Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 760
On Fox News today..Page 31 of 39    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39)
They also need to end birth right citizenship if one parent is not American.

"""""

Ireland votes to end birth right



The Irish government says there is evidence of "citizenship tourism"
Irish voters have overwhelmingly backed the tightening of their citizenship laws, final referendum results show.
With tallying completed in all 34 counting centres, 79.17% of voters wanted to end the automatic citizenship right for all babies born in Ireland.

The government said change was needed because foreign women were travelling to Ireland to give birth in order to get an EU passport for their babies."":""


"""""New Zealand changed its law to ban automatic birthright citizenship in 2006. (“Birthright Citizenship Abolished in New Zealand,” """""

We are a decade late.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 761
view profile
History
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/26/2018 6:59:04 AM
I will give Trump (or someone in the White House) more credit: the timing here is excellent and they’ve set up a nice trap for the Democrats, although arguably the Democrats set themselves up for this trap with the shutdown over DACA – had that shutdown never happened, I doubt the WH would ever have proposed anything and let Congress have a late Feb/early March breakdown.

But the timing is excellent for this proposal from the GOP point of view because the Democrats must realize they are very likely to retake the House and maybe the Senate too in November – agreeing to this deal now means the new leverage they get later for a better deal (from their point of view) will be worthless. If they attempt to pass anything to restore chain migration or defund the wall as the majority party, Trump will veto it and they likely won’t have the votes to override it in the Senate. If they don’t vote for some version of the Neanderthal proposal within the next 6 weeks, deportations will likely start with the DACA kids and Trump will cast them as the villains, saying “I tried to save them but the Democrats didn’t want to save them.” So, yeah, the Democrats are trapped. With Tom Cotton, just about the most hardline Senator, onboard, it’s difficult to imagine the proposal wouldn’t pass the Senate because there are certainly at least 9 Democrats that would sign on to this thing (or something close to it) if absolutely necessary to save the DACA kids.

But I can’t see any scenario in which it gets out of the House. The Freedom Caucus has already been working on their own DACA proposal that has no path to citizenship, which they absolutely will not support, and 150+ GOP House members have already signed on to it. Ryan might be praising Trump’s proposal, but it is extremely unlikely that it will meet the Hastert rule with that many GOP hardliners against amnesty, and even if he’s willing to ignore the Hastert rule, the House is filled with far more left hardliners than the Senate is and they’ll never sign on to the chain migration limits, the “enhanced” border security demands (not talking about the wall here either) nor the DACA limit itself on something that’s basically comprehensive immigration reform instead of just a DACA fix – voting for this would leave millions in the shadows with no future leverage to save them. My mind would be blown if Ryan and Trump were able to scrounge up 218 votes for this proposal as-is. As I’ve said before, what a lot of people don’t understand is that the hardliner GOP stance has little to do with Trump or House leadership – if these guys vote for ANY amnesty, they will almost certainly be primaried from the right and put in significant danger of losing their cushy jobs, despite mostly being in “safe” districts, but nobody is safe in a primary. Ask Eric Cantor.

But fortunately for Trump and Ryan, they’re probably not going to have to worry about whipping the House GOP hardliners into accepting amnesty, because the Senate situation is a big Democratic mess which they’ve just helped create but mostly is the Democrats’ own fault. And not just because of the shutdown: the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority in 2009 and 2010 and could have fixed this problem entirely on their own terms then, but because there were still very vulnerable moderate Southern Democrats, leadership chose not to. Yet they still lost the House anyway because of Obamacare and a draggy recession economy, so they might as well have done it and not be in this position right now. But hindsight is 20/20.

Personally, I think it’s a bad deal. The border wall itself is a boondoggle and everyone except Trump knows it, so that’s just $25b or whatever wasted. But if they want to throw a few billion for the wall at Trump to shut him up, then so be it – it’ll never get built before the Democrats retake Congress anyway. It’s some of the other aspects of “enhanced enforcement” that Democrats should be fighting as quite a few of them are inhumane and draconian, even more so than what’s already going on with ICE. More money for immigration courts I’m fine with; I’m not sure about more border patrol agents, mostly because what tends to end up happening in a job market like we currently have is that they start dredging the bottom with candidates and you end up with a bunch of low intelligence Trump-like bullies on the force that are basically dangerous people (happens all the time with regular law enforcement in small populations) – I’m not sure how necessary the extra agents are anyway, as every time I’ve been near the border, they’re all over the place, even dozens of miles from the border, and are quite annoying (undoubtedly because I’m brown-skinned). More technology, I’m definitely onboard with. I could care less about the diversity lottery, but killing chain migration to the point that this deal does is basically anti-family and anti-American, yet at the same time I don’t really have a problem with some reductions and slowing the process down.

