Millions refuse U.S. Citizenship

Miami Herald ^ | 09/18/03 | ALFONSO CHARDY

[bedolido]

IMMIGRANT RESEARCH

Poor language skills and pride in national origin are two reasons why nearly eight million foreign residents eligible for U.S. citizenship have not applied, according to a study released Wednesday.

Mexicans and Canadians are among the nationalities least likely to apply for citizenship, the report by the Washington-based Urban Institute found. Historically, there have been millions of immigrants with green cards who have not sought citizenship for various reasons, but this is the first time a study has focused on the issue.

''Despite rising naturalization rates, the pool of legal immigrants eligible to naturalize remains strikingly large,'' the study said.

OFFICE CREATED

To encourage more applications, the Bush administration this week announced the creation of the Office of Citizenship.

Eduardo Aguirre, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said in a recent interview with The Herald that his goal is to eventually naturalize one million new citizens per year. In 2002, about 573,000 foreigners became citizens.

''We share many of the same concerns in the Urban Institute brief,'' said Dan Kane, a spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Typically, surges in naturalization applications follow changes in federal immigration law. A record 1.4 million applications were submitted in 1997, a year after Congress tightened immigration laws. Applications soared again after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when more restrictions were introduced.

OTHER REASONS

Other reasons that dissuade foreigners from seeking citizenship are fear of rejection and for some Canadians and Mexicans proximity to their homeland.

Of the 7.9 million eligible foreign residents, 2.3 million are from Mexico, according to the report. The report did not include a breakdown for Canadians.

The rate of Mexicans seeking citizenship has climbed from 19 percent in 1995 to 34 percent in 2001, the report said.

The number of Canadians seeking citizenship has remained at about 50 percent in recent years.

''Canadians are more likely than Mexicans to naturalize, but less likely than others to naturalize,'' said Jeffrey S. Passel, demographer and principal research associate at the Urban Institute. By comparison, the percentage of Asian nationals seeking citizenship is about 67 percent.

Foreign nationals seeking asylum or fleeing from dictatorship were among the most likely to want to become American, Passel said. Seventy three percent of Cubans seek citizenship, he said.

[buwaya]

Romans ?

Roman Catholic, yes.

[buwaya]

I like Horowitz. I've read his books. I've been in a US College within the last decade. I've read plenty of interest on all these subjects.

In the 1930's there was a large, legal US Communist party advocating revolution, and a lot of highly-placed people were either openly or secretly members. Unions were powerful and employed a majority of industrial workers.

These days their intellectual equivalents are wimps in comparison, unions are weak, and for all the noise in universities, those people have little substantial power.

They lost. They don't have the courage of their convictions. The field of economics has left them behind; Marx is a joke.

From what I'm hearing, even the students are now rebelling against their leftist professors.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

"Given that my ancestors shot at you yankees during the Yankee invasion, I understand her feelings." And you lost.

Oh I don't know, I've got Republicans running my state and most of the south. BTW, you lost here because I assure you my Canadian friend is staying, perhaps just to spite you! ;-)

OH and we've won more than we've lost, we also had family at Valley Forge, in the Texas Revolution, Cuba, WWI, WWII .......

[exmarine]

That statement could have come right out of Osama Bin Laden's mouth. Muslims say the same thing about the Koran- everything you need to live your life is in there, too.

Spoken like a true moral relativist. One should always choose to do the higher moral good. It's not rocket science. Most situations are clear cut, only a very small percentage involve vague moral situations, and in those situation, one does the greater moral good. Don't hand me that crappy comparison with Osama Bin Laden - it will make me believe you are an anti-Christian bigot! It's bad enough you want to take over hte world! Hail Caesar!

[exmarine]

And, much like constitutional interpretation, you need to figure out exactly what qualifies as "murder" or "stealing." Does a soldier commit murder when he kills an enemy in combat? Is lying to Nazis to save Jews you're hiding in the attic wrong? If your answer to either of these questions is "no," then the 10 Commandments are not absolutes, because there are exeptions to the rules.

Obviously, you are a moral midget. Killing in war is not necessarily murder. You need some study on the defintion and meaning of a "just war". In the case of the case of hiding Jews, yes it is the right thing and there is almost an exact example of this from the bible - Rahab hid the hebrew spies in Jericho and was rewarded by God. She did the greater moral good. Murder is when you unjustifiably kill an innocent person - like an unborn baby. Killing a criminal is JUSTICE, not murder. You need some work on your morals pal - you are seriously confused. Y

[exmarine]

That's what I'm talking about when I say we as human beings decide morality.

I am now convinced that you make up your own morals as you go along - moral relativist. Psychologists have a label for people who make up their own moral rules - SOCIOPATH!

[buwaya]

May I note that the "Just War" concept is a Catholic one, based on the analysis of biblical ethics through reason, and promulgated by ecclesiastic authority, in the Catholic tradition.

Therefore it is an excellent example of the resolution of ethical dilemmas and providing guidance at a stage beyond a literal reading of the Bible. A similar case is the church's teaching on abortion. This is not, of course, moral relativism.

There is no explicit statement or group of them in the Bible that spell out the concept of a "Just War", not is there an unambiguous denunciation of abortion.

[buwaya]

Let me try, once again, to explain - humans have to figure out what morality is, given that their understanding is likely to be imperfect. We are capable of getting it wrong, and when we do we are wrong, not right. There is an absolute morality against which we are judged.

And if you are discussing public policy, the moral right is generally not very easy to find. There are winners and losers for everything a government does.

[exmarine]

May I note that the "Just War" concept is a Catholic one, based on the analysis of biblical ethics through reason, and promulgated by ecclesiastic authority, in the Catholic tradition.

Only if you consider Augustine a catholic which is highly debatable. In any case, the "just war" theory is biblical and correct. Turning the other cheek applies on a personal level not a national level, and does not apply to self defense of one's life or another's life.

Therefore it is an excellent example of the resolution of ethical dilemmas and providing guidance at a stage beyond a literal reading of the Bible. A similar case is the church's teaching on abortion. This is not, of course, moral relativism.

When catholicism disagrees with the bible, it is catholicism that is wrong, not the bible. Catholic church is not the standard, scripture is, and there are many divergences. Traditions are from men and men are corrupt. Jesus Christ spoke against the traditions of the Pharisees.

There is no explicit statement or group of them in the Bible that spell out the concept of a "Just War", not is there an unambiguous denunciation of abortion.

It's not explicit but it's there. Wars of Israel against its the Canaanites and Philistines just to name 2 examples. The bible is clear about abortion - Jer. 1:5, Psalm 119:13ff. Sure, you are not going to say that the catholic church takes precedence over Holy scripture, are you? That is one primary reason for the Reformation.

[exmarine]

Let me try, once again, to explain - humans have to figure out what morality is, given that their understanding is likely to be imperfect. We are capable of getting it wrong, and when we do we are wrong, not right. There is an absolute morality against which we are judged.

Ungodly people are not capable of doing the right thing - they have nor moral compass outside of themselves. That is why Godly people must make the laws becuase if they don't,the ungodly will. It was for this reason that the American founding father, John Jay, said that citizens should prefer ONLY Christians for public office.

[exmarine]

not is there an unambiguous denunciation of abortion.

Psalm 139:14: I will praise thee; for I am fearfully [and] wonderfully made: marvellous [are] thy works; and [that] my soul knoweth right well. 15. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all [my members] were written, [which] in continuance were fashioned, when [as yet there was] none of them.

Jer. 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Then there's the passage in Luke when Elizabeth's unborn "BABY" heard Mary's voice and leaped in her womb.

It's abundantly clear isn't it? God forms us in the womb and has a plan for our lives BEFORE WE ARE BORN. Abortion is murder. I think you are not that familiar with scripture, are you?

[Modernman]

Obviously, you are a moral midget. Killing in war is not necessarily murder. You need some study on the defintion and meaning of a "just war". In the case of the case of hiding Jews, yes it is the right thing and there is almost an exact example of this from the bible

But where does it say this in the 10 Commandments? I don't see a definition of a Just War anywhere in the TC. What you are doing, my friend, is interpreting the TC and applying them to certain moral situations. You said earlier that the TC were absolute, but now you're finding exceptions to the absolute rules laid down in the TC.

That's what I'm talking about when I say that any moral absolutes, such as the TC, need to be interpreted and applied to situations that exist in real life. That's what humans beings do when it comes to creating morality.

[Modernman]

Ungodly people are not capable of doing the right thing - they have nor moral compass outside of themselves.

The classical Greeks, who did not worship the Judeo-Christian God, had a very strong concept of right and wrong-our concept of democracy and the relationship between the state and the individual is drawn heavily from pagan philosophers.

To say that morality and right and wrong did not exist before Christianity is historically completely wrong. Any society, whatever god or gods it worships, develops a code of morality that, in most case, is surprisingly similar to Judeo-Christian teachings.

[Modernman]

When catholicism disagrees with the bible, it is catholicism that is wrong, not the bible. Catholic church is not the standard, scripture is, and there are many divergences. Traditions are from men and men are corrupt. Jesus Christ spoke against the traditions of the Pharisees.

The Bible is an inanimate object. In fact, without human beings, the bible is completely meaningless because there would be nobody to apply its teachings.

[Modernman]

And if you are discussing public policy, the moral right is generally not very easy to find. There are winners and losers for everything a government does.

I'd like to see somebody try to apply the Bible to real estate zoning laws, or to alternate-side parking rules, or to any of the other thousand laws that are morally neutral but necessary for the smooth functioning of a modern society.

[buwaya]

All you say is true - but none of these is an explicit denunciation, a "thou shalt not". You have to obtain from this (and from the whole of course) the specific meaning as it applies today. I will grant you that abortion is a quite unabiguous case. Just war is not.

[buwaya]

And here is where we part company. Augustine is the foundation for Catholic moral philosophy. And, like the Catholic church, and like Augustine, it is clear to me that one can make the Bible justify anything you want, by wearing the right sort of blinkers. This is dangerous.

Well, you can see what side I'm on re the reformation. We have come right back to where we agreed to disagree in 1648.
I do not wish to revoke the treaty of Westphalia.

[buwaya]

This, again is where we part with respect to Christian doctrine. There are no Godly or ungodly people, we are all sinners; nobody has a special privelege. Non-Christians are perfectly capable of doing the right thing.

[buwaya]

Actually, there is a moral dimension to all these. Real estate zoning is far from morally neutral.

[Modernman]

Actually, there is a moral dimension to all these. Real estate zoning is far from morally neutral.

Hmmm... I can see how you could find a moral dimension behind the concept of zoning, if you stretch it- zoning laws exist to prevent one type of property use, like a chemical plant, from impacting on another, like a private residence.

I still would argue, though, that the Bible is probably silent on this issue.