Open letter to Homeland Security

[Chris Parker 11]

Again, trying to stay away from the illegal immigration debate and while there are people from certain circumstances who will stop at nothing to secure employment, and illegal identification aka false ID is a major problem pertaining to unauth'd work, many employers make it easy to get employment without any of the documents generally needed. My husband's employer never had him fill out an I-9, never asked to see his SS card, or anything - he wrote down his ITIN and they didn't blink twice (to anyone who's done a basic google search, an ITIN will always start w/ a 9 so it's obviously when it is not an SSN).

This is getting off-topic, somebody know how & where to move this?

It is the employer's problem if they didn't ask for an I-9---a risk of penalties for the employer if the person turns out to be not authorized and ICE comes to enforce the penalties.

A SSN card actually is not required to be shown to properly complete Form I-9 and to work, as you could show just a List A document (like the EAD) and fulfill all the I-9 document verification requirements in one step. The employer is not required to photocopy and retain the documents submitted either, though many do under a voluntary measure which the law authorizes. The employer would get a tax number on the signed W-4 withholding certification to use for tax reporting, and that form only asks you to certify what your number is, not to also produce a SSN card proving it belongs to you. And there is a lawsuit going on right now against DHS trying to use SSN no-match notices as an enforcement tool that the employer has constructive knowledge the employee is not authorized if the no-match isn't resolved...

The SSA visa category page I gave pertains to SSA acceptance of the I-94 status as proof of employment authorization for SSN card applications. My point was that K1/K2/K3/K4's are actually authorized to work incident to status under the 8 CFR 274a.12 regulations, except by SSA's policy document which I linked, SSA won't accept I-94's with K2/K3/K4 (but will accept K1) as acceptable proof of that employment authorization. Hence the reason I think someone could prevail in a lawsuit against SSA and/or DHS (not allowing a legally authorized worker to get an SSN and/or to fulfill I-9 verification requirements and work).

PS: Some of the most liberals out there would even argue than an SSN number is not required to work, which might be technically true (the SSN is technically a voluntary benefit, though paying taxes is not voluntary), but you're in a very big uphill battle with the IRS and your employer and most of the government if you want to try fighting that one (I recall having a big argument with the Commissioner of Jurors on this one, we ultimately agreed I dont need to give them my SSN when reporting for jury duty if I'm not going to be paid by the court for my service [which I wasnt eligible for anyway], and I left the question blank on the summons returned even though they said it was required but the jury duty law did not).

Edited September 13, 2007 by Chris Parker

[rebeccajo 14]

I love these threads where someone insists the government should be 'accountable' to us when it comes to immigration.

It was never lost on me that I was asking my government for the PRIVILEGE to bring a foreign-born person into this country to live. A privilege - not a right. Granted, I had paid a fee and I was entitled to some level of customer service, but it was also not lost on me that the answer to my petitions did not necessarily have to be the answer I wanted. The fees are generated to push the papers to grant the privilege.

Yes the system is broken. Yes it should be better. But the government is hardly 'accountable' to you.

I disagree as well. Supposedly our wonderful American democracy is the "government of the people", and our elected officials and governmental bodies are there to serve their constituents? We do not live under a dictatorship (although that may be up for debate).

Yes, our borders are potentially dangerous, which is why it makes no sense that the USCIS isn't 1,000 times more efficient than it is. And it is so ironic to me - with all the gripes about illegal immigration - we can't come up with a better process to reward our legal immigrants?

Amen to that, sister. If my wife were posting on here she'd tell you that she considers it her RIGHT to be able to marry whoever she wants and does not consider it a priviledge. Remember the constitution was drafted to make us free from government oppression and what they are doing or not-doing with the immigration process is a form of oppression. My wife and I are being forced to live off her wage by the government's ineptitude which is delaying our plans to buy a house and start a family because we can't afford to do either. Yes, the government is correct to check the backgrounds of those entering the country because it is THEIR responsibility to make us all safe but how seriously do they take that responsibility when it takes years in some cases to clear people through the name check and there is a huge border to the south that to all intents and purposes is wide open for anyone to cross without permission?

