Months of hassle? Most of my friends who became citizens went through years of hassle.
It is true that there are many government and national security type jobs which require citizenship. When we sold some software to a government lab, only a small subset of my group could go to install it and train users.
I’m trying to remember if there was a question about citizenship on my jury form. There is no inherent reason why the set of peers wouldn’t include non-residents. Where I live a significant number of defendents would be non citizens, not from any proclivity to crime but just from demographics.
If I read you right, your position is absolutist. Either a right is totally unrestricted or it is not a right.
As I understand your argumernt, freedom so speech isn’t a basic right because everyone agrees that it can be limited. Isn’t that true of all rights? It is considered more important to maintain civil order than to have complete individual freedom so you are forbidden to exercise any right in violation of a law restricting it. And there are laws restricting all rights.
It seems to me that all rights are expedient in the sense that government works better for the benefit of more people if the people have the right, and are free to, move about as they wish, speak as the wish and so on and so on.
That assumes that the purpose of government is to benefit most the most people. I suppose that you would get an argument about that in some quarters.
Sounds like us getting outta here was what the OP’s friend had in mind
Seriously, though, there’s a huge gap between criticizing the US over all (rather impolite, agreed, if you’re here voluntarily) and criticizing the US Government.
While I try to be diplomatic in matters of politics and religion, I would expect it to be a hallmark of civilized society that legal residents - citizens and non-citizens alike - share the same rights under the law. Voting is obviously a privilege reserved for citizens - and I believe the current interpretation of the 2nd makes it legal to make gun ownership dependent on citizenship, as well, but that one leaves most foreigners cold, anyway.
In almost every particular, I shoulder the same obligations as do US citizens - although I’m exempt from jury duty, I work for a living, pay my taxes, obey the laws - and in return, I’ll feel free to offer (mostly) constructive criticism. If I had to look over my shoulder for the Loyalty Police, I’d be sure to take my skills (such as they are) elsewhere.
Of course, the practical implications of outlawing criticism would be - interesting.
Academic papers with contributions from foreign scholars screened for content before submission? Submit proof of citizenship to the relevant authorities before a letter to the editor could be approved? Proving the actual authorship of critical texts?
Censorship can’t be enforced selectively. To enforce this particular kind of idiocy, true-blue 100% US citizens could be required to present credentials to the authorities when engaging in debate. The OP should perhaps ask his friend how he’d feel about that…
So the U.N.'s idea are legally binding on the United States, regardless of local jurisdiction or the fact that the U.N. is not a government? Fascinating.
While it might seem that a right to free speech is a benefit to the speaker, the real benefit of free speech is that it benefits the country as a whole. Although unpopular or anti-government speech will often be wrong, on the occasions when it is right it helps us to make needed improvements. Unfettered debate helps us to make our country the best it can be. It seems extremely unwise to prevent people from engaging in this productive process simply because they are not citizens.
I don’t think we have any serious disagreement. I already agree that any criticism of any aspect of US people, culture, government and anything else you can think of is and should be allowed. And that would by anyone anywhere any time, from a resident alien who has lived here for 50 years or someone who drops into New York City on the Concorde for a quick lunch.
Personally, though, I really would like people to become citizens who live here, work here and have been here for years.
This is maybe a technical thing, but if all the original amendments to the Constitution that had been proposed had been adopted at the time, the Freedom of Speech Amendment would have been third. The first amendment proposed was one to change the apportionment of house seats, but because that amendment (and the second proposed amendment, which limited Congressional pay raises) weren’t ratified at the time by enough states, they didn’t make the cut. That second amendment would go on to be ratified and is now the 27th amendment.
Isn’t it fun watching your fellow Americans turn into pre-World War II Germans in their attitudes? Godwin aside, is this attitude of different rights for different folks all that unfamiliar? (And I’m not blaming this on our government.)
No need to invoke NAZI Germany. There has always been an undercurrent of this in the US, and there are many times in the modern era that wer much worse than today, even if we’re talking only about US citizens. The treatment of American citizens of Japanese, German and Italian heritage during WWII comes immediately to mind, as well as the horrible legacy of the way Blacks and other racial minorities were treated right up until a few decades ago. And those are just the actions of our government… not to mention the actions of individual Americans.
At any rate, I don’t believe there was ever a time when citizens and non-citizens were treated equally in this country. Nor do I think there ever will be.
I’m wondering how many of the people who support the restrictions on freedom of speech for non-citizens also support the reverse side of that coin - increasing government power to tell people what they can and cannot say, and punish them for what they do say.
It seems to me that the government has enough power already in this regard, and I’d be wary of giving it any more.
I’m also really curious: what do people think is the benefit to society of such a plan? The benefits to the government are obvious (less criticism), but what’s good for the government and what’s good for society are often different things.
How does society benefit if, say, an Iranian medical student in New York can be deported if he says “George Bush sucks??”
How would society benefit if, say, Rupert Murdoch between 1973 and 1985 (when he became a US citizen,) had not been allowed to say “you shouldn’t vote Democratic on this issue, the Democrats are wrong?” Or “this government plan is a bad idea?” Would it extend to his not being allowed to own media companies that criticize the government?
