That bottom line?

"I ask you to consider all this partially in jest and partially in earnest. What is jesting is any expectation that we would in fact enact such a citizenship agenda. But the jest is meant to make plain that some of the people now called "citizens" are far less worthy of citizenship in this civic republican sense than some of the people now called 'undocumented' or 'illegal' or 'anchor babies.' And in any case, the children of those undocumented people, born here just like any other native-born Americans, should be assumed to be no less or no more deserving of their status, no less or more capable of contribution, than anyone else."

Lieu winds up with:

"And what I argue for in earnest is a long overdue reconsideration of the content of our citizenship. Short of my modest proposal, what are some ways to revive citizenship? We've got to do more using every institution at hand - from schools to neighborhood groups, from theaters to small businesses - to re-articulate the values, knowledge, and skills of effective citizenship. We need, adults and children alike, to engage anew in public discussion of the civic religious creed we've inherited from Jefferson and Lincoln and King; of the collective character needed to temper the atomizing individualism of American life; and the common culture needed to keep our centrifugally diverse market society from flying apart."

And finishes with this gem:

"As an easy first step, the next time someone uses denial of citizenship as a weapon or brandishes the special status conferred upon him by the accident of birth, ask him this: What have you done lately to earn it?"

Maybe hiding your money in overseas bank accounts should be a reason to lose your citizenship rights.

Although the movie did turned it into a gore-fest, Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers is, at its heart, based on the premise that one must earn citizenship and thus right to vote and help steer the course of the nation. While Heinlein used military service as the only way to earn citizenship, I think if it were introduced that any variety of "service"-oriented contributions would suffice. The battle (and what a battle it would be!) would be in developing that list. The question is: would we ever really consider it? How about revoking citizenship following conviction for a violent crime? Seems like a good idea, but we can't deport them.

Are there American citizens who haven't done diddly-shit to earn the moniker? Absolutely. We see a lot of them on TV every day. I love "man on the street" quizzes about politics, history, etc...where people can't tell you how many judges comprise the SCOTUS, or how many Senators there are. We on the DR lightly touched on this the other day when we discussed the question of how many Americans could pass the citizenship test taken by legal immigrants before they can become US citizens. We hear "artists" butcher the National Anthem on national television several times a year. BUT...does that mean anchor babies are acceptable? Absolutely not.

Seems to me that the idea of earning citizenship is along the lines of the Dream Act. Those young people are exactly the type of we want to be Americans so why do we have so many who oppose it?

You would have to propose a far more sweeping legislation. The Dream Act is purely aimed at making illegals into legals, and as such it meets a lot of opposition. Unfortunately, a broader act, one that repeals the 14th Amendment and proposes citizenship as a meritocracy, would be assassinated in the media as attempting to (god, I hate this overused word) "disenfranchise" the poor.

Think of the benefits to the public of making citizenship something you earn, though! A list of qualifying avocations might include doctors (but not ALL doctors), farmers, engineers working on public infrastructure, military service, Peace Corps, etc.... Hedge fund manager? Nope. Barista? Nope. Pro football player? Nope. College student? Nope. Artist? Nope. All of these people would have to go out and serve the public good for a period of years..say from ages 18-21...and earn the right to say "my America". The phrase "some skin in the game" would mean something different.

Maybe when you turn age 13, you have to fight in a cage with a wild dog or something to earn your citizenship. That would be cool.

"The Dream Act is purely aimed at making illegals into legals, and as such it meets a lot of opposition."

Illegal through no fault of their own for the most part. Raised in the US most of their lives, most have no memory of life in their birth nations. It's cruel to deport them to places they have no connection to and it is foolish after we've spent thousands educating them.

"Maybe when you turn age 13, you have to fight in a cage with a wild dog or something to earn your citizenship. That would be cool."
LOL!

Isn't this from Starship Troopers? You were born a civilian and had to earn the right to be a citizen?

Maybe when you turn age 13, you have to fight in a cage with a wild dog or something to earn your citizenship. That would be cool.
#7 | Posted by daniel_3

and it is foolish after we've spent thousands educating them.

