Rand Paul is a............

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

I think that the racism/ethnic discrimination here is in the thought that there could be a permanent underclass.

I don't understand your point.

Are you suggesting that it is racist to even think that there might be a permanent underclass or that it requires racism and ethinic discrimination to establish a permanent underclass?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Yes David we should seized any child we can from the parents living in any country where we do not like the government and call it a slave society.

If they happen to be passing through our airports and they are from North Korea, China and Cuba we have a duty to ripped them away from their parents.

After all your opinion of what kind of live they might enjoy should overrule any parents rights to their children.

NO. U are changing the facts, twisting them and adding new material
and ignoring Elian 's declared wish to remain here.

He was one of several refugees who succeeded in escaping slavery in commie Cuba.

Addressing what u posted:
if a kid passing thru our airports coming from North Korea or CUBA,
appeals to us for assylum, then we shoud let him stay here, out of mercy.
If he changes his mind, then let him go wherever he wants. THAT IS my vu in the matter, Bill. 100% libertarian

The same principle of personal liberty applies to Elian.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

You are so far off-base that it is pathetic. That twisting of statements that you do is so typical of the right wing that everything you write can be used to illustrate the dangers of the American conservatism, particularly the wing that follows Leo Strauss.

To say that the four months that Elian spent among strangers was sufficient to allow him to adjust to, know and love them so that they replaced his father not only counters the public relations image that the American right attempts to craft, but it counters common sense. Most children take longer than four months to "get over" the death of a pet, let alone the death of a mother.

Furthermore, you harp and harp and harp on illegal aliens crossing the border from Mexico but somehow, in your slippery ethics, it was perfectly fine for this woman to take her small son, along with her boyfriend, without the consent of his father in a perilous journey in a small boat. Elizabet Gonzalez was a would-be illegal alien.

And, Mr. Twister, no, I would never say that "all of his relatives had to be young." What a stupid interpretation from a man who claims to be a member of Mensa!

However, these relatives broke the law. There was a court order to return the kid to his father.

While you may think that the kid would have lived in what you call freedom here in the US, the kid would have been looked down upon as just another Spanish-speaking outsider. That he might have ended up pursuing a life of crime or drugs had he remained seems not to enter your mind at all.

Interestingly, Wiki posted the results of public opinion polls at the time and only 4% felt he should never be returned to Cuba, while 42% thought he should be with his father. Another 31% wanted custody hearings to take place and 14% wanted asylum hearings, although I do not think that asylum hearings would be legal in the case of a 6 year old.*

Now, I will say that I am a supporter of non-conformity in the name of originality, creativity, social justice and fairness. I held this belief long before I recognized that I was indeed a liberal. That said, I do not feel that your weighing in with the tiny percentage of people who would deny Elian and Juan Miguel their lives together makes you the-voice-of-one-crying-in-the-wilderness as you righties so smugly represent yourselves.

I do not think that the raid on the home where Elian lived was right. However, Elian's relatives were not acting within the law.

*Just read that the relatives were not considered legally able to petition for asylum and that a 6 year old was considered too young to be granted asylum.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

You were the one that seems to support the idea of a permanent underclass. If it is not racism, then it is a lack of imagination.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

When the boat carrying the 13 people disembarked from Cuba, he was five. Only three of the 13 survived, not several. The reason Elian ended up with the relatives in Miami was once Elian's father realized the boy was missing, he called the uncle and told him that mother and son had disappeared and that the uncle was to expect them in Miami.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

And that means what?
Women were also legally denied the right to vote, and to own property.
Now they can do both.

I am not advocating denying anyone citizenship (unless they are here illegally).
And what you seem to be overlooking is that I am totally in favor of giving the parent the choice.
If a parent in my scenario chooses to take their newborn home with them, then the parent has that right.
Of course, the babies birth would not be recorded in the US, but it would be recorded in the parents home country.

Again note, I am giving the parents 100% of the choice.
I thought you were in favor of parents having the right to choose.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Please show me anyone that is trying to deny citizenship to anyone.

And dont say me, because I was quite clear when I said the choice would be up to the parents, not the govt.

The thread orignated because Rand Paul expressed the opinion that the children of illegal immigrants who are born in this country should be denied US citizenship.

