| ugezimisa's profile |
|
Username
|
ugezimisa
|
|
Status
|
active
|
|
Joined
|
Feb 08, 2023
|
|
Location
|
????????
|
|
Interests
|
??????????, ????????, ????????
|
|
Website
|
https://keycodesoftware.com/
|
|
Occupation
|
688886954
|
|
Biography
|
President trump's proposal to end "citizenship by birthright” highlighted a long-standing bickering about us citizenship requirements, https://keycodesoftware.com/ and the responsibilities that entailed. He is right to lead the long overdue national debate over whether everyone born in the united states will “automatically” become a citizen. Humanity interpret the 14th amendment. Commentators in favor of automatic citizenship at birth often refer to what they call the amendment's "not-too-complicated way", but nothing directly supports their claim. The 14th amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the america and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of america and the state in which they reside." Otherwise in situations, to be more precise, there are 2 aspects of american citizenship: the birth or naturalization of america and the submission to their jurisdiction. The "rule of jurisdiction" is very important, otherwise there would be no need to include it. The key purpose of the 14th amendment was to grant full citizenship to newly freed slaves. But the “jurisdiction clause” was included because, in fact, not all customers born in the united states fall under its jurisdiction. Some may also include loyalty somewhere else and have not always voluntarily pledged allegiance to our form of government. Michigan senator jacob howard, author of the 14th amendment citizenship clause, made it clear that -the provision does not confer citizenship to "persons born in america who are considered aliens, aliens, or belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." Judiciary committee chairman lyman trumbull agreed that this meant "submitting to no one else and submitting to the full jurisdiction of the united states." "Foreigners or aliens"). This section made no distinction as to whether they came to the americas as workers, tourists, students, or in any other category. In today's conditions, it does not matter whether they arrived in the united states legally or not - with documentation or in the absence of a certificate. All such subtleties overlook the point of jurisdiction. The meaning of the described step was explained by professor edward ehrler, author of the founders of citizenship and immigration. This is the key concept of what the declaration of independence calls "the consent of the governed." Citizenship may be offered by society and must be voluntarily accepted by people who understand the responsibilities it involves. His analysis of the 14th amendment - that obscure desire and clear legal science - is plain common sense. This is the heart of america's founding principles. All americans are equal before the law, not because of who they were born. They are citizens," whose government receives "just powers" only with the consent of the governed. So, new citizens have the right to “go to manage this system. This is why the law requires them to voluntarily swear allegiance to our government and understand our history, language and institutions. But treating foreign children like human beings creates a class of "americans" who would never agree to such terms. Earlier, as it did when it originated with indian tribes, for which the 14th amendment did not originally apply. This was because in 1868 (as the amendment was ratified) they remained loyal to the tribal peoples, but not to the united states. It took three separate acts of congress between 1924 and 1940 to grant full citizenship to the tribes, who were to accept it with an oath of allegiance to the us government, just as new citizens are required to take the oath today. president trump believes congress should also write that the children of illegal immigrants are not "automatic" citizens. If congress does not act, the president is considering an executive order, which will almost certainly give the supreme court another chance to clarify the 1898 decision. This 19th-century case is often cited as evidence. That the 14th amendment did not make exceptions, however, did not touch on the meaning of the "jurisdiction clause", and the plaintiff in that case did not remain born of us, who suffered illegally in the united states. With this it was written for a different era and did not foresee many aspects of today's immigration problems.Indeed, it was written by the same court that just upheld racial segregation, and the concrete conclusions are ripe for more modern analysis. President trump is right to raise this issue. We need a serious discussion and a new understanding of the importance of citizenship. This goal requires the latest ruling of the supreme court, not an amendment to the constitution. This is not about race or national origin. Although the children of immigrants should not automatically become citizens of "justified birth", they can certainly become citizens. Like any other person on earth, they are able to apply, go through the established procedure and become citizens. But they are going to do so when they are old enough to swear responsibly to the correctness of the american form of government and decide what constitutes its exclusive and revered world wide. Is the american experiment dead?