Is Naturalization a “RIGHT” or “PRIVILEGE”?

Is Naturalization a “RIGHT” or “PRIVILEGE”? Please vote.

  • Right

    Votes: 6 75.0%

  • Privilege

    Votes: 2 25.0%
  • Total voters
    8
  • Poll closed .
sfaizullah said:
If it was a “privilege”, the whole thing would have been tossed/suspended for long now. And there are plenty examples of privileges that have faced it.

Best Regards
Click to expand...

Do not forget that we're talking about U.S.A. where democracy and rightness are at the highest rank, and privileges are not "tossed/suspendes" just like that.
Besides, legal immigrants are good people, people America wants, America needs, America loves, there is no reason why someone (except for a handfull of brainless individuals) will ever want to stop LEGAL IMMIGRATION IN US.
 
sfaizullah said:
So, are you saying that it is a "right" if s/he qualify?
Click to expand...

yes, it is what i was saying. i believe it should be a right if s/he is qualities.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JoeF said:
It would help to actually know what you are talking about, e.g., with respect to ACLU...
I don't mind waiting in line to become Naturalized for months, because INS is to busy solving other cases like SONY's, PUBLICUS's, yours (judging by the profile you've posted I'm assuming you, as well, are legally here) and other LEGAL IMMIGRANTS, but a single second wasted by INS to deal with ILLEGALS, it's a sin, especially when that second is paid with our tax money not ILLEGALS's money![/COLOR]
Click to expand...
CIS doesn't deal with illegals, ICE does. Different agency. So, you can't blame CIS delays on illegals.
And there is a very easy way to save tax dollars: stop immigration altogether. After all, that is what the anti-immigrants around Rep. Tankredo, and people like Jim Glichrist (the founder of the horrendeously misnamed "Minutemen") really want.
Just see Publicus' post about things that get added into a bill seemingly targeting illegal immigration...
Quite frankly, I suggest educating yourself a bit more rather than just repeating the shallow slogans of the anti-immigrants.
Fact is that with a 3000 mile southern border and an even larger northern border, illegal immigration is not stoppable, unless you build a system like the one that existed between East- and West-Germany for 28 years.
The only realistic way to minimize illegal immigration is to use our tax dollars to improve living conditions in other countries.[/QUOTE]




1. Unless my previous messages and the ones here in this thread weren't clear for you I'll say it directly:
I'M NOT anti (LEGAL) immigration.
I'm TOTALLY AGAINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!!!
More: I believe that the reason why this country is the Greatest on Earth is due to immigration and immigrants (LEGAL ONES!).
A little note here: Don't twist my words and say that I've implied that God knows what else.
Stoppable or not, Illegal immigration is wrong, is bad and I really don't understand why you defend it so much. In fact, reading your next phrase is getting clear...as long as we (the American people) don't share our wealth with the others, not so wealthy, on the planet, we will always have problems! Please tell me that I'm wrong, cause the last thing I want to be preach on is a new "liberal"-communist ideology.
And I think we should stop here, before the moderator will close the thread again. In fact, all of us, we want to solve our problems related to immigration issues not to politicize this forum.
 
JoeF said:
Hmm, with the so-called Patriot Act and a president who doesn't see anything wrong with the NSA snooping on US citizens, it looks as if the "rightness" is in a bit of danger.
Well, the handful of "brainless" individuals sit in Congress and add legislation to curb legal immigration to a bill that only on the surface targets illegal immigration...
And with America "loving" legal immigrants... detaining US citizens of Japanese descent in WW2 doesn't show much "love"...
And closer to today, the fight over the H1 visa also doesn't show that America wants and loves legal immigration...
Click to expand...



You started to politicize, and I'm not interested in this kind of discussion. It's your opinion. PERIOD.

Only one thought: If things were, and still are, so bad around here, why people from all the corners of the world keep comming?...and I'm not talking about ignorants like me or, your protegees, the ILLEGALS, I'm talking about people like you who know and learned so many things...
 
Publicus said:
Let me mention the law again, maybe some of you did not read it: the Immigration and Nationalty Act, Section 311. [8 U.S.C. 1422] states: "The right of a person to become a naturalized citizen of the United States shall not be denied or abridged because of race or sex or because such person is married."

.
Click to expand...

You're right I didn't read the law, but now after you post this paragraph I'm asking you:

If there ever exists a similar paragraph in Traffic Law (since we started with this counter-example we will stick to it) would you agree with me that will be something like this:
"The right of a person to obtain a Driver License shall not be denied or abridged because of race or sex or because such person is married"?

Even though driving is a privilege, after you meet the requirements, you have the right to obtain a DL. Same with Naturalization.
It will be awkward, if the law will say:
-The privilege of a person to obtain a DL shall not be denied...
Don't you think so? :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aibolit said:
OK, let's get back to the topic.

Do you have to apply for a right? For example, do you (i.e. US citizen) apply for the right to free speech, right to vote, or any other right declared in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? No.

Do you (i.e. non-citizen) have to apply to become a US citizen? Yes, you do. And this application can be approved or denied.

Therefore, if you apply this test to the original question, it becomes self-evident, that naturalization is a benefit, and not a right.
Click to expand...
We see it on the movies and in reality, basic simple example to refute what you are saying. When sombody gets arrested , what does police tell him/her, you HAVE A RIGHT to a lawyer, if you cannot afford one, we can provide one for you. SEE, the suspect has a right to a lawyer, but he/she has to ask, apply, for an attorney, which is basically applying for an attorney consultation!

That is right, american born citizens have to apply for, does that make asking for a lawyer's help in that case a benefit and not a right? of course not.

Rights are protected and governed by set of supreme lawys, which form the constitution, In my understanding, there is two different kinds of rights, rights which comes automatically with born, and rights which have to be asked for or applied for to practice.

Example for automatic natural rights, are the right of freedom of speech for anybody who is in the US.

Example for rights people have to ask for is the right to ask for a lawyer, or public defender in that matter, to defend the suspect, in case the suspect couldn't afford one.

SOny
 
sfaizullah said:
Dear friends,
Is Naturalization a “RIGHT” or “PRIVILEGE”? If it is the right of GC holders who otherwise qualify based on the law then one should fiercely fight it with all legal means available if it is being delayed. I had my interview this Dec 15, 05 in Newark, NJ and was told my name checking is pending. I am intending to use all avenues available for me and for all those who are subjected to this cruel and unusual punishment.

Best Regards
Click to expand...
Hi guys,
I find this debate is heating up. and the constructive discussion is going on and on...and that's a healthy sign, because more people can have a deeper understanding about their rights and duties. Therefore, I thought it would be a good idea to post a poll and hope as many people to vote as possible to help in that discussion.

Please faizullah post a poll as i think you are the only one who can do it as the originator of this thread.

:)

Thank you guys !

sONY
 
JoeF said:
But there are also conditions. For example, you have to be 18 before you can vote.

If you fulfill the requirements, the application can not be denied.
Unlike, for example, an I-485. Examiners have some discretionary powers approving or denying an I-485.

So, even though getting citizenship has some conditions attached to it, I think it is still a right.
Click to expand...
I agree with JoeF,
I also would like to add that if somebody qualifies for the citizenship, and doesn't get it, he / she can , by law, and as a RIGHT, sue the government in a court of law, a federal court, and earn his right. Now, earning the citizienship in this case in not a privilige. some people could argue, how can you win your right, it's a privilige, but i look at it from totally different perspective, earning the citizenship this way, in court, proves that the citizinship is a right, otherwise you cannot sue the governemnt to earn it.

Priviliges are benefits offered by the govenement, and the government has discretion as to wheather to grant it or not. On the other hand, with rights, the government has no choice but to grant it, of course, if the applicant meets the conditions and qualifies for that spesific right.

I hope that was clear enough as i saw it clearly!
The more i read about this discussion and other posts, the more i like this argument, and the more i learn about it. As earlier i thought it was a benefit or a privilige, but now i am convinced that it is a RIGHT for THE RIGHT PERSON! :)

sONY
 
vulpasin said:
It will be awkward, if the law will say:
-The privilege of a person to obtain a DL shall not be denied...
Don't you think so? :)
Click to expand...
I personally totally disagree with you that it would feel awkward to make the law says "the privilige of a person .....etc"
Why, because law is law, some of the characteristics of the law are the firm, concice, clear wording, and if that was a privilige, then believe me , the law would say a privilige. Additionally, if it was a privilige, then making the law saying a privilige would give the government more power to control the application and have more space for denials and absolute power and discretion, which the government would love!

sONY
 
i have no idea what the reason behine for taking down the the Diversity Program. i believe it has been around for nearly 12-13 yrs ?

of course, whoever vote for that bill do not want people from other countries who could come to US and become a PR freely because of the Diversity Program.
 
ocworker said:
i have no idea what the reason behine for taking down the the Diversity Program. i believe it has been around for nearly 12-13 yrs ?

of course, whoever vote for that bill do not want people from other countries who could come to US and become a PR freely because of the Diversity Program.
Click to expand...
Can sombody please point me to the paragraph where they are talking about the cancellation of the DV program?

thanks
sOny
 
JoeF said:
Some anti-immigrant Congresspeople have tried to take down the DV program since its start. They just haven't been strong enough until now.
There are people in Congress who are against any immigration. They just use the smokescreen of being against illegal immigration, because that of course has a broader appeal to the public. And the Minutemen pushed the anti-illegal immigration topic into the public, and the people, like Rep. Tankredo from Colorado, who for years has lobbied against legal immigration, e.g., the H1 program, now have enough power to get their real agenda through.
Make no mistake, these people don't want any immigration. They just pushed at the weakest point, illegal immigration.
If they get this thing through, the H1 is the next thing to go.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you. gosh. i believe the only thing we can do is against what they try to do (such as against any immigration, and using the illegal immigration as a smokescreen). i just hope these kind of bills will not pass otherwise it will hurt too many (legal) immigrants.
 
JoeF said:
Economics, plain and simple.

Obviously! But as a minimum of decency, generaly speaking, these immigrants shoud restrain themselves from bad mouthing the country they are immigrating to. Do you know to whom I'm referring to? Or you need clarification what, in the civilezed world, minimum of decency means?



Now you are starting to become insulting. I expect an apology.
Click to expand...

I'll gladly apologize but I need to know to whom? To myself, or to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS?

In fact in next message you're the one who calls me "an idiot". I'm the one who should ask you to apologize, but for the sake of your ego I say: So be it. You're the bigger man. I'm not going to loose sleep over your rudeness, but be careful this is one of the first signs that you're going on the wrong direction, control yourself before is to late.
Obviously you have an agenda therefore I think this (between you and me) should stop here. Feel free to continue your dance around the word you dearly defend: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

Another thing. A debate with you is hard to have...unless the oposite party agrees 100% with your opinion...but then where is the debate?

Don't take it personal, it was just a discussion with differences of opinion. So far, we like it or not, we still in the same boat, stuck in the "right/privilege" Naturalization process.
............................................................
I've just read PUBLICUS's thread "Those who are still waiting"...and It woke me up, I realized that I have serious issues to take care of, not to play with you, reason why, to use your favorite expresssion, I'll put the final stop to this BS.

Good luck with your Naturalization.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JoeF said:
Some anti-immigrant Congresspeople have tried to take down the DV program since its start. They just haven't been strong enough until now.
There are people in Congress who are against any immigration. They just use the smokescreen of being against illegal immigration, because that of course has a broader appeal to the public. And the Minutemen pushed the anti-illegal immigration topic into the public, and the people, like Rep. Tankredo from Colorado, who for years has lobbied against legal immigration, e.g., the H1 program, now have enough power to get their real agenda through.
Make no mistake, these people don't want any immigration. They just pushed at the weakest point, illegal immigration.
If they get this thing through, the H1 is the next thing to go.
Click to expand...

That's so true. We must all act NOW. No more talk about driver licenses, privileges, or babies. Let's lobby Congress.
 
Publicus said:
That's so true. We must all act NOW. No more talk about driver licenses, privileges, or babies. Let's lobby Congress.
Click to expand...

Yo're right. For a moment we forgot why we're here in the first place.
I think we should try to make anybody aware of the "little paragraphs" hidden behind the original bill. I'll start with my Representative and the Senators in my state.
 
vulpasin said:
Yo're right. For a moment we forgot why we're here in the first place.
I think we should try to make anybody aware of the "little paragraphs" hidden behind the original bill. I'll start with my Representative and the Senators in my state.
Click to expand...

Good. :)
 
Going back to the original question…..

In a way it is both IMO

It certainly is a privilege to live, work and vote in the United States
It is also a right to be able to live, work and vote in the United States for those born here, or who settle here legally.
It is not IMO a right OR a privilege for illegal immigrants to come into the US (or any country) and buck the system and/or take benefits from those either born in the US or who have moved here by legal means.
The United States cannot anymore accept 'huddled masses yearning to breathe free' no more than any other country.

I am European born and American by choice and both of those things makes me very proud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top