Foreign Policy
I support the United States being involved in affairs that have a direct impact on American lives. I am somewhat of an isolationist, and would certainly not describe myself as a hawk. As a Christian, I have a somewhat difficult time distancing myself through from individuals and countries that are having difficult economic, social, and despotic conditions.
For instance, if there is a dictator who enjoys killing his citizens based on whatever his whims of the moment are, then what should the United States do in response? Purely based on the wickedness of the despot the impacts upon the U.S.A. would likely be quite minimal. So accordingly, I think the appropriate response of the president would be to ignore the situation or perhaps put political pressure on the country (which is technocratic talk for doing virtually nothing about the situation). From a Christian and moral standpoint, I have a very hard time simply standing by and letting those citizens be killed. As a result of this, I have a difficult time with this question, and am not entirely opposed to war hawks - so long as their motivations are good - but I do definitely prefer non-interventionists.
For instance, if there is a dictator who enjoys killing his citizens based on whatever his whims of the moment are, then what should the United States do in response? Purely based on the wickedness of the despot the impacts upon the U.S.A. would likely be quite minimal. So accordingly, I think the appropriate response of the president would be to ignore the situation or perhaps put political pressure on the country (which is technocratic talk for doing virtually nothing about the situation). From a Christian and moral standpoint, I have a very hard time simply standing by and letting those citizens be killed. As a result of this, I have a difficult time with this question, and am not entirely opposed to war hawks - so long as their motivations are good - but I do definitely prefer non-interventionists.
I lightly support the use of drones for gathering intelligence and killing terrorists. I think drones and their counterparts are the wave of the future, and I am fine with them being used in warfare since it greatly reduces the risk for military personnel. With that said, however, the use of drones can create further situations which are very tricky, such as, creating instances where terrorists can be murdered, but in order to do so you would also need to murder the terrorist's family. While likely the terrorist's family is at least in complicit support of the terrorist's actions, still, I largely fail to see how this justifies killing the terrorist's family.
I am uncertain what should be done in regards to North Korea or Iraq obtaining weapons of mass destruction. My isolationist tendencies lean me towards not getting involved in the situation, but sometimes preventative action is the best deterrent to lives being lost. I somewhat doubt North Korea would have the capabilities to even launch a credible nuclear attack at the United States (missile based that is). But, I do not doubt that if they had nuclear capabilities, either South Korea or the U.S.A. would be North Korea's primary target. As a result of this, I would certainly not desire for them to acquire nuclear weapons and may support preventive actions. I think similarly about Iraq, except that Iraq's hot list of targets would be Israel and the U.S.A. Also, I think a destabilization of Iraq would be much worse than a destabilization of South Korea.
I am undecided on what should be done with Syrian refugees. My current position leans towards accepting Syrian refugees after background checks and continuous monitoring to ensure they have no terrorist connections, but even this position is held unconvincingly. I support helping refugees, in general, but I am uncertain if it is the United States' duty to do so in virtually any situation.I am uncertain what should be done in regards to North Korea or Iraq obtaining weapons of mass destruction. My isolationist tendencies lean me towards not getting involved in the situation, but sometimes preventative action is the best deterrent to lives being lost. I somewhat doubt North Korea would have the capabilities to even launch a credible nuclear attack at the United States (missile based that is). But, I do not doubt that if they had nuclear capabilities, either South Korea or the U.S.A. would be North Korea's primary target. As a result of this, I would certainly not desire for them to acquire nuclear weapons and may support preventive actions. I think similarly about Iraq, except that Iraq's hot list of targets would be Israel and the U.S.A. Also, I think a destabilization of Iraq would be much worse than a destabilization of South Korea.
I support a decrease in military spending and better use of taxpayer money. The US military spends approximately the same amount of money as the next ten countries' militaries combined. The U.S.A. accounts for 34% of the world's total military expenditures. The US+NATO spend more than the rest of the world combined. The United States has 395 military bases abroad. Most of the USA military bases are located in Italy, Japan, Germany, and South Korea. While I definitely support having a military which is paid adequately and does not have to worry about getting bulletproof armor, and the like, I do not support spending for the sake of spending. Currently, I believe the military has a large number of projects which are wasteful and a number of foreign operations which are imprudent.
