Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Trinidad]

So, has every Dutch citizen taken such a test? Is it required in order be a citizen? Or for other privileges of citizenship, such as voting, driver license, etc?

No. And this is not a test for citizenship. It is a test for residency.

 

So, if you want to be an alien resident in the Netherlands you have to pass the test before you enter the Netherlands. (Nationals of certain countries, like EU countries, etc., do not need to take the test. Refugees do not need to take the test either.)

 

This test is a result of the influence of xenophobic politicians in the Dutch government.

 

The reasoning goes like this:

 

- We need to help foreigners to integrate into Dutch society.

- We give them a course about the Netherlands and the Dutch language.

 

(So far, so good)

 

- We make the course mandatory. (It starts to get difficult.)

- You need to pass the test before you come to the Netherlands. After all, if you don't pass the test, you are not serious about integrating.

- You can take the test at selected locations abroad. You need to pay a large amount of money to take the test.

- The test is so difficult, and filled with useless trivia, that most Dutch citizens will not pass it and it has little to do with every day life in the Netherlands.

- The integration course is not available.

 

I find this sickening and it makes me ashamed that I am Dutch. (My brother is married to a woman from Madagascar. She will not be able to get any resident status in the Netherlands. She would probably need to travel to the Dutch Embassy in South-Africa if she wanted to take the test. They are living happily on Madagascar, but when they are visiting the Netherlands, their time here is limited by her visa.)

 

Compare this to what I got when I came to Sweden.

- After a few weeks, I got a booklet in the mailbox: "Welcome to Sweden! Sweden explained to foreigners". I think mine was in English, but it was available in 20 languages or so (Arabic, Chinese, Persian, Serbian, ...). I guess it was about 60 pages thick. It explained the whole Swedish system, from the parliamentary democracy to christian holidays, from banking to food and from the Swedish attitude and culture to their legal philosophy.

- One of the things it mentioned was that there was a course "Swedish for immigrants". If you would like to, you could take that course.

- I took the course, two mornings a week. The course was free. It was also adjusted to the student's level. (I was well educated and from the Netherlands, and Dutch and Swedish are fairly similar. There were also illiterate people from China. They needed to start with the alphabet. My course took half a year. Others take 7 years or more.)

- This course didn't just teach the Swedish language. It also taught the Swedish culture and attitude to things. (One of the most important words in the Swedish language is "lagom", which is impossible to translate, but it roughly means "sufficient" or "moderate". Swedes are happy with "lagom": enough is enough.)

- After the course, you do the test. You do need to take the course, or take the test, but it obviously is a nice addition to your resume when you are applying for jobs in Sweden.

- There are follow-up courses that you, again, could take for free.

[billw55]

I wasn't offended. Just saying that this isn't such a huge issue as you make it out to be. I'm still a bit puzzled tbh.

Well, it is not really a big deal to me. I just got curious. We were discussing birthright citizenship in America. I have this. But I got to wondering, what other ways are there of determining who is a citizen and who is not? So I asked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kenberg]

I cannot agree more. M brother is 5 years older than me and when he was in high school the school offered Latin I and II, which he took. When I started in the same school, Latin was no longer offered. My brother became a Ph.D.; I became a bridge bum. Correlation? Causation? I'll have to ask my brother. ;)

 

Latin? I took Spanish my freshman year in high school because it was the year for Spanish. If I had started high school a year earlier or later I would have taken French. They rotated. As far as I know, no high school in St. Paul, at least no public one, offered Latin or German or Swedish or any of those weird things.

 

Becky's younger sister took Russian. It happened like this. The default high school was not so great. Becky placed academically in Lowell (in SF, what today I guess would be called a magnet school) and took a bus to get there, but her sister was seriously less academic. A nearby high school, not the default one, was better but you had to supply a reason to be assigned there. The kids in the neighborhood were all told by their mothers that they were to henceforth express a great interest in learning Russian, which was not taught at the default school but was taught at the nearby better school.

 

We can survive without Latin.

Vini vidi vici.

