The Real Anchors
Well, the government class is up in arms over Senator Grahamnesty’s suggestion that we amend the 14th Amendment to end the practice of so-called “anchor babies” and automatic birthright citizenship for non-citizens. But perhaps the problem with the senator’s suggestion is that it doesn’t go far enough. One of Don Rumsfeld’s pearls of wisdom was that when a problem seemed unsolvable, the solution could be to enlarge it. Perhaps it’s time to rethink not just birthright citizenship, but citizenship in general, and what it means.
Part of the problem with illegal immigration is the concern (legitimate, in my opinion) that it is being cynically used as a means to expand the political power of those who refuse to do anything about it (and not just the Democrats, but perhaps even including Senator Grahamnesty, and certainly George W. Bush and Karl Rove) — they hope that if they grant the franchise to those millions here illegitimately, they will be rewarded by their votes in the future. There are obviously other concerns with uncontrolled immigration (e.g., increasing the labor supply and depressing the labor price for those born here), but the voting issue may be at the heart of the current political battle, particularly because many fear that once such a large block of newcomers is given the vote without adequate assimilation, they will take the country in a direction far different than that intended eleven-score years ago. We should consider separating out the issues of who can be here in general, and who can be a citizen.
In the science fiction novel Starship Troopers, the late great Robert Heinlein put forth a different notion of citizenship — not one of a birthright, but an earned status. In this view, more republican (and in better keeping with the intent of the Founders), he made a useful distinction between being a citizen and being a civilian. He made citizenship a separate issue from whether or not one is entitled to live and work in the country, or even receive its benefits (even including welfare). Perhaps to be a citizen should be defined as being able to partake in the running of the country, and those unwilling to do the things necessary to become one will have to accept the decisions of those who have done so, or find another nation in which to reside, one perhaps more congenial to their lack of civic responsibility. That is, citizens would be eligible to vote and run for or be appointed to public office — civilians would not.
I might be a bit inclined to think that Robert Heinlein credits the Romans with his concept.
Interesting but, I believe, wrong. From what I recall, Heinlein based his concept of citizenship on Switzerland, in which one everyone had (and still has) to serve in the military to be a citizen. A natural consequence of being the only democracy in a medieval environment surrounded by despots who kept trying to invade it.
Correct; There was a time when a Swiss youth was given a choice:
Enter the military, or leave the country.
Note that Heinlein patiently pointed out the obvious to those
taken in by claims that he wanted ‘Fascist’ military rule;
Most of the citizens earned their franchise by putting in
20 years as what we would call ‘Career Civil Servants’, and
could not vote until they retired.
Yes, that’s true.
And as an addendum, I hate the word “fascist,” in any context other than a discussion of World War Two and the regimes before it. It should be a horrifying word, but it’s been bastardized for so long it doesn’t mean anything. Think it was Orwell who said it had become synonymous with “someone I don’t agree with.
When criticizing the other guy’s politics, people should just stick to describing them – if they’re really as bad as all that, that should be enough to discredit them. (Pardon me. It’s the idealist in me).
Lindsey is being a fart in church.
I guess he missed the words in the 14th Amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
In other words, Lindsey, Congress can pass a regular ol’ law to resolve the issue. It does not take a Constitutional Amendment.
I wonder why he would want to shoot conservatives in the foot with the Latino community on this little oversight of his?
Hmmmmmmm?
tD
Well, he obviously wanted to give Harry Reid the chance to insert his foot in his mouth and tell Hispanics who they ought to vote for.
I assume this is how politicians exchange pleasantries.
Instead of applying Rummy’s Rules of Enlargement or the simplicity (KISS) of the 14th Amendment (Ref: 2. tahDeetz above) why not modify the diversionary attack system that is now underway?
Illegals and their anchor babies can be invited to join the Conservative’s election season fun of who can bash the most government workers in any 24 hour period of time.
Then, if they are willing to sign a simple statement (written in English and/or Spanish) that they listened to a minimum of one hour of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levine, Chris Plante or any other prominent Conservative figure while they were smashing government workers, the Ruling Liberals in Washington, DC can award them citizenship papers along with full voting rights.
Call them Government Workers Estrus Period Citizenship Certificates; granted as a compassionate by product of the Hypocritical Conservative’s Election Year Rutting Season.
The issue can be achieved with simple legislation defining the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Section 1 in its entirety says:
“Section 1. 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.”
