Birthright Citizenship
- Thread starter TigerGrowls
- Start date
A DEI hire is when someone is selected due to their skin color when other more qualified candidates exist.
How did her resume and qualifications compare to the other appointees? She had more judicial experience than both Barrett and Kagan. I personally actually like that she had a background as a public defender. Rare for the court so helps the court have a wide range of experiences. She is more qualified for her position than anyone in Trump’s cabinet for their position. It is somewhat rare that people hire strictly by “most” qualified. People hire by making sure someone is qualified, and then hire by any number of factors, how they will fit in the team for example. As a Sr Director I am on interviews regularly with my managers with people who won’t report to me but to them. So I give my opinions and simply say whether they are “over my line” so to speak, and then let my managers pick who they think will fit their team the best. We don’t simply look at a resume and hire the best numbers. Though what they’ve done and their track record is certainly a factor.
This freaking guy.
Just wait for it... Here comes "DEI is racism against white people"
Love the Fatpiggy schtick
No one is saying she isn't qualified. But you can't say she is the most qualified candidate either.
Joe Biden said loud and clear a black woman was going to be selected.
If you limit your pool to only black women, how do you know the best person was hired? You only know the best black woman was hired. Through no fault of her own, she is a DEI hire.
This was already went over as it occurred Huck. You are way behind due to your tunnel visions for all things woke and liberal. She is routinely called out for stupid stuff.
So is saying you wanted to hire the most qualified Conservative or liberal DEI?
What about saying that I want to hire the person who agrees with my positions is that a DEI hire?
Both of those are limiting the field of candidates.
Just admit that you use DEI to equal Black.
Once again, @fatpiggy is catching another L and is falling into chaos.
Ah, so you can't have a normal conversation, and you can't address the fact that your "logic" just got flipped on its head and turned around to discredit you?
Keep propagandizing, Nazi trollbot.
Last edited:
Geez.
I’m not willing to say she is not qualified and a DEI hire
HOWEVER, do you not see something wrong with Biden saying that he’s going to hire (insert race) here for the next spot?
Therefore, when it happens, you can’t get mad about the perception it created.
don’t be dumb.
I wish the messaging had been different, but to act as if she is not qualified compared to her peers and others recently is ignorant.
Calling her a DEI hire based solely on the fact that she is an AA Woman is a lazy and ignorant statement.
I was also pointing out the constant BS statements that Fatpiggy makes about DEI being racism against white males.
Stop with the stupid excuses. “Wish the messaging had been different”? Hahahahaha. Biden communicated EXACTLY what he intended to. No question. Different messaging would have just hid the intentions all along.
I’m a minority, so is my wife, and so are my kids. DEI sounds noble initially, but it’s still discriminatory. I understand and believe people regardless of skin color or sex should not be limited because of those things. That however doesn’t mean they should be SELECTED because of those things.
The reality is the group that has benefited most from. It has been white females. I’m sure that’s not how it was intended to be. It’s statistically factual that the group that has been the most negatively impacted has been white males.
I agree that calling her a DEI hire just because she is AA woman is lazy. However, I do not fault people for saying that in this case when the individual that selects her has clearly indicated that his goal is to select AA female. You can’t tell me that out of everyone that he could have selected, that she was solely selected because of her. Previous work. If you say that, then you’re an idiot.
Thank you for understanding, and a very reasonable take.
It's nothing against KJB, but DEI is a stain on her reputation. Again, through no fault of her own. We will never know if she would have been picked if it wasn't for the color of her skin. That's not the America I want.
I want the America that MLK wanted. I want an America where people are judged on the content of their character and their work ethic.
DEI is rat poison. Whatever it started out as, it turned into blatant racism against white people.
The fact that Justice Jackson can’t define a women is problematic. I mean thing about it. We have a Justice of the SUPREME COURT that can’t define a woman. WTF. Why we we have a justice on the court that can’t define a woman? And you leftists want to defend that?
Add on her oral argument for birthright citizenship and her Japan drivel and no wonder why she’s questioned.
Add on her oral argument for birthright citizenship and her Japan drivel and no wonder why she’s questioned.
If the authors of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution had wanted to require something more in order to qualify for birthright citizenship, they would have said so expressly in the 14th Amendment. If ever there was a context where each word is carefully chosen, it is the U.S. Constitution.
Foreign diplomats stationed in the U.S. are clearly not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." They are quite clearly here as representatives of another country. They enjoy diplomatic immunity, for Chrissake!
By contrast, a Mexican immigrant who comes here without documentation (i.e., illegally) to secure employment picking fruit, working in construction, bussing tables, etc., is very clearly "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" even though he or she is not a citizen. He or she enjoys no diplomatic immunity, and can be arrested, imprisoned, required to pay income and sales taxes, etc. So the children of such illegal immigrants quite clearly qualify for birthright citizenship.
Given the current composition of the Court, I suppose it is possible that they might ignore the express wording of the 14th Amendment and prior Supreme Court case law (i.e., United States v. Wonk Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) and hold that illegal immigrants are somehow NOT "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," but that would indeed be a stretch.
A more likely, and politically palatable alternative might be for the Court to somehow imply a "domicile" requirement for birthright citizenship. By that I mean that the Court might limit birthright citizenship to children born of a parent or parents who have established residence (whether legal or illegal) in the U.S., with the intent of remaining here indefinitely. It would not disqualify the children of illegal immigrants from birthright citizenship, but it would disqualify the children of foreign parents who come here as "birth tourists."
Last edited:
Many of the same people who say we're on stolen land and don't belong here are quick to support anchor babies and their parents right to be here with full citizenship privileges.
