Newt and Romney Turn the American Dream Into the Spartan Nightmare


A rare moment of agreement between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney during last week's GOP debate was on the DREAM Act. The bill, which has been languishing for years thanks to GOP opposition, would allow undocumented minors—brought to this country by their parents through no fault of their own—a path to citizenship if they pursued military service or a college degree. Both candidates endorsed the military service provision but rejected the college degree route.

And acting presumably on the theory that half an enchilada is better than no enchilada, Rep. David Riverva, R-Miami, yesterday sponsored the Adjusted Residency for Military Service (ARMS) Act that would do just that, giving anyone "willing to die for America" a chance to live in America.

Nothing, however, could be further from the American spirit than this shameless glorification of Spartan self-sacrifice.

Sparta was a martial republic in ancient Greece that gave full citizenship rights only to its soldiers who were groomed from childhood to live and die for the city-state. But the whole point of the American Constitution is not to cultivate citizen soldiers but to guarantee the life and liberty of individuals so that they can pursue their own happiness as they see fit. The highest civic duty of Americans, at least when the country is not facing an imminent threat, is to their own individual projects and dreams. They can certainly choose to devote themselves to some cause bigger than themselves, but the government has to stay neutral among those causes.

 By making military service a condition of citizenship, Newt and Mittens are signaling that an individual's life is worth more if he or she sacrifices it for the country. The contributions that individuals make to their families, neighbors and communities in the course of improving their own lives—by getting an education, taking up a job—are somehow less noble and morally worthy.

This is the Spartan mentality writ large. It is the elevation of the collectivist mindset over the spirit of individualism that has animated this country. And when the self-appointed defenders of the American Constitution are the ones doing such elevating, it might be time to give them citizenship rights to the lunar colony that one of them wants to build.

NEXT: Superstar 1st Amendment Lawyer Floyd Abrams on Why Free Speech is an All or Nothing Deal

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. War is the health of the state.

    1. Also, if illegals are outlawed, only eagles will be awed.

      1. If nuns are outlawed, only outlaws will have nuns.

        1. If outlaws are outlawed, only nuns will be lawyers.

        2. What about when things are inlawed?

          1. A mime is a terrible waste.

    2. Bi-curious? -Datebi*cO’Mis designed for bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment. It hopes that all members can make new friends and establish romantic relationships.

    3. Are you a bicurious having trouble finding honest and safe places to have bisexual chat ? Well you’ve come to the right place—datebi*cO’m—. Just join in for free!

    4. Are you a bicurious having trouble finding honest and safe places to have bisexual chat ? Well you’ve come to the right place—datebi*cO’m—. Just join in for free!

  2. The justification given for legalizing immigrants based on them getting a college degree is no less collectivist, though obviously less militaristic.

    I think that the half a loaf argument is perfectly acceptable here. I’m in favor of most ways to make immigration easier, and don’t have an objection to this.

    1. I’m in favor of most ways to make immigration easier, and don’t have an objection to this.

      Not clear how this makes immigration easier, which I think is your implication.

      1. Compared to the status quo, it would give more people citizenship and legalize illegals. I’m in favor of that.

        Anything that reduces the onerous nature of our immigration and naturalization requirements, I’m for.

        1. Not to put words in your mouth, but I live in a border state where activists literally seem to think that “onerous” is anything other than anyone crossing the border whenever and wherever they want without going through any channels whatsoever.
          Well, anyone of THEIR ethnic group, anyway.

          I’m all for this the day that I get total immunity from all ID requirements, regulations, and taxes. Also, Mexico needs to apply the same lack of rules to their own borders that they want on ours. Fair enough?

      2. There was a similar military service –> citizenship program back in the day. The soldiers I knew considered a year in combat in Vietnam easier than dealing with the INS.

    2. In a sense any requirement for citizenship is collectivist. We are asking, what can you do for us?

      1. ^^THIS^^

        But only insomuchas we are offering services and protections to citizens only in exchange for whatever they did to earn their citizenship.

