Debate on the U.S.'s long term strategic and technological goals in an increasingly multi-polar world.

ParadiseLost said:

Question: are you okay with 9 year olds voting?

If no, why should people with the same level of political and historical education as a 9 year old be allowed to vote?

Click to expand...

That is not how the laws or anything in the US work, and for good reason.

I want to deal with illegal immigration, not reduce the franchise of people who can vote legitimately, just because I do not think they are 'smart' enough.

Down that road lies a lot of very dark and horrible things, if such a precedent is set.

Bear Ribs said:

The test is pretty much entirely covered by taking basic social studies in grade school, normally a required course for several years anyway.

Click to expand...

Maybe it was decades ago. My experience with social studies was one hundred percent propaganda about the Original Sins of western civilization, actually learning history beyond slavery and the trail of tears was the result of hobbyist reading.

posh-goofiness said:

Huh. That's a pretty uncharitable position to hold, I'm sorta insulted now. I don't support that, by the way. I'd (probably) just not require that they be tested at all and instead have a system of sponsorship where the person has reduced responsibilities with respect to civic participation and a commensurate reduction their political power as a class.

Click to expand...

I don't know what kind of sense it makes to deny citizenship to people based on their ignorance except if that ignorance is a result of mental deficiency.

strunkenwhite said:

I don't know what kind of sense it makes to deny citizenship to people based on their ignorance except if that ignorance is a result of mental deficiency.

Click to expand...

It makes no sense whatsoever to deny citizenship due to ignorance or mental deficiency.

If we do a line will be drawn and that line will creep ever higher because those just barely above the line will always be considered "idiots".

Bacle said:

So now you just want to reduce the franchise of people with learning disabilities, so much better.

Click to expand...

There is such a thing called diminished capacity and power of attorney. It's used all the time. My proposal is a natural extension of that from the legal to the civic. I don't think it's out of line to argue that the steward/executor/sponsor/whatever can make life changing legal decisions already such cases. Additionally, I said I would not REQUIRE such testing. At any time, said person could take the same test as everyone else and get the same responsibilities and rights.

You know your system will never happen, and continue to show why it will never be allowed to happen.
How about a hearty fuck you for trying to strip rights from people who have done nothing wrong.

Click to expand...

Okay. I disclaimed many posts ago that I know my position relative to the norm is unpopular (and that I don't go out and advocate for it either). :/

strunkenwhite said:

I don't know what kind of sense it makes to deny citizenship to people based on their ignorance except if that ignorance is a result of mental deficiency.

Click to expand...

Because the default assumption is (in the case of someone losing their citizenship) that it's willful ignorance.

bintananth said:

It makes no sense whatsoever to deny citizenship due to ignorance or mental deficiency.

If we do a line will be drawn and that line will creep ever higher because those just barely above the line will always be considered "idiots".

Click to expand...

"deny citizenship due to ignorance" That's an interesting way to phrase that. Legal immigrant (appilcants) are denied citizenship when they fail that basic knowledge test and they aren't all that hard as we have discussed in the thread. The system in place is there for many reasons, most important of which is filtering out the immigrants that really want it.

As for the creep problem, agreed. The current state of moral decay means anything like this might degenerate quickly. In such a system we could only hope that more stringent protocols lead to more civic and moral minded people that can slow or reverse such creep when it occurs. Before a system like this could be put in place, we'd need to fix a lot of issues first.

Edit: Typos somewhat fixed.

Bassoe said:

Maybe it was decades ago. My experience with social studies was one hundred percent propaganda about the Original Sins of western civilization, actually learning history beyond slavery and the trail of tears was the result of hobbyist reading.

Click to expand...

How old are you?
Because I am 22 and I have gotten everything we are talking aboutbi learned about

posh-goofiness said:

Because the default assumption is (in the case of someone losing their citizenship) that it's willful ignorance.

Click to expand...

Why does that matter, though? I thought your position was based on the justification of the people in question being incompetent/unfit for citizenship. Whether this is true due to squandered potential or lack of it does not affect the end result. Disabled people are given considerations on humanitarian/compassionate grounds but I don't see why this would mean they ought to be citizens while otherwise similarly situated people aren't; if it is a question of legal rights/protections, those shouldn't be denied the people you propose denying citizenship.

In short, why should I be concerned that lazy-minded people are voting but not that feeble-minded people are?

Bacle said:

I dare you to go say that to the Navajo, Crow, or Inuit.

