Should Citizenship require a term of Service?

[Guest Schwarzgebrannt]

Fans of Robert Heinlein know where I'm going here. Should Citizenship be a birthright, or tied to serving your country (not neccessarily in the military)?

[Guest FroggyOne2]

I am a big fan of limited terms.. I feel that it would greatly bring about the aspect of "limited gov"!!

[Guest bkelm18]

Thats a tough call really. While I do think people should do something for their country, I don't think they should be forced into doing it. I do believe citizenship is a birthright, you are born American and you will stay American, after that, its up to each individual to decide whether or not they want to repay this country for giving them such a glorious right. Having those certain requirements to become a citizen, even if you were born here, can become a very slippery slope.

[Warbird]

Thats a tough call really. While I do think people should do something for their country, I don't think they should be forced into doing it. I do believe citizenship is a birthright, you are born American and you will stay American, after that, its up to each individual to decide whether or not they want to repay this country for giving them such a glorious right. Having those certain requirements to become a citizen, even if you were born here, can become a very slippery slope.

Yep.

[Guest Mugster]

Fans of Robert Heinlein know where I'm going here. Should Citizenship be a birthright, or tied to serving your country (not neccessarily in the military)?

Term of service required.

[G27]

Our forefathers, who were far wiser and forward-thinking than most everyone I've ever known, didn't think service should be a mandatory part of citizenship - nor do I.

[Warbird]

I am a big fan of limited terms.. I feel that it would greatly bring about the aspect of "limited gov"!!

While you may feel it would, facts simply do not support that. In places in this country at different levels of government where term limits are imposed, politicians feel unencumbered by the weight of having to get re-elected and what follows is increased spending, increased government intrusion, more liberal policies put in place. You do not get a more conservative elected body by term limiting, it's just that simple.

It isn't time in office which corrupts it is leadership and power. You'd still have the same with term limits. This is a free country and we should have the right to elect who we want and if I get a great one in there I want that person to stay as long as they hold to those principles.

[Mark@Sea]

No. It sounds like a great idea, but it would be no time at all before the power-hungry figured out how to game the system.

Much, much better, I think, would be term limits, and some way to control the bureaucracy.

[Guest 7987Steve]

Compulsory service:

Would it make a difference in the youth of today who seems to suffer from a lack of respect for themselves and the world around them?

Would we still be hearing of those individuals who call themselves citizens, yet band together to compel the American Flag to be removed from fire trucks?

Would it have somehow silenced those who would seek to remove select words from the Pledge of Allegiance?

If my children see something they want, i make them save up their money and buy it themselves. It's amazing how much better they take care of something they earned themselves than something they were just handed.

I guess the same holds true no matter how old we are. It won't be true 100% of the time, but I am willing to bet it is true more often than not.

Just MHO, so take it for what it is worth. That and $10 will get you a coffee at Starbucks.

[mousegunner]

For citizenship: you were born here or have been naturalized, that's fine.

BUT: I believe that only certain citizens should have the vote:

1) Those who can read the national language. Because if you can't read, then you will be ignorant, and ignorant people shouldn't vote.

2) Only those who are not on welfare, and who don't have a government job. No one should be in the position of being able to vote themselves money from the public funds.

3)If you pay no taxes, you should not have a vote.

4) Atheists should not have a vote. "The fool has said in his heart there is no God."

5) There should be only one vote per family. This would encourage families to discuss important issues with each other. If husbands and wives can't agree, they may as well stay home from the polls anyway, as they will cancel each other out.

6) Those who meet all the above, and are also serving in the military, or on a local police force, should get two votes per family. They have earned the extra vote by risking their lives for the rest of us.

Of course NONE OF THE ABOVE will ever become the law of the land, but one can dream!

[Guest bkelm18]

For citizenship: you were born here or have been naturalized, that's fine.

BUT: I believe that only certain citizens should have the vote:

1) Those who can read the national language. Because if you can't read, then you will be ignorant, and ignorant people shouldn't vote.

2) Only those who are not on welfare, and who don't have a government job. No one should be in the position of being able to vote themselves money from the public funds.

3)If you pay no taxes, you should not have a vote.

4) Atheists should not have a vote. "The fool has said in his heart there is no God."

5) There should be only one vote per family. This would encourage families to discuss important issues with each other. If husbands and wives can't agree, they may as well stay home from the polls anyway, as they will cancel each other out.

6) Those who meet all the above, and are also serving in the military, or on a local police force, should get two votes per family. They have earned the extra vote by risking their lives for the rest of us.

Of course NONE OF THE ABOVE will ever become the law of the land, but one can dream!

I agree with all of those except #4. I'm sorry but thats ridiculous. People have a right to choose whatever religion they want to follow. That includes following none. That right is given by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution, in case you were curious.

[Guest FroggyOne2]

While you may feel it would, facts simply do not support that. In places in this country at different levels of government where term limits are imposed, politicians feel unencumbered by the weight of having to get re-elected and what follows is increased spending, increased government intrusion, more liberal policies put in place. You do not get a more conservative elected body by term limiting, it's just that simple.

It isn't time in office which corrupts it is leadership and power. You'd still have the same with term limits. This is a free country and we should have the right to elect who we want and if I get a great one in there I want that person to stay as long as they hold to those principles.

Yeah I completely understand what your saying, and would have to agree and my innerself agrees.. but you can tell that my sentiment is also a reaction to todays climate of politics. Being that they are not listening all that much to the ones that they work for in the first place.. Take for instance, Lamar Alexander, I have written on several occasions to him and yet, not response from him at all.. at least Corker responded.. didn't like his cheesy response, but at least his office responded. I am not too happy with either one of them right now.. really, I am not too happy with the GOP period.

[G27]

For citizenship: you were born here or have been naturalized, that's fine.

BUT: I believe that only certain citizens should have the vote:

1) Those who can read the national language. Because if you can't read, then you will be ignorant, and ignorant people shouldn't vote.

2) Only those who are not on welfare, and who don't have a government job. No one should be in the position of being able to vote themselves money from the public funds.

3)If you pay no taxes, you should not have a vote.

4) Atheists should not have a vote. "The fool has said in his heart there is no God."

5) There should be only one vote per family. This would encourage families to discuss important issues with each other. If husbands and wives can't agree, they may as well stay home from the polls anyway, as they will cancel each other out.

6) Those who meet all the above, and are also serving in the military, or on a local police force, should get two votes per family. They have earned the extra vote by risking their lives for the rest of us.

Of course NONE OF THE ABOVE will ever become the law of the land, but one can dream!

Wow, I don't think I agree with a single one of those...

#1 There is no national language in the US.

#2 Just because someone is on welfare doesn't mean they will only vote their interests.

#3 My wife is a stay-at-home mom who has zero income and pays zero taxes.

#4 I'm a devout Christian but you have GOT to be kidding me...

#5 What if adult children live at home? What if one spouse wishes to vote third-party?

#6 Disagree completely. We have amendments regarding equal voting rights - part of our constitution. A dirty cop (being specific here, not all cops are dirty) doesn't deserve any more of a vote than the business owner who's taxes pay the salary of an entire police department.

[Guest bkelm18]

Wow, I don't think I agree with a single one of those...

#1 There is no national language in the US.

#2 Just because someone is on welfare doesn't mean they will only vote their interests.

#3 My wife is a stay-at-home mom who has zero income and pays zero taxes.

#4 I'm a devout Christian but you have GOT to be kidding me...

#5 What if adult children live at home? What if one spouse wishes to vote third-party?

#6 Disagree completely. We have amendments regarding equal voting rights - part of our constitution. A dirty cop (being specific here, not all cops are dirty) doesn't deserve any more of a vote than the business owner who's taxes pay the salary of an entire police department.

Big +1.

[strickj]

Make that a +2!

Thats one of the craziest,and ..... [ill keep the rest to my self!]

[poak]

2) Only those who are not on welfare, and who don't have a government job. No one should be in the position of being able to vote themselves money from the public funds.

6) Those who meet all the above, and are also serving in the military, or on a local police force, should get two votes per family. They have earned the extra vote by risking their lives for the rest of us.

Wouldn't 2 & 6 contradict each other? Or are we talking about the non-gov't run military and/or police force?

...and #4? If you want to live in a religiously extreme nation, I'm sure there's plenty of places that would welcome you... in the middle east.

[Rightwinger]

Yeah, I think a two year term of citizen service would be a good thing for everyone. Not neccessarily military but service. Then we could beat Obama to the punch saying "there's your Citizens Corp"

Love Heinlein by the way!

[Farman]

Wow, I don't think I agree with a single one of those...

#1 There is no national language in the US.

#2 Just because someone is on welfare doesn't mean they will only vote their interests.

#3 My wife is a stay-at-home mom who has zero income and pays zero taxes.

#4 I'm a devout Christian but you have GOT to be kidding me...

#5 What if adult children live at home? What if one spouse wishes to vote third-party?

#6 Disagree completely. We have amendments regarding equal voting rights - part of our constitution. A dirty cop (being specific here, not all cops are dirty) doesn't deserve any more of a vote than the business owner who's taxes pay the salary of an entire police department.

+10

It seems Mouse forgot #7

#7. When you become a citizen you will be required to vote for the ruling party.

As far as #4, I was brought up Lutheran, but don't go to church much. I do belong to the church of the "Golden Rule", which is just as important.(IMO).

And there's nothing wrong with doing volunteer work. Habitat for humanity, soup kitchen, pick up trash along the highway, just don't tell me I have to.

Edited February 8, 2009 by Farman
addition

[Reservoir Dog]

For citizenship: you were born here or have been naturalized, that's fine.

BUT: I believe that only certain citizens should have the vote:

1) Those who can read the national language. Because if you can't read, then you will be ignorant, and ignorant people shouldn't vote.

2) Only those who are not on welfare, and who don't have a government job. No one should be in the position of being able to vote themselves money from the public funds.

3)If you pay no taxes, you should not have a vote.

4) Atheists should not have a vote. "The fool has said in his heart there is no God."

5) There should be only one vote per family. This would encourage families to discuss important issues with each other. If husbands and wives can't agree, they may as well stay home from the polls anyway, as they will cancel each other out.

6) Those who meet all the above, and are also serving in the military, or on a local police force, should get two votes per family. They have earned the extra vote by risking their lives for the rest of us.

Of course NONE OF THE ABOVE will ever become the law of the land, but one can dream!

Well, everybody is entitled to an opinion, but that is some of the most ridiculous crap I have ever heard. It goes against many of the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Wow, I don't think I agree with a single one of those...

#1 There is no national language in the US.

#2 Just because someone is on welfare doesn't mean they will only vote their interests.

#3 My wife is a stay-at-home mom who has zero income and pays zero taxes.

#4 I'm a devout Christian but you have GOT to be kidding me...

#5 What if adult children live at home? What if one spouse wishes to vote third-party?

#6 Disagree completely. We have amendments regarding equal voting rights - part of our constitution. A dirty cop (being specific here, not all cops are dirty) doesn't deserve any more of a vote than the business owner who's taxes pay the salary of an entire police department.

Well said, sir.

[Guest nraforlife]

Just curious on what percentage of those wholly dependent on welfare voted for Obama?

IF the government really gave a rats rump about those on welfare, removing their right to vote until they were working would be an inducement to get off the public teat.

[Guest Linoge]

Die, Rightwinger.

There was no Starship Troopers movie. And there sure as frak were not two gorramed awful sequels...

[Guest bkelm18]

Die, Rightwinger.

There was no Starship Troopers movie. And there sure as frak were not two gorramed awful sequels...

Oh snap son, you didn't just bring BSG and Firefly into this discussion...

[G27]

Just curious on what percentage of those wholly dependent on welfare voted for Obama?

IF the government really gave a rats rump about those on welfare, removing their right to vote until they were working would be an inducement to get off the public teat.

Something few people know about me is that while I'm blessed to operate a successful company now, just six years ago I (including my expecting wife and first child) spent time "on welfare", receiving food stamps (EBT card) and WIC. My second child was delivered via TennCare. I went on to start my own business as my former employer didn't pay anything remotely resembling 'fair' but was on government assistance for about a year. We wouldn't have been able to keep our house or start my new business had it not been for that assistance.

Now, due to the success of my business, I pay more in taxes each year than I grossed annually at my former employer. I have more than paid the great citizens of my state and country back for their blessing us during those tough times. While I depended on help then, it did not change my views or cause me to vote from that perspective - if anything, it gave me a deeper understanding of how great this country is and how many opportunities abound even for those who can't always make it on their own.

I was always embarrassed to pay for my groceries with WIC coupons and our EBT card, always felt people staring at me (whether true or not). It was a tough time for a proud man such as myself, but I kept my head down and we made it through.

To act as if anyone who is on welfare is less of a citizen is disgusting to me, offensive. Do I believe many/most people on welfare are like me, using it as a bridge over the rough times instead of making it part of my lifestyle? No, I'm not that naive. Do we need welfare reform? Absolutely. Change the system, yes, it's time for an overhaul.

But don't you dare judge people who are using the system in a time of need. And don't dare take away their constitutional right to vote.

[Guest bkelm18]

Excellent post Crimson. What some forget or choose to ignore is that welfare serves a purpose, to help those who are really in need. Do some take advantage of it? Yeah. But are there some that honest to god need it to keep living and feed their family? You bet.

[R1100R]

Where in the hell did this thread get started. This country was founded by immigrants, debtor's prisoners and people escaping all religious persecution.

I have served with many in the military that were not born here that are better citizens than most in this country. I will tell you when you walk into a commissary on most military bases there is a WIC/ Welfare office at the front door. Thats a damn shame. Hell I'm so pissed at this thread I can't even think.

I am really shocked by a Man of the Cloth's response.

Edited February 8, 2009 by R1100R