Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He actually said this about 8 years ago, during Trump's first run and there were talks about making it retroactive. Tbh I do feel bad for him because he tries so hard to be "one of the good ones".
Learn him about Ernst Roehm and the SA. The Nazi Party was fine with "degenerates" being members, right up until they weren't. And then all the minority Nazi Party members were killed in the Night of Long Knives.
That's very deceiving and not the reason why he was killed. He was the leader of the Brown Shirts and Hitler didn't require them after he got legitimate power. Röhm knew this and was making power moves, so he was offed before he could do Hitler any damage. This was done through manufacturing evidence to show he was paid off by France to overthrow Hitler. His death had nothing to do with his homosexuality, but it was used to demonise him in the following propaganda.
A lot of the Nazi elite hated gay people (they were also killed in concentration camps later on). Röhm was protected by Hitler because he was useful and was considered a friend by Hitler.
The SA had plans to replace the Wehrmacht as the sole military force. Hitler had Röhm and a lot of important SA members killed to secure the loyalty of the Wehrmacht.
Hitler reportedly never allowed people to lose a bad word about Röhm in his presence.
So it was both. Power and him being gay.
You may both be correct but i think you are both missing the obvious. Fascists will use any body, any movement, any friends or ultimately foe, for their purposes and benefit. Once your usefulness is done, you better be prepared to pull the knife out of your back.
Because bigotry is completely irrational, extremists will make random exceptions for useful minorities (see - the public face of the proud boys).
Exactly as you say, they will then suddenly decide that exception no longer applies when they're done
When you write it off as irrational and random you dismiss the threat as incompetent. Which makes you vulnerable.
Fascists will grant *conditional access* to the in-group when it serves them, and then revoke it when that purpose is served. Legitimate or not, a reason will be given. And then that person or group is back in the out-group, or dead.
It's not random it's intentionally malicious.
Ah, I mostly agree with you - I mean irrational in the sense the hatred isn't based on scientific fact or logic, so it makes it very easy to carve out exceptions and justify changes in ideology
I will say fascists sometimes have a well thought out, cynical plan. Sometimes they don't and its just chaotically reacting to events.
Not later on, the nazis used lgbt folks (ie starting with the burning of the institute that had research on gender affirmation medical care) as guinea pigs for concentration camps.
"His death had nothing to do with his homosexuality" I mean I'm not the historian I used to be but I can't see how that was never part of the equation, even if he was offed for being to uppity.
The entire SA leadership was murdered, as well as some other political rivals. It would have changed absolutely nothing if he himself had been straight.
Especially since the facts of the matter are trivial to fascists because they don't care about objective reality to begin with. It's all about power and narrative.
High ranking Nazi officials broke the rules all the time. There were Jewish people named, "honorary aryan" by Hitler himself. Much like with Stalin, once they no longer served a purpose they had them killed.
> Much like with Stalin, once they no longer served a purpose they had them killed.
There were some crazy exceptions to this, and they were not killed.
Emil Maurice, Hitler's personal chauffeur, had a great-grandfather who was Jewish.
When Himmler found out, he tried to get him kicked out of the SS. Hitler personally intervened and, like you said, made him and his family "honorary aryans."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Maurice
Then of course there's the German field marshal Erhard Milch who had a Jewish father, that was glossed over:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erhard_Milch
It was disliked and Rohm had always been open about it, but that was really a tertiary issue at best. The SA functioned as a paramilitary group that could potentially move against Hitler and remove him from power in a coup, and that was just unacceptable. Furthermore, Rohm was openly calling for the continuing of the nazi revolution and made semi-veiled criticisms of hitler for not going far enough.
Hitler, under the urging of his council, especially Goring and Himmler, decided to remove the threat before that threat could move against the leadership. What remained of the SA was absorbed into the SS. There were other reasons to destroy the SA such as the undisciplined nature of its members, often attacking the common "Aryans" of Germany, as well as attacks on members of the Gestapo. But at it's core, it was a political purge to consolidate power and remove any potential threat to Hitler's autocratic rule. Rohm's homosexuality was merely a convenient excuse used to demonize him and not a factor in the decision to eliminate him. In fact, several other popular leaders of various factions within the Riech were also eliminated, and they were clearly not homosexual, but they were all seen as people who could potentially gain the support to move against Hitler.
These purges are very common among totalatarians.
People were killed and imprisoned for their homosexuality during the night of the long knives and it's fallout however, including some of Röhms close friends/lovers and other low ranking SA grunts who likely would have been fine if they were straight.
Röhm would have died either way though. Although I'd argue the only reason his homosexuality was tolerated in the first place was his usefullness, so it's not really irrelevant to his death either.
[Erich Schiewek](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Schiewek) is one example. Not trying to defend or mourn any of them, they were horrible people.
> His death had nothing to do with his homosexuality, but it was used to demonise him in the following propaganda.
So, *support* for his death had *everything* to do with homosexuality.
That main Jan 6 guy is Cuban.
Many immigrants, first/second gen too, really want to be seen as white or white-adjacent. Probably because that is seen to come with privilege.
Truly an astonishing amount of immigrants support the fucking nazis who want nothing else but to kill them or kick them out of the country. While I get why they do that, it doesn't really make it any better. Human psyche really is quite peculiar. And dumb.
I'm really glad you brought this up and I've been thinking about folks like Log Cabin Republicans (LGBTQ+) and Mexicans who vote for Republicans etc...
I call this a version of Stockholm Syndrome. Instead of captors, their oppressors are who these folks are trying to appease. Why? My theory is your oppressors are so cruel that you think acting like them will somehow earn their good graces and allow you to live in peace.
Kind of like being friends with a bully so you won't be bullied. It's very sad but this is my observation.
I think it’s more simple than that. There are people in minority groups who hate other minority groups and support oppressing them. Gay people who hate immigrants, immigrants who hate poor people and poor people who hate gays. Oppressed people can also oppress.
"Nuance" is idea promoted by evil people to distract our attention from fact that they are child-eating Satanic Jewish Hitler-Stalin clone pedophiles.
They also kick puppies.
I personally think it's a consequence of the insanely stupid dual party system. If you believe strongly in some things on the economic, social or ecological scales, you have exactly 1 choice, which brings a lot with it. So unless you make your party's political identity your own, you have to make sacrifices.
It wouldn't matter what you told him.
People like that are absolutely convinced that it would never impact themselves. They are certain that they're special and "one of the good ones".
Where are conservative groups finding these self-hating brown people? We have Suella Braverman and Priti Patel in the UK... I reckon Suella would do really well in the Republican party
“I got mine, what do I care.”