Ken

[mike777]

Latin? I took Spanish my freshman year in high school because it was the year for Spanish. If I had started high school a year earlier or later I would have taken French. They rotated. As far as I know, no high school in St. Paul, at least no public one, offered Latin or German or Swedish or any of those weird things.

 

Becky's younger sister took Russian. It happened like this. The default high school was not so great. Becky placed academically in Lowell (in SF, what today I guess would be called a magnet school) and took a bus to get there, but her sister was seriously less academic. A nearby high school, not the default one, was better but you had to supply a reason to be assigned there. The kids in the neighborhood were all told by their mothers that they were to henceforth express a great interest in learning Russian, which was not taught at the default school but was taught at the nearby better school.

 

We can survive without Latin.

Vini vidi vici.

Ken

 

Ahh Russian and the city of SF...it is all starting to tie together now...:)

[cherdano]

How did noone notice this before?? THIS THREAD TITLE NEEDS TO BE CHANGED - IT'S A

 

Trump coup

[gwnn]

Well, it is not really a big deal to me. I just got curious. We were discussing birthright citizenship in America. I have this. But I got to wondering, what other ways are there of determining who is a citizen and who is not? So I asked.

Sorry -- I meant "huge issue" as in "an issue that will creates a lot of difficulties to solve," not "something that gets people upset." I think it is relatively straightforward for any country to implement a birthright that has a) existed for several centuries and b) has some sort of computerized system.

[mike777]

Sorry -- I meant "huge issue" as in "an issue that will creates a lot of difficulties to solve," not "something that gets people upset." I think it is relatively straightforward for any country to implement a birthright that has a) existed for several centuries and b) has some sort of computerized system.

 

 

In the USA having a huge central govt computer system having all sorts of citizen info...again central data base is a huge huge issue in the USA. We do not trust the govt....add on a hacker, think evil, true evil.

 

 

?Divided govt control... divided in the sense they attack each other....divided data computers that do not talk to each other.

 

compare this to much of Europe where working together....trust in each other...is very important.

 

 

In USA we do not want you to work together....too much...we do not trust you..

 

We prefer the 3 branches of govt. go to war with each other..

 

Then we complain.....confusing....:)

[helene_t]

How one got listed in the database is, perhaps, irrelevant. Might I be able to bribe a Dutch IT worker to add my name? Presumably when found out, my name would be removed. Thence the question, for what reasons can names be removed, i.e. citizenship revoked?

if you obtained citizenship by fraught or if you ask to have it revoked, typically because you need to have it revoked in order to obtain citizenship in some other country

[Trinidad]

How one got listed in the database is, perhaps, irrelevant. Might I be able to bribe a Dutch IT worker to add my name? Presumably when found out, my name would be removed. Thence the question, for what reasons can names be removed, i.e. citizenship revoked?

if you obtained citizenship by fraught or if you ask to have it revoked, typically because you need to have it revoked in order to obtain citizenship in some other country

Or, as some expats have found out, when the Dutch government revokes your citizenship (without notification) because you gain citizenship to another country. These expats (born and raised in The Netherlands as Dutch citizens) tried to travel back to the Netherlands to visit friends and family and couldn't enter the country because they didn't have a visa.

 

Also Gwnn, I am not picking on the Dutch in particular. This was just the first example that came up when I asked a generalized question. No offense intended. I only find it interesting that defining a citizen does not seem to be an easy thing to do.

I agree it is very difficult to define a citizen.

But I think that the concept of citizen is somewhat alien (and outdated) to some people. I can think of myself as a Dutch-American-Swedish-German francophile. I do not feel much more for the Netherlands than for Sweden or the USA. I don't know how e.g. Helene_t feels about that, but I doubt that she would be filled with joy to join the Danish army if there would be a war against the Netherlands.

 

And for other people their citizenship is so obvious that they don't even know what it really means. Archie Bunker is obviously an American citizen, but since he barely acknowledges the existence of anything across the border, this citizenship isn't really relevant, is it?

 

Rik

[billw55]

Or, as some expats have found out, when the Dutch government revokes your citizenship (without notification) because you gain citizenship to another country. These expats (born and raised in The Netherlands as Dutch citizens) tried to travel back to the Netherlands to visit friends and family and couldn't enter the country because they didn't have a visa.