Clarifying the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would eliminate the anchor baby problem. Note also it makes the distinction between citizen and person — deliberately. Noncitizens are protected as well by “due process of law” so no change there. But by clarifying that illegals are not “subject to the jurisdiction” (because they are citizens of their own countries and subject to the jurisdiction of those countries) will eliminate this anchor baby problem.
It might be something as simple as demonstrating an understanding of the responsibilities of citizenship (including a knowledge of the principles and rules of the republic) and not being on the public dole.
My wife is a legal immigrant. When we married, we went to the INS to change her status from student to permanent resident. We had to sign paperwork that stated if we went on public assistance for any reason, she could be deported. Years later, before she could become a US citizen, she had to pass an oral exam on US history and the Constitution.
Making everyone pass such a test is an idea that likely will never happen. It has a tainted past along with poll taxes as a means of denying voting rights to minorities.
You mean things that denied the vote to any person who didn’t make a minimum effort at demonstrating citizenship (speaking reading and writing english, paying at least one tax to fund the government they vote for, understanding the Constitution and the history of those who sacrificed so much for it, etc). It is understandable that things have declined and degraded since it is easier to get a voting card than operate a gum ball machine, regressions to the mean and all that rot…
I believe that it was a part of the Swiss Constitution that only those that “wielded the sword” could “wield the pen”. I.e. a person had to serve in the military in order to vote. I also believe that has been rescinded as “unfair”, much to their detriment.
Obviously, this sort of thing will never fly, politically.
Getting that disclaimer out of the way, there is much to be said for reasonable limits on the franchise: primarily to exclude those who are either employed by, or dependent upon, the government.
The notion of a majority of voters who rely on the government (which only has money by taking it from citizens), and hence those dependents being in a position to use the power of government to take increasingly more from the productive, was precisely the strongest argument against “democracy” from the first great political theorists of the ancient world on through the middle of the 19th century, when the notion of universal (first male only, then both men and women) sufferage became widespread.
In the 20th century and the early 21st, we’re seeing that fear borne out in spades in both Europe and America.
During the period from the end of Reconstruction through the early 1950s, there was a strong apolitical tradition in the officer corps of the American military – although senior officers ultimately had to be political, most officers below flag rank made it a point to studiously avoid involvement in partisan politics. They did not even vote in many cases. Which makes sense: as professionals, they had to be completely loyal to civilian authority regardless of party.
So, how would something like that work? No one on the dole, and I suppose that would include those who depend on social security and medicare, would be able to vote in national elections. If they owned property and paid state and/or local taxes, they could vote in those elections. Federal employees could not vote in federal elections, state and local employees could not vote in elections in which their interests were involved (that would eliminate most teachers voting, since school funding is some combination of federal, state and local funding). It’s more complicated, since some retirees receive their government benefits, but are still net taxpayers because of other income or assets.
Essentially, all adults (other than felons who have lost their voting rights) who are not net recipients of government largess would vote.
I am inclined to agree with Lindsey, after I let his message sink in.
Only people who have not read and understood the book call it fascist or militaristic.
Actually, it was accused of being fascist by Michael Moorcock and other radical lefty british SF writers, for obvious reasons. They had been steaming about Heinlein’s denounciations of the USSR for years before he wrote Starship Troopers, and were merely looking for ammunition.
Most of my friends are black. They all supported Obama. But none of them, NONE, actually knew what his proposed policies were. They voted on skin color and now, when they complain about the economy, or govt health care, or high real estate taxes (in a majority democratic district) I remind them that that is what they voted for.
Which they really don’t like.
What, they don’t blame Bush? Republican racism? Conservative obstructionism? Surely they don’t think Obama bears any responsibility whatsoever for any of our problems?
Rand,
You are missing a related, more immediately important insight:
Democrats, even if only instinctively, oppose getting a handle on the illegal immigrant issue because the argument that these people who are disproportionately consuming welfare services without having ever really paid into the system, is also a valid argument against *citizens* doing the same (the Dem’s usual dependent clients).
The opposition is similar to the way that supporting unfettered embryonic stem cell research is such a big issue for them even though using your own stem cells would be a far better way, both genetically and ethically, for the vast majority of cases — it defends a flank of the larger abortion issue.
