All Net Jobs Growth Has Gone To Illegal and Legal Immigrants

[_EAllusion]

Every man who reaches 18 yoa has to sign up for selective service which could mean the draft. If he chooses not to do so he can either leave the country or go to jail. That's not something that exists only in my mind. If you don't pay property taxes, you can go to jail even if you paid sales taxes and other taxes.

If you don't own taxable property, you don't pay property taxes. There are US citizens who aren't men, believe it or not. You essentially want to revert to late 1700's America where only white, male, landowners were allowed to vote with a sort of bemused bafflement as to why anyone else would find that reprehensible.

Regarding going to jail for refusing the draft, that is more a legal technicality at this point. It hasn't been done since the 80's and picking that battle is currently noxious to the government. That's because the government forcing people to participate in the military is morally repugnant to people who believe in the promise of liberty, like you occasionally pretend to do.

[_ajax18]

They kept allowing people to immigrate and given citizenship

They still set the rules and conditions of immigration. They didn't allow any and every immigrant to come who desired to come. They certainly didn't allow the Indians to keep their land or way of life. That's part of why they allowed so many immigrants at one time was to settle the land and help get rid of the Indians and what they viewed as an inferior culture and way of life. At a certain point there was no more land to give away. By the time Roosevelt's social welfare state state took hold, immigrants became a burden on the economy rather than a help. There was a huge economic disparity between Latin America and the USA before 1960 as well. The only difference was that the border used to be enforced. That coupled with the fact that it was before globalization made the average American income higher than it is now during the 1950s, America's golden age.

Did Rome allow the British tribes they conquered to be citizens with the same legal status of the original Roman families? No, they took them as slaves if they let them live at all and gave their land as a reward to Roman soldiers. Did the British get to tell William the Conqueror what the national language would be? Press 1 for old English, press two for French.

How can you possibly say that the conquerors before during and after the Revolutionary war never agreed with me. The only disagreement they would have is that my position would not be harsh enough on foreigners.

[_Quasimodo]

Did Rome allow the British tribes they conquered to be citizens with the same legal status of the original Roman families? No, they took them as slaves if they let them live at all and gave their land as a reward to Roman soldiers.

You need to educate yourself before making broad, false statements.

Roman citizenship
One aspect of Roman influence seen in British life was the grant of Roman citizenship.[3] At first this was granted very selectively: to the council members of certain classes of towns, whom Roman practice made citizens; to veterans, either legionaries or soldiers in auxiliary units; and to a number of natives whose patrons obtained citizenship for them. Some of the local Brittonic kings, such as Togidubnus, received citizenship in this manner. The number of citizens steadily increased, as people inherited citizenship and more grants were made. Eventually in 212, everybody except slaves and freed slaves was granted citizenship by the Constitutio Antoniniana.

The other inhabitants of Britain, who did not enjoy citizenship, the Peregrini, continued to live under the laws of their ancestors. The principal handicaps were that they could not own land with a Latin title, serve as a legionary in the army (although they could serve in an auxiliary unit, and become a Roman citizen upon discharge), or, in general, inherit from a Roman citizen. But for the majority of British inhabitants, who were peasants tied to the soil, citizenship would not dramatically alter their daily lives.

by the way, Julius Caesar was born in Spain.

Did the British get to tell William the Conqueror what the national language would be? Press 1 for old English, press two for French.

What language do you think they speak in England now? I don't think a national language was ever discussed in eleventh century England. By the thirteenth century all the French speakers were speaking English. You are just pulling all this from a dark, smelly place.

[_ajax18]

People that don't pay income taxes shouldn't have the right to vote because they don't bear any responsibility for how they vote.

Do you think that should include married women who stay at home and take care of the kids?

Probably not. I suppose if a woman has a right to half her husbands earnings, she has as much to lose if the government seizes his property as he does. I don't see a conflict of interest in her voting if her husband and by extension she is paying taxes.

[_ajax18]

That's because the government forcing people to participate in the military is morally repugnant to people who believe in the promise of liberty, like you occasionally pretend to do.

It's morally repugnant to me that some people have to fight and others do not. Risking life and limb on the battlefield to retain your property and rights as a citizen is a terrible burden. If it has to be borne, everyone should have to bear it together. Freedom is not free.

[_Bret Ripley]

I define immigrant as anyone who does not have ancestors who fought in the Revolutionary war.

Cool! My wife is a British immigrant, but maybe she needn't have gone through the citizenship process: her mother's maiden name is Arnold.

[_Quasimodo]

I define immigrant as anyone who does not have ancestors who fought in the Revolutionary war.

Cool! My wife is a British immigrant, but maybe she needn't have gone through the citizenship process: her mother's maiden name is Arnold.

It sounds like your lovely wife may have had at least one ancestor that fought on both sides of the Revolutionary War. She qualifies!

[_EAllusion]

It's morally repugnant to me that some people have to fight and others do not. Risking life and limb on the battlefield to retain your property and rights as a citizen is a terrible burden. If it has to be borne, everyone should have to bear it together. Freedom is not free.

IT's like this post is written in some bizarro world where the US doesn't maintain the most powerful military force in the world entirely with volunteers.

Incidentally, the United States government has been involved in arguably one war that was substantially related to the protection of basic rights and property of its citizenry. Every other conflict - and all the soldiers who were killed, disabled, or emotionally scarred by it, was pursued for other reasons. That's an awful lot of government enforced sacrifice for the abstract benefit of self-protection that clearly does not require conscription.

[_EAllusion]

Ahh the revolutionary war. That's the time when British separatists won this land from Great Britain.

[_EAllusion]

It sounds like your lovely wife may have had at least one ancestor that fought on both sides of the Revolutionary War. She qualifies!

Hold on there. Remember Ajax said you have to have ancestors that actually fought in the war. Only 1/3rd or so of the colonists supported the war. And of those, only a much smaller % actually fought in it, famous Arnold's aside. For instance, very few slaves fought in the war. Slave rape notwithstanding, you probably should question whether any black American you encounter is a real American.