@__0HOUR1_ The problem with this "idea", is that people who dig ditches for a living usually do so because they lack the skills necessary to pratice politics properly.
Much like Donald Trump...
@atres_@SaraGonzalesTX And then went on to be a US State, with all the rights, privileges and authority that comes with that.
And how do ya think such benefits compare with those of our neighbors to the South, hmmm? By all means, go to S Texas and feel free to ask around...
@cenkuygur Cenk, there is an idea you should get used to:
So long as newsprint, and airtime, and bandwidth cost money, money = speech.
Then the only question becomes, how much do you believe in free speech...
@beinlibertarian Nonsense. The wage differential, and the differential in guarantees of property rights, between here and Mexico alone makes the costs of being an illegal here MORE than worth it...
Upset with the SCOTUS decision today?
Call your senator at (202) 224-3121 and tell them to support my Constitutional Amendment to end Birthright Citizenship. We must protect the integrity of American citizenship.
@NoLeftTurns@Breaking911 And while I give originalism its due deference in Constitutional analysis, the problem is, in this case, it runs right up against the ultimate conservative analysis: The words as they are written on the page a/k/a Textualism.
It says what it says. Only Congress can change that
@LibertarianGrif@Breaking911 Well, because we have a HUGE stock of capital, and a tremendous shortage of labor to put that capital to full use, and LOTS of nations on the face of the Earth lack capital and have excess labor.
Pretty simple, really...
@BasedMikeLee McCarthy was a drunken liar.
That doesn't mean we should not have opposed socialism across the board. Generally, we should. But we need to do so on the basis of sober truth, not inebriated prevarications...
@IamTheSherm@AlbertCamels@ChaseForLiberty Completely legitimate. One can argue in favor of a constitutional amendment removing birthright citizenship.
Now, I don't think SCOTUS SHOULD act unilaterally to remove BC. But given the history of SCOTUS burning written law to the ground in favor of policy preferences
@AlbertCamels@ChaseForLiberty Because it is clearly a legit political position to oppose birthright citizenship, and still be committed to the written law. OTOH, if SCOTUS rules against the words on the page and strikes down BC, I'd like to know if Chase would support or oppose legislative action against BC
@bennyjohnson *why should mail-in ballots be allowed to arrive and be counted after the fact?*
Because the state legislatures said so MFer!! That's why!!
We, as conservatives DO believe in devolving authority to the States, right?
RIGHT???