Thank you for raising this issue, Rand! If/when citizens learn that they can just vote themselves largesse from the public treasury, then it spells the end of a Republic — as numerous countries from Rome on down have learned the hard way. I hope the US doesn’t join that list. Linking citizenship to a commitment to basic principles of limited government and willingness to uphold core principles of individual rights could go a long ways towards reversing this decline.
Of course, a key problem is that given the current bad political culture and entitlement mindset, it would be extremely difficult to amend citizenship requirements in any kind of Heinlein-ian fashion because many who are currently franchised would be bitterly opposed to this kind of change. (Catch-22)
Indeed. Some years ago in some states only property owners could vote in elections on things like bond issues that could raise property taxes. As I recall, the Supreme Court ruled that restriction unconstitutional. Today teh left would never, ever agree to any restriction of the franchise. A huge chunk of their electoral strategy is to expend the ranks of voters to those formerly apathetic and even to those quite possibly ineligible. that’s what “motor-voter” is all about.
We wouldn’t have to worry about people who “demand public largesse” if we just stopped giving government handouts. That’s the future anyway, because all the money the government will ever have has already been given out or promised to people.
It would be nice if people would stop trying to change the subject from our immigration and border enforcement problems though. I understand wanting to impress everyone with a different take on the subject, or, in Grahmnesty’s case, to hide from the issue. But it’s an unwelcome distraction.
Here’s some actual immigration news. Though it’s a couple days old now, it deserves more attention:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/08/026976.php
That is, citizens would be eligible to vote and run for or be appointed to public office — civilians would not.
Certainly beats letting non-property owning college kids who will be leaving within vote in municipal elections, which of course is a different subject than the common practice of them voting twice in general elections.
A couple of points Rand. 1) All able-bodied male citizens ages 17-45 are already members of the federal militia (10 USC 311) and this has been legal fact since the 1790s (with approximately the same definition) 2) this being true, Heinlein is a bit superfluous (the “draft” is “calling out the militia” in technical legal sense) 3) if we follow your logic (and Heinlein’s) at what point do we deny full citizenship (and especially the vote) to women who don’t serve in the militia or as members of the military? I’m not against such a proposition btw. Of course, I’d reinstate the poll tax and terminate welfare if it were up to me. It’s just that women will never vote such a change (i.e. “service brings citizenship,”) and men would have to force it on them. The cat is out of the bag.
Also, I think you’ve misstated the case when you say “Or worse yet, a native who gangs with others to prey on his own neighbors?” The case is really more like “an immigrant gangs with others to prey on citizens, while demanding special treatment from the government.” On a final note, with 300 million people in our borders, we don’t really need mass migration any more. Given the state of our economy it’s clear that H1B’s hurt Americans, rather than help us.
In the system used in “Starship Troopers” one did nothave to serve in the Military to achieve thier franchise. They just had to serve. Most people served in the Civil Service soing something and no one that wanted to serve could be turned down. In what I infer from the book most people did NOT serve and so were Taxpayers not Citizens.
Heinlein’s central argument was that we only value those things which we have earned through persistant, hard work and sacrifice: in the book, Dubois the instructor-veteran (vet status being REQUIRED to teach) offers Juan Rico a first-plce medal for his performance in a sporting event. Juan refuses with a prickly retort, “you know I only placed third.”
The weakness of Heinlein’s argument is that it presumes that citizenship would only be awarded to the deserving, and his definition of ‘deserving’ is honor-based. ‘Goldbrickers’ never prosper in Rico’s imaginary world; they are without honor. Unfortunately, the world doesn’t work always that way. Dishonest people have more avenues to prosperity than you and I, and their votes count just as much as yours and mine.
If there is a weakness, it is in human nature, in refusing
to apply the laws to member’s of one’s own group;
The government described in ‘Starship Troopers’ got its
start when returning Veterans of a lost war restored
civil order by hanging a bunch of bad actors, including
some Veterans; Does the scenario sound familiar ?
The necessary and sufficient requirement for the success
of a limited franchise is that the voters keep the number
of bad actors amongst themselves low enough to control.
This is why Heinlein was in favor of what is erroneously
described as ‘Dueling’; Individual ‘A’ can choose to risk
his life to take the life of individual ‘B’ if, in the
opinion of A, B is a threat to society.
