Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Being the global hegemon (there really being no alternative), occasionally means government policies that advance the welfare of other peoples or nations.
An example would be sending an expeditionary military force to topple some dictator or to provide humanitarian relief in a war-zone... in some poor and benighted country that offers no natural resources or strategic-value such as placement of a future military base. This means spending American taxpayer money and possibly American lives, to die in some woeful village or jungle, so that people who don't look like Americans (whatever that means) and don't act like Americans or maybe not even much like Americans, may live better lives.
Wouldn't you agree that American interests still lay at the heart of your argument.
Should the US government always put US citizens first?
Yes
No
No.
The US government should put the Constitution first. And the Constitution should lay out what the govt should (and should not) do to benefit its citizens.
And if the Constitution doesn't do what's best for the citizens, then we should change it. It contains a procedure for how to do that.
The insertion of the Constitution into this process, is extremely important.
If we simply said, "The US govt should put US citizens first", then "what's best for US citizens" would change every week (or more often), depending on the pressures of the various mobs, the coverage of the "news" media, and the whims of whatever group has the biggest microphone that week.
It's why the Constitution mandates that we have a Republic, not a Democracy.
The democrats in cali want this for illegal aliens
1) driver license
2) free healthcare
3) right to work
4) voting rights for local issues
5) sanctuary state
6) de criminlizing illegal border crossing
Let us try it Du MA.
As has become perfectly clear we are not going to deport the vast majority of the illegal aliens. As a practical matter it is not doable. So for the sake of discussion please accept that we cannot and will not enforce our immigration laws.
So how should we proceed?
Not trying to suggest you cannot demand that the immigration laws be enforced. But given the absolutely obvious fact they will not be how should we proceed?
I suspect you will refuse to play as it shows the absurdity of your position. But fun to ask if you have any rational view.
And by the way if there was a solid majority in favor of removing the illegals including agreeing to the huge cost and societal blasts that would occur I would agree. But that is not the reality.
I question your accuracy. The citizenship question had to do with adopted children of military parents, not those born to military parents stationed overseas. There was never any doubt that those children were in fact US citizens.
I'll remind you, I'm a military retiree, so I've earned the right to question what I see fit to question. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt concerning your loyalties despite the very weak opposing point you presented as an argument.
Thank you for your service. The issue is murky but brought up to naturalized citizens who serve the armed forces or who are in the foreign mission and have children away from the USA who are not both USA born. Ie. Military guy marries abroad - gets pregnant while doing their paperwork for new wifey and deliver before it’s done. Kids not a us cit.via dad. Soo- 3 yr service tours. Now his boy now 18 (citizen), falls in love with a local and marries. Same thing. Grandbaby not automatically a citizen, as was accepted in the past, by the base commander, jag,n what paperwork was filed for convenience to encorporate that child for benefits and citizenship ship etc. for american parents while abroad. So be it dad or son /new rules just chipped part of their rights while serving their country. It’s not just the adopted babies they bring home. God bless em.
Last edited by tinytrump; 09-06-2019 at 06:56 PM..
Wouldn't you agree that American interests still lay at the heart of your argument.
Of course! But national interests are quite distinct from interests particular to the citizenry.
First, there's the question of what benefits present residents, vs. future ones. Remedies for combating global-warming benefit future residents... people who might not be born until centuries in the future. But they're a tax or an abridgment of freedoms to people who are presently alive.
Second, there's the question of specifically citizens vs. all residents... the latter including persons with Green Cards, legal immigrants of various kinds, visitors (such as foreign businessmen, students, ...) and of course our favorite bogeyman, the illegal aliens.
Third, there's the question of what is in the interest of government itself, vs. that of the public that government serves. Surely conservatives can agree, that sometimes these two things don't well overlap, and may even be inimical.
Finally, there's the abstract concept of national interest, such as prestige or glory, which doesn't necessarily benefit anyone in particular. An example might be government-funded research into say some question of archaeology, which is interesting to people who like history or artifacts, but has not technological spin-offs and doesn't put food on anyone's table (except for the personnel involved in the venture itself).
In other words, governments may engage in all sorts of ventures that do ultimately benefit the national interest, but do nothing (and may even cause harm, in the sense of higher taxes) for the present citizenry itself.
As has become perfectly clear we are not going to deport the vast majority of the illegal aliens. As a practical matter it is not doable. So for the sake of discussion please accept that we cannot and will not enforce our immigration laws.
So how should we proceed?
Not trying to suggest you cannot demand that the immigration laws be enforced. But given the absolutely obvious fact they will not be how should we proceed?
I suspect you will refuse to play as it shows the absurdity of your position. But fun to ask if you have any rational view.
And by the way if there was a solid majority in favor of removing the illegals including agreeing to the huge cost and societal blasts that would occur I would agree. But that is not the reality.
As someone who works for a decade in the immigration field for almost s decade, i'll chip in my 2 cents
-amend the 14th amendment
-keep the DACA as it is with no path to citizenship
-erect a border wall in the most highly trafficked area incorporating with modern technology
-no sanctuary state
If your post was a computer program, they would call it spagetti-code. It goes all over the place, but says almost nil.
And yet other posters are able to make sense of it. I hear your request to dumb it down for you and politely decline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
Name one person here who has said this.
Point to where the Constitution says this.
GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
So the Constitution is just cover??? It is the single most important reason that enables a free society.
Where's my prize?
The funny thing is how you guys act like bc it's the DoI that says it and not the Constitution, it somehow changes or weakens my argument. It could have been written on a roll of TP and signed by every president since Washington. The point still stands, even if I got the document wrong.
Any country should put their own citizens first, and most of them do, except for this one. The left is having a love affair with illegals who are getting way more than they are entitled to get while we have a homeless crisis of epic proportions.
It's not just about illegals and refugees, liberals regularly put other countries before the US.
Remember during the Ebola crisis in Africa, Obama refused to implement a travel ban to the Ebola nations because helping those Africans was more important than protecting Americans and making sure Ebola didn't make its way here.
Most Democrats support unfair trade agreements like NAFTA that put other countries above the US. Many of these agreements were designed to benefit other countries at our expense and is a major reason why there's hardly any manufacturing left in the US right now. The Rust Belt was basically sacrificed for geopolitical, globalist purposes. The Paris accords was also a globalist deal to benefit other countries at America's expense and I'm glad President Trump backed out of it.
The question needs to be narrowed. It is too broad right now.
Should the US government put the interests of US citizens first in a broad general sense? Yes, of course.
Should the US government put the interests of US citizens first in a political matter that occurs overseas? Yes, that's why consular and embassy services exist.
Should the US government put the interests of US citizens first in a natural disaster that occurs in the United States or overseas? No, it should help any human in the disaster area, regardless of citizenship. That's what the United States--and other developed western nations--do, at such times. For example, I understand that right now, both Canada and the US are sending aid to the Bahamas, in the wake of Hurricane Dorian. I doubt that those Bahamians affected are US citizens. But the US is helping, as are other countries. In such a disaster, nobody cares about citizenship, and putting their own citizens first.
Context is everything, and facts in a specific matter--well, they matter. OP, could you please narrow your question?
Do you think its right for our government to knowingly sacrifice our economic growth and American jobs for geopolitical purposes in order to redistribute wealth to and promote the economies of foreign nations, like Bill Clinton did with NAFTA and Obama tried to do with the TPP?
Do you think its right for American tax dollars to be spent on illegal aliens including the Dreamers who are foreign nationals and not American? Should we accept the illegals in the caravan even if it results in more crime, a higher tax burden, more overcrowded schools and more lost spots in jobs and colleges for American citizens?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
