Immigration and border issues

[watisthis]

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.

I understand that, but once that happens as it has happened before see Japanese citizens during WW2, we will use fear mongering again to strip people of their rights. I'm sure we don't have to get into the weeds of this and you can see the writing on the wall when people again start to see themselves losing their jobs to what they believe is less qualified people when really it isn't either of their faults, the businesses just want cheaper labor.

Sponsored

 

[kz]

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.

So you're basically saying that any child born from now on in US would be a resident and not a citizen ? What you are saying makes completely zero sense at this point. Earning a citizenship is an utopian idea and you somehow think that US citizenship is an ultimate dream of everyone in the world (to some is - mostly because they have absolutely zero clue what living in US is like, especially if you're poor). And what does "each adult born to American parents" mean ?

However, only good thing about it is that Trump would never be a president had that been a law. LOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Caballus]

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?

- Not in total. There are variations--Switzerland, for example.

- Military service would not be the only service. The nation would have to determine what service is acceptable and for how long. Example: many Western European nations only recently got rid of conscription (several, like Norway and Sweden have returned to it). Among them, most had other service you could do in lieu of military service (ambulance service in Germany for example). However, it was not a 1:1--all service was not equal.

- I think a grandfather clause would be absolutely necessary for all current citizens, no matter age. However, once it goes into effect, the only way for newborns (or immigrants) to become citizens would be to earn it according to the criteria.

 

[kz]

- I think a grandfather clause would be absolutely necessary for all current citizens, no matter age. However, once it goes into effect, the only way for newborns (or immigrants) to become citizens would be to earn it according to the criteria.

And the reason for this insanity is exactly what ? "Country is full" ? Or WTF ? It's racism / class segregation in its purest form.

 

[Caballus]

So you're basically saying that any child born from now on in US would be a resident and not a citizen ? What you are saying makes completely zero sense at this point. Earning a citizenship is an utopian idea and you somehow think that US citizenship is an ultimate dream of everyone in the world (to some is - mostly because they have absolutely zero clue what living in US is like, especially if you're poor). And what does "each adult born to American parents" mean ?

However, only good thing about it is that Trump would never be a president had that been a law. LOLOLOLOLOL

Yes, I am saying that a child would not be born a citizen.

No, I am not saying that everyone sees U.S. citizenship as an ultimate dream--I have lived among (and served alongside) plenty of people around the world who have no desire to be American citizens. So, I am not saying that at all.

What I am saying is that eligible adults would have the right to earn citizenship if they choose to do so. The would not "inherit" it like a piece of property.

 

[Caballus]

And the reason for this insanity is exactly what ? "Country is full" ? Or WTF ? It's racism / class segregation in its purest form.

I have no idea why you are so insulting when you know absolutely nothing about me--internet maybe. Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

 

[kz]

I have no idea why you are so insulting when you know absolutely nothing about me--internet maybe. Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

None of what I wrote was an insult in any way. You're throwing ideas with absolutely zero reasoning of what would be the goal they will accomplish - other than limit a number of citizens which isn't a goal and has nothing to do with people living in the country.

 

[watisthis]

Rights as a US citizen has never not stopped people from inward fighting, placing blame, and jailing. We had a pretty decent immigration policy prior to Trump. Is it perfect? No. Do we need to work on boarder security? Yes. Immigration and asylum is a very rigorous process in most cases. It is not the fault of people coming here that you lost your job (not you of course). People thinking the job market will ever be fair are kidding themselves. Either you are extremely valuable in a job that requires more people or your going to be replaced by the lowest common wage.

 

[Caballus]

None of what I wrote was an insult in any way. You're throwing ideas with absolutely zero reasoning of what would be the goal they will accomplish - other than limit a number of citizens which isn't a goal and has nothing to do with people living in the country.

No Sir. The goal would not be to limit the number of citizens. The point was an extrapolation of the discussion regarding birthright citizenship for children of immigrants. Point being, eliminate birthright for all--not just immigrants. The effect, among others, would be to make all Americans more equal. You're either a legal resident or a citizen based on your own choices and your own actions, not those of a predecessor. In a properly designed system, race, socio-economic status, etc, would play no role in your status as an American.

 

[Caballus]

Rights as a US citizen has never not stopped people from inward fighting, placing blame, and jailing. We had a pretty decent immigration policy prior to Trump. Is it perfect? No. Do we need to work on boarder security? Yes. Immigration and asylum is a very rigorous process in most cases. It is not the fault of people coming here that you lost your job (not you of course). People thinking the job market will ever be fair are kidding themselves. Either you are extremely valuable in a job that requires more people or your going to be replaced by the lowest common wage.

Rights as a U.S. citizen have never been earned, with the arguable exception of naturalized immigrants. Ironically, naturalized citizens swear an oath to the nation--"naturally born" citizens do not. So, again, the proposal does not address all aspects of immigration, but it does move toward leveling the playing field from an "us vs. them" perspective.

 

[kz]

No Sir. The goal would not be to limit the number of citizens. The point was an extrapolation of the discussion regarding birthright citizenship for children of immigrants. Point being, eliminate birthright for all--not just immigrants. The effect, among others, would be to make all Americans more equal. You're either a legal resident or a citizen based on your own choices and your own actions, not those of a predecessor. In a properly designed system, race, socio-economic status, etc, would play no role in your status as an American.

Still you forgot to explain the reason...
I get that this is your contribution to discussion about birthright citizenship, but why do it ? And since you're saying it would make them more equal - how ? Me, with citizenship, an American vs. someone born here but not a citizen and not willing to either serve or work for a wage that hardly allows to survive in school ? How do you fail to see that all it would introduce is _extreme_ inequality ? And ironically, about 99% of population would not become citizen. How is that not an utopian idea ?

Again - what's the reason ?

 

[Caballus]

Still you forgot to explain the reason...
I get that this is your contribution to discussion about birthright citizenship, but why do it ? And since you're saying it would make them more equal - how ? Me, with citizenship, an American vs. someone born here but not a citizen and not willing to either serve or work for a wage that hardly allows to survive in school ? How do you fail to see that all it would introduce is _extreme_ inequality ? And ironically, about 99% of population would not become citizen. How is that not an utopian idea ?

Again - what's the reason ?

You named the reason--equality.

Also, as noted, it would serve to reduce the sense of entitlement that has become common among our citizenry.

With reduced entitlement comes increased commitment to the community.

Not suggesting that one should be paid a wage that hardly allows them to survive in school. With increased service come decreased expenses for public support. Service could include compensation in-kind in the form of tuition and expenses (GI Bill-like for other than military service).

Yes, Sir. I fail to see that it would introduce extreme inequality.

I don't consider the fact that 99% of the population would not currently qualify to be ironic. I consider it to be a natural outcome of the fact that we are not conditioned to ask what we can do for the country (or local community). If service was required for citizenship, that statistic would likely reverse.

I think that free citizenship is more utopian than earned citizenship. The only argument I can see against it is entitlement-based. "I am a citizen because my parents are citizens..."

 

[2018OFPP1?2]

Just like @watisthis. A closet racist. https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/threads/socialism-good-or-bad.119140/page-27#post-2738464

 

[kz]

You named the reason--equality.

Also, as noted, it would serve to reduce the sense of entitlement that has become common among our citizenry.

With reduced entitlement comes increased commitment to the community.

Not suggesting that one should be paid a wage that hardly allows them to survive in school. With increased service come decreased expenses for public support. Service could include compensation in-kind in the form of tuition and expenses (GI Bill-like for other than military service).

Yes, Sir. I fail to see that it would introduce extreme inequality.

I don't consider the fact that 99% of the population would not currently qualify to be ironic. I consider it to be a natural outcome of the fact that we are not conditioned to ask what we can do for the country (or local community). If service was required for citizenship, that statistic would likely reverse.

I think that free citizenship is more utopian than earned citizenship. The only argument I can see against it is entitlement-based. "I am a citizen because my parents are citizens..."

It would be extremely interesting to see how republican establishment would react to proposal like this - since they're about as far from any public service as one can imagine. It would be hysterical.

 

[watisthis]

You named the reason--equality.

Also, as noted, it would serve to reduce the sense of entitlement that has become common among our citizenry.

With reduced entitlement comes increased commitment to the community.

Not suggesting that one should be paid a wage that hardly allows them to survive in school. With increased service come decreased expenses for public support. Service could include compensation in-kind in the form of tuition and expenses (GI Bill-like for other than military service).

Yes, Sir. I fail to see that it would introduce extreme inequality.

I don't consider the fact that 99% of the population would not currently qualify to be ironic. I consider it to be a natural outcome of the fact that we are not conditioned to ask what we can do for the country (or local community). If service was required for citizenship, that statistic would likely reverse.

I think that free citizenship is more utopian than earned citizenship. The only argument I can see against it is entitlement-based. "I am a citizen because my parents are citizens..."

I agree for the most part. However, this is too far "socialistic" for most on these forums.

Sponsored