I’m not sure about the wisdom of trying to make the whole process geared toward “high skills” – where the heck would Trump himself be in that scenario? Half his workers are low skilled people from other countries, and what about his wife? You think modeling is “high skills”? Ultimately we find ourselves right back to the issue of, who is going to pick the fruit and clean the rooms? It’s not going to be the children of the illegal immigrants, because they’ve moved on from that. It’s not going to be inner city blacks, because they don’t want to do that (particularly the farming). Eventually one day machines may take all these jobs, but right now, those companies need humans, and Americans don’t want or need those jobs, with 4% unemployment.

"They also need to end birth right citizenship if one parent is not American."

Considering birth right citizenship is in the Constitution, that would require an amendment, which cannot be accomplished with Trump's proposed legislation -- good luck getting 38 states to sign off on that.

*

Of course, as soon as Trump’s DACA proposal became big news, it was almost immediately overrun by the news about him trying to fire Mueller last year. This is big news to all of us (except people who watch only Fox News, because they barely mentioned it last night other than the aforementioned Hannity), but apparently not news at all to Mueller himself, because it would seem his discovery of this some time ago is the reason why we know this now. So he’s already dealing with it. Really, the public evidence was already overwhelming for an obstruction of justice charge. If he doesn’t come back with one now, this whole process will be viewed as a joke. But in the end, does it even matter anymore? Congressional Republicans (and the ever-loyal Scaramucci) were already in 100% enabler mode last night with “Well, if it is true, then it proves he ultimately made the right decision, regardless of what he tried to do.” Uh huh. Okay. What? Point is, until January 2019, nothing’s going to happen with Mueller’s recommendations. And at that point, Democrats in power will have to make a tough decision about whether they’d rather run against Trump or Pence in 2020 and whether the former was worth the further decline of civilization. The best thing about last night’s revelations is that it’s one more nail in the coffin of the GOP’s control of Congress, because it’s more than anything else just bad optics for Trump. He can cry “Fake news” all he wants but this matter’s already in Mueller’s hands. I wonder if he’ll cry “Fake news” while he’s being interviewed by Mueller.
 kollata
Joined: 8/30/2017
Msg: 762
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/26/2018 8:11:30 AM

They also need to end birth right citizenship if one parent is not American.


As long as we are amending the Constitution to remove fundamental rights due to what you fascists want, we may as well end free speech and end freedom of religion too? Maybe also do away with the entire Bill of Rights. Wouldn't that be grand for your ilk?
 Doubleknotspy7
Joined: 8/10/2016
Msg: 763
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/26/2018 9:15:41 AM
BREAKING NEWS
Nancy Pelosi in an effort to offset the goodwill garnered as a result of huge tax cuts, bonuses and wage increases by the President Trump has ordered the Democratic National Party to purchase one slice of cake for every person in the United States. At her press conference Nancy stated ... "The Republicans Give you Crumbs We Let You Eat Cake"!
Video at 11 PM.



"The disconnect between what congressional Democrats are saying about the recently enacted tax cut and what is happening in the real world is so wide that it is getting difficult to see across the chasm.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who as the 15th richest member of Congress has a minimum net worth of nearly $30 million, referred to the millions of dollars in bonuses and pay hikes announced by more than 100 companies in the wake of the new tax law as “crumbs.”

Among the crumb-dispensers is Apple, headquartered just a few miles from Pelosi’s district. The tech giant is paying out $2,500 stock bonuses, planning $30 billion in capital expenditures over five years, and adding 20,000 employees. The company estimates that the direct impact on the U.S. economy will be more than $350 billion over that timeframe."


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/01/26/democrats-see-crumbs-and-scraps-with-new-tax-cuts-americans-see-bigger-paychecks-and-more-jobs.html
 kollata
Joined: 8/30/2017
Msg: 764
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/26/2018 9:33:40 AM
^^^ How nice DD..... you are living life on the Dole and yet still so worried about all of those poor Apple Employees...many of them sitting on shares of stock probably worth hundreds of thousands if not millions. So nice of you to concern yourself with hard working Americans barely getting by.

