Is this a good or very bad idea about citizenship applications?

I’m in favor of the US rethinking our policy of automatically giving citizenship to people born here. I think if neither parent is American it shouldn’t be automatic (although I’m open to changing my mind). If the child lives here 10+ years consecutively, legally, before the age of 18, I think they should be able to be a citizen with little effort, more of a formality. Maybe even if they are here illegally. I don’t think they need to be born here either. If a parent brings their 5 year old here because of a job, I think after 10 years the child should be able to become a citizen. I think they should be able to be president. If you are raised in America since before you can remember how does where you were born matter?

Birthright citizenship is not a “policy”, it is a fundamental Constitutional issue.

The question to answer before agreeing to tests or other citizenship requirements for any country is “what do you do with those who don’t meet the standard?” Make them slaves or a lower caste? Imprison them?

^^i don’t know if you’re talking to me or the OP. I’m not so in favor of a “test” although it’s worth pointing out we do have a test currently for people to become citizens here in America. I’m just talking about forms and paperwork. Why should accident of birth give someone citizenship? It doesn’t in most European and Asian countries. If you were born in Germany, because your parents were stationed there for 2 years do you think you should be German? My way, more people would have an easier time becoming citizens, it basically makes the Dream Act unnecessary.

I oppose the citizenship test. If a person is able to earn their keep, what additional information do they need to know? What questions would a citizenship test have, and in what way would knowing the answers make someone a better citizen? You can vote for the candidate that supports your views without knowing the details of the Constitution. If a Constitutional issue arises, you can rely on news sources to gather the necessary information. I doubt that many Americans or Canadians know that much about their respective constitutions.

No, f*ck no. Citizenship, patriotism, nationalism, all just means of control over a population.

My MIL had to wait an additional two years to become a citizen so she didn’t have to take the test in English. It’s stupid. That’s why I’m not fond of these citizenship tests. Isn’t living in a country for 20 years enough to show you are committed to it? I think so.

In the olden days (like when I was in school) civics classes were mandatory. As were English classes. And not surprisingly, at that time, citizenship for immigrants required passing a test about basic civics and the immigrants had to learn English. Are you asking do I feel we ought to go back to the good old days? Absolutely. People born here grew up at least understanding how things were supposed to work and people immigrating here had to show they could assimilate to our society. Please note, that is not asking them to forget their heritage, just that they have to abide by the expectations of our nation.

@seawulf575 That isn’t what is being asked. The question is, should you have to qualify for citizenship through test or other means, eeven if you were born here!

@zenvelo If you took a civics class, you had to pass it, including the tests. Yes, I think that was a good requirement. Ditto that for immigration testing. And one correction for you, the question was whether or not you should have to pass a citizenship test even if you were born here. That is what I answered. It also asked for any other citizenship oddities. Not sure why you were trying to say I wasn’t answering the question. Unless it was me asking if we should go back to the good old day. But that was really the same question since we used to test people. Maybe a better addition to the additional question would be: should we test all persons and what would the penalties be for not passing?

@seawulf575 But if we require passing a civics class, what do you do with the people that don’t pass? Deport them? Make them slaves? Put them on a reservation?

Taking away the right to vote would have minimal impact, as those who wouldn’t pass probably don’t vote. And if you take away citizenship, they get a lifetime exemption from jury duty!

Sorry if I derailed the answers in any way. I think I brought up the subject of people who aren’t born here, who do take civics tests if they become citizens as adults, and that I think possible birth right should be reviewed as an automatic citizenship. Having said that, with the constitution as it is now, I think it’s a horrible idea to give a citizenship test to people who are born here. It’s not only offensive to how I think about citizenship, but also incredibly impractical. Testing costs money. @seawulf575 If you want to pay more taxes to test and process people who live here, but who are not citizens go ahead, but I doubt you do.