        1. isn’t citizenship always a tradeoff of sorts? Try walking into any other country demanding some perceived rights and see how far you get. Absent a common culture, language, and borders, you don’t have a nation, you have a theme park.

          Regardless of one’s views on the military, someone willing to serve gets citizenship in my book. I’m far less inclined to give kids of illegals in-state tuition, not that many of them would actually be paying the tuition themselves. Schools look for residency, not immigration status. I worked my way through college; why do we pretend that asking anyone to do this today is some sort of violation?

          1. Wareagle,

            The problem is, as I see it, that this creates a way for the military industrial complex to find fresh meat for the grinder with promises of streets paved with gold.

            1. the military remains a volunteer outfit. In my estimation, it gives away too much to those whom it attracts – 20 years of service should not buy you 40+ years of retirement checks. Regardless, I have no quarrel for citizenship given to those who serve. You are right in that it is not perfect but it’s a govt agency. Perfect is never part of the equation.

              Perhaps a better plan would be only sending our troops to battle when our interests are threatened and, even then, only doing so after following the Constitutionally mandated steps. In today’s climate, that either makes me soft on terror or a radical who thinks not even govt is above the law.

          2. isn’t citizenship always a tradeoff of sorts?

            No it isnt. What did I trade for my citizenship? Nothing. I got it because I was born here.

            1. and in return, you are subject to the laws of the land. You don’t get a free ride to do anything you want with no consequences.

              1. Non-citizens are also subject to the law of the land.

                WTF does that have to do with anything?

                I traded NOTHING to get my citizenship. No process, no height requirements, not tradeoffs.

                1. whatever. Illegals stay under the radar, avoiding the laws of the land. And you assuming the notion of “trading” to mean downward; the country is full of people who came from shit holes and became citizens. They probably our citizenship requirements as trading up.

                  1. And you assuming the notion of “trading” to mean downward

                    No, I mean it as it means in English…a voluntary exchange.

                  2. Illegals stay under the radar, avoiding the laws of the land.

                    They are still subject to the law of the land. And I said nothing about illegals, I said non-citizens.

                    English isnt your first language, is it?

                    1. “English isnt your first language, is it?”

                      Can you see it?

                  3. robc is right on this one, I think. Just because they try to avoid the police doesn’t mean they aren’t subject to the laws. It just means they try harder than we do not to get caught, which is an entirely separate thing. I could do that too, if I wanted to.

                    1. “Non-citizens are also subject to the law of the land.”

                      Get in a car accident with some illegals in a border state and see how subject they are to the laws of the land when it’s time to pay up. But we’re not supposed to say that I guess.

      2. Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
        With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
        Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
        A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
        Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
        Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
        Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
        The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
        “Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
        With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
        Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
        The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
        Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
        I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

        1. Who wrote this? It’s not a law, just someone’s vision. Send your huddled masses back. Give ME your clever, your ambitious, your hard working, yearning to get rich.

  3. On a related note . . .

    Surprise! Progressive presidents use military metaphors in order to train citizens in to acting like good soldiers by doing what they’re told, and allowing unfettered top-down control in which it is expected that the executive should have unilateral power.

    Obama, an unfettered executive wielding a swollen state, began and ended his address by celebrating the armed forces. They are not “consumed with personal ambition,” they “work together” and “focus on the mission at hand” and do not “obsess over their differences.” Americans should emulate troops “marching into battle,” who “rise or fall as one unit.”

    Well. The armed services’ ethos, although noble, is not a template for civilian society, unless the aspiration is to extinguish politics. People marching in serried ranks, fused into a solid mass by the heat of martial ardor, proceeding in lock step, shoulder to shoulder, obedient to orders from a commanding officer ? this is a recurring dream of progressives eager to dispense with tiresome persuasion and untidy dissension in a free, tumultuous society.

    Progressive presidents use martial language as a way of encouraging Americans to confuse civilian politics with military exertions, thereby circumventing an impediment to progressive aspirations ? the Constitution and the patience it demands.

    Who the fuck knew?

    1. You don’t write very good.

    2. But I would enjoy to read your news letter.

    3. “consumed with personal ambition,”

      Don’t tell that to the officers. My father a career Marine and Vietnam vet saw an entire company wiped out because the commanding officer wanted to win a Silver Star. BTW, he did win it, posthumously.

  4. America is Sparta. Huh.

    No, that’s not a stretch at all!

    1. Hitler once praised Sparta as the ‘first National Socialist State’.

      That movie 300 was so gay.

      1. Epic Gay- no homo.

        My problem, though, wasn’t the “gay” as in homosexual, but the “gay” as in 80’s slang for “stupid”.

      2. Well, they were. So that’s fitting. Though they really should have had a hair brushing scene.

        It’s funny to see how Sparta went from being reviled in our culture (from the Hitler thing to comparing the Russians to them during the Cold War) to suddenly being pop culture gold nowadays.

  5. War made the State, and the State made war.

    1. Did WAR make the state, or did TRADE make the state?

      Evidence for Trade making the state exists- seeing as how the earliest forms of writing detail trade and not militart conquest.

      1. I like this new word “militart”. I think I’ll keep it.

        1. As in “One of us is going to have to take one for the team and distract the militards at the front gate so the rest of us can get to the militarts at the back of the compound.Any volunteers?”

      2. Hmmm. Let me gambol on that a while.

      3. Trade created cities. The state just came along for the ride.

        Actually, I think most pop-anthro stories on the rise of the state are bunk. The state is just one end of a continuum that goes from parent, to chief, to king. Coercion didn’t magically appear with the city, it was there all along.

        1. Yes, the state arose from the need to preside over trade disputes- protect from fraud. This is the same way as a kids going before their parents, etc.

          Well said.

          1. Hierarchy is not limited to developed societies, or humans, or even to primates. So yeah, I’d say we should be careful speaking of when The State came along. It’s another name for something that’s been there since we walked on four paws, and maybe before.

  6. And when the self-appointed defenders of the American Constitution are the ones doing such elevating, it might be time to give them citizenship rights to the lunar colony that one of them wants to build.

    I suggest we keep them as far as we fucking can away from the Moon, since it’s our best hope right now for a civil society outside the strictures of traditional governments.

    On a somewhat related note, I’ve been seeing a bunch of pundits writing brief missives on how hard it is to mine the moon, (there’s one in Foreign Policy, and at least two others I read). All are extremely short on detail, written by non-engineers, and seem aimed more at beating up crazy Newt. If Obama said “we’re goin’ Moon-minin'” tomorrow these folks would be talking about the immense riches on our natural satellite.

    Anyway, it’s funny to read political scientists and English majors (sorry, Mom) expounding on the difficulties of extracting wealth from the Lunar regolith, as if valuable material just jumps out of the Earth for us here. One even cited, as a “fair counterpoint ” to his own argument that the moon has large amounts of titanium as a possible justification for mining it but talked about the difficulty extracting it. Well, duh, you just showed you own ignorance. Why? Because titanium is the 9th most abundant element in the earth’s crust. The difficulty on earth is not in mining it, but refining it. Titanium is close to the bottom of the list of valuable minerals on the moon that would justify a mining operation there.
    The natural resources that make the moon useful are elements that are found there that are not here on earth for various reasons; unlimited vacuum which is very useful for refining and other chemical operations; near absolute zero cold sinks and very hot hot sinks from shady and sunny areas; reduced gravitation (making many energy requirements less for pumping, lifting, etc.) and others.

    These are engineering problems that can be solved. Once we escape the deep part of earth’s gravity well, the possibilities open up immensely.

    1. But you forget the moon-creepers.

      1. O Woe! I am undone!

        1. You laugh now, but just wait until they’re smashing your moon diamonds. We need to deal with the issue of moon-creepers before we can begin to consider mining in the moon.

