Citizenship

[The Wrath]

Well put. One need only to look at Kelo v. New London to see how judges can screw up the law.

[hunterrose]

I believe the proper question is: “is there justification for class of privileges and protections that should be granted to a certain class of inhabitants of a country?” I don’t believe there is any such basis outside of a welfare state and anti-immigration policies.

Interesting. I'd never thought to question the idea of cititzenship before reading this thread

The decision as to who decides on the selection of lawmakers should distinguish between those value a rational society (thus will work to keep it) vs. those who don't, and may work to destroy it. The most concrete test of that value is wealth: seeing that the person lives by the trader principle, and does not seek the unearned. It is not an infallible test, but it is probably the best single test possible.

Whether a person can run a mile in x minutes is also a test of that value, but I don't think anyone would consider that a proper voting demarcation line.

While the idea of weeding out irrationals from voting seems nice at first thought, but I have a couple of questions concerning wealth-based voting:

1)If most people weren't sufficiently rational for voting purposes, why would their (irrational?) buying patterns determine who can?

2)What would convince a rational person to cede his voting rights? Knowing that people in his demographic are (supposedly) less likely to be rational?

What I am saying is that a law can never be so perfectly written as to completely rule out possible abuses and mistranslations. That's why the public needs to be vigilant. The public can be vigilant without all of them being Objectivists.

I totally agree. The idea of restricting voting on most given criteria (excepting children) seems destined for impracticality, if for no other reason than that it assumes poor people (all or a majority) would/should willingly cede their capacity to vote.

[Clawg]

My proposal:

One can 'buy' the right to vote or one can 'earn' the right to vote by working for the government or by visiting a free public school (financed by those who buy votes and used by those who cannot pay for private schools), being in the military or working for the state.

Edited April 4, 2006 by Clawg

[mweiss]

I think this is absurd. Theres a good chance that someone who pursues his values will end up being fairly poor - the average scientist (and other academics) isnt particularly wealthy, nor are most writers, artists, and so on. On the other hand, I would think that most people who just want to get money for the sake of getting money, rather than pursuing their values, can generally succeed assuming they are reasonably intelligent - someone who is fairly bright will probably make a good living in the business world, and will likely earn more than a talented research physicist or musician.

There's a good fictional example which shows how this works in an extreme case - Howard Roark vs Peter Keating in the Fountainhead. One of the characters pursues his values without particualrly caring about money, and as such he remains poor throughout the novel. The other one wants money for its own sake, and succeeds in becoming wealthy.

I doubt that theres any correlation whatsover between {rationality, integrity, morality} and wealth.

I have to agree with this to a great extent. As an individual who is not obscessed with money, or the making of money itself, but more with enjoying life and freedom from the rat race, I now find myself descending into the depths of abject povety. I am the proverbial 'starving artist' whom nobody wants to hire. Does that mean I should not vote? Although as was said earlier in this thread, the democratic system doesn't represent the interest of the individual, so maybe it's all a moot point anyway. Being always in the minority of voters (as was the case in a recent budget vote in our town --I was the one against in the 27to 1 vote in favor of the largest budget increase in history) the democratic system gives no consideration to the losing party.

[Lemuel]

I doubt that theres any correlation whatsover between {rationality, integrity, morality} and wealth.

I know this is way off-topic, but I completely disagree with this statement. To pursue wealth without reason, honesty, or ethics is to obtain it through deception and fraud. While this might work in the short term, it catches up with you in the end. Look at what's happening to Enron - irrational business decisions and dishonest cover-ups caused its fall.

Or, to cite your Roark/Keating example, did you read the end of the novel? Keating ended up a wreck and Roark ended up building the tallest tower in New York. Maybe Keating had a lot of money early on, but he was never really wealthy.

Edited April 9, 2006 by synthlord

[mweiss]

The only viable option is the contractual requirement of citizenship.

This statement raises an interesting question:

By what rationale does a child born in this country enter into such a contract?

My understanding of contract law is that all binding contracts are entered voluntarily.

What happens is the child decides not to enter into this contract? Does he become an alien in his own birthplace? Would he be deported? To where would be be deported?

[mweiss]

Exactly. In fact, the possibility of unanimity among all about everything is as close to zero as you can get. As I have said before, "consent of the governed" means no more than agreement among the dominant group that forms the government and writes the constitution. BUT:

Those who do not agree to the constitution, but own property in its jurisdiction are nonetheless humans due equal rights. That is the failpoint for any application of your other scheme to a non-unanimous society. You cannot force the dissenters to pay for anything (whether they benefit from it or not) without violating their rights.

