Should citizenship in America be an automatic or should it be earned?

Things given for free are rarely ever truly appreciated. In order for America to maintain the highest caliber of citizen possible would it be benficial to demand that citizenship rights be earned regardless of the geography of your birth.

At a chosen age--perhaps 16-- one must apply for and then test to gain full citizenship as an American. Passing the test and then swearing an oath could be a rite of passage into adulthood. Once successfully completed you are then granted complete rights as an America in the form of economic and social perks, the right to vote......

I figure if persons from all over the world can pass one to become a citizen someone born here should pass with flying colors. If you fail or do choose not to partake you can still stay here but have no rights other than basic civil protections we grant anyone on our soil.

Would this be fair?

Would America benefit from such a process?

I suppose it would be fair if we were to take a cost-benefit analysis approach. But I thought that each man (and by man I mean "man or woman") was born with inalienable human rights; and America was a country founded on that very assumption. For "citizenship" to be 'earned' would fly in the face of such an understanding... that is unless you change the citizenship structure so that non-citizens have the same individual rights and full-citizens are merely granted rights of political involvement.

We do recognize those rights in anyone--at least in theory.
There was a news report about a Cuban national who had turned his pickup truck into basically a giant paddlewheel boat and "drove" across the ocean to get here.
I thought to myself "Now That's my kind of American" I thought at least he would get honorary status as a Texan for the cohonies to do that. Instead he was deported.

With the thread on Patriotism I started thinking that why should one receive citizenship here just because of geographical location of birth. I happen to think America is the Primo location to live and be a citizen of--forgive the arrogant nationalism and it seems to me few of my fellow Americans really appreciate what it is we have. Perhaps that might change if it were not guaranteed.
A little competition I guess.

I think being born here is enough, but I also feel that there should be earned privileges/rights based on your willingness to serve.
One of my favorite writers suggested that in order to vote, or run for political office, one must have served his/her country in some way.
Certainly military service would be included, and other kinds of service for those not suitable for the military can be done. Even most of those with some kind of handicap can serve in some capacity. I see mentally retarded persons working at thrift stores quite often. If they can work there, they can serve in some capacity for their country. In fact, I served in the Navy with a few who would probably be on some kind of government assistance in public life, but were allowed to re-enlist because it was known that they were good workers even if in a menial capacity.
I would add as an incentive some kind of permanently paid major medical type health care for those who serve, based on years of service, and comprehensive health care while serving.
And there would be a 2 year minimum.
With the inability to vote and/or run for political office hanging over their heads, even the rich and powerful might serve.
There would be ways to lose those privileges as well. Certainly those who commit serious crimes should lose the vote/run privileges.
Again, the rich and powerful might decide to play their games a bit more fairly if there was the potential to lose their privileges.

I don't. It's gotten so bad now that 22% of all children in some states under the age of 6 are children of illegal aliens who are just having anchor babies here so they can stay. I think we seriously need to reconsider the whole "you're born here, you're a citizen and your parents get a free ride because your mother managed to waddle across the border before she dropped you."

I agree. This principle should also be applied retroactively. If you can trace non-American origins back to, say, 6 or fewer generations, then your citizenship should be automatically revoked. Assets generated over that time should also be "nationalized" to support the native population.

The thing is that the "citizenship test" premise is important in the sense that American citizens should have a general understanding of American history and constitutional rights, etc. (emphasis on the SHOULD part!!!.. I'm confident that there are plenty of natural born citizens that don't have a clue).
That being said, at least people that were raised in the US have been exposed to American history and constitutional law, etc.

I believe that all people in the US for the long-term should have to become citizens. I don't really even believe in long-term resident alien statuses. Why should we allow someone to stay in the US for 10 or 20 years that doesn't want to be American??? Is that what our original immigration policy was intended for??

At the same time... I like Bill55AZ's idea about having to serve our country in some capacity in order to vote. I would also add that in order to receive SS benefits that you must serve in some capacity. This shouldn't have to be in the military, but maybe include police duty or civil service. Being in the Military definitely changed my perspective, as it does nearly everyone's I've come in contact with.

Could you imagine some of our leaders on Capitol Hill in Marine Corps Crucible??? Let's put wagers on Bush vs. Kerry!!! Frankly, I'd pay to see either of them...

Absolutely. The important thing to remember here is - rights aren't inalienable. (They should be dependant on one's parents social standing and wealth). Worked over here for about 800 years.

I find this to be a ridiculous notion. What happens if you dont pass the test? Are you just in citizen limbo for the rest of your life? And if you dont pass this test, or dont want to, that means you cant leave the country even if you wanted to, because you need to be a citizen of a country to travel anywhere. No one has the option of getting citizenship of another country, so they're sort of screwed. They would have to get American citizenship before emigrating.