It would be even nicer if people stopped pretending that unenforceable laws can be made to work if we just give the government enough money and power.
face it your demographics are killing you. if the illegals are under their own countries jurisdiction, then they could do whatever they did back home. ask Europe how that’s working. Do we want another country have control over our internal affairs, how did you like president Calderon’s speech about the Arizona law. General McAuliffe said it best “NUTS”. how about we start teaching them young how to be Americans.
Except that the test they would use would probably be so ridiculously easy that everyone would pass, or if it didn’t start that way, it would get easier and easier over time…just look at how easy it is to get a college degree these days.
The idea that citizenship is earned is a proper one. However your criteria are inoperable. Look, there are 6Bn people on this planet. Of which, 5Bn would rather be somewhere else entirely, like say here. Now if you used your metrics a sizable number would end up here. The fact is this country does not have the carrying capacity to house that many people. End of Story.
This country at one point did have a criteria of who could vote. Its called the freemans concept. In order to be eligible to vote one must have possessed property free and clear of debts. That criteria has a lot going for it.
But I am afraid regardless of what is done, this country is still going to have an immigration problem. We cannot, whether one can vote or not, continue to permit a flood of foreigners into the country in an open borders fashion. Our public institutions cannot handle the load.
I used to think the ST model of earned citizenship rights was a great idea too, but I lost a lot of enthusiasm for it when I realized that the people certifying those who’d earned citizenship would be just as corruptible as anyone else. Who can be trusted to decide who “deserves” the vote? And why should someone rendered temporarily unable to earn his own way, through no fault of his own, lose his right to participate in the political process?
If rights are conditional they’re not really rights, and a government which gives you your rights can take them away. And if you won’t be allowed to vote the moment someone suspects you have a personal interest in the outcome, you rather obviate the point of democracy at all. We might as well go back to looking for Plato’s philosopher-kings.
The public “LargeAss” needs to cut some fat STAT.
We’ve got ‘FAT CAT’, lying, thieving, scum of the earth politicians √
We’ve got the most OBESE ‘poor’ people on the frickin’ planet √
We’ve got “TOO BIG TO FAIL” bloated @sshole banks who won’t loan now √
We’ve got able-bodied “college” ‘edumacated’ IDIOTS who don’t want to WORK √
We’ve got teachers who don’t want to teach (those Lefty Pensions are ‘strike’-worthy) √
We’ve got a whole Posse of DOUCHEBAGS running the country √
Meanwhile…
Greece is running low on GREASE
…and THAT is what we want to EMULATE?
GTFO!
♫The wheels on the bus go round and round♫♪
*shoots self* ←[METAPHORICALLY]
CatoRenasci:
Might I remind that those of us on Social Security and Medicare had large sums of money extorted from us, at virtual gunpoint, throughout our working life to pay for those benefits? It will be some time before I receive in benefits what I have paid in. It’s not MY fault the dems pillaged SS and Medicare and turned them into Ponzi schemes.
I don’t disagree that the Democrat party has played fast and loose with everybody else’s money. But in all fairness, part of the reason that SS has become a Ponzi scheme is because life expectancies have substantially increased. In 1933, the portion of the population living beyond 65 was much smaller than it is now; the government knew that not all that many payors would live long enough to become payees–or if they did, that they wouldn’t collect for very long. To return to that equivalent, we’d have to raise the age for initial eligibility to somewhere around 75.
The very phrase “right to vote” is problematic. I contend that no such right exists, when we use the word “right” as it was used in the original text of the Constitution. Individuals have “rights”, but governments have “powers”. I am now exercising my right to freedom of speech, but when I went to the polling place earlier this month to vote in the primary election, I was exercising power over others, by choosing the candidates for the general election, which will determine who has the power to make laws, ratify treaties, etc.
We don’t have any “right to be on a jury”; it is the right of the accused in a criminal trial, or of the parties to a civil dispute, to have their case heard before a jury of their peers rather than being ruled by some kind of Lords. Similarly, we have the right to have the laws (by which our conduct is evaluated by those juries) judged by commoners, either directly in the form of the New England Town Hall, or the more modern initiative/referendum; or indirectly by that broad base of citizens electing Representatives who must approve those laws.
But no one has an inherent right to wield power over others.
There is no way I want to give this government, or any future government the right to arbitrarily redefine citizenship. Talk about giving them the rope with which to hang you.