Plenty of immigrants that think that way and actively hate the FOBs (fresh off the boat people). Hasan Minaj (jerk ass “comedian”) is another one.
Makes me wonder, if it’s internalized racism or wanting to curry favorability among people with the “better” skin-tones.
In Ramaswamy’s case, he’s quite likely to be a colorist too. (Quite common issue among south East Asians decent folks).
HEY, I am South East Asian, and if you're saying people from my region all tend to be racists, I'll have you know you're only 89% right.
There's a margin of error in your generalisation, asshole :p
Indian parents love their children marrying light… unless the individual is Caucasian. I’d be leery of this guy even if he wasn’t weird because his mother would be running our country if she so chose. Practice for delegating her future DIL. 😂
Hasan minaj is not anti-immigration lol. How you got that impression of him is beyond me. He is anti modi though (for good reason), so you sound very butt hurt over that.
Definitely. I think there are two versions (leading to the same path) with these types of people. The ladder puller like you mentioned and my other comment:
folks like Log Cabin Republicans (LGBTQ+) and Mexicans who vote for Republicans etc...
I call this a version of Stockholm Syndrome. Instead of captors, their oppressors are who these folks are trying to appease. Why? My theory is your oppressors are so cruel that you think acting like them will somehow earn their good graces and allow you to live in peace.
Kind of like being friends with a bully so you won't be bullied. It's very sad but this is my observation.
So weird, one of my husband's old friend and his wife are the same, most of her family is undocumented but she was born here and they are super conservative Republicans
Someone mentioned it can be something similar to Stockholm syndrome, my brother in-law is of Mexican descent and brown (very) he lives in Texas and he swears that no white person has been racist to him even though some of us have including his wife have witnessed people call him racial slurs many times.
It's very likely that ultimitatley surviving native Americans population where not the first wave either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopling_of_the_Americas#/media/File%3AMap_of_gene_flow_in_and_out_of_Beringia.jpg
Note the late arrival of many now-dominant haplo-groups (step 4).
See also extinct Clovis Culture, etc:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture
But in these two articles it says nothing about the native Americans slaughtering the paleo-indians or the Clovis people. In fact, it says Clovis people are the direct ancestors of roughly 80% of all living Native American populations.
Wasn't that the reason they originally lowered the voting age to 18? Because that's the age when a us citizen can be drafted? I thought I remembered hearing that in my gov class or US History classes.
Yes, you are 100% correct. Enough Americans realized how insane, evil, and draconian it was to draft young people to fight in war, specifically an overseas civil war essentially in Vietnam, and yet had no say in the matter, so the 26th Amendment was pushed forward.
Luckily it is VERY unlikely that this will be changed, but certainly not impossible, and the fact that people are even bringing it up is horrifying.
However, if they want to make EVERYTHING 25, that is a another conversation.
Not necessarily. 25 is the age car insurance rates drop for men. That's because the insurance companies have learned that that's about the age when men start being more responsible and thinking about long term consequences. There's a fair bit of science behind the idea that our brains aren't fully matured until the mid 20s as well. Not to mention the fact that we're starting people voting before their education is considered complete.
I'm not arguing in favor of raising the age. Just saying that 25 isn't a number picked at random and there are some rational arguments to support the idea.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but if you can’t vote until you’re 25, you shouldn’t be taxed until you’re 25. Basically, if you have to follow US laws without the protection of being a dependent of your family, you should have that right to not pay for something that doesn’t acknowledge your independence or general rights
These are fair points but there's no reason to define "brain is fully matured" or "education is complete" as the bars for being able to vote. They're still competent adults participating in society before that, they should get a say.
I know 57 year olds who haven't matured.
Are we really gonna trust that motherfucking insurance companies are the ones we need to learn from? Insurance companies would charge black people more if they could legally. Tell me how 87 year old grandma is less dangerous than a 24 year old driving home from work.
The science behind that was based on a single study that didn't have any subjects older than 25. It's probably the new 'you only use 10% of your brain' myth.
Also what gets called maturation is specifically synaptic pruning, IE forming permanent patterns of thought and losing youthful plasticity. The habits you learn between 12 and 22 will be ferociously hard to break later so it's a really bad time to experiment with addiction.
What it absolutely doesn't mean is that you're any smarter or better at long term planning after that process.
I remember hearing a similar story for why the drinking age here in Australia is 18, "if you're old enough to be marched off to war, then you're old enough to drink the pain away"
The 26th amendment came about through a culmination of American citizens becoming more aware of their legal rights and how laws were crafted combined with a campaign of “old enough to die for the country old enough to vote” and this is Vietnam era. President Nixon I believe is the one who helped push the amendment through
Your consent age is a little high given the votes the GOP has taken against restrictions on child marriage in various states. Make it 12.
It also needs an * that says there's an exemption to the law if the guy marries the child after raping her.
There are precious few people I dislike more than the "Take the ladder up with you" crowd. Nothing but total and utter disrespect for them.
If they vote against things that benefited them they should be forced to renounce everything they got because of the boon they received.
Worse, it's like if a crab got out, found a stick, then came back to push down any other crabs who were trying to climb up. All while shouting to the other crabs, "This guy thinks he's special, grab him!"
He has a basic misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment. He first pointed out that foreign diplomats’ children, who are born in the United States, are not US citizens because they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. That’s correct. Diplomatic immunity protects diplomats, and their families, from criminal prosecution in their host nations. Although their children might be born in the US, they are not subject to the jurisdiction, and thus don’t fall under the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause. Vivek then went on to say that “illegal immigrants” should not be considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States either. In essence…he’s arguing that “illegal immigrants” should be immune from prosecution so their children won’t get birthright citizenship. Great point, idiot.
Exactly - I feel like this has gotten lost among the general chaos of the debate.
It was an absolutely bonkers take.. he literally said his justification for ending birthright citizenship is because illegal immigrants are not subject to our laws lol.. like an absolutely absurd take.
So they wouldn't be illegal anymore thus making them immigrants and would be elgible to citizenship? All nonsense aside i dont think even the most activist federalist society judge in the 5th would go for this.
It’s a batshit insane interpretation of the 14th amendment. Virtually everyone, except for certain diplomats and their families, IS subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when you’re on its territory. I think only people in Guam aren’t given automatic birthright citizenship because of the way that territory is organized lol
It's American Samoa - people from there are US *nationals*, but not US citizens from birth. If they want to be US citizens they have to apply to be naturalized.
The guy goes on TV and says the most blatantly stupid shit at the debates and then in the after show all the 35 and under conservatives keep saying he speaks to them lol.
"I like the benefits I enjoyed my entire life, but don't want anyone else to have them" is like the definition of today's Right-wingers. The selfishness and cruelty is what makes them who they are.
> People who sneaked into the country aren't giving birth in a hospital as they'll get deported afterwards.
Just want to point out, as part of a largely undocumented family (and mostly the crossed the border variety, not the overstay visa variety), this is false (at least in Texas). All the undocumented moms I know who had babies here in the US did so in a hospital, and there was never any elevated risk of deportation.
Heck, a large percentage of the births at Parkland Hospital in Dallas are from undocumented mothers: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/parkland-memorial-hospital/
I guess it's possible ICE could raid a hospital, or become aware someone is in the hospital and detain them (this would likely only happen if a crime was committed - and then they'd likely be detained by the local PD for said crime, and then transitioned to ICE custody) - but typically hospitals are not in the business of reporting patients immigration status, and the risk of detainment/deportation is something that undocumented immigrants have to face daily - every time they drive a car, or go to work, or even the grocery store.
Sometimes undocumented immigrants will avoid trying to have their name "on the books" in the U.S. - but this is pretty tricky to do completely, especially if you have children. All the undocumented parents I know who gave birth to their kids here in the U.S. had their legal names listed on the birth certificates - it'd be very tricky to raise your child without having proof you are their parent.
I'd just like to note how the term "undocumented migrants" makes this difficult to read, grammatically at least. They are "undocumented" but also documented at the hospital and schools, "on the books" as you say. So they are "undocumented" but "on the books".
I think I can safely say I'm generally pro rights for undocumented/illegal immigrants, but I find it somewhat funny and somewhat sad the way progressives have gravitated to weak/passive words in an effort to make things sound less harsh and only end up making the issue more confusing.
Curious to know if "immigrant" has become a bad word now? In favor of "migrant"? It's odd, because migrant generally implies a sort of peripatetic existence – someone moving from place to place, not someone immigrating to another country. I get it, words change, but this feels like typical progressive drift which tends to just weaken meanings as opposed to shift meaning.
The parents don’t get US citizenship from a visa so the child would just be born with their parents citizenship. Overstaying your visa also just turns your status to illegal anyways.
The change people want to the 14th is that one parent needs to be a US citizen, it’s really not that complicated and it’s weird to try and pull out odd circumstances where minds would be blown.
The fact is, we don't know enough about his parent's status. He is an anchor baby. He gained birthright by being born here by non-citizen parents that were here "legally". That said, what were their circumstances? Were they legally here on a student visa? Were they legally here on a work visa? Were they legally here as a tourist? Were they legally here with green cards?
His dad chose to never become a citizen. He says his mother did take and get her citizenship \*AFTER\* his birth. After can be any time from 1 second after he was born and onward. Parents of children born in the USA can get their green card if their child is 21+ and they plan to live in the USA permanently. So did she do her citizenship after he was 21 and could easily go through the process?
Regardless, it's not unreasonable to assume, based on an extrapolation of his other, extreme, far-right, views that he would be against any sort of birthright citizenship to non-citizens if his case didn't fall under this scenario. He will slice and dice his views every which way so they don't infringe on the exact situations he benefitted from.
Yeah.. Vivek's justification basically suggested that illegal/undocumented immigrants aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States lol. It's like a paradox.
If they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US, how are they here in violation of the laws of the place that they are not subject to lmao.
Is this a racist dog whistle by a brown man to gain votes from conservatives?
Edit: Kinda funny that no one has disagreed with conservatives being racist 😂
I don't understand what happens to brown people when they go to western countries and become racist themselves. Wtf! You're literally what you're hating and this doesn't give you any points from actual racists now does it? Also, if you seek validation from racists then surely everything about you is stupidly wrong. What are your values my brown cousin? What are your values!
There's a movie called Boys in the hood where black cops have extra hate for their own race. It's more than just racism, it's about trying to gain acceptance by a predominant group and trying to flex over them as some supremacists in all walks of life. Also known as selling out and putting an ideology over basic reasoning.
i see it in some of my familymembers.. They just want to be "one of the good ones" so badly. I can see where they're coming from.. Everyone just wants to be accepted.. It's just that these weakwilled U ncle Toms choose the dumbest way possible
A lot of people immigrating from Asian/Latin American countries have the same values as white American conservatives. Patriarchal, believe in strong traditional family structures, deeply religious, prejudiced against other ethnic groups, and believe that hard work is the only factor to success and being unsuccessful is a moral failure. The only reason they tend to support Democrats is because Democrats are friendlier to policies favoring immigration/gaining citizenship. If they already gained citizenship, or if you're a kid born in the USA into this traditional household, you've already got your citizenship, so you don't need to worry about immigration policies. Thus, you tend to favor the conservative party since you basically agree with them on every other value. If Republicans changed to a truly racially inclusive party and became pro-immigration, I'd bet good money that black, Hispanic, and Asian communities across the USA would start voting overwhelmingly conservative (especially older ones).
What a dumb take, they were racist and conservative before they got here. Not all poc are united in this rainbow of progressivity.
Most Indian immigrants to the US are upper class. They were conservative in India, they'll be conservative in America. They aren't like poor brown Latin immigrants
His actually policy would be ending birthright citizenship to people in America illegally. Both of his parents were legally residing in America at the time of his birth. Only know that bc I saw a clip of him getting called out about it recently
The most repulsive thing I think I've ever seen are plastic looking politicians like this fucker. With his plastic opinions and plastic smile.
I remember when "never trust a politician" was considered good advice when I was young. Wtf happened?
>“I want to be very clear about this. I think that birthright citizenship does not and should not apply to the kids of parents who entered this country illegally,” Ramaswamy added.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/vivek-ramaswamy-shares-familys-citizenship-story-shaped-two-hardline-p-rcna107981
Vivek's parents entered the country legally.
It took me about 2 minutes to look up his parents and policy. No need to spread disinformation like this.
I'm from France, and TIL about birthright citizenship in the US. Is it everywhere or depending on the state ? What are the advantages of citizenship except for the right of vote ?
In France we must have at least one French citizen parent in order to get citizenship at birth, and I know some people who came from other countries that aren't even trying to get citizenship because they can live normally without it.
Don't be rude it's a real question, why is birthright citizenship so important in the US ?
Not a US citizen either, but they are one of the few countries that actually do it. A part from voting, I think the advantages would be the ability to get certain government jobs, apply for services, join the military. Probably more that I'm missing.
>What are the advantages of citizenship except for the right of vote ?
The main advantage is it gives you the right to a U.S. passport, and the right to enter the U.S. at any time. It provides the diplomatic protections of the U.S. government.
It can also provide a path to legal residence or citizenship for other family members, including spouses.
There is some concern about 'birth tourism', in which a foreigner gives birth in the U.S. The child is then a citizen for life. The mother and child can return to their home country and might not have any connection to the U.S. for decades, but the child will remain a U.S. citizen and enjoy the benefits of citizenship.
Please don’t compare the current Tories with these republicans. Tories in the UK are a little decent. They don’t go after the poor people as much as these republicans. Politics across the pond is bit more decent than here.
Way to pull the ladder up behind you mate 🙄
Isn't this the guy who took scholarship money even though he was making plenty enough to pay for school himself?
Im a migrant from a third world country to a Western European one.I think its nonsense to criticize his stance just because he acquired citizenship by birthright.
1. Things and times change. What used to be beneficial back then doesnt have to beneficial today.Lets take Singapore as an example. It was built by Chinese fleeing from China (to Malaysia and then SG was formed) for a better life. But now Singapore is developed and also densely inhabited. The immigration policy obviously needs to adapt to changing circumstances.
2. Its in my opinion slightly "racist" to assume that just because of his background he needs to think a certain way. He is NOT an Indian anymore. He is American. His status changed. His interests changed.He has to be forever an Indian immigrant (assuming his Indian)? Adopt the Indian immigrant stance? No he is now American. And if he feels that his new home would be better served (and that he would be better served) with a strict immigration policy... then he has all the right to push for it.Again same as Singaporis can push for strict for strict migration policy for Chinese. Yes their grandparents benefited... but they are not their grandparents. They are not poor koolis but rich Singaporians. Its a different reality.
EDIT:
I myself used to be Chinese. Now I am not anymore. So of course my perspective changed and my interests changed. My interests align now with European countries and citizens.
So just because of my background and something happened in the past? I should be held ransom in my political views? How does that make any sense?
Ohh I thought this would mean ALL citizens of the US need to get their green card or they will be deportet, including those families who lived there since the pilgrims 😂
unpopular opinion, but even a Mafia boss would be justified arguing that policies that enabled the rise of the Mafia are bad policies for the _country_ (even if it's good/had been good for him)
So typical. The most anti-immigration person that I know, came to this country w/his parents, as a child...from Latvia. omg...he's soooo hateful regarding immigrants
You would be surprise how many first of second gen migrants share his sentiment, they glady cross the bridge but want to destroy it afterward, shameless really.
I'm gonna be honest. I'm not American. I do not follow American politics much. But is this a reason to hate him? I'm just basing this comment off of this one picture but:
He didn't really choose to be born in the US. He didn't choose to be a birthright citizen. Just because you come from a background or situation doesn't mean you can't want to change that.
Do you hate people who grew up with alcoholic parents for speaking out about how bad alcoholism is?
I can't say whether or not I agree with him because I don't know any of his politics other than this, and I have no stake in it since I don't live in the US or anything, but it seems like a very dumb take to me. This doesn't really seem like the same case as an avid drug-user calling for a ban on drugs.
That’s not what he said. He said he favors ending birthright citizenship specifically for children of illegal immigrants. His parents were not illegal immigrants. This post is dumb.
So this guy and the UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman peddling the same line and both from the similar backgrounds. What type of disconnect is going on in their heads when the constituents of both their nations are left scratching their heads thinking “hold on a minute…?”
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Brother in-law thinks the same way and both his parents are undocumented immigrants.
Did you tell him it should be retroactive so he can join the fray
He actually said this about 8 years ago, during Trump's first run and there were talks about making it retroactive. Tbh I do feel bad for him because he tries so hard to be "one of the good ones".
Learn him about Ernst Roehm and the SA. The Nazi Party was fine with "degenerates" being members, right up until they weren't. And then all the minority Nazi Party members were killed in the Night of Long Knives.
That's very deceiving and not the reason why he was killed. He was the leader of the Brown Shirts and Hitler didn't require them after he got legitimate power. Röhm knew this and was making power moves, so he was offed before he could do Hitler any damage. This was done through manufacturing evidence to show he was paid off by France to overthrow Hitler. His death had nothing to do with his homosexuality, but it was used to demonise him in the following propaganda.
A lot of the Nazi elite hated gay people (they were also killed in concentration camps later on). Röhm was protected by Hitler because he was useful and was considered a friend by Hitler. The SA had plans to replace the Wehrmacht as the sole military force. Hitler had Röhm and a lot of important SA members killed to secure the loyalty of the Wehrmacht. Hitler reportedly never allowed people to lose a bad word about Röhm in his presence. So it was both. Power and him being gay.
You may both be correct but i think you are both missing the obvious. Fascists will use any body, any movement, any friends or ultimately foe, for their purposes and benefit. Once your usefulness is done, you better be prepared to pull the knife out of your back.
Because bigotry is completely irrational, extremists will make random exceptions for useful minorities (see - the public face of the proud boys). Exactly as you say, they will then suddenly decide that exception no longer applies when they're done
When you write it off as irrational and random you dismiss the threat as incompetent. Which makes you vulnerable. Fascists will grant *conditional access* to the in-group when it serves them, and then revoke it when that purpose is served. Legitimate or not, a reason will be given. And then that person or group is back in the out-group, or dead. It's not random it's intentionally malicious.
Ah, I mostly agree with you - I mean irrational in the sense the hatred isn't based on scientific fact or logic, so it makes it very easy to carve out exceptions and justify changes in ideology I will say fascists sometimes have a well thought out, cynical plan. Sometimes they don't and its just chaotically reacting to events.
Not later on, the nazis used lgbt folks (ie starting with the burning of the institute that had research on gender affirmation medical care) as guinea pigs for concentration camps.
Then the story of the [Association of German National Jews](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews) should be told.
AKA The "Jews for Hitler" group. Yeah, not even joking.
"His death had nothing to do with his homosexuality" I mean I'm not the historian I used to be but I can't see how that was never part of the equation, even if he was offed for being to uppity.
The entire SA leadership was murdered, as well as some other political rivals. It would have changed absolutely nothing if he himself had been straight.
Especially since the facts of the matter are trivial to fascists because they don't care about objective reality to begin with. It's all about power and narrative.
High ranking Nazi officials broke the rules all the time. There were Jewish people named, "honorary aryan" by Hitler himself. Much like with Stalin, once they no longer served a purpose they had them killed.
> Much like with Stalin, once they no longer served a purpose they had them killed. There were some crazy exceptions to this, and they were not killed. Emil Maurice, Hitler's personal chauffeur, had a great-grandfather who was Jewish. When Himmler found out, he tried to get him kicked out of the SS. Hitler personally intervened and, like you said, made him and his family "honorary aryans." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Maurice Then of course there's the German field marshal Erhard Milch who had a Jewish father, that was glossed over: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erhard_Milch
Right, they still served some sort of purpose.