And what is your nationality before you take the test?

And as Ultimate Joe has already pointed in, aren't we granted inalienable rights?

Also, what other country does this? None. Why is American citizenship so exclusive that even those who were born here have to pass a test? And why should someone cherish their citizenship in the first place? You can't help where you born. And you can't help what culture you grow up in.

Would this be fair?

No, because people with more ability would have more rights then people with less. That defies the concept of democracy.

Would America benefit from such a process?

I don't think a government sponsored system of first and second class citizens will benefit America. The poor and uneducated, and the disabled would be the ones to lose out.

logophage:

I agree. This principle should also be applied retroactively. If you can trace non-American origins back to, say, 6 or fewer generations, then your citizenship should be automatically revoked. Assets generated over that time should also be "nationalized" to support the native population.

Oh great idea. Lets make 99% of the country into impoverished non-citizens, and the remaining one percent into some sort aristocracy.

Ptarmigan:

Absolutely. The important thing to remember here is - rights aren't inalienable. (They should be dependant on one's parents social standing and wealth). Worked over here for about 800 years.

Why does everyone want to revive the feudal age? Dont you understand it was bad...

Would this be fair?

I don't believe this is fair at all. You're talking about conditional citizenship. If a person is a descendent of one of the original Mayflower families, why should they have to "prove" their worth as an American citizen? Same goes for any multi-generational American. Where do you draw the line? Is someone who is 2nd generation American any more or less American than the Mayflower descendent (who, by the way, was an illegal immigrant)?

I think that the offspring of those who emigrate from other countries should only become automatic citizens if his/her parents have become US citizens first.

This concept reminds me of an Emily Dickinson quote: "I am no body, who are you?"




Certainly not! You are robbing children of their Constitutional rights. What happens when children become fed up with the adults for making stupid decisions and decide to revolt? What if they all decide to flunk the test and flood the system with non-citizens? How would this be dealt with?

To screen out slackers who don't study in History class by forcing them to dance around like a performing monkey during a test asking them who the nation's first president was is about the funniest concept imaginable. It is not fair to children whose future's would hang in the balance. It is not fair to adults who would worry about never seeing their children again if they fail the test. And it is not fair on the American Economy.

If the 0-16 year old generation aren't citizens that means their parents can't claim them as Independents on their tax forms. Economic crisis and instability much?




Hmm... a possible hate-war between any child under sixteen who has a rebel streak and adults, tax-hysteria: sounds like a picnic for Americans!

If we are not allowed citizenship when we are born we are prisoners to American soil. You must be affiliated with a country to travel abroad. When a child's parents move to Siberia what will they do? Leave their children behind because they are not filed in the F.B.I.'s list of citizens?

Oh, and another negative aspect, positive for some: the flow of illegal immigration could be reversed. I would personally run to Canada or Mexico if I were not given citizenship. I would guess Illegal Immigration took a sudden turn in favor of other North American countries... like I said I wouldn't live in a land I love but doesn't claim me. Would police officers who spy a fifteen year-old, who would not be a citizen, murdering an adult would they be held responsible if they tortured the teen for an impossible-to-determine number of hours in the privacy of their own home? After all, they're not American citizens, they're just taking up space!


My goodness, benefit? Benefit? I do not think there are any words that come close to describing how harmful this system would be.

Alright lets deal with the test might be too hard responses first.

I doubt the test would be all that hard. The difficulty of the test isn't even the point--the focus is making a conscious choice in becoming a citizen in a particular country.
Why should geographical birthplace be the determining factor?
This runs off the "Patriotism" thread and the idea of the herd mentality some people place on being a citizen and being patriotic where maybe you do not agree with the action "but we all need to stand together now and support the leadership"--in other words shut up and do not ask questions.

Perhaps by changing the parameters of granting citizenship and requiring a conscious affirmation of the decision this might change. Also perhaps it might indeed cause some to refuse--contrary to

That is doubtful at best. the economic system would simply be designed to absorb the flux, and I also doubt that the difference in "official" citizen rolls would change much unless there was a serious amount of competition for citizens among comparable democratic states.

Also did many of you read the question fully. If you decline the offer you aren't thrown out and can stay--you just have no official say in how politics occurs here.



Kimpossible

That is the whole point of the idea--geographical location should not matter to a society founded on the principle of "inalienable" rights. All this says is no one gets a completely free ride and we require you to actively decide to want to be an American.
So many people never participate at all so if they wish to do so--fine--but why should they receive anything in return?
They can still stay but they have no say until they actively decide to participate.

Also, what other country does this?