While this may be a "compromise" that many would welcome, I would say it's wishful thinking to claim it's at all likely the Court rules in this manner.
Then again ... who knows with this rogue Court? There was zero reason for the Court to take this case, as there is precedent and it's been a settled issue for decades - there isn't any legitimate vagueness in the settled law ... so either the Court wants to change something, or they now find themselves having to take on issues, just to reaffirm what's already been settled, solely because we have a fascist dictator consistently pissing all over the Constitution, and they need to announce "what we've said in the past ... we still mean it." Then again, this rogue Court has made it so you can't trust that anything that's been ruled on by the Court in the past means much of anything (so they've facilitated Trump's willingness to power grab).
Last edited:
Piggy: Your expressed preference for "the most qualified candidate" for appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court is laudable in principle. But identifying THE "most qualified candidate" is something else entirely. There is, and never has been, a shortage of attorneys in this country. There are probably a million attorneys in this country who possess the intellect, experience and temperament necessary to serve on the Court. In theory, their ranks include the person who is THE most qualified candidate. But in actual practice, there are many thousands of people to whom that description could arguably be applied.
Until Sandra Day O'Connor was nominated and confirmed, no female had ever served on the Supreme Court. I believe Ronald Reagan stated in advance of making that nomination that he intended to nominate a woman. At that time, there were thousands upon thousands of highly qualified males who Reagan could have nominated, but he felt (with considerable justification, IMHO) that it was time to put a woman on the Court. So O'Connor being female was one of the attributes which made her one of, if not THE, most qualified candidates for the job. (The fact that she graduated Number 2 in her Class from Stanford Law School, behind only William Rehnquist, surely didn't hurt.)
Similarly, until Ketanji Brown Jackson was nominated and confirmed, no black woman had ever served on the Supreme Court. Although there were thousands upon thousands of highly qualified candidates for the nomination, Jackson's educational pedigree (Harvard undergraduate and law school degrees, and clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer) and judicial experience (8 years as a District Court judge and 1 year as a D.C. Circuit Court Judge) surely qualified her for consideration. The fact that she was black was obviously of benefit to her in obtaining the nomination, just as being female was of benefit to Sandra Day O'Connor. I see nothing wrong with that. Supreme Court judges are not nominated in a vacuum. The highest court in the land should, IMHO, endeavor to be at least somewhat reflective of the citizenry it serves.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett graduated from a law school (University of Notre Dame) that ranks well below the law schools from which Supreme Court justices have historically graduated (Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Chicago, etc.) . She never served as a District Court judge, but she did serve on the D.C. Circuit Court for about six years. She also graduated first in her Class and clerked for Antonin Scalia, so she has good qualifications. but no serious person can argue that her conservative background and pro-life perspective did not play a significant role in her speedy nomination and confirmation. Is she a DEI hire, too? What do those views of hers have to do with judicial competence?
Last edited:
Speaking of being called out for stupid stuff, "This was already went over ...?" Yikes.
I agree with all of this ^^^^. If I had to wager on the Court's ruling, it would be to follow the pretty unambiguous text of the 14th Amendment and reaffirm birthright citizenship. But the composition of the Court is conservative, and the right is applying a whole lot of pressure here. Trump's attendance at oral argument is reflective of that.
This conservative justices on this Court, and conservatives in general, make a whole lot of noise about "strict construction," but they will have to fully abandon that principle if they are gonna "find" some way to deny birthright citizenship to the U.S. born children of illegal immigrants.
Lol. Figures.Here, here! THIS!
I don’t need you all “giving” me anything bc I’m a minority.
I just want to be better than you regardless.
Hire the best - period.
what about this "fruit of the poison tree" thing --and I don't have any idea if this is a real thing or not..but if someone is in the country illegally, how then do they benefit from that fact??/
I’ll tell you this.
You can’t trust anyone that can’t define a woman.
The SCOTUS hearing of the plantiffs points this week illustrated one thing to me: MAGA has mutated into something completely unrecognizable to conservatives. The argument basically boiled down to a very LIBERAL reading of the 1898 case that set the precedent of the interpretation of the 14th amendment. They tried to tye the interpretation around words like domicile and jurisdiction. The reading on this completely fell apart because teh conservative judges were not having any of that nonsense.
Trump, and more importantly Stephen Miller and the Heritage Foundation are putting forward these attempts to end birth right citizenship so that they can continue to expand the Executive branches power and create a problem only they can solve. More illegals. So we need more power.
Trump, and more importantly Stephen Miller and the Heritage Foundation are putting forward these attempts to end birth right citizenship so that they can continue to expand the Executive branches power and create a problem only they can solve. More illegals. So we need more power.
I'd be OK with that except for the "illegal" part. Your approach would be to encourage anchor babies as a way to sidestep our laws. Enter the country illegally, have a baby (at taxpayer expense), make him/her a citizen, then be unable to deport the "family" or be accused of separating families. Their fake asylum claim would be denied but it wouldn't matter.
Even democrats agreed with controlling the border and eliminating birthright citizenship at one point.
Now they claim it's too difficult for women can't prove citizenship. If that wat the only problem they would be proposing easier ways to do so but the fact is they don't want any form of voter ID.
Bottom line is democrats found a huge voting block in immigrants (both legal and illegal). If you disagree you lack compassion and you're a racist. That's what controls their votes.
??!! They become citizens when they are born alive, and not until then. Pretty much like an embro/fetus becomes a person when it is born alive, and not until then.
Nice try, though.
bdgan: That would be a great argument if it was supported by anything resembling a fact. There is no record of immigrants (illegal or legal) voting in anything other than anecdotal numbers. You're pushing a solution in search of a problem.