I was simply outraged by that statement of hers.

She needs to retire in 2024 ASAP.

 

[JagerIV]

Libertarianism is the handmaiden of socialism.

To be more specific, this sort of bloodless imagining of the State, where blood and soil doesn't matter, is a bit of a nonsense. Leading to nonsense ideas that people's political opinions are the all important issue with someone being leader. The blood and soil, that a State represents a particular people and particular area has to be accounted for for a functional state. Look at the current President and some of the ways his Irishness has fed into his politics, such as an anti English Bent.

This should be generally, well, expected: in any functioning family, one would expect some beliefs of an Irish Mother to rub off on their son. When he then grows up in an Irish community and then waves around that Irishness as a core part of his Identity, there's at least some reason to think they mean it:

Biden comes by his Irish Catholic identity honestly. He spent his earliest years surrounded by his mother’s Irish American family, the Finnegans, in the Irish American stronghold of Scranton, Pennsylvania. After moving to Delaware during elementary school, he was schooled by nuns at Parochial schools.

He also makes sure to emphasize it. Like many Irish-American politicians, he is a regular at St. Patrick’s Day feasts and makes frequent allusions to his Irish Catholic upbringing in public remarks. Biden, though, has gone further than most. He commissioned a genealogy of his Irish ancestors, rolling it out for public consumption at the tail end of his vice presidency, when he and his family toured the Emerald Isle to great fanfare, visiting ancestral sites.

“His background led to this,” said Timothy Meagher, a professor emeritus at Catholic University and scholar of Irish American history. At the same time, “He plays on it, some of it consciously.”

...

Throughout the Troubles, Biden voiced support for the Irish cause and sometimes took action in the Senate. In 1985, he opposed an extradition treaty with Britain that would have affected members of the Irish Republican Army who had fled to the United States. Taking issue with the British administration of justice in Northern Ireland, he helped force the GOP to water down the agreement.

Asked about his heroes, Biden would usually name Wolfe Tone, an eighteenth-century Protestant Irishman sentenced to death for his role leading a revolt against British rule. “He had nothing to gain on the face of it,” Biden told Irish America magazine in 1987, “but he sought to relieve the oppression of the Catholics caused by the Penal Laws. He gave his life for the principle of civil rights for all people.” Later, he began citing the Irishman Seamus Heaney as his favorite poet.

Biden’s background has also offered him a source of theatrical icebreakers. When he hosted British Prime Minister David Cameron for a state luncheon in 2012 in the ornate Franklin Dining Room in Foggy Bottom, he joked about his Irish family’s traditional antipathy for the English. “Ambrose Finnegan,” he called out toward the ceiling, invoking the name of his maternal grandfather, who once warned him not to trust WASP politicians. “Things have changed.”

How Joe Biden Became Irish

The president has skillfully played up his Irish roots, but the story of his ancestry is more complicated.

www.politico.com

These kinds of things are important: there's a reason there's a whole lot of focus on it. Mix loyalty is a real concern, as we see with Biden's historical actions, and the relationship in general between the Irish and English decent through most of that history.

 

[LordsFire]

I agree with most of this, except complaining about how wide spread Spanish is. Spanish as the US's second language is no skin off my back; people learn to read and understand, if not always speak, Spanish as sort of a second nature in much of the American west.

Enough of the West was Mexican territory before the Mexican-American War that trying to remove Spanish as a language in common use would be pointless and unnecessarily petty.

I mean just look at how many place names for states, counties, cities, and private entities utilize Spanish language or words.

Hispanic culture is just as much a part of the US as Anglo culture.

I have no problem with people being multilingual. It's certainly a good thing on the whole. English is the national language, and if you want to be a citizen, you should either have or be pursuing at least basic fluency. I do not want us to have segregated language ghettos/colonies.

Also, Hispanic culture is not just as much a part of the US as Anglo culture. We were founded in part on cultural values particular to Britain, not Spain. I have no problem with the Melting Pot mixing in good elements from latin America or any other culture, but to claim that the cultural heritage of Spain and Mexico was as important is to make a historically false statement.

There are reasons that the US became the world power it did, while not a single of the Spanish or Portuguese-descended nations did, and it is wise to be cognizant of them.

 

[Sailor.X]

Nope leave as is. Their children born here can run for President but not them.

 

[edgeworthy]

A lot of Americans' ancestors actually came here after 1840, which is when our first great post-independence immigration wave began. Hillary Clinton, for instance, if I recall correctly, doesn't actually have any ancestors who lived in the US before 1840.

And Donald Trump lacks any ancestors who lived in the United States before 1885.
The ancestors of Bill Clinton and the Bush's can be found in the 13 Colonies.
Barack Obama's maternal ancestry in the US can be traced back at least as far as 1640.
(He is, very distantly, related to Wild Bill Hickok)

 

[VictortheMonarch]

Sure you could. Had the original US Constitution (purely hypothetically) explicitly allowed for segregated schools and/or anti-miscegenation laws, then the 14th Amendment could have nullified this part of the original US Constitution. Heck, the 14th Amendment could have done this even if it would not have been originally intended to do this.

Yeah, a 35-year US citizenship requirement for everyone seems ideal, frankly.

FWIW, I don't think that Arnie would actually win the GOP presidential nomination in today's GOP. And with the Democrats having gone Woke, it would be extraordinarily difficult for them to oppose this amendment.

The Democratic party has always been rather racist. Woke or not they would not allow it.

 

[Simonbob]

On a related note, about Sydney, Australia, where I live.

There are suburbs where chinese is the default language, because they moved here over the last 30+ years, and just refused to intergrate. Where they don't even bother with english on the menu.



I'm sure similar things are happening in parts of the US. There's a reason I suggest shutting down all immigration.

 

[Captain X]

On a related note, about Sydney, Australia, where I live.

There are suburbs where chinese is the default language, because they moved here over the last 30+ years, and just refused to intergrate. Where they don't even bother with english on the menu.



I'm sure similar things are happening in parts of the US. There's a reason I suggest shutting down all immigration.

People like that aren't immigrants - they're colonists.

 

[WolfBear]

The Democratic party has always been rather racist. Woke or not they would not allow it.

I LOVE this meme!