          And you know what, I still sound like less of a dick that Gingrich.

          1. Has anyone made a Lunar mod for Minecraft? That would be cool.

              1. Sounds like a neat plot. How is the movie overall?

                1. MST3K spoofed it, db. In other words… it was a pile of shit.

  7. They’ll make great walking ‘mine detectors’. Why spend money on a metal detector and put one of our native born boys at risk?

    1. Because an accident of geography is the most important determining factor in the worth of one’s life!

  8. Newt and Romney also both support national id cards.

    1. You know what Heinlein said about ID cards.

      1. Did the bugs have them?

  9. Nothing, however, could be further from the American spirit than this shameless glorification of Spartan self-sacrifice.

    Richard Henry Lee would disagree with you Ms. Dalmia, and as much as I agree with your sentiment I cannot deny that citizenship par le sang vers? (through spilled blood) has been a long standing American tradition. One need only study the examples of Marquis Lafayette, Tadeusz Ko?ciuszko, Casimir Pulaski, and (our highest ranked openly Gay general), Baron von Stuben to know that military service as a path to citizenship has always been a part of the American “spirit”.

    Methinks you need to spend more time studying the American Revolution part of your History textbook, Ms. Dalmia.

      1. Why would he be an asshole for that?

        If some dude named me executor I’d probably do the same thing. That’s a lot of work man, for dead dude.

        1. You do get a cut as an executor’s commission.

          1. In that case, it depends on the size of the cut in relation to the amount of work it requires.

            Still, not reason to call someone an asshole.

        2. A dead dude who saved your ass in the revolution?

          And I seriously doubt that TJ would have refused were it not for the bit about the slaves.

          TJ refused to manumit his slaves even on his death bed. Grade A asshole, in addition to his Louisiana Purchase foibles and his persecution of Aaron Burr.

  10. It would make more sense just to grant citizenship to anybody without a criminal record who (a) asked for it; (b) agreed to renounce any other citizenship; and (c) agreed never to renounce their USA citizenship.

    Many illegal immigrants I have encountered have no interest in acquiring American citizenship or staying here permanently. If the problem that supposedly needs to be addressed is that foreigners are taking American jobs, a more effective deterrent would probably be to force American citizenship on foreign nationals caught working illegally within the United States.

    1. it’s not “taking American jobs”. If anything, we can thank fellow Americans for that. They pay a captive population below-market value to the detriment of low-skilled natives. It’s the drain on resources. When the illegal’s wife has a baby, you think he writes a check? If the issue is improving the guest worker program, that is another matter.

      1. When a poor American citizen’s wife has a baby, he’s also not writing a check. The observation that poor people are poor really does not tell us much about immigration issues, despite what the xenophobes among us would have us think. Nevertheless, if the consequence of being here illegally was that you had to stay here, that would be a much greater deterrent to a poor Mexican than the current consequence of being sent back home.

        1. right, xenophobes. That’s probably it. Mexicans come here because home sucks. No one disputes that; perhaps someone should insist that Mexico gets its shit together instead of encouraging its least skilled and least educated to come here. That poor American, by teh way, has likely paid something to someone along the way. A system for legal immigration exists and millions managed to navigate it. Why do you think Latinos are incapable of doing what Asians, Europeans, Indians, and Africans have done?

          1. “A system for legal immigration exists and millions managed to navigate it. Why do you think Latinos are incapable of doing what Asians, Europeans, Indians, and Africans have done?”

            You clearly have very little knowledge about the legal process works.


            Do you really think that if there was a legal avenue for poor Mexican migrants they would choose paying a coyote and risk their lives in the desert?

            1. so no one south of the border has EVER made it through the system. That’s gotta be a shock to the millions of Latinos who became citizens. If the problem is systemic, then address the system. My beef with Thom was the knee-jerk “xenophobe” bullshit directed toward anyone who thinks an orderly process beats a free for all.

              Anyway, the poor migrant comes here for money and the middle-class to rich American is happy to take advantage of him at wages that undercut what legal labor would expect. The migrant’s reasoning is pretty simple: money means food means his family survives; I get that. On some level, I respect the risk he’s willing to take. He is far less of a problem than the pol in the Brooks Brother suit using him as a campaign prop.

              1. How is “I want to be a US citizen? Okay!” not an orderly process?

                1. sorry..the state retains the right to say no to the request. We’re a country, not a theme park. A bit more than being tall enough to get on teh ride is required for becoming a citizen.

                  1. Bullshit.

                    The easiest way to become a citizen now is to be born here. Its how I did it. The state cant stay no in that case.

                    There isnt even a minimum height requirement.

                    Why is it any of the government’s business who lives here? And living here seems to be a pretty good basis for citizenship, IMO.

                    State citizenship is granted to all residents, for example.

                    1. states do not have citizenship, they have residency and no, it is NOT granted just by being there. It requires a few things like getting that state’s driver’s license, tags for your car, etc. Being born here is a hollow argument; the illegal shouldn’t be here in teh first place.

                      It becomes govt’s business – or the people’s business – when tax money is involved. A better system would account for non-citizen workers more efficiently in terms of taxes and benefits.

                    2. states do not have citizenship

                      The Supreme Court thinks you are a moron. Otherwise, they have wasted a lot of time distinguishing between the two. And off-handedly referring to people as citizens of states.

                      they have residency and no, it is NOT granted just by being there. It requires a few things like getting that state’s driver’s license, tags for your car, etc.

                      Not surprisingly, you are wrong again. Using my state as an example:

                      A Kentucky resident is statutorily defined as: [i] a Kentucky domiciliary, or [ii] a non-domiciliary who maintains a place of abode in Kentucky and spends in the aggregate more than 183 days in Kentucky.

                      So, basically, being here is all that is required.

                  2. What would be wrong with living in a theme park?

              2. The problem isnt that it isnt possible, it is that the numbers are capped. End the country quota system and you can keep the current process (well, I dont really favor that, but without the quota, it isnt the worst thing).

                1. maybe teh country quota system serves a purpose, like a backdoor means of forcing countries to create conditions where their poeple want to stay. Every time there is a mass exodus from somewhere else, is it out job to leave the light on?

                  1. Yes. Yes, it is.

                    1. why is it? No, we should no more be the global welcome mat for someone who does no more than ask for it than we should be the global 9-1-1 force every time some dictator gets a little crazy.

                      Sorry; everyone cannot live here. And over time, we have done a piss poor job regarding assimilation. Folks who came here way back when moved in with family, were expected to get jobs, learn the language, and become part of society with no expectation of a free lunch. Not so much today.

                    2. We should be the global welcome mat, but that is what free people do.

                      If someone can get here and buy or rent property, then it is NO ONES, not yours, not mine, not the governments business to say no, or yes, to them.

                      That is what freedom means.

                    3. Again, robc is correct. You keep using collectivist terms like “we”. Who, you and the mouse in your pocket? I certainly didn’t agree to it, and I find it strange that as a limited gov’t man you think it’s your right to tell me whom I may or may not conduct voluntary transactions with in housing and employment.

                      On a sentimental level I agree with robc that yes, we should be the welcome mat of the world. It’s ridiculous to jump from that to “but EVERYONE will live here!” No, they won’t. Maybe a larger number than do now, but once the low-wage jobs are gone, they won’t have the incentive. Plus everybody in Europe and Japan is probably staying put.

                      Anyway sentimentality of what America “should” stand for aside, you can look at it strictly as a freedom of contract issue. No one should have any say over who I conduct my business with, whether it’s renting a home, offering employment, etc.

                    4. I dont want to continue our foreclosure argument, I think we ended up arguing based on technicalities, but there is one thing you said wrong, that is very important, because the Supreme Court makes the same mistake in ED cases.

                      Fair Market Value cannot be determined by an outside source. Only a buyer and seller can determine FMV. So the price at auction is ALWAYS FMV.

                      Even if you buy it for $100 today and turn around and sell it for $100k tomorrow. Today the FMV is $100. Tomorrow the FMV is $100,000.

                      Arbitrage FTW.

                    5. An open auction, anyway. If the auction is closed, that is different.

                    6. Ok, well, you can use whatever terminology you want to, but the people who prepare foreclosure bids, and the bidders at auctions, do not use the terminology that way. FMV as a theory may always be whatever is being paid at that moment, but FMV as a concrete construct is used in bids all the time where the purchase is said to be “less than FMV”.

                      When preparing FMV bids, the usual thing is to “start at FMV and bid up to TD (total debt).”

                      So the people making the foreclosure bids don’t use your definition of it, the trustees conducting the auction don’t use your definition of it, the courts that file the title work after the sale don’t use your definition of it, and the other bidders at the auction don’t use your definition of it.

                      All that being said, I’m going to stick with the usage that most people talking about this subject would understand, instead of going off onto some kind of tangent about how the definition is all wrong.

                    7. As I said, the Supremes also use the wrong definition of FMV.

                      But they (and apparently everyone in your industry) are using the term wrong. Thats fine when speaking amongst yourselves, but when speaking to those outside, you should use it correctly instead of as jargon.

                      And since I brought it up in the other thread….

                    8. I don’t think you can just declare that the people who use that term the majority of the time, including the courts are “wrong” because it doesn’t jive with what you think the definition should be. I’ve never had a problem using the term with people outside this industry before until yesterday when talking to you. You are literally the first person in 9 years that I’ve worked in default management that has disputed the use of that term. So I actually think I’m on solid ground here.

                    9. Ask an economist. And maybe not any economist, might need to ask an Austrian (maybe Chicago school). Or Adam Smith.

                      Im not one, but it isnt my definition, its the way reality works. It is impossible for anyone but a buyer and seller to define the value of a product.

                      Its kind of fundamental econ 1001, the value is where the supply and demand curves meet. And the market is where this is determined experimentally.

                      The problem with that is, it doesnt work for governments. Taxing bureaus, courts, eminent domain councils, etc, etc need some “value” to work with. Its artificial, arbitrary, and in some cases, insane.

                    10. This goes back to the fundamental problem with socialism: Its a subset of the Economic Calculation Problem.

                    11. Ask an economist. And maybe not any economist, might need to ask an Austrian (maybe Chicago school).

                      Well gee, so to back up your claim you want me to ask anyone…from the small specific sub-group that came up with the definition you’re using to begin with.

                    12. Do you live in a house or apartment? Do you have a door to your domicile? Do you have a fenced yard with a gate? Do you have a lock on your door? Do you believe in property rights?
                      Do you allow anyone who wishes to enter “your” premises at their pleasure?

                    13. So really squirrels, what is the reason for the ridiculously limited indenting? I have no clue who Fonix was replying to.

                      Which is partly Fonix’s fault for not taking the limited indention into play, but I mostly blame the squirrels.

                    14. Do you live in a house or apartment? Do you have a door to your domicile? Do you have a fenced yard with a gate? Do you have a lock on your door? Do you believe in property rights?
                      Do you allow anyone who wishes to enter “your” premises at their pleasure?

                      That is an excellent argument for getting rid of government interference in immigration, making all land private property, and then letting each landowner decide whether or not to let individuals from other countries access to their property for the purposes of employment or socializing or whatever.

          2. No. Mexicans primarily come here to earn money to send back home and save for their future. Then most of them move back home. They don’t think their home “sucks”, they’re just looking for opportunity wherever it may be. Given the statements you’ve made in these comments it’s pretty clear you haven’t interacted much with Mexican immigrants. If you did you would discover that many, if not most, of them are looking forward to returning home someday. You may think their country sucks, but they generally do not.