Once again the difficulty of the test is irrelevant! It is the conscious choice to participate. As for the poor, in the words of Fred Reed


With the exception of serious medical problems that handicap your independence and ability the only way to fail in America is to try and fail.

This doesn't address any of the concerns I brought up. If someone chooses not be "American" they really have no choice to go to another country. All countries require you to be have a passport to enter that country, so...for instance, if I decided not to take this test and I wanted to travel some, I'd be stuck in a catch-22. I dont want to be an American citizen but I would like to leave the country...Well, I'd have no other choice but to travel illegally, all thanks to this self-righteous idiotic citizenship test. Effectively, I'd be a prisoner in the United States.

And this still doesn't address the issue of inalienable rights. That means everyone has those rights, even if they dont participate the way you would like them to. This isnt about you. If rights are inalienable, then there should be nothing restricting them. But apparently that little document, the Constitution, means little to you. We have laws against competency tests to vote, how is this any different?

You seem to think this idea wouldn't be abused. Sooner or later, there will be second and third tier "residents" who will have little loyalty to the United States, and treated poorly because they are not guaranteed the same rights as citizens, but who will be forced to live in the country because they wont be able to travel anywhere else because they are not citizens of a country.

I don't know how this idea is even acceptable to anyone. By having a group of citizenless refugees, you'd only be aggravating and exaggerating the problem we have now. I'm also positive if this ever happened, America would be shunned globally. And you might not care what other countries think, until they stop importing our goods and hating us because they will have a flood of our citizenless refugees who would like to seek equal rights in other countries. Also having such discontenment throughout the country would weaken our morale, and therefore it would be harder to defend us.

By making everyone a citizen at birth and affording everyone the same rights and opportunities, you are only strengthening the country. Those who are citizens, even if they don't vote, tend to be loyal to the country. Even those, like myself, who dont want to live in the country and are disappointed and disgusted at the turn things have taken, will always be fiercely loyal to it. However, if I was born and not given that citizenship from birth, and I was left no option to leave the country, I can assure you that I would not be happy with just sitting there and taking it. I cant imagine that I would be alone.

But, don't you see? "Natives" have more rights than non-natives. Or rather, people who have ancestry of a sufficiently long interval in the US are inherently superior to those of shorter ancestral duration. To make it the most fair, we could use a scaling factor based on ancestry. A tax would be levied inversely proportional to this factor. Voting rights would be granted only after achieving a factor of 0.5 or greater. Moreover, we could do the same for state and regional voting. In other words, if you can't document ancestry for a particular state or region of a factor 0.5 greater, then you can't vote in that election.

Keep in mind that the only folks who could be elected are those who have voting rights. This means that it is possible for more restrictive legislation to be passed against those disqualified from "full" citizenship. However, if they just play their cards right, eventually their progeny will gain the citizenship they or their children are denied. Thus, such restrictive legislation could eventually be repealed unless, of course, it wasn't considered too restrictive at that time by the voting populace, i.e. those with full citizenship.

I suppose it is possible for those with full citizenship to extend or modify the criteria for when one becomes qualified as a full citizen. That is, it may be that the number of successive generations would increase from, say, 6 to 7 and from 7 to 8 and so on effectively locking-out new families from joining the ranks of full citizenship. I'm sure this could be easily solved by having folks marry into a "full" citizen family. But, perhaps, this would be proscribed or, rather, strongly discouraged. It could be avoided entirely by instituting arranged marriages amongst the full citizen stock. Of course, a successful non-citizen family may be able to buy-in to the full citizen circle. And special laws could be legislated from time to time permitting a "reinvigoration" of the full citizen gene pool.

Taxes levied on non-citizens could be used for any number of things. Certainly, building infrastructure is good and, in particular, building infrastructure related to governance. Of course, the only people using the governance infrastructure would be those with full citizenship. And since governance is hard work, it makes sense to build ancillary infrastructure so that governance could continue smoothly. People need food, rest, shelter, entertainment, etc. Thus, there should be a special consideration given to those of full citizenship who do the work of governance, afterall.

I could go on...but, clearly, ancestrally based citizenship qualification is the way to go.

I would suppose that where such and idea ever to be implemented how to deal with those who decline and wish to leave would have some options. Seems pretty basic to me.

Less caffeine? the Constitution means a lot to me, try to remember this is a hypothetical.
I also do not agree that there would be a flood of those who would decline to accept citizenship--where else are you going to go? Maybe Canada or Austrailia? But I think the Aussies require you have a work skill they find valuable?
As for the difference between this and the competency tests I also think the test would be pretty basic. The whole idea is the concsious and direct choice to be an American citizen, much like many people the world over who risk life and limb to get here do.
Its about the choice--not the test. Forget the test. The idea of the test rests more along the idea of a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood. A focal point that helps develop one's identity. Seems a better and more sanitary choice than tattoos or peircings and then a wild snipe hunt or vision quest.
We ask this of those that come here to gauge their sincerity--all I am asking is why not require the same effort from those who are born here? Is it really to much to ask? I am not demanding or suggesting mandatory service to the country and as for the difficulty level of the test maybe I am biased but I cannot fathom a test so difficult anyone would be in danger of failing it. If someone from one of the third world countries can make their way here and pass the minimal test are you seriously suggesting that someone born here with ALL the advantages available--many of them for free and almost forced into your hands--couldn't do the same?

I agree completely Kmpossible. I think this is a very real concern if we ever adopted such a law.

In any case, I would never support a law that does not provide automatic citizenship at birth. As far as going back six generations???? What does that mean? If my great grandparents were the first ones to come to the U.S. back in the late 19th century, does that mean I would not be a U.S. citizen? I am sorry, but that is absurd.

What is the purpose of this law? To require more civic involvement or appreciation of one's rights? If so, I don't think this type of law will help matters any. Most people are just not all that engaged politically. That will never change. We give people lots of opportunities to learn about government and fundamentally people have a good idea of what the basic rights are. Then when their rights are violated-- they can see an attorney.

That was what I meant when I said "born here", meaning born here of citizen parents. My daughter was born in Cuba, but she isn't about to claim citizenship there.

With rights come responsibilites. I don't favor a test for the general population, but would like to see anyone running for public office face a battery of tests to see if they understand the responsibilities and the limitations of the powers they have as holders of public office. We have all heard of some really stupid things our "ruling class" members have said or done, makes me wonder how they got elected in the first place.

I believe that was a joke in regards to another's posters comments to a reply by Bill55Az.

Logophage seems to be pulling some legs, and doing it quite well, don't you think?

uhhh...why doesn't contributing to the economy, culture and society for your entire life count? We already use the military too much as it is.

Are you referring to robert Heinlein? I read one of his books where only women with children were allowed to vote (because they had a stake in the future)




Automatic



interestingly, I can surmise that almost every single person having this conversation was given their rights for free and does appreciate them so that doesn't appear to be true.



I worry about anyone who would swear an oath to a corrupt bureaucratic behemoth like our government. Sorry I consider each action based on context.

Would this be fair?

Would America benefit from such a process?

No. First I don't think you can adequately measure the myriad of things people contribute to society with a test. Do you really care if you're doctor could pass the foreign services exam? I certainly don't care if my automechanic understands the intricacies of imminent domain.

It's important to remember that tests work best as filters not motivators. If your goal is to promote high quality citizens the first step is to provide them with a decent education and economic opportunities. If we do that first and it doesn't work then I would consider a test, until then it's just more needless bureaucracy.




That guy totally should have gotten citizenship. I want this country to do everything in it's power to attract intelligent, motivated people. We should have given him a scholarship too.

Also raise your hand if you have passed the foreign services exam. If you haven't does that mean you're not qualified to vote?



Sources are nice....

Also illegal immigrants are awesome for the economy. Like cheap food? thank the illegal immigrant who harvested it. Anyone who wants to work their butt off to get their kids into the US should be allowed in.



Seriously, who's getting a free ride? How many people are not participating in society? Who isn't paying the taxes that make this all work?

Would this be fair?

No. If the idea is to entice people to participate more in the political system and in more generally in the public life, this is a wrong idea.

Would America benefit from such a process?

This whole idea reeks of old projects that are still popular in Europe extreme rights... reminds me of the selection of the Aryan race! In other words, this process is going against the idea that citizens are equal because it creates a new category of super citizens. In return, the risk of seeing a new form of segregation is severe.

I, myself, will very probably not become a US citizen, although I am a lawful resident. The reason is that I am being asked to resign my allegiance to France in order to gain access to American citizenship. That, to me, would be equal to treason againt my motherland. Does that mean that I have to be a second class person? I hope not.

No, when you are born, you are taken care of by society and it's citizens. You are also it's future, so since you are a part of that given society and it's government, you are a citizen. Not only that, but we have people of limited mental capacity who are good citizens-they show up to work everyday, pay their taxes, and vote. They may not be able to tell you what article III of the constitution stipulates, but are you a real citizen if you know the constitution inside out by you aren't as productive as this "limited" person?

As for the youth, we do have a program in place-it's called government and civics education. Whether or not you remember it is another thing. No government initiative is going to make sure that you know every nook and cranny of how our government works and operates. Even if you make them take a test to become a citizen, will they remember all of the justices when they are fifty?