REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

How's that Hispanic outreach workin' out for ya, GOP?

POSTED BY: KWICKO
UPDATED: Thursday, May 16, 2013 01:28
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1372
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:55 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)




Not so great, it seems.

Quote:

When Republicans appointed Pablo Pantoja to State Director of Florida Hispanic Outreach for the Republican National Committee, they hoped he would be able to bridge the sizable gap that only expanded during the 2012 elections, when the state’s 4.3 million Hispanic voters supported Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by a 20 percent margin.
But after months of inaction by Congressional Republicans on comprehensive immigration reform and stiff resistance by Republican-leaning groups like the Heritage Foundation, Pantoja has had enough; on Monday, he announced via email that he was leaving the party and registering as a Democrat:
Friend,
Yes, I have changed my political affiliation to the Democratic Party.
It doesn’t take much to see the culture of intolerance surrounding the Republican Party today. I have wondered before about the seemingly harsh undertones about immigrants and others. Look no further; a well-known organization recently confirms the intolerance of that which seems different or strange to them.
Pantoja goes on to specifically cite last week’s revelation — that an author of Heritage’s false report on the cost of the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill wrote a dissertation in which he suggested that Hispanics are at a permanent disadvantage because they have lower IQs — as the final straw in his political evolution.
Prior to assuming the role of state director, Pantoja served in the National Guard, doing multiple tours abroad in Kuwait and Iraq before returning to the states and getting involved in Republican politics. In 2010 he served as a field director in Florida during the midterm elections.
Republicans have for months tried to find ways to make inroads with the country’s growing hispanic population, especially in the swing state of Florida. Hispanics there turned out to vote at a rate of more than 62 percent in 2012, significantly higher than the national turnout rate of 48 percent and the highest rate of Hispanic turnout in the country.



http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/14/2006251/rnc-director-of-hi
spanic-outreach-quits-party-and-registers-as-a-democrat
/


Maybe the GOP really intended to stir up Hispanic outrage, not outreach. On that score, they're doing great.





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:12 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


There are other Hispanic peoples besides Mexicans and Salvadorans... you know that right?

Hispanic folks tend to be a lot more conservative than you libs give them credit for. They dont want to be the libs new bitch/cause.

But hey, whatever makes you feel better.

"None of you seem to understand. I'm not locked in here with you... YOU are locked in here with ME."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:19 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)




Actually, Wulf, that's why I used the word "Hispanic" and not "Mexican" or "Salvadoran". You may have missed that; you certainly missed the point.

Where did you get the whole "Mexicans and Salvadorans" thing, anyway? It wasn't anything that was mentioned in the article, which refers only to "Hispanics". Pantajo isn't mentioned as being "Mexican" or "Salvadoran", either. Are you just that desperate, that you need to try to bring up things nobody said?

Hey, whatever works for ya, eh?


Oh, and Hispanics are far more liberal than most people (and apparently all conservatives) think they are. I can, of course, provide cites, but first I'd like to see your cites for your claims.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:33 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I still get a big chuckle whenever I think of Romney and his "tan" job during the campaign..........

All of this happening now seems a bit too easy. First Bhengazi, the IRS and now the DOJ. The Right are in their glory - smiles all around. T-Party people in da' house!


SGG

Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:


Not so great, it seems.

Quote:

When Republicans appointed Pablo Pantoja to State Director of Florida Hispanic Outreach for the Republican National Committee, they hoped he would be able to bridge the sizable gap that only expanded during the 2012 elections, when the state’s 4.3 million Hispanic voters supported Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by a 20 percent margin.
But after months of inaction by Congressional Republicans on comprehensive immigration reform and stiff resistance by Republican-leaning groups like the Heritage Foundation, Pantoja has had enough; on Monday, he announced via email that he was leaving the party and registering as a Democrat:
Friend,
Yes, I have changed my political affiliation to the Democratic Party.
It doesn’t take much to see the culture of intolerance surrounding the Republican Party today. I have wondered before about the seemingly harsh undertones about immigrants and others. Look no further; a well-known organization recently confirms the intolerance of that which seems different or strange to them.
Pantoja goes on to specifically cite last week’s revelation — that an author of Heritage’s false report on the cost of the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill wrote a dissertation in which he suggested that Hispanics are at a permanent disadvantage because they have lower IQs — as the final straw in his political evolution.
Prior to assuming the role of state director, Pantoja served in the National Guard, doing multiple tours abroad in Kuwait and Iraq before returning to the states and getting involved in Republican politics. In 2010 he served as a field director in Florida during the midterm elections.
Republicans have for months tried to find ways to make inroads with the country’s growing hispanic population, especially in the swing state of Florida. Hispanics there turned out to vote at a rate of more than 62 percent in 2012, significantly higher than the national turnout rate of 48 percent and the highest rate of Hispanic turnout in the country.