Those deciding the fate of the country must have skin in the game. Nevil Shute wrote a book whereas each citizen was allotted one vote, those willing to die for their country (military) were allotted another, and I those paying taxes another. Seems like a fairly equatable approach and doesn’t disenfranchise anyone.
The book is “In the Wet”, by Nevil Shute (a pen name, his actual name was Neville Shute Norway). Quoting Wikipedia:
“Perhaps the most interesting, and enduring, feature of the book is the “multiple vote”, seen as a necessary reform of democracy. A person can have up to seven votes. Everyone gets a basic vote. Other votes can be earned for education (including a commission in the armed forces), earning one’s living overseas for two years, raising two children to the age of 14 without divorcing, being an official of a Christian church, or having a high earned income. The seventh vote, which in the book is awarded to Nigger for his heroism, is only given at the Queen’s discretion by Royal Charter.”
Making military service a prerequisite to citizenship would just screw up the military. We are well served by a non-political military and should keep it that way.
I suggest that we just dispose of the idea of ‘anchor baby’. “Yes, that baby is eligible for US citizenship and when they get to the age of majority they are welcome to come back.” I have a friend that was born in France while his father served in the Air Force, thus eligible for French citizenship. When he was eighteen he recieved a letter from the French with two choices, present himself for French military service or renounce his citizenship.
A few commenters now have said that military service shouldn’t be required for citizenship–neither Heinlein in Starship Troopers nor Simberg were saying that it should be.
Examples of non-military service given in Starship Troopers included difficult and dangerous, but non-military, activities like establishing colonies on moons and other planets.
We are the allowing this to happen, even though it is putting a tremendous burden on the taxpayers. The entitlement program, is out of control and, is being abused by those who do not want to work. It is unfair, to expect US citizens to pay for another country’s responsibilities, while being forced to neglect US citizens who need help. There is only so much money to go around, and we have now reached the breaking point. Schools, are required to hire bi -lingual teachers,as do our court system, correction dept,city halls,welfare offices etc,in order to converse with illegals, who refuse to learn English. There are travel agents,in foreign countries, selling pregnant woman tours to the US, for the purpose of having a dual- citizenship child. One woman, reported from her home country, that her son now the best of both worlds, and can travel to the USA as a citizen, with no problems attached. What kind of fools are we to allow this subterfuge to go on and on? Our Congress, has dropped the ball again and again! Its time for a change and a demand that they represent us ,not a foreign country. Vote in November and give them a message by booting their A##es out! Term limits are needed!
Incidentally, for what it’s worth, RAH once told me it irritated him when people attributed the political philosophies portrayed in his works of fiction or expressed by his fictional characters as his own. I can’t remember his exact words but he asked something along the line of, “What don’t they get about the concept of fiction?”
This is a mistake made not just by casual readers but by other authors. David Brin, for example, quotes a Heinlein character to make the case that Heinlein was not a libertarian. For anyone who really knew RAH, this is an absurd assertion. http://reason.com/blog/2010/07/15/authorized-heinlein-bio-out-ne
In fact, I asked him specifically about Troopers and he pretty much snorted at those critics who accused him of wanting a system in which only veterans could vote. He said it was an interesting idea he wanted to explore. That’s all. It should be viewed in context of the many other ideas he explored.
There’s an essay in Heinlein’s “Expanded Universe” in which he considers various systems for awarding the (voting) franchise. It’s been decades since I read it, but IIRC, he mentioned among others: the “only propertied males can vote” system that the USA was born with; a poll tax; literally selling votes (one ounce of gold each, per election, how many do you want?); giving ONLY women the vote; Mark Twain’s “The Curious Republic of Gondor”; and his own “Starship Troopers”. I don’t recall that he mentioned Nevil Shute’s “In The Wet”.
If we don’t remove the anchor baby clause amendment the left will find a way to include future illegal immigrant babies as citizens. They are relentless in their pursuit of total domination of our nation.
Therefore any talk of compromise is moot. Now if only citizens who owned land, served in the military or who pay taxes were the only citizens allowed to vote I’d be fine with that as well.
I am in total disagreement with GRW3 regarding anchor baby eligibility as an adult. If that were the case then that adult would simply bring his wife here and have a child and the process would contine.
These illegal immigrants are not Americans. Why are so many willing to lose their vote? Why is that so difficult for so many to understand. And why are so many white Americans so ready to dilute and eventually dissolve all the is America and American?