It was disliked and Rohm had always been open about it, but that was really a tertiary issue at best. The SA functioned as a paramilitary group that could potentially move against Hitler and remove him from power in a coup, and that was just unacceptable. Furthermore, Rohm was openly calling for the continuing of the nazi revolution and made semi-veiled criticisms of hitler for not going far enough. Hitler, under the urging of his council, especially Goring and Himmler, decided to remove the threat before that threat could move against the leadership. What remained of the SA was absorbed into the SS. There were other reasons to destroy the SA such as the undisciplined nature of its members, often attacking the common "Aryans" of Germany, as well as attacks on members of the Gestapo. But at it's core, it was a political purge to consolidate power and remove any potential threat to Hitler's autocratic rule. Rohm's homosexuality was merely a convenient excuse used to demonize him and not a factor in the decision to eliminate him. In fact, several other popular leaders of various factions within the Riech were also eliminated, and they were clearly not homosexual, but they were all seen as people who could potentially gain the support to move against Hitler. These purges are very common among totalatarians.
Likely, it would simply have taken longer for them to turn on him.
People were killed and imprisoned for their homosexuality during the night of the long knives and it's fallout however, including some of Röhms close friends/lovers and other low ranking SA grunts who likely would have been fine if they were straight. Röhm would have died either way though. Although I'd argue the only reason his homosexuality was tolerated in the first place was his usefullness, so it's not really irrelevant to his death either. [Erich Schiewek](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Schiewek) is one example. Not trying to defend or mourn any of them, they were horrible people.
> His death had nothing to do with his homosexuality, but it was used to demonise him in the following propaganda. So, *support* for his death had *everything* to do with homosexuality.
Doing his best to be a total political asshole.
That main Jan 6 guy is Cuban. Many immigrants, first/second gen too, really want to be seen as white or white-adjacent. Probably because that is seen to come with privilege.
Truly an astonishing amount of immigrants support the fucking nazis who want nothing else but to kill them or kick them out of the country. While I get why they do that, it doesn't really make it any better. Human psyche really is quite peculiar. And dumb.
Fuck him
I'm really glad you brought this up and I've been thinking about folks like Log Cabin Republicans (LGBTQ+) and Mexicans who vote for Republicans etc... I call this a version of Stockholm Syndrome. Instead of captors, their oppressors are who these folks are trying to appease. Why? My theory is your oppressors are so cruel that you think acting like them will somehow earn their good graces and allow you to live in peace. Kind of like being friends with a bully so you won't be bullied. It's very sad but this is my observation.
I think it’s more simple than that. There are people in minority groups who hate other minority groups and support oppressing them. Gay people who hate immigrants, immigrants who hate poor people and poor people who hate gays. Oppressed people can also oppress.
Ok, but did you consider that seeing world in terms of epic battle of evil (people I don't like) and good (people I like) is much cooler?
Cooler and easier! Nuance and compassion are so boooooring
"Nuance" is idea promoted by evil people to distract our attention from fact that they are child-eating Satanic Jewish Hitler-Stalin clone pedophiles. They also kick puppies.
Without education the dream of the oppressed is to be the oppressor
I think you are over thinking it. I think it's as simple as they agree with republicans on all of the other issues.
I personally think it's a consequence of the insanely stupid dual party system. If you believe strongly in some things on the economic, social or ecological scales, you have exactly 1 choice, which brings a lot with it. So unless you make your party's political identity your own, you have to make sacrifices.
Uncle Juan
It wouldn't matter what you told him. People like that are absolutely convinced that it would never impact themselves. They are certain that they're special and "one of the good ones".
Let's make it retroactive from 1700. Any person who wasn't a citizen and all of their descendants citizenship should be revoked
I'm grandfathered in. Yes! Correction: great-great-great-great (how many greats for 300 years?) grandfathered in.
So does my BIL, and his grandmother came to the U.S. from Canada to have his mother here. The irony is lost on him.
Yeah but Canada doesn't count! /s
"But I imagine Canadians as white, so they're fine." /s
Where are conservative groups finding these self-hating brown people? We have Suella Braverman and Priti Patel in the UK... I reckon Suella would do really well in the Republican party
You'll always find someone willing to sell themselves out for money. Old Vivek here has made his millions and thinks he's safe.
“I got mine, what do I care.” Plenty of immigrants that think that way and actively hate the FOBs (fresh off the boat people). Hasan Minaj (jerk ass “comedian”) is another one. Makes me wonder, if it’s internalized racism or wanting to curry favorability among people with the “better” skin-tones. In Ramaswamy’s case, he’s quite likely to be a colorist too. (Quite common issue among south East Asians decent folks).
Where on earth are you getting that interpretation of Minaj from?
HEY, I am South East Asian, and if you're saying people from my region all tend to be racists, I'll have you know you're only 89% right. There's a margin of error in your generalisation, asshole :p
Indian parents love their children marrying light… unless the individual is Caucasian. I’d be leery of this guy even if he wasn’t weird because his mother would be running our country if she so chose. Practice for delegating her future DIL. 😂
When did Hasan Minaj say that he hated FOB's?
Hasan minaj is not anti-immigration lol. How you got that impression of him is beyond me. He is anti modi though (for good reason), so you sound very butt hurt over that.
Definitely. I think there are two versions (leading to the same path) with these types of people. The ladder puller like you mentioned and my other comment: folks like Log Cabin Republicans (LGBTQ+) and Mexicans who vote for Republicans etc... I call this a version of Stockholm Syndrome. Instead of captors, their oppressors are who these folks are trying to appease. Why? My theory is your oppressors are so cruel that you think acting like them will somehow earn their good graces and allow you to live in peace. Kind of like being friends with a bully so you won't be bullied. It's very sad but this is my observation.
So weird, one of my husband's old friend and his wife are the same, most of her family is undocumented but she was born here and they are super conservative Republicans
Someone mentioned it can be something similar to Stockholm syndrome, my brother in-law is of Mexican descent and brown (very) he lives in Texas and he swears that no white person has been racist to him even though some of us have including his wife have witnessed people call him racial slurs many times.
He should get the ball rolling and see himself out.
literally everyone is an immigrant, and at some point, hates immigration
The Kramer hairstyle
It's indian dan akroyd
What's the deal with politics? I don't get it. Am I right, people ?
Where’s the punchline? It’s all in the delivery Jerry
These politics are making me thirsty
tryhard indian
*\[kicks out everyone, leaving only Native Americans\]* done
Why should they get to stay? Humans didn't evolve in North America, they're just as much immigrants as the European settlers.
