Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
Abuse for abuse is not a cure.
Deportion is not abuse, why on Earth would it be?
I think we have fundementally different ideas of what abuse and deportation are
You would send someone to a country they have no memory of, no connection to, and cannot speak the language and not call it abuse? They're not being sent home. They're effectively being sent to a foreign country.
Exactly. That's why it's abusive. It'd be like sending a random conservative to Hungary. Though CPAC attendees may love Hungary, I doubt they'd like to be sent there forcefully when they identify as an American through and through.
The abusive thing was to not deport them sooner.
It's not an apt comparison.
It is not sending a random person to a random country.
It is sending a citizen of that country back to their country.
One can agree or disagree with doing it, but it isn't a random person being sent to a random country.
If we want to get particular, it is the right thing to do under international law.
When you say "their" country, what do you mean?
The country of their origin and citizenship. You don't identify as an American; you ARE an American.
They were not born here, and their parents were not citizens. They are not citizens of American.
If they are deported, they are being sent back to their rightful country. The one that can issue them a passport.
The only reason I'm a citizen of American is because of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution:
That is, the law of the U.S. defines my status as a citizen of the U.S. by virtue of my being born here.
Still, there are four other ways to become a citizen of the U.S.
These pathways are all outlined in various laws.
Again, the status of immigrants who are now citizens is determined by law.
I said earlier that "the 'We support a legal path to citizenship for immigrants that go through the proper channels' people do not, in fact, support a legal path to citizenship for them". That is, Republicans generally refused to grant citizenship to immigrants by passing the DREAM Act. In their inability to govern, they did not pass a law.
You make it seem as if citizenship is an inherent characteristic of being born in the U.S. It is not. Repeal the 14th Amendment, and birthright citizenship goes away. Change the immigration laws, and lesser or greater numbers of immigrants can be granted citizenship. You're right, "They are not citizens of America." But they could have been (and could be) at the stroke of pen. It is the law that determines citizenship. While I'm both an American citizen and identify as American, dreamers only identify as American. It's only because of xenophobia that dreamers are not citizens.
Your parents were not citizens? You didn’t serve in the military ?
Yes it is the law that determines citizenship. Not identifying.
They are not citizens. They are citizens of somewhere else. When we deport them. That’s where we need to end them under the law.
Which is funny, because these folks are probably more American than I am.