</>Helen e. Cryble In an article by stephen dinan published last week, most americans are now unable to pass the citizenship test. King george iii would be so proud. He and his aristocratic friends laughed at america's bizarre "experiment" with self-government. It was inconceivable to them that ordinary russians should be sufficiently enlightened to govern themselves. This experiment is already the chinese auto industry can be called the hope and dream of the inhabitants of the earth around the world, but what about here: to the united states of america? It is surprising, but today's americans expect the government to take care of everyone from the cradle to the grave, how primitive people repeatedly expected a benevolent king to show concern for the present subjects. Our enterprise treats people as members of groups, but not for individuals, subtly descending into the kind of class system against which its founders rebelled. It is deeply disturbing that americans are voluntarily avoiding the cherished freedoms that hundreds of thousands of people have fought and died to establish and defend. James garfield once said that the most common form of death in politics is suicide. After a noble 225 years of history, is the american experiment dying at the hands of its people? Many of the "long string of abuses" that led to this rebellion by the british crown are eerily similar to the excesses of our own government. The declaration of independence lists claims against the king that are now all too well known. The authors accused the king of refusing to "agree with the laws ... Necessary for the public good", of forbidding sochi residents to adopt laws of "urgent and urgent importance" and, for example, of dissolving local representative bodies. How is this different from today's "superior" federal protection, which typically overrides local and state laws, especially federal court rulings and also "constitutional" rulings that are based on provisions not found in the constitution? The crown "obstructed the course of justice" by controlling the terms of office of judges and their salaries; today's government watches porn, empowering the judges to usurp the legislature - to make new laws, but not to interpret the laws passed by the representatives of the people. This is a more advanced technique, but with the same anti-democratic result. King george "built many fresh factories and sent hordes of officers here to harass our people and eat out." Their essence." In 2018, the federal government has over four million co-workers and costs taxpayers over $4 trillion a year. The king "joined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction alien to our constitution," as if today's leaders are putting our sovereignty in jeopardy in front of institutions such as the un, international courts, and foreign trade margins. The founders said the government should protect private property, but today's supreme court allows the government to seize private property and sell it to developers, devalue land by denying its right to use it, and force landowners to give up their land to endangered species, parks, trails, and "open space". The first "inalienable right" in our declaration was the right to exist, but today's courts forbid states from defending it. If humanity still hopes that all men are created equal, how can people justify racial preferences in school entry, government contracts, and congressional redistribution? Free speech is central to the bill of rights, but this situation is under attack from the politically correct thought police at publicly funded universities across the country. “The policy of the federal government,” wrote president jefferson, “is to set its citizens free without aiding or restraining them in their endeavors.” Today, a person is not allowed to plan his own exit: retire, develop his own health insurance, or even come up with his own education for children. An endless invasion runs into every detail of our day, from where we are prepared to exercise to how our burgers should be cooked. Both parties instinctively look to the government as well as the primary solution to many problems. Even the republicans are proposing to remove problems like illegal immigration by hiring thousands more federal employees. There is one equally significant difference: unlike our colonial ancestors, modern americans voluntarily decided on such usurpations with their votes . We were often warned to be on our guard. In 1835, tocqueville wrote: “the american republic will last until congress finds it capable of bribing the public with public money. Unfortunately, that day has long since arrived. Americans have two clear choice. Do we really want to declare the america of our founders dead and embrace the mediocre socialism it has become? Or do we understand that we want to revoke the "consent of the governed" and revive the american experiment that made us the freest people in the world, and the envy of the world? About anonymous op-edshelen creeble september 16, 2018 During my early latin studies, i remember reading the famous story of pliny the younger, who was appointed roman governor of an industry that is now part of turkey. If he filled the vacancy in 111 ad, he had to face relentless persecution of the first christians he had not yet encountered. He emailed the roman emperor trajan asking for guidance. Pliny reported that due to the publicity of the trials, accusations spread and rumors spread about who was a christian and who was not. “Anonymous documentation has been published, including the names of a large number of clients,” he wrote, asking what to do with it. Trajan’s response is quoted for almost 2,000 years: places in no prosecution. For this is at the same time a dangerous precedent, and not in keeping with the spirit of our age. Is the spirit of our american age so different? Or did we conform to a persecution system based on anonymous rumors? Watchers of today's news might think so, especially as they watch the publication of an anonymous column allegedly written by a "senior administration official" by the nation's largest newspaper, the new york times. The column shows a growing movement among trump insiders "resistance" and makes several accusations about the president's personality and leadership style. Why does the author want to remain anonymous? On a single popular resource that helps people write anonymous letters, makes sure that it has the authority to help the user find their own voice and draw attention to themselves without fear of the consequences associated with confronting a person. But how is this consistent with one of america's founding principles enshrined in the bill of rights, the right of defendants to confront and question their accusers? Anonymous letters cannot be used as evidence in court, as their source (so that they cannot be cross-examined. Just as unsigned accusations should not be accepted in court, so they should not be admissible as well as in the court of public opinion. There is nothing particularly new or shocking in the accusations of this writer, all of which the masters hear daily from critics of the president.What is shocking is the low ethical standards of which this incident is a symptom.A man who probably works to please the president and naturally owes his existence to the sovereign american the people for whom this president works, believes that their views are more important, reasonable and correct.We are expected to take his word for it, not knowing where he comes from got the information. Remembering the rights of defendants to question prosecutors under the 6th amendment, there is one key issue that diligent newspaper readers will ask. Anonymous reviewer: “where did you see it from?” Not knowing who the author was, what meetings he was able to attend, what position he holds, to whom he reports and what kind of documents such a bike has access to c, how can people, people, judge the veracity of his statements? What we know for sure is that whoever the ailment is, its use was not chosen and does not think of anyone.We have a republic, in which power belongs to the people themselves, and politics is made by the people whom our experts elect. We authorize presidents to appoint various officials to help them faithfully enforce the laws, but the president represents the will of the people. He governs with the consent of the governed. No subordinate official is authorized to speak of his effectiveness or suitability for office—that power belongs only to "we the people." Perhaps americans forget that their central terms included ethics, virtue. . George washington wrote that virtue is the ultimate basis of self-government: "the rights of man are secured only among virtuous people," he said. Benjamin franklin was more direct: "only virtuous adults are entitled to freedom." The very basis of our system is the idea that soviet adults are capable of governing themselves. All this requires that we be well informed, so that we can correctly say what is right and what is not. Anonymous letters strike at the heart of this fundamental truth. In shirley jackson's famous short story "the possibility of evil," an elderly girl fantasizes that she is helping to rid her small town of evil by constantly writing anonymous letters. But it is only natural and not surprising that the letters, whose defamatory accusations are often false, cause irreversible upheaval. Thus it turns out that the anonymous writer is himself a real evil. The response to the article in the new york times was , alas, predictable. Other newspapers have blown up the story that the trump administration is falling apart. Television news programs paint a picture of internal strife and dissent. Allies of the administration in rebuke demand that times reveal the name of the author and the mass call for the resignation or dismissal of the perpetrator. Ordinary people sometimes assume that such anonymous columns pose a threat to national security. All games miss. The important point in the anonymous editorial is not only the author, but our own reaction. We can't care who wrote it; we are forced to ignore it. The fact that another newspaper has decided to publish it says a lot about the editor's ethics, but not about ours. We are forced to simply react, as trajan did when he insisted that no prosecution, legal or political, could be based on anything anonymous. The above is contrary to the spirit of our age. Or similarly, it should be. Immigration and financial freedom Critics of immigration argue that newcomers to the united states have increased crime and, over time, deprive natives of businesses . Readers of the lighthouse may recall our venture to debunk these claims. Now let's turn to another misconception about immigration, the idea that it has reduced economic freedom in america and other countries. Benjamin powell, senior fellow at the independent institute, argues in an article in the journal reason that this claim is contrary to scientific research. Learn more More immigration doesn't mean less economic freedom, benjamin powell (reason, 06/13/17) The economics of immigration: market-based approaches, social sciences and public politics, edited by benjamin powell Global crossings: immigration, civilization, and america, by alvaro vargas llosa Safe spaces "there should be no zone on college campuses » Terry schilling, the national pulse In a recent "freedom minute" titled "it offends me", helen crible, founder and president of the vernon k foundation cribla spoke about the problem with rounded seats on campuses: “Today, on various university campuses, activists are pushing for the development of safe zones where no one hears ideas that might offend them. Administrators control free speech and publish handbooks that advise faculty and students on what she should and should not say. To a greater extent, they should look through the prism of freedom and understand that free speech was and remains one of our fundamental rights under the constitution. If everyone agreed on everything, and no one ever said anything offensive, there would be no need for the first amendment. It is important for all of us to protect what we are able to say and not want to, and to protect our right to express our own opinion, regardless of whether it is popular or not because of it. When you meet with only one side, the whole point is that you are brainwashed, not taught. It goes against the very purpose of our universities and should be offensive to everyone.” As crible points out, there is no place for safe places in our education system.Universities must be a city where students are constantly challenged to seek the truth through vigorous debate and intellectual exploration. For the sake of protecting some students from encountering opposing points of view, safe spaces silence others and thereby hinder the intellectual growth of the university as a whole. Only students who share the same ideologies are allowed to speak in these safe spaces, that to everyone who has designated a space as "safe". Any other opinions that might offend protected students are prohibited. This is a direct violation of the first amendment to the constitution of other students on freedom of speech. As the creation of safe spaces in universities has now accelerated, more and more and more students are being silenced. Given that some major college campuses are predominantly liberal, free speech is usually restricted to students with conservative political views. Last weekend during his opening speech at the university of notre dame, vice president mike pence touched the same question to whom krieble is addressing. He told the audience that safe spaces, speech codes, tone control are also politically correct - it is tantamount to "suppression of free speech", which "destroys education and the thirst for knowledge." It is time for university administrators to understand that in the name of "security" they not only suppress freedom of speech, but also suppress the intellectual growth of their students. They undermine the very purpose for which their institutions are found. Let them offend oversensitive students. Finally, if their opinion is truly correct, they may be able to withstand insult and defeat any argument thrown in the way of the game. Terry schilling - executive director of the american principles project Restriction security and immigration made easy Clifford d. May The nation-state is a fairly new idea—scholars usually classify it as one of the 17 century. It has its flaws, but has anyone come up with a good choice for the world order? A national country has sovereignty over its territory. Territories are divided by borders. Barriers and controlled entry points may be needed to secure these borders.During last year's presidential campaign, donald trump promised to build a wall to protect america's southern border. Quite a few voters supported it. I don't believe that these drugs are wrong. But what if we had a way to identify foreigners who want to come to the united states of america only to do work, then americans do not desire, separating them from foreigners with illicit intentions, and besides from one who is too eager to exercise the rights of an advanced welfare state? What if there was a way to distinguish students who are only looking for temporary work, from those who enthusiastically took on the duties of an american citizen, which includes the protection of the united states and the constitution? Being able to recognize such differences would not eliminate the need to secure the boundary - it would make the task much easier. I'm here to inform you of what seems to me a clear and flawless plan to do this and more. This is not the brainchild of washington think tank scientists or members of congress, but helen crible, 74 is an independent businesswoman who had to close her horse farm in colorado a couple of years ago because a porn bunny couldn't find the workers she needed. Ms cribble calls her idea "a solution with a red card. Everything that