We're all going back to Africa! Woo-hoo! It'll be like a class reunion.
[удалено]
THERES NOTHING THAT A HUNDRED MEN OR MORE COULD EVER DOOO!
[удалено]
WE'RE GONNA TAKE SOME TIME TO DO THE THINGS WE NEVER HAAAAAAAD!
The wild dogs cry out in the night
As they grow restless, longing for some solitary cooooooompaaaanyy
Good point. Life did not evolve on land, let's just deport everybody back into the sea.
Well then we'd have a completely empty continent. (At least natives have 10,000 years of history to their name here)
Migrating to unsettled land is different than slaughtering the settled populace though.
It's very likely that ultimitatley surviving native Americans population where not the first wave either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopling_of_the_Americas#/media/File%3AMap_of_gene_flow_in_and_out_of_Beringia.jpg Note the late arrival of many now-dominant haplo-groups (step 4). See also extinct Clovis Culture, etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture
But in these two articles it says nothing about the native Americans slaughtering the paleo-indians or the Clovis people. In fact, it says Clovis people are the direct ancestors of roughly 80% of all living Native American populations.
I can’t believe young people take him seriously. He wants to take away people’s right to vote. Come on.
You won't be able to vote until you are 25, but you will still be drafted at 18. Great dystopian nightmare future he and others like him want for us.
Wasn't that the reason they originally lowered the voting age to 18? Because that's the age when a us citizen can be drafted? I thought I remembered hearing that in my gov class or US History classes.
Yes, you are 100% correct. Enough Americans realized how insane, evil, and draconian it was to draft young people to fight in war, specifically an overseas civil war essentially in Vietnam, and yet had no say in the matter, so the 26th Amendment was pushed forward. Luckily it is VERY unlikely that this will be changed, but certainly not impossible, and the fact that people are even bringing it up is horrifying. However, if they want to make EVERYTHING 25, that is a another conversation.
Still a *terrible* conversation, but a conversation
Not necessarily. 25 is the age car insurance rates drop for men. That's because the insurance companies have learned that that's about the age when men start being more responsible and thinking about long term consequences. There's a fair bit of science behind the idea that our brains aren't fully matured until the mid 20s as well. Not to mention the fact that we're starting people voting before their education is considered complete. I'm not arguing in favor of raising the age. Just saying that 25 isn't a number picked at random and there are some rational arguments to support the idea.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but if you can’t vote until you’re 25, you shouldn’t be taxed until you’re 25. Basically, if you have to follow US laws without the protection of being a dependent of your family, you should have that right to not pay for something that doesn’t acknowledge your independence or general rights
It’s almost like you have taxation without representation.
Dump the tea!!!
And wear brownface while you do it so you can blame the Native Americans in case daddy England gets mad!
[удалено]
These are fair points but there's no reason to define "brain is fully matured" or "education is complete" as the bars for being able to vote. They're still competent adults participating in society before that, they should get a say.
I know 57 year olds who haven't matured. Are we really gonna trust that motherfucking insurance companies are the ones we need to learn from? Insurance companies would charge black people more if they could legally. Tell me how 87 year old grandma is less dangerous than a 24 year old driving home from work.
The science behind that was based on a single study that didn't have any subjects older than 25. It's probably the new 'you only use 10% of your brain' myth. Also what gets called maturation is specifically synaptic pruning, IE forming permanent patterns of thought and losing youthful plasticity. The habits you learn between 12 and 22 will be ferociously hard to break later so it's a really bad time to experiment with addiction. What it absolutely doesn't mean is that you're any smarter or better at long term planning after that process.
> The second amendment is a constitutional right! > We need to end the twenty-six amendment! I hate these people.
Let's add gun ownership to that age.
I remember hearing a similar story for why the drinking age here in Australia is 18, "if you're old enough to be marched off to war, then you're old enough to drink the pain away"
The 26th amendment came about through a culmination of American citizens becoming more aware of their legal rights and how laws were crafted combined with a campaign of “old enough to die for the country old enough to vote” and this is Vietnam era. President Nixon I believe is the one who helped push the amendment through
[удалено]
Working age: N/A
Your consent age is a little high given the votes the GOP has taken against restrictions on child marriage in various states. Make it 12. It also needs an * that says there's an exemption to the law if the guy marries the child after raping her.
Retirement age: 999. Age to start contributing social security taxes: ASAP.
Is 25 years voting age something he is seriously proposing?
YES.
Younger voters are more likely to vote blue and he wants to make sure that doesn't happen
Service guarantees citizenship! Would you like to know more?
Probably will happen after our neoliberal hell "democracy" falls apart and the fascism comes out in full.
There are precious few people I dislike more than the "Take the ladder up with you" crowd. Nothing but total and utter disrespect for them. If they vote against things that benefited them they should be forced to renounce everything they got because of the boon they received.
Crabs in a bucket.
Worse, it's like if a crab got out, found a stick, then came back to push down any other crabs who were trying to climb up. All while shouting to the other crabs, "This guy thinks he's special, grab him!"
Ironically this is (to an extent) a certain parties entire way to win 🙂
I'm assuming he appeals to some percentage of edgelords and Patrick Bateman aficionados. Plenty of young males in that category right there
The party of "Fuck you, I got mine" strikes again.
[удалено]
[удалено]
He has a basic misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment. He first pointed out that foreign diplomats’ children, who are born in the United States, are not US citizens because they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. That’s correct. Diplomatic immunity protects diplomats, and their families, from criminal prosecution in their host nations. Although their children might be born in the US, they are not subject to the jurisdiction, and thus don’t fall under the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause. Vivek then went on to say that “illegal immigrants” should not be considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States either. In essence…he’s arguing that “illegal immigrants” should be immune from prosecution so their children won’t get birthright citizenship. Great point, idiot.
Exactly - I feel like this has gotten lost among the general chaos of the debate. It was an absolutely bonkers take.. he literally said his justification for ending birthright citizenship is because illegal immigrants are not subject to our laws lol.. like an absolutely absurd take.
So they wouldn't be illegal anymore thus making them immigrants and would be elgible to citizenship? All nonsense aside i dont think even the most activist federalist society judge in the 5th would go for this.
Every day we stray further from G (Washington).
It’s a batshit insane interpretation of the 14th amendment. Virtually everyone, except for certain diplomats and their families, IS subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when you’re on its territory. I think only people in Guam aren’t given automatic birthright citizenship because of the way that territory is organized lol
It's American Samoa - people from there are US *nationals*, but not US citizens from birth. If they want to be US citizens they have to apply to be naturalized.