            1. They may say that, but it is likely tied to nationalistic pride, not some objective belief about the value of the country they left versus the country they migrated to.

              Humans have a great ability to lie to themselves and give themselves logical reasons for doing things that as illogical.

              For instance, people who love their homes and country, don’t generally prefer to replace that with the increased risk to their health and well being by dealing with coyotes, death in the desert, arrest, jail, and deportation for a job.

              Actions almost always speak much louder than words….

              1. Americans that live in states with crappy government that fuck everything up are notorious for migrating to freer states with non intrusive governments and almost immediately pushing for the “good” intrusions that existed in their former state.

                The cult of unlimited immigration irrationally believes that a similar phenomenon does not exist when foreign migrants move to the US.

              2. Nevertheless, they tend not to pursue citizenship, and, after earning enough to return…they tend to return.

    2. You don’t need to require them to promise to never renounce US citizenship. That would require creating a separate class of US citizen and that’s not a good idea, nor workable.
      The current renunciation process requires that one pay something like 10 years’ worth of post-renunciation taxes, so it’s pretty prohibitive to renounce anyway. As ridiculous a policy as it is, it’s already in place and would serve pretty well as your hurdle to prevent renunciation.

      1. You are correct, and although I’d like Americans to be able to renounce the citizenship that was forced on them at birth without financial penalty, as long as the penalty is so extreme it would be fine not to require new citizens to make such promises.

        American citizenship is kind of a double-edged sword. Difficult to acquire and even more burdensome to get rid of.

      2. Freshen up on your Spooner dude.

    1. No it didnt.

      Unless it takes 2 alabamans to do the work of 1 mexican.

      Which, yeah, might be possible.

      1. Damn you joke handle!!!!

    2. Even if the policy did create the intended result, this kind of thinking still just represents the typical liberal mindset that views policy as a bunch of levers attempting to move various dials, purposely ignoring the human cost.

    3. Yep, that’s a very liberal progressive argument you’ve got going on there, Slappy. Make the world better through gov’t intrusion into the market! I didn’t know fascists were pro-union.

    4. What the article fails to mention is that the immigration law (not “reform”) is increasing unemployment among non-Alabaman non-citizens, slightly increasing employment among Alabama residents, and leaving a lot of produce rotting because a big chunk of the labor supply has been coercively forced out of the marketplace.

      So, everyone is worse off other than a few previously unemployed Alabamans.

      1. You got a rigorous account of “a lot of produce rotting” to back that claim up?

        Factory farms that had it good under the old regime where they could pay sub-minimum wage and mistreat workers with no fear of reprisal, have EVERY reason to overstate the impact of the new law. So do open borders ideologues like Ms Dalmia…. it’s a match made in heaven. Or hell, if you’re on the side of the truth.

    5. While I support the immigration law, there are serious causation vs correlation issues with that analysis. They fail to show that the immigration reform is responsible for the gains in employment.

  11. Didn’t they do this with the Irish in the American Civil War? They came off the boat and either joined or were drafted into the Union Army. I recall some quote from some historian remarking how these recent immigrants, although not Americans, were more American than those they fought. Something like that.

  12. Never Forget
    Slick Rick.

  13. While I dislike the statist logic behind the “Spartans only” immigration addendum, it’s still a step in the right direction — one more way that someone who wants to get a better life than is available in their home country can come here legally.

  14. Just another good reason to implement

    The FairTax dot org

  15. I don’t see the issue here… if you had charitable money and the desire to fund one person’s life and out of the two applicants one has shown a willingness to sacrifice of themselves towards your cause(s), what would you choose?

    Then to take that natural choice with an obvious answer and translate that into the beginning of some Sparta, or ever growing military-industrial complex, or whatever, is simply illogical.

    And really, the idea that we don’t or shouldn’t value some life higher than others is an ideal which no one believes in based upon their actions.

    Even most people here would agree that when say a surgeon dies, we are left with less of a society, than when the rapist does.

    1. Thats fine if WE do it, but the government shouldnt be.

  16. Mitt Romney in 1994 “The Blind Trust Is An Age Old Ruse.”

    Romney Explains Foreclosure Investments: They ‘were in a blind trust’

  17. “By making military service a condition of citizenship,”

    It is telling how implacably dishonest you are about this issue. The proposed bill does not “make military service a condition of citizenship.” It make military service merely one possible means ot qualifying for citizenship.

    You have a terrible and consistent history of lying about this issue.

    1. Anyone who wants compulsory service of ANY kind, should do the honorable thing and renounce their citizenship.

      Or, at the very outside, be forbidden to hold public office.

      1. And if Fed Dog was talking about compulsory service, that would be a great dig.

        There’s nothing compulsory about it. Trading service for something of value that you do not currently have is hardly compulsory.

        1. exactly. there was a group in cali a ways back that was offering “compromised” (iow poor drug addicted, etc.) women a nice payment if they went and got a hysterectomy.

          and of course the liberal idiots all made their forced sterilization references, etc. and how inhuman it was and bla bla

          same illogic.

          i, like ron paul, and unlike many here, am not an open borders illegal immigration is a-ok with me type of person

          but i think that people who volunteer for military service and serve honorably have demonstrated why they should be considered for citizenship and i think it’s a great idea.

          those lucky enough to be born here, etc. don’t have to do ANYTHING to be recognized as citizens. but for those who apply (iow it’s a privilege, not a right for those not automatically recognized as citizens), demonstrating a willingness to serve, and actually serving in the military is a great way to go in order to get citizenship

        2. I read what Fed Dog said, and I wasn’t ragging on him… I was ragging on those who *want* compulsory service.

    2. You have a terrible and consistent history of lying about this issue.


      Dalmia for Balko was a terrible trade.

      1. yea, it’s like some kind of perverted backwards ass moneyball formula or something.

        balko was teh awesome ™

      2. this reminds me of the liberals claim that there was a BAN on fetal stem cell research when all that was in effect was a ban on FEDERAL funding for same, or the classic reason article title that claimed a man got so many years for having some pot, and you read the article and it was clear cut grow-op case (iow manufacture for sale, not mere possession).

        dishonesty for a good cause is still dishonesty.

        and it instantly makes MEGO and discount whatever else the person has to say because they have already demonstrated that for them rhetoric trumps truth

  18. Edward Gibbon commenting on the Roman Republic and subsequent Empire observed “The army is the only order of men sufficiently united to concur in the same sentiments, and powerful enough to impose them on their fellow citizens.But the temper of soldiers, habituated at once to violence and slavery, renders them very unfit guardians of a legal or even civil constitution.” The average citizen and voter in this country is constitutionally ignorant to a degree that should and does terrify many of us that come here. And with good reason as the politicians they elect are unavoidably a reflection of this reality. That having been said I think in the eventuality of a rebellion or popular revolution against leviathan,most volunteer soldiers(I hope and pray)would refuse to fire on their fellow Americans and even join in the cause. Fast tracking citizenship through military service would set a dangerous precedent by allowing the state to raise a loyal and virtually unlimited standing army while eliminating the tempering effect of shared values and culture.

    1. They already fast track citizenship for military volunteers from other countries.

  19. Reason, I am disappointed no Starship Troopers reference on this one.

  20. well, if i HAD to picture either newt or romney bare chested, and screaming “this … is… SPARTA” i’d go with romney.

    although newt could be kewl in a chris farley’s in a chippendale routine kind of way

  21. YYYYou can’t miss this. —casualmingle dot ‘c o’m— is a wonderful place for seeking causal encounters and short term relationship, explore the excitement and your lost passion in your life. You will never regret for dating with sexy beauties/guys in your area. Life is short, have fun.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.