What kind of commie are you?

[liberty]

So, you people are ready to take up arms. Has Trump done anything that would justify killing people? What has he done? Laid off a bunch of government workers—many have been rehired, and no one is entitled to a job anyway. He has revoked the visas of some Palestinians, supporters of Hamas, but that's not beyond the pale. Anyone in the United States who is not a citizen is either a guest or an intruder. Only citizens are entitled to rights under the Constitution; all others are granted privileges by the government that can be taken away. If a guest does not act like a guest and respect American law, sovereignty, and order, they can be thrown out, just as you have the right to throw someone out of your home if they become unruly. And attempting to do away with the Department of Education—is that justification for an insurgency (murder)? We don't really need the Department of Education. The few essential functions they perform could be moved to other departments. So why is it that you want to take up arms? Do you think he's a tyrant? If you remember, just a few years ago, you were saying all these burdensome safeguards we have against a tyrant were unnecessary. But as see, it's these same safeguards that prevent Trump from becoming a tyrant. He can't become a dictator that seizes all power. The way our federal system is organized, he can't do that. If it ever comes to that point and Trump does become a dictator, it will be your fault because you have the power to prevent it. You just have to be willing to put your life on the line. In four years, Trump will be gone or there would be civil war that I suspect will not last very long.

[Crackpot]

Fucking retard

[Joe Guy]

I just want to focus on one thing you wrote:

Only citizens are entitled to rights under the Constitution; all others are granted privileges by the government that can be taken away.

I doubted your claim so I decided to do some research. So, I figured I'd start with the 1st amendment. I realized I hadn't read the actual text in a while and I've relied on my memory of 'freedom of the press, speech, assembly' and that kinda thing. So I opened my desk drawer and pulled out a copy of the Bill of Rights - remembering the English language was a bit different in those days, so I needed to read with an open mind.

And whattaya know? You're right!!.....

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Nonetheless, if you're not a citizen, the above is rendered naught and Congress can kick your ass out of the US faster than a prairie fire with a tailwind!

[liberty]

I just want to focus on one thing you wrote:

Only citizens are entitled to rights under the Constitution; all others are granted privileges by the government that can be taken away.

I doubted your claim so I decided to do some research. So, I figured I'd start with the 1st amendment. I realized I hadn't read the actual text in a while and I've relied on my memory of 'freedom of the press, speech, assembly' and that kinda thing. So I opened my desk drawer and pulled out a copy of the Bill of Rights - remembering the English language was a bit different in those days, so I needed to read with an open mind.

And whattaya know? You're right!!.....

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Nonetheless, if you're not a citizen, the above is rendered naught and Congress can kick your ass out of the US faster than a prairie fire with a tailwind!

"Cute, Joe, but wrong. I find it interesting that you liberals believe in a literal interpretation of the original text only when it supports what you want. However, there are things that are inferred in the Constitution, and one of them is who the Constitution speaks for. There is no way you can convince me that the founders intended for foreigners to be able to come into the country, operate as agents of a foreign power, and subvert our political system.

The Federalist Party members who passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 obviously did not intend for non-citizens to have the same rights as citizens. The very idea of universal citizenship is a crazy one. For example, the Chinese have enough people that they could raise enough volunteers to enter our country, become citizens, and paralyze our system.

The clarification that citizens and non-citizens are two distinct groups should be firmly established by proposing a constitutional amendment and sending it to the states for ratification.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I am not a citizen despite having been here 41 years next month. Green card holder - it was forever when I got it but at some point they made it ten years only. I have to pay something like $1200 to renew it. I have the same right as any citizen except I cannot, of course, vote and I cannot serve on a jury. I pay the same taxes as any citizen. I can give to people running for office even though I cannot vote.

[Big RR]

I think what trump is tying to do is pretty obvious; he is trying to whittle away the rule of law by targeting unpopular people and denying them due process; he is seeking to expand the role of the executive even more and venturing into blatant disregard of the Constitution to achieve his aims. Face it, no one wants a " foreigners to be able to come into the country, operate as agents of a foreign power, and subvert our political system", we just ask that these persons accused be given due process and the right of a fair an impartial hearing. Is that something beyond what the country stands for (or at least stood for before the current administration)?

You may want a country where the president can rule unilaterally and be unencumbered by any restrictions on his or her powers, but I (and I expect many others here) do not and fully appreciate how dangerous that is. The only thing I can see that protects us from this tyranny is the rule of law, and if he succeeds in compromising that, perhaps it is time to consider other means to fight it. As Thomas Payne said "Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph."

I am optimistic that the rule of law will prevail and stop this idiocy, but I am also getting more and more concerned. I am not advocating violence, but the time may come where each of us will have to make their own choice about how to respond.

As to the Federalists and the Alien and Sedition Acts, you can see how quickly the American people who were concerned with the rule of law dumped them and their rejection of the rule of law, eventually resulting in the end of the party.

