Posted on 09/18/2003 9:38:43 AM PDT by 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.
Then murder was legal. No way around it. This is what happens when people invent their own moral standards. This is what happens when THE ABSOLUTE standard is ignored, and people make up their own rules. History is littered with hundreds of millions of dead as a result of moral relativism.
Hello? Britain was a monarchy with a Parliament, and it was only becuase of the PURITANS (Christians) that the power of the King was diminished.
The Roman Republic worked for about 500 years, longer than America has existed.
Oh, and the Roman Republic had the same three branches of goverment that we have.
Try: http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/RepGov.html
I doubt that's a coincidence.
all of the men I mentioned were CHRISTIANS!! All of them. Puffendorf, Locke, Montesquieu, Grotius, Rutherford, Blackstone. Get it now?
Wrong again. The Roman republic ended in 44 BC with the ascension of Julius Caesar as dictator/emperor. so, you are wrong again, since the roman empire did not start coming into its own until the third century BC.
Dont' you ever get tired of being wrong? The three different branches of government are from Montesquieu, who got them from the bible. Isaiah 33:22, and I quote: For the LORD [is] our judge, the LORD [is] our lawgiver, the LORD [is] our king; he will save us.
God is capable of being all 3 at once. A sinful man isn't.
The Roman Republic had everything but the electoral college. Male, land-owning citizens could vote (sound familiar?)
and that which was formed BY THE PEOPLE.
As opposed to Republics formed by the fish?
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.
Nope, all I've done is tell you that your incredibly narrow definition of "democracy" and "republic" are based on nothing more than your personal views of what those words should mean. Historically, there have been many different entities that could be considered both republics and democracies. The two meanings overlap and have nothing to do with your provincial view of the subject.
Because our government gives them the ilusion that this is their nation !
Britain has been a constitutional Monarchy since the Magna Carta. One of the few systems close to a republic at the time, but it probably doesn't qualify as a Republic, unless you remove the king as the head of state, tough.
So? That's just one part of what shaped their philosophies and writings. They didn't exist in a bubble. Where do you think they got their ideas, if not the Classical World?
Baloney. The roman republic was not formed by the people, it was formed by PATRICIANS who inherited their status. And Rome had no Constitution, no Bill of Rights, no guaranteed freedoms, no acknowledgement that rights are unalienable (come from God), did not understand the sinful nature of man, etc. The founders knew well the failings of the roman system (not the same as ours). 27 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Indpendence has seminary degrees, and one of the requirements was to be fluent in both greek and latin.
Interesting, then I'll just have to wait for God to decide any pending court cases my law firm might have. I guess Congress can go home and we'll wait for God to reform Social Security.
Dont' you ever get tired of being wrong? The three different branches of government are from Montesquieu
And I ask you again- where did he get those ideas, if not the Classical World?
The FF were essentially patricians- they were not too keen to give the majority the right to vote (most WHITE men couldn't vote). Hell, only about 1/3 of the American people at the time supported independence. The US was not formed by the "people," at least, not by the majority of them.
And Rome had no Constitution, no Bill of Rights, no guaranteed freedoms, no acknowledgement that rights are unalienable (come from God), did not understand the sinful nature of man, etc
Rome had no written constitution, but there were many laws that protected citizens- there was certainly a "bill of rights" (for example, you couldn't shackle a citizen before he was convicted of a crime).
Sure, the Roman Republic was different from us, but I'm not saying the FF adopted their system completely- they picked and choose from a variety of places.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.