Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding
I am fully aware of a system that is present to join the community of the US. I am also aware that it is designed for those who are above the poverty-line, which would rule out. It's based on the system of, "You have to be able to give to us first, then you can live here".
|
show me, please where it states that. i'm curious to see where that fits into the framework of the naturalization process.
http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/index.htm
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by icarian decoding
When you use the company reference, you are overlooking a few factors. We are talking about quality of life, which shouldn't require being hired. Apartments, cars, etc, are all personal properties, something not owned by the state. They are owned by the citizen. The country itself is the state, which should be open to the public.
|
usually, when one seeks employment, it is for the betterment of one's quality of life. what's the difference in place of residence, otherwise? i find it interesting that material possessions and working to provide for one's own are things you describe as being a part of life "which shouldn't require being hired", which i'll take the liberty to interpret as - one shouldn't be responsible for earning on one's own.
so that leaves a question - who should be responsible for someone's quality of life, if not that person him or herself? and further, is it ok to work for a supposed quality of life betterment through illegitimate means?
the country IS open to the public - the public of citizens who are a part of it. a country is nothing more than a foundation upon which the citizenry builds a societal construct. having others force their way in and demanding to be called a part of that is ludicrous.
try walking into a gang meeting some night and demanding that you be included as a member. see what it gets you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by icarian decoding
Your fellow countrymen reference is good, and I also obey the law, and expect others to obey the law, but when I believe that the law has gone from the benefit of the people, I refuse to follow it. If those who break the law are immediately punished, how is reform to take place?
|
reform takes place the way i stated - by rewriting the law or abolishing it altogether, not by picking and choosing which laws to obey willy-nilly. it doesn't work both ways.
reform also takes place by the citizens of this country making their voices heard. if a majority believe in open borders and the disintegration of the naturalization process, so be it. i don't believe that is the majority vote, though and as such reform will hopefully be avoided unless it's to enforce the law as its written.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by icarian decoder
The naturalization process is simply paperwork, registering yourself with the state and giving the state money so they can accept you as a citizen. I know this from first hand experience. It's not something for all the poor masses, and those seeking refuge from war and poverty. It's not free, as it should be, and it's not effective for anyone genuinely looking for a better life.
|
why should it be free? what's the justification for that statement?
i say - if you want something - earn it, work for it, do what it takes to make it happen. that's half the problem with the bullsit going on these days. people feel they are entitled to something merely becaus they want it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by icarian decoder
I would have to agree with your last statement though. The day I see a woman being harmed, because it was a massive gang, is the day that something should be done. Not by government, but right now. It's illegal, but it's not valid under the rest. Under the rest, it was my assumption that we were talking about pacifistic moving to go under the banner of the US, something of the individual. Lawless, yes. Perhaps neccesary. Your reference was to the harm of the individual, which I don't believe in.
|
how do you qualify one illegal act and yet condemn another? are you a judge? what are your credentials establishing your point of reference for a legitimate versus an illegitimate law?
my reference was a shocking analogy concerning the harm of one by the unlawful activity of another, while the law to prohibit it sits idly by to illustrate my point. it was not meant, in this context, to be taken literally.