 

 

I agree it is very difficult to define a citizen.

But I think that the concept of citizen is somewhat alien (and outdated) to some people. I can think of myself as a Dutch-American-Swedish-German francophile. I do not feel much more for the Netherlands than for Sweden or the USA. I don't know how e.g. Helene_t feels about that, but I doubt that she would be filled with joy to join the Danish army if there would be a war against the Netherlands.

 

And for other people their citizenship is so obvious that they don't even know what it really means. Archie Bunker is obviously an American citizen, but since he barely acknowledges the existence of anything across the border, this citizenship isn't really relevant, is it?

 

Rik

Agree, usually it is obvious or irrelevant. One can always construct edge cases though. Let's say I am a German orphan adopted by a Frenchman and a woman who lived most of her life in Netherlands but was actually born in Antwerp. As a family we have lived partly in Netherlands, but currently reside in Belgium. Am I a Dutch citizen? French? German? Belgian? Is Belgian even a word? Perhaps the laws are such that I may, or must, choose my nationality upon reaching a certain age. If so, which choices are available to me?

 

OK, these things are mostly rare, and maybe I am being a little silly.

[kenberg]

I imagine that most people, including myself, rarely think much about citizenship. No areas onto. But then it comes up. My father came here in 1910. He became a citizen in 1937 or38. After so many years, why bother? Well, I was adopted in 1939. He never said so, but my guess is that the events were related. He married and bought a house in the 1920s, no problem, he made a decent living, no problem related to his status, but I can well imagine that if he wanted to adopt an American child, it would be best if he were an American citizen.

 

 

Life is more complicated these days, a cliche for sure. My father arrived three years before the sixteenth amendment (regarding modern forms of income tax) was ratified.Social Security didn't exist. And so on. I suppose he couldn't vote but that may not have bothered him all that much. He came when he was 10, so his language skills were such that I doubt anyone except a Henry Higgins would have realized he was not born here, so there really was no problem to be dealt with.

 

Now of course it is different. For better or for worse, we interact with the government often. We who are citizens don't give the matter much thought, but surely it causes difficulties for those who lack this asset.How should it be obtained?

 

There is a standard path for immigrating to this country and becoming a citizen. I guess those who are here illegally find it too much trouble. exactly why we should accommodate people who find it to be too much trouble to take the legal path has never been explained. Possibly it is not just that it is too much trouble, they in fact would not be successful in obtaining citizenship through the standard path.

 

I expect that I am at least as open to immigration as many supporters of various legalization plans, I just am not comfortable with legalizing illegal immigration on a grand scale. It seems like selling pardons or indulgences. Instead of being paid in cash, the pay-off is in votes.

 

I thoroughly agree with various comments that the country has more pressing problems.

[barmar]

I imagine that if American citizens by birth were given the test required to become a naturalized citizen, the majority would fail.

 

Maybe that's who we should deport. :)

[Trinidad]

Agree, usually it is obvious or irrelevant. One can always construct edge cases though. Let's say I am a German orphan adopted by a Frenchman and a woman who lived most of her life in Netherlands but was actually born in Antwerp. As a family we have lived partly in Netherlands, but currently reside in Belgium. Am I a Dutch citizen? French? German? Belgian? Is Belgian even a word? Perhaps the laws are such that I may, or must, choose my nationality upon reaching a certain age. If so, which choices are available to me?

 

OK, these things are mostly rare, and maybe I am being a little silly.

These things are rare in the USA, but in Europe they are less rare since there is a free labor market between countries. Helene just moved from the UK to the Netherlands (after having moved around before). Gwnn now lives in the Netherlands (unless I have missed something and he has moved to yet another country) and has lived in several other countries. People with some professions (e.g. scientists) move from a job in one country to a job in another country like Americans move from state to state.

 

And at some point they settle somewhere... they may get married, have kids and a dog, or they just find their home for themselves and the traveling from job to job stops. So now they are in their fourth country of residence, which is not their country of citizenship, possibly with a "significant other" in his/her fourth country of residence and they call it home. And their kids may have been born somewhere along the way.

