Note: This is continued from yesterday's post, Humanitarian Government. Contributed by our friend, The Midnight Goddess NYX

Issue: 

Currently, Civics isn’t taught in a consistent manner. I had Civics with a college Professor in my Senior Year of High School, Dr. Bodansky. Yes, Doctor, and he taught at the college across the street from my High School, along with the mandatory Civics class that I, and every other Senior, took. 

We aren’t the only Nation that has Voting as a voluntary action for its Citizens, and it isn’t necessarily a government that holds a vote, but rather a sham. However, with our low voter turnout, a vocal and active minority might end up having too much of a say and then demand that their way be the only one to follow or be. As of this writing, it’s happened. 

Right now, we’re no longer trying to recover from the 45th holder of the Presidency (no, I will not use a name for this person, nor any honorific associated with this person — I will call POTUS only because it’s simpler, or roundabout wording). I also watched the events of January 6, 2021 unfold, noting the types of language and encouragement from various groups that do not reflect the history of increasing inclusivity rather than exclusivity among the public at large. Not to mention listening to and espousing those laws and persons that require one way of thinking, voting, believing, having physical features, and such. Sorry, you can’t stuff a genie back into a bottle it’s been released from.  

For at least a decade, probably more, there has been a slow movement to strip women of their rights, namely, bodily autonomy. Now, not only do we have to deal with a nation post-Dobbs, with more restrictions being planned (making contraception, Plan B, and probably more things illegal), but also the SAVE Act, corporate monitoring of female-only items whose data is being sold, and more. 

The SAVE Act will affect millions and cost even more. Essentially, it’s a poll tax for women who have married. Yes, you read that right. 

How does that work? Simple: make a passport nearly the only way to be able to vote. 

Essentially, you’ll be caring ‘papers’, just like in Germany during WWII, East Germany and USSR nation post-WWII, and most any other dictatorially run countries. If you don’t carry them, it may affect more than your voting privileges if you’re a married woman.

In this Act, you have to prove you were born in the US and that you’re legally here. Well, they have a specific way of making that happen. Another ‘simple’ thing: an original birth certificate, proof of name, or legal proof of a name change. Married women often change their last names, which is a common practice in this culture. It also usually doesn’t present problems. However, what about those who have name changes due to personal or legal issues? There are women out there who have gotten away from abusive relationships that could end up getting them killed if they didn’t change their names.  That’s just one issue not being addressed. Not only does it already leave a paper trail, as in filings and such, but there’s also witness protection to consider.  

In the first three months of this POTUS’s regime, we saw the creation, implementation, and atrocities that DOGE created. For those in the future that may read this and not know for one way or another, or those who have been living under a rock, DOGE is the ‘Department of Governmental Efficiency’ that was initially run by Elon Musk. During the more visible periods when it was in action, and under Executive Orders, orders from Mr. Musk, and the complicity of heads of administrations or departments, unvetted and unsecured individuals were allowed into databases containing sensitive data. That data, in turn, was copied (supposedly to upgrade the software) onto portable media or transmitted over unsecured methods to unknown locations and unknown final destinations. There are theories, but as of right now, they can’t be proven, so I will refrain from mentioning anything more. 

I bring this up for one simple reason: that data could be sold or used in a myriad of ways, ultimately releasing that information to individuals who have no business having it. We’re talking health records, social security records, IRS filings, and more.  

So, back to the core of the SAVE Act. A woman would have to spend time and money getting a notarized, original birth certificate (I for one do not have that and never did, it is a copy from the city I was born in), proof of name via paperwork or marriage certificate/liscence, the costs of getting those items if they aren’t readidily available due to loss or simply never needed to have before, the costs of getting that passport, and the hoops to get that accomplished other than the documents. 

I don’t have that sort of money lying around and never did. Although I once had a decent-paying job, even then, I was living paycheck to paycheck. That sort of outlay will prevent a great many women from voting. Another issue with that is if she’s married, has a 

husband who isn’t interested in her being able to vote, and has control over the family finances and such? It would be a simple matter just to say ‘Hunny, we don’t have the money’ and nip her voting in the bud. 

See what I mean?  