Click to expand...

Well, if one opposes hereditary privilege, then one should likewise oppose it for them as well.

The Whispering Monk said:

I'm OK dumping that completely, and require that EVERY ONE, to include those with American Citizens as parents, have to apply for citizenship. Those born here to Citizens are allowed to apply w/no requirements except passing the exams, unlike foreigners applying for US Citizenship.

Click to expand...

Yeah, scrapping hereditary citizenship and hereditary voting rights would certainly be egalitarian. Seriously. It would require everyone to work for these things.

WolfBear said:

Well, if one opposes hereditary privilege, then one should likewise oppose it for them as well.

Click to expand...

It's not 'hereditary priviledge', it's birthright citizenship you are scrapping, and that will never fly with me and most of the US.

Dealing with illegal immigration does not require ending birthright citizenship, it just requires actually enforcing the laws on the books with regards to illegal border crossings, birth tourism, and people purposely overstaying their visa's.

strunkenwhite said:

Why does that matter, though? I thought your position was based on the justification of the people in question being incompetent/unfit for citizenship. Whether this is true due to squandered potential or lack of it does not affect the end result. Disabled people are given considerations on humanitarian/compassionate grounds but I don't see why this would mean they ought to be citizens while otherwise similarly situated people aren't; if it is a question of legal rights/protections, those shouldn't be denied the people you propose denying citizenship.

In short, why should I be concerned that lazy-minded people are voting but not that feeble-minded people are?

Click to expand...

I have few problems with some of the things you said.

incompetent/unfit for citizenship

Click to expand...

The word choice does not reflect my position accurately, I have a problem with the incompetent and ignorant. Blanket declarations like "unfit" are far too general and are easily twisted for evil purposes.

question of legal rights/protections

Click to expand...

It is a question of civic duty, public service, and access to civil services. Take care to not conflate, say, the ability to hold public office, vote, or receive COBRA coverage with the right to a speedy trial, the right to self-defense, or the right to freedom of religion. The latter three are guaranteed to all, doesn't matter if you are a citizen or not. The former are things I would restrict in such a scheme.

Disabled people are given considerations on humanitarian/compassionate grounds but I don't see why this would mean they ought to be citizens

Click to expand...

Because in this hypothetical system, most ignorance is going to be of the willful variety and disability is a narrow cutout from the pesky "most" qualifier. I'm sure there are other exceptions. It's not like I'm proposing a fully fleshed out system with as many possible cases mapped out in detail. Let's examine, some cases:
1. teenager turning 18 and becoming a voter
2. adult up for retest
3. some variety of mental or developmental disability/ailment/whatever (already went through this in previous posts)

Which leads me back to your question.

In short, why should I be concerned that lazy-minded people are voting but not that feeble-minded people are?

Click to expand...

Because basic compassion and decency clearly means we need to separate those that, through no fault of their own, can't complete or find it exceptionally difficult to complete such citizenship tests. They should retain their access to, say, COBRA or SS or Medicaid but should nevertheless still be barred from public office or exempted from the Selective Service registry or required to take this hypothetical citizenship test. In the cases I outlined, the ignorant are synonymous with the willfully ignorant in most cases. And to be clear, the specific right to vote isn't something I would necessarily consider one of the things removed/diminished. Maybe it should be, but I don't think so. Under this hypothetical system the person is still under sponsorship/stewardship/whatever- there are multiple ways to handle deciding is this specific thing should be curtailed or not.

@posh-goofiness the problem with requiring the passing of a test before you're allowed to vote isn't with the test itself. It's with those who write and administer the test. They'll do everything they can to make it so that those they don't approve of will fail the test.

The Voting Rights Act explicitly bans such tests because they were used to disenfranchise black people (and poor whites) in the South.

posh-goofiness said:

The word choice does not reflect my position accurately, I have a problem with the incompetent and ignorant. Blanket declarations like "unfit" are far too general and are easily twisted for evil purposes.

Click to expand...

That is one of the objections people have to your position, yes.

posh-goofiness said:

Because basic compassion and decency clearly means we need to separate those that, through no fault of their own, can't complete or find it exceptionally difficult to complete such citizenship tests. They should retain their access to, say, COBRA or SS or Medicaid but should nevertheless still be barred from public office or exempted from the Selective Service registry or required to take this hypothetical citizenship test. In the cases I outlined, the ignorant are synonymous with the willfully ignorant in most cases. And to be clear, the specific right to vote isn't something I would necessarily consider one of the things removed/diminished. Maybe it should be, but I don't think so. Under this hypothetical system the person is still under sponsorship/stewardship/whatever- there are multiple ways to handle deciding is this specific thing should be curtailed or not.

