I do think that as a group, we should choose who are to be considered citizens and who are not based on who we want in the country. Whats wrong with having a homogeneous group of people as citizens eligible to vote. Thats why I say everyone applies when they are old enough to make such a decision. In the meantime, we have work permits and visas to allow others to be here.

Its not my decision to make the laws, so you have nothing to worry about. If you were born here, you are a citizen here. Look at the problems its resulted in, however.

Incentives are part of the problem. The main issue is the deplorable and dangerous conditions in those countries causing people to come here, illegally or otherwise.

I agree with the sped up immigration process. Thats said, the US should establish in their embassies a computer network linked to the US and they should validate and qualify any and all who wish to enter our country. More, the host country SHOULD provide proper documentation, electronic or otherwise, to speed up the process.
Secure the border- absolutely. Defended and patrolled by the US National Guard of each state in concert with civilian border patrol.

Get rid of the illegals - yes, its not that complicated. Wait for them to use the system - welfare, medical, school, etc.. and expel them as you find them. No child left behind. The 14th Amendment wasn't written for illegal aliens or invaders, it was to ensure freed slaves received the citizenship they were entitled to.

No argument about welfare. Churches in this country should be doing a lot more. In fact, they are actually encouraged by the government not to do anything. I'll tell you about my experience with this if you like.

Hear, hear!

If I had a choice in where I was born I would agree. If my parents are citizens and I am born of them, I am a US citizen no matter where I am. This is as it should be.

If a couple, Alice and Bob, own a house and land in which they are living and raising their family, they have sovereign right to dictate who can enter the property, and of those who enter, who can stay.

They can agree to allow Alice's mother to come and live there, permanently, and get an extension added to the house to make her comfortable. They can allow Bob's deadbeat cousin to come and stay there briefly while he's looking for his next job. They can disallow Alice's creepy ex from entering the property at all.

This is the concept of collective ownership. Property which is public when viewed from within the family, but private when viewed from outside the family. A form of public property at the scale of family.

A country is the exact same idea, except scaled up to a larger population unit. A country's population has a sovereign right to decide who can come, and who can stay. Any objection to such sovereignty or ownership on a national scale must also apply to sovereignty on a family scale. If a family has a right to exclude unwelcome entrants from its property, then so must a country.

A convention of the states could amend to specify that welfare be relegated solely to the states and prohibited at the national level.
This would remove the head from the monster that is progressivism and go a long way to restoring financial sanity.

You need ID to travel, buy alcohol or tobacco, drive, etc., so why is voter ID such a problem? Without ID, or some form of confirmation that you're a legitimate voter, you may discover (as some have) that you've "already voted", thanks to a phony who's been given your name to use. Maybe people on voters lists should be notified when a vote in their name has been recorded, so they can confirm or deny the vote? of course that would drag the voting process out, but it would be a way to avoid voter ID.

I agree. If you are a moocher, your voting rights should have some restrictions.

OK, that I'm familiar with.

This was the assertion in the OP that triggered my question:

"You need the Gold Star to travel on any TSA regulated transportation starting Jan of 16."

From the link you provided:

"Will TSA accept identity documents other than driver’s licenses?

Yes. TSA currently accepts other forms of identity documents such as a passport or Permanent Residency Card and will continue to do so.

For more information on acceptable forms of identification for boarding aircraft, please see TSA’s website (http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-informati...)"

From that link:

"dentification

Adult passengers 18 and over must show valid identification at the airport checkpoint in order to travel.

Driver's licenses or other state photo identity cards issued by Department of Motor Vehicles (or equivalent)
U.S. passport
U.S. passport card
DHS trusted traveler cards (Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST)
U.S. military ID (active duty or retired military and their dependents, and DoD civilians)
Permanent resident card
Border crossing card
DHS-designated enhanced driver's license
Airline or airport-issued ID (if issued under a TSA-approved security plan)
Federally recognized, tribal-issued photo ID
HSPD-12 PIV card
Foreign government-issued passport
Canadian provincial driver's license or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada card
Transportation Worker Identification Credential"

So the initial assertion is in fact false; TSA accepts a variety of IDs and will continue to do so. Also, there is no mention on either page of facial recognition standards; that assertion is also not supported.

