Forums | MacLife

Question 1:
Liberals want to
a) take away your Bible
b) invite terrorists into your home
c) both a and b
d) Ensure fair treatment for all

Question 2, Short answer: Describe how the capital gains tax has affected you personally

Remember: Only service guarantees citizenship!

iSeamas wrote:

radarman wrote:

Frankly, I believe all people, regardless of the location of birth, should be required to take the immigration exams before being granted citizenship. I think automatic citizenship was a tragic error. So, it really isn't a stretch to think that you should have a basic knowledge of government to participate.

You mean that if you are born in the US, flunk the test, you are no longer a citizen?

You become an illegal alien?
Then what, they become some sort of boat people when the "Minutemen" decide to deport them?

I suppose you are including the mentally handicapped.

Mentally handicapped, senile, gay and lesbian, Jews, etc. No need to deport them, they can simply live in work camps or take showers.

iSeamas wrote:

radarman wrote:

Frankly, I believe all people, regardless of the location of birth, should be required to take the immigration exams before being granted citizenship. I think automatic citizenship was a tragic error. So, it really isn't a stretch to think that you should have a basic knowledge of government to participate.

You mean that if you are born in the US, flunk the test, you are no longer a citizen?

You become an illegal alien?
Then what, they become some sort of boat people when the "Minutemen" decide to deport them?

I suppose you are including the mentally handicapped.

Anyone presently a citizen gets grandfathered in. Those born after the constitutional amendment takes affect would be minors, having limited rights (specifically, public education) and protections there-in. At age 18, they either pass the test, or become non-citizens until such time as they do. The mentally retarded or mentally ill, who are incapable of living independently, would be considered minors for their entire life - much as they are now.

Of course, by citizen; I mean the right to hold a passport from the US, vote in elections, obtain entitlements, etc. Taxation without representation would be an inducement to become a citizen. Then, you could vote on future taxes, and not feel like a total rube.

Deportation of non-citizens would be an issue, but would largely be mooted by the fact that non-citizens would only be eligible for basic services - such as police, fire, etc. They wouldn't be eligible for more costly government services. Also, non-citizens could always apply for a work visa to remain in the country. That would virtually eliminate stupid slackers.

I also don't see what would be so bad about a year or two of government service as a stipulation for obtaining citizenship. It doesn't have to be military - you could be a secretary at a local agency or something.

It only sounds extreme because citizenship has become a sick joke.

EDIT:

I would add that if it were this important to know how our government works, parents and teachers would drill it into kids heads as early as possible, such that virtually all high-school students should be able to pass without even thinking about it. You could recite the necessary information the way we recite the planets, or the words to "Happy Birthday", etc.

If there is massive failure to pass the test anywhere, it would be both an indictment of the area, as well as proof that the system works.

Last edited by radarman (2009-07-01 9:14 pm)

Tallgeese wrote:

Starship Troopers is just a book, dude.

So's the Bible.

Tallgeese wrote:

Starship Troopers is just a book, dude.

\

I know that. However, I thought it had a few good ideas applicable beyond the story. Also, it's not like the idea is unprecedented.

I just think that citizenship is something that should be earned, and appreciated - not given, and ignored. Today's citizen is more interested in their entitlements (whoever coined that term should be drawn and quartered, but I digress...) than their responsibilities. Perhaps if these citizens had to work for that status, their attitude might be a bit less repugnant.

radarman wrote:

I just think that citizenship is something that should be earned, and appreciated - not given, and ignored. Today's citizen is more interested in their entitlements (whoever coined that term should be drawn and quartered, but I digress...) than their responsibilities. Perhaps if these citizens had to work for that status, their attitude might be a bit less repugnant.

"Repugnant!"  Now there's a word for this discussion...

Tallgeese wrote:

The system would work better and our country would be stronger if the uneducated couldn't receive government services.

Got a link for that?

Colonel Panic wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

The system would work better and our country would be stronger if the uneducated couldn't receive government services.

Got a link for that?

sure

radarman wrote:

The problem was that poor leadership, and beholdeness to special interests, wasn't punished - it was rewarded. You just had to convince a slim majority of your constituents that you were "less bad" than your opponent.

Welcome to our first-past-the-post voting system.

It was then that I realized that the problem with our democracy wasn't our leadership, it was our voters. We are being undone by the apathetic, the ignorant, and the uninterested average American.

Exactly how many of the "apathetic," "ignorant," and "uninterested" americans are you convinced even bother to vote?

There are extremely educated individuals in this country with whom I strongly disagree on many major policy issues.  Education doesn't necessarily bring enlightenment--and it's subjective, anyway.

The only way to improve the system is to improve the voter. The best way to improve the voter is to make them realize their own stake in the system, and that requires education. Since most people can't be bothered; give them an incentive to learn - citizenship.

Why not improve our education system, instead of taking the drastically-undemocratic step of denying the poor and uneducated representation?  What would be the impetus for the ruling class to even bother educating the poor, at that point?  They're paying taxes without a voice in government.  Might as well slash their wages while we're at it--what are they going to do about it?

radarman wrote:

Public education is provided free of charge in this country. Sure, it's a shambles in a lot of places; and we need to take steps to fix that. However, voters consistently make it the absolute last priority in public spending. We pay new teachers less than most businesses pay their secretaries.

...and your "system" will fix this...how?

We have eliminated the counterbalance - rightly in most cases - without replacing it with something else.

Perhaps it isn't necessary to replace discriminatory actions with something else. 

If I could quote the Constitution for a moment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Bad idea?  Get rid of it?  Your "system" would definitely require an amendment...

bratboy wrote:

radarman wrote:

Public education is provided free of charge in this country. Sure, it's a shambles in a lot of places; and we need to take steps to fix that. However, voters consistently make it the absolute last priority in public spending. We pay new teachers less than most businesses pay their secretaries.

...and your "system" will fix this...how?

We have eliminated the counterbalance - rightly in most cases - without replacing it with something else.

Perhaps it isn't necessary to replace discriminatory actions with something else. 

If I could quote the Constitution for a moment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Bad idea?  Get rid of it?  Your "system" would definitely require an amendment...

Most assuredly, altering anything in the constitution would require an amendment - which is why this will always be a fantasy. Attempting to propose something like this would be political suicide - the idiots would vote you out long before it got to the floor of either house.

The thing is, even in this there were checks and balances. Everyone born in the US gets to be a citizen, but you had to meet fairly demanding standards to actually participate. My idea implies that not everyone gets to be a citizen, but all citizens are allowed to participate. Assuming citizenship was actually granted meritoriously, without respect for race, gender, creed, etc. I would consider it to be less discriminatory than the original.