You expressed the opinion that these illegal aliens should be given the option (at the time of their arrest and deportation) to "waive" the child's US citizenhip and maintain custody, or insist on its US citizenship and surrender custody.

Aside from the fact that it is highly unlikely any US court would permit parent's to"waive" the citizenship rights of their child, it can be, reasonably, argued that your proposal is intended to deny these children the rights afforded to them under our Constitution.

That these children are US citizens is without question, and I don't see how that can be changed without an amendment to the Constitution. Whatever bill is pending in congress that attempts to achieve this end will surely fail even if passed and signed by Obama (which of course will never happen).

Since it is extremely unlikely that the parents will be willing to surrender custody of their children, and you know this to be true, your proposal deliberately puts them in a position where they have no real choice but to waive their citizenship.

It's like chaining a man to a wall and leaving food and water out of reach. If you supply him with a hack saw and he cuts off his leg, you are being disingenuous at best to assert it was his choice.

An acceptable choice to offer is to either take the child who is a US citizen back with them when they are deported or surrender custody. The fact that they have a child who is a US citizen does not exempt them from our immigration laws, any more than it would a US citizen who breaks any other law. As pointed out before (with interestingly enough no counter made) because a a US citizen (male or female) has children, doesn't mean they can't and won't be sentenced to a prison term.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

You are so far off-base that it is pathetic.

What shall we call your approval of consigning him to live his entire life in SLAVERY????

plainoldme wrote:

That twisting of statements that you do is so typical of the right wing that everything you write can be used to illustrate the dangers of the American conservatism, particularly the wing that follows Leo Strauss.

Conservatism means unswervingly adhering to the Original Constitution, as amended.
I 'll do that.

plainoldme wrote:

To say that the four months that Elian spent among strangers was sufficient to allow him to adjust to, know and love them so that they replaced his father not only counters the public relations image that the American right attempts to craft, but it counters common sense. Most children take longer than four months to "get over" the death of a pet, let alone the death of a mother.

He has the opportunity to live in freedom; that is what is important.
If he changes his mind and opts to return
to live in slavery, let him DO it; in other words,
he shoud simply be allowed to stay here in freedom,
as an act of mercy, as long as he wants to.

plainoldme wrote:

Furthermore, you harp and harp and harp on illegal aliens crossing the border from Mexico but somehow, in your slippery ethics,

Mexico is NOT under communist nor nazi slavery.

plainoldme wrote:

it was perfectly fine for this woman to take her small son, along with her boyfriend, without the consent of his father in a perilous journey in a small boat. Elizabet Gonzalez was a would-be illegal alien.

It was a HEROIC ACT for freedom, like the people who crashed thru the Berlin Wall in trucks, under the fire of communist automatic weapons.

plainoldme wrote:

And, Mr. Twister, no, I would never say that "all of his relatives had to be young." What a stupid interpretation from a man who claims to be a member of Mensa!

U complained about some of his relatives being too old to raise him, whatever that means.

plainoldme wrote:

However, these relatives broke the law.
There was a court order to return the kid to his father.

While you may think that the kid would have lived in what you call freedom here in the US, the kid would have been looked down upon as just another Spanish-speaking outsider.

SO WHAT??
Suppose that I look down on U;
does that mean that u shoud go live in communist slavery in Korea or Cuba??

plainoldme wrote:

That he might have ended up pursuing a life of crime or drugs
had he remained seems not to enter your mind at all.

Of course not; I am SHOCKED that u choose to play guessing games about that.

plainoldme wrote:

Interestingly, Wiki posted the results of public opinion polls at the time and only 4% felt he should never be returned to Cuba, while 42% thought he should be with his father. Another 31% wanted custody hearings to take place and 14% wanted asylum hearings, although I do not think that asylum hearings would be legal in the case of a 6 year old.*

Now, I will say that I am a supporter of non-conformity in the name of originality, creativity, social justice and fairness. I held this belief long before I recognized that I was indeed a liberal. That said, I do not feel that your weighing in with the tiny percentage of people who would deny Elian and Juan Miguel their lives together makes you the-voice-of-one-crying-in-the-wilderness as you righties so smugly represent yourselves.

I do not think that the raid on the home where Elian lived was right. However, Elian's relatives were not acting within the law.