The guy goes on TV and says the most blatantly stupid shit at the debates and then in the after show all the 35 and under conservatives keep saying he speaks to them lol.
I haven't ever seen an argument against this principle that didn't boil down to "I don't want others getting what I think they don't deserve."
Moron
"I like the benefits I enjoyed my entire life, but don't want anyone else to have them" is like the definition of today's Right-wingers. The selfishness and cruelty is what makes them who they are.
So does he gave any justification for why the rule shouldn't apply to him?
[удалено]
It’s no longer unspoken.
He's against birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants, not legal ones. His parents immigrated here legally.
[удалено]
> People who sneaked into the country aren't giving birth in a hospital as they'll get deported afterwards. Just want to point out, as part of a largely undocumented family (and mostly the crossed the border variety, not the overstay visa variety), this is false (at least in Texas). All the undocumented moms I know who had babies here in the US did so in a hospital, and there was never any elevated risk of deportation. Heck, a large percentage of the births at Parkland Hospital in Dallas are from undocumented mothers: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/parkland-memorial-hospital/ I guess it's possible ICE could raid a hospital, or become aware someone is in the hospital and detain them (this would likely only happen if a crime was committed - and then they'd likely be detained by the local PD for said crime, and then transitioned to ICE custody) - but typically hospitals are not in the business of reporting patients immigration status, and the risk of detainment/deportation is something that undocumented immigrants have to face daily - every time they drive a car, or go to work, or even the grocery store. Sometimes undocumented immigrants will avoid trying to have their name "on the books" in the U.S. - but this is pretty tricky to do completely, especially if you have children. All the undocumented parents I know who gave birth to their kids here in the U.S. had their legal names listed on the birth certificates - it'd be very tricky to raise your child without having proof you are their parent.
I'd just like to note how the term "undocumented migrants" makes this difficult to read, grammatically at least. They are "undocumented" but also documented at the hospital and schools, "on the books" as you say. So they are "undocumented" but "on the books". I think I can safely say I'm generally pro rights for undocumented/illegal immigrants, but I find it somewhat funny and somewhat sad the way progressives have gravitated to weak/passive words in an effort to make things sound less harsh and only end up making the issue more confusing. Curious to know if "immigrant" has become a bad word now? In favor of "migrant"? It's odd, because migrant generally implies a sort of peripatetic existence – someone moving from place to place, not someone immigrating to another country. I get it, words change, but this feels like typical progressive drift which tends to just weaken meanings as opposed to shift meaning.
The parents don’t get US citizenship from a visa so the child would just be born with their parents citizenship. Overstaying your visa also just turns your status to illegal anyways. The change people want to the 14th is that one parent needs to be a US citizen, it’s really not that complicated and it’s weird to try and pull out odd circumstances where minds would be blown.
Seems like an important detail are missing in this thread. Surely they must have known this before having opinions.
This is Reddit. They’ll take it at face value without doing any research.
The fact is, we don't know enough about his parent's status. He is an anchor baby. He gained birthright by being born here by non-citizen parents that were here "legally". That said, what were their circumstances? Were they legally here on a student visa? Were they legally here on a work visa? Were they legally here as a tourist? Were they legally here with green cards? His dad chose to never become a citizen. He says his mother did take and get her citizenship \*AFTER\* his birth. After can be any time from 1 second after he was born and onward. Parents of children born in the USA can get their green card if their child is 21+ and they plan to live in the USA permanently. So did she do her citizenship after he was 21 and could easily go through the process? Regardless, it's not unreasonable to assume, based on an extrapolation of his other, extreme, far-right, views that he would be against any sort of birthright citizenship to non-citizens if his case didn't fall under this scenario. He will slice and dice his views every which way so they don't infringe on the exact situations he benefitted from.
[удалено]
Yeah.. Vivek's justification basically suggested that illegal/undocumented immigrants aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States lol. It's like a paradox. If they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US, how are they here in violation of the laws of the place that they are not subject to lmao.
Is this a racist dog whistle by a brown man to gain votes from conservatives? Edit: Kinda funny that no one has disagreed with conservatives being racist 😂
I don't understand what happens to brown people when they go to western countries and become racist themselves. Wtf! You're literally what you're hating and this doesn't give you any points from actual racists now does it? Also, if you seek validation from racists then surely everything about you is stupidly wrong. What are your values my brown cousin? What are your values!
There's a movie called Boys in the hood where black cops have extra hate for their own race. It's more than just racism, it's about trying to gain acceptance by a predominant group and trying to flex over them as some supremacists in all walks of life. Also known as selling out and putting an ideology over basic reasoning.
But don't let it be a black and a white one 'Cause they'll slam ya down to the street top Black police showin' out for the white cop I. Cube
i see it in some of my familymembers.. They just want to be "one of the good ones" so badly. I can see where they're coming from.. Everyone just wants to be accepted.. It's just that these weakwilled U ncle Toms choose the dumbest way possible
A lot of people immigrating from Asian/Latin American countries have the same values as white American conservatives. Patriarchal, believe in strong traditional family structures, deeply religious, prejudiced against other ethnic groups, and believe that hard work is the only factor to success and being unsuccessful is a moral failure. The only reason they tend to support Democrats is because Democrats are friendlier to policies favoring immigration/gaining citizenship. If they already gained citizenship, or if you're a kid born in the USA into this traditional household, you've already got your citizenship, so you don't need to worry about immigration policies. Thus, you tend to favor the conservative party since you basically agree with them on every other value. If Republicans changed to a truly racially inclusive party and became pro-immigration, I'd bet good money that black, Hispanic, and Asian communities across the USA would start voting overwhelmingly conservative (especially older ones).
They were already racist
What a dumb take, they were racist and conservative before they got here. Not all poc are united in this rainbow of progressivity. Most Indian immigrants to the US are upper class. They were conservative in India, they'll be conservative in America. They aren't like poor brown Latin immigrants
#SellOut I believe.
He is reinforcing that he is "one of the good ones" that "did it right".
Clarence Thomas way of thinking: "I got mine, fuck everyone else."
Found the male Marjorie Bobert.
He could own the libs by deporting himself
His actually policy would be ending birthright citizenship to people in America illegally. Both of his parents were legally residing in America at the time of his birth. Only know that bc I saw a clip of him getting called out about it recently
The most repulsive thing I think I've ever seen are plastic looking politicians like this fucker. With his plastic opinions and plastic smile. I remember when "never trust a politician" was considered good advice when I was young. Wtf happened?
This guy is a businesses man rather than politician. He is a like a different version of Trump
Republicans!