Lest either of you think I'm 'hard-hearted', I'd urge you to take a look at my timeline. You will then realize that I do have sympathy for what you are going through. But you will also see my husband and I waited FAR longer than either of you have so far, and probably far longer than either of you will potentially wait (since our wait fell into a category of 1% or so of petitioners).

BUT, I hate to break it to you that the US constitution doesn't give us the right to live our lives in maximum comfort and to our convenience.....and in my opinion that is the point you are missing. The 'oppression' it protects us from is tyranny and ruthless aggression by our leaders -- waiting a while for an employment document or a greencard is hardly either.

I agree that it should not take ages and ages to check someone's background. But I don't agree with that from the standpoint of making it easy for me to go to work, buy a home, or start a family. It is ridiculous that we are held up on these things - but immigration was a CHOICE we made as international couples. As with most things that are unusual or out-of-the-norm, there is aggravation and inconvenience. US Immigration laws are part of US Federal Code and can be changed - poof - with the stroke of a pen. A negative public tide can cause your elected officials to sway even further from the protections you seek and the things you are demanding. If you consider what you are going through 'oppressive' I urge you to follow any pending changes that will be proposed in the future regarding immigration, because what has been on the table is potentially for more oppressive than what you are presently experiencing.

I've been where you are. I understand. I agree the system is broken and needs improvement. I however also believe they are making headway in that regard. I've been around the system longer than either of you and I can vouch for the fact that things are FAR FASTER than they used to be. But - they aren't doing these things faster to please us! They are doing it for National Security! Do not confuse what you consider your 'rights' with the goal of Homeland Security. The two are NOT one and the same.

I'm not making excuses for them. But I am suggesting you step back and take a look at what you are 'demanding'. The constitution doesn't give you or your wife the right to demand such things at all. If you don't believe me, take it up with any US History professor at any university. We are asking the government for a PRIVILEGE.

They have ZERO accountability to us. This isn't McDonald's where you drive-thru and have it your way. It just isn't.

Edited September 13, 2007 by rebeccajo

[igomo 0]

I agree with you that his situation is not unusual and that we all have our struggles with this. His are no different than mine or anyone else's.

But you keep mentioning the US Constitution. There's nothing in the constitution about the right to vote and many other rights USC have today. The constitution is only ONE thing that gives people rights. There are amendments to the constitution as well as federal/state/local laws that can grant people rights.

And according to my lawyer, the spouse of a USC has the right to become a permanent resident as long as its not fraudulent.

Keep in mind that Homeland Security is funded by the people. They are working FOR the people.

BUT, I hate to break it to you that the US constitution doesn't give us the right to live our lives in maximum comfort and to our convenience.....and in my opinion that is the point you are missing. The 'oppression' it protects us from is tyranny and ruthless aggression by our leaders -- waiting a while for an employment document or a greencard is hardly either.

I agree that it should not take ages and ages to check someone's background. But I don't agree with that from the standpoint of making it easy for me to go to work, buy a home, or start a family. It is ridiculous that we are held up on these things - but immigration was a CHOICE we made as international couples. As with most things that are unusual or out-of-the-norm, there is aggravation and inconvenience. US Immigration laws are part of US Federal Code and can be changed - poof - with the stroke of a pen. A negative public tide can cause your elected officials to sway even further from the protections you seek and the things you are demanding. If you consider what you are going through 'oppressive' I urge you to follow any pending changes that will be proposed in the future regarding immigration, because what has been on the table is potentially for more oppressive than what you are presently experiencing.

I've been where you are. I understand. I agree the system is broken and needs improvement. I however also believe they are making headway in that regard. I've been around the system longer than either of you and I can vouch for the fact that things are FAR FASTER than they used to be. But - they aren't doing these things faster to please us! They are doing it for National Security! Do not confuse what you consider your 'rights' with the goal of Homeland Security. The two are NOT one and the same.

I'm not making excuses for them. But I am suggesting you step back and take a look at what you are 'demanding'. The constitution doesn't give you or your wife the right to demand such things at all. If you don't believe me, take it up with any US History professor at any university. We are asking the government for a PRIVILEGE.

They have ZERO accountability to us. This isn't McDonald's where you drive-thru and have it your way. It just isn't.

Edited September 14, 2007 by igomo

[rebeccajo 14]

I mention the Constitution because there's a difference between what is guaranteed to us under it and the Bill of Rights vs. codified law - which can be changed quite easily. It's not so easy to monkey with the Constitution.

Homeland Security IS working for the people. For the security of the American public. I've reiterated it many times on here only because our adjudicating officer said it to me about a dozen times or so during our journey - National Security.

It just so happens that the poor schmucks traversing the system are paying the fees so the government can process petitions FOR US, rather than sucking something else off the US taxpayer. After all, most of America could care less if one more immigrant arrives here.

I probably sound like I've been sucking lemons all day long and that I don't care about what any of you are going through. Not true. I've been there myself. I was angry, upset, annoyed, frustrated - pick an adjective and I was there many different times during our processing. But I never for one minute felt like my government OWED my husband a greencard simply because I had paid a petition fee. I was damn sure hoping they would get the job done and I was worried out of my mind some days - especially when his EAD was about to run out before his new one arrived.

But I didn't think we were guaranteed the result we wanted. It's just not my way to look at things in that manner.

I agree with you that his situation is not unusual and that we all have our struggles with this. His are no different than mine or anyone else's.

But you keep mentioning the US Constitution. There's nothing in the constitution about the right to vote and many other rights USC have today. The constitution is only ONE thing that gives people rights. There are amendments to the constitution as well as federal/state/local laws that can grant people rights.

And according to my lawyer, the spouse of a USC has the right to become a permanent resident as long as its not fraudulent.

Keep in mind that Homeland Security is funded by the people. They are working FOR the people.

BUT, I hate to break it to you that the US constitution doesn't give us the right to live our lives in maximum comfort and to our convenience.....and in my opinion that is the point you are missing. The 'oppression' it protects us from is tyranny and ruthless aggression by our leaders -- waiting a while for an employment document or a greencard is hardly either.

I agree that it should not take ages and ages to check someone's background. But I don't agree with that from the standpoint of making it easy for me to go to work, buy a home, or start a family. It is ridiculous that we are held up on these things - but immigration was a CHOICE we made as international couples. As with most things that are unusual or out-of-the-norm, there is aggravation and inconvenience. US Immigration laws are part of US Federal Code and can be changed - poof - with the stroke of a pen. A negative public tide can cause your elected officials to sway even further from the protections you seek and the things you are demanding. If you consider what you are going through 'oppressive' I urge you to follow any pending changes that will be proposed in the future regarding immigration, because what has been on the table is potentially for more oppressive than what you are presently experiencing.

I've been where you are. I understand. I agree the system is broken and needs improvement. I however also believe they are making headway in that regard. I've been around the system longer than either of you and I can vouch for the fact that things are FAR FASTER than they used to be. But - they aren't doing these things faster to please us! They are doing it for National Security! Do not confuse what you consider your 'rights' with the goal of Homeland Security. The two are NOT one and the same.

I'm not making excuses for them. But I am suggesting you step back and take a look at what you are 'demanding'. The constitution doesn't give you or your wife the right to demand such things at all. If you don't believe me, take it up with any US History professor at any university. We are asking the government for a PRIVILEGE.

They have ZERO accountability to us. This isn't McDonald's where you drive-thru and have it your way. It just isn't.

[igomo 0]

"Everybody becomes anti-immigration after they get here."