Furthermore, if a relative, friend, acquaintance, or whatever lands on any location (in this prototypical nation) to which those dissenters have rights of access that include their guests, that alien may visit them, and the government must allow it, because such an event would occur without any use of force to take a value owned by another.

The alien may stay as long as he wants and travel wherever owners allow him to. He may work for anyone who will hire him, buy property from anyone who will sell to him, and live happily ever after here. If he demonstrates a knowledge and understanding of government, rights, and the non-initiation of force principle, he may also vote.

The rationality of the visitor or immigrant is no more the concern of the government than is the rationality of its own citizens. In fact, the goal of rights is to guarantee the freedom to be completely and utterly irrational [in the eyes of others] so long as the irrationality is not imposed on others by initiated force.

I am having a difficult time with this concept of 'open borders' and was seriously considering starting a separate thread about it, but here's my view:

Talk show host Michael Savage states that a nation is defined by "borders, language and culture".

So if we open the borders (as if they aren't already open) to anyone who wants to come in, our culture will soon disappear (if the immigrants don't assimilate into, but instead annihilate our culture by making theirs dominant) and let everyone come in, we'll very likely end up with some sort of anarchy, as everyone will be speaking a different language, bringing their behaviors and attitudes (not all of which are rational and civil) with them and finally, the borders will not exist, so we will not be a nation anymore, but some sort of 'world' crossection of population.

Depending on your geographical location and how extensively you have traveled the US, you may have found that a lot of areas are dominated by Spanish-speaking people. Signs are in Spanish, announcements are often heard in Spanish too. It seems that we have an invasion from Mexico going on for some time now and curiously, this particular segment of the immigrant population has not assimilated into American culture and language norms. They continue to exist in a vacuum, separate from the rest of America, and the burdens this places on business and government to translate documents and signage creates additional problems. There are enough signs already litering our view, and why should we have to have twice as many just so the Spanish-speaking can read them?

If we wanted to be fair about launguage help, we should print signs in every language spoken by every immigrant in the US. Why are the Mexicans privilaged? Are they special in some way, or does the government assume they are learning disabled and cannot learn English like the rest of us?

I strongly believe that if we eliminate borders, we eliminate the nation, by definition. If all nations liquidate, then we have a hodge-podge of localized or regional governments. It seems like it would result in a huge socio-economic mess.

[hunterrose]

"Our culture" would be annihilated, or it merely wouldn't be the most popular?

[DavidV]

mweiss,

If your implication is that my goal is to eliminate the nation-state as a distinct cultural unit, then you are correct. I want American ideals to be open to all, which includes competition in the marketplace of ideas. If they are truly superior, there is nothing to worry about.

Remember that in a capitalist state, all property is private. If you don't like Mexicans, you are still free to kick them off your land - but you can't stop me from associating with them.

If we wanted to be fair about launguage help, we should print signs in every language spoken by every immigrant in the US. Why are the Mexicans privilaged?

Uh, maybe you should learn your own language before complaining about others' ignorance of it.

Talk show host Michael Savage states that a nation is defined by "borders, language and culture".

From a brief scan of his book, he sounds like a racist, fascist, homophibic idiot.

[Vladimir Berkov]

I want American ideals to be open to all, which includes competition in the marketplace of ideas. If they are truly superior, there is nothing to worry about.

But in a state founded on the idea of popular sovereignty, there is a great deal to worry about as in America changing popular ideals are what determine the laws and the organization of the state.

Even permanent instruments like a constitution, or non-elected bodies such as an independant judiciary cannot stand forever in opposition to a popular will. At best they are only temporary bulwarks against popular whim.

Thus who gains entry into the country (and hence into the voting franchise) can ultimately determine what type of government and law the country has. For instance, if opening the borders for some reason means a huge influx of Marxists, given enough time, we will have a strongly Marxist government.

[DavidV]

But in a state founded on the idea of popular sovereignty, there is a great deal to worry about as in America changing popular ideals are what determine the laws and the organization of the state.

Absolutely. That's why I oppose universal suffrage and democratic government in general. Decisions about the nature of government should be restricted to those who can be objectively identified as having an incentive in maintaining a capitalist society - such as rich landowners.

[BrassDragon]

I don't think it's possible to determine who gets to vote until it's determined how government will be financed. If I am helping pay for government, I damn well better get a vote at least proportional to what I'm paying in.

And I certainly hope nobody who's not paying for it is getting to vote at all.

