Jason Moran
Friday, February 22, 2008
Immigration, Citizenship, and Voting
One more from the What Would You Do As President? series (I think I'll do one last one after this, maybe). I want to debate the pros and cons of what a few of the denizens of the web think:
The basics of what these folks are talking about are a national language (English), adding to the requirements to become a United States citizen, illegal aliens, and reintroducing voting tests.
I don't know how feasible a border-spanning, check-pointed gateway is, but if it was made to be nearly impossible to get over/under/through then I could see it stifling illegal immigration. The only problem would be if the checkpoints were very far away from each other.
I am a native English speaker, and I have to admit that I get pretty annoyed when I call into an automated phone system that will not continue until I pick a language (#1 for English, para espanol - oprima numero dos). If the system always used to use English, why would I have to make a selection before continuing? Shouldn't the system assume that I want to use English and have an option to switch to a Spanish menu? I'm not against the spanish menu option, I'm against forcing me to actively choose English when it should be the expected norm.
As for illegal aliens, I think immediate deportation is a bit harsh because there are some people that were here legally but have had their visa lapse - sometimes out of their control. However, if you were caught working in the U.S. without a visa and you don't get it cleared up in a week, then you have an option of immediate deportation or jail followed by deportation (unless you resolved your visa status while you were in jail). Obviously this goes directly against the thought that non-violent criminals shouldn't be clogging up our penitentiary system, so maybe it's just a large fine that quadruples if you get caught again.
As for voting tests, let's not forget that there is free public education for all. I don't see any persecution or unfairness with extremely trivial voting tests. You should only have to pass it once (perhaps per voting district), and it has to be standardized so it won't become unfair. If you cannot read at a very basic level and / or pass a trivial test then can you be doing anything other than voting either by guessing or being a brain-dead hole-puncher for somebody else that told you what to vote for? The test can be something as easy as this:
Pick the option that is a color:
If you guessed fluffy you can't vote...and you should be shot.
- English is the national language. You want a government document in something else? Too bad, go to a country that speaks that language.
- Build a border-spanning fence. Every 75 miles, have a reinforced entry way in which people are allowed through.
- If you get caught in the country illegally, you get thrown out. Today. No questions... you're on the plane. Each time you sneek in, we send you farther away. If you've been here over 5 years and can speak English, you can stay. You're not a citizen. You're on a permanent visa. No voting. If you want citizenship, you can go back to your country and apply like everyone else.
- Voting tests. They may have a really bad rap, but that's OK with me. Nothing complex, just some simple stuff. You have to be able to read at a 6th grade level. This discriminated against blacks because it was illegal to teach them to read. These days if you can't read, you can't participate effectively in politics. You also have to pass a ludicrously simple geography test. They will always change so you can't easily be taught to the test. If you can't find Canada on a map, you can't vote in the US.
The basics of what these folks are talking about are a national language (English), adding to the requirements to become a United States citizen, illegal aliens, and reintroducing voting tests.
I don't know how feasible a border-spanning, check-pointed gateway is, but if it was made to be nearly impossible to get over/under/through then I could see it stifling illegal immigration. The only problem would be if the checkpoints were very far away from each other.
I am a native English speaker, and I have to admit that I get pretty annoyed when I call into an automated phone system that will not continue until I pick a language (#1 for English, para espanol - oprima numero dos). If the system always used to use English, why would I have to make a selection before continuing? Shouldn't the system assume that I want to use English and have an option to switch to a Spanish menu? I'm not against the spanish menu option, I'm against forcing me to actively choose English when it should be the expected norm.
As for illegal aliens, I think immediate deportation is a bit harsh because there are some people that were here legally but have had their visa lapse - sometimes out of their control. However, if you were caught working in the U.S. without a visa and you don't get it cleared up in a week, then you have an option of immediate deportation or jail followed by deportation (unless you resolved your visa status while you were in jail). Obviously this goes directly against the thought that non-violent criminals shouldn't be clogging up our penitentiary system, so maybe it's just a large fine that quadruples if you get caught again.
As for voting tests, let's not forget that there is free public education for all. I don't see any persecution or unfairness with extremely trivial voting tests. You should only have to pass it once (perhaps per voting district), and it has to be standardized so it won't become unfair. If you cannot read at a very basic level and / or pass a trivial test then can you be doing anything other than voting either by guessing or being a brain-dead hole-puncher for somebody else that told you what to vote for? The test can be something as easy as this:
Pick the option that is a color:
- Magnet
- Pencil
- Yellow
- Fluffy
If you guessed fluffy you can't vote...and you should be shot.
Labels: citizenship, foreigners, immigration, politics, prison, voting
¶ 1:47 PM 2 Comments
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Legalize Stuff
This is more from the What Would You Do As President? series. These are all items that I may or may not agree with, but they are pretty interesting to talk about. How about we just start legalizing all kinds of stuff? These are what some people think:
The immediate red flag is that if you don't go to jail for dealing drugs, then it'll get worse and worse. The best response to that is to regulate and tax the living crap out of selling recreational drugs - and to stick a heavy fine on those that do it illegally. Heck, while we're legalizing, regulating, and taxing the entire drug industry, let's legalize, regulate, and tax prostitution because all of that tax money would probably pay for a free universal health plan. Oh, and da ho'z wouldn't need no mo' P.I.M.P.S, fo' shizzle.
Going back to the druggies, I don't even think you'd have to lower the rap sheet implications for continued participation in the illegal drug trade. If it was a felony before, it still is. You just pay a hefty fine instead of doing jail time.
Cannibas Sativa (hemp) has a bazillion industrial uses. It's pretty much as useful as water. Millions of products could be produced from it, and it grows like a weed! Dude!!
I know that I don't agree with doing drugs, but why is there a double standard? Alcohol is a drug and it is legal, regulated, and taxed. Cigars and cigarettes are addictive, give you that 10 second high the first few times you do them, yet you can buy them everywhere. Marijuana is really not much different, so why is it illegal? Or, on the other side of the coin, why is alcohol legal? What about harder drugs? Maybe it's just the really hard and crazy addictive drugs (I'm thinking heroin) that should be illegal. Why are we only allowed to have one legal drug, and everything else will put you in jail?
You know what's weird? I always considered myself on the straight-edge "stick those druggies in jail" side of the equation, but there are too many inconsistencies for me to be happy about the current state of affairs. Besides, I tip a few back now and again, so why should I be allowed to look down upon pot smokers and other drug users unless they have truly destroyed their lives to the point that they have become complete degenerates? Alcoholics can also become degenerates or have little impact on their lives - so why the double standard?
- I would legalize hemp for industrial uses. There are so many great industrial uses for hemp that it is absolutely stupid not to be using it.
- Legalize ALL drugs (this includes regulation and taxation. Want to end the illegal drug trade? This is the fastest way.)
- Pardon and release non-violent drug offenders to help with prison overcrowding - stick 'em with a fine instead.
- Reverse laws that punish victimless crimes.
The immediate red flag is that if you don't go to jail for dealing drugs, then it'll get worse and worse. The best response to that is to regulate and tax the living crap out of selling recreational drugs - and to stick a heavy fine on those that do it illegally. Heck, while we're legalizing, regulating, and taxing the entire drug industry, let's legalize, regulate, and tax prostitution because all of that tax money would probably pay for a free universal health plan. Oh, and da ho'z wouldn't need no mo' P.I.M.P.S, fo' shizzle.
Going back to the druggies, I don't even think you'd have to lower the rap sheet implications for continued participation in the illegal drug trade. If it was a felony before, it still is. You just pay a hefty fine instead of doing jail time.
Cannibas Sativa (hemp) has a bazillion industrial uses. It's pretty much as useful as water. Millions of products could be produced from it, and it grows like a weed! Dude!!
I know that I don't agree with doing drugs, but why is there a double standard? Alcohol is a drug and it is legal, regulated, and taxed. Cigars and cigarettes are addictive, give you that 10 second high the first few times you do them, yet you can buy them everywhere. Marijuana is really not much different, so why is it illegal? Or, on the other side of the coin, why is alcohol legal? What about harder drugs? Maybe it's just the really hard and crazy addictive drugs (I'm thinking heroin) that should be illegal. Why are we only allowed to have one legal drug, and everything else will put you in jail?
You know what's weird? I always considered myself on the straight-edge "stick those druggies in jail" side of the equation, but there are too many inconsistencies for me to be happy about the current state of affairs. Besides, I tip a few back now and again, so why should I be allowed to look down upon pot smokers and other drug users unless they have truly destroyed their lives to the point that they have become complete degenerates? Alcoholics can also become degenerates or have little impact on their lives - so why the double standard?
Labels: alcohol, drugs, law, politics, president, prison, prostitution, taxes
¶ 3:46 PM 1 Comments