Cutiebunny said:
1) No more 'jus solis'. American citizenship can only be granted upon birth if one of your parents is either a US citizen or a US Legal Permanent Resident(green card holder). Your parents must prove to a government agency that they have legal status prior to being granted US citizenship. If they can't, you are not entitled to any public services unless you're willing to pay for it.
I agree, but with another change - you must have been born within the US and lived there for three years at least. So if your parents have US citizenship but you've never been there, you don't get it.
2) No more free services. Why should we educate children who come here on visitor visas for free schooling? The Supreme Court made a devestating decision when they decided that the US government was responsible for educating illegals for free. No more welfare, no more free medical care, etc.
Again I agree. Welfare should be made and given out only to people in the country legally.
3) Social Security for contributors only. People in this country immigrate here for the 'free money'. Currently, if you don't contribute to the system but are of age to receive SS payments, you receive $500/mo per person for never having contributed a cent to the system. I have met thousands of these individuals. We need to adopt a system similiar to New Zealand - If you're over the age of 50, you can't immigrate to America. Period.
I think exception should be granted to citizens who can't contribute - the mentally and physically disabled, etc.
As for elderly persons, I think a variety of cases have to be considered. For example, if you are aged 60 but a big corporate executive (as some are) you should be let in. If you're aged 80 and have say your children living in the US, they should be allowed in on a family based petition provided that your children are working/were working and thus contributing. If you have the money to pay for your own medical care and you are coming in to get care, you should be again let it (but you won't get any of the social benefits). But people who have no money, no jobs, don't have anything in the US and are past retirement should be rejected.
4) No more family based petitions. I can understand petitioning your direct family to come to the US. But there should be no reason why each person in the US can petition up to 220 individuals. Why should your second cousin twice removed on your great uncle's side be entitled to a place to live in the US? If you want to immigrate here, you have to be educated and young enough to still make a contribution to our society. Australia has a similiar system in place.
Again I agree with this - family reunions are ridiculous when it can be pretty much everyone you can distantly relate yourself to. However when it comes to things like parents wanting to go to their children, husband to wife, people moving to help care for their grandparents etc, ie close relationships, of course people should be allowed in. But claiming that because some person is your distant relative like some of the examples you suggested? Well no mate.
As for the rest of the topic, I think experience is largely irrelevant as in most cases it's other people who write your speeches, advise you on policy, etc. You can have personally probably some of the most inexperienced people possible in the White House and still they could make good presidents - because the people around them have experience. For example, Ronald Reagan had hardly any experience when he came in - and I don't think he was that intelligent either - but he had the brains to put good people in good positions, he listed to good advice and took it in, and ultimately became an excellent president. At the same time some of the more experienced people when they try seize control for themselves often completely screw it, for example the ultra-paranoid Nixon. The bottom line is really experience doesn't so much matter as long as you have the brains and intelligence to act upon good advice and put competent people in good positions.
And even if experience did matter its not like being the First Lady is much experience anyway. This issue has already been addressed.
BigLutz said:
I would never place him in the top ten. But I think that history will look at him quite favorably. We as human beings tend to remember the good times and forget the bad.
Really it depends on how the war goes (which will probably be his legacy). If Iraq turns out to be an utter Vietnam-like disaster, history may not like George Bush. If it goes well, Iraq is secured and Al Qaeda defeated, history may also look upon him favourably. Oh and I disagree with your final sentence. It is almost always the case that the bad part of a president's reign is put above the good parts when it comes to the populace. Or anyone's reign for that matter. No matter how well George Bush keeps the economy going (personally I doubt his government has much to do with it anyway) or how good living standards are, if Iraq fails that will be forgotten by comparison. In history there are plenty of rulers that have done some very good things but also some bad things - and most people tend to overlook the good things and focus on the bad.
Either way ( I know this will generate alot of replies ), I do not believe that either Hillary or Obama will be able to win the Presidency. If Hillary wins the nomination, well she is the most hated woman in modern American history, and you will have Republicans crawling over broken glass to keep a Clinton out. Not to mention that the Blacks will be out raged and possibly split from the party.
If Obama gets the nomination, well... the Republicans are just drooling at the thought of that. Having a Democrat party that is so split and for their Canidate to be a man with no experience, completely far left ideals that no one has listened to, and his speaches being full of just pure fluff and emptiness. It would be like getting your Christmas Presents and your Birthday Presents on the exact same day for John McCain.
While you may say Hillary is the most hated (which I highly doubt) she also has a lot of very strong supporters mainly much of the traditional democratic party. And I doubt Obama losing will cause a schism either. Most people will just get over it and he'll be forgotten, just like every other failed politician in history. And from the polls Obama can beat McCain while Hillary can't. But I wouldn't place any bets anytime soon, we're still a way out from the election and making predictions now seems highly redundant. There are plenty of examples in history as well where even one month out it is said to be "unwinnable" so to speak for a certain party, but when it comes to the actual election the so called doomed party wins by a landslide. A lot can happen in just a few weeks. Just look at what happened in the 1993 Australian election - Paul Keating was trailing up to ten points in the polls, then came Fightback (which was quite a good policy, unfortunately), Keating's super-annuation announcements and voila Labour won by masses. Especially when it's about nine months out, predictions now are highly inaccurate.