I’ll even provide further examples of what life was like before a woman could have a bank account, credit in her name, or the ability to buy a house on her own. She was dependent on having a husband or male family member to do all those things for her. Essentially, women weren’t people, they were property that, by no fault of their own, were unable to leave a marriage due to neglect or abuse, infidelity of either party without both parties being in court (and since she has no access to money and such, what’s the logical conclusion?), and more.  

Again, another genie out of a bottle that can’t be stuffed back in. Besides, some brilliant adherents to either religion or various political groups don’t want women to even work outside the home. However, businesses are already complaining about a lack of workers, and the workforce is either near or halfway made up of working women. What would the economy do if you took half the workforce of a nation out of service? That is a simple answer: the economy will crumble. 

That covers female citizens under today’s definition of citizenship. 

Male citizens are already under a military registration legality, so if the US goes to war, if there’s not enough military members to be in that war, the government will be able to quickly institute a draft and pull eligible males into the military. I’ll say one word as an answer and four words for the action: Russia and the Russian Special Military Operation. Again, for those of you who, for whatever reason, don’t understand those references, on February 24, 2022, there was an escalation in a slow-burning war already underway in the area. That area was Ukraine. So, the Russo-Ukrainian War escalated after a massive military buildup since early 2021. That buildup was well known to those who watch military and/or world news at the time. President Joe Biden already had his hands full trying to recover from COVID mismanagement, other foreign issues, and trying to deal with issues that stemmed from ‘Jan6’ as a few high points. I won’t get into the finer points of that. This book isn’t part of the purpose of promoting any view on the matter other than as an example of Russia conscripting nearly anyone the government gets a hold of and due to that, has ground their economy down and having a military registration with a nebulous ‘not enough soldiers’ statement from the military could cause the same to happen here. 

So, what am I trying to get at now? 

There are ways to ensure that only a fraction of people can end up voting and have their voices heard. This doesn’t even count gerrymandering. 

So, I’m proposing a few things. 

Potential Solution: 

First, due to another huge issue that I will cover later, I propose three parts to a solution. 

The first part is ‘voter reform’. Now, the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments all have something to do with voting. I’m going to put the exact wording of the Constitution of each Amendment here with a short explanation between each one. 

The Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 1 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

Section 2 

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. 

Section 3 

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and 

Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any 

State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4 

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5 

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. _____________ 

This, as one can see, is divided into five sections. Section 1 defines who can be considered a citizen and outlines State limitations on citizen involvement. In short, ‘all persons born or naturalized’ are considered citizens. That States can’t make or enforce any law that abridges ‘privieges or immunities’ (this includes voting), and the States can’t abridge any person (it does not specify citizenship in this part of Section 1) of life, liberty, or property without due process. I’ll get into the weeds further when I start talking about immigration later. 

Section 2 covers representations and specifies the qualifications for voting, including age and gender. It also states that voting can’t be abridged except for participation in a rebellion or other crime. So, I’m taking that as the reason why some States continue to deny voting rights to previously incarcerated persons. 

Three has been spotlighted recently. It outlines that anyone who holds office in either civil or military areas in the US or under any State that has taken the oath to support the Constitution, who also engaged in insurrection/rebellion, or gave aid and comfort to the enemy. There is, however, a method to remove that impediment: a vote of two-thirds of each House (the Senate and the Representatives). Based on recent behaviors and actions, the lawsuits in Colorado and other States were valid and should have been taken into account. I know it would be controversial before the 2024 election for Congress as a whole to vote to take off POTUSs name off the national form of the ballot. However, even based on the actions, or lack thereof, during January 6, 2021, I personally would state that there would have been cause to uphold the 14th Amendment, Section 3. 

Section 4 covered public debt, authorized by law, for the payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, which would be paid without a fuss. Now, if you supported an insurrection or rebellion and provided aid to that insurrection or rebellion, there would be no assumption of debt and no payment for that debt or obligation either. I’m not a lawyer, but that tells me a few things about more recent actions following Jan. 6 shouldn’t have happened. 

Lastly, Section 5 simply states that Congress has the power to enforce the Amendment as a whole by legislative means. 

Fifteenth Amendment

Section 1 

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the 

United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude– Section 2 

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. _____________ 

Section 1 is essentially just as it states. That ‘previous condition of servitude’? Let’s be blunt: it’s a nice way of saying if you were a slave or not. Section two is just like Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, Congress has the power to enforce. 

