posted on August 22, 2002 08:17:45 AM new
Since the first caveman hunting party brought back the first kill for the stewpot, the fundamental question has always been: are those who fail to contribute to the process or system allowed to receive the benefits of that process or system? Since we went and did all the work to hunt, kill, and drag back the carcass, are those who had nothing to do with contributing to the dinner allowed to eat? History is full of answering that question, both positively and negatively and many ways in-between.
Citizenship in America has long been handed down the very same debate. Please realize that in many countries, Citizenship can only be had if you are born there; e.g. there is no Naturalization process. The Japanese are one such country like that, and ironically, Mexico is another. The reason that a person is granted citizenship by way of birth is because in all of human history, people did not move around so much as they have these last one-hundred and fifty years. Before then, only conquerors came in droves, not waves of immigrants seeking a better life for themselves. Therefore, it only made since that those who lived there by birth were entitled to Citizenship.
The ancient Romans had a legal process where only property owners could be citizens. A Citizen of Rome was obligated to pay taxes, obey the laws, participate in government, and to perform military service. In return, they received all of the many benefits offered by the state, the last not being the contribution itself. Landless Romans could join the military and if after twenty-five years of faithful and honorable service, could become naturalized citizens and granted a parcel of land and money. Many other systems have been tried over the centuries as well and are worth your reading up on some day.
But now we are faced with a crisis in Citizenship. The very mobile means of humanity has made it relatively easy for someone from say Peru in South America to travel north and slip into America illegally and to have kids which become American Citizens and grow up to bring their parents over into America as naturalized citizens. No matter how you cut the cheese, this is a criminal process. We are flooded with millions of people trying to force us to grant them all Citizenship so that they can take advantage of those benefits that Citizenship in America offers. While we are a rich nation, we cannot support the whole of unchecked hordes of humanity that sweeps past our border guards on a daily basis.
Another crisis is the lack of participation in the system on the part of natural Citizens; i.e. Citizens by right of birth. The crisis in getting enough applicants into the military, for instance, isn't really a matter of how much money is being offered, but by the attitudes of our citizens. The attitude of not just young people, but many adults these days as well revolves around their personal satisfaction and comfort and not participation in the process that keeps them that way. It is a short-sightedness that is common in America these days and it is getting worse. Eventually, there will be so few who do participate that it will no longer be representative of us in general when those who do participate exercise their rights and vote.
If you recall Rome, which much of our form or Republic is based upon, one paid taxes, obeyed the laws, participated in government, and performed military service in order to receive the benefits of being a Citizen. In our Republic, those who do not legally pay no taxes and break the laws are considered to have their rights as Citizens in jeopardy by placing them on trial and incarcerating them and in some cases, executing them. We already deny Citizens their rights on others occasions as well, such as when you enter military service among other times.
Are those who fail to contribute to the state entitled to receive the benefits offered by the state? Do we just hand out Citizenship like candy to all who want it? If we did, could you and I afford to support the whole of the impoverished world living in our country? Worse yet in some ways, are those Citizens who flaunt the laws, hide their income from taxation, turn their nose up at military or community service, and have an attitude that keeps participation in government from ever entering their minds. Should they too have the right to receive the benefits from the system?
posted on August 22, 2002 10:34:50 AM new
Maybe the U.S. should adopt some Canadian policies for immigration.
- 5 years on a Visitors permit, then Landed Immigrant status then citizenship
- no criminal record
- must be educated
- no serious medical conditions
- must show employment record for past 5 years
- a yearly visit from Immigration until you become a citizen
- encouraged to speak English or French. If you choose to live in Quebec, you MUST learn French.
I'm sure I've left others out, but these are some of the main ones.
Some people think that immigrants come here for our 'free' medical care. Every working person in Canada has their medical insurance payments deducted from their paychecks, but non-workers or welfare recipients get no charge/little charge medical care, so it's not really a free system.
The main problem is over-population. It's out of control. Until we can teach everyone in the world to stop having so many children, all of these relating conditions will continue... and continue... etc.
posted on August 22, 2002 11:24:56 AM new
"We cannot support the whole of unchecked hordes of humanity that sweeps past our border guards on a daily basis."
