It’s more of a dodge than a relevant point to proclaim that citizenship is ‘a privilege’, given how it’s conferred and the fact that every country has requirements of some sort.
Our own system seems dysfunctional if we don’t play by our own rules. If the law states that folks can apply after a 5-year period, but then they wait for two to four times longer before being granted that chance, then we should review and/or adjust the system to allow those people who are following the process to be given the chance that we say we are providing.It takes years to become a citizen because we need to vet them and make sure they will be productive contributors. And in the long run I doubt it would be cheaper if the folks coming in are a burden to the system/s.
As for ‘productivity’ - you have a habit of implying that an illegal immigrant cannot be productive. Your own experience disproves this, given who you’ve hired and kept on since. In and of itself, productivity is not a quality that only citizens can display, especially considering how many actual citizens are also receiving aid or are unemployed.
Vetting is fine. However, I don’t see any usefulness in creating a line for the sake of there being a line, especially a 10 to 20 year long line, for applicants who can be (as you put it and have experienced) quite productive.We have no idea who came in our country over the past 4 years. Are you okay with just giving folks a blanket citizenship with out vetting and waiting in line?
Keep in mind that some vetting does occur immediately at the point of entry even for those releases with future court dates.
Are you saying that you’d be against a significant increase in judges and staffing to enable the system we claim to have to operate more functionally? Because that’s what I’m asking.My yes or no answer is no, I am not okay with it. What is yours? We can move forward from there.