It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

From not my president to not my SCOTUS to not my country

page: 6
41
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
No, they're invited. Read what is written on the lady with the torch.




"The New Colossus" was the first entry read at the exhibit's opening on November 2, 1883. It remained associated with the exhibit through a published catalog until the exhibit closed after the pedestal was fully funded in August 1885, but was forgotten and played no role at the opening of the statue in 1886. It was, however, published in Joseph Pulitzer's New York World as well as The New York Times during this time period. In 1901, Lazarus's friend Georgina Schuyler began an effort to memorialize Lazarus and her poem, which succeeded in 1903 when a plaque bearing the text of the poem was put on the inner wall of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.

...

John T. Cunningham wrote that "The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch and the shining face, heading toward Ellis Island. However, it was [Lazarus's poem] that permanently stamped on Miss Liberty the role of unofficial greeter of incoming immigrants."

Link.



But that's good enough for you to argue in favor of ALL immigration, whether legal of not?




And, actually, we need immigrants because like most fairly industrial societies with an aging population, our birthrate has dropped. So if you want the good ol' USA to carry forward into the future, you're gonna need volunteers.

US Birth Rate Hits All-Time Low


Quite right. How about we all agree on a legal process to accomplish that.

edit on 9-10-2018 by loam because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: loam

Kinda curious about that myself...


Not getting an answer is almost as bad as getting the one I fully expect.



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
Quite right. How about we all agree on a legal process to accomplish that.

It's unfortunate that so many people are afraid of the "others" taking their jobs that the only thing that will satisfy them is a complete ban on all immigration. Which is a clear case of cutting one's own nose off to spite one's face. Competition among smart people with energy and enthusiasm is really a foundation of American philosophy.



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
...the only thing that will satisfy them is a complete ban on all immigration...


I'm going to call you out for this bull# assertion.

Cite ONE meaningful, credible source that shows "so many people" believe this.



edit on 9-10-2018 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift



It's unfortunate that so many people are afraid of the "others" taking their jobs that the only thing that will satisfy them is a complete ban on all immigration.


Ummm who outside of racist groups have called for the complete ban on any immigration???

Majority of regular folks I have seen want legal immigration, but just saying come on everyone is irresponsible and how we end up with the prison folk and asylum folks from other nations like Cuba did to us in the '80's.



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

The left tells this lie, because in its absence, they have no persuasive argument to keep illegal immigrants here.


edit on 9-10-2018 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
Any word on what the plan will be for the nearly half of the country that does not agree with you?


We're supposed to have a representative government. The government no longer represents the people. The distribution of power does not match the outcome of the votes.

I do not think any side should be shut out of government, but I do think it should roughly mirror what the electorate looks like. The racial makeup of congress does not match the population. The professional makeup of congress does not match the population. To add on to my Senate point above, population demographics are such that 1/3 of the Senate will be representing 2/3 of the population within 15 years.

I believe that there are many fixes which can be made peacefully.

We need to expand the House. End gerrymandering. Stop publicly electing Senators. Use ranked choice voting. Reform the Supreme Court. To go into a little more detail on each of these:

I think the House should no longer represent states. It should represent districts which can cross state lines. Lots of debate can be had on exactly how many Representatives we should have, but we should start growing the House again and by allowing for districts to cross state lines we can end problems like the Wyoming issue. The house should represent the people, so lets remove states from it entirely.

Gerrymandering is a simple one. Use rectangles and break populations into districts. Keep major population centers together as much as possible.

The Senate needs to go back to representing the states, so let them choose who they want. Senators and people should not mix. Their job is to represent their states interests at the federal level. Let them do it without having to care about things that they can really only deal with through talking to Representatives.

Ranked choice voting is the best way to get moderate candidates back into government. It is essentially a compromise, and it can even break a two party system. I think this is the most important issue on the list.

My feelings on the Supreme Court are that our current system is not right. This has nothing to do with recent events, but those make it topical. There is too much variation in when and how judges are nominated, and politics is entering the process too much. Instead what I think we should do is to take the current court and make three new rules.
1. At the start of each year (shortly after inaguration day, so late January or so) the President gets a nomination to the court. That nomination will still go through a Senate confirmation process. If the end of the year is reached and no one has yet been confirmed, that President (even if out of office) gets another nomination, at the front of the line until someone is eventually confirmed.
2. There is no maximum or minimum size to the Supreme Court. It simply grows by 1 each year, and should on average shrink by 1 each year as judges retire or die.
3. In the event of a tie, a tiebreaking vote is given to whatever justice has currently been on the court the longest.

This would give every President 4 picks per term no matter what. This would in turn eliminate a lot of the game playing that currently goes on between parties in trying to shape the court.

In theory, any of this could be adopted peacefully. But, it all requires constitutional amendments, so I do not hold out much hope. On the other hand amendments have happened on average once every 13 years on average. The last amendment was passed in 1992 so we are currently overdue for two amendments.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift




...so many people are afraid of the "others" taking their jobs that the only thing that will satisfy them is a complete ban on all immigration.


How many is "so many"? ...and just who are these people that favor a "complete ban".

I'm sure it'll be some huge group, right?? All of thirty members? Probably affiliated in some fashion or other with Christian Identity...?

For those who may not know who they are...

Christian Identity.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: loam





new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join