Do you really believe school boards do nothing more than funnel federal tax dollars? Where did you get that idea?Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Do you really believe school boards do nothing more than funnel federal tax dollars? Where did you get that idea?
That particular example does seem odd since most education funding is from the state (even if it is generated by local property taxes) but remember when you and Dread were talking about that one town with the majority Haredi population that was trying to dismantle the local public school district? Or that other one, the really poor one in New Jersey with the phenomenal/excessive natal ward they finagled the state into paying for? While the people in those communities were presumably all residents and citizens it is an example of a distinct sub-population acting in what the rest of us perceive as a perverse manner because its interests are not the same as those government organs it is interacting with.Do you really believe school boards do nothing more than funnel federal tax dollars? Where did you get that idea?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
You're making the same mistake as Dread: The word "citizen" (which is the word I used, by the way) has multiple meanings. It's not solely restricted to "nationality". You can be a citizen of a town, a municipal district, a state, a country or an international organization like the EU. All at the same time, to boot.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
No it does not in this context. It has a single distinct meaning in law and politics.
The EU as you named as an example does not have its own distinct citizenry - a citizen of a member state is a citizen of the EU purely and directly by virtue of their national citizenship. Lose that, lose EU citizenry automatically. It's an important legal principle that has come up in the Scottish Independence debates. The Scots nationalists arguing they're already EU citizens so would keep that citizenship on becoming independent, with the EU retorting that no the UK is a member and if they cease to be British citizens they will automatically cease to be EU ones too unless and until Scotland negotiates its own membership.
"Not in this context"?
We're talking about cities and states here, right?
At least we were, last time I looked at the thread's title... So, don't give me this "out of context" crap. And it does NOT have a single meaning, even in law and politics. That's why we have several words for it in German (Stadtbürger, Kommunalbürger, Staatsbürger). Don't blame me if you're trying to ignore meanings of a word.
But I'll make this easy for you:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/citizen1 : an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman
2a: a member of a state
2b: a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it
3: a civilian as distinguished from a specialized servant of the state
Do I really have to educate you guys upon your own language?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
You can play the semantics game all you want, but as you noticed, there's more than one meaning, and it's quite clear he was talking about Staatsbürger here. Just because we are talking both about cities, states and nations, doesn't mean that the word citizen was used for anything other than national by anyone but you. Hell, even the thread title, surely they don't mean they want to let people from outside the city vote.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Khend, It's not how the word has legal meaning or general parlance in the US. No one here says I'm a citizen of NYC. We say I'm a citizen of the US, and I'm from NYC.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Yes, and your sample group of "you" is certainly the most authoritative opinion in that subject...
And? That's what you get when you don't define your words clearly. Don't choose words which don't support your argument when they can be turned around to work against your argument.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Wow. Just wow. Yeah, me living over here, a part of this culture for over 40 years gives me NO insight.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
On the other hand, trying to win an argument by twisting words to other meanings may get you a nice Gotcha! victory, but not actually win the argument.
And let's face it, when was the last time you heard the word citizen mean anything but the national citizenship meaning? You started that bit yourself by mentioning it historically referred to a city.
I mean, I don't think it's a bad idea to let non-citizens vote for municipal elections (nor do I think they have to, I think it's up to them to decide who gets to vote for them*), since they live there and local governance affects them a lot, I don't see a good reason to disenfranchise a large portion of the people who live there. But I do think your argument is silly, it's perhaps a good way to make fun of the other side, but it's not a way to win an argument.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
people very commonly say "citizen of xyz city". Citizen of NYC is even a song title. Tampa commonly puts out press information that includes the words "citizens of tampa".
Powerpuff girls starts out with the line "Citizens of Townsville"
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 05-18-2013 at 01:35 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
You uses the Powerpuff girls as a source?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
I used a source that was written by american writers, for an american audience, set inside the USA, and used the english langauge.
and it was only one of the multiple references I made, to show the scope of how easily it is to come across the phrase "citizen of town/city/state"
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 05-18-2013 at 02:48 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
"I am a citizen of such-and-such township" has no legal meaning in the US, the jurisdiction at issue in this thread. It has no legal meaning. IT HAS NO LEGAL MEANING. Can we move on now?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
No the feud between OG/Khend and Dread MUST continue, no matter how silly the side topic.
However, I really can't come up with a serious argument against this initiative.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
The only real argument against I've seen in here is that it would weaken what citizenship is, which certainly doesn't convince me against it.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
My three cents:
1. The debate is obsolete if it was based on an archaic meaning of the word citizen.
2. I think we could reasonably say that the rule of Octavius Augustus put an end to the notion of the citizen as the (privileged) inhabitant of a city.
3. I am convinced that ever since 'la Declaration des droits de l'homme et du Citoyen' the current meaning of citizen has been that of a person belonging to a particular nation.
Congratulations America
Are you a citizen of EU?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
But when it comes to voting in local elections, being a "resident" in that township does have legal meaning. Isn't that the basis for NYC's proposal to let non-citizens vote, as long as they're legal "residents"?
