Posted on 09/28/2004 7:01:26 PM PDT by MegaSilver
But as to your comment, it makes plenty of sense if you've imported those people to work for you or they've arrived for an economic reason but have no particular loyalty to the country's ideals of liberty. If you let people who are not interested in liberty become citizens in your country, but come instead because they're interested in a buck, when they take liberty away from others, you can't be surprised. America has made that mistake on many levels, and continues to respond to economic pressures before the interests of freedom for its own people, or our borders would have been shut long ago and the unpropertied would never have gotten the vote.
I give the Swiss credit for not doing so. In South Africa, whites there made the mistake of giving away citizenship to people who did not believe in liberty, simply because of pressure from the outside. Much good it's done South Africa economically. Much good it's done the liberty of South Africans having a communist run the place. I would have expelled the ANC supporters and done without the nation's maids and miners before I made people who had not built and belived in that country citizens.
The third generation of visitor-workers don't at all have the same culture or ideals as natives. Not at ALL. To say 'well, their family lived there' is not remotely like saying 'well, they think the way Swiss do.'
Would that Americans had been as smart as the Swiss in this regard.
That's how I read his comment, too.
No doubt about the fact that first generation American-born automatically become American. It's part of an interpretation of the Constitution that allows fly-in citizenship trips by thousands of Koreans, Mexicans, and other countries to succeed in attaining American citizenship with no connection whatsoever to the ideals upon which this country was founded.
The line specifically mentions the Swiss because it's talking about them. The next line after it (Would that AMERICANS had been as smart as the Swiss in this regard) should also clarify that I was talking about the SWISS when I said that
"The third generation of visitor-workers don't at all have the same culture or ideals as natives. Not at ALL. To say 'well, their family lived there' is not remotely like saying 'well, they think the way Swiss do.'"
If that doesn't, my last comment should. Sorry for the confusion.
I understand that you're talking about Swiss law. Would you support American law working the same way?
bttt
Yes. I find no objection with current Americans having to approve of citizenship being granted, nor of a lengthy residency requirement, nor of a citizens' interview opportunity, NOR of a requirement that any sons and daughters of non-citizens be naturalized before they are citizens, born here or no. Notwithstanding interpretations of the Constitutional provisions regarding citizenship that say otherwise.
ULTRABUMP
A whiter brighter America program. Just what we need! NOT
Many of the recent immigrants to the United States have contributed marvelously.
There. I said it. Now I'll state the rest my opinion: our approach to immigration from the 1950's and especially 60's has, on the whole, been DEVASTATING to the landscape and culture of the United States. Allowing large numbers of people from cultures so radically different from our own has shattered the Great American Melting Pot and endangered our long-term survival as a country (i.e., Aztlan, Muslim terrorists, etc.).
I have no problem with reforming the immigration system. However, I do know the motivation behind why some people would love to have the immigration policy be as Switzerland and it's not our nation's safety either.
Oh yes I should add that I'm for reform in immigration because I'd love to see an end to people confusing legal immigrants with illegal aliens. That's a personal pet peeve of mine.
Plenty of people will always want the right thing for the wrong reason. Here's the thing, though. It's one thing to hate people of another race and want to go around exterminating them. It's another thing to speak with honesty about the limits of assimilation when two groups both look extremely different from each other and have radically different cultural backgrounds. Simply calling for "more tolerance" as the liberals do isn't going to cut it. Groups with radically different cultural and physical characteristics are naturally going to go off into their own spaces, and accomodating this reality might sadly involve restricting immigration flow from nations with histories so distant from ours.
Now, if it's JUST that the groups look different, but have the same culture and dedications, perhaps they can overlook visible differences. African-Americans, for example, have never known anything but Anglo-American culture--yet even their full integration has been and continues to be problematic. (Incidently, some people have speculated that this might be due to our extreme relaxing of immigration laws prior to their full integration; they never got the chance to "catch up" to whites socially and economically before they became but one among many minority groups competing for attention and "equality." In fact, I'm told that the immigration of African Muslims to the U.S. has drawn some a few [not many, thankfully, but a "few" converts is still a few too many, IMHO] African-American males into the Mohammedan faith.)
Mexicans, by comparison, are more recent arrivals, more in touch with their homeland, and more prone to want to be loyal to Mexico and/or turn us into the United States of Amexica.
And what if we have a successful integration system that erases any major cultural differences between the ethnic groups? Could ethnic nationalism break out again? Possibly so, if a) the different groups for some reason suddenly have more contact with their cousins (i.e., through immigration), and b) there is a serious economic downturn. This may just be a risk that heavily multiracial countries take, and therefore I believe that heavily multiracial state should be handled with care.
Of course we should always treat everyone with respect. But if it's clear that someone doesn't want to be a part of the United States (not just an economic beneficiary), he should be denied citizenship.
But if it's clear that someone doesn't want to be a part of the United States (not just an economic beneficiary), he should be denied citizenship.
*** I agree wholeheartedly. It's too bad you can't kick out the native born enemies within!
I think we should:
1. Aztlan/Chicano nationalists should be deported to Mexico
2. Islamists should go to Iraq
3. White progressives should be forced to spend the rest of their miserable brain-dead lives in a Cuban prison
--- in today's Switzerland citizenship includes the right and duty to fulfill certain functions, among which military service is very important.
It is remarkable that to this day every Swiss male over 18 must be prepared to serve in the country's citizen-army; after completing their basic training they keep their weapons at home, and refusal to perform military service is a criminal offense.
_____________________________________
In today's America citizenship should include the right and duty to fulfill certain functions, among which basic military service should be very important.
Every American over 18 who wants to vote should be required to serve in the country's citizen-army for a short period; after completing their basic training they would keep their assault weapons at home.
Those who refuse to perform military service would be denied the privilege of voting in State or National elections.
Voting for local dogcatchers/county clerks/mayors etc, would be permissible under this new 28th Constitutional Amendment.
I agree with you. There is a big difference between legal and illegal immigration.
A lot of people just don't believe in the ability of America and American civilization in assimilating new immigrants. That's unfortunate.
Most new legal immigrants want exactly what long-term Americans want. They want the opportunity to work and raise family and do these without too much hassles from the government. In fact, they probably appreciate freedom more, if they had experienced tyranny. In this sense, they will make perfect citizens.
Agreed. There are a lot of people who are now legal American citizens who resent illegal aliens and their liberal handlers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.