#8 | POSTED BY DANNI

The foolish part, Danni, was to have spent the money to educate them in the first place. Those 'thousands' are actually tens of thousands (probably close to $100K in public school funds for K-12).

"The foolish part, Danni, was to have spent the money to educate them in the first place. Those 'thousands' are actually tens of thousands (probably close to $100K in public school funds for K-12)."

Why do you say that? We need more young people in this country to balance our demographics and these kids are educated, law abiding, many join our military and they will make good citizens. Do you think that anyone should be punished for what their parents did? I don't.

How long will it take for that list to include "stfu". Birth is a start, and so is time served. Especially if its most of someones life.

Seems like a good idea, but we can't deport them.

#4 | Posted by MUSTANG

Sure we can. We can vote them onto The Island.

"balance our demographics"

That may be one of the most chilling things I've ever seen written. I could infer that you mean that America should selectively promote the increase and/or decrease of one ethic group over another.

During the 20th century, many countries enacted various eugenics policies and programs, including: genetic screening, birth control, promoting differential birth rates, marriage restrictions, segregation (both racial segregation and segregation of the mentally ill from the rest of the population), compulsory sterilization, forced abortions or forced pregnancies and genocide. Most of these policies were later regarded as coercive and/or restrictive, and now few jurisdictions implement policies that are explicitly labeled as eugenic or unequivocally eugenic in substance. However, some private organizations assist people in genetic counseling, and reprogenetics may be considered as a form of non-state-enforced liberal eugenics. - Wikipedia

It's like Starship Troopers without bugs.

Doesn't anyone find it ironic that the same white establishment who thought slavery was beneficial to our country want to strip citizenship from those the white establishment finds unworthy.

What is to become of these non-citizens? Are we attempting a two teir society? Those with rights and those without?

You Republicans are a dangerous group of small government tripe.

as opposed to folks like Margaret Sanger, right Prolix? Ever hear the term "southern Democrat"? They were the well-heeled, gentile SLAVE OWNERS you're referring to.

Also, is that he same "white establishment" that elected a black president?

Maybe when you turn age 13, you have to fight in a cage with a wild dog or something to earn your citizenship. That would be cool.

#7 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2012-02-03 09:40 AM

I know you were being facetious, but you should read The Hunger Games, or see the movie when it comes out.

Have you ever read The Long Walk by Stephen King? I always thought it would make a great movie.

BUT...does that mean anchor babies are acceptable? Absolutely not.

#4 | Posted by MUSTANG

Fuck you, senor!

Mitto del Rmoney.

Prolix we already are a two tier system. Stripping citizenship from one of the tier's seems to just acknowledge what already exists. Heck just make it for sale. If you can't pay you are not a citizen. I was watching COPS last night (yeah i know) but the one thing I saw was everyone was poor. Not once did the flashing blue lights go after a guy in a business suit.

Maybe let the poor be citizens for service I mean the 1% want their services so they could sponsor the help either taxes for military, police, firemen. Then for the others they could just pay citizenship fees and not have to pay wages. Maybe they could keep a few houses on the back 40 for the help to live in since they won't make any money till the fees are paid. Of course you could have a store behind the main house and only allow your help to shop there deducting what they spend from the total they owe, hmm probably should charge them rent on their houses too, yep I can see it now.

Re: Heinlien and military service. What kind of military service? winning the Silver Star, making VD movies for the troops or hanging out in Alabama, pretending to be in the ANG?

btw-ST stunk. Made no sense and the military activity was stupid.

"the others they could just pay citizenship fees"

We are. I just got my W-2, and I paid a reasonably hefty fee indeed.

We are. I just got my W-2, and I paid a reasonably hefty fee indeed.

If you got a W2 you can't afford citizenship but maybe those taxes can go to reduce the amount you will owe.

NG3 you talking the movie or the book? The movie was weak sauce compared to the book. Oh and the book address the fact that things like peace corp. could count towards service.

#24 | POSTED BY NORTHGUY3

Do you just gloss stuff, grab a few key words and start typing? Go back and read the post again. I didn't say Heinlein was in the military, dumbass. I said he used military service as a requirement of citizenship IN A BOOK HE WROTE.

#26 | POSTED BY TAOWARRIOR

I'm on a payment plan. It's like rent to own.

Putting aside the fact that I find the idea of citizenship not being a birthright offensive, how would the logistics of such a change work out? Would a certain portion of the population suddenly have their citizenship revoked so as to come into accord with the new rules? Everybody born after this date X? Otherwise, wouldn't it be a bill of attainder? Or even if we made the date of law's passage the date you had to be born by, how old would one have to be before they could earn citizenship? Wouldn't there be a period of many years before any new citizens were added? I believe people aren't thinking things through here.

Mustang,

Good luck with that. If you think you are in the 1% that can afford it you have been lied to. Don't sweat it I'm not either. We can get along fine and I am sure the massa will let us have some new tar paper for the roof any day now, till then the leaking roof is a shower in every room, a feature not a bug, that's what massa said.

BTW Heinlein did serve in the Navy.

"That may be one of the most chilling things I've ever seen written. I could infer that you mean that America should selectively promote the increase and/or decrease of one ethic group over another."

I should have said "age demographics." Because of the size of the boomer generation we actually NEED more young people to replace us. These kids who would be helped with the Dream Act would one day be helping our kids to support us old farts. I don't care what color, gender or hair color, if they graduate high school, obey the law and work for a living they are good enough for me to want them to be fellow citizens.

I believe people aren't thinking things through here.

The author's point, exactly.

while i find some agreement in his "bottom line", to my taste he arrives the same way Hitler did.

this is free country and everyone is welcome.

how about 2 years military service for all?

the title of this blog nearly had me NOT clicking in.

Exactly Doc....this entire thread hasn't been about anyone actually doing this so much as it's been an intellectual exercise. Hagbard, you'll see I offered no way to make it work...because it won't. Just trying to get everyone's mental juices flowing...

#20

Roy,

They filmed a good bit of the movie a few miles from my house. Can't wait to go see it. Those waterfalls are almost in my back yard.

what am i not thinking through? telling me that a newborn birthed within our borders already has a debt to earn.

'Natural Born Citizen' is "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government."
--Black's

I'm sorry to have to ask this, but: is this an idea which is being taken seriously?

Also, If this is a trial balloon to institute 2 year mandatory military conscription I say bring back the draft. We need to ensure equity between the rich and poor.

the draft is a lottery. everybody means everybody serves.

(btw, i see now that "thinking through" was a HC quote, sorry.)

* Service * Knowledge * Net Contribution * Periodic Renewal

Why don't we start with paying income tax - you don't, you are not a citizen. How does that sound Doc?

"Recently, some congressional GOPers - fixated on people who immigrate illegally to have a so-called "anchor baby" on US soil - have called for end to birthright citizenship."

The GOP wants this?

Man, talk about the Department of Unintended Consequences getting ready to open.

#40 no, many disabled pay no taxeS.
btw, i never meant service for citizenship.

..although that ought to be one path.

and PR, et al, should get the vote.

"Have you ever read The Long Walk by Stephen King? I always thought it would make a great movie."

Cool

would make for an amazingly brutal movie. Ironically every other short story in that book did become a major movie.

#40 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum
"Why don't we start with paying income tax - you don't, you are not a citizen."

Why stop there?
We have a stratified income tax system, we could have stratified citizenship.

The top tier would be the ultra-wealthy, the top 1% perhaps.
They pay the most tax, and they are the ones who actually get to decide how and what things are done.

The second tier would be the upper class, perhaps the next 10%.
They pay a large percentage of tax, and theirs are the voices most listened to.

The third tier would be the middle class, or perhaps the next 40-50%. Their voices are heard, and ostensibly considered, but rarely have any effect, since they don't pay as much in taxes.

The fourth tier would be the lower class, and, paying little to no tax, they have little to no citizenship.
As a result, while they have a voice, it is rarely if ever considered.

This seems like a fair, workable possibility, doesn't it?

Oh.

Wait.

It's pretty much what we have?

Nevermind, then.

Another stupid thread by Doc Sarvis. Hey Doc, where'd ya get your medical degree? University of Stupid?

"Hey Doc, where'd ya get your medical degree? University of Stupid?"

Hey, Dean -

Don't get snippy with us if you don't know who attended your institution.