So … government service is necessary to vote? I can imagine what happens when only the government employees are allowed to vote.
Make that FORMER government employees are eligible to vote, and those who are employed for too long must wait extra for the voting privilege.
“So … government service is necessary to vote? I can imagine what happens when only the government employees are allowed to vote.
Make that FORMER government employees are eligible to vote . . .”
In “Starship Troopers”, the franchise only comes after service.
just disconnect the anchor babies from the anchor chain back to their parents and you’ll eliminate the problems in 2 years …
I read an essay by Heinlein years ago where he expressed his disapproval of the idea that simply being 98 degrees body temperature was all that was required to vote. He threw out a couple of ideas including having a potential voter solve a quadratic equation in order to unlock the voting machine and let them vote.
His idea in Starship Troopers that democracy as we know it would implode under internal and external stresses seems frighteningly possible. The politics and culture of the US and world in general that Jerry Pournelle described in his “Mercenary” stories also is sounding prophetic. We shall see I guess.
Rifle308
“And fellow SF author Spider Robinson long ago acquitted him of the charge [of being a fascist].”
A careful reading of “Rah, Rah, R.A.H.!” shows that Robinson does not “acquit” him of charge — he simply denies it. The relevant paragraph in the essay might be rewritten “Heinlein a fascist? Oh yeah? Prove it! Neener neener neener.” with no loss of accuracy.
Changing the requirements for voting rights is an invitation to demographic gerrymandering.
One of the points Heinlein makes early on in ST is that everyone has the constitutional right to perform Federal Service. Once they’re in, they get any job they’re qualified for. If there’s NO job they’re qualified for, one is created for them. The job has to at least have some element of danger and personal sacrifice.
What about the non-combat roles? Well the book isn’t clear. At one point, logistics is presented as an option for Federal Service. At another, it says that all non-combat jobs are filled by civilian contractors. Since some logistics jobs can be very dangerous and are combat duties, the most consistent explanation is that true non-combat jobs aren’t on the menu. Merchant marines are mentioned as one job that continued to fight unsuccessfully to be classed as federal service. In the course of the book, businessmen, teachers, doctors, and others all argue that the country would be much better run if they were in charge.
The point is, Heinlein at least tried to address the key problem: that rent-seekers and ideologues in such a system would immediately try to:
a) Limit access to the system; set up qualification standards that would keep “undesirables” (hopefully their opponents) OUT.
and
b) Create quick and easy paths of service that they can graduate as many “desirables” (hopefully, their allies).
Look to our own system for an example. Political Science profs perennially argue for some kind of literacy or civics standards for voting. Really, it’s a political science test, written and graded by them (though they always make a point of talking about universal, non-partisan, unbiased standards). Democrats occasionally make noises about allowing convicted felons to vote, fiercely opposed by republicans (and guess how felons lean ideologically?)
Heinlein’s point (when Juan is in officer training) is that he only enfranchises those who are capable of overthrowing the system (the ones willing to risk their lives) and only after a period of hazing intended to try to focus their ideology on support of the system itself. It’s the opposite of Republican Rome, where the leaders were the only ones allowed to fight; here, the fighters are the only ones allowed to lead. But the reality is that any such system would immediately become a political football.
Don’t even try to argue that such a system could be neutrally administered. Government could no more competently dole out a selective franchise than it can hand out bailouts, subsidies, grants, taxes and regulations. You think you see rent-seeking now. Wait until your very VOTE becomes some faceless bureaucrat’s football.
Crossing the border illegally is no great feat. I want the majority of our citizens to be born here, raised by Americans and educated about our past. We’ve had a breakdown in education with the progressive take over, but we can reverse that. Legal immigrants come here ready to accept America as it is and happy to assimilate. Illegal Mexicans are being encouraged to colonize our country rather than become Americans. That has to be stopped. These people need to be encouraged to leave or deported.
Dr. Jerry Pournelle in his future histories also looked at citizenship.
On Sparta, Citizens had to earn their franchise. It took years, and most who did not start as a child would never make it. All citizens were also members of the military, on the (as noted above) Swiss model.
More importantly, Sparta was a dual monarchy and even the children of the kings and the aristocracy had to earn their citizenship — and share in the responsibilities.
I don’t know that either Henlein’s idea or Pournelle’s would work here. Unfortunately we have too many people too far removed from even the idea of true Citizenship and the responsibilities which come with rights.
