posted on August 24, 2002 08:36:52 AM new
No point in replying to someone who wants to pretend that they have no position stated when the question itself shows a position if it is a valid question. This fake debating stance is dishonest. Also raising exaggerated scenerios like everyone in the world wanting to move here are dishonest. Or perhaps your vision is so warped by fear of the unwashed hordes you think it is a realistic projection. If everyone wanted to live in this system it would be physically expanded to include other areas.
However there is not enough desire there to even suck in the whole of North America. Although even if they wanted to come in with their land Borillar's exclusionary attitude would make them unwelcome. Puerto Rico is an excellant example that not everyone that could have it fairly easy wants statehood.
If you get in your car and drive you can see that even in the Eastern states there are vast open areas not farmed that could absorb millions of people. The barriers are political not physical.
When you think that you are the only enlightened one and everyone else is ignorant and stupid for not believing as you it is time to exaimine your mental state. Unless you are a Pastuer or a Galileo you are probably wrong. Sorry to say I dion't see anything that original in your view - just common selfish desire to keep what you have and the narrow old view that everything is a zero sum game and if anyone else has something it must be at your expense.
posted on August 24, 2002 10:04:41 AM new
I see, gravid. Once I prove how immature your position is, you create a fantasy to prove your original attacks against me. My initial post starting this thread was a summary of the arguments surrounding Citizenship and not my own personal arguments, not anything to do with my own positions. That you can't comprehend the matter shows some serious impairment on your part. Your problem is that you can't beat those arguments with anything that you can think of. I showed you just how easy it is to use the central core issues to explore your arguments and to disprove them. The old saw that "altruism is great, but it doesn't put bread and butter on the table" really showed through.
Now, you want to mix fantasy with reality with theory and that's supposed to be a solid basis for your argument, but if I do that, it's a crime? Ho! Ho! Shame on you, gravid!
Sometimes, to get at the core of an issue, you have to use the absurd to see the logic. In Logic, this is called the Rule of Extremes, which urges the user to take two dissimilar points and run them to their extreme ends in order to render a logical outcome to an otherwise insolvable situation. In this case, I used that rule for my argument with you. The idea being that if everyone in the world who wants to come to the united states to become instant Citizens and have free and instant transportation to get here did so, what would be the effect? That is quite obvious. What it does is to highlight the problems that the lesser situation that we now have is faced with. So, sixty million Chinese don't suddenly drop on your doorstep because it an absurd notion. Fine. But if they did, it would create havoc of all sorts. Since there is a much, much lesser amount in reality does not mean that no problems with uncontrolled immigration and naturalization exists. There are those very same problems, but to a lesser degree. The mean point is where the ability of our society can efficiently absorb the newcomers and where it degrades the existing resources to absorb them into the community. All of that then devolves into measuring the current health of the system versus the current influx of newcomers, etc., ad infinitum; all of which has nothing to do with addressing our Topic.
To focus on the core issue, should American Citizenship be granted to anyone who asks for it?
Your argument states that yes, even foreign murders, serial killers, child-rapists, and whatnot are all entitled to become America Citizens, or else the notion of American Political and Philosophical Ideals are invalid is sheer nonsense. Restrictions are in place for very good reasons, none of which is to falsely elevate Americans above others. My point there is that Citizenship is not to be given to just everyone who wants it, no matter what their plight is, because to hand it out to absolutely everyone without prior examination is an absurdity in of itself. Therefore, only those that meet certain criteria established for the benefit of those who are Citizens already is not only logical, but smart. And that has nothing at all whatsoever to do with any elitist attitudes.
That you continue, gravid, to gnaw on that old bone means that you DO want every Child-Rapist in the world to come here and rape our children - right? So, this is why you are going round in circles trying to trash everything that I wrote with your line of nonsense. I admonish you to give up this vain effort of yours and to come around and start thinking logically and argue the points on their merits without thought of Who Has What Position. I say that, because in a real debate, as KraftDinner almost sighted, is that one's own personal positions and opinions need not be exposed as they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. By bringing in personal notes, the personal notes become the discussion and subject gets thrown out into the trash. Sound familiar?
Gravid, re-word and summarize your arguments and begin anew and let's all proceed to have some fun here without the name-calling. OK.?
posted on August 24, 2002 10:44:40 AM new . By bringing in personal notes, the personal notes become the discussion and subject gets thrown out into the trash. Sound familiar?
posted on August 24, 2002 02:36:27 PM new
I think that not only could this crowd not accurately define what American Citizenship is, they could not even tell you what a 'Right' is. I don't mean 'which' Rights, I mean Rights in general. What is a Right, who gives this to you, or is it earned, or both? What many people do is to confuse Rights with Privileges. FYI: Both Rights and Privileges are granted to you, but the difference is that a Right can not be revoked, except by Due Process; whereas, a Privilege can be revoked on a whim. While Privileges typically carry forth no obligations, due to their uneasy and transitory nature, Rights carry Responsibilities. These Responsibilities include, but are not limited to, Pay your Taxes, Obey the Laws of the Land, Contribute Personal Service to the Community or Nation, and Participate in the functioning of Government. Sounds familiar, right? That's because Citizenship and Rights go hand-in-hand, so to speak. To be a Citizen to have both the Rights AND the Responsibilities!