I heard effective immediately, Mcdonald's is doubling or more the pay of all its hamburger servers...enough so they may actually be able to afford to pay the rent...AND buy some food. . . just hope that's not fake news.
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 765
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/26/2018 9:58:47 AM

Posted By: deetristate
They also need to end birth right citizenship if one parent is not American.

there exist a continuous flow of well off pregnant Russian women etc. (non-american citizens) in their final stage of birth that are encourage to come stay at Trump properties to deliver their babies so that their child can have American citizenship ...it's called "Birth Tourism" .....and building a Wall clearly won't stop this since they arrive here on private jets ...but anyway

THE QUESTION:
wouldn't the Birth Tourism on Trump's properties make Trump guilty of "colluding" with non-Americans to obtained citizenship for their children?

it's these Perry Mason moments that makes it all worthwhile
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 766
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/26/2018 10:06:32 AM
The Perry Mason character was smart.
You are sometimes clever, gt.... uh, fun.


If birthright citizenship is AGAIN not a thing, it does not matter where they stay, even if they stay at your house.

It really does not take a constitutional amendment. Just a correct court interpretation.

Did Trump invite them to the hotel for that purpose?
Did you invite any to your house?
( yeah, that IS how you sound,).
 Doubleknotspy7
Joined: 8/10/2016
Msg: 767
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/26/2018 10:24:53 AM
Hillary says "Me Too Except When I need The Man To Further My Career"!

Hillary Clinton protected '08 campaign adviser accused of sexual harassment: report

"Hillary Clinton reportedly helped protect a senior adviser to her 2008 presidential campaign after accusations that he repeatedly sexually harassed a young subordinate.

The New York Times reported Friday on the incident, revealing how Clinton allegedly intervened to help keep the adviser, Burns Strider, on board.

According to the Times, the complaint was made by a 30-year-old Clinton staffer who shared an office with Strider. She reportedly told a campaign official that Strider had rubbed her shoulders inappropriately, kissed her on the forehead and sent suggestive emails.

Clinton’s 2008 campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, reportedly recommended Clinton fire him. But sources told the Times he was kept on the campaign at Clinton's request."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/26/hillary-clinton-protected-08-campaign-adviser-accused-sexual-harassment-report.html

First Bill now this guy, Hillary has a thing for protecting sexual harassing/assaulting men.
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 768
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/26/2018 10:55:16 AM

Posted By deetristate
The Perry Mason character was smart.
You are sometimes clever, gt.... uh, fun.

whatever RenassianceMan ...oops..er..I meant deetristate


Posted By deetristate
If birthright citizenship is AGAIN not a thing, it does not matter where they stay, even if they stay at your house.

but it was you that made birthright a "thing" by stating that a child should not have citizenship if one of their parents is not a USA citizen ...in "Birth Tourism' neither parent is a citizen ...do you stand behind your words or not ...what say you


Posted By deetristate
It really does not take a constitutional amendment. Just a correct court interpretation.

actually all it takes is to change the wording at the statue of liberty ..."don't" give us your tire or your poor "just" your Norwegians


Posted By deetristate
Did you invite any to your house?

I didn't have an airstrip or heliport in my yard so they declined my offer ...I said that I had vodka...but then again they are pregnant


Posted By deetristate
Did Trump invite them to the hotel for that purpose?

yep, so again deetristate..... does Birth Tourism on Trump properties make Trump guilty of "colluding" with non citizens to obtain American citizenship for their children ....it's a simple yes or no question ...of course with a brief explanation
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 769
view profile
History
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/26/2018 10:59:01 AM
"It really does not take a constitutional amendment. Just a correct court interpretation."

“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.”

There is not much open to interpretation in Section 1 of the 14th, other than “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Arguably, anyone in the United States is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” otherwise foreign visitors could follow their own country’s laws while here. This would almost certainly need re-writing to be universally interpreted as “All persons born in the United States with at least one American citizen parent are citizens of the United States.” There is essentially no interpretation of the amendment that’s going to get rid of birth tourism, because those mothers are here by definition legally. And what are we going to do about non-citizen legal residents? If someone has lived here legally for 5 years and is well on her way to being a citizen but has a child with another legal non-citizen before she gains citizenship, what status does that child have and how can that be interpreted as non-citizenship with the current 14th amendment? There are very few conservative legal scholars who believe birthright citizenship can be taken away without a revised 14th amendment, because that’s pretty much fringe thinking.

