I am dismayed to see that Virginia families are being diluted by intermarriage with non-Virginians, and non-Virginians are owning and building on Virginia land.
Accordingly, I’d like to propose that Virginia lease some of its state land to real Virginians, and ONLY real Virginians, to homestead at highly favorable terms:
[ul]
[li]An annual lease rent of $1.00 per year[/li][li]99-year lease [/li][li]Lease term which can be extended for an additional 100 years, allowing the residents to pass their homestead from generation to generation [/li][li]Seven-year exemption from real property tax [/li][li]Complete exemption of tax on land[/li][/ul]
Now, as I say, this is not intended for every Tom, Dick, and Harry.
To qualify, a person would have to show that he or she is a native Virginian, defined as any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the persons inhabiting Virginia previous to 1778. In simpler language, you must be able to show that your parentage leaves you at least 50% pure Virginia stock.
If you are adopted, you must establish proof of your native Virginia ancestry through your biological parents, not your adoptive parents.
As a native of not only Virginia, but the descendant of generations of Virginians who hail from its glorious capital of Richmond, I would like to offer a heart WTF!?
If not, I could possibly agree. I can trace my Virginia lineage back to the 17th century. And I can’t turn down exemption from property taxes for 7 years, it’s just too a good a deal.
To further preserve the Virginian bloodline, I’m going to ask that Bricker provide me with a bride. I ask that she be of exceeding physical attractiveness and intellect.
I get the impression the OP is some big elaborate whoosh, but I’m puzzled as to where Bricker is actually going with this – perhaps an analogy the situation of the Israelis and/or the Palestinians? Or the Indian nations? Or the native Hawaiians? Or the Tibetans?
I gotta wonder, Bricker, why you choose to set traps like this rather than lay out your beef with whomever. Without even researching into whether you’re going on about Native Americans or Hawaiians, I’ll point out that Virginians were not subject to forced assimilation and/or genocide. They have chosen to accept people from other states, rather than residents of other states moving in and utilizing the point of a gun, muzzle of cannon or embrace of a smallpox blankets.
I have only lived in Virginia for the past 15-16 years, but my G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-GF, a French Huguenot, moved here with his wife and son in the year 1700. The family settled in Williamsburg and his son eventually moved to Albemarle County, where the next 3 generations lived (until the early 1800s). After that, with westward expansion and all, I ended up born and raised in Arkansas.
I would like to maintain a dual citizenship, though, just in case.
I hate it when people don’t post the point of their threads in the OP. Bricker will no doubt come back in a few and say “ah ha!, this was really an analogy to such and such current situtaion”. I’m sure it will be tremendously clever and all, but it’s sort of wastes peoples time and seems a bit dishonest to me.
I’m guessing its a point about US immigration policy, or maybe Israel’s marriage laws (doesn’t israel still make it difficult for Jews to marry non-jews?) but I don’t get it either.
Also, taking the OP at face value, I don’t see how the solution he proposes would solve the “problem”. Virginia has seen a net influx of people over the last decade, and so its bloodlines are being diluted because of people entering the state, not because native Virginians are leaving in mass numbers. Hence I doubt offering them free houses to stay will make much of a difference
Oh, for crimmy’s sake. There’s no “trap”. I wouldn’t title the OP “A Modest Proposal,” if I wanted to conceal the fact that there was something beyond raw literalism in my post.
What I said above for Virginia is precisely the case in Hawaii.
My view is that this program is an example of the state government of Hawaii using racial classifications, and it should violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
Bricker, Two questions for you:
[ul]
[li]What constructive suggestion would you offer for a governing body that has decided that preserving a conquered people is something worth doing?[/li][li]What significance do you attach to the fact that it was assumed that you were pulling something?[/li][/ul]
Now, as far as the constitutionality of the program in question I would suspect that you are correct. That being said, it looks as if we have a case where policy is being set in order to address a perceived problem. The larger and more interesting issue for me is not if the way that they are going about this is wrong, but rather the question of if we think that there is a problem to address and if so how we go about doing so.
To get people to see the analogy more fully, before they had a dog in the fight. In other words, if you already have an opinion about the Hawaii thing, and he told you he was going to make a Hawaii analogy, you might it defensively and not buy into it as much.
I tell you, that guy should find some profession where you get paid for arguing.
Its not that it wasn’t obvious that the OP wasn’t serious, it the fact that you didn’t reveal what the debate was about until post #13. For those of us who’ve never heard of the Hawii thing, it was just a bunch of gibberish.
Debates here get sidetracked and irrational enough with posters going out of their way to obfuscate them with too clever OP’s.
If you want to debate Hawii, talk about Hawii. If you want to set up a hypothetical analogy in Virgina, then do that, but don’t wait a half hour to revel to us poor slobs what we’re really talking about.