I am undecided on whether or not foreign terrorists should be given Constitutional rights or not. I think the Constitution only applies to American citizens, but I am not entirely certain. Beyond that, however, all individuals have certain unalienable rights, most of which were probably outlined in the Declaration of Independence. I think that waterboarding should be allowed for use on certain terrorists, but that it should only be of the psychological kind and not any physical tactics. I am not certain that physical torture should ever be allowed, because if that is allowed, then what separates us from the enemy? Certainly, some principles are typically still different, but even with that, I do not believe that justifies physical torture. I am not absolutely locked into this position, but I think Americans should hold themselves to a higher standard than those of an enemy.
I also think the U.S. should close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and provide a fair trial to those terrorists there. The death penalty should apply to some terrorists, while potentially others could be innocent, and others should be transferred to maximum security prisons. Alternatively, I am not entirely opposed to the military prison, it's just that the prison, I presume, holds prisoners who have been there likely for decades, at taxpayer expense. I would prefer that something proactive and productive actually be done with the situation, rather than allowing the situation to simply flounder and continue on, in a foreign country no less.
I think the ISIS should either be officially declared war against - and that such a measure would not constitute certain war based measures for the legislature or executive branch (I could be mistaken, but I believe there are some which apply) - or largely ignored. I also think if America does declare war against the ISIS, America should attempt to actually win the war rather than simply keep the enemy at bay. Either attempt to destroy the enemy or do not fight a war, there is effectively no middle ground in my book.
I also think the U.S. should close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and provide a fair trial to those terrorists there. The death penalty should apply to some terrorists, while potentially others could be innocent, and others should be transferred to maximum security prisons. Alternatively, I am not entirely opposed to the military prison, it's just that the prison, I presume, holds prisoners who have been there likely for decades, at taxpayer expense. I would prefer that something proactive and productive actually be done with the situation, rather than allowing the situation to simply flounder and continue on, in a foreign country no less.
I think the ISIS should either be officially declared war against - and that such a measure would not constitute certain war based measures for the legislature or executive branch (I could be mistaken, but I believe there are some which apply) - or largely ignored. I also think if America does declare war against the ISIS, America should attempt to actually win the war rather than simply keep the enemy at bay. Either attempt to destroy the enemy or do not fight a war, there is effectively no middle ground in my book.
I think the United States should be more concerned with domestic concerns than with foreign concerns. I think the United States should keep ground troops out of Syria and the U.S.A. should not overthrow President Bashar al-Assad.
I support Israel's sovereignty and their stabilizing presence in the Middle East. Wait, Israel is a stabilizing presence in the Middle East? Well, yes, actually. If Israel would not exist, then I would be willing to bet that the Middle East and the world, in general, would be much more destabilised. As a result of this, I think the United States should be a good ally of Israel, and the U.S. should also respect Israel's sovereignty and not dictate how Israel interacts with its neighbors.
I think the United States should be concerned with the welfare of United States citizens more than foreign citizens. While foreign aid is not a significant portion of the federal budget, it is still a much larger portion of the federal budget than it should be - namely that foreign aid is a part of the federal budget at all. I support a decreasing of and likely an elimination of all foreign aid. While I think foreign aid is sometimes well-intentioned, even when it is given out with good intentions, foreign aid does not help a foreign nation's citizens and hurts American citizens.
Foreign aid does not benefit a foreign nation's citizens because money is fungible and, as a result, potentially the million dollars (or whatever currency is used) that were going to be used for national healthcare for its citizens could instead be used for the country's military. Meanwhile, the million dollars of foreign aid that were given to the country is used for the country's national healthcare system, so while the country is truthfully able to say that the million dollars were used for national healthcare for its citizens, in reality, the money helped to fund the country's military.
And this is to say nothing of the corruption and salaries in governments. Perhaps during the transfer of money, 10% disappears due to corruption and the payment of salaries in the United States and another 15% disappears in the foreign country, as a result of this the country "only" receives 765,000 dollars to use for its national health care. And if you are uncertain of how foreign aid hurts United States citizens, then you should perhaps take an Economics 101 class. And somewhat connected to foreign aid, I support either a scaleback of current U.S. involvement in the U.N. or a complete dissolution from it.
Foreign aid does not benefit a foreign nation's citizens because money is fungible and, as a result, potentially the million dollars (or whatever currency is used) that were going to be used for national healthcare for its citizens could instead be used for the country's military. Meanwhile, the million dollars of foreign aid that were given to the country is used for the country's national healthcare system