@zenvelo there could be any number of things that could be done. All this, of course, would be an entire change in opinion of the entire nation. But you’d have to look at each case to determine. If you were born in this country, obviously deportation is not an option. You would have no where to go. Deportation would be an option for an immigrant. But what would it look like if only citizens could vote, could get driver’s licenses, own property, or could be eligible for entitlements? Those sort of things could apply to all…native born and immigrants. The change in opinion of the entire nation would come with the decision of making a citizen actually mean something. You ridiculed people that couldn’t pass a civics test as being the ones that wouldn’t vote anyway. I disagree. There are many, many people that vote and have no idea about anything. They are basically voting however others they know are voting or based on something else like which political ad they found the most entertaining. I remember Howard Stern did some man-on-the-street interviews. His ploy was simple. He asked people a series of questions about who they were going to vote for…McCain or Obama. He was showing the ones that were going to vote for Obama. He then asked them what they thought about his political ideas, attributing all of McCain’s positions as being Obama’s and vice versa. Amazingly (not!) these same sheep loved all of “Obama’s” ideas. He even asked a couple what they thought about Obama selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate. They thought it showed savvy and understanding and they felt she was a great asset to his campaign. So it is a gross error to believe that only informed people vote.
@JLeslie Personally I don’t think any of this, as it applies to natural born people, would work based on our Constitution. You would basically have to scrap the entire thing and start over. But I certainly would be in favor of having mandatory civics classes in schools (including home schooling) that must be passed to allow graduation from High School. It should also be a required class on G.E.D. tests….again…have to pass to graduate. There are certain minimum requirements I feel should apply to a graduating senior.
@RedDeerGuy1 I missed the last part of your question….the any oddities part. I thought that Israel used to require mandatory military service, though I don’t know if they still do. The recent Wonder Woman, Gal Gadot, was Miss Israel and is now an actress. She also is a military vet and used to be a combat instructor.

^^Well, we do have civics classes. I assume kids have to pass them to graduate. I hated civics and history in school. Those classes were a huge struggle for me because I hated them. Yet, when I take civics tests I can’t believe how much I know. I just did one yesterday out of curiousity and got 49 out of 50 regarding government and related history. Even if someone doesn’t do great in class at age 14 doesn’t mean they aren’t good citizens or didn’t absorb some of it.

I care more about people being good people than understanding that the Speaker of the House is after the VP God forbid something happens to the top two in the executive branch. I’d rather focus on people being safe, happy, healthy, financially stable, and empathetic towards others. The fabric of society is coming a little undone right now, that’s terrifying.

I agree with looking for good people and not just people that can regurgitate facts. However, if you don’t understand the basics of how our government works…or is supposed to work…you set yourself up for allowing out entire society to crumble, being replaced with something that is likely to be far worse.

^^I see societies crumble when their current system isn’t providing for them. Then they are easily swayed by stories about how another system will make their lives better. The best way to keep our capitalistic democracy meritocracy is to not take advantage of the system to such an extreme that the pushback goes to an opposite extreme.

The general way that people vote is that if things are going well, those in power remain in power, and if things are not going so well then they are voted out. Ronald Reagan understood this perfectly. When he ran for re-election, he asked people if they were better off than they were four years ago. In the long run, this system works fairly well. It requires no knowledge of how the government works.

@LostInParadise Voting requires no knowledge of how government works. But without that knowledge, propaganda can carry the day. Everyone slams Trump about all sorts of things. And he does bring a lot of it on himself by allowing himself to spew on social media. But the economy is growing at a very good rate. Unemployment is down, especially in minorities. He is doing a lot of good things. But without knowledge of how things work, many people just buy into the propaganda and never look at reality.

If the economy continues to grow and if the majority of voters benefit then Trump will be re-elected. No amount of propaganda can alter one’s knowledge of personal income and expenses. I personally do not believe in trickle down economics, but I am no expert and am making no predictions.

I don’t know. The economy is doing great right now. But do you ever hear about it? Not really. There is too much focus on silly stuff. And pretty much 50 times a day, some talking head is calling the president a racist, in cahoots with Russia, and a buffoon. Pretty sad when those that are supposed to be reporting the news can only offer opinion as “news” and ignore the real news. But John Q. Public gets bombarded with this crap daily. So what will they remember at election time? Will they remember how miserable things were under Obama and how quickly they improved under Trump? Nope.

Wait, @seawulf575 when were things miserable under Obama other than having to recover from the 2007— 2008 economic debacle? What dramatic difference since January 2017 to today?