*Just read that the relatives were not considered legally able to petition for asylum and that a 6 year old was considered too young to be granted asylum.

Look, Plain:
I simply assert
that Elian shoud NOT have been treated as his father's property
(in violation of the 13th Amendment).

Government in America shoud simply HAVE DONE NOTHING
and left him alone to live his life in freedom for so long as he wished to remain here.

On the day when he wished to depart hence: let him go wherever he wants.
We shoud not stand in his way; just leave him alone and don't bother him.

Instead, he was treated as if he were an escaped animal;
as if his father 's horse or the family pig had gotten away.

He deserved BETTER than that.
Clinton did not give Elian decent treatment.
Now, he will live in slavery forever,
the same as if he had been convicted of homicide: no freedom, with YOUR approval, Plain.

David

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It does require that there is always a group of people who can be defined as "underclass," and in this case a very large one, the members of which are dependent upon the institutionalized largess of their betters - Liberal Elites aka Democrat politicians.

It's interesting how you liberals seem to accept that there will always be an "underclass." Isn't it your goal to bring everyone above the line?

So now you live in Lake Woebegone, where every child is above average? <snicker>

Since you are so adamantly opposed to an underclass, you must be a communist. Leveling everyone to the same state is the only way to avoid an underclass.

Finn dAbuzz is a communist. Who knew?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

I take it that you are opposed to an underclass?

There will always be those who are at the bottom rung of the ladder, everyone cannot have equal economic status.

What I am opposed to is a system that encourages people to remain at the lowest rung by enabling them to get by without exerting any meaningful effort to better themselves, and results in generations remaining addled by the stupor of government hand-outs.

Thus your use of the phrase "permanent underclass" while at the same time admitting that people can climb out of said underclass, which kinda refutes the word "permanent".

I think you need to think this through a little more, 'cause you're not making much sense.

Like I said, I think you mean to say "an underclass which will perpetually vote Democratic".

But feel free to keep digging yourself into that rhetorical hole. It's fun to watch you keep trying to wiggle out of it.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

The GOP right wing wish to rig the system to keep those dirty Mexicans in their place even to the point to wishing to have generations of people who are born here without any rights at all.

They are the ones who fear that upper mobility will mean that the good white Christians non-Catholic will loss their places in the sun to the descended of illegal laborers and they happen to be right at least to a degree.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Rand Paul is a good American.

David

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

What are you referring to?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

It is your opinion that living in Cuba is living in slavery. Stop projecting.

I detest outsized type. Do not use any when quoting me.

Conservatism does not mean unswerving adhering to the Original Constitution. That is a position akin to divine will or the infallibility of the Pope. Furthermore, you have demonstrated time and time again an abysmal lack of understanding of the Constitution and absolutely no understanding of political nomenclature.

BTW: Your sentence that follows your incorrect definition of conservatism, "I'll do that," is both logically and grammatically incorrect.

You mistake license for freedom. You lack philosophical depth. He was a very young child who turned six while living with his relatives, whose behavior was somewhat erratic. Freedom for a small boy is the right to live with a parent who loves him, who is sane and able to provide for said boy, and who loves the child and has demonstrated that love.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

I was surprised the post was so even tempered and well written. Kudos, Finn.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Yeah, there is a need for doorstops.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

After I posted this, I realized that there was more to david's post. However, it deteriorated further into inanity, so I chose to ignore it.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

to wishing to have generations of people who are born here without any rights at all.

Show me one conservative that has EVER said that!!!
There is not one single person in the GOP (that I know of) that has ever said anything even close to what you just said.

Quote:

dirty Mexicans

The only people I have ever heard or seen say something like that is the left.
Of course, you cover yourself by saying that is what the right thinks, even though nobody on the right has ever said that (that I know of).

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

You still at it?

I'm sorry if you don't understand what I've written, but I give up trying to explain it to you.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

You were the one that seems to support the idea of a permanent underclass. If it is not racism, then it is a lack of imagination.

How you interpreted what I wrote to mean that I support the idea of a permanent underclass is beyond me. I have very clearly stated my opposition to same.

It doesn't surprise me though that it "seems" to you that I do.

0 Replies

Rand Paul is a............

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know