Interestingly, at the time the amendment was introduced (1866), there was no such thing as the modern concept of illegal immigrants (unless you were explicitly prohibited from being here for racist reasons [Chinese at various points, for example], you were a legal immigrant, no matter how you got here). Therefore there wasn’t any discussion of the intentions of the 14th amendment in this respect, though nearly all agreed at the time (including the amendment’s authors) that it would make United States-born children of non-citizens (all of them “legal”) citizens automatically.
 norwegianguy456
Joined: 6/11/2015
Msg: 770
view profile
History
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/26/2018 11:06:12 AM

They also need to end birth right citizenship if one parent is not American.

I wouldn't say sweepingly like that, no. If the gal's foreign, meets some random dude to get knocked up -- she has full possession of the kid, blah blah -- I agree. If a non-citizen gal is staying in the country and has a BF -- and she gets pregnant -- and the citizen guy has just as much custody of the kid -- yeah, the kid should be a citizen. It's just as much His kid as hers.

But I do agree with banning automatic birthright citizenship in and of itself. IMO, it'd need more than just being born within the borders. But to say that if just one of the Parents -- Parents; not fertilizer, but Parent -- is a citizen, the baby is automatically Not a citizen? Naw, can't go with that one.
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 771
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/26/2018 11:10:19 AM
You can keep asking the same rhetorical question and ignoring the response if you like.

Let me make it clear.

No.

You can ask again but it is boring, gto. .uh... fun ( you always copy what I write) and I will
Ahhh
Yawn
Ahhh
Ignore it.


Hawking's - you need to look at the legal history then get back to me.

Was Roe v Wade cool with you?

As far as a person about to be,a,citizen, and
That is how the law works. About to do something is not the,same as having done it.

Wait. Are you one of these people who wants to hang Trump because he wanted to fire Meuller but did not?

Revealing . . .


-----------

Norwegian.

In your scenerio, the dude is American, right? That meets the one American parent requirement.



 kollata
Joined: 8/30/2017
Msg: 772
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/26/2018 11:25:17 AM
^^^ this is the problem you have DEE... The US Supreme Ct ruled on this issue already...United States v. Wong Kim Ark... so the Supreme Court needs to reverse its previous reversal in the Wong case.

What I find so hypocritical is conservative fascists like yourself applaud Conservative jurists like Scalia and Gorsuch who replaced him as being strict constructionists.

But now you want an activist Justice to interpret the Constitution differently from what it objectively states by the plain meaning of its words...because you don't agree with this portion of the Constitution.

I.e....Strict Constructionist when it suits you. Activist when it doesn't suit you.

That's the problem with you Republican Fascists.....you are the most hypocritical people who have ever lived. Very sad.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 773
view profile
History
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/26/2018 11:26:13 AM
"Hawking's - you need to look at the legal history then get back to me."

Maybe YOU need to look at its legal history:

>>>There was no recorded debate over who was encompassed by the expression "not subject to any foreign power" or whether these same people were excluded by the wording of the Citizenship Clause. [The clause's author] Senator Jacob M. Howard, when introducing the addition to the Amendment, stated that it was "the law of the land already" and that it excluded only "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers". Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded. However, concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three senators, including Trumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on them at birth, and no senator offered a contrary opinion.<<<<
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 774
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/26/2018 11:44:00 AM

Posted By: deetristate
No.

you can teach a parrot to squawk "no" ...but you can't teach the parrot to comprehend why they squawked 'no'... funches 3:16

that is why I asked you for a brief explanation .....of course i didn't expect one ...or at the least a rational one ..but hope springs eternal


Posted By: deetristate
You can ask again but it is boring, gto. .uh... fun ( you always copy what I write) and I will

no worries RenassianceMan ...oops...er..I meant deetristate .....no one answers my Perry Mason questions ....

buy anyway ..if Trump is allowing Birth Tourism to take place in his Hotels ..then he is guilty of fostering illegal immigration and citizenship ...you're always welcome to explain why this isn't illegal .


Posted By deetristate
Yawn

sleepy? ....Cosby still slipping you Quaaludes?
 norwegianguy456
Joined: 6/11/2015
Msg: 775
view profile
History
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/26/2018 12:03:43 PM

In your scenerio, the dude is American, right? That meets the one American parent requirement.

But wait, you said:

They also need to end birth right citizenship if one parent is not American.

That means you're not a citizen at birth if one of your parents Isn't American. It means Both Parents have to be American, for the baby to be American.
 from site to sight
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 776
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/26/2018 12:41:31 PM

there exist a continuous flow of well off pregnant Russian women etc. (non-american citizens) in their final stage of birth that are encourage to come stay at Trump properties to deliver their babies so that their child can have American citizenship ...


