Questions about the notion of "America First"

Only two questions.

1. What about being born in America makes someone "better" or more deserving our American opportunities that someone born elsewhere who wants it more?

2. Does race enter into this at all? Honest and transparency are more important on this one than being defensive about the question.

 

Nothing - better and deserving have nothing at all to do with it. It is about citizenship. People born elsewhere can gain American citizenship. Millions have.

2. Does race enter into this at all? Honest and transparency are more important on this one than being defensive about the question.[/QUOTE]

I don't think so. My caucasian mother was a naturalized citizen. Nobody criticized her that I can remember.

 

Edited to avoid the repeat quote in it if that's OK.

So what's so special about citizenship? If someone is living here and isn't a citizen, are their lives not impacted by the same things a citizen's is? And if they are working at a job and educating themselves and doing all the same things we expect of citizens (some of whom don't live up to those expectations) why do we not "reward" them with all the trappings of citizenship? Why hold it back from those individuals at all? And why grant it to those based solely on the geography of their birth?

 

We do. Anyone living legally in the U.S. can become a citizen just like my mother did. What is your next post, support for a borderless planetary government? If so, don't waste your time.

 

1) Being born on sovereign land makes one a citizen.

2) No, race does not matter.

But by the same logic, what makes a noncitizen have the right to enjoy the benefits of America? My ancestors helped to build this nation. Enjoying the benefits is my right by birth.

 

Of course not; the key, which many liberals/progressives/socialists fail to understand, is citizenship. Anyone, born anywhere, who becomes a U.S. citizen becomes just as important as any native born U.S. citizen. In fact, many immigrants who become citizens are far more patriotic than native-born citizens, as they become much more aware of how special the U.S. is while gaining citizenship.

Race shouldn't enter into, yet because of the Democratic Party's fixation on identity politics, it has. Leftists have come to realize that the only way to grow that party is with the heavy immigration of minorities to effect a demographic change, such as has occurred in California.

A great example of this is the Latina congresswoman elected in NY, ousting the white dude, Joe Crowley, simply because her Hispanic-majority district identified with her.

The U.S. thrives when we attract the best and brightest, regardless of race or ethnicity, from around the world. Many on the left, unfortunately, simply want many, many more people of color – regardless of what they might offer our country – simply to expand their voting base and gain political power...

 

If they want it more then they will follow the proper procedure to become an American.

They won't break the law and sneak in, that doesn't make them an American, it means they want to take advantage of what America can give them, not contribute to making America the best.

Race has no factor in it.

In fact you could argue that through the process of Americanization that Americans are actually a race unto their own, we are that unique.

 

I would think that every responsible civilized nation should put their own citizens first, their welfare and collective self interests, above all others. But also driven by some sense of a moral compass. Logic, rationality, reason, when it comes to an economic model, but not without a moral compass affecting all policy, law, regulations.

If every nation did this, the average citizens of this world, would be optimally better off. A nation should see itself as one sees ones own nuclear family unit. Your family should always come first. A sovereign nation, her citizens, their gov't, their representatives in this republic, should have those leaders acting in the best interests of the american family. And that has not been done in decades. In fact, the husbands and wives of this american family, in DC have turned their back on their own american family, citizens, And have devastated their own american family members. All except for their favorites, with the favorities being a few americans who bribe DC, and its a huge business with billions of bucks involved, flowing from the few elites to our rulers, our parents in DC.

If this were done on the family level, it would be highly unacceptable and no doubt the wives and even the children would hate the father for his treason, his total lack of decency and a moral compass. But on the national level, both parties, and many votes for both parties could not care less about it. Some of them, in both parties are applauding and agree with the fathers turning their backs on their own citizens, that they are supposed to represent, but don't. And yet if done on the nuclear family level, these people would be up in arms about it. For they would see these parents, hurting their own families, putting others above their own blood, as little more than immoral, irresponsible white trash. And they would be right about that!!

 

Well, being American, yes, I believe (all else being equal) Americans (regardless of race) should come before non-Americans.

 

Easy answer.

 

Two better questions -- Shouldn't any country check the background and the physical health of all people wanting to enter their country? Shouldn't someone wanting to enter another country be required to prove they were capable of supporting themselves?

 

If they're not American, they don't get the benefits of being an American. If I were to live in Japan for 10 years, I'd still be an American and not a Japanese citizen. So if there were any benefits to being a Japanese citizen, I'd be on the outside looking in. I couldn't vote in their elections; it would be crazy for me to think I had the right to vote in their elections.

 

American citizenship, obviously.

 

1.That really depends on who those not born here are. If their immigration status is legal and their intent is become naturalized and to assimilate, be gainfully employed (we should not be importing poverty) then there's virtually no distinction. Of course a command of English and desirable skills should be requisite as well. 2. Race is only a problem when the intent is to flood the country with a particular race/ethnic group to manipulate demographics for political purposes. There's two answers to two questions but I'd like to add that however one becomes an American citizen you are joining an exceptional fraternity.

 

This is the rub for the left.

The more people they get into the U.S. who are unable to support themselves become instant Democratic Party supporters for life.

I'm a lifelong Californian and recall our Gov Moonbeam, during his first stint in the 1970s where he tried to keep thousands of Vietnamese refugees out of California.

Why?

First, the Ford administration pushed through the Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1975, which helped resettle refugees who were sponsored by churches and volunteer families. The sponsors provided food, clothing and shelter until the refugees became self-sufficient. In other words, they didn't require a political party to force taxpayers to support them.

Second, these refugees were passionately anti-communist, and the leftist Brown realized these people would never become Democratic Party voters:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-jerry-brown-tried-to-keep-immigrants-out-of-california-1520634989

 

Race doesn’t matter says the “conservatives”

 

Red Dawn?

That's porno for redneck righties.

 

I can waste my time as I see fit. It's mine to waste.

How long did it take and how much did it cost? I know it's a lengthy and expensive process. Why?

 

So you would weigh your ancestor's credit higher, even though you may have done far less to nothing to contribute (this is not me attacking you, this is me making a point, bear with me) as nothing is required of you to claim that birth right, versus someone who risked their lives to travel thousands of miles, some of it by foot, just to come here to pick lettuce? I guess my point is there are plenty of citizens born here who have risked nothing and done little for a way of life they complain doesn't include them, whereas there are people risking everything just to come work here for less than those same citizens demand to do relatively low skilled work. So why would I turn them away? I get it the 14th amendment and whatnot, but why would I turn away someone willing to risk so much just to come work so hard here for so little? I mean my ancestors were in this country (on my dad's side) long before anyone else from Western Europe was here. I can take a lot of credit for their work if I go back to the 1500's or so, but is that really my credit to take? America was founded such that birth rights didn't equal any sort of entitlement, we are allegedly let those succeed who want to. So why would we deny it to people who so obviously want it simply because they weren't born here?

 

OK waste your time.

 

There should be no distinction between a LEGAL immigrant and a natural porn citizen, as long as the legal immigrant has permission to work in the US.

Not to me one iota.

 

That said, all I have to do is be born here. For an immigrant to come here legally and become a US citizen it costs thousands and can easily take up to 5 years on average, 3 if they marry a US citizen and even then it's no cheaper. If they are more patriotic, then why are we making them wait so long? Why are we pushing so hard to make it painful and expensive for people to come here? Versus the many lessors who are simply born here?

Anyway, avoiding the off topic paragraphs, what makes someone who is willing to risk their lives to get here have nothing to offer? I would say that is exactly the type of person we want here. Just because they can't afford a silly processing fee you would send them back ignoring the hard work they put in to get here versus simply being born lucky? This concerns me because it indicates that instead of evaluating the person, you are simply presuming the person born here deserves more. I would argue that the person who has proven they WANT to be here is the better choice. They don't need to be perfect, they just need to want to be here. They need to want to work for their opportunities as opposed to wanting them handed to them.

 

What proper procedure did you follow?

The procedure isn't easy or cheap. If you are fleeing poverty from Honduras, you don't have the cash to pay our fees. They may seem cheap to you, but cheap is a matter of perspective, a perspective I don't think you have because you were born here and like me we have a greater sense of entitlement as a result.

Good, so we are deporting this guy immediately, right? I mean here's here illegally and is an arsonist. Clearly, Denmark isn't sending us their best and brightest, just their arsonists.


https://gazette.com/news/danish-man...cle_5297e402-7d8b-11e8-9e98-cbbfe6d27692.html

Please continue on this path of thought if you will.

 

Why? That implies that being born here somehow makes us better. It doesn't. So what is the real answer?

 

So we are one big happy family, eh? Well at least this is an answer. I'm not sure I fully agree but hey who does in a family, right?