Immigration and border issues

[Qcman17]

Would be interesting... On the forum he sounds like he's 12, wonder how much more immature he sounds on a DM...

The scary part is he's a Boomer & he posts juvenile $hit like that. Speaking as another Boomer I want to change my category now LOL.

Sponsored

 

[Caballus]

I agree that if you are here illegally your child shouldn't be a citizen. That law doesn't make any sense.

In my opinion even if you are here legally but not a citizen your child shouldn't be a citizen. You should be required to be a citizen for your child to be an American citizen.

Take one step further...

Question. Why should anyone justify their citizenship according to what their parents or grandparents did, rather than what they themselves did?

Consideration:
Get rid of jus sang (citizenship by bloodline) and jus soli (citizenship by territory) and tie all citizenship to service.

In addition to needing to be born to at least one citizen parent, all born under the current constructs of jus sang or jus soli would have permanent residence rights (similar to what a foreign born legal resident has now--green card'ish). Perm. residence status would never expire for those born to citizens, but would not automatically afford full citizenship (cannot vote, cannot own a gun, cannot serve in public office, etc).

Full citizenship would require approved public service. Military service during time of war would be the highest level of citizenship credit. Teaching, infrastructure building, etc (for a specified period at a public wage) would also earn credit. Once full credit is earned, full citizenship is granted and can never be revoked.

The ONLY exception to service would be for those who are mentally or physically handicap to the point that it is impossible for them to contribute to society in ANY meaningful capacity.

Extreme? Maybe to some, but would go a long way toward getting rid of the "entitlement" attitude that seems to have become so common...

 

[Hack]

Take one step further...

Question. Why should anyone justify their citizenship according to what their parents or grandparents did, rather than what they themselves did?

Consideration:
Get rid of jus sang (citizenship by bloodline) and jus soli (citizenship by territory) and tie all citizenship to service.

In addition to needing to be born to at least one citizen parent, all born under the current constructs of jus sang or jus soli would have permanent residence rights (similar to what a foreign born legal resident has now--green card'ish). Perm. residence status would never expire for those born to citizens, but would not automatically afford full citizenship (cannot vote, cannot own a gun, cannot serve in public office, etc).

Full citizenship would require approved public service. Military service during time of war would be the highest level of citizenship credit. Teaching, infrastructure building, etc (for a specified period at a public wage) would also earn credit. Once full credit is earned, full citizenship is granted and can never be revoked.

The ONLY exception to service would be for those who are mentally or physically handicap to the point that it is impossible for them to contribute to society in ANY meaningful capacity.

Extreme? Maybe to some, but would go a long way toward getting rid of the "entitlement" attitude that seems to have become so common...

Robert Heinlein Starship Troopers is one notable example of an author recommending a system something like that. He also thought public flogging for crimes would be better than prison. When I read the novel as a child I loved those ideas. Now I have more reservations.

I don't pretend to know whether our society would be improved by those ideas. Frankly I like them. I just don't know how well it would function.

I don't think granting exceptions would be acceptable. Serve and be a full citizen, period. Everyone else would have fewer rights and responsibilities.

 

[Caballus]

Robert Heinlein Starship Troopers is one notable example of an author recommending a system something like that. He also thought public flogging for crimes would be better than prison. When I read the novel as a child I loved those ideas. Now I have more reservations.

I don't pretend to know whether our society would be improved by those ideas. Frankly I like them. I just don't know how well it would function.

I don't think granting exceptions would be acceptable. Serve and be a full citizen, period. Everyone else would have fewer rights and responsibilities.

Yeah, Heinlein's model offers plenty of points for consideration (the book, not the movie) though I agree that things like public flogging would be a step too far. The biggest point for consideration is that American citizenship should be earned and exceptions should be VERY limited, to the point of almost being non-existent. The lax system that supported draft dodging in the past would be an example of how NOT to administer the system.

 

[Hack]

Who knows? Public flogging might work really well.

 

[Caballus]

Who knows? Public flogging might work really well.

Spent enough time in places that do it to be turned off by it...

 

[kz]

Take one step further...

Question. Why should anyone justify their citizenship according to what their parents or grandparents did, rather than what they themselves did?

Consideration:
Get rid of jus sang (citizenship by bloodline) and jus soli (citizenship by territory) and tie all citizenship to service.

In addition to needing to be born to at least one citizen parent, all born under the current constructs of jus sang or jus soli would have permanent residence rights (similar to what a foreign born legal resident has now--green card'ish). Perm. residence status would never expire for those born to citizens, but would not automatically afford full citizenship (cannot vote, cannot own a gun, cannot serve in public office, etc).