Click to expand...

That's a good clarification, because most people talking about restricting citizenship consider denying the vote to the unfit a key part of the whole proposal. (And I think that term is accurate to the proposal, which would make any discomfort reason to reconsider the proposal IMO. [edit: But on second thought, perhaps "unworthy" is closer to what you mean? I don't think this is a good thing, though.])

But I don't think you've answered the question of why it's worth doing to change from what we have now to exclude those (lazy) people, and why the same reasons don't apply to the exception you want to carve out.

You alluded to reasons of decency, but I think it would be utterly indecent to deny a particular person Social Security benefits they had paid into, for example, with the expectation of receiving them in old age, because they flunked a test. At least, based on your saying that "they should retain their access" I figure you mean that should be among the things that normally the test could exclude people from, and it sounds like you think people should need to re-test at various points in life.

strunkenwhite said:

That is one of the objections people have to your position, yes.

Click to expand...

In that case they are objecting to a strawman because, as I stated, that isn't my position. Unfit, unworthy, undesireable, none of them are my position. Ignorance can be quantified (to an extent), having a minimum standard of knowledge isn't asking too much.

That's a good clarification, because most people talking about restricting citizenship consider denying the vote to the unfit a key part of the whole proposal.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I personally think people hyper focus on that one specific facet of such proposals but it's understandable why given our history.

(And I think that term is accurate to the proposal, which would make any discomfort reason to reconsider the proposal IMO. [edit: But on second thought, perhaps "unworthy" is closer to what you mean? I don't think this is a good thing, though.])

Click to expand...

Again, such blanket generalizations are not my position. Repeating that "maybe that's what I meant" won't change that.

But I don't think you've answered the question of why it's worth doing to change from what we have now to exclude those (lazy) people, and why the same reasons don't apply to the exception you want to carve out.

Click to expand...

I think I may have misunderstood your initial question. I thought your were asking about the distinction between the willfully ignorant and the rest in the context of the proposed testing system not why I think we should implement such a system at all. Sorry about that.

You alluded to reasons of decency, but I think it would be utterly indecent to deny a particular person Social Security benefits they had paid into, for example, with the expectation of receiving them in old age, because they flunked a test. At least, based on your saying that "they should retain their access" I figure you mean that should be among the things that normally the test could exclude people from, and it sounds like you think people should need to re-test at various points in life.

Click to expand...

The reasons of decency are meant in the context of this hypothetical system not our current system. Again, sorry for misunderstanding what you were asking.

In short, why should I be concerned that lazy-minded people are voting but not that feeble-minded people are?

Click to expand...

Right now, with no quality controls or standards in place you should worry about both. You were correct when you said that the outcome is the same. The lack of knowledge about our history (history in general, really), the mechanisms of our government, the responsibilities of municipalities, states, and the federal gov'ts, why certain laws were passed or repealed, the rationale behind certain key court decisions, all of it- it leads to too many damn problems. It's too easy to get people to vote for things against their interest, it's too easy to get public officials pushing for damaging policies, it's too easy for groups like to media to advocate for things like "abolish the Senate" or "remove the electoral college". Ignorant people are lead by the nose into things that will damage them in the long term because they lack the historical context and knowledge to understand what it is they're actually being led to. So, why should you be concerned? Because the general ignorance will kill us if we leave it unchecked.

As to the incompetent, that's more relevant for holding public office and political advocacy/activism. I could expand on this if you like, but it seems self explanatory to me why your want competent people for these actions.

it would be utterly indecent to deny a particular person Social Security benefits they had paid into ...you think people should need to re-test at various points in life

Click to expand...

I also mentioned that in this proposed system, you'd have opportunities for retest (after failures), possibly multiple opportunities with reasonable time between attempts to study and learn. It would indeed be monstrous to steal from someone who pays into a system and never give it back. I also said, I'm not proposing a fully developed system with edge cases mapped out, specific criteria for what would be exempted, restricted, inviolate, etc. In this specific case, I'd probably have a time based rule where young adults have both the responsibility to pay SS tax and the (potential) to benefit from SS withheld/restricted if they fail while a retiree would have SS be held as an inviolate benefit that wouldn't be removed in case of failure of this hypothetical test. As for periodic retests over the course of your life, I think they are necessary to keep the knowledge fresh in your mind. I believe citizenship is an commitment and I think if you are going to benefit from the system you should also be responsible. This, of course, completely conflicts with such customs like birthright citizenship and, as such, is very unpopular.

I hope this time I answered your question for why you should care.

bintananth said:

@posh-goofiness the problem with requiring the passing of a test before you're allowed to vote isn't with the test itself. It's with those who write and administer the test. They'll do everything they can to make it so that those they don't approve of will fail the test.

The Voting Rights Act explicitly bans such tests because they were used to disenfranchise black people (and poor whites) in the South.

Click to expand...

Yes. I understand your position here. It is, definitely, a problem with this hypothetical system. However, we don't (seem to) have a problem subjecting legal immigrant (applicants) to these tests. In fact, we consider it desirable to incorporate the system in the legal immigration system.

Though if I remember correctly, the literacy test is still actually perfectly legal. It just needs to be applied universally and standardized. The issue in the South (if I remember correctly) was that there were different tests being given between blacks and whites. After it was challenged in court, they stopped giving the tests because if they needed to give the same standardized (sentence? paragraph?) test between the two groups it did fuck all to limit black voters. Since it didn't do what they wanted to do and it was burdensome to implement, they dropped it. At least, that's my understanding.

posh-goofiness said:

Right now, with no quality controls or standards in place you should worry about both. You were correct when you said that the outcome is the same. The lack of knowledge about our history (history in general, really), the mechanisms of our government, the responsibilities of municipalities, states, and the federal gov'ts, why certain laws were passed or repealed, the rationale behind certain key court decisions, all of it- it leads to too many damn problems. It's too easy to get people to vote for things against their interest, it's too easy to get public officials pushing for damaging policies, it's too easy for groups like to media to advocate for things like "abolish the Senate" or "remove the electoral college". Ignorant people are lead by the nose into things that will damage them in the long term because they lack the historical context and knowledge to understand what it is they're actually being led to. So, why should you be concerned? Because the general ignorance will kill us if we leave it unchecked.

As to the incompetent, that's more relevant for holding public office and political advocacy/activism. I could expand on this if you like, but it seems self explanatory to me why your want competent people for these actions.
I also mentioned that in this proposed system, you'd have opportunities for retest (after failures), possibly multiple opportunities with reasonable time between attempts to study and learn. It would indeed be monstrous to steal from someone who pays into a system and never give it back. I also said, I'm not proposing a fully developed system with edge cases mapped out, specific criteria for what would be exempted, restricted, inviolate, etc. In this specific case, I'd probably have a time based rule where young adults have both the responsibility to pay SS tax and the (potential) to benefit from SS withheld/restricted if they fail while a retiree would have SS be held as an inviolate benefit that wouldn't be removed in case of failure of this hypothetical test. As for periodic retests over the course of your life, I think they are necessary to keep the knowledge fresh in your mind. I believe citizenship is an commitment and I think if you are going to benefit from the system you should also be responsible. This, of course, completely conflicts with such customs like birthright citizenship and, as such, is very unpopular.

I hope this time I answered your question for why you should care.

Yes. I understand your position here. It is, definitely, a problem with this hypothetical system. However, we don't (seem to) have a problem subjecting legal immigrant (applicants) to these tests. In fact, we consider it desirable to incorporate the system in the legal immigration system.

Though if I remember correctly, the literacy test is still actually perfectly legal. It just needs to be applied universally and standardized. The issue in the South (if I remember correctly) was that there were different tests being given between blacks and whites. After it was challenged in court, they stopped giving the tests because if they needed to give the same standardized (sentence? paragraph?) test between the two groups it did fuck all to limit black voters. Since it didn't do what they wanted to do and it was burdensome to implement, they dropped it. At least, that's my understanding.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your detailed reply. I really appreciate the thought you clearly put into it.

I'm more sympathetic to the idea of restricting the franchise (vote), even if I am leery of it for many reasons (potential for abuse, historical abuse, general principle). And to some small extent I can see the same argument for restricting public service, although if your goal of an informed voting populace was achieved shouldn't they be able to vote in whomever they want? But even then I still don't see the rationale for stripping the proposed people of the other privileges of citizenship unrelated to public office (voting or holding) such as Medicare, Social Security, etc. (This is of course a separate discussion from the merits of having these things at all.)

strunkenwhite said:

Thanks for your detailed reply. I really appreciate the thought you clearly put into it.