http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/14/2006251/rnc-director-of-hi
spanic-outreach-quits-party-and-registers-as-a-democrat
/


Maybe the GOP really intended to stir up Hispanic outrage, not outreach. On that score, they're doing great.





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:39 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Kwick,

Hispanics are more than the ones who cut your lawn, rob you, or serve your Chipotle.

There are ALOT who are here LEGALLY. And they worked damn hard to be here that way, too. You know, like SERVING to get their citizenship.

*New thread idea* - Legal vs Illegal and what it takes to be one way or the other. The sacrifices.

The GOP are old school idiots, but they are learning. Ill trust them, before I trust your kind.

"None of you seem to understand. I'm not locked in here with you... YOU are locked in here with ME."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:02 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by WULFENSTAR:
Kwick,

Hispanics are more than the ones who cut your lawn, rob you, or serve your Chipotle.



Is this what you think of Hispanics?

I've never been robbed, thank you. I cut my own lawn, and my Chipotle server yesterday was a cute white girl named Erin.

What exactly is your point?

Quote:


There are ALOT who are here LEGALLY. And they worked damn hard to be here that way, too. You know, like SERVING to get their citizenship.



"SERVING"? Serving who? Serving WHAT? Not serving in the military, because that's just a "DREAM" (DREAM Act - look it up).

You know what it takes to be here legally? If you're born on U.S. soil, you're a citizen; you're here legally. There are other ways to be here legally, but that one is outlined in the Constitution.

Quote:


*New thread idea* - Legal vs Illegal and what it takes to be one way or the other. The sacrifices.



So go start one. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I posted in *THIS* thread.

Quote:


The GOP are old school idiots, but they are learning. Ill trust them, before I trust your kind.



Seems most Hispanics disagree, including the one I posted the story about, who has changed his party affiliation now after being told by conservatives that as a Hispanic, he's too "low IQ" to be an American.




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:04 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


And really, when I mention Hispanics, and Hispanic outreach for the GOP, why do you immediately jump to "legal - vs - illegal"? Do you assume most Hispanics are here illegally? Or do you just assume the GOP is trying to reach out to illegals for votes?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:12 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by WULFENSTAR:
There are other Hispanic peoples besides Mexicans and Salvadorans... you know that right?



Who said anything to that effect?

Do you ever TRY to read before posting your always-inane crap??




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:26 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by WULFENSTAR:
There are other Hispanic peoples besides Mexicans and Salvadorans... you know that right?



Who said anything to that effect?

Do you ever TRY to read before posting your always-inane crap??




Kind of what I was wondering - What story was Wulfie reading, 'cause it sure as hell wasn't the one I posted!



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:31 PM

STORYMARK


I doubt wulfie can grasp much that's longer than a couple syllables. There's a reason he feels most comfortable communicationg via other people's words and, usually, video clips.




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:07 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


I came across a reference a long time ago, sorry I can't cite the source, that suggested that successful Hispanics are smarter than average Americans. The theory was that immigration, legal or illegal, was a Darwinian testing-- the dumb ones, the unsuccessful ones, either didn't come at all or didn't survive the journey. That is a little too much like, "There aren't any slow black folks because the slow ones got eaten by the lions and tigers," but I accepted it at the time. It's certainly plausible-- even easy legal immigration does involve significant effort, and some risk.
I wish I knew more about the testing this guy Richwine (Is that his name? I can't recall it exactly at the moment. E-T-A: Hey I was right! Thought I'd seen it at least spelled differently somewhere else. Gotta tell ya, last time I was wrong was when I thought I was making a mistake. ) used. Did he correct for original language usage? That that makes a huge difference is well documented.


I think maybe he got clobbered on Political Correctness, on the grounds of "YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!", rather than by a rigorous checking of his data. That's what many of his friends and consultants seem to have said about his work.