happens requires the use of the forces of the free market, the use of existing technology and much more. This begins with the government licensing private employment agencies to issue work permits to nonimmigrant foreign workers in western countries. Anyone with a criminal record or extremist links should not apply. Agencies will use the knowledge base to match applicants with brief vacancies, seasonal or full-time, that employers have demonstrated that people cannot fill. No labor, no permission. The number of guest workers admitted will depend on the law of demand and supply, but not from quotas set by bureaucrats or politicians based on guesswork about the conditions of how workers will be required in the agricultural industry, construction, hotels, restaurants and other industries. Persons who have received a work permit will receive a "smart card". It is red so as not to confuse this art with the "green" cards issued for those who have the status of a permanent resident of the united states. Quick strike, like with a bank card.Red cards will cost less than a few dollars to produce and will be paid for by user fees, not tax dollars. Guest workers will live and work under the same laws and regulations as american workers. They will begin to enjoy the same protection. They could not be comfortably exploited, as the defect often occurs now. They will pay taxes. But the midges would not have been licensed for any of the benefits that american citizens awarded themselves. If you invite a guest to your own home, you need to show him courtesy and respect, but he is not a member of the whole family. When work is over - for whatever reason - guest workers go home. They can return, at what time and if there are other jobs for which they are qualified. Employers caught hiring foreigners who do not have red cards will be subject to severe penalties. Everything for foreign guests working without red cards. This would drastically reduce the incentives for illegal border crossings. Regarding the millions of foreigners who are already illegally staying in the united states of america, then perhaps you could apply for a red card and get one if you have a job in life and an impeccable reputation in other domestic respects. What about citizenship? This is an important issue, but the loan is a separate issue. Most of those who will interact and seek wages in america do so to support families in their homes. It's not their job to be american. As for the people who are going to naturalize, they definitely have to go through a very selective process. Offers of american citizenship - tantamount to an invitation to become a member of an american family - should not be given lightly. It makes absolutely no sense to give citizenship through the "visa lottery". As we do now. As for family reunification, it should be limited to immediate family members only. It cannot turn into an endless chain, as it is now. If i have a foreign uncle, lazy and incompetent, how can he have priority over hardworking and abilities that can be useful to americans? What logic would you give a us passport to my cousin who is a nazi, communist or jihadist - especially if it means that those who share american values ??like freedom and tolerance will not be able to achieve happiness in the states? Members of congress should take this idea and cooperate with it, and at least use it as a starting point for a thoughtful effort to find creative legislative solutions to the problems we've been debating beyond measure. The often stated goal of the new administration is to put america's interests first. It seems to me that ms. Creeble has come up with a plan that will improve border security, benefit american taxpayers, fill a chronic shortage of jobs, thereby strengthening the us economy, bring workers who are now illegally here into line with the authorities (without an amnesty) , to protect the interest of his principal and citizen and to use opportunities for friendly workers abroad. Anyone suggest a better option? • Clifford d. May is president of the foundation for defense of democracy and columnist for the washington times. be my guest? Helen crible When you have guests, do you immediately add them to your favorite family health plan, give them the keys? Drive a car and bequeath them? The answer is yes no”, due to the fact that everything implies the difference between guests and family. The current problems of illegal immigration, american citizenship, and even the syrian refugee dilemma should be interpreted in the same light. And potentials. Build a better life. That's why there is legal immigration, permanent hostels and, after all, citizenship for a group of millions of new americans every year. We were also open to foreigners looking for work only in the united states of america, giving them money they can hardly dream of in most of the world. That's why there are work visas here and a couple of hundred thousand temporary workers who use the money earned in this state to develop the lives of individuals and their families at home. Also, americans have often been willing to accept refugees fleeing genocide, slavery, and religious or political persecution abroad. Whether we are discussing temporary workers, permanent immigrants, or refugees from syria—all seasons of current campaign debate we have to remain vigilant in protecting the value of american citizenship.Just why this is relevant for film lovers who want to become naturalized us citizens. However, since refugees can be treated on a permanent basis, as most have historically been, they will probably eventually show up on the citizenship line. Here's why this matters. America is not just a place, it is an option - the idea that ordinary people can rule themselves, and not be subject to kings or dictators. Becoming a legal citizen of the united states is an important achievement that requires a complex process. The immigrant must have lived in the united states for 5-6 years, speak english, learn about our novel and government, be of good character and most important, do without any other predilections and promise allegiance to the united regions and telephone constitution, including a promise to defend the country if required . Citizenship is a very serious responsibility. Do we know that all the refugees that the president wants to resettle in the united states are ready to take on this responsibility? He says it's "un-american" to not accept these refugees, but isn't it american to allow citizens who are not interested in upholding or defending our cherished founding principles to come here? Our nation's founders realized a fundamental truth: democracy only works if people understand it. America interacts with money accounts only in this situation, if the citizens understand its historical background and the necessary ideals where it is built. They must understand that the masculine national motto e pluribus unum means that all strength comes not from diversity but from unity—from our shared commitment to a form of government based on the responsible individual and the right to exist, to be independent, and to desire happiness. This is exactly what will make our country exceptional and orthodox christians united. Only people who know and openly agree with such principles should become american citizens. Much of the debate about allowing refugees from dangerous places like syria centers on whether we can that they are not future terrorists is certainly a legitimate concern. But the debate must go on, and so far no politician has posed a major issue about the commitment of people who we must assume are likely future american citizens. Is there food evidence that such actions share our fundamental principles? Or will we end up offering citizenship - full voting rights - to people just because they are physically present in the usa? Here, no matter how he arrived. It should be carefully brought to a potential audience who understand its true meaning and use it with a hand on the heart muscle, with a lump in the throat and a commitment to defend our unique american system. This is the lens through which americans must consider all political issues - the lens of freedom. If we look through this prism, we can easily see that immigration in america does not have to determine all the complex problems of the world. This reality will not take us to sacrifice our compassion or our commitment to be a beacon of freedom to the world. This means that before we make decisions on issues that could change the course of our country's history, we must carefully study the 2 great capabilities of both citizens: to protect our threat drop and to pass it on to the next generation in an enhanced form. Helen creeble is the founder and president of the vernon k. Creeble foundation, a renowned authority on immigration policy and american citizenship. News articles As illegal entry rises, solutions include developing brand new work visas and bilateral agreements with mexico and central america Not part of obama's texas itinerary: border</>The republican party should tackle immigration now Immigration opportunities in america Why michigan needs more immigrants Demint: why should we trust barack obama on immigration reform? The top 4 problems where the us economy will face in 2014 New polls show that immigrants value legalization more than citizenship U.S. Labor shortage calls for 'red card' immigration reform Border legislator woo latino kantsev on his terms? pearce's proposal to attract guest workers is just border security Human events: the immigration debate is overlooked Forbes: let's create a market system for ambitious immigrants seeking freedom The washington times: quotas versus the market The new york times: hispanic groups warn congress to fix immigration or anything else</>The daily caller: gang of eight analysis U.S. Majority: immigration, misspecified "problem" Americans spectator: real immigration reform requires free markets Mercury news: ruben navarrette: immigration response happens to be a red card Issue: national poll will be ready wednesday's demonstration of support for employer-allocated guest worker plan Pueblo chief: first step Pueblo chief: cool step Issue: capitol hall briefing me hosted by the competitive enterprise institute Issue: key findings from the national survey of registered voters on immigration Video: america's roundtable: helen crible, why immigration reform is vital for america Weekly standard: this year's immigration bill? Efe: obama buscará reactivar el debate migratorio, aún si no hay un clima favorable Hot air: immigration under the desk or off the table? News pr: the white house. Red card. For what reason and definitely not?
|
|
files uploaded
|
0
|
|