In a proper government that respects individual rights, this wouldn't allow the people paying for government to take control. It would just allow them to choose who is overseeing the police, the military, the courts, &tc.

But I've never seen a good answer to how government will be financed. I've heard contract enforcement mentioned, as well as donations (the "if Bush can get x million for his campaign, why can't we as a nation fund the whole government" argument), but I'm not really sure either way is sufficient. I know there's a thread on this somewhere, but from what I remember it was long and digressive, and didn't contain any particularly helpful solutions.

(Now that I think about it, maybe enough donations could be garnered if donating gave you a proportional vote. And, this would automatically identify those who have an incentive in maintaining a capitalist society, which is what GreedyCapitalist is advocating. I don't think just "wealthy landowners" or "the rich" is enough to identify those people, because there's no objective standard of "wealthy" or "rich".)

[DavidOdden]

If I am helping pay for government, I damn well better get a vote at least proportional to what I'm paying in.

And I certainly hope nobody who's not paying for it is getting to vote at all.

I understand the emotional reaction, but what's the rational basis for this view? How does this relate to man's rights and the proper function of government? (I assume that by "paying in", you're speaking of money and not some other form of contribution).

[BrassDragon]

I understand the emotional reaction, but what's the rational basis for this view? How does this relate to man's rights and the proper function of government? (I assume that by "paying in", you're speaking of money and not some other form of contribution).

Well, let's start from the assumption that government is financed by donations, because this is the only way I can think of for government to get money without initiation of force. (I thought about contract enforcement some more, and I think that's something the government should be doing inherently, just like providing police protection.)

If I'm paying for government, shouldn't I get to say how it is run? I.e. by whom and in what fashion? Not what it does (uphold individual rights), but how it is run, i.e. who is the chief executive in charge of the military, all the way down to who is the local police chief?

If I don't get to say this, in proportion to my donation, then who does get to say it? I can't think of anyone. Also, if my neighbor pays a penny into the government as a donation, and I pay $1,000, it doesn't seem fair for him to demand a vote equal to mine in, say, choosing the local sherrif. And his vote doesn't need to be equal to mine as long as the sherrif holds both he and I to the same standard - the rule of law.

I hope this helps shed some additional light on what I'm thinking. I don't think it could really get much more specific than this as to why this seems fair - it just seems inherently intuitive, like "you get what you pay for." Plus, this "power" could serve as a slight impetus for donation.

[hunterrose]

Even permanent instruments like a constitution, or non-elected bodies such as an independant judiciary cannot stand forever in opposition to a popular will. At best they are only temporary bulwarks against popular whim.

Who gains entry into the country (and hence into the voting franchise) can ultimately determine what type of government and law the country has. For instance, if opening the borders for some reason means a huge influx of Marxists, given enough time, we will have a strongly Marxist government.

1) Does this similarly mean we should have some mechanism to prevent Americans who become Marxists from voting? If keeping an unfavorable external group from being able to vote is legit, keeping an unfavorable internal group from being able to vote is equally legit?

2) The constitution isn't our ultimate protection, Striking is

If my neighbor pays a penny into the government as a donation, and I pay $1,000, it doesn't seem fair for him to demand a vote equal to mine in, say, choosing the local sherrif.

Is this equivalent to "paying off" the sheriff?

]And his vote doesn't need to be equal to mine as long as the sherrif holds both he and I to the same standard - the rule of law.

But if this were the standard, you (or the neighbor) may not need a vote at all, so long as rational laws were equally applied.

[Vladimir Berkov]

1) Does this similarly mean we should have some mechanism to prevent Americans who become Marxists from voting? If keeping an unfavorable external group from being able to vote is legit, keeping an unfavorable internal group from being able to vote is equally legit?

There is a big difference between restricting internal franchise and external franchise. All Americans have a stake in government, regardless of their property or riches. For example, even those with no property have an interest in US foreign policy, domestic criminal law, etc. (incidently this is why a property qualification to vote is a bad idea) Those external groups who are not US citizens have no legitimate stake in the US government for the obvious reason that they live outside the jurisdiction of the United States and thus are not governed by US law.

[DavidOdden]

If I'm paying for government, shouldn't I get to say how it is run? I.e. by whom and in what fashion? Not what it does (uphold individual rights), but how it is run, i.e. who is the chief executive in charge of the military, all the way down to who is the local police chief?

You're just restating the claim as a question -- since you're phrasing it as a question, I'll take this opportunity to say "no". I don't see how donating money has the requisite relationship to deciding who writes the laws. That's what I'm asking you -- why should voting be tied to contribution?

If I don't get to say this, in proportion to my donation, then who does get to say it?

The obvious answer would be "those people who can best identify the individuals who would, in fact, restrict government to its proper function". This could be determined by some kind of moral-aptitude test, for instance. My proposal relates the selection of who votes to the purpose of government. The problem with yours is that it implies that the possession of money causes wise decisions in terms of government, and I am not persuaded that this is the case.

I can't think of anyone. Also, if my neighbor pays a penny into the government as a donation, and I pay $1,000, it doesn't seem fair for him to demand a vote equal to mine in, say, choosing the local sherrif.

Why not? What is unfair about that?

And his vote doesn't need to be equal to mine as long as the sherrif holds both he and I to the same standard - the rule of law.

Well, sure, but you don't need any voting, you only need just people who will uphold the law, andcreate just laws. Elections are superfluous.

The fact that you consider the issue to be "intuitive" should tell you that there is a problem in your political philosophy, that you're not relating the process of establishing and maintaining a government with the purpose of government. The fact of donating money is not proof of the wisdom necessary to select a good government.

[BrassDragon]

You're just restating the claim as a question -- since you're phrasing it as a question, I'll take this opportunity to say "no". I don't see how donating money has the requisite relationship to deciding who writes the laws. That's what I'm asking you -- why should voting be tied to contribution?

Several people have established in this thread that when government properly carries out its function, voting doesn't really matter. It doesn't matter who the sherrif is, if he carries out the law. We simply have the political problem of determining who actually runs the government.

The obvious answer would be "those people who can best identify the individuals who would, in fact, restrict government to its proper function". This could be determined by some kind of moral-aptitude test, for instance. My proposal relates the selection of who votes to the purpose of government. The problem with yours is that it implies that the possession of money causes wise decisions in terms of government, and I am not persuaded that this is the case.

No - my system implies that the donation of money shows interest in maintaining rational government. How would it ever be possible to write a "fair" moral aptitude test? That smacks of Jim Crow. Same thing will poll taxes, per se - both make the unfair assumption that some people are more qualified to vote, based on some standard that is not absolute.

Why not? What is unfair about that?

It's the same principle applied to ownership of a corporation. Sure, you're not "owning" the government, but you're paying for it, so you ought to have a proportional vote.

Well, sure, but you don't need any voting, you only need just people who will uphold the law, andcreate just laws. Elections are superfluous.

But you have to have some form of decision-making on matters like who will be the new sherrif. I'm prescribing a form of decision-making, i.e. a political solution, but one that makes sense ethically. Anyway, I guess you could say what I'm proposing wouldn't really be an election, because probably only a small part of the population would be donating.

The fact that you consider the issue to be "intuitive" should tell you that there is a problem in your political philosophy, that you're not relating the process of establishing and maintaining a government with the purpose of government. The fact of donating money is not proof of the wisdom necessary to select a good government.

Neither is passing a "moral aptitude test," or being a "wealthy landowner," or being "self-sufficient" proof of wisdom necessary to select a good government. My solution is "intuitive" because it applies notions of property rights we've already all internalized. If I buy a police car for the government, I do so under the condition that I pick who drives it, just like if I own a certain part of a company, I get to help pick who's the CEO.

[DavidOdden]

We simply have the political problem of determining who actually runs the government.

What does "run the government" mean? Does GW Bush run the US government?

No - my system implies that the donation of money shows interest in maintaining rational government. How would it ever be possible to write a "fair" moral aptitude test?

But that is not the only way to show such an interest. In addition, it isn't sufficient, since a person could attempt to impose an irrational government by the donation of large numbers of votes, buying a controlling interest in the government. The way you test for moral aptitude is with a series of questions that show that you know what a rational government would be (thus are not ignorant) and would -- assuming you answer truthfully -- only select rational-government candidates. Concretely, that would mean that you would be knowledgeable enough to identify communist and liberal candidates, and would know that they cannot be elected to public office.

That smacks of Jim Crow.

Does that mean you think that blacks are immoral or ignorant? Otherwise, I don't see how you could possibly reach that conclusion.

Same thing will poll taxes, per se - both make the unfair assumption that some people are more qualified to vote, based on some standard that is not absolute.

Well, I'm proposing that it is an absolute standard. You have to get 75% correct in order to be allowed to vote. You on the other propose that the "right to vote" is in fact not absolute -- some people have more of that right than others ("proportional to contribution").