Instead of sitting on their butt on the dole most of these illegals are busting their butts working at jobs that locals will not take and paying in social security to a false account they will never be able to withdraw from. I see them wiring their money home to mexico at the store. If they were not here there would be a lot of businesses like lawn services and packing houses in trouble for workers and the cost would go way up in order to attract local people to do the work.
This wanting to wall off the rest of the world is simple predjudice and petty jelousy that looks down on people that are basically like your grand parents or great grand parents were when they came here. But now you are looking down your nose at them as rabble after a couple of generations here. They are the same sort of people who built this country over the last century. You may end up mowing your own lawn if you win with this elitist view.
posted on August 22, 2002 11:40:18 AM new
Amen, gravid. Day laborers are on the corner in town every morning - looking to work. They laid my stone walls because my husband and I are getting too old to do it. They pick our crops, clean our houses, man our computers,build our offices and homes. They work dangerous jobs that most citizens think are beneath them. They pay SS but don't collect. Some die anonymously and without family or friend in our hospitals and nursing homes. Maybe they should be the citizens and we should forfeit our citizenship.
posted on August 22, 2002 12:10:01 PM new
But there are long term problems with allowing immigration based purely on economic problems in the home country.
Allowing immigration for economic reasons doesn't address the underlying problems in the countries immigrants come from and actually aggrivates the problems.
Just allowing entrance to the educated, medically well and non-criminal bleeds the home countries of the people they need the most.
I cringe when I see all of the doctors we allow to immigrate from countries in desperate need of their services. The same with engineers and other professionals. This makes the problems and suffering in the home countries even greater and more hopless.
While it is true that the professional class may be grossly underutilized due to lack of infrastructure in their home countries, however that infrastructure will never come into being if the professionals aren't there to advocate and shepard it into existence.
posted on August 22, 2002 12:17:28 PM new"This wanting to wall off the rest of the world is simple predjudice and petty jelousy that looks down on people that are basically like your grand parents or great grandparents were when they came here. But now you are looking down your nose at them as rabble after a couple of generations here. They are the same sort of people who built this country over the last century".
That's an overused premise. This is not the same world seen by our granparents, or even our parents, nor is there the room they found. U.S. population has increased 85 percent since 1950, growing from 151 million to 283 million in just fifty years. If present trends continue, our population will reach 400 million by the year 2050. There simply isn't enough space anymore to maintain a "give us your sick, your lame...etc." stance.
posted on August 22, 2002 12:31:06 PM new
Krs, I agree that population growth is a problem in many parts of the world. I'm in my fifties. So many women my age opted for fewer children than our mothers had so that they could pursue professional careers. Now my youngest sister and her friends are having larger families and opting for professional child-raising. How do you get it through these women's and men's heads that just because your income will cover the expenses, doesn't mean you should have that many children. My husband's and my grandparents had fewer children than our parents had - and not because of infant mortality. We've got a baby culture going on here - designer togs, organized play, one upmanship in child-rearing. How do we say that everyone may be part of the problem and not just immigrants?
posted on August 22, 2002 12:38:13 PM new
Immigrants and citizens contribute to this society in a miriad of ways. Some are scientists, farmers, teachers, artists, laborers, mothers and fathers;...the list is extensive. And by voting for our representatives, we may all participate in government.
Exactly how do you characterize "those who fail to participate?" And exactly what are you advocating? It's not clear to me.
posted on August 22, 2002 01:26:14 PM new
RAEMOND, it's hard enough to get US born doctors to work in the boonies. How do we solve that? Require service in underserved areas just as we once required military service?
posted on August 22, 2002 05:38:41 PM new
If the other countries lose their best because they can't see the fruits of their labor at home - TOUGH. They have the option to end the restrictive punishing economic systems that take away from anyone showing initiative by taxing them to death. Many countries also make it almost impossible to start a business. They work hand in hand with the current businesses to keep any competition down.
How does this idea of us taking the best away comport with the idea that they are all lazy slackards wanting to come here for a free ride? Two ideas at opposite extremes presented here.
The government here USED to be bright enough to understand they could get more by skimming a little off a robust economy where each kept most of their earnings - but they seem to be losing sight of that idea and we are slowly becoming more like other countries with two classes - the super rich and the super poor. Hate to see it happen.
posted on August 22, 2002 06:03:54 PM new
Let me point out that the question is not "should we allow illegal immigrants the hospitality of our social system. The question is should we be handing out American Citizenship like candy?
Gravid - if you want, we'll allow 60 million Chinese waiting to illegally immigrate here to America to stop in at your house and apply for jobs and welfare. I mean, why do we have a border if we're going to allow all comers? Why do we bother to have Citizenship in the first place?
Also, that "This wanting to wall off the rest of the world is simple predjudice and petty jelousy that looks down on people that are basically like your grand parents or great grandparents were when they came here. But now you are looking down your nose at them as rabble after a couple of generations here. They are the same sort of people who built this country over the last century"
If you are referring to the vast waves of immigrants in the mid-19th century through mid-20th century, the difference is that they applied for entry into this country and were here LEGALLY. And yes, they too worked their asses off at bottom-of-the-barrel labor jobs! All groups do until they are here long enough and have enough political clout.
So, here's what most of you propose to do: REVOKE everyone's Citizenship and destroy the body of laws that define Citizenship - no one will ever be a Citizen of America again. Remove our boarders completely, and come-one, come-all ~ get here like the Gold Rush! THERE'S PLENTY FOR EVERYONE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD!!!
posted on August 22, 2002 09:21:34 PM new
I know what the problem is! No one here knows what Citizenship IS! I mean, I think that almost none of you could sit down and write out two or three well constructed paragraphs explaining what Citizenship is. I'd guess you'd go searching Google under Citizenship and post about a half-dozen links instead. But push come to shove, you just do not have any concept of what Citizenship is. That is why the questions that I pose on the subject never get addressed. What a sorry state of affairs for this bunch that can't even tell somewhat what Citizenship means. Are you nothing more than a Sunshine Patriot or a Summer Soldier?
posted on August 22, 2002 09:32:42 PM new
An important difference between "then" and "now" is that years ago an immigrant left his country because he was forced out or was seeking a future for his family, but once he left he did not look back.
He came here, did scut work and whatever it took for him to survive. Very quickly he realized that he could make a difference in his own life. He might talk funny, be picked on, but he was an AMERICAN. Today most foreigners are interested in accumulating a little nestegg so they can return to the motherland and be a member of a class to which they could not aspire to naturally.
posted on August 22, 2002 09:54:04 PM new
That's right, Desquirrel, it did indeed used to be the case where when you said that you were an Amereican Citizen, foreign people were awed by that. Nowadays, Americans print their Citizenship on their toilet paper . . .
posted on August 23, 2002 07:58:52 AM new Borillar's quote That's right, Desquirrel, it did indeed used to be the case where when you said that you were an Amereican Citizen, foreign people were awed by that. Nowadays, Americans print their Citizenship on their toilet paper
.......
This arrogant stance does nothing to address the issue of economic disparity throughout the world and in this country. Immigrants, either legal or illegal, are being used as scapegoats when the root cause of the problem is poverty.
If, as an American Citizen, you want respect or "awe" as you call it, it would be in your best interest to inspire this respect by being concerned about the fundamental rights that all people should have regardless of their place of birth.
posted on August 23, 2002 08:35:12 AM new
>>What a sorry state of affairs for this bunch that can't even tell somewhat what Citizenship means. Are you nothing more than a Sunshine Patriot or a Summer Soldier?<<
posted on August 23, 2002 10:06:44 AM new
I don't know nycyn, Borillar has always been one to post controversial things so it gets people talking. He might even post things he himself doesn't believe in but does it to see what the reaction might be.
As far as 'helping' you, I really hope you don't take it too personally. He really was trying to help you out... this is just the way he is... sometimes very blunt, but honest. I doubt he would even answer your posts if he wasn't interested in you nycyn, but that's just my opinion.
I think he's very unhappy with the way the U.S. is headed & is not one to sit back and say nothing. Without much good news to balance it, he probably HAS flipped to some degree, but really, who hasn't at this point?
posted on August 23, 2002 11:20:06 AM new
>This arrogant stance does nothing to address the issue of economic disparity throughout the world and in this country.
Helen, your arrogant stance ought to be taken to another thread, because it has nothing at all to do with Citizenship -- which is the topic.
I keep posing questions about Citizenship and all I get back are immigration woes. Maybe we ought to just terminate this thread and start a whole new one on immigration woes, its causes, its problems, its possible solutions - all of which have nothing to do with the topic of Citizenship. That's what everyone would rather talk about, rather than have something truely challenging to debate `` you know, PERSONALIZED by YOUR opinion, not a bunch of links. It's too damned much to ask of all of you intellectuals, I guess . . .
posted on August 23, 2002 11:34:05 AM new
Borillar,
From your comment starting this thread...
The very mobile means of humanity has made it relatively easy for someone from say Peru in South America to travel north and slip into America illegally and to have kids which become American Citizens and grow up to bring their parents over into America as naturalized citizens. No matter how you cut the cheese, this is a criminal process. We are flooded with millions of people trying to force us to grant them all Citizenship so that they can take advantage of those benefits that Citizenship in America offers. While we are a rich nation, we cannot support the whole of unchecked hordes of humanity that sweeps past our border guards on a daily basis.
Maybe YOU should start another thread. I was responding only to your comments in THIS thread.
But I will certainly refrain from posting to this thread as you suggested.
posted on August 23, 2002 11:49:13 AM new
Well, I have a question regarding "citizenship", and I suppose it also has to do with immigration. My understanding (and I may be wrong) was that US citizenship by virtue of simply being born within the United States was not always the case, but that this was changed sometime after the civil war in order to give citizenship to freed slaves that might not have been born here. I believe that most European countries do not grant citizenship anyone who just happens to be "born" within the specific country and that other criteria must apply if the parents are non-citizens. So perhaps it's a matter of changing the laws so that automatic citizenship is not granted to the progeny of those in the US illegally.
posted on August 23, 2002 12:08:35 PM new
I was born in this country to US born parents. Ergo, I'm a citizen. Whether I'm a slacker or Ph.D. determines nothing as far as my citizenship goes. Do you want everyone to serve in the military to prove he/she is worthy of citizenship? Sorry, I won't agree. Some of my acquaintances in the sixties served hard time rather than send their dollars off to war.
PERSONALIZED by YOUR opinion
Oh, you want responses to be personal when you want them to be so. Ha ha.
[ edited by saabsister on Aug 23, 2002 12:14 PM ]
posted on August 23, 2002 03:15:52 PM new
NOW we're getting somewhere!
KadyD, that's news to me, but I am not familiar with the history of Citizenship, but rather, the concepts behind it. If your reccolection is true, that would open the door to a whole lot of disscussion.
saabsister, Citzens are obligated to pay their taxes, contribute to society by performing services; such as, millitary or community services or Coast Guard, national Guard what-have-you; and to participate in the election process. Just so I am clear on this, you are saying that those who refuse to pay their taxes and also refuse to perform millitary or community service and also refuse to participate in the governing of our society should be allowed to receive the benefits therof? On what do you base this logic?
Helen, you're the one excusing yourself away, not me! You came in here calling me names. I didn't earn that name -- I have only been asking questions. I guess that for you, just asking a question is reason enough to put someone up against the wall, eh? I guess you're as much of a terrorist as any Osama bin-Laden in your own way, with your intolerant attitudes. BTW Helen: here in AMERICA, it's still OK to ask questions! It's called Freedom of Speech and if you don't like that, then go find a tyranny more to your liking elsewhere!
posted on August 23, 2002 04:21:51 PM new
When the bill of rights was formulated it was based on a universal acknowledgement of human nature, rights and proper relationship between men.
Now there are those in government and individuals that all of a sudden see all these people who look funny and talk funny who want to join and share this system and a you say WHOA. Stop. This is the rules of a private club not a universal principal at all. If the system can not encompass all who want to join in then it is a farce and a sham. If the rights only extend to citizens then their underlying basis as self evident truth that all men are created equal and are owed these rights is a lie. If any of these rights it can be denied foreigners they can be denied citizens.
Indeed that is the root of what you are trying to say - that the pursuit of happiness and equality is EARNED by a satisfactory service or participation instead of a real human RIGHT freely extended.
Down that road is required voting by law even if a person would not choose any of the candidates offered - a sham vote to rubber stamp the party offerings.
Down that road is the state owning EVERYTHING including YOU and requiring service and fialty or party membership as a condition to live here as a GRANT.
The government derives their power from the consent of the people - NOT the other way around that the people are granted an allowance of rights for serving the government. I know that is perhaps viewed as corny and antiquated by you and many others - but believe me it can be reaffirmed in stark terms if it is forgotten too far.
posted on August 23, 2002 04:24:55 PM newsaabsister, Citzens are obligated to pay their taxes, contribute to society by performing services; such as, millitary or community services or Coast Guard, national Guard what-have-you; and to participate in the election process.
Says who? There are plenty of US citizens who do none or few of these things.
I'm curious about how far you'd go to affect political change. You've bemoaned the present stagnation and corruption in our political system. As far as my friends from the sixties go, here's a simplistic synopsis. They took to the streets with more than 100,000 other people to protest the Vietnam War. The war continued. A particularly outspoken one, over the usual draft age and with four or five kids, was reclassified 1A. He burned his draft card and filed false tax returns to limit his contribution to the war. (The money was set aside - he didn't buy a car or spend it.) He was sentenced to jail (or prison). I don't view him as a deadbeat. Maybe that's not your idea of citizenship, but he made a large sacrifice too. He had a comfortable job and future but felt compelled to live his convictions. Another rebelled while in the military and ended up serving time in the brig.
Maybe I should ask my mother what citizenship is since the DAR gave her an award for it.
Edited to add:
The law requires no citizen to have to serve in the military or do community service as an alternative. As far as voting goes, aren't you the one who blames Republican voters for everything awful that's happened to this country recently? Where's your logic - do you want them voting or not?
[ edited by saabsister on Aug 23, 2002 04:37 PM ]
posted on August 23, 2002 04:37:41 PM new
If the underpinnings of this system are as false as the Marxist system proved to be we should drop them and seek something that will work better.
What else would you propose beside rights being granted conditionally for service and loyalty? The Romans would allow you to buy into citizenship - and it was not cheap. The current crop in Washington should love that if it would fly. The INS could rake in more than the IRS.
posted on August 23, 2002 05:54:11 PM new
OK, extremely dense people who read-between-the-lines folks - I haven't expressed my opinion on these issues yet. You are still taking my QUESTIONS and reading OPINIONS into them, which is juvenile. Yes, I have expressed my opinion as to how knowledgeable and open that you are, and you intellect altogether, but no opinions on this topic whatsoever.
Having said that, I want to ask gravid first about:
>If the system can not encompass all who want to join in then it is a farce and a sham.
Now, if every person in the entire world who wanted to get out of their existing situation by coming to America and instantly being granted Citizenship was allowed to, do you think that there wouldn't be any problems?
Let me say that there are problems and these are stated ones used by our government.
a) Health issues. With just Typhoid Mary coming to America killed so many and devastated us, immigration is limited to only those that are healthy or can "get over" their illness without spreading it. If you allowed everyone in at one time, most of everyone would die because no one carries natural immunities to every single disease from every place in the world at one time. Therefore, what you are saying is that a Death Sentence is on order for all of us. Therefore, immigration is restricted.
b) Economic impact. When too many able bodied people arrive into any area seeking work, the economy is devastated. I need not point out how badly your Gold Rush would be for Americans if that were to occur. Where would we house everybody? How would we feed everybody? How would we care for them, give medical care to them, etc? Therefore, immigration is restricted.
c) Criminals. According to you, we should let in all of the mass-murders, serial killers, and child-rapists from around the world because "If the system can not encompass all who want to join in then it is a farce and a sham." I also need not point out how silly it is to allow just anyone to come here - for the sake of our children and us. Therefore, immigration is restricted.
These are just three criteria - there are more. You get the point that since immigration is restricted, there exists the need to place controls and that not just anybody can come here for the good of US!
saabsister, I want to ask you to explain:
>Says who? There are plenty of US citizens who do none or few of these things.
Does that make it right? Once again the USUAL list is:
a) pay your taxes
b) obey the laws
c) contibute to society with personal service
d) participate in the functioning of government
Yes, there are plenty of people who do not do this for good reasons or bad. Let's look at a bit of logic, shall we?
a) Pay your taxes. If no one paid taxes, where would the money come from for government to provide necessary services? User fees are merely selective taxation, which is still taxes. Without that income, our society would collapse completely. Therefore, if a person DOES NOT pay their taxes, then are they not endangering and hurting us all who do pay our taxes?
b) Obey the laws. Crime hurts and kills. The judicial process, no matter how enlightened or fair, costs an enormous amount of money and resources. Destruction of personal property and loss of life are a disaster for the victim and those close to them. Therefore, if those who refuse to obey the laws as the rest of us do, are they not an actual harm and threat to us and should be dealt with in an extreme manner?
c) Contribute to society with personal service. Obviously, if no one joined the military, we'd be in sorry shape. Therefore, do those who refuse to defend this country deserve to be protected by those who do not refuse service? And what about community services? Without those, the quality of live, and in some cases, life itself would be greatly reduced in safety. Therefore, aren't those that refuse to perform public service in some form a threat to our lives and health?
d) Participate in the functioning of government. It's one of the prime benefits of a Democracy. But it takes people to participate in order to keep Democracy going and that means keeping your "Rights" safe. Therefore, since those that do not participate in the functioning of our government benefit from those who do, by what right can they lay claim to the benefits of a Democracy?
You see what I'm getting at, don't you?
Now, since this discussion is finally headed in the right direction and now that I've had a chance to respond to your thoughtful posts, let's here some reasoned answers to THIS post!
posted on August 23, 2002 06:32:34 PM new
Sorry, Borillar, but that seems too simplistic to me.
You refuse to define "contribution"in any way other than what a junior miss candidate would offer. Did my temporary paid jobs with a couple of the local governments qualify or just my volunteer work for the Extension Service? I wasn't particularly altruistic when I applied for some of those jobs - the money put a new roof over my head and a new well on my property.
My resistance to blind acceptance to your definition of citizenship may come from experience. Experience growing up in a state that was more than happy to collect my taxes but refused me entry to the public schools that my tax dollars supported. (Good Ole Virginny didn't want women in their best schools unless ,of course, they wanted to be nurses or teachers.) Are women - who finally got a chance to join the various branches of the military - going to be looked upon as second class citizens until they're allowed full combat duty? There are just too many factors to accept your terms for citizenship. I also get the feeling that you're not going to accept anything other than what you've already defined.
I'm tired of responding to condescending posts that I think lack logic and there's a much needed storm moving in. Maybe I'll check back tomorrow.
[ edited by saabsister on Aug 23, 2002 06:35 PM ]
posted on August 23, 2002 09:44:53 PM new
Well, saabsister, at least you're not giving up gnawing on the bone. The standards I listed for Citizenship is not a list of my own imagining. They are standard, basic requirements of nearly every system of citizenship in the world and throughout history. How I've gone about listing them very generally is due to the fact that individual details can and do alter the situations. For instance, your friend that you mentioned in the thread that I hijacked from REAMOND (and apologized for) refused to pay taxes and to join the military due to political reasons, not for personal selfishness. There are a body of laws that make allowances for that under certain, well-defined conditions. Rather than bogging down this thread with a 10,000 - 20,000 page encyclopedia of laws and their exceptions, I have concentrated upon the central ideas. If you want to get bogged down in he-did, she-did personal details, I will do so, but I intend on keeping the central core issues alive when I do respond.
How does one go about paying taxes - they pay them, as per the letter of the law. How does one go about obeying the law? One is mindful of the laws of the land and uses their common sense if they have any when they come across situations where they don't explicitly know the law. Participating in the functioning of our government is rather easy, as ordinary citizens are limited to either voting or running for office themselves. I would venture to guess that what is vague to you is the "contribution to society" bit.
Military service is a good way for everyone who can to do it. You volunteer for it and you get paid for it - it's not a free service. Taking a government job as a career, however, is something that I do not feel would qualify, but volunteering to help out an election campaign might work. Certainly, any town or city has a volunteer bank, where those who wish to volunteer at community service can get directed to those organizations that need the help. To answer your own personal question to me, let me just say that as a Freemason, I do a lot of charity work and do it without recognition - I put "into" the community in which I live with no thought of reward or recognition for my efforts. Certainly, others so motivated can do so as well.
But look at the jaded American: they don't vote, they don't participate in the community or government, they don't give service, and whenever possible, they lie and cheat on their taxes. Many break the law until they get caught (yes, don't we ALL go 5mph over the speed limit?) These same people who don't participate and wouldn't lift a finger to save themselves, let alone this country, if there was a True time of War sit back and expect to reap all of the benefits and rewards that those who do put into the kitty receive. Is this right?
