Citizenship

[Fonceai]

I put forth the statement that the current citizenship system is flawed.

Both the system for immigrants to become citizens and how native Americans are automatically citizens.

Here is the system I propose, subject to dissection, analysis, and of course, the thread is open to alternate systems:

Residents
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.

Immigrants
Upon entering America, an immigrant is given the same rights as a 16 year old.
Taking the necessary classes for the citizenship exam is at cost, the same across the nation, and is set low, something like $3/hr.
When ready, the immigrant is eligible to take the citizenship exam.

Non-Citizens
At 16, or upon entering America, for non-citizens there are Rights and Sacrifices.

The Right to Employment
If capable of performing a job, they will receive wages equal to or higher than the national minimum wage.
The Right to Transportation
If capable of passing the required exams, they will receive a driver's license.
The Right to Shelter
If financially able, they can lease an apartment or purchase a home, but they may not have tenants.
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.
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.
The Right to Private Health Care
If able to afford it, they have the right to purchase private medical coverage.

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.
The Sacrifice of Representation
Non-citizens will not vote. No interest group will speak on behalf of non-citizens.
The Sacrifice of Scholarship
Non-citizens will not receive State or Federal-based financial aid, loans, or scholarships.
The Sacrifice of Welfare
Non-citizens will not receive Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, WIC, etc.
The Sacrifice of Investment
Non-citizens will not own public or private stock in any business, corporate entity, or government bonds.

Upon becoming a citizen, those Sacrifices are eliminated and their inverse become Rights.

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.

[The Fyrdman]

I take it the phrase "No taxation without representation" means nothing to you then?

And your final article, that none-citizens will not be allowed to invest, how do you propose a none citizen establish a business without investing in their own business?

Additionally, who will set the exams? How do you prevent that system from being abused, as the bar of knowledge (sounds like something the Knights who say Nee would search for) for citizenship could be significantly raised, making it difficult for all those who cannot afford a top notch education to gain citizenship.

What happens if looney minorities claim to be home-schooling, but not teaching their daughters?

As you are creating a political caste system, how do you prevent the citizens from using their representation from persecuting the none-citizens? For example, they could deem none-citizens as not being able to carry fire-arms, or be subject to greater taxation.

[Fonceai]

@G.Adams

On taxation without representation, I was fully aware of that. If an immigrant doesn't want to be taxed but not vote, they either won't be here or they will become citizens.

Why should they live tax-free and expect certain rights?

On investment, they can own their own business, but they cannot invest in someone else's business. That's the difference.

The citizenship exam doesn't need to be any more difficult than it is now. Take some of the practice exams and check it out. It isn't hard, but it requires that someone take the time to learn the material; you can't just fluff it out.

On the home-schooling, I don't know. I didn't think of that. But now that I think about it, if those daughters are sitting around at home and minority is paying taxes for them, that's their choice.

And finally, I will amend my own personal opinion. No citizen can speak on for or against the rights of non-citizens.

Quick answers, I know, but Inow I'm curious to read more on what you think should be different from the current system.

[The Fyrdman]

People may want to move to the US to be in a liberal democracy (I use the word liberal in it's academic sense, not how most liberals see liberalism), a country more free than their own. Well, you'll certainly cut down the numbers seeking such freedom coming to the US with your reforms.

Rights are "self-evident", not dependant upon obediance to coercian. And you are expecting them to pay full taxes without full liberty.

You didn't specify that earlier. So, what if I can't afford to set up my own business alone, and want to set it up with a full citizen? Then they will be investing in both their own and a citizens business? Or what if I need additional money, and my family can supply it? Am I not allowed to borrow money from my own family to set up a business? That would mean that a none citizen is investing in a business in the US, remember.

Of course the test isn't all that difficult now to pass, but what is to say it won't be made harder by those who want to increase disenfranchisement? Since citizenship is dependant upon a test, you are putting vast power in the hands of those who set the test. Or, like most centralisers of power such as yourself, are you assuming you or people with your values will always be in power to prevent such abuse?

It's not the choice of the daughters to be disenfranchised from the system. They can do little about it, and will find it hard to catch up if they have not been taught reading and writing. While it is of course difficult for those who cannot read+write to vote, they should have all the rights of a citizen.

For the position "no-one is able to work for or against none-citizens" within the political process, it would require a body to defend that specific article, to maintain the balance. That would require a lot of power to be vested in such a body, one that can strike down laws that it feels is upsetting the status quo. What if such a body has poor leadership, and the rights of none citizens are stripped? By creating a two-tier caste system, you open up new areas for corruption and oppression.

I think it would be good enough for government at every level to return to it's original, constitutionally defined roles.

[Fonceai]

Okay...

So what do you think should change about current citizenship laws and process?

[GodBlessAmerica]

Okay...

So what do you think should change about current citizenship laws and process?

I think it is odd the United States doesn't limit the dummies that can apply, but only allow something like 40,000 educated people to apply.
IMO allowing numerous stupid skilless people to come in seems counter productive.

I think we should enforce the rules we have and there should be NO amnesty.

I would make rules changes that doesn't allow illegals to go to our public schools, hospitals for long term care or to get any birth certificate for their anchor babies.

I also think they should start to really fine employers who hire long term illegals.

That would be a good start.

Put fences up and some bullets in the heads of drug cartels bringing stuff in.

[The Fyrdman]

Okay...

So what do you think should change about current citizenship laws and process?

Nothing, except enforcing the existing ones properly.

If it is the case that the US limits the educated but not the unskilled, then it is because the US government wants to protect it's middle and upper class sector, but maintain a large supply a cheap labour. The greater the unskilled the labour force out of work, the lower the prices can be kept.

[Chaossaber314]

The reason for reforms in the first place is that they are not being enforced.

[zynner]

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

[Fonceai]

@zynner

Your problem with the word "rights" is that you are letting a political ideology stop you at a single word, instead of getting over it and just reading it for the points being made.

I won't let you sidetrack this to a discussion of what "rights" are.

This is about people coming to a country and getting better benefits than citizens and not earning anything. Immigrants are practically handed the ability to shit all over the system and live off the work of American citizens who struggle to get by.

If you think all of those are wrong, then are you saying the current system is fine?

[The Fyrdman]

Your problem with the word "rights" is that you are letting a political ideology stop you at a single word, instead of getting over it and just reading it for the points being made.

People who speak like this can't be trusted with a modicum of power. Such a line of thinking is used by all those who wish to undermine rights and liberty. However moral the intentions of those who use such phrases, the results are always hideous when applied.

[underbear1]

After reading a lengthy post, I still don't understand how Native Americans being automatic citizens figure at all in this rant, and Social Studies and US History already are required so what's that about?