ETA: By the way, non-citizens are already seen as a separate class of individuals under the law, and their immigration status further result in a variety of groups which are treated differently. However, all are entitled to some modicum of due process when the US seeks to take any action against them, be it responding to criminal charges or being deported, and that is one of the things Trump seeks to get rid of because it is inconvenient to his plans. I guess you agree; after all, you are not part of any of those targted classes, right?

[Scooter]

If due process is not afforded to non-citizens (or non-residents, or "criminal illegal aliens", or whomever), then citizens will no longer be entitled to due process, because all the government has to do is to claim that a citizen is a non-citizen (or non-resident, or "criminal illegal alien", or whomever) and that citizen will never have the opportunity to assert otherwise.

[Big RR]

Or just ignore due process altogether. If you can deny it to some, you can deny it to all.

[liberty]

I am not a citizen despite having been here 41 years next month. Green card holder - it was forever when I got it but at some point they made it ten years only. I have to pay something like $1200 to renew it. I have the same right as any citizen except I cannot, of course, vote and I cannot serve on a jury. I pay the same taxes as any citizen. I can give to people running for office even though I cannot vote.

I have nothing against any individual alien, and I don't think that you're particularly a threat to this country. Of course, I can't be sure, because I have not concentrated on you like some of the others. However, let me say I think everyone in the country should be treated fairly, whether they are citizens or not. That is, they should receive the same protection under the law as anyone else, but they shouldn't have the rights of a citizen. That means no right to vote, hold office, donate money to political parties or candidates, participate in demonstrations, or belong to a political party.

I do feel there should be limited due process for non-citizens, to the point of determining that they are not citizens, so that no citizen is deported by mistake. However, they should not be able to tie the process up in court for years. In World War II, the Roosevelt Administration executed four Germans for entering the country illegally. I don't think we should do that kind of stuff, but we should not give our enemies the ability to infiltrate us and damage our system. Because if they can, they will. And it has happened before. Castro did during the Vietnam era—how effective it was, I don't know, because it's never publicized. When confronted on 60 Minutes, he neither acknowledged it nor denied it.

Andy, why haven’t you become a citizen if you've been here for forty-one years? The test is not that hard.

[MajGenl.Meade]

That is, they should receive the same protection under the law as anyone else, but they shouldn't have the rights of a citizen. That means no right to vote, hold office, donate money to political parties or candidates, participate in demonstrations, or belong to a political party.

lib, can you not see the glaring contradiction between your two sentences? Spending money, expressing one's opinion by engaging in public remonstrance against wrong, and "belonging" to a political party are not exclusively the right of citizenship.

You are suggesting that non-citizens - even legal aliens as you'd prefer to call 'em - should have lesser protections under the law - not the same protections. That is precisely the kind of thinking exemplified in Trump's unconstitutional outrages, summed up by him so clearly as "I decide what's legal and what's not".

[Big RR]

I do feel there should be limited due process for non-citizens, to the point of determining that they are not citizens, so that no citizen is deported by mistake. However, they should not be able to tie the process up in court for years.

Then feel free to lobby to change the law with the branch of government which has the power to draft and enact laws, the legislature (not some jerk signing executive orders at his or her whim), and then support the courts to ensure that the laws are enforced fairly and equitably (and are Constitutional). but don't just rely on the bald assertion of ICE or DHS that "these are dangerous people who deserve no date in court; trust us, we wouldn't lie". That's not the US.

And FWIW, why does giving an alien (however they arrived here) the right to participate in demonstrations, speak his or her mind, or do any of the things you stated scare you so much? Because other opinions and arguments may be introduced to the national debate? Isn't free speech and the ability to openly seek redress what this country stands for. And didn't the republicans who are now beating their breasts over--gasp--pro Palestinian speech on campuses the ones who previously attacked colleges for censoring free speech?

As Meade said, the law is not decided unilaterally by the president who maintains he can say "what is legal and what is not."

[Bicycle Bill]

The Federalist Party members who passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 obviously did not intend for non-citizens to have the same rights as citizens. The very idea of universal citizenship is a crazy one. For example, the Chinese have enough people that they could raise enough volunteers to enter our country, become citizens, and paralyze our system.

The clarification that citizens and non-citizens are two distinct groups should be firmly established by proposing a constitutional amendment and sending it to the states for ratification.

If, as you posit, citizens and non-citizens — which you vilify as 'foreigners to be able to come into the country, operate as agents of a foreign power, and subvert our political system' ... a description which, incidentally, fits Elon Musk to a 'T' — are already separate classes, one of which does not enjoy Consitutional protection, then why would another Constitutional amendment be necessary?

Andy, why haven’t you become a citizen if you've been here for forty-one years? The test is not that hard.

Of course it isn't.   Musk passed it.   And so, apparently, did liberty's ancestors.

-"BB"-

[MajGenl.Meade]

For example, the Chinese have enough people that they could raise enough volunteers to enter our country, become citizens, and paralyze our system.