Americans today have lived to fat, dumb and happy for too long to really understand what true Citizenship requires.
I fear for my country and my people and I am becoming all to certain dark and bloody days are around the corner.
Patrick
The Real Anchors
Anchor babies? Maybe we should worry more about native anchors.
August 12, 2010 – by Rand Simber
Mr. Simber’s view point is certainly contrarian and clearly represents a tiny minority position in the United States.
The general approach for sometime now in the US is to expand the franchise. I’m aware that many conservatives have long opposed expanding the franchise. After all, the conservatives were also against giving the women the right to vote. The decades long Jim Crow laws and regime in the US Southland disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of American Blacks.
The Voting Rights Act put an end to some of the worst abuses of racial pregudice and hositity to expanding the franchise.
Fortunately, the so-called “Motor-Voter” Act will now further expand the franchise by requiring voter registration forms to be distributed at all welfare offices, food stamp offices, etc., in each State. The selective “nullification” for the Motor-Voter Act by several States will be challenged in court by the US Justice Department.
In order to made your day, let it be noted that the fully enforced “Motor-Voter” law recently allowed for the new registration of over 100,000 new voters in Missouri, alone.
The notion that one must serve in the military before one can vote is clearly based on a strongly discriminatory and anti-democratic idea. Then again, it is the intention of Mr.Simber to glorify the anti-democratic principles of his faith or exclusionary philosophy. Simber is not a small-d democrat.
He argues forcefully, if not hysterically, for making property owners, military and job holders the only people allowed to vote. His position is actually not conservative. It is reactionary. What other way can one describe ‘rollong back’ the franchise? It is reactionary and elitist. It is also against the American way.
Where to begin…
Lawrence your grasp of history is dubious at best. In point of fact, Jim Crow was perpetrated by — Democrats. The Voting Rights Act? Opposed by — Democrats. Passed by Republicans.
Motor-Voter? As the Cato Institute has pointed out, it creates massive opportunities for fraud and further complications for states.
“The Motor Voter Act allowed citizens to register to vote simultaneously with an application for a driver’s license, by mail, or in person. The Act made it harder to verify the identity of voters seeking to register. It also considerably complicated the states’ task of keeping the registration rolls clean.”
Moreover, Simber is simply putting an idea out for discussion. He does argue rather effectively the merits of the idea — which does not mean eh believes the idea will ever fly.
Are you so afraid of ideas you are unwilling to discuss them? I do not see you refute his ideas, you simply call them unamerican.
This is fairly typical of the liberal ilk, of course, when one cannot compete in the arena of ideas, one simply calls names so others will ignore the man behind the curtain.
Patrick
Patrick Richardson:
The 1964 Voting Rights Act was a bi-partisan victory. Naturally, Southern Democrats opposed the legislation. No doubt about it. Was it, “Passed by Republicans?” Northern Republicans voted for the bill.
Motor Voter Law is the law of the land. Arthur Thompson, CEO of the John Birch Society, believes it makes the Federal Government into a version of ACORN. The Cato Institute may have some ideas on how to improve the administration of the Law. Cato should feel welcome to forward their ideas to the Attorney General of the US and the States’ Attorneys General. Every State of the Union is required to enforce the full Motor Voter Act.
I think I’ve contributed to an understanding of the importance of the ever expanding voter franchise in the US. I’m perfectly willing to discuss the franchise and the expansion of mass democracy in the US. It is curious that Mr. Simber put out for discussion anti-democratic notions, ideas advocating the restriction of the franchise and notions that those unfortunate enough to be receiving “welfare” are somehow sub-human and/or not worthy of being empowered to vote.
Of course, we can discuss Mr. Simber’s elitist ideas. It is a fact that the direction of the US is towards greater voter participation and registration–a larger franchise- and not a smaller franchise. Mr. Simber is nor “unamerican” (your word, Richardson). He is simply an old fart “reactionary.”
Richardson, you are using a template and applying it to all liberals. A hundred thousand new voters in Missouri. How sweet it is, old boy.
How many of those 100k are felons? How many are fake registrations? ACORN registered a great many new voters as well. Including Mickey Mouse and Elmer Fudd.
I do not think simply adding new voters is a solution to anything. I do believe adding new voters who are informed, educated and have a real understanding of what true citizenship is and the responsibilities that come with it WOULD be a good idea, were it possible.
