strunkenwhite
Well-known member
TBH they'd at least have tribal sovereign rights to fall back on, unlike other native born people who would otherwise have been citizens.
Debate on the U.S.'s long term strategic and technological goals in an increasingly multi-polar world.
- Thread starter Free-Stater 101
- Start date
bintananth
behind a desk
I am not OK with making someone born in the US or to a US citizen prove that they're American by taking tests.
As far as I'm concerned ... if you were born in the US or have an American parent you're an American.
John Sidney McCain III wasn't born in the US. He was born in Panama and no one really gave a shit when he ran for president.
Barack Hussein Obama II, OTOH, was born in the US and there was a whole lot of "he's not a real American" BS.
I'm not talking about IQ tests or nonsense like that. I'm talking about the Citizenship test that are given so a potential Citizen can prove they understand how our Constitutional Republic is supposed to work. Then, once passed, you swear an Oath like every other wannabe Citizen to the United States. It's not complicated, it's not difficult, but it establishes a basic requirement above and beyond getting squeezed out a vaginal canal while on our soil or what have you.
bintananth
behind a desk
You're also promoting something along the lines of a poll tax, which the 24th Amendment to the US Constitution flat out prohibits.
BTW: In the Americas your birthplace automatically grants you citizenship. In Europe, Africa, Asia, and Oceania that's often not true.
Last edited:
bintananth
behind a desk
Do you think you could pass that test?
I had to look up one answer for a practice test: 2008 Civics Practice Test | USCIS
The one I had to look up was asking about the Federalist Papers.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
A poll tax and an eligibility test are two very different concepts. You could maybe argue to the court that if you have to pay to take the test, that's actually a hidden poll tax. But if that's not the case, then no taxation is involved, and the 24th Amendment doesn't apply.
bintananth
behind a desk
The test itself is a poll tax.
No American should ever be required to provide ID beyond what's required for them to say "yup, I'm 'so-and-so'".
Skallagrim
Well-known member
You apparently don't know what a poll tax is. It's a literal tax that you have to pay in order to be allowed to vote.
Alternative prerequisites to the right to vote, such as providing identification, taking a test, having a certificate of mental health, proving that you have no criminal record (etc. etc.), are not a poll tax.
Whether they're desirable is another debate, but you're conflating two different legal concepts here.
bintananth
behind a desk
Friendly Reminder - Don't Derail Threads
The last time a cop asked me for ID I didn't have my wallet. I told him my name and that's all he needed.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Fascinating. Doesn't have anything to do with what we're actually discussing.
You wrote:
That is what I am disputing. Because you are factually incorrect. Your interactions with traffic cops are of no concern to me.
For your edification, and to further illustrate the salient point:
The 24th Amemendment was passed in 1964. That's the same year as the Civil Rights Act of 1964... which stated that literacy tests used as a qualification for voting in federal elections must be administered wholly in writing and only to persons who had completed at least six years of formal education. This makes it clear beyond any doubt that literacy tests (although qualified by law as of that year) were explicitly still allowed even after the poll tax had been constitutionally banned.
Furthermore, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 further limited the use of literacy tests for voting, but still continued to allow their application under set conditions. This despite poll taxes having already been constitutionally banned.
A poll tax and an eligibility test are, as such, demonstrably different legal concepts. You were incorrect about this. I attempted to explain that to you.
Yes.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
It's only difficult because you didn't need to learn about those things to pass the test in the first place. Even a highly-educated medieval monk would flunk the tests to get their learner's permit/license horribly yet nearly all Americans pass with flying colors even if they have a fairly lackluster education.
If everybody needed the information to pass you can bet every grade-school class would include a semester to make sure the students were well-prepared for their citizenship test.
Doomsought
Well-known member
I don't think that anything like an IQ test is important for citizens ship, what is important is loyalty. For this, a unified language is the most important thing.
But getting off that tangent and back to the general subject: I think reducing dependence on rare earth elements is important. There are two routs to go with this, one is reclamation from waste, slag from most metalworking has a surprising amount of rare earth elements. The other route is to develop silicon foundries for Nano-scale Vacuum transistors. Unfortunately at the current point of development these require helium, but it is a very new technology.
But getting off that tangent and back to the general subject: I think reducing dependence on rare earth elements is important. There are two routs to go with this, one is reclamation from waste, slag from most metalworking has a surprising amount of rare earth elements. The other route is to develop silicon foundries for Nano-scale Vacuum transistors. Unfortunately at the current point of development these require helium, but it is a very new technology.
Blasterbot
Well-known member
it isn't like you need 100% to pass those tests either. if it is genuinely kept to a level that a high school graduate could do (which we do mandate people go through with truancy laws) it wouldn't be terrible. it is very open to abuse however and I wouldn't trust 99% of our politicians to make a reasonable test.
See, I don't like illegal immigration, but this leads to far worse problems: a) now it's harder to prove citizenship, and b) (far worse) the creation of a permanent underclass of illegal non-citizens in the US that grows over time. That doesn't lead to good places.
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
Kick out the illegal aliens and you don't have an underclass. Simple.
Of course, the incentive for cheap, under-the-table labor is just too good for the ruling elite to fix.
"Arrest the bootleggers and there won't be alcohol, simple."
"Arrest the drug dealers and there won't be drugs, simple."
And I could go on.
It's not just too good for the elite to fix, it's too good for anyone to fix, even if they wanted too.
Yes, I am generally in favor of stronger border controls at least until we get rid of the welfare state, because we can reduce the prevalence of it. But that's all we are capable of, is reducing the prevalence. And even a reduced population will lead to problems with an underclass that will last generations. That's just begging for long term systemic problems.
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
Making it unpleasant to be here illegally is the point. The systemic bias against illegal aliens is the point.
I will agree with your point about reduction vs elimination. However, sufficiently strict controls would limit the scale of the problem of an underclass. If your illegal alien population is small enough they aren't an underclass, they're just the small portion of the population that are criminals. Right now we have a problem in the scale of tens of millions. If the problem can be shrunken to hundreds of thousands that's not an underclass, that's a statistic.
And I take exception to the first two lines. The correct analogy would be "Arrest the bootleggers and there will be less bootleggers" and "arrest the drug dealers and there will be less drug dealers".