That's nonsense. First, each Chinese citizen would have to satisfy the U.S. government that they were entitled to a "green" card (actually sort of blue). That is very far from easy. There are quotas (limits) on the number of persons from any country who can be registered. Even marrying a US citizen is insufficient to persuade Immigration officers in overseas embassies that one has an automatic "right" to become a legal alien. So, no - 400 million (even half a million) Chinese could not enter legally and even become legal immigrants, even if they married 400 million US citizen women/men.

After some years of being an almost-American paying taxes etc., one must still apply for citizenship on given grounds not just taking a test. But yes, the test is a piece of piss for an educated person (which is why a majority of Americans wouldn't pass it).

[Burning Petard]

I just re-read the first amendment of the constitution. The copy I was reading came from Hillsdale College. You can't find a more conservative source than that. That amendment refers to the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly, among others. NOT ONCE DOES IT USE THE WORD CITIZEN !
It describes rights of people. The constitution grants no rights to anyone. It recognizes rights that are inherent to people and the duty of the government to protect those rights. Go back and read the IX and X amendment. They are brief and clear.

My commander in chief is Donald Trump. His actions clearly indicate he believes he is the sovereign. Many Trumpers agree. I believe Andy is not a citizen of the USofA because he is an honest and honorable person. He ranks that above convenience and personal economy. I believe for Andy the 'easy test' had little to do with it. Andy chooses not to swear that oath of allegiance required in the naturalization process, alhough many do it only as a pretense. Even our government takes it as a pretense by accepting dual citizenship.

i wonder how many people who are like me, USofA citizens by no choice or action of their own, are willing to pay $1200 simply to retain that status.?
However, I observe that it is rapidly approaching circumstances where it will require that much to get a US Passport.

snailgate.

[Big RR]

There are many reasons why someone would choose not to become a citizen even though they are living here (it apples to other countries as well), and i have no problems with someone being here and remaining a non-citizen; most of them contribute to society as workers, consumers, taxpayers as well as neighbors and volunteers... And they do so at some risk--while one cannot lose their citizenship, being a permanent resident (or other alien) is a privilege which can be legally lost, albeit for reasons prescribed by law if such can be proven to the satisfaction of the appropriate court (and not as the current administration would like). I wonder how many of our sunshine patriots would work for the common good if they faced the same potential consequences as resident aliens do. Damn few I'd bet.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Andy, why haven’t you become a citizen if you've been here for forty-one years? The test is not that hard.

Never felt the need. I always assumed I would move back to UK where most of my relatives and old friends are. I will probably become a citizen for one reason only - to vote against the Trump asshole's enablers in 2026.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Andy, why haven’t you become a citizen if you've been here for forty-one years? The test is not that hard.

Never felt the need. I always assumed I would move back to UK where most of my relatives and old friends are. I will probably become a citizen for one reason only - to vote against the Trump asshole's enablers in 2026.

Yeah, I became a citizen after 30+ years because I was going to be in South Africa for more than one year and my status would have automatically revoked. Would have needed to apply for it all over again. (Yes I know I could get a re-entry permit in advance valid for 2 years but we were there 10 and the Iceman wouldn't have tolerated such shenanigans every five minutes from a legal alien

Andy, I would not mind living back in Blighty but it would be hopelessly unaffordable. You must be rolling in it! Wanna date?

[liberty]

Andy, why haven’t you become a citizen if you've been here for forty-one years? The test is not that hard.

Never felt the need. I always assumed I would move back to UK where most of my relatives and old friends are. I will probably become a citizen for one reason only - to vote against the Trump asshole's enablers in 2026.

Don't say that too loudly; you know there is no right in the Constitution that permits an alien to become a citizen. It is a privilege. Also, check out all the reasons a person's citizenship can be revoked.

[Joe Guy]

Don't say that too loudly; you know there is no right in the Constitution that permits an alien to become a citizen. It is a privilege. Also, check out all the reasons a person's citizenship can be revoked.

The 14th amendment acknowledges that non-citizens can become US citizens through the legal process of naturalization.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Yes - it should be fairly routine or at least it was in the old days. Show you have been a reliable sort, can pay your own way, put your hand on your heart and promise not to hang the VP or break into Congress and answer a few questions on the Constitution. Most Americans would fail that bit.

There is a story about Kurt Gödel, the logician and mathematician from Austria who fled Europe in the 1930s to join his friend Einstein at Princeton in the US. He eventually wanted to become a citizen and Einstein sponsored him. Gõdel studied the Constitution fervently, and became convinced that he had found a logical flaw in it which would allow the US to become a fascist dictatorship as he had seen in Europe. He told Einstein about it, and Einstein told him to keep his trap shut when they got to the judge administering the citizenship procedure. Eventually they got to the judge who made some comment about how the US could never, unlike some of the European democracies, become a dictatorship. 'Oh yes it can" said Gõdel, "and I can prove it." Einstein shushed him and the ceremony proceeded.

Constitutional scholars have debated Gõdel's loophole for 70+ years and there are various theories including the Electoral College and the procedures for amending the Constitution.

I wonder if Trump will prove to be the proof of Gõdel's flaw.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_Loophole