It's the same principle applied to ownership of a corporation. Sure, you're not "owning" the government, but you're paying for it, so you ought to have a proportional vote.

So close, and yet so far. You are not owning the government; the very point is that the government is not for sale. You are not "paying for" the government -- you are making the contribution necessary to guarantee your survival in a rational society. Government is not a commodity to be bought and sold.

But you have to have some form of decision-making on matters like who will be the new sherrif.

Indeed, but that does not mean there has to be an election. The new sheriff could simply be hired. Notice that deputies and policemen in general are hired, not elected. Court stenographers are hired, not elected. Cabinet members are hired, not elected. Judges are hired, not elected (well, it's mixed with judges, and the elected ones seem to be the worst).

Neither is passing a "moral aptitude test," or being a "wealthy landowner," or being "self-sufficient" proof of wisdom necessary to select a good government.

I'm proposing only two conditions -- not the wealthy landowner condition; and I'm not discussing the productivity test here (which is also important). The moral aptitude test directly tests whether the person grasps the abstract principles regarding proper government, which is obviously entirely related to the decisions that the person would make. If you know that a person would act to impose an immoral and irrational government, then you know that that person should not be allowed to do so, meaning that their preferences for president or senator should be entirely disregarded, and should not have the slightest weight in determining the final outcome of an election.

[bobsponge]

I think citizenship is important, because I believe that only citizens should be able to vote and set national policy-- otherwise, say, the Chinese could come over here and turn us all communist in a single election. Citizens should also be the only ones who can hold public office.

That being said, I do not believe we should close our borders to immigration IF (BIG IF!) we also do not provide any rights or public services to non-citizens. If the nation was supported on something like the Fair Tax, it would eliminate the problem of foreign workers not paying income tax-- because they would be paying sales tax on the things they needed on a daily basis. Foreign labor, in that case, would drop directly into our GNP.

[BrassDragon]

What does "run the government" mean? Does GW Bush run the US government?

He's part of it. By "run the government" I mean carry out the day-to-day duties of government (arresting criminals, protecting from foreign invaders and the like, holding trials, enforcing contracts, &tc.).

But that is not the only way to show such an interest. In addition, it isn't sufficient, since a person could attempt to impose an irrational government by the donation of large numbers of votes, buying a controlling interest in the government.

They could, but a person could also attempt to impose an irrational government and disenfranchise voters by creating a moral aptitude test that is poorly written, or in a number of other ways. There's always going to be ways for people to potentially corrupt government, no matter what system you have, and people always have the recourse of revolution. I don't think my suggestion would be inherently more corruptible than yours, but that doesn't make it better. I'll flush out why I think it's better further on in this post.

The way you test for moral aptitude is with a series of questions that show that you know what a rational government would be (thus are not ignorant) and would -- assuming you answer truthfully -- only select rational-government candidates. Concretely, that would mean that you would be knowledgeable enough to identify communist and liberal candidates, and would know that they cannot be elected to public office.

That actually souds pretty good. But I think there's a problem of practical implementation. Let's say there's a place with no government, and some rational would-be citizens move in and want to establish one. A group of them starts pooling donated money. They then must decide whether to, for example, administer morality tests to everyone in the place, or simply to use the money to implement a government that enforces the just rule of law. I think the latter would be more practical and would intuitively feel right. If elections don't really matter, because they don't change what the just rule of law is but only who carries out the government, why have them? Why not just let the people paying for government choose who to pay to administer it, and what to buy to administer it with (i.e. firearms, police cars, courthouses)? (These are more rhetorical questions, but feel free to answer specifically if you're coming to different conclusions than I am.)

Does that mean you think that blacks are immoral or ignorant? Otherwise, I don't see how you could possibly reach that conclusion.

I was just saying that the idea of a morality test reminds me of various things used by Southerners in the past to excluse blacks from voting during the "Jim Crow era." That doesn't mean it's necessarily bad - but it is corruptible, just like those tests were corruptible, and then were corrupted.

Well, I'm proposing that it is an absolute standard. You have to get 75% correct in order to be allowed to vote. You on the other propose that the "right to vote" is in fact not absolute -- some people have more of that right than others ("proportional to contribution").

I don't think there's any "right to vote" at all. It's one of those made-up rights applicable to democracies, but I'm not proposing democracy.

So close, and yet so far. You are not owning the government; the very point is that the government is not for sale. You are not "paying for" the government -- you are making the contribution necessary to guarantee your survival in a rational society. Government is not a commodity to be bought and sold.