 

Apart from the dog, that is the story of my life. What citizenship do you think would be appropriate for my kids? And remember that citizenship has consequences... which country is allowed to draft my kids to serve in their army when they are at war... with one of the other candidate countries?

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

There is a standard path for immigrating to this country and becoming a citizen. I guess those who are here illegally find it too much trouble. exactly why we should accommodate people who find it to be too much trouble to take the legal path has never been explained. Possibly it is not just that it is too much trouble, they in fact would not be successful in obtaining citizenship through the standard path.

Ken, the underlined part seems a little unfair to me.

 

Can Joe Alien simply knock on the door and say: "I would like to live, work, eat, sleep, love, be happy and sad in the USA. I can mow lawns, clean toilets, paint, you name it... I know the Pledge of Allegiance, the lyrics to the Star Spangled Banner, God Bless America as well as Take me out to the ball game. Where is the line to get in?". Would Joe Alien get in?

 

Or does Joe Alien need an employer who will state that Joe Alien's skills are crucial for the US economy? So, how is Joe Alien going to get in legally when Joe Average has the same skills as Joe Alien?

 

I am not criticizing the US immigrations policy. I am just pointing out Joe Alien's perspective who doesn't have the same possibilities as Joe Average for the simple reason that he was born on the wrong side of a line on a map.

 

Rik

[billw55]

Apart from the dog, that is the story of my life. What citizenship do you think would be appropriate for my kids?

That's a good question. Do you have to register them as a citizen somewhere? Do they get to choose for themselves at some point?

 

For that matter, which nation are *you* a citizen of, and how did that come about?

 

And by the way, I totally recommend dogs. I'm pretty sure I would vote mine president over Trump.

 

 

[PassedOut]

And by the way, I totally recommend dogs. I'm pretty sure I would vote mine president over Trump.

A 35-year-old dog is indeed special.

:)

[kenberg]

Ken, the underlined part seems a little unfair to me.

 

Can Joe Alien simply knock on the door and say: "I would like to live, work, eat, sleep, love, be happy and sad in the USA. I can mow lawns, clean toilets, paint, you name it... I know the Pledge of Allegiance, the lyrics to the Star Spangled Banner, God Bless America as well as Take me out to the ball game. Where is the line to get in?". Would Joe Alien get in?

 

Or does Joe Alien need an employer who will state that Joe Alien's skills are crucial for the US economy? So, how is Joe Alien going to get in legally when Joe Average has the same skills as Joe Alien?

 

I am not criticizing the US immigrations policy. I am just pointing out Joe Alien's perspective who doesn't have the same possibilities as Joe Average for the simple reason that he was born on the wrong side of a line on a map.

 

Rik

 

Yes, I agree. Or at least I think I do. Maybe the problem runs something like this:

 

We will always have immigration and a legal path to citizenship.

There always will be people who would not make it through by following that path.

 

But what then are we to do? We could, and quite possibly we should, look at the legal path to see if we should be making more space available to those who are now left behind. But no matter how we revise the legal path, at least in any manner we would at all consider, there still will be many who will not be able to come in via the legal system. Do we just then say ok, you can't come legally but if you can make it here illegally that will be fine?

 

As a practical matter, I doubt that we can stop them and I doubt that we can deport them in large numbers. But that doesn't mean that we grant them citizenship. This who come legally are on a path to citizen ship, those who come illegally are here, and quite possibly will be staying here, but (as I would have it) are not on a path to citizenship. That path begins with legal entry.

 

 

This view is, perhaps, theory. As the man said, theory and practice are, in theory, the same. In practice they aren't. If we can't make it work that way then we can't. But I think that giving up on insisting on the legal path should be done only if there is no alternative, and then it should be done with regret. The guy going to night school preparing to take a test that will give him citizenship is entitled to wonder why he has to bother with this if others do not.

[akwoo]

There is a standard path for immigrating to this country and becoming a citizen. I guess those who are here illegally find it too much trouble. exactly why we should accommodate people who find it to be too much trouble to take the legal path has never been explained. Possibly it is not just that it is too much trouble, they in fact would not be successful in obtaining citizenship through the standard path.