I'm more sympathetic to the idea of restricting the franchise (vote), even if I am leery of it for many reasons (potential for abuse, historical abuse, general principle). And to some small extent I can see the same argument for restricting public service, although if your goal of an informed voting populace was achieved shouldn't they be able to vote in whomever they want? But even then I still don't see the rationale for stripping the proposed people of the other privileges of citizenship unrelated to public office (voting or holding) such as Medicare, Social Security, etc. (This is of course a separate discussion from the merits of having these things at all.)

Click to expand...

No problem. I find that writing out these posts have helped me better define what and why I think the things I do.

The stripping of social services like Medicaid, SS, COBRA, etc. is more a consequence of having citizenship rescinded more the intended purpose (a healthier civic tradition/process). It's one thing to say "only US citizens have access to such and such service" and another thing entirely to say "only some US citizens have access to such and such service". I believe that the latter statement is much MUCH easier to abuse over time. Letting that sort of justification through sets a precedent that can be expanded later to deny things for reasons other than just my main two problems. Or maybe to put it a different way, the latter statement is definitely discrimination (of the offensive kind like racism) while the former is a safeguard for a system with limited resources.

For the record, I don't particularly like that if a system like this is implemented that a side effect would be loss of access to these services. I just think it's necessary. Which is why I'm careful to include multiple means for the citizenship loss or restrictions to be reversed in as short (and as reasonable) a time frame I can think of.

although if your goal of an informed voting populace was achieved shouldn't they be able to vote in whomever they want?

Click to expand...

Yes. Definitely. The hope is that with an informed populace the pool of candidates increases in quality (and quantity) and that voters are more discerning about who and what they vote for. In effect, what I'd hope for from a system like this is an initial constriction of voters, candidates, service consumers, etc. Over time, as people retest you would see the pool of active participants in the system increase back to around its previous level. However, since this hypothetical system also includes reduction in responsibilities as well duties, you would see some people choose to stay in that diminished capacity just so they don't need to be, say, eligible for the draft or required to pay SS taxes.

It's the hope that by increasing the knowledge and competence floor you naturally get better candidates.

posh-goofiness said:

Yes. I understand your position here. It is, definitely, a problem with this hypothetical system. However, we don't (seem to) have a problem subjecting legal immigrant (applicants) to these tests. In fact, we consider it desirable to incorporate the system in the legal immigration system.

Click to expand...

That test is probably the least difficult hoop a legal immigrant to the US must jump through before they're naturalized and more of a "dot all the i's and cross all the t's" checkbox instead of a stumbling block.

Unlike Australia, English proficiency is not a requirement. Australia has denied the citizenship applications of native English speakers who didn't speak "proper Australian English" ... which kinda/sorta makes you sound like you've had one too many at the pub when out with your friends to my ears.

bintananth said:

That test is probably the least difficult hoop a legal immigrant to the US must jump through before they're naturalized and more of a "dot all the i's and cross all the t's" checkbox instead of a stumbling block.

Unlike Australia, English proficiency is not a requirement. Australia has denied the citizenship applications of native English speakers who didn't speak "proper Australian English" ... which kinda/sorta makes you sound like you've had one too many at the pub when out with your friends to my ears.

Click to expand...

Oh good, so if it's the least difficult hoop, equivalent to a formality or whatever, then all the less reason to oppose it.

posh-goofiness said:

Oh good, so if it's the least difficult hoop, equivalent to a formality or whatever, then all the less reason to oppose it.

Click to expand...

We could probably ditch the test and the increase in the number of immigrants who are naturalized each year could be chalked up to "a rounding error".

Seriously, in '20 a little less than 630k immigrants were naturalized and that's the second lowest it's been since '08, when about 1.05 million were.

Very good point about the unsustainable levels of defense spending needed for all the geopolitical goals and commitments DC and the US military feels it has to deal with.

We are going to have to pick and choose what geopolitical goals and commitments we can afford to keep supporting, while also accepting we are going to have to slim down and streamline the military to balance those goals against the available budget that can actually be sustained, given the crap domestic economy.

The real answer is One Billion Americans.

Basically we need to reset social, cultural, and economic policy to encourage baby-making again, rather than to focus on capital accumulation and profit maximization (which we've focused on so much that our fundamentals are poor because we've cut costs so much as a society).