Political Theory

Re: A Parallel to Mexican Workers in the USA

JimS — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:16:02 GMT

JonBostwick:
Today everyone is entitled to government handouts regardless of citizenship . . . I don't understand you pro-citizenship anarchists.

Non-citizens in the US are subject to taxes and Select Service (i.e. potential draft) just like citizens . . . there is a principle called "no taxation without representation" :-) In our current framework, citizenship means the vote, i.e. substantive (as opposed to virtual) political representation.

Personally, I'm for getting rid of the federal citizenship altogether; a citizenship of the US (immigrant, their children, whether arriving today in a 777 or nearly 400 years ago in the Mayflower) should be derived from State citizenship. Each State should be able to decide its own policies on citizenship.

As for government handouts, the biggest handouts are social security and medicare, neither of which the new immigrants, being young, enjoy much. The loudest complaint we hear about public handout to immigrants is the public education, aside from the fundamental injustice of parents getting taxed to have their children brainwashed in what is called public education, I'd like to see how many towns would institute rules that ban parents with children or pregnant women from moving into their towns. After all, the bulk of school funding is local property tax; immigration status at the federal level is nowhere nearly as relevent as the length of history living in the particular town and paying tax to the town. Do children's grandparents have to have owned or rented property in town for X number of years before the kid can go to school?

Re: A Parallel to Mexican Workers in the USA

A.B. — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:57:35 GMT

Ron Paul wants to restrict immigration, he is clear about that. He focuses especially on the immigration that is deemed illegal, but that's beside the point. As a constitutionalist, he doesn't seem to realize there's nothing in the constitution granting congress the power to restrict immigration, only naturalization, which makes me think he might be confusing the two.

Re: A Parallel to Mexican Workers in the USA

Bostwick — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:41:39 GMT

A.B.:
Ron Paul in particular seems highly confused on this point.

How so?

His policies seem to indicate he is for immigration but against (automatic) naturalization and extending entitlements to non citizens.

Re: A Parallel to Mexican Workers in the USA

A.B. — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 07:50:25 GMT

There is a striking confusion in the US between immigration and naturalization.It seems many american can't fathom the idea that immigration does not mean or imply naturalization. Ron Paul in particular seems highly confused on this point.

Re: A Parallel to Mexican Workers in the USA

Bostwick — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:07:50 GMT

ryanpatgray:
Later on in the article is this ironic line: ""From a Western viewpoint, workers who live here for 30 or 40 years should have rights. Their children should become citizens. These are basic things in the West," added the Kuwait-based analyst."

Ron Paul might disagree.

Actually a route to citizenship for resident aliens is pretty much the opposite of how itworks here today. Today everyone is entitled to government handouts regardless of citizenship, and the children of non-citizens are considered citizens. If we had a program like that rather than immigration quotas, immigration would be a non issue.

I don't understand you pro-citizenship anarchists.

A Parallel to Mexican Workers in the USA

ryanpatgray — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 02:06:48 GMT

Foreign workers are an important part of the economy of many nations, not just the United States. It is sometimes easier to see the true motives behind calls to curb "illegal immigration" by looking to similar calls in other parts of the world. I recently read an interesting article on the website of the Free Muslims Coalition, an organization promoting openness and tolerance in the Middle East and Islamic populations in the West.

From the article: "Support is growing for time-limits on the residency of the millions of expatriates living in the Gulf, seen by some of the region's governments and nationals as posing a demographic threat. Foreigners make up about 13 million, or 37 percent, of the 35 million population across the six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)."

Later on in the article is this ironic line: ""From a Western viewpoint, workers who live here for 30 or 40 years should have rights. Their children should become citizens. These are basic things in the West," added the Kuwait-based analyst."

Ron Paul might disagree.

You can read the entire article here:

http://www.freemuslims.org/news.php?id=3674