 

I expect that I am at least as open to immigration as many supporters of various legalization plans, I just am not comfortable with legalizing illegal immigration on a grand scale. It seems like selling pardons or indulgences. Instead of being paid in cash, the pay-off is in votes.

 

Right now, if you are from Latin America, without relatives in the US, and you want to permanently immigrate to the US legally, you get on a list. At the current rate the list is processed, if you are currently in your 20s, you get to immigrate roughly when your grandkids have died. (Obviously, this is inaccurate, because people get off the list by dying. But it remains true that you are more likely to get off the list by dying than by being admitted.)

 

The legal path, for all practical purposes, does not exist, because the quota is much smaller than demand.

[blackshoe]

Someone upthread mentioned the word "subject", as in "a subject of the Netherlands" or more precisely, I suppose, of King Willem-Alexander. At least, I think that's the monarchy he was talking about. So I'm curious — what's the legal difference between a citizen and a subject? What's the practical difference, if any? Is it any different in other monarchies?

 

As to immigration, I have this strange idea that we should have open borders, so long as the adult immigrant is willing to become a productive member of our society. Yes, there are problems with that, not the least of which is "how do we keep out the folks who just want to come here and live on welfare, or do crimes? I don't know the answer to that, or to other related problems, but it's got to be a better approach then building a wall along the Mexican border. Every time I hear about that, I hear in my head that arch-Conservative Ronald Reagan saying "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." How can we now propose building one along our own country's border, even granting that the idea is to keep people out, rather than keep them in?

[kenberg]

Right now, if you are from Latin America, without relatives in the US, and you want to permanently immigrate to the US legally, you get on a list. At the current rate the list is processed, if you are currently in your 20s, you get to immigrate roughly when your grandkids have died. (Obviously, this is inaccurate, because people get off the list by dying. But it remains true that you are more likely to get off the list by dying than by being admitted.)

 

The legal path, for all practical purposes, does not exist, because the quota is much smaller than demand.

 

There is a large immigrant population from Latin America. Is it true that most all recent ones are either illegals or relatives? Perhaps so, I really have no idea. But it brings up a very interesting possibility. We could change the basis for legal admission, strongly de-emphasizing the importance of having relatives already here. This would give those who currently have no choice but the coyotes a new option. Advocating such a position would not endear a politician to the voting Latino population, however. Those who were hoping to see the last of the in-laws might approve, but by and large it would not be the way to get votes.. There is a lot of politics in this.

 

We do have to select on some basis. If the ordinary guy is being oushed aside to accommodate relatives, this could be corrected.

[akwoo]

There is a large immigrant population from Latin America. Is it true that most all recent ones are either illegals or relatives? Perhaps so, I really have no idea. But it brings up a very interesting possibility. We could change the basis for legal admission, strongly de-emphasizing the importance of having relatives already here. This would give those who currently have no choice but the coyotes a new option. Advocating such a position would not endear a politician to the voting Latino population, however. Those who were hoping to see the last of the in-laws might approve, but by and large it would not be the way to get votes.. There is a lot of politics in this.

 

We do have to select on some basis. If the ordinary guy is being oushed aside to accommodate relatives, this could be corrected.

 

Changing preferences just changes who it is that has to rely on coyotes.

 

If I'm not mistaken, even relatives have a long wait. Young-ish relatives won't die on the list, but it's not worth putting your elderly parents on it.

 

With the current quotas, legal immigration is not a legitimate option for most people from Latin America. You can change who it is, but no matter how you slice it, there will be plenty of people who want to live in the US with no way of doing so legally.

 

EDIT: I just looked up hard numbers on this. By law, the US admits up to 226,000 relatives (along with their dependents) as permanent residents per year. (Exception: Parents, spouses, and minor children of CITIZENS are not subject to nor counted against this quota - hence 'anchor babies'.) It also allows employers to sponsor another 140,000 skilled workers (along with their dependents) as permanent residents per year. Another 55,000 receive green cards by lottery.

 

There are around 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the US. If all of them left the country and waited their turn as relatives of current non-citizen residents, and no one else applied, they'd be sitting on the border for 10-15 years. I think we can all agree that the argument that they could have come here legally is pure rubbish.