Nineteenth Amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. 

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. _____________ 

Short, sweet, and to the point. Voting, by this Amendment, was granted to women. Gee….enshrined in our Constitution and yet it’s being abridged. Go figure. 

Twenty-Fourth Amendment

Section 1 

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for 

President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Section 2 

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. _____________ 

Another expansion, you may say. It also figures into Civil Rights and Jim Crow laws and prevents (or should) the prevention of being able to vote by paying a poll tax or any other version of a tax. Again, I’ll refer to the efforts to limit voting, and more specifically, the restriction on married women voting, which required a passport. Doesn’t that violate this Amendment? 

However, I’ll also add a rider to this: Section 2 allows Congress to enforce this. The House of Representatives passed the SAVE Act as well. It’s still sitting in the Senate, and I hope it stays there and dies. I also hope that there are lawyers out there prepared with briefs, amici, and any other necessary materials to present the legality of it in court. If not, and if lawyers are reading this, please take note. I don’t have the knowledge base even to figure out the right groups to contact. I’m counting on you to do your due diligence in your chosen profession. 

Lastly, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment

Section 1 

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. Section 2 

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. 

_____________ 

Section one simply lowers the voting age to 18 from 21, with the obligatory Section 2 

making it Congress’s power to enforce this change. 

Solution for the Constitutional issue: 

The Constitution isn’t really the issue. It’s the wording, various Amendments, timing of those Amendments, and legal interpretations. 

Simply put, as I’ve stated, I’m not a lawyer, so I won’t attempt to use legalese. is one Amendment defining citizenship, enshrining the age of voting (I will say I’d like a national age for adulthood, the ability to serve, and the ability to imbibe in intoxicating substances being all one age. Currently, being 21 to drink but yet 18 year olds can be sent into combat is crazy.), and that ‘no status of gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, age, race, history or origin, (fill in the blanks with any other label that may end up being disenfranchised here other than those holding Visas or undocumented persons from outside the US, its territories, bases, or Embassys) can’t vote. Also, I’d even include in this proposed Amendment (of a new Constitution) a national voting day that would cover all elections yearly, making it a day off for everyone. First responders and essential personnel, such as those in healthcare settings, are given time before or after regular polling hours to vote without hassle. I also would love to see, since voting day would be a day off, a fine for not voting if you’re qualified. Twenty-seven nations have mandatory voting laws. However, only nineteen actually enforce them. Australia and Bolivia are two countries that enforce and have mandatory voting laws. I’m more in favor of Australia’s way of fining: a fine of about $20 AUD for failing to vote. Bolivia has some penalties that involve restrictions on public services. I’m not going to suggest anything like that. I can see why it would motivate someone to vote; however, I’m not going to end up hurting a mother who has no support for child care or having a sick child not being able to vote.  

Not only that, I keep hearing ‘paper ballots!’. Well, yeah, I’m sure we can do that, and hand counts to satisfy a group that essentially wants to make voting hard. OK. However, that day off? Mandatory, and may be extended to two days, or even three, because of the number of people we have in the nation. Not only that, if some really want to push hand count, that’s fine too. However, it can’t be done in a way that the count is inconsistent. It must be completed within 30 days, and no State will be allowed to announce any results until 31 days after the election. 

Additionally, there will be no loopholes, and it needs to be worded in such a way that it’s in stone. A Constitution needs to breathe, but some things need to be in stone. Voting is one of those things. 

Issue: Immigration and Citizenship 

This isn’t going to be short, simple, or non-controversial.  

I’m well aware, and it’s 2025 right now, how some feel about immigration.   

I will also stress that we are a nation essentially 99% of immigrants. If you want to get technical, not wanting to be blind to history, and admit that due to history’s changes in thinking and actions (meaning our Founding Fathers’ or original Colonists’ thinking and actions, as well as the changes that have occurred since that time), things aren’t always what they seem. In that vein, Native American Tribes should be the ones to be the ones to dictate immigration policies and can kick out those they want kicked. But that’s not going to happen. I know this. It’s not something a swath of Americans want known or admit to. However, I want honest history to be learned, and trust me, we are all human, therefore flawed. Due to the attitudes and behaviors of our Founders and colonists, our country isn’t immune to these flaws, and this ‘perfect America’ is a fantasy. In every country, there have been strife and atrocities performed. For the U.S., it’s not just slavery, either. So, those of you who want to stop now and walk away, feel free. However, I will stress that you want a nation that was founded in peace and tranquility, with those who were here first, far from the reality. 