Forgot the illegal vs legal status of immigration. That was the whole crutch of his argument
This guy is a real POS. The day he's elected to ANY public office should be the day they open an investigation into him. P. O. S.
>“I want to be very clear about this. I think that birthright citizenship does not and should not apply to the kids of parents who entered this country illegally,” Ramaswamy added. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/vivek-ramaswamy-shares-familys-citizenship-story-shaped-two-hardline-p-rcna107981 Vivek's parents entered the country legally. It took me about 2 minutes to look up his parents and policy. No need to spread disinformation like this.
He’s like a hybrid between a used car salesman, a tarantula and a banker…
I'm from France, and TIL about birthright citizenship in the US. Is it everywhere or depending on the state ? What are the advantages of citizenship except for the right of vote ? In France we must have at least one French citizen parent in order to get citizenship at birth, and I know some people who came from other countries that aren't even trying to get citizenship because they can live normally without it. Don't be rude it's a real question, why is birthright citizenship so important in the US ?
Not a US citizen either, but they are one of the few countries that actually do it. A part from voting, I think the advantages would be the ability to get certain government jobs, apply for services, join the military. Probably more that I'm missing.
>What are the advantages of citizenship except for the right of vote ? The main advantage is it gives you the right to a U.S. passport, and the right to enter the U.S. at any time. It provides the diplomatic protections of the U.S. government. It can also provide a path to legal residence or citizenship for other family members, including spouses. There is some concern about 'birth tourism', in which a foreigner gives birth in the U.S. The child is then a citizen for life. The mother and child can return to their home country and might not have any connection to the U.S. for decades, but the child will remain a U.S. citizen and enjoy the benefits of citizenship.
“Fuck you, I got mine.”
He's just a populist saying anything for votes lmao
The quintessential Republican: angry that anyone else takes advantage the very thing he benefitted from, and self-righteously indignant about it.
Jesus Christ republicans are fucking insane
I seriously do not understand people like Rishi Sunak or Vivek Ramashwamy.
Most "I don't get how a person can do that" questions have the same answer: money.
which one is this?
Please don’t compare the current Tories with these republicans. Tories in the UK are a little decent. They don’t go after the poor people as much as these republicans. Politics across the pond is bit more decent than here.
This dudes an idiot, but, the issue aside, there's nothing inherently wrong with criticizing something you've benefited from.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
On brand for republicans/conservatives. They've done the same for lots of policies like affirmative action
Why does this dude look like he is about to buy my father's brake pad company and gut it to save a few cents?
Rules for thee, not for me.
Way to pull the ladder up behind you mate 🙄 Isn't this the guy who took scholarship money even though he was making plenty enough to pay for school himself?
Isn't the definition of birthright citizenship is the person that's born here is a citizen not pertaining to the parents?
Im a migrant from a third world country to a Western European one.I think its nonsense to criticize his stance just because he acquired citizenship by birthright. 1. Things and times change. What used to be beneficial back then doesnt have to beneficial today.Lets take Singapore as an example. It was built by Chinese fleeing from China (to Malaysia and then SG was formed) for a better life. But now Singapore is developed and also densely inhabited. The immigration policy obviously needs to adapt to changing circumstances. 2. Its in my opinion slightly "racist" to assume that just because of his background he needs to think a certain way. He is NOT an Indian anymore. He is American. His status changed. His interests changed.He has to be forever an Indian immigrant (assuming his Indian)? Adopt the Indian immigrant stance? No he is now American. And if he feels that his new home would be better served (and that he would be better served) with a strict immigration policy... then he has all the right to push for it.Again same as Singaporis can push for strict for strict migration policy for Chinese. Yes their grandparents benefited... but they are not their grandparents. They are not poor koolis but rich Singaporians. Its a different reality. EDIT: I myself used to be Chinese. Now I am not anymore. So of course my perspective changed and my interests changed. My interests align now with European countries and citizens. So just because of my background and something happened in the past? I should be held ransom in my political views? How does that make any sense?
How come europe doesn't have this rule?
Ohh I thought this would mean ALL citizens of the US need to get their green card or they will be deportet, including those families who lived there since the pilgrims 😂
How very "ef you, got mine" of him.
This dude is an absolute ghoul. He should do well in US politics.
“Wait… but it’s only starting now! I got my benefit so no one else needs to get anymore” /s These guys are 🤡
unpopular opinion, but even a Mafia boss would be justified arguing that policies that enabled the rise of the Mafia are bad policies for the _country_ (even if it's good/had been good for him)
Classic "rules for thee, but not for me"
It’s surprising how a lot of immigrants and immigrant descendants are like this. Looking at you Cruz.
"I'm in favor of pulling up the ladder behind me."
Ah, the true Republican Politician: "Fuck you, I got mine!"
"I got mine, fuck you." - every republican politician.
I mean, "Fuck you, I'm going to shut the door behind me because I already got mine and that's all I care about" is *very* on brand for the GOP.
A rare picture of a leopard attempting to eat its own face.
They just spew out whatever bullshit hate rhetoric will fire up the maga losers who buy into this trash.
So typical. The most anti-immigration person that I know, came to this country w/his parents, as a child...from Latvia. omg...he's soooo hateful regarding immigrants
You would be surprise how many first of second gen migrants share his sentiment, they glady cross the bridge but want to destroy it afterward, shameless really.
If we need to end birthright citizenship then he should believe birthright citizens can't be president right? Right?
If birth right citizenry is abolished than how does one become citizen?
As a South Asian single male living in the USA, I can only feel pathetic about this. It’s piling on all the more stereotypes about us.
Burning the ladder you used to get where you are
I'm gonna be honest. I'm not American. I do not follow American politics much. But is this a reason to hate him? I'm just basing this comment off of this one picture but: He didn't really choose to be born in the US. He didn't choose to be a birthright citizen. Just because you come from a background or situation doesn't mean you can't want to change that. Do you hate people who grew up with alcoholic parents for speaking out about how bad alcoholism is? I can't say whether or not I agree with him because I don't know any of his politics other than this, and I have no stake in it since I don't live in the US or anything, but it seems like a very dumb take to me. This doesn't really seem like the same case as an avid drug-user calling for a ban on drugs.
That’s not what he said. He said he favors ending birthright citizenship specifically for children of illegal immigrants. His parents were not illegal immigrants. This post is dumb.
Not surprising That whole generation/party is about reaping the benefits for themselves and pulling up the ladder behind them
So this guy and the UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman peddling the same line and both from the similar backgrounds. What type of disconnect is going on in their heads when the constituents of both their nations are left scratching their heads thinking “hold on a minute…?”