I totally agree here. You're right that it's not "owning" the government. The system I proposed just seems to be the most directly practical for the implementation and continuance of government if government is funded by a group of voluntary donors.

Indeed, but that does not mean there has to be an election. The new sheriff could simply be hired. Notice that deputies and policemen in general are hired, not elected. Court stenographers are hired, not elected. Cabinet members are hired, not elected. Judges are hired, not elected (well, it's mixed with judges, and the elected ones seem to be the worst).

Well, sheriff was just an example. Normally sheriffs and other such officials are chosen by higher-up officials, that's fine. I'm just saying at some point, you have to choose who is administering your government, and I was using "sheriff" as an example. It could be president, or mayor, or whatever, depending on the level of government and how it's structured.

I'm proposing only two conditions -- not the wealthy landowner condition; and I'm not discussing the productivity test here (which is also important). The moral aptitude test directly tests whether the person grasps the abstract principles regarding proper government, which is obviously entirely related to the decisions that the person would make. If you know that a person would act to impose an immoral and irrational government, then you know that that person should not be allowed to do so, meaning that their preferences for president or senator should be entirely disregarded, and should not have the slightest weight in determining the final outcome of an election.

Again, I agree here. But I think the people who would pass the test would be the same as the people donating money. People with the intelligence to have money to donate will be able to learn to pass the test, regardless of whether they agree with it or not. The test is effective if you're trying to cut off the chaff, but if you have a donation system, you've already done so as effectively as possible.

Edited October 4, 2006 by BrassDragon

[hunterrose]

All Americans have a stake in government, regardless of their property or riches.

So we should allow those legions of foreign Marxists to become citizens (thus having legitimate stakes in US government) and vote?

If not, why?

[Vladimir Berkov]

So we should allow those legions of foreign Marxists to become citizens (thus having legitimate stakes in US government) and vote?

If not, why?

The fact that all American citizens have a stake in the US government and obligations under US law which lead to voting rights doesn't mean we should let more people in just so they should also have equal rights. My point is that a free country requires a liberal voting franchise but a liberal voting franchise coupled with a large influx of anti-freedom people will eventually lead to the country becoming less free.

That is the only legitimate goal of border and immigration control that I can see. In a free country, welfare benefits for illegals or increased competition for low-wage labor are non-issues. The only issue is a corruption of the freedom of the country itself.

[LaszloWalrus]

If cultural annihilation is fine with you, then how would you respond to the situation where in a very short period of time, the town where you live were overrun with Spanish-speaking, often criminal-minded, people with substandard hygene habits and no regard for the civilized laws we have here? Suddenly, you would be unable to communicate (unless you majored in Spanish) and bombarded with some very alien culural habits (and the Mexicans are very 'in your face' about their cultural expression).

Cultural annihilation? If you don't like Mexican culture, you don't have to adopt it. You can adopt any culture you want (good or bad). What's wrong with a lot of Spanish-speakers? What is the evidence that Mexicans have "no regard for the civilized laws we have here" or that they have "substandard hygiene habits"?

You don't have a right to keep people out because you don't want to be "bombarded with some very alien cultural habits."

The Mexicans are very 'in your face' about cultural expression? What is your evidence for this? Even if true, what does it have to do with citizenship rights?

edit: grammar

Edited October 5, 2006 by LaszloWalrus

[hunterrose]

*agrees with Laszlo*

A free country requires a liberal voting franchise but a liberal voting franchise coupled with a large influx of anti-freedom people will eventually lead to the country becoming less free.

Sure, but what I'm saying is that there are plenty of native anti-freedom people here already; our country can (and does) become less free regardless of whether immigrants come here.

If restricting foreign people with ideology X from becoming citizens and voting is valid, I think we would also logically restrict native people with ideology X from voting (if possible.)

America was a melting pot. That meant that those from foreign cultures learned the dominant culture in America and assimilated.

'Melting pot' is a two-way street. Some of them end up taking some of our ways, and some of us end up taking some of their ways.

If cultural annihilation is fine with you, then how would you respond to the situation where in a very short period of time, the town where you live were overrun with Spanish-speaking, often criminal-minded, people with substandard hygiene habits and no regard for the civilized laws we have here?

When you say 'cultural annihilation', I think of the Holocaust and the Inquisition - the annihilation of a culture through the initiation of force. A mass influx of Hispanics is not an initiation of force.

If you are the only person who practices a particular culture, but you are freely allowed to do so and not prevented from encouraging others to adopt your cultural ways, is this culture 'annihilated?' I'd say no.