Now that’s out of the way. I’m not going to sugarcoat any of this, so as stated, we’re a nation based on immigration. That was one of the issues listed in the Declaration of Independence as a reason to separate from England. The Colonies wanted the ability to have immigrants come in from nations other than England and other English colonies. King George didn’t like that, prevented it by decree and law, and it became an issue. 

So, this thing about a White, Christian, America? I’ll give you Christian, but only so far as those on the Mayflower came over because they didn’t like the Catholic Church nor the Church of England and were being persecuted. Our freedom of religion? Yes, it originated from the Mayflower Compact and the laws that were established here in what would become America. So, those Christians accepted the fact that people could worship differently and that it shouldn’t become an issue. If they came back right now…they might give some an earful. I’ll even say I’ll go so far as White. Although, as stated, those who came from Europe weren’t the first ones here. However, Colonists were generally from Britain or the British Isles, so yes, you can say white. 

There are benefits to being a nation that allows immigration. One, even today, undocumented persons who work tend to pay taxes on those earnings and also pay into Social Security, but they also do not gain one cent from paying in.  

I’ve heard the arguments that 1% of funds going out in various programs go to those who are not qualified or are undocumented. Guess what? No system that has existed or will ever exist will be perfect. To keep people safe, healthy, and able to function, I’ll take a 1% loss over a 50% or greater cut in those programs affected by such a loss. It’s like cutting off your hand if your pinky finger gets broken. It makes no sense. 

Those immigrants, in today’s world, also encourage their children to pursue an education, including advanced education, or come to the country via work or student Visas and may develop a desire to stay here and apply that knowledge at home, which can lead to lower crime rates because they genuinely don’t want trouble. Historically, for the Nation, most of our most brilliant minds have been imported. So… isn’t immigration worthwhile? 

Now, I’m not saying criminal elements don’t need deportation. However, those same elements won’t come in legally in the first place. Honestly, if we deport gang members, drug and gun runners, human traffickers, and such, either those will be replaced by another body, or they will be willing to come in again and pull the same stuff. 

So, how do we define citizenship, immigrants, and legal residents? 

Potential Solution: 

First, let’s define citizenship. 

I’m proposing two sections of citizenship, and some of this will affect the ability to vote. I know; I just said no abridgement. But it’s also a privilege, and privileges need to be earned. 

The first section would be called ‘Vocal Citizens’. These will be individuals born on U.S. soil, in territories, at Embassies, and on bases who meet specific requirements. 

This also ties into Education, because everything is interconnected.. 

Civics, the class that teaches students how the government runs, what the coequal branches of government work and their responsibilities, comparative government, and all that, should be mandatory and also…you guessed it, set in stone. It also has to be apolitical and non-religious. It shouldn’t be an issue and should never have been gutted due to fiscal or ideological pressures. I was in the middle of the Bible Belt, and my Civics teacher, who had a PhD in political science, had warned us of something like this as a possibility. He bucked the system because he didn’t teach from a textbook, nor did he stick with ‘approved’ teaching materials. 

Did that mean he made it political? Only if you consider comparative government political. Did he erroniously teach Civics because he didn’t use a textbook? Again, no. He taught us by forcing us to use critical thinking skills, conduct research, and put us in situations that, at the very least, mimicked the very outlines of our bedrock.  

So, already immigrants take tests to check their understanding of our government and history. Why not apply the same principles to have a voting public that demonstrates they understand the mechanics, if nothing else? I’m not saying force ideology. One can belong to any sort of socio-political-economic thought. I’m saying that you’re giving tools that allow a person to make up their own mind on what to do on their own. Not just listen to slogans or rallies, but also understand the research and history of candidates. Not to mention knowing their rights as citizens. 