And Trump is racist, and in cahoots with Russia. He says it is business, not collusion.

The news sources that Trump is annoyed by, like CNN and the New York Times, are fairly reliable. When they do make a mistake, they offer a correction.

Trump, on the other hand, lies constantly. We can argue over the degree to which he knowingly tells falsehoods and the degree to which he makes things up, indifferent to truth value. It really does not make much of a difference. It is just astounding that he can get away with it, but for whatever reason, his supporters don’t mind.

@LostInParadise…you mean like CNN using Lanny Davis as a source and then reporting that he had no comment? And when he admits he was the source, they still deny it? You mean admitting errors like that? C’mon man! They lie all the time. I have produced citations before on video that they altered to change the meaning and you on the left continue to cover for them. Let me ask an honest question here…what would it take to make you recognize that CNN and NYT make stuff up and slant it like crazy?

@zenvelo the pretty flat line recovery from the said 2007/8 financial situation speaks to how miserable things were. The increase in healthcare costs and the loss of providers speaks to that. The doubling of the national debt in 2008 with really nothing to show for it speaks to how miserable things were. The lowering of the GDP, the loss of full time jobs, the increased number of people that weren’t working speaks to how miserable things were. Contrast that with things since Trump took office. GDP is at 4.6%. Unemployment is down, including unemployment for blacks which is at an all time low. Not bad for a racist. Jobs are up. People already saw money in their pockets from his tax plans. Growth is up. As I said…you can’t even identify how things have improved. Welcome to the propaganda brainwashing from the left.

@seawulf575 “what would it take to make you recognize that CNN and NYT make stuff up and slant it like crazy?” A reliable source. Not Faux News? Where are you getting your information? As for the Lanny Davis story, CNN says it has other sources. Link Do you have proof that they don’t?

@LostInParadise You can search liberal and conservative news outlets. You can do that search as easily as can I. And if you do it, you won’t have to try picking at my source. You can get the source you like. But every source I have found points CNN and NYT firmly in the liberal slant corner. You can also look up things like doctored videos CNN or false stories NYT and find all sorts of things. Why is it that you liberals feel you can’t do your own research? I do my own. When you say things that are out to lunch, I will do my own research to prove or disprove your statements. Why can’t you all do the same? As for the Lanny Davis story…that was a lie in itself. It isn’t the mysterious other source, it is that they were using Davis as a source and also claimed he had no comment. Either he was a source (which your own citation proves from both he and CNN) or he had no comment. You can’t have it both ways. Trying to have it both ways is…well…lying. But even given your own citation, facts upon facts proving CNN lied, you still cannot admit it. So the question still stands…what would it take for you to admit to reality?

Davis changed his story. He is just one of the many unsavory characters connected to Trump. There have been several convictions and pleas of guilt related to falsification of tax information and lying to the government. The Times and CNN have not been convicted of anything. Why do you think that is? If you are so certain of the reliability of your sources, go file a lawsuit. See how far you get before being thrown out of court for insufficient evidence.

@LostInParadise again, you are attempting to change the debate. Why do liberals do that so much? Why can’t you just admit reality exists and it isn’t the same as your beliefs? CNN LIED. They claimed two things that were exact opposites. That cannot exist in the real world without one of them being a lie. Either Davis was the source or he had no comment. Those are the two things. And it isn’t even like they were misunderstood. Not a lot of gray area. Davis says he was a source and CNN agrees. But CNN also said he had no comment.
Because CNN won’t admit they lied, their credibility continues to take a hit. But they have a lot of brainwashed sheep trying to defend them.

What the heck difference does it make? Who was hurt by this supposed lie? The main story was about the meeting at Trump Tower. CNN says that they have other sources to back up their claims.

We know for certain that Trump lies all of the time, and a number of his associates have been convicted of fraud and lying. That meeting at Trump Tower was a bit shady, no matter how you look at it. On the other side, CNN may have shown inconsistencies when dealing with one of Trump’s lying minions. Which side looks worse to you?

Ahh…so it doesn’t matter to you if a liberal “news” outlet lies. got it. They have lied numerous times and still you defend them. I suspect it is the liberal bias you are supporting and not the lying “news” agency, but that makes you part of the problem as well. You don’t like it when Trump lies? Why? His credibility is shot? Then why do you make excuses for what is supposed to be the news?