I think that's a great quote

[Caladan 19]

You'll note of course at the link that it says K-3 may be issued a card but NOT ALLOWED TO WORK. SSA doesn't govern whether an alien is permitted to work. That's USCIS's call.

Beyond that, you're correct that the problem with illegal work is usually illegal identification. But having a social security card doesn't mean you're entitled to work, or legally permitted to work absent DHS authorization. The I-9 is a condition of employment.

It just means that it's unlikely anyone is going to give a damn.

Again, trying to stay away from the illegal immigration debate and while there are people from certain circumstances who will stop at nothing to secure employment, and illegal identification aka false ID is a major problem pertaining to unauth'd work, many employers make it easy to get employment without any of the documents generally needed. My husband's employer never had him fill out an I-9, never asked to see his SS card, or anything - he wrote down his ITIN and they didn't blink twice (to anyone who's done a basic google search, an ITIN will always start w/ a 9 so it's obviously when it is not an SSN).

No, no, I knew that. I didn't mean to imply that all undocumented workers were committing identity theft. But under the table work or employers who don't care aren't all that uncommon. I don't think I filled out an I-9 for any of the little jobs I had in high school.

[Killer_Clown_2009 0]

With 15,000,000 - 30,000,000 illegal immigrants in the US, USCIS should be more willing to assist USC with immigration benefits for their spouses. I don't see why they can't issue a temporary work permit immediately to a spouse of a USC who is residing in the States. As for privilege vs. right - while immigration to the US may be a privilege, benefits are not granted and denied willy nilly. Any USC who has a spouse and is denied immigration benefits for that spouse with no good reason, should rightfully be pissed off. As for the government being accountable to someone - it was my take that for the people - by the people meant that very thing.

[rebeccajo 14]

With 15,000,000 - 30,000,000 illegal immigrants in the US, USCIS should be more willing to assist USC with immigration benefits for their spouses. I don't see why they can't issue a temporary work permit immediately to a spouse of a USC who is residing in the States. As for privilege vs. right - while immigration to the US may be a privilege, benefits are not granted and denied willy nilly. Any USC who has a spouse and is denied immigration benefits for that spouse with no good reason, should rightfully be pissed off. As for the government being accountable to someone - it was my take that for the people - by the people meant that very thing.

I agree there should be a quicker way to get work authorization. If you think it's ridiculous to wait 90 days for an EAD, how ridiculous is it to wait the same length of time for a renewal? But because of the present system of each petition being a 'stand alone' case, that's what happens. My husband's renewal EAD actually took longer to arrive than his initial EAD.

It wasn't all that long ago that EAD's could be handed in at the District Office and interim authorization granted, but that changed. Perhaps as USCIS infrastructure improves, they may revert to that.

Yes it is true that benefits are not granted and denied willy-nilly. That's why it takes time for them to be granted. And I don't believe we are talking about denial of benefits in this thread. We are talking about a backlog - a delay. Everyone who applied immediately prior to the increase should expect the same result as those who filed at any other time - ie they should expect the benefits to be granted - but they should also expect to wait longer than someone who filed say, a month prior. While it's hardly apples to apples insofar as the effect on ones life, it's not unlike waiting until Christmas Eve to do your shopping. You get a bargain, but expect a hassle.

I honestly believe that a large part of the frustration people are experiencing is because cases HAVE been moving along swiftly. Look around and you will see many, many members reporting greencards in under 4 months. That was unheard of two years ago. While USCIS still has miles and miles to go to reach optimum customer service, they are improving.

I feel the frustration of those of you who are caught in this situation through no fault of your own. I would hope that as one who walked a very long AOS road, I can offer this 'different' perspective to you and you will allow it some latitude. I spent a long time studying AOS processes and have a pretty firm grasp of how they do business. That knowledge allows me to put this thought forth to you - even though you are experiencing this delay now, I predict most of you will still receive your ultimate goad - a greencard - far sooner than petitioners who filed two or three years ago. That may be no consulation to you at the moment, but it is proof that systems are improving.