Mr Simber was simply exploring the idea that perhaps Citizenship is something which should be earned. I cannot completely disagree with him. How is it elitist to say the franchise should be restricted to those who have earned it? Especially if the opportunity to earn it is available to everyone?
The reality is, liberals support laws such as motor voter for a couple of reasons. A. it makes fraud easier; and B. You presume when you register more voters most of them will vote democrat. It’s not really about expanding the franchise, it’s about expanding your base.
Patrick
Patrick Richardson:
One is allowed to reasonablely infer that a State goverment can do a more accurate and careful job than ACORN. Apparently, there were modest objections to using the DMV to register new voters. The objections reached their peak when the full intent of the law was defined and enforced by the DOJ.
Are we ready to embrace multiple classes of civilians? For example, you have a grade A citizenship because you earned the Bronze Star in the last war and you have a Grade C citizenship, because you are a consciencious objector. Grade A is allowed to vote in federal elections and Grade C is allowed to vote for dog cather.
Which body of men and women shall determine who is a good citizen? Shall it be an appointed tribunal or an elected body? Is the “good citizen” a lifetime designation or is it to be reviewed, periodically? What criteria is to be used? All unanswered questions.
The very notion of one hundred thousand new voters in Missouri, a result of the full enforcement of the Motor Voter Law, sends Richardson into a panic. “How many felons,” and “how many fake registrations”? The “a priori” assumption is that the Motor Voter Law will encourage corruption and fraud. What evidence do you have that a State government department will allow felons and false registrations onto the voting rolls?
The real reason most conservatives disapprove of the Motor Voter Law’s enforcement is that it is their belief that those on the dole, the “welfare queens” and their dependents, will vote for Liberals and Democrats, because they promise to continue transfer payments. The Law reinforces the reliance of a dependent class on the Democrats.
The very notion of one hundred thousand new voters in Missouri, a result of the full enforcement of the Motor Voter Law, sends Richardson into a panic.
Hardly a panic sir, I simply point out the problems with said law. As for the assumption the law in question will encourage corruption and fraud, and your assertion state governments will allow felons and those falsely registered to vote, I direct your attention to Florida in 2000 and 2004 and Minnesota in 2008. In Florida, snowbirds who were registered in both New York and Florida were found to have voted in both places. In Minnesota convicted felons were found to have voted. In both cases overwhelmingly for democrats. I would say this is a prima facie case of voter fraud.
One is allowed to reasonablely(sic) infer that a State goverment can do a more accurate and careful job than ACORN. Since when? I do not reasonably infer that a government of any kind can do a more efficient job of anything than a private organization — even ACORN — save perhaps creating havoc.
As for multiple classes of civilians, we have that now sir. Many of the people I see at the polls — and as a journalist I see a great many of them — I wouldn’t trust to vote on what to have for lunch, let alone president.
Citizenship carries with it more than rights sir, it carries obligations as well.
You and your fellow liberals seem more than content to enjoy the rights, without taking any of the obligations.
Am I prepared to suggest we should have tests for citizenship tomorrow? Yes, actually, I am. We have such now, for those who choose to become naturalized. Why not require all those who wish to be citizens and have a say in this nation pass those tests? Including those of us who were born here. I would happily take the test.
You have done a great job of deriding those of us who disagree with you. I have yet to see you actually refute the argument.
Patrick
Richardson:
Derided the opposition? Oh, come now. Buck up. It’s Mr. This and Dr. That. No, I’ve made my points without ranker and fully accepting the rules of engagement.
Is there voter fraud? Yes. All human systems are imperfect. A Conservative crying about Florida’s voting irregularities is comical.
“You and your fellow liberals seem more than content to enjoy the rights, without taking any of the obligations.” This is the most disconnected sentence I’ve read today. I do not expect you to appreciate me or the Liberals, but please try to keep your fantasy life out of public view. Your self-righteousness is showing a little to strongly.
I hope you do well on your test(s), Mr. Richardson.
“I’d much rather grant citizenship to someone who was willing to brave a desert and river crossing to get to this nation”
u know that doesnt surprise me. I understand the sentiment. but you seem to be an ends over means guy. in the sense that they may have more ambition but they are willful lawbreakers, which is a character flaw, no? but more 1st order benefit right? oh short sighted one.