There was an inconsistency. Maybe one reporter did not know something. It just makes no difference. It was an insignificant detail. If that is the worst thing that CNN has done then they are a highly reliable news source.

You are apparently unconcerned that we have a president who is so unable to tell the truth that he is afraid to testify to Mueller for fear of committing perjury. It also is of no concern that Trump surrounds himself with criminals.

You are still downplaying it. If it was only one reporter that didn’t know something, then CNN should have recanted. They haven’t. They have been shown how they lied and they have stuck to it. It is pathetic. If that is what you call highly reliable, you need to get out more.
As for Trump, I would challenge you to find one politician that doesn’t lie. Pelosi and Schumer have shown they have lied about immigration. Obama lied repeatedly. Bush II before him. They are politicians…that’s what they do. Do I like it? Nope. But I look at most of Trump’s “lies” and see they fall into the small to insignificant category. He said that Google shows 96% liberal websites on searches when the actual number is about 92%. To the left, it’s “See? He’s lying again!!!” In reality, his statement is mainly true, but his exact figure was off. OOohhhhh!!! The other thing the left has done is make accusations for which there is no proof and then when Trump says its all bogus, they (the left) start up with “He’s lying again!”
It really gets old. But if I were Trump, I wouldn’t answer questions for Mueller either. Mueller has shown incredible bias and has shown he is conducting a witch hunt. Why would anyone want to talk with him? As for criminals, it is coming out more and more that while some of his campaign staff had committed crimes in the distant past, we are finding more and more of the upper echelon in the intelligence agencies that were breaking the law much more recently. Many of them were Obama appointees and Hillary supporters. I find it telling that you ignore that. But what do I expect out of kool-aid drinking liberals?

How many Obama and Clinton people have been convicted?

Google says they have no political bias in their search engines. Why should they? Maybe there are just more left leaning news organizations or maybe they have more links because they are more credible.

Here is Trump’s Politifact profile. 69% mostly false or worse. That is a better than 2 to 1 chance of lying. I find that unacceptable.

Here is Clinton’s . 26% mostly false or worse. I would guess about average for a politician.

We have hijacked this question. I will let you have the last word.

So your stance is that Google says that Google isn’t doing anything wrong. I bet Charlie Manson said that Charlie Manson didn’t do anything wrong either. No, Google isn’t a mass murderer, but the point is that criminals always say they are innocent. That’s your apparent stance. Why would they have bias? Oh, I don’t know…because they are populated with liberals? Yeah…that would be enough. Liberals will do ANYTHING to push their agenda…including lying about their wrongdoings…or coming up with weak excuses for the wrongdoing.
And now you are citing (sort of) a liberal outlet as proof of something against Trump. Pretty sad, really. And before you start going crazy trying to ask me to prove that, here you go:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

And before you accuse me of doing the exact same thing:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/us-news-world-report/

I went to a left-center website to come up with the fact that Politifact is skewed left. Not a reliable source, m’boy.

As for how many Obama or Clinton people have been convicted? Officially none. Bill was impeached, but the Senate Republicans let him walk. And Eric Holder is still officially in contempt of Congress (which he got when he was AG…nice irony there). Oh! and there is also Bill Ayers…Obama’s buddy…that was not convicted because of a technicality. But he was a violent radical leftist in the 60’s and Obama was quite close to him for a while. Going back to Clinton, how about Jeffrey Epstein? The biased media tried making a huge deal out of Trump flying on Epstein’s plane one time, but entirely ignored the fact that Bill Clinton flew on it dozens of times. Epstein was convicted of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution. But let me reverse that…how many of Trump’s associates were convicted? One. And that was not for something that was done when he was a Trump associate. I’d be willing to bet that if you went back in time and did honest investigative work, you would find people with shady backgrounds tied to most politicians, including Trump, Obama, and Clinton.

One conviction? That requires a response. I did a quick search and found 8 convictions as of February. Link Adding Manafort makes for at least 9.

Correction: The list is more recent. Manafort was included.

As for Politifact, they list the quotations along with their ratings. Feel free to make corrections as you see fit.