I think he's referring to this:

http://www.dhs.gov/real-id-public-faqs

I'm definitely worried about this. The whole thing about voter ID was a camel's nose for a national ID card in general. I shouldn't need a state-issued ID card to exercise my rights as a citizen to vote.

Further, I support a restriction on voting rights while any person is collecting welfare from we, the taxpayers.

Get rid of the incentives and you get rid of the problem. It seems to me that the solution is simple to the illegal immigration problems we have south of the border.
1. Speed up the legal immigration process - X10.
2. Secure the border -- Really Secure it!
3. Getting rid of all illegals is too complicated. Only known criminals to be deported. Who cares where. (A South American Jungle would do.)
4. When an illegal is caught they should be made to study the requirements to become a citizen and then apply.
5. Get rid of welfare. Private charities to take over.
If these five principles are applied the problem will, over time, solve itself.

absolutely. like why work if you can stay on unemployment for a year, or get the same amount of money for not working (welfare) as if you went out to work.

The interconnected medical records system is all about busybodyism. The proponents are afraid that people denied pain drugs they need (for example) will successfully go "doctor shopping." To hell with 'em. I hope plenty of doctors start refusing insurance rather than join the system.

I agree with you as far as it goes. But I would also add that if we cut back on a lot of the welfare for US citizens, a lot of them would find themselves willing to work! This is the main problem I have with the "jobs Americans won't do" argument. Americans "won't do" the jobs because they can effectively make more off government handouts. If the choice was "work or starve", the equation would be different.

I think citizenship should not be an automatic thing, even though you are born here. Being born here should allow you to apply, but there should be specific tests and agreements that you have to undergo before being granted citizenship ( just like if you are an alien and you apply). Maybe there are no citizens until the age of voting ( like 21)

Tend to agree. Immigration will continue, but these will be ones that want to work...unlike some citizens that need some initiative.

They come here for the $$ they can get from our minimum wages and the freebie welfare benefits for them and their families. Free medical care, food stamps, and a host of other freebie things. Forget the freedom thing as a reason for their arriving here.

We have a number of so called illegals working with me. They are harder workers than americans, which is why they got hired. They somehow all get welfare, which is OUR fault as a country. They should get work permits, BUT no welfare or benefits of citizenship.

why dont they go all the way and require microchips be implanted into all citizens so the government has complete control over the whereabouts of all citizens. Where you go, how long you spend there, etc. why play around with cards that you may not carry around if you didnt want to. If its going to be a dictatorship of arrogant Obama-types, lets go all the way so we can realize exactly what we have and perhaps rebel against all of it

But: in order to get rid of welfare, we have to make sure those who come here to get welfare, do not outvote us. That's why we need some form of identification in order to vote. So that the Party of Loot can no longer vote repeatedly in the names of the dead and the moved-out.

where does mr. moore live on antarctica? WE the citizens of the usa already have id cards. it is the immigrants that come across the southern border regardless of country of origin that do not have id cards. drivers lic., ss card from birth, all cc cards, should i name more. what freedoms do we have left as citizens of the country, certainly not as much as those who cross the border illegally. when i consider ALL of the conversation about the immigration issue I am convinced that the powers to be that run the usa like things as they are and I do not see any changes for the better EVER taking place, except an increase in taxes so the government can increase the number of illegal recipients receiving a welfare check. I believe the die has been cast and we are just sliding down that slippery slope without any chance of reversing it like greenspan now saying to invest in gold after he advised nixon to outlaw owning the stuff. russia, cuba, south america here we come to join you.

Currently, we have long waits, arbitrary criteria including lottery systems and handpicking certain cultures to "invite" in. So we have a black market of illegals. In a Reason article I read, it is likely that Rand was staying in the US illegally before she married Frank O'Connor in 1929. It may have been the impetus to marry. When I think of anyone I come into contact with at the DMV-bureaucrat-I think of immigration bureaucrats and I wonder why you all are so good with them deciding who's a winner and a loser?

Not the case in just Arizona AJ.