[zynner]

Quote by: Fonceai Being born in America does not grant automatic Citizenship. It grants Residency. Social Studies and U.S. History are required subjects in school. At the age of 16, an American is eligible to take the citizenship exam.

(1) Who will decide what is on the test and what makes them so smart that they should be given this duty?

(2) This plan would mean that anyone who cannot pass it would be stateless -- without citizenship at all. In today's world, that would mean they would not be able to travel at all (no passport) and would be trapped inside one country.

Giving citizenship based on birthright -- either place of birth or father's citizenship -- makes sense because even a literal moron would be free to travel (some people don't have the capacity to pass tests, plus would you really want some bureaucrat making up these tests?).

When ready, the immigrant is eligible to take the citizenship exam.

The problem with this is the same problem that we see with today's immigration tests in the USA. They ask questions like, "What colors are on the US flag?" They ask no questions like, "Why is a decentralized government superior to a centralized one?" These people have no clue what American government is all about, nor why it was responsible for creating a society that these people wanted to immigrate to in the first place.

If capable of performing a job, they will receive wages equal to or higher than the national minimum wage.

Why should the government set a minimum wage for teenagers (teens and illegals are the only ones who would be paid very low wages in the first place, and then only until they build skills).

The Right to Transportation If capable of passing the required exams, they will receive a driver's license.

If it is a "right," then why should they have to ask the government for permission?

The Right to Shelter If financially able, they can lease an apartment or purchase a home, but they may not have tenants.

I notice you use the word "shelter," rather than "property."

(1) Do you believe people have the right to life, liberty and property? If not, why not?

(2) Why can't someone who owns a home (property), rent it out if they want? Isn't that part of the "bundle of rights" of property ownership? Why only "shelter?"

(3) And what government bureaucrat will decide all this -- you? What makes you so smart to rule over the lives of others? Just asking.

(4) And if you won't be the one, then why would you want some other bureaucrat ruling over your life? What makes them so smart? Why right do they have to do this to others?

The Right to Credit If employed, they are allowed to apply for a loan for the purpose of purchasing a home, a vehicle, or starting a business.

Again, you use the word "right," and then you say they are "allowed."

Why the hell should the government determine if a bank wants to make a loan to you or me?

Do you realized how this entire concept you have is much more like the USSR than the USA? If you do, why do you advocate such a system?

[quote]The Right to Protection
If any of these rights, or basic civil liberties, are being violated, they have the right to be protected by federal, state, or local law enforcement.

I see nothing in what you have stated above as a right. "Civil liberties" is a fuzzy term that really means things the state will allow. Fundamental rights are things that no state can abridge and still be considered a moral government. There is a difference in these concepts. Your ideas seem to be ignoring this distinction.

The Right to Private Health Care If able to afford it, they have the right to purchase private medical coverage.

LOL. Only if they are "able to afford it," can they have this so-called "right?"

You should define a "right" so we can see why you have these concepts mixed.

The Sacrifice of Taxation Non-citizenship is not a free ride. Non-citizens will still pay taxes, based on their income, as any other citizen.

LOL. The word "sacrifice" is used. I bet the bureaucrats don't see it is a "sacrifice." I bet they see it as a "right" -- THEIR right. On what moral principle do you hold that the fruits of a person's labor can be taken by the state? Just curious.

The Sacrifice of Representation Non-citizens will not vote. No interest group will speak on behalf of non-citizens.

How will you enforce the idea that no interest group will speak? Do you not advocte free speech? And, again with the "sacrifice" thing. What is your definition of that word in this context?

Non-citizens will not own public or private stock in any business, corporate entity, or government bonds.

The moment that happens is the moment the entire economy collapses. Not a good idea -- unless you are an advocate of the failed USSR system.

I may have missed some, but that's the basic idea I have. Please remember to respect each other, criticize the post and not the poster, and keep it clean. The person you insult online today could be your boss tomorrow.

These ideas will not promote liberty and will instead promote tyranny. I am opposed.

Put me down for a vote of "Nay" on all counts.

~ zynner