Is Trump not making the same offer to pregnant Norwegian women, since he said he would prefer to have Norwegians immigrate than have people from shithole countries? I guess as long as people are white from whatever country, they're welcome to live in the good ole U.S. of A.
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 777
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/26/2018 1:38:11 PM
Boy, those Republicants care a lot about what happens to a fetus, but get that "Anchor Baby" out of the womb and they can't toss the poor kid out into the cold fast enough...meanwhile, the GOP might find another problem with their Tar Baby...his attempt at a Saturday Night Massacre 2.0 may be a constitutional issue they have to move on:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/analysis-the-mueller-confrontation-that-republicans-were-trying-to-avoid-has-just-arrived/ar-AAvcdN9?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp&ffid=gz
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 778
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/26/2018 3:18:59 PM
The U S Supreme Court has ruled on several issues and then changed direction. So . . .

I am a Republican ?

I am fascistm?

I am for a strict contructionist?

You know what they say about assume. . ..

No, norwegian. Read it again.

Anyway, I am sure that you get it now.

Addressing your pivot, gto

, let the,anchor baby be born in the country of its parents. It lives!
 topolata
Joined: 8/21/2017
Msg: 779
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/26/2018 3:36:24 PM

I am fascistm?



A fascist is a follower of a political philosophy characterized by authoritarian views and a strong central government — and no tolerance for opposing opinions. Fascist traces to the Italian word fascio, meaning "group, bundle." Under fascist rule, the emphasis is on the group — the nation — with few individual rights.


You tell me.

[I am for a strict contructionist?

Were you not a big supporter of the Gorsuch appointment? Who do you think he is?


let the,anchor baby be born in the country of its parents. It lives!


And if not, it dies?

Once again, you should you objective hypocrisy and ignorance..... you didn't even know or understand you were a strict constructionist.
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 780
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/26/2018 4:37:10 PM

Posted By: deetristate
Ahhh
Yawn
Ahhh
Ignore it.

a glimpse into the answers Trump will give during Mueller's interview
 from site to sight
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 781
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/26/2018 4:53:03 PM

DAVOS, Switzerland— Declaring that America is open for business under his leadership, President Donald Trump told a wary gathering of political and business elites on Friday that the economic growth taking place in the U.S. due to his "America first" agenda also benefits the rest of the world.

Trump told the World Economic Forum in Davos, an incongruous location for a nationalist president, that American prosperity has created countless jobs around the world, but stressed that his priority would always remain on protecting the interests of within his nation's own borders.


Not only is Trump taking credit for making America great again (whenever that happened), Trump is now taking credit for making the rest of the world great. What's next: making the planets great again, and if there is life on other planets, he's making their lives great again too?
 Doubleknotspy7
Joined: 8/10/2016
Msg: 782
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/27/2018 9:33:24 AM
Sounds like someone is "sick of winning'!
It will be all over in just 7 more years!

Hang in there you can survive all the winning.
 Doubleknotspy7
Joined: 8/10/2016
Msg: 783
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/29/2018 11:57:46 AM
"FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe 'removed' from the bureau
Top FBI official Andrew McCabe has been "removed" from his post as deputy director, Fox News is told, leaving the bureau after months of conflict-of-interest complaints from Republicans including President Trump...

FBI Director Christopher Wray said last week that his chief of staff, James Rybicki, was leaving the bureau. Department of Justice officials also told Fox News that Dana Boente, the U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia who is also the acting head of the DOJ’s National Security division, has been selected to step in as the FBI’s next general counsel. James Baker, who had served as general counsel, was reassigned late last year.

McCabe's name has surfaced in connection with several other controversies.

The Daily Beast reported that a GOP memo alleging government surveillance abuse named McCabe, along with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and ex-FBI boss James Comey.

Incidentally, the McCabe removal comes after Wray viewed the memo Sunday on Capitol Hill, as reported by Fox News’ Catherine Herridge. The removal also comes ahead of a DOJ inspector general report regarding the handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe."

Must be something very damning in that memo.
Draining the swamp one atta time.
 LLove2LaughToo
Joined: 10/25/2017
Msg: 784
On Fox News today..
Posted: 1/29/2018 12:18:41 PM
Ugh Oh! Fox New junkie alert!

Interesting that FoxNews is the only outlet reporting McCabe "removed" from the bureau. What is Comrade Trump trying to cover up?
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  >