change what law???
• United States
2 Jun 07
If there was a law I could change, it would be the 14th amendment to the U.S. constitution (which defines the terms of U.S. citizenship). I've longed believed that it should be more specific - while our forefathers probably wanted immigrants to come to America to make a better life for themselves, they probably didn't want such a thing to occur at the expense of resident citizens. Even if this weren't the case, this is what we're facing now. As it is, illegal immigrants have become a financial burden on America. The ease with which they can cheat the system, the jobs we offer, and the abundance of free aid we allow them have attracted and kept them here. To avoid being deported, they marry and produce what are called "anchor babies". If I were to change the 14th amendment, I would merely amend the part which grants citizenship to those born in America. Children born in America would have to be the offspring of American citizens or legal immigrants (with legitmate documentation). This way, we would no longer have to deal with the prospect of tearing families apart by deporting illegal parents while allowing American born children of illegal aliens to stay. This way, they can all be sent back to their country of origin as one big not-so-happy family.
• United States
2 Jun 07
Excellent answer Latrivia! You're absolutely right on this. At the time of the founding of this nation, there were no naturalized citizens. The Founding Fathers welcomed hard-working citizens from across the pond to help develop this 'new world'. I often tout the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, and particularly their foresight. However, this is one area where they simply couldn't have imagined that we'd someday be in the position we are today. Citizens from other nations cross our borders illegally, with all manner of intention to take advantage of the benefits this nation offers. One example that still eats at me was the South American native, who snuck into the USA for oncology treatment. He was diagnosed in his own country, where treatment would have been very expensive. So, he travelled to the USA (illegally), went to the emergency room in Georgia, where they re-diagnosed his cancer. And, began receiving treatment under the Medicaid safety belt. Once he was stabilized, and it was determined that he was here illegally, the hospital chartered a flight for him (at their cost) to return him to his own country. He sued the hospital (in US courts), and won. The citizens of this nation had to foot the bill for full scale oncology treatment, follow-up, food, housing, etc... for more than two years! Last I heard, he was still here. In what world does that make sense? You're also right about 'anchor-babies' being a big problem. Not in the case where the mother marries a US citizen, before delivering their child(ren). But, more specifically when they cross the Rio Grande at 8 months to term, to deliver the child on US soil. Often times without the father present. So, as soon as the woman goes into labor, she becomes the financial burden of our society. It would be easier to overlook if this was the exception, rather than the rule. Alas, it is not.
4 Jun 07
For me it would be the drink driving laws. I know a lot of countries have zero drink driving laws but here in Ireland we can have 1 drink. Whats the point. I think a lot of people will have 2 or 3 if they even have 1 so Im all for zero drinks if your going to drive.
3 Jun 07
If i could change a law i will suggest the prohibition of corporations in helping the campaign of any political figure in our country,because that is the root of all the corruptions and the laws that make the consumers miserable.Those corporations are also responsible for the anti -terror bill which will only terrorize its citizen.I am from the Philippines and whatever law you passed we have our own version.
• United States
2 Jun 07
Aw geeze Design, do I only get to choose one? Well, in that case ... I wouldn't change a law, per se. Rather, I would add a law. In fact, I would add a fourth branch of our Federal Government, called "Citizen Oversight Committee". I would empower this branch with absolute over-ride/ veto power for all aspects of our Legislative branch. And, only limited power over the Executive and Judicial Branches. Specifically, only the power to intercede in the matter of possible ethics breaches. Those serving on this branch would be volunteers, who would be nominated (not elected), and approved by their state's standing committee, for 2 year terms. Each serving member would remain in their home state, unless and until an emergency hearing required their attendance in DC, during which time they would naturally be compensated. I would propose that each state have between 50-100 members serving on the committee. And, that each member would be at least 35 years of age, be a property owner, have at least a high school education, and be able to pass a rigorous test demanding proficient understanding of not only current affairs, but governmental procedure, and at least basic fiscal responsibility. I'll probably be torn to shreds for proposing this, but hey, that's what debate is all about. Thanks for this very thought-provoking question Design. It's nice to visit with you again!
2 Jun 07
I would change the law that states that religion must be taught in Irish Schools. No religion is taught in schools in America and it is left up to the parents and churches to see to it. Ireland, in this day and age, is a multi cultural multi denominational society and it's about time we got off the catholic ireland mindset. I have no problem with people following any given faith, I just believe that it shouldn't be up to schools/teachers to educate children in it.