BTW, I don't think his data would stand up if examined closely. The immigrants I have worked and lived with have generally been hard working, honest, and plenty smart and adaptive. Maybe not book learned, especially in English; and culturally different, maybe not supporting the exact same values as WASP folks, but definitely acceptable people.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 14, 2013 4:09 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Thing is, his "research" claimed that not only are Hispanics today of lower IQ than "native whites" in America (yes, he really said "native whites"), but he went on to insist that their children and grandchildren will be low-IQ people as well.

Perhaps he has some kind of new testing apparatus that can tell the IQ of people who haven't even been conceived yet.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 15, 2013 5:00 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Thing is, his "research" claimed that not only are Hispanics today of lower IQ than "native whites" in America (yes, he really said "native whites"), but he went on to insist that their children and grandchildren will be low-IQ people as well.

Perhaps he has some kind of new testing apparatus that can tell the IQ of people who haven't even been conceived yet.




Thank you again, twice in one day. I had forgotten, or maybe never read, that aspect of his report. I never got far past the headline, rejected his ideas and conclusion immediately. Obviously, wrong and stupid of him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 15, 2013 5:33 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


In case you didn't catch it in the post I put up about him, Richwine and Heritage have "parted ways" (as numerous pundits put it, he "resigned", w/quotes). He was even too far out for THEM, as it turns out.

And yes, his "conclusions" were sad but amusing. He's standing by them, nonetheless:
Quote:

Jason Richwine is sorry he’s not sorry.

The co-author of a controversial Heritage Foundation report on the cost of immigration reform is standing behind his past work that led to his resignation.

By now, you’ve probably heard about Richwine’s controversial 2009 doctoral dissertation at Harvard, in which he argued that Hispanic immigrants have lower IQs than non-Hispanic, white Americans.

Richwine’s theories on differences in intelligence levels between racial groups have some serious flaws. Hispanics aren’t so much of a race as a pan-ethnic group that comprises people who hail from many different countries and racial backgrounds. And scholars question whether IQ is an accurate way to measure intelligence among racial and gender groups.

Dan Drezner notes that Richwine’s dissertation didn’t necessarily gain traction in the academic world.

But in an interview with the Washington Examiner’s Byron York, Richwine stood behind his work and statements about the racial differences and intelligence.

"I don't apologize for any of the things that I said," Richwine continued. "But I do regret that I couldn't give more detail. And I also regret that I didn't think more about how the average lay person would perceive these things, as opposed to an academic audience."

Richwine claims that he’s “not naive” about how his work could be seen as offensive within the context of the immigration debate.

“I'm proud of it,” he told York. “But I do regret the way it has been used."

The Heritage Foundation quickly distanced itself from Richwine’s past work and statements last week. But the political damage has been done. As The Miami Herald noted, Richwine reinforced the stereotype of some immigration-reform opponents as racially prejudiced and nativist. http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/heritage-scholar-jason-richwine-ap
ologize/story?id=19170226#.UZOlu4nn9Fo


This one made me giggle:
Quote:

Amid loud cries of “Witch! Witch! Burn the Witch!” an enraged throng of ideological activists and media pundits late last week besieged the fortress-like DC headquarters of the conservative Heritage Foundation, demanding the person of one Jason Richwine, Ph.D., employed there as a senior policy analyst. The High Lords of Heritage, deeply concerned about any possible threat to their million-dollar salaries, quickly submitted, though they waited until late Friday, the dead-zone period of national news coverage, before announcing that young Dr. Richwine had been expelled into the Outer Darkness.

Only a week earlier, Richwine had reached a pinnacle of his career, listed as co-author of a widely trumpeted Heritage research study demonstrating that Congressional passage of proposed immigration reform legislation would cost American taxpayers some six trillion dollars…or perhaps the figure was six quadrillion dollars.

But then some enterprising journalist discovered the dreadful evidence of Richwine’s horrific heresy, namely that his 2009 doctoral dissertation at the Harvard Kennedy School had focused on the very low IQs of those racial groups providing most of our current immigrants, with his conclusion being that such inflows must be halted lest American society be dumbified into disaster. Taken together Race and IQ constitute an exceptionally volatile mix in modern American society, and ignited by a six trillion dollar spark, the resulting explosion blew Richwine out of his comfortable DC employment.