"Everybody becomes anti-immigration after they get here."

I think that's a great quote

I'm not getting this one, but maybe it's early for me yet............

[John & Annie 0]

"Everybody becomes anti-immigration after they get here."

I think that's a great quote

Having worked for companies that use a large Latino work force, I know we need to reform the entire system.

Going through the process of family based immigration now, only leads me to believe that in todays day and age and with technology where it is and where it is going, this process could be run a lot more efficiently.

I have to agree with Rebeccajo. Having read through just about every major document USCIS has put out, they system is much better than it was, and is getting better everyday. The plan to modernize the system is on par with any corporation.

[Chris Parker 11]

Any USC who has a spouse and is denied immigration benefits for that spouse with no good reason, should rightfully be pissed off. As for the government being accountable to someone - it was my take that for the people - by the people meant that very thing.

Actually, they did that to me (they denied I-485 for failure to appear, which happened because I never received the appointment notice, and there is no way to check if an appointment has been made, nor any way to replace an appointment notice, nor any way to show up without an appointment notice if you could know your appointment date or lost your notice).

The strategy necessary to resolve that situation was to simply re-file I-485 with a new fee, because at USCIS, all denials are denials without prejudice to the re-filing for the same benefit, and the new application for the same benefit again must stand on its own and is not affected by the previous denial. At the interview, there was just one question from the application on the matter, "Have you ever before applied for permanent residence?" Yes. Moving on...

Yes I was very pissed off and still feel they should have been liable for the processing time lost and the new fee. However, they are not because all filing fees are non-refundable regardless of the outcome of the case, regardless of who's fault that outcome is caused by.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Chris Parker

[LondonGooner 0]

Lest either of you think I'm 'hard-hearted', I'd urge you to take a look at my timeline. You will then realize that I do have sympathy for what you are going through. But you will also see my husband and I waited FAR longer than either of you have so far, and probably far longer than either of you will potentially wait (since our wait fell into a category of 1% or so of petitioners).

BUT, I hate to break it to you that the US constitution doesn't give us the right to live our lives in maximum comfort and to our convenience.....and in my opinion that is the point you are missing. The 'oppression' it protects us from is tyranny and ruthless aggression by our leaders -- waiting a while for an employment document or a greencard is hardly either.

I agree that it should not take ages and ages to check someone's background. But I don't agree with that from the standpoint of making it easy for me to go to work, buy a home, or start a family. It is ridiculous that we are held up on these things - but immigration was a CHOICE we made as international couples. As with most things that are unusual or out-of-the-norm, there is aggravation and inconvenience. US Immigration laws are part of US Federal Code and can be changed - poof - with the stroke of a pen. A negative public tide can cause your elected officials to sway even further from the protections you seek and the things you are demanding. If you consider what you are going through 'oppressive' I urge you to follow any pending changes that will be proposed in the future regarding immigration, because what has been on the table is potentially for more oppressive than what you are presently experiencing.

I've been where you are. I understand. I agree the system is broken and needs improvement. I however also believe they are making headway in that regard. I've been around the system longer than either of you and I can vouch for the fact that things are FAR FASTER than they used to be. But - they aren't doing these things faster to please us! They are doing it for National Security! Do not confuse what you consider your 'rights' with the goal of Homeland Security. The two are NOT one and the same.

I'm not making excuses for them. But I am suggesting you step back and take a look at what you are 'demanding'. The constitution doesn't give you or your wife the right to demand such things at all. If you don't believe me, take it up with any US History professor at any university. We are asking the government for a PRIVILEGE.

They have ZERO accountability to us. This isn't McDonald's where you drive-thru and have it your way. It just isn't.