So, a Civics test must be passed. Oh, one last thing: According to a 2018 article, only one in three Americans, or 36%, could pass a multiple-choice test consisting of questions that appear on the U.S. Citizenship test. Passing is only at 60%, too.^[1] That’s abysmally low, folks. That is why I’d like this to be a mandatory part of being a Vocal citizen. 

I would also incorporate social responsibility in a way that respects legal and privacy protections. I don’t know exactly; I’m going to leave that up to Constitutional and Civil lawyers. However, you’d also have to show you’re socially responsible. Like…if you’re a billionaire and pay less taxes than the lowest rung of working Americans, then you don’t get to vote even if you pass a Citizenship test.  

Yes, you heard me right. I won’t get into a rant about that particular pet peeve of mine. That would be a book all its own. 

The other part of citizenship would be Silent citizens. These would be those who are actively incarcerated, underage dependents, or emancipated persons, and those who fail the citizenship test. They have the option to retake the test every year to attempt to pass it and be able to vote, but they can’t until they do. 

In this, I’ll define a couple of things. 

Actively incarcerated means just that: you’re in jail or prison. Well, generally, that means you’ve been in court somewhere along the line, if nothing else, to be told of charges. As long as you’re behind bars, you can’t vote. Now, I know this could and probably would be subverted somehow to keep people out of society and, therefore, unable to vote. Guess what? The charges have to be severe enough to warrant no bail. Meaning, if you’ve killed someone, performed violence to another severe enough to warrant arrest and jail time, drug/human/gun running, or something like that, yeah…you don’t need bail and should be held accountable. 

The rise of the 1980s drug laws and mandatory jail time? Well, if you look at studies and data, those never did work and created the fertile ground for private prisons. I’ll get into law later. 

A dependent or emancipated person would mean anyone under the age of being considered an adult. Simple? Yes. Or should be. I’m sure someone out there can poke holes in anything I propose in this book. 

I’ve already gone over citizenship testing, or some sort of testing to prove you know how the government works at a minimum. 

The last part would cover those who hold Visas, Green Cards, or are simply undocumented. 

Anyone holding a Visa is here provisionally to start with. They have time limits, and being adults or at least parents, they should keep track of that sort of timing. If you overstay, then you’ve two choices: self-deport, or yes, we’ll do it for you. I would revise everything about Visas. Now, I’ll be transparent and say that I haven’t done my homework, and this is my opinion. 

A visitor or tourist visa would be for 30 days. If one needs longer, they must apply two weeks into the particular Visa for an extension of another 30 days. So, you arrive, find out you need more time shortly after, and then apply for an additional 30 days before the 14-day mark. Your next 30 days start at the end of the first 30 days. That’s it—no more than 60 days. If you’re a business person, that falls under a different category. 

A business Visa would be for 90 days, with the option to extend by 30 days at a time, and the extension must be requested at least two weeks before the visa expires. That can be done three times. Meaning you get six months to do your business. If you find that you like it here, consider going home and applying for immigration. I’ll get to that in a moment. 

A student visa must be renewed every semester. You also have to prove you’re enrolled in classes and currently attending them, without a job in the U.S. This is typically done within the first two weeks of a new semester, and a response is expected by the end of the fourth week.  

A temporary resident visa is one you apply for when you’re looking to immigrate. One shows up at a valid Border Crossing, port of entry, or embassy and initiates the vetting process, including any judicial immigration requirements. We’re not going to do this for 10 years, get work out of a person, leaving them hanging and all that. Nope. 

One, we can and should increase the number of immigration judges. Someone, and I’m putting out a call to those lawyers who handle immigration as an everyday life, add in your two cents to this—in one year. One year for the government to get its house in order, get everything approved or not. This is also for Asylum seekers. Deportation, yes, is a deterrent, especially how it’s being done today. However, that ‘how it’s being done’ is also scooping up U.S. Citizens and not granting due process. This addresses the due process issue, streamlines the immigration process, and also provides reasonable time to vet a person or family. Yes, it will increase the need for funding for immigration control. But guess what? I think I have a solution to that as well. 

For fiscal year 2025, ICE alone has $28.7 BILLION, which is triple the budget for fiscal year 2024. Triple. Not to mention the FEMA dollars being diverted for more ‘detention’ or ‘deportation’ camps. 

So, what to do? First, Homeland Security (of which ICE is a part), the FBI, and the NSA need to be entirely restructured. Immigration, border patrol, port and airport security, organized crime, both domestic and ‘imported’, national security threats, white collar crime, civil rights law, and political malpractice would be branches of something that combines all three. In short, not three sections of a budget. One, with oversight, tight controls on the amount of surveillance and intelligence gathering that can be done need to be implemented. There are probably more branches I didn’t think of. However, all three end up overlapping. You can even throw in ATF into this mix, too. 

Second, we’re going to budget more effectively.  

Borders have always been porous unless you’re sitting on an island that you can see 180 degrees and can repel anyone who you don’t want on that island. If you’re joining two or more countries on the same landmass, you’re likely to have people crossing over, especially if you don’t understand the reasons and procedures. 

Example: A certain someone has called and is still trying to build a border wall along the southern border—no issues with the northern border, or at least not as many. So, I’m thinking it’s not about border crossings at all, nor even imported gangs. They are an excuse, especially since the information about one drug in particular: Fyentinel, is becoming more of a homegrown issue rather than outside parties. I’m not saying outside parties aren’t part of the problem, just that the blame isn’t all on them. 

Now, there are issues with walls. Germany/East Germany has firsthand experience with those. Walls can be dug under, climbed over, cut into, and more. Doesn’t seem to be much of a deterrent, right? So why spend billions on a wall? Put that money into drones and other tech that would be more helpful.  

I also brought up specifically dug under for a reason: San Diego is constantly finding tunnels, some very elaborate, running from over the Mexican border to the city. Yeap. So, tunnels aren’t deterred by walls unless you’re digging them in deep, which also means more cost, which also means more time to put up. Our dollars are better spent elsewhere. Not to mention…didn’t that certain someone say that Mexico was going to pay for the wall? Hmmm, interesting. Also….America doesn’t run (or shouldn’t…that too is another book all its own) other countries. There’s this little thing called national sovereignty.  

We’ll also take about half of that extra money given to ICE for immigration vetting, judges, and monitors. People who issue Visas and monitor their compliance. That sort of spending I could get behind. Suppose more is needed, fine. Whatever is left after improving how we process immigration applications and addressing actions can be applied to deportations. Or, better yet, considering my points earlier about criminal activity and border crossers, we create and maintain, to humanitarian levels, specific prisons for those who are convicted of crimes. Convicted. In other words, if one doesn’t understand the legal system, a trial, evidence presented, and a guilty judgment handed down. It’s called due process, and it won’t be millions of trials as one certain someone has claimed. Even those court appearances by an immigration judge? Those aren’t trials. Whoever gave that impression to POTUS is guilty of misinformation. 

Green cards are next. Technically, they are legal residents. However, more and more stories are coming out that green card holders are being detained and deported, just for being from another country. Some have been here most or all of their lives. These are folks that either want dual citizenship in a legal manner, in this definition, with the understanding that they are here, have to obey all laws pertaining to a citizen, they can work or go to school as they wish, marry, and have kids. However, if they become serious offenders (as I’ve already stated), their green card is revoked, and they are sent back to their country of origin. If this happens, their partner/spouse can follow them freely, along with minor children. The partner/spouse and/or children retain their U.S. citizenship if applicable. If the partner/spouse is also an immigrant within the system being processed, they have the option to stay. It’s not the partner/spouse’s responsibility for their other half’s behavior unless they, too, are violating. The children are the stickler. I would say that if there is a valid, legal, and law-abiding family, the children could stay with them. If no one is here, then family needs to be located in the country of origin. If no one is there, then they could be considered orphans, and I would hope and pray that if it’s more than one child, the entire set of children, no matter how many, gets adopted by one set of willing parents. If children have to be separated, which I understand is a high probability, then it would be mandatory for the siblings to stay in touch and be aware that they have siblings. 

Then, lastly, naturalized citizens. These folks have done all their steps, kept their noses clean, proved they’re ‘the good guys’ and all that jazz. They are citizens, and can fall (generally) into the Vocal Citizen category because they have passed their testing.  

[1] https://citizensandscholars.org/resource/national-survey-finds-just-1-in-3-americans-would-pass-citizenshi p-test/