[Zelandakh]

In the USA having a huge central govt computer system having all sorts of citizen info...again central data base is a huge huge issue in the USA. We do not trust the govt....add on a hacker, think evil, true evil.

And yet the fact that several companies hold such databases, often holding much more personal information than the government would keep, is perfectly ok?

 

 

What citizenship do you think would be appropriate for my kids? And remember that citizenship has consequences... which country is allowed to draft my kids to serve in their army when they are at war... with one of the other candidate countries?

I think a reasonable baseline is that a baby gets the nationality of its parents and a change of nationality to their country of residence can be applied for after a suitable period, something of the order of 5 years. Does that seem like a sensible way of bringing in the various factors to you? It would mean that, had you stayed in Sweden, your children could decide if they felt more Swedish than Dutch and choose accordingly.

[hrothgar]

And yet the fact that several companies hold such databases, often holding much more personal information than the government would keep, is perfectly ok?

 

No one ever accused the American public of being consistent, or for that matter, well informed.

 

(Note that all of our efforts at non proliferation are focused on countries, however, we're quite happy to allow companies and even individuals to build ICBMs...)

[kenberg]

Changing preferences just changes who it is that has to rely on coyotes.

 

If I'm not mistaken, even relatives have a long wait. Young-ish relatives won't die on the list, but it's not worth putting your elderly parents on it.

 

With the current quotas, legal immigration is not a legitimate option for most people from Latin America. You can change who it is, but no matter how you slice it, there will be plenty of people who want to live in the US with no way of doing so legally.

 

EDIT: I just looked up hard numbers on this. By law, the US admits up to 226,000 relatives (along with their dependents) as permanent residents per year. (Exception: Parents, spouses, and minor children of CITIZENS are not subject to nor counted against this quota - hence 'anchor babies'.) It also allows employers to sponsor another 140,000 skilled workers (along with their dependents) as permanent residents per year. Another 55,000 receive green cards by lottery.

 

There are around 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the US. If all of them left the country and waited their turn as relatives of current non-citizen residents, and no one else applied, they'd be sitting on the border for 10-15 years. I think we can all agree that the argument that they could have come here legally is pure rubbish.

 

I am in complete agreement with the isea that if more people wish to come than we are willing to legally permit to come then some, if they do come, will be doing so illegally. I think I have said that, probably more than once. So the problem is what we should do about it.

 

We do not usually accept the argument "Steve really wanted such and such, but there was no way for him to get such and such legally, so it's ok that he got it illegally". We don't usually accept this, and we don't usually retroactively make his actions legal. Realism suggests that I don't push this argument too hard, no doubt examples of such shenanigans can be found in high level business deals, but in principle we don't go along with this.

 

We welcome immigration, most of us do. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, we are prepared to have 500,000 immigrants a year from Latin America and welcome them onto ap path toward citizenship. Now what? Do we say "Let's set immigration rules to allow 200,00o legal entrees and trust that illegal immigration will supply the other 300,000"? Or do we say "We will allow 500,000 legal immigrants here on the path to citizenship, and no doubt there will be illegals coming across the border, but we will not be allowing them to become citizens"? Or do we say "We will allow 500,000 to come here legally and be on the path to citizenship and then whoever wants to come illegally, that's fine by us we will eventually make them citizens too"?

 

I have no doubt whatsoever that there will always be people in the world, not just Latin America, who would like to come here. There will be, I strongly believe. more of these than we are willing to accommodate. What are we to do about this? I am not so keen on an open arms policy for those who come here illegally.

 

 

Blackshoe suggests open borders. I don't favor this but since I think there is no chance in hell we would ever do it, and he probably agrees, I won't say more.

[Trinidad]

I think a reasonable baseline is that a baby gets the nationality of its parents and a change of nationality to their country of residence can be applied for after a suitable period, something of the order of 5 years.

That is reasonable and that is the approach that many countries take.

 

What is left is that someone will have to pick a country of citizenship. In my opinion, citizenship is a fairly useless concept. When was the last time you had to prove your citizenship for anything?

 

Rik