Having thousands of people sitting around waiting for in some cases for years on end for a name check to be processed is hardly benefiting National Security. As I have said before anyone aiming to come into the US in order to commit mass-terror is hardly likely to do so by making sure he/she files the correct paperwork and then wait for the FBI to clear his/her application before carrying out their nefarious deeds! Besides that the current system is being made a mockery of by the fact that there is a huge border to the south of us that is to all intents and purposes un-policed and anyone and everyone, who so desires, can cross it without permission.

Actually my rights also extend to Homeland Security. When US or British foreign policy, which I don't have a say in, potentially makes me a target for some fanatic then I have the right to demand that my government protects me and that entails securing all borders and checking the backgrounds of all people entering the country where I live no matter for how long they intend to say. Remember I worked in law enforcement in the UK therefore, I have some knowledge, a lot more than you I suspect, as to what makes people feel safe and how that can be achieved successfully and with minimum disruption and distress to the vast majority.

Finally, I also have a degree in American Studies and know many professors who would state that the government was designed to work for me and my interests whilst the constitution was framed to protect me from tyranny. Therefore, it is my right to ask the government to reform a system that is broken and corrupt and prevents me from living my life. I am not saying that the government is preventing me from living the life of a rock star or multi-millionaire, they are preventing me from living any kind of life that I should reasonably expect to live, such as, working for a wage, travelling freely to where I want, when I want and that includes the opportunity to gain a driver's license. My wife is a tax payer and a voter therefore the government is accountable to her. I was led to believe that the US was a federal democracy not a dictatorship therefore the 535 members of Congress are supposed to represent my wife's interests and those of all other US citizens which brings me back nicely to national security and the lack there of it.

Edited September 14, 2007 by LondonGooner

[John & Annie 0]

Having thousands of people sitting around waiting for in some cases for years on end for a name check to be processed is hardly benefiting National Security. As I have said before anyone aiming to come into the US in order to commit mass-terror is hardly likely to do so by making sure he/she files the correct paperwork and then wait for the FBI to clear his/her application before carrying out their nefarious deeds! Besides that the current system is being made a mockery of by the fact that there is a huge border to the south of us that is to all intents and purposes un-policed and anyone and everyone, who so desires, can cross it without permission.

Actually my rights also extend to Homeland Security. When US or British foreign policy, which I don't have a say in, potentially makes me a target for some fanatic then I have the right to demand that my government protects me and that entails securing all borders and checking the backgrounds of all people entering the country where I live no matter for how long they intend to say. Remember I worked in law enforcement in the UK therefore, I have some knowledge, a lot more than you I suspect, as to what makes people feel safe and how that can be achieved successfully and with minimum disruption and distress to the vast majority.

Finally, I also have a degree in American Studies and know many professors who would state that the government was designed to work for me and my interests whilst the constitution was framed to protect me from tyranny. Therefore, it is my right to ask the government to reform a system that is broken and corrupt and prevents me from living my life. I am not saying that the government is preventing me from living the life of a rock star or multi-millionaire, they are preventing me from living any kind of life that I should reasonably expect to live, such as, working for a wage, travelling freely to where I want, when I want and that includes the opportunity to gain a driver's license. My wife is a tax payer and a voter therefore the government is accountable to her. I was led to believe that the US was a federal democracy not a dictatorship therefore the 535 members of Congress are supposed to represent my wife's interests and those of all other US citizens which brings me back nicely to national security and the lack there of it.

I do not think you will get an argument from anyone here that the system need to be fixed. Annie and I have long been proponents that the Name check should be done prior to entry.

That is why I would encourage you to get involved in reforming the system.

Oh and just to point out, America is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic. There is a slight difference.

[igomo 0]

All the quote means is that most of the us population (excluding native americans) comes from an immigrant family. After a generation or so the descendants become anti-immigration.

With 15,000,000 - 30,000,000 illegal immigrants in the US, USCIS should be more willing to assist USC with immigration benefits for their spouses. I don't see why they can't issue a temporary work permit immediately to a spouse of a USC who is residing in the States. As for privilege vs. right - while immigration to the US may be a privilege, benefits are not granted and denied willy nilly. Any USC who has a spouse and is denied immigration benefits for that spouse with no good reason, should rightfully be pissed off. As for the government being accountable to someone - it was my take that for the people - by the people meant that very thing.