Now it seems to me that Heritage’s reaction was a bit difficult to justify. After all, the title of Richwine’s dissertation had been “IQ and Immigration Policy” perhaps providing some slight hint that his topic had something to do with IQ and immigration policy. So the inescapable conclusion is that Heritage was perfectly willing to employ someone with Richwine’s racial views but only so long as the media and the public remained unaware. Last week the media found out, hence exit young Richwine. More at http://www.theamericanconservative.com/raceiq-the-jason-richwine-affai
r/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=raceiq-the-jason-richwine-affair


Note "The American Conservative". When his "study" came to light, Heritage backpedalled so fast they almost fell over themselves:
Quote:

Since Richwine’s dissertation came to light, the Heritage Foundation has distanced itself from his remarks. NBC News reported on a statement release by Foundation spokesman Mike Gonzalez.

“This is not a work product of The Heritage Foundation. Its findings in no way reflect the positions of The Heritage Foundation,” the statement read.More at http://www.voxxi.com/hispanics-have-lower-iq-seriously/#ixzz2TNKZQv9t


Regarding the recent "study" he did for Heritage about the cost of immigration, many sensible Republicans have spoken out about that, too:
Quote:

That study was intended to be a tool Republicans could use to challenge the immigration reform proposal. However, within hours, the Heritage study received criticism from GOP leaders, including Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. They argued that the study failed to acknowledge the economic growth that would result from the immigration reform legislation.

Former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour described the Heritage study as “a political document” instead of a “serious” effort at debate. Meanwhile, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) said the study “is better described as a work of fiction.”

Hinojosa also criticized the Heritage Foundation for publishing the study. He stated, “The Heritage Foundation has always been a stalwart of conservatism, but this is common place, ugly racism and xenophobia dressed up in economic hyperbole. I urge everyone in the conservative community to step up and speak out against this disgraceful, so-called report.” Same


Ouch.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 15, 2013 6:11 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


My take on illegal immigrants is well-known. But just to repeat it: since my husband, father, and maternal grandparents were immigrants, clearly I don't have a problem with the idea.

I do, however, have a problem with uncontrolled population flows across our border.

EVEN WITH...

No, ESPECIALLY WITH, the best of intentions, this situation shouldn't persist. Let's get rid of the liberal notion that the only problem with illegal immigrants is lack of papers.

IF we had a humane, rational immigration policy, we would allow in a certain number of immigrants every year, limited by our ability to screen for criminals and communicable diseases like TB, and by our ability to TEACH ENGLISH to every immigrant and make them familiar with our laws and customs. The idea that all we need to do is let people in and give them papers is like feeding pigeons in the park: cheap charity. Besides, when I find myself on same side as corporations, I double check my arguments to see if they make sense.

As it is, in LA half of the people that I talk to don't know English. That doesn't work for them, OR for me.

In exchange for amnesty (because, really, this reform effort is like Reagan's amnesty, which was suppsed to fix the problem "once and for all"... nine million people ago!) let's do a real "once and for all" thing: let's amend the Consitution to get rid of the "anchor baby" provision. The 14th amendment has long outlived it's usefulness, and no other nation in the world.... not even in S and Central America... has that provision.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:55 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:


In exchange for amnesty (because, really, this reform effort is like Reagan's amnesty, which was suppsed to fix the problem "once and for all"... nine million people ago!) let's do a real "once and for all" thing: let's amend the Consitution to get rid of the "anchor baby" provision. The 14th amendment has long outlived it's usefulness, and no other nation in the world.... not even in S and Central America... has that provision.



Oh, you poor rational, intelligent, person.

I agree with you- that IS, if not THE, at least one of the major, solutions to the problem.

And you propose the correct method of fixing it: amending the Constitution. I'd sign a petition for that. I'd vote for that. I'd elect a Congressman or Senator who ran on that.

But it's an extremely high hurdle. Doesn't it take, like, a 3/4 super-majority in Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states? You'll never find the votes.

But you're right. I wish you well.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:30 AM

JONGSSTRAW


The Constitutional Amendment Process

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.

In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/


No sweat.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 15, 2013 5:18 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


It's not just the Fourteenth that gives citizenship to "anchor babies" as you call them; the Constitution itself, before any amendments, lists the same requirements for citizenship.


I have to ask: By what rights are YOU all citizens of the United States, those of you who are?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 15, 2013 5:41 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


OK. 2/3 of Congress , 3/4 of the states. Try to remember that one, NOBC.
Right up there after what you had for breakfast, and where you left your glasses, teeth, hearing aid and cane. You can do it, Old Timer... :<)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 15, 2013 6:25 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


US 14th amendment

"Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Canadian law

Canadian citizenship is typically obtained by birth in Canada, birth abroad when at least one parent is a Canadian citizen and was born or naturalized in Canada, or by adoption abroad by at least one Canadian citizen.

Australian law

Most children born in Australia before 20 August 1986 are Australian citizens by birth unless one parent was entitled to diplomatic privileges or was a consular officer of another country.
Children born after that date are only Australian citizens if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or permanent resident at the time of their birth.
Children born in Australia to parents who are not Australian citizens or permanent residents, automatically acquire Australian citizenship on their 10th birthday if they have lived most of their life in Australia.

French law

... children born in France of foreign parents remain foreign until obtaining legal majority.
Children born in France to tourists or short-term visitors do not acquire French citizenship by virtue of birth in France: residency must be proven.

German law

German citizenship is based primarily on the principle of jus sanguinis. In other words one usually acquires German citizenship if a parent is a German citizen, irrespective of place of birth.[citation needed]

A significant reform to the nationality law was passed by the Bundestag (the German parliament) in 1999, and came into force on 1 January 2000. The new law makes it somewhat easier for foreigners resident in Germany on a long-term basis, and especially their German-born children, to acquire German citizenship.



I was curious so I glanced at a few other countries. It does seem reasonable to restrict citizenship to children where at least one parent is a citizen.

I'm not sure that illegal immigrants come from 'south of the border' due to 'anchor baby' provisions. However, there's a thriving multi-million dollar birthing tourist trade for Chinese women who ARE coming here to get their babies birthed in the US specifically. They enter the US as tourists close to their due date, check into a private home that's been set up to accommodate many pregnant women, give birth under the auspices of a private doctor, and return home shortly afterward.

As for illegal immigrants, I read these figures a few weeks ago. Here they are quoted, but I haven't verified the information:

One in 10 Los Angeles County residents is an immigrant living in the country illegally, according to a study released Tuesday by the USC Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration.

Many of those immigrants have been in the country for more than a decade and are the parents of children who are American citizens, the study found. One in five children in Los Angeles County has at least one parent who is in the country without proper documentation.

One in four of the estimated 11 million people said to be in the United States without legal authorization lives in California. Statewide, the study estimates that about 7% of residents, or more than 2.6 million people, are in the country illegally.





NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 16, 2013 1:28 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
US 14th amendment

"Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."





There has been discussion in the past of the notion that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause excludes illegal aliens. They are, by definition, "illegal", so not subject to the jurisdiction. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't want to argue the point. Seems to me it COULD mean that. If it just means "gotta obey the laws," I don't think it could be used to exclude. If it means something more, then maybe if could.

I don't believe it has ever been argued in court. If it was, and reviewed up the line to the Supremes, eventually, they could possibly interpret it that way.

Frankly, I'd like to see it. That's what appeals courts are for: when folks disagree on what the words of a law mean, they get to step in and decide. It would be interesting to watch, and I'm sure whichever side lost would be screaming about "activist judges."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Multiculturalism
Tue, November 5, 2024 08:22 - 52 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Tue, November 5, 2024 08:04 - 418 posts
More men contract and die from Covid-19
Tue, November 5, 2024 07:57 - 17 posts
Elon Musk
Tue, November 5, 2024 07:52 - 30 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Tue, November 5, 2024 07:33 - 637 posts
All things Space
Tue, November 5, 2024 07:23 - 258 posts
Elections; 2024
Tue, November 5, 2024 06:48 - 4514 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Tue, November 5, 2024 06:17 - 7422 posts
South Korea
Tue, November 5, 2024 05:00 - 4 posts
Worst poll yet!
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:43 - 19 posts
Poll Shows Americans' Massive Disapproval Of Both Parties: "Now It's Just An Oligarchy"
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:36 - 24 posts
New CNN Poll Raises Eyebrows
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:32 - 10 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL