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]

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

I would bet that someone could find something in the Bible that could be tortured to fit.

[exmarine]

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.

Sorry, you are wrong. The bible clearly separates the children of God (cleansed sinners) from the children of wrath (unbelievers). Both are not equals. Only those who are covered by the blood of Christ will get to heaven. That is what the bible teaches, so it really doesn't matter what your opinion is. You clearly do not understand the implications of "worldview" upon a person's moral beliefs. An unbeliever has no fixed moral standard outside of himself, no fear of God, and therefore does "what is right in his own eyes." That is the very defintion of moral relativism. Sorry, but you really need some work on ethics and morality and the bible.

[exmarine]

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.

This is more evidence that you do not understand the importance of scripture. There is only ONE correct interpretaion of scripture - the one the writer intended. Clearly, the bible CAN be understood otherwise God would not have given it to us.

[exmarine]

Just war is not.

Just war is quite clear. God ordained war Himself. Are you saying that God is not just?

[exmarine]

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.

This is an absurd statement. The bible itself says that it is from God - it is a propositional communication from God to man, so for you to say that without humans it would be meaningless is silly - it was given expressly to humans. Duh.

[Modernman]

You clearly do not understand the implications of "worldview" upon a person's moral beliefs. An unbeliever has no fixed moral standard outside of himself, no fear of God, and therefore does "what is right in his own eyes."

An unbeliever in the Juseo-Christian God can still believe in Hindu gods, Buddha etc., which are all religions with strong codes of moral conduct that cover the same moral basics as Judeo-Christianity. You might want to educate yourself about other religions- Buddhists don't run around in a state of nature, murdering and robbing each other with impunity.

We can argue all day whether the only way to heaven is through Christ. However, to say that non-Christian religions don't have a code of moral conduct is laughable. A Hindu fears committing sins and being punished in the afterlife (or, in their case, in the next life) just as much as a Christian.

[exmarine]

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.

Everyone has a concept of right and wrong, but all concepts can't be right. And you are wrong! Our founders pointed out that Greek democracy was TYRANNY. That is why we don't have a democracy - we have a republic. Our govt system was drawn exclusively from judeo-Christian moral principles and the bible. I think you have been lied to in school - just like the rest of America.

[Modernman]

Everyone has a concept of right and wrong, but all concepts can't be right. And you are wrong!

Concepts of right and wrong are generally very similar throughout history and between cultures. For a society to maintain some sort of long-term stability, it has to follow the major basic moral concepts (no murder, no stealing etc.).

Our founders pointed out that Greek democracy was TYRANNY. That is why we don't have a democracy - we have a republic

A lot of FReepers say this, but they don't even know the difference between a Republic and a Democracy (hint: there really isn't one)

From dictionary.com: Republic: A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

Democracy: Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

How would you define the difference between a Democracy and a Republic (and provide a source, please).

There are still towns in New England that are direct democracies- they vote on everything and don't elect a mayor, town council etc.

Our govt system was drawn exclusively from judeo-Christian moral principles and the bible.

Not at all. The FF looked at the Greeks and Romans as part of their inspiration (why do you think our government buildings have a neo-classical look to them?). The Western concept of democracy does not come from the Bible. The FF were educated men- they drew on many sources.

[buwaya]

What we have here is not moral relativism or otherwise but different points of view on Christian doctrine. I subscribe to a different theological tradition than you do. I will not defend Catholic tradition here, other than to say that I cannot agree with your definition of moral relativism.

[exmarine]

Concepts of right and wrong are generally very similar throughout history and between cultures. For a society to maintain some sort of long-term stability, it has to follow the major basic moral concepts (no murder, no stealing etc.).

What history are you looking at - can't be earth's. And who says societies are stable? Most of them are decidedly UNSTABLE. Why do you think that ALL civilizations have fallen? I'll tell you - because of the sinful corrupt nature of mankind. In fact, the U.S. is on a moral freefall right now and is headed for oblivion. It is true that MOST (not all!) societies consider murder and stealing to be wrong but this only shows that men understand that there is an absolute right and wrong. It's a big duh to realize that murder is wrong. Nevertheless, not ALL societies follow these simple black and white no-brainer morals. The Nazis held that murder was okay, and so was stealing. So did Stalin. So does North Korea. What about adultery - it's okay in the U.S. isn't it? Didn't used to be. Whose right? The Founding fathers or our sick culture today? Homosexuality? Okay in the U.S. all of the western hemisphere but it's WRONG. How about blasphemy? - used to be laws against it in the U.S. I could go on and on.

[buwaya]

Actually, our government was based on a host of classical examples of democracies and republics, mainly Roman (which was much influenced by Greeks), plus the unwritten British constitution.

The tyranny of democracy was a commonplace idea first described by Aristotle in the Politics.

[exmarine]

A lot of FReepers say this, but they don't even know the difference between a Republic and a Democracy (hint: there really isn't one)

You should be sure of what you say before you say it. This statement shows you do not understand history. I'll tell you the difference between a republic and democracy. First of all, our founders realized that both the rulers and the people are SINFUL and cannot be trusted with all the power. That's we we have separation of powers, Bill of Rights, and a Constitution! Now, In a democracy, the majority rules, as in ancient Greece. It was a miserable failure! When the majority rules, minority rights get trampled because the majority votes itself all the rights and privileges. Our founders called this "MOB rule." In a representative republic, the elected representative acts on the LAW (we are a nation of LAWS not men)no matter what the majority thinks. This has been corrupted recently as we see our Presidents rule using POLLS - this is going against our system of government and is a drift toward mob rule. See the difference between the two now? We also have the electoral college as part of our insurance against mob rule - which the demoRATS want to abolish (big surprise! - they want democracy so that the 3rd world city sewers can steal all the elections via a majority vote and then the immigrants and America haters will dictate the laws). The Roman republic didn't work because the Senate was too weak and it ended in a dictatorship. You do not understand U.S. history or U.S. government. I can recommend some books for you if you like.

[buwaya]

Some nitpicks - The Nazis thought that murder was wrong, and so did Stalin, its just that liquidating enemies of the state was not considered murder, if done through the right processes and by people given the proper authority. These were not anarchists.

I also disagree WRT the current moral climate. Things have often been worse, and from where I sit things in the US are improving.

[buwaya]

The Catholic concept of Just War is very specific, derived by St. Augustine and elaborated by St. Thomas Aquinas.

Here is a good summary of Catholic thinking on Just Wars -

http://www.monksofadoration.org/justwar.html

[exmarine]

Actually, our government was based on a host of classical examples of democracies and republics, mainly Roman (which was much influenced by Greeks), plus the unwritten British constitution.

Another public-school educated person! Let me clue you on on some facts. Our government was not based on the roman system or the greeks - our founders specifically avoided doing that. Our govt is based on the writings of Montesquieu (separation of powers), Blackstone, Grotius, Puffendorf (all law is based on divine law), Locke (property rights), Samuel Rutherford (Law is king), and the bible. Almost all of our founders were sold-out Christians, and American population was overwhelmingly Christian (read de Toqueville's "Democracy in America" to see his comments on teh religious nature of America). Our nation was first settled by the Calvinist pilgrims and puritans, and many of the basic moral princples were carried through into the government when it was formed, e.g. sinfulness of man, the principle of self-governance, God-given rights, etc. I do not think you are prepared to defend your position.

[exmarine]

The Nazis thought that murder was wrong,

Really? Except for jews, eh? Stalin? Except for anyone he didn't like or felt threatened by. You have a poor view of history. Nitpicks my eye. I could name many more examples.

[Modernman]

Now, In a democracy, the majority rules, as in ancient Greece. It was a miserable failure

That's a DIRECT democracy. There's nothing saying a democarcy can't have a constitution, elected representatives, the electoral college etc. What do you base this definition of a democracy on? The defintions I posted would cover both a constitutional democracy and a direct democracy.

The Greeks were one of the most advanced civilizations in human history. Their philophy, literature and art still effects the world today. They were able to fight off much larger nations and dominated the Mediterranean world for centuries. Hardly what I'd call a miserable failure.

In a representative republic, the elected representative acts on the LAW

Source, please. Other than your personal opinion. Law is written by the elected representatives, so it's kind of circular to say that they act on the law.

See the difference between the two now?

Not really.

[Modernman]

Another public-school educated person!

Can't speak for anyone else, but I went to private school in Canada.

Our govt is based on the writings of Montesquieu (separation of powers), Blackstone, Grotius, Puffendorf (all law is based on divine law), Locke (property rights), Samuel Rutherford (Law is king), and the bible

Wonder where they got their ideas. Considering that in the FF days a man wasn't considered educated unless he had studied the Classical world, I'm pretty sure where the the gentlemen you quote started from.

[buwaya]

Sure. They prosecuted ordinary murderers. Killing Jews as authorized by the government was not murder as far as they were concerned. People generally are very good at rationalizing their evil.

[exmarine]

lol. Give me one example of a democracy before the United States that had an electoral college, representation, separation of powers, etc., and that which was formed BY THE PEOPLE. There isn't even one! NAME ONE. So what are you talking about? You have simply redefined democracy from what it really was at the time of the Greeks. You have called our republic a democracy and then said that the two are the same. HAHAHA. To you they may mean the same thing, but not to our founders, and not to the witness of history, that is clear.