Full citizenship would require approved public service. Military service during time of war would be the highest level of citizenship credit. Teaching, infrastructure building, etc (for a specified period at a public wage) would also earn credit. Once full credit is earned, full citizenship is granted and can never be revoked.

The ONLY exception to service would be for those who are mentally or physically handicap to the point that it is impossible for them to contribute to society in ANY meaningful capacity.

Extreme? Maybe to some, but would go a long way toward getting rid of the "entitlement" attitude that seems to have become so common...

Problem with above is first that it is extreme, second it puts double standards - this is equivalent to idiotic statement "country is full" and changing rules by almost 180 degrees all in a sudden - given country has been founded by people just showing up uninvited at the shores, coming up with such nonsense is a just that - a nonsense.
Military service right now allows you for an expedited citizenship if you're a resident (if you're not - you're not allowed to serve anyway).
Also suggest researching current immigration law - a resident for 5 years that meets the requirements can apply for citizenship - this has nothing to do with what his/her grandparents did.

 

[Caballus]

Problem with above is first that it is extreme, second it puts double standards - this is equivalent to idiotic statement "country is full" and changing rules by almost 180 degrees all in a sudden - given country has been founded by people just showing up uninvited at the shores, coming up with such nonsense is a just that - a nonsense.
Military service right now allows you for an expedited citizenship if you're a resident (if you're not - you're not allowed to serve anyway).
Also suggest researching current immigration law - a resident for 5 years that meets the requirements can apply for citizenship - this has nothing to do with what his/her grandparents did.

1. Extreme is subjective. Some would say that automatic citizenship is extreme.

2. There would be a single standard for earning citizenship. Those that opt not to earn citizenship have the choice to maintain protections and rights afforded a perm. resident. There is precedent for this.

3. The country was also founded by people who were not afforded citizenship until the Constitution was changed to acknowledge them as human beings. Times change...appropriately.

4. When the country was founded, there was a desire to increase the population and citizenry for reasons that applied at that time--right or wrongly.

5. Military service expedited citizenship is relevant to what is being discussed here in that it provides a smaller model of what we're talking about--citizenship associated with service.

6. Not talking about an immigrant resident who applies. I am saying that having a parent as a citizen does not mean that the child has "earned" citizenship. So, each adult born to American parents can be given a choice to earn citizenship or maintain perm. residence status. The result would be an equal playing field for all.

7. What objective (non-insulting, logical) arguments are there against it?

 

[watisthis]

You would still end up with what we have now no? People willing to work for less because businesses want to keep costs down and production up thus we wage war on people of color which is basically what immigration boils down to.

 

[Caballus]

You would still end up with what we have now no? People willing to work for less because businesses want to keep costs down and production up thus we wage war on people of color which is basically what immigration boils down to.

Perhaps, but I don't see the correlation.

 

[watisthis]

https://www.saada.org/tides/article/legacies-of-the-1965-immigration-act was one of the most important acts of immigration reform when it comes to economic growth.

 

[watisthis]

Perhaps, but I don't see the correlation.

Between immigration and pandering to voters about how this is a you vs them?

 

[Caballus]

https://www.saada.org/tides/article/legacies-of-the-1965-immigration-act was one of the most important acts of immigration reform when it comes to economic growth.

Get your point, but this is a different dimension of the issue. The proposal we are discussing is essentially recharacterizing citizenship as something that must be earned. Immigration rules would still be required. However, immigrants who are accepted into the country (by whatever laws and policies govern that) would have the same status as those born in the States but have not earned their citizenship. Race, origin, etc would become secondary to citizenship. Every "American Citizen" would have earned that title.

 

[Caballus]

Between immigration and pandering to voters about how this is a you vs them?

I see it differently. Although there would certainly have to be a grandfather clause to account for current citizens, many of the voters being pandered to (if one believes that is the case) will not have met the criteria for citizenship themselves. Despite being grandfathered, imagine what that would do to the perceived legitimacy of their argument and the us v. them phenomenon.

 

[Hack]

What objective (non-insulting, logical) arguments are there against it?

Are there other countries of similar size to the US that use this system successfully? If not - one argument I would use is that we don't know if it would work well.

I don't think military service is for everyone. If everyone who wanted to be a full citizen had to serve, either the military budget would have to expand or people quite well suited to military service would have to be discharged. Another possibility is to let people serve a much shorter length of time - a year? But then they wouldn't be "real" military, would they? The military is meant for protecting the US population and that should be prioritized over training people so they can become citizens.

If you make entrance difficult enough that the military budget doesn't have to be expanded - would you test existing military to the new standards before allowing them to become citizens? Do you grandfather people who served in the past under more lax standards? People with high ranks - essentially any career military personnel - are they automatically in or out? Does a 60 year old general automatically become a citizen?

Sponsored