Yes, as a citizen of The Netherlands I hold EU citizenship. Which can only
be understood as a means towards nationbuilding.
Ever since I understood the original concept of citizenship it has always appalled that there are systems of government that place bigger importance upon how long your ancestors have lived on a piece of land than on your contribution to society.
Why exactly should someone with citizenship on welfare have more rights than the illegal fruit picker?
P.S. In 1789 'nation' was a rather novel concept.
Congratulations America
"Citizenship" is also a part of speech that can mean community involvement. Being a good "citizen" means participating in local activities, and being an active participant in the community. We give awards and commendations to "citizens" for that kind of "outstanding citizenship", that has nothing to do with national membership. Those are semantic nuances, not legal definitions.
I wonder what Citizen Cain would have to say about this.....
Who knew that when talking about legal aspects of a term, it's the legal definition of a term that matters most.
Hope is the denial of reality
As I said above citizenship of the EU is inseparable from citizenship of a member nation. As a British citizen I'm an EU citizen but were the UK to leave the EU I wouldn't be anymore. Couldn't choose to keep EU and lose British.
I was under the impression that the question had not yet been settled.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I think that's pretty settled. Unless/until something changes it.
Non-citizen thinks he's a citizen for decades. Passes numerous federal background checks and works for the federal government, all without being a citizen. By all means he deserved to be a citizen, but he nonetheless illegally voted several times. Yeah, voter verification is evil.
Man Who Thought He Was a Citizen Makes It Official
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ
MAY 21, 2014
MIAMI — Nearly 50 years after he arrived here from Cuba, Mario Hernandez, a former federal employee and an Army veteran who for decades thought he was a United States citizen, and was never told otherwise, finally became one on Wednesday.
At a field office in Jacksonville, Fla., Mr. Hernandez, 58, with his wife and lawyer present, clutched his naturalization document after being sworn in as an American.
“I feel like jumping and hollering,” he said. “I was given an opportunity almost 50 years ago, and today I have almost the same feeling. I feel vindicated.”
In March, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services denied his case, even though Mr. Hernandez was entitled to citizenship because he had served during the Vietnam War era.
In a statement, Chris Bentley, a spokesman for the immigration agency, said it apologized for handling Mr. Hernandez’s application as a regular naturalization case rather than a military one.
“As soon as this error was brought to our attention, we immediately reopened the case,” Mr. Bentley said, “and this morning, after a thorough review of the case with Mr. Hernandez, we were able to approve his naturalization application.”
It turns out that Mr. Hernandez, despite having voted in every major election since Jimmy Carter’s in 1976 and working for two state agencies and two federal agencies, including as a longtime supervisor for the Bureau of Prisons, was not even a United States resident. Several federal background checks never turned up his immigration status.
A Cuban refugee who arrived here as a child, Mr. Hernandez was given open-ended parole, which allowed him to live and work in the United States but did not make him a resident. He said he had assumed that his parents filed the paperwork to make him a resident and a citizen. When he enlisted in the Army in 1975, Mr. Hernandez said he was given what he thought was a citizenship oath. But when he recently retired and decided to take a cruise, he could not find any trace of the naturalization papers he needed to get a passport.
Elizabeth Ricci, his lawyer, said his situation was an example of how immigration cases, even clear-cut ones involving an Army veteran and a federal employee, could go awry within the immigration agency’s bureaucracy.
“It’s grossly inefficient,” Ms. Ricci said. “In his case, it represents a broken immigration system.”
As for the cruise, Mr. Hernandez, who lives in Tallahassee, Fla., said that he was not so sure anymore, that it might be too risky. “But I’m getting my voter registration card again tomorrow,” he added.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/us...-official.html
I'm sure he's been responsible for many an election outcome.
Hope is the denial of reality
The current (and in your opinion excessively light-handed) voter verification methods allow at a minimum, several hundred such mistakes each election cycle (treating both prevention of legal votes and permitting illegal ones as identical flaws). And is so small as to be statistically undetectable. Creating a heavier system isn't going to reduce the margin at all, it's going to increase it. The ratio of mistakes would probably change more heavily toward forbidding people who legally should be voting from doing so but throw in enough components or sources and even with an altered ratio you can bet the total number of people voting who shouldn't be voting will actually go up, not down.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
The thing is I don't think this should be that hard. Opponents of voter ID turn towards government incompetence and use it as a crutch to lower standards for other government functions. It's gratifying for me to read the media vex about government competence for the first news cycle in a while, but candidly I don't think it's enough and I don't think our political system has a lot of people who have thought deeply about organizational structure and management. Except maybe Newt Gingrich and no one wants to go there.
What is "this" and how is it being made out to be hard? I'm not saying voter verification will be difficult. I'm saying that you're arguing it eliminates friction in the system which is just patent nonsense. Your little cited case there has nothing to do with government competence or incompetence.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote