0
   

Fred Thompson... unclear on the concept?

 
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 09:50 am
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Has anyone bothered to point out that many of the 12 million that would be granted instant citizenship, and the right to vote, can barely if at all speak/read/write the language of the nation? The process of naturalization requires that applicants be proficient in the language and have a basic understanding of US history. If they are granted citizenship without these things, should they really be allowed to vote? I seem to me that without these tools (english language and some history) that they cannot possibly make an informed decision.


We used to require people to take a literacy test before the voted...

Whatever happened to this idea?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 09:56 am
Abortion row threatens to derail campaign of the 'new Reagan
Abortion row threatens to derail campaign of the 'new Reagan'
By Stephen Foley in New York
Published: 09 July 2007
Independent UK

The speeding bandwagon of Republican presidential front-runner Fred Thompson has hit its first major bumps in the road, after allegations that he lobbied for abortion rights. Mr Thompson and his supporters were yesterday trying to swat away allegations that he lobbied on behalf of a pro-choice group in the Nineties, something that is anathema to the social conservatives within Republican ranks, who see abortion as a touchstone issue.

The actor-turned politician has emerged as a potential white knight for the party's religious right, the only candidate who can galvanise the party's disillusioned core supporters, and enthuse the mainstream with an easy Southern charm and a Ronald Reagan-style optimism.

If the social conservatives mobilised so effectively by President George Bush sit out the next election, Republican strategists fear, the White House will fall into Democratic hands for the first time in eight years.

So the allegations threaten to do considerably more damage among core Republicans than an internet whispering campaign against Mr Thompson's wife, Jeri, who is 25 years his junior and who was compared by a right-wing DJ last week to a pole-dancer.

Mr Thompson's voting record on abortion during his terms as a senator for Tennessee from 1994 to 2003 has been uniformly pro-life. Pro-choice campaigners branded him an "enemy", a badge he has worn with pride.

But the minutes of a 1991 board meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association say that the group hired Mr Thompson that year. He was charged, the group's executives say, with lobbying the administration of the first President Bush to change a "gagging rule" that prevented federally-funded family planning clinics from discussing abortion.

At the time, this was a major flashpoint in America's generations-old cultural war over abortion, and it pitted Mr Thompson against the pro-life movement, which is now the biggest cheerleader for his run for the White House.

The suggestion, first reported by the Los Angeles Times, threatens to undermine his campaign even before it has - officially, at least, - begun. Mr Thompson is not planning to formally announce his candidacy for another week or so.

Although he has criss-crossed the US making public appearances, and travelled to London last month to speak on foreign policy and seek audiences with David Cameron and Baroness Thatcher, he has set up only an exploratory committee aimed at testing the waters. The waters, though, feel "pretty warm", he says.

By staying on the sidelines of the race for so long, he has been able to capitalise on the growing disillusion of conservative voters with the slate of declared candidates. Polls show that Republicans are deeply unhappy with the choice on offer, and much of this has to do with the candidates' positions on abortion.

In the most recent Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, 27 per cent of Republicans say they support Mr Thompson, three points ahead of the former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, an unabashed supporter of a woman's right to choose.

Other leading candidates include "flip-floppers" like the Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, a recent convert to the pro-life cause, and the stem cell research-supporting Senator John McCain, once the frontrunner, whose campaign has gone into freefall.

Mr Thompson's campaign team initially vigorously denied that he did the lobbying work suggested, but he himself has been less categorical as the storm has brewed over the weekend.

An official statement said he had "no recollection" of doing the work and at a public appearance at a Young Republicans convention in Hollywood he sidestepped the question. "I'd just say the flies get bigger in the summertime," he said. "I guess the flies are buzzing."

While Mr Thompson is known to millions of Americans as the tough-talking district attorney in Law & Order, his non-fiction life and career as a Washington lawyer and lobbyist is less well known.

Democrat and rival Republican camps have been trawling for several months to find embarrassing clients and causes with which he was associated, and the pro-choice campaign is perhaps the most damaging imaginable for Republicans' core supporters.

However, for the wider public, it may be the fact that Mr Thompson was a lobbyist at all that ultimately hurts his standing. He has presented himself as a jeans-wearing man of the people, able to clean up Washington's corrupt politics, but his CV is one of the quintessential insider.
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 09:56 am
ebrown_p wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Has anyone bothered to point out that many of the 12 million that would be granted instant citizenship, and the right to vote, can barely if at all speak/read/write the language of the nation? The process of naturalization requires that applicants be proficient in the language and have a basic understanding of US history. If they are granted citizenship without these things, should they really be allowed to vote? I seem to me that without these tools (english language and some history) that they cannot possibly make an informed decision.


We used to require people to take a literacy test before the voted...

Whatever happened to this idea?


Good question. Seriously though, to make in informed decision, they need to communicate proficiently in at least *either* written or verbal form in english. Otherwise, it would be nearly impossibly to expect them to know the state of politics and whatnot.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 09:59 am
USAFHokie80 wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Has anyone bothered to point out that many of the 12 million that would be granted instant citizenship, and the right to vote, can barely if at all speak/read/write the language of the nation? The process of naturalization requires that applicants be proficient in the language and have a basic understanding of US history. If they are granted citizenship without these things, should they really be allowed to vote? I seem to me that without these tools (english language and some history) that they cannot possibly make an informed decision.


We used to require people to take a literacy test before the voted...

Whatever happened to this idea?


Good question. Seriously though, to make in informed decision, they need to communicate proficiently in at least *either* written or verbal form in english. Otherwise, it would be nearly impossibly to expect them to know the state of politics and whatnot.


You were set up on this one by Ebrown, and bit right in.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 10:24 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Has anyone bothered to point out that many of the 12 million that would be granted instant citizenship, and the right to vote, can barely if at all speak/read/write the language of the nation? The process of naturalization requires that applicants be proficient in the language and have a basic understanding of US history. If they are granted citizenship without these things, should they really be allowed to vote? I seem to me that without these tools (english language and some history) that they cannot possibly make an informed decision.


We used to require people to take a literacy test before the voted...

Whatever happened to this idea?


Good question. Seriously though, to make in informed decision, they need to communicate proficiently in at least *either* written or verbal form in english. Otherwise, it would be nearly impossibly to expect them to know the state of politics and whatnot.


You were set up on this one by Ebrown, and bit right in.

Cycloptichorn


I know. The fact that he thinks he "set me up" doesn't change my point.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 10:26 am
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Has anyone bothered to point out that many of the 12 million that would be granted instant citizenship, and the right to vote, can barely if at all speak/read/write the language of the nation? The process of naturalization requires that applicants be proficient in the language and have a basic understanding of US history. If they are granted citizenship without these things, should they really be allowed to vote? I seem to me that without these tools (english language and some history) that they cannot possibly make an informed decision.


We used to require people to take a literacy test before the voted...

Whatever happened to this idea?


Good question. Seriously though, to make in informed decision, they need to communicate proficiently in at least *either* written or verbal form in english. Otherwise, it would be nearly impossibly to expect them to know the state of politics and whatnot.


You were set up on this one by Ebrown, and bit right in.

Cycloptichorn


I know. The fact that he thinks he "set me up" doesn't change my point.


It does though, in that knowing English isn't a requirement to make a good decision on who should be president and who shouldn't.

And the courts established this long ago...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 10:29 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Has anyone bothered to point out that many of the 12 million that would be granted instant citizenship, and the right to vote, can barely if at all speak/read/write the language of the nation? The process of naturalization requires that applicants be proficient in the language and have a basic understanding of US history. If they are granted citizenship without these things, should they really be allowed to vote? I seem to me that without these tools (english language and some history) that they cannot possibly make an informed decision.


We used to require people to take a literacy test before the voted...

Whatever happened to this idea?


Good question. Seriously though, to make in informed decision, they need to communicate proficiently in at least *either* written or verbal form in english. Otherwise, it would be nearly impossibly to expect them to know the state of politics and whatnot.


You were set up on this one by Ebrown, and bit right in.

Cycloptichorn


I know. The fact that he thinks he "set me up" doesn't change my point.


It does though, in that knowing English isn't a requirement to make a good decision on who should be president and who shouldn't.

And the courts established this long ago...

Cycloptichorn


Then why do certain States insist on printing a Ballot in many different languages? (at taxpayer expense of course!)
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 10:35 am
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Has anyone bothered to point out that many of the 12 million that would be granted instant citizenship, and the right to vote, can barely if at all speak/read/write the language of the nation? The process of naturalization requires that applicants be proficient in the language and have a basic understanding of US history. If they are granted citizenship without these things, should they really be allowed to vote? I seem to me that without these tools (english language and some history) that they cannot possibly make an informed decision.


We used to require people to take a literacy test before the voted...

Whatever happened to this idea?


Good question. Seriously though, to make in informed decision, they need to communicate proficiently in at least *either* written or verbal form in english. Otherwise, it would be nearly impossibly to expect them to know the state of politics and whatnot.


You were set up on this one by Ebrown, and bit right in.

Cycloptichorn


I know. The fact that he thinks he "set me up" doesn't change my point.


It does though, in that knowing English isn't a requirement to make a good decision on who should be president and who shouldn't.

And the courts established this long ago...

Cycloptichorn


Then why do certain States insist on printing a Ballot in many different languages? (at taxpayer expense of course!)


The taxpayer expense is negligible. The ballots would still be printed no matter what language they come in.

The States insist on doing so, so that people who don't speak English well have the opportunity to vote for public office the same way everyone else does. I don't understand why you wouldn't want people to understand the ballot as easily as possible.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 10:44 am
"It does though, in that knowing English isn't a requirement to make a good decision on who should be president and who shouldn't. "

You are the one who stated English is not a requirement to make a good decision.

Now, you contradict yourself.

"The States insist on doing so, so that people who don't speak English well have the opportunity to vote for public office the same way everyone else does."

So they can obtain information from English Speaking and non English Speaking sources but can not read a ballot?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 10:47 am
woiyo wrote:
"It does though, in that knowing English isn't a requirement to make a good decision on who should be president and who shouldn't. "

You are the one who stated English is not a requirement to make a good decision.

Now, you contradict yourself.

"The States insist on doing so, so that people who don't speak English well have the opportunity to vote for public office the same way everyone else does."

So they can obtain information from English Speaking and non English Speaking sources but can not read a ballot?


I have not in fact contradicted myself. I suggest you go back and read the thread again more carefully.

Hokie said:

Quote:
Seriously though, to make in informed decision, they need to communicate proficiently in at least *either* written or verbal form in english.


To which I responded:

Quote:

It does though, in that knowing English isn't a requirement to make a good decision on who should be president and who shouldn't.


You said:

Quote:


Then why do certain States insist on printing a Ballot in many different languages? (at taxpayer expense of course!)


And I said:

Quote:

The States insist on doing so, so that people who don't speak English well have the opportunity to vote for public office the same way everyone else does. I don't understand why you wouldn't want people to understand the ballot as easily as possible.


My position has remained constant: that knowing English is not a requirement for making an informed decision about voting for a public office.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 10:55 am
Wanna talk in circles, do ya!

OK.

Then why are States printing ballots in non-english formats?
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 10:57 am
Even if knowing English isn't a requirement for casting a vote, it IS a requirement for becoming a citizen of the US. I suppose, this one of the things that people think is "unfair." If i were to move to Japan and become a citizen but not bother to learn the language, I wouldnt' expect them to let me vote. How could I possibly absorb enough information without knowing the language? Sure, I could base my opinions on what my friends/family say, but that is just their opinion influencing mine. That's silly.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 11:00 am
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Even if knowing English isn't a requirement for casting a vote, it IS a requirement for becoming a citizen of the US. I suppose, this one of the things that people think is "unfair." If i were to move to Japan and become a citizen but not bother to learn the language, I wouldnt' expect them to let me vote. How could I possibly absorb enough information without knowing the language? Sure, I could base my opinions on what my friends/family say, but that is just their opinion influencing mine. That's silly.


Telemundo provides tons of political coverage in Spanish. There are plenty of spanish websites which write political coverage here in America, chinese ones as well. It's difficult for me to understand why you believe that people who speak other languages don't have any other option then to listen to their friends/family when it comes to informing themselves politically.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 11:04 am
CURRENT requirements to become a Citizen.

http://www.us-immigration-attorney.com/citizenship.htm


Age

Applicants must be at least 18 years old.

Residency

An applicant must have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. Lawfully admitted for permanent residence means having been legally accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws. Individuals who have been lawfully admitted as permanent residents will be asked to produce an I-551, Alien Registration Receipt Card, as proof of their status.

Residence and Physical Presence

An applicant is eligible to file if, immediately preceding the filing of the application, he or she:

has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence;

has resided continuously as a lawful permanent resident in the U.S. for at least 5 years prior to filing with absences from the United States totaling no more than one year;

has been physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the previous five years (absences of more than six months but less than one year break the continuity of residence unless the applicant can establish that he or she did not abandon his or her residence during such period);

has resided within a state or district for at least three months.

Good Moral Character

Generally, an applicant must show that he or she has been a person of good moral character for the statutory period (typically five years or three years if married to a U.S. citizen or one year for Armed Forces expedite) prior to filing for naturalization. The Service is not limited to the statutory period in determining whether an applicant has established good moral character. An applicant is permanently barred from naturalization if he or she has ever been convicted of murder. An applicant is also permanently barred from naturalization if he or she has been convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Act on or after November 29, 1990. A person also cannot be found to be a person of good moral character if during the last five years he or she:

has committed and been convicted of one or more crimes involving moral turpitude

has committed and been convicted of 2 or more offenses for which the total sentence imposed was 5 years or more

has committed and been convicted of any controlled substance law, except for a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana

has been confined to a penal institution during the statutory period, as a result of a conviction, for an aggregate period of 180 days or more

has committed and been convicted of two or more gambling offenses

is or has earned his or her principle income from illegal gambling

is or has been involved in prostitution or commercialized vice

is or has been involved in smuggling illegal aliens into the United States

is or has been a habitual drunkard

is practicing or has practiced polygamy

has willfully failed or refused to support dependents

has given false testimony, under oath, in order to receive a benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

An applicant must disclose all relevant facts to the Service, including his or her entire criminal history, regardless of whether the criminal history disqualifies the applicant under the enumerated provisions.

Attachment to the Constitution

An applicant must show that he or she is attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States.

Language

Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language. Applicants exempt from this requirement are those who on the date of filing:

have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 15 years and are over 55 years of age;

have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 20 years and are over 50 years of age; or

have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant's ability to learn English.


United States Government and History Knowledge

An applicant for naturalization must demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history and of the principles and form of government of the United States. Applicants exempt from this requirement are those who, on the date of filing, have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant's ability to learn U.S. History and Government.

Applicants who have been residing in the U.S. subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 20 years and are over the age of 65 will be afforded special consideration in satisfying this requirement.

Oath of Allegiance

To become a citizen, one must take the oath of allegiance. By doing so, an applicant swears to:

support the Constitution and obey the laws of the U.S.;

renounce any foreign allegiance and/or foreign title; and

bear arms for the Armed Forces of the U.S. or perform services for the government of the U.S. when required.

In certain instances, where the applicant establishes that he or she is opposed to any type of service in armed forces based on religious teaching or belief, USCIS will permit these applicants to take a modified oath.

Spouses of U.S. Citizens

Generally, certain lawful permanent residents married to a U.S. citizen may file for naturalization after residing continuously in the United States for three years if immediately preceding the filing of the application:

the applicant has been married to and living in a valid marital union with the same U.S. citizen spouse for all three years;

the U.S. spouse has been a citizen for all three years and meets all physical presence and residence requirements; and

the applicant meets all other naturalization requirements.

There are also exceptions for lawful permanent residents married to U.S. citizens stationed or employed abroad. Some lawful permanent residents may not have to comply with the residence or physical presence requirements when the U.S. citizen spouse is employed by one of the following:

the U.S. Government (including the U.S. Armed Forces);

American research institutes recognized by the Attorney General;

recognized U.S. religious organizations;

U.S. research institutions;

an American firm engaged in the development of foreign trade and commerce of the United States; or

certain public international organizations involving the United States.

Veterans of U.S. Armed Forces

Certain applicants who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces are eligible to file for naturalization based on current or prior U.S. military service. Such applicants should file the N-400 Military Naturalization Packet.

Lawful Permanent Residents with Three Years U.S. Military Service

An applicant who has served for three years in the U.S. military and who is a lawful permanent resident is excused from any specific period of required residence, period of residence in any specific place, or physical presence within the United States if an application for naturalization is filed while the applicant is still serving or within six months of an honorable discharge.
To be eligible for these exemptions, an applicant must:

have served honorably or separated under honorable conditions;

completed three years or more of military service;

be a legal permanent resident at the time of his or her examination on the application; or

establish good moral character if service was discontinuous or not honorable.

Applicants who file for naturalization more than six months after termination of three years of service in the U.S. military may count any periods of honorable service as residence and physical presence in the United States.

An applicant who has served honorably during any of the following periods of conflict is entitled to certain considerations:

World War I - 4/16/17 to 11/11/18;
World War II - 9/1/39 to 12/31/46;
Korean Conflict - 6/25/50 to 7/1/55;
Vietnam Conflict - 2/28/61 to 10/15/78;
Operation Desert Shield/ Desert Storm - 8/29/90 to 4/11/91; or
any other period which the President, by Executive Order, has designated as a period in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or were engaged in military operations involving armed conflict with hostile foreign forces.

Applicants who have served during any of the aforementioned conflicts may apply for naturalization based on military service after qualifying service and the requirements for specific periods of physical presence in the United States and residence in the United States are waived.
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 11:05 am
In reality, the illegal aliens we're talking about don't have access to TV and the internet.
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 11:07 am
Thanks woiyo. I'm still confused why people insist this is just too dificult for all of the illegal mexican immigrants...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 11:14 am
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Has anyone bothered to point out that many of the 12 million that would be granted instant citizenship, and the right to vote, can barely if at all speak/read/write the language of the nation?

Nobody would be granted "instant citizenship".

It says something if someone gets the basic facts wrong right in their first sentence..
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 11:16 am
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Thanks woiyo. I'm still confused why people insist this is just too dificult for all of the illegal mexican immigrants...


It is NOT difficult to learn English as millions and millions of immigrants, both legal and illegal, have demonstrated.

Certain people like to make excuses for others who have chosen NOT to learn English (or pretend not to know English).

See, there are certain types of people who do not understand what the words PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY mean and these types of people will blame others for their choices.
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 11:20 am
nimh wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Has anyone bothered to point out that many of the 12 million that would be granted instant citizenship, and the right to vote, can barely if at all speak/read/write the language of the nation?

Nobody would be granted "instant citizenship".

It says something if someone gets the basic facts wrong right in their first sentence..


"instant" was, i thought, obviously used only as a comparator to the normal LEGAL method of naturalization.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 11:35 am
Quote:
In reality, the illegal aliens we're talking about don't have access to TV and the internet.


Which country are they illegally sneaking into? 'cause, you can get a TV for about 10 bucks here in America if you like. I find it to be unbelievable that you would think that people don't have access to TV.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 02:59:42