Traditionally, legal immigrants since the early 1920's have had to undergo an examination and immigration process to weed out the criminals, the sickly (who may transfer their illnesses to others), those that are incapable of self-support. This is done to protect those who are already Citizens. Those legal immigrants who apply for Citizenship and can demonstrate their fulfillment of the Responsibilities of Citizenship after a set amount of time (five years, usually) are granted Citizenship. Those who break the laws, refuse to pay taxes, harm the community or nation are tossed out as being unfit to live in our society with us. During the evaluation period, or at any time of non-Citizenship, they are granted Privileges, not Full Citizenship Rights. These Privileges can easily be revoked, and in our current climate, now you understand what is happening with legal and illegal immigrants and why the government can do what they please with these people.
The flip side of the coin are those American Citizens who enjoy the Rights of Citizenship, but do not fulfill any or all of the Responsibilities that they have. The Question is: do these people, who do not fulfill their Responsibilities, deserve to go on having the protection of their Rights?
I hope this small, basic, fundamental course in the Theory of Citizenship now gives you an adequate frame of reference to have a decent discussion without name calling and accusations of people's positions, especially those who have given one? Is this even possible for you to do?
posted on August 24, 2002 05:31:16 PM new
No. Thanks I don't want to spar with someone that says putting forward an absurd statement is just skillful use of logic.
posted on August 24, 2002 09:41:23 PM new
There may be a need for a new description of citizenship.
When the Federalist Papers addressed the question of who grants citizenship, it was a conflict between the states and the Fed. The Fed won and defined the criteria for citizenship.
Other than by accident of birth, citizenship is a question defined by political machinations through administrative law at the Federal level. There has never been a moral imperative defining citizenship.
The US also has historical experience with periodic liberalization of citizenship requirements, some positive, some negative. Granting citizenship has always had political or economic causes, from the quasi-citizenship of slaves for determining the number of Federal representatives in Congress, to liberal immigration to help fuel the industrial revolution and populate the Great Plains at the behest of the railroad companies.
Citizenship through its incumbant voting rights are the foundation of power in the US. Politicians always consider the numbers and the likely voting direction of potential citizens before granting citizenship - such as the blanket amnesty and citizenship granted in the 1980s. Neither party wants to create a voting block for the other side.
While immigration isn't always a zero sum game, it can be, depending on the economy at the time, but the same competition applies to people that are already citizens.
There is also a valid question of absorbtion of immigrants. I don't think it is selfish to want immigrants to assimilate. Severe problems arise when there are too many immigrants and assimilation doesn't take place. These divisions are apparent in Southern Florida with the Cuban population and in Southern California with the Latina population. The Florida Cuban population effects our policy towards Cuba, as does the California latina population effect our relationship with Mexico. Both of these trends are troubling and could be avoided by effective immigration limits. Our relationships with Cuba and Mexico should be based on US interests, not on the interests of segmented populations in the US.
posted on August 24, 2002 11:25:34 PM new
Thank you for joining us, REAMOND. You must work in the legal profession, REAMOND. I don't want to know that for a fact either way, but it seems that your perspective is a usually from a legal standpoint in your posts. Nothing wrong with that at all. I only mention it because I disagree about there being no moral imperative from which our body of laws surrounding citizenship are based upon. The question of "Do Citizens have responsibilities to society and/or to the state in order for them to retain their rights given to them by our government?" Certainly, from a legal standpoint, as in an open court, you might argue that the law does not require a transaction as such, but certain factors of law do seem to be based upon the idea that Citizens have responsibilities to the state. Obeying the law is an easy example. But if Citizens are not required to perform national and/or community service, then by what justification can our government force a draft and press-gang Citizens into taking up arms and go risk their lives in military conflict? If such things were not seen as a requirement for being able to enjoy the benefits of this society, then what reason could they be based upon do you suppose? And if they are, should those who refuse to put into the system of responsibilities still enjoy the benefits thereof?
posted on August 25, 2002 08:50:31 PM new
I guess that this means that there really is no way to have a decent conversation here in the RT. Instead, nearly everyone seems to want to come in, squat and dump their opinion into a post and then leave. That any Real discussion of phylosophical ideals are impossible and I won't go on to insult you as to why I think that that is.
posted on August 27, 2002 10:25:00 AM new"I guess that this means that there really is no way to have a decent conversation here in the RT. Instead, nearly everyone seems to want to come in, squat and dump their opinion into a post and then leave. That any Real discussion of phylosophical ideals are impossible and I won't go on to insult you as to why I think that that is."
Borillar,
If you were a woman, I would think that you were one of the 6 million in the process of tapering off Hormone Replacement Therapy. But since you are a man, I have no answer.
posted on August 27, 2002 06:06:31 PM new
If he's not a citizen obviously it doesn't get credited since there is no glory to the fatherland. Like a Hindu doing charitable works doesn't earn any points for Christian heaven. It's a silly freebie to waste the effort because he is out of the game from the start.