I agree there should be a quicker way to get work authorization. If you think it's ridiculous to wait 90 days for an EAD, how ridiculous is it to wait the same length of time for a renewal? But because of the present system of each petition being a 'stand alone' case, that's what happens. My husband's renewal EAD actually took longer to arrive than his initial EAD.

It wasn't all that long ago that EAD's could be handed in at the District Office and interim authorization granted, but that changed. Perhaps as USCIS infrastructure improves, they may revert to that.

Yes it is true that benefits are not granted and denied willy-nilly. That's why it takes time for them to be granted. And I don't believe we are talking about denial of benefits in this thread. We are talking about a backlog - a delay. Everyone who applied immediately prior to the increase should expect the same result as those who filed at any other time - ie they should expect the benefits to be granted - but they should also expect to wait longer than someone who filed say, a month prior. While it's hardly apples to apples insofar as the effect on ones life, it's not unlike waiting until Christmas Eve to do your shopping. You get a bargain, but expect a hassle.

I honestly believe that a large part of the frustration people are experiencing is because cases HAVE been moving along swiftly. Look around and you will see many, many members reporting greencards in under 4 months. That was unheard of two years ago. While USCIS still has miles and miles to go to reach optimum customer service, they are improving.

I feel the frustration of those of you who are caught in this situation through no fault of your own. I would hope that as one who walked a very long AOS road, I can offer this 'different' perspective to you and you will allow it some latitude. I spent a long time studying AOS processes and have a pretty firm grasp of how they do business. That knowledge allows me to put this thought forth to you - even though you are experiencing this delay now, I predict most of you will still receive your ultimate goad - a greencard - far sooner than petitioners who filed two or three years ago. That may be no consulation to you at the moment, but it is proof that systems are improving.

"Everybody becomes anti-immigration after they get here."

I think that's a great quote

I'm not getting this one, but maybe it's early for me yet............

[MonicaMexico 0]

Oh and just to point out, America is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic. There is a slight difference.

"Republicanism is the political value system that has been a major part of American political thought since the American Revolution. It stresses liberty and rights as central values, makes the people as a whole sovereign, rejects aristocracy and inherited political power, expects citizens to be independent and calls on them to perform civic duties, and is strongly opposed to corruption. The American version of republicanism was formed by the Founding Fathers in the 18th century and was based on English models as well as Roman and European ideas. It formed the basis for the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787), as well as critical statements from Abraham Lincoln and others. It is not the same as democracy, for republicanism asserts that people have inalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters; the two political philosophies have influenced but do not literally define their political party namesakes, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism...e_United_States

Funny, I did use the incorrect word, (democracy vs. democratic republic) but it still (somewhat) supports my point.

Edited September 14, 2007 by MonicaMexico

[John & Annie 0]

Oh and just to point out, America is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic. There is a slight difference.

"Republicanism is the political value system that has been a major part of American political thought since the American Revolution. It stresses liberty and rights as central values, makes the people as a whole sovereign, rejects aristocracy and inherited political power, expects citizens to be independent and calls on them to perform civic duties, and is strongly opposed to corruption. The American version of republicanism was formed by the Founding Fathers in the 18th century and was based on English models as well as Roman and European ideas. It formed the basis for the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787), as well as critical statements from Abraham Lincoln and others. It is not the same as democracy, for republicanism asserts that people have inalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters; the two political philosophies have influenced but do not literally define their political party namesakes, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism...e_United_States

Funny, I did use the incorrect word, (democracy vs. democratic republic) but it still (somewhat) supports my point.

absolutely, but then who does this law apply to (i.e. citizen vs. non-citizen)?

This is not a debate I am looking to get into, nor do I think i can. But it is an ongoing thought in my head.