Technotranscendence wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, September 05, 2000 11:28 AM Michael S. Lorrey
> retroman@turbont.net wrote:
> >
> > While I understand the sentiment, I've often thought that citizenship
> should not
> > be automajically conferred with birth, but earned through merit
> (Pournelle's
> > concept of the planet Sparta being such an example), and you could argue
> that
> > heritable citizenship is technically inconsistent with the Constitution
> > prohibition on inherited titles, your statement forgets the logic that
> once you
> > are in, you are in for life, and anyone that is out, is out. Of course,
> some
> > members get by 'on scholarship'.... ;)
>
> Nice to quibble over such things, but how should citizenship be conferred?
> And should noncitizens be subject to the government, if one believes in
> government with the consent of the governed? (If one does not, that's
> another story.)
While one could say that the nation having an open immigration policy with
regard to outgoing traffic, anyone who doesn't leave is consenting to be
governed by those in charge, i.e. the old 'voting with their feet' gambit. This
policy seems to work within the 50 states, as the various state governments tend
to get distressed if there is a high rate of taxpayers leaving their particular
state for greener pastures (unless, of course, those leaving tend to be of the
welfare class). Thus a non-citizen who stays here, when they could leave any
time, is in actuality consenting to be taxed.
Taxing a non-citizen 'legally' could take many forms, for example, imposing
expatriation tariffs on money sent by non-citizens out of the country to
relatives elsewhere would not be a direct tax on their income, but on their
'gift' to others.
Additionally, the INS does tend to encourage resident aliens who are productive
taxpayers to become citizens. Sasha, for example, had told me he was debating
becoming a citizen for a few years, but was unsure the potential tax advantages
of remaining in his current position (since he had been exiled from the USSR,
which no longer existed, he was actually not a citizen of any country, which I'm
sure drove the INS to distraction, as they would have no place to deport him to
if he ever became a liability, and bureaucrats hate quantum people.)
>
> > Kinda like being appointed to the Supreme Court, once you are there,
> there's not
> > much they can do to you. Notice how Clarence Thomas doesn't give a rats
> patooty
> > what NAACP, et al think of him (not that he cared much before), but there
> is
> > nothing they can do to him once he passed the 'high tech lynching' the
> media put
> > forth.
>
> But Thomas does care. Note how before he was appointed, he was very much
> for Natural Law, but during the appointment process he turned into a
> pragmatist very quickly. I guess his avowed principles were only so much
> window dressing. (Or, if he's returned to them, they are only to be held
> when they are convenient.) This tells me he is not independent minded. He
> just caters to a different audience than the NAACP.
I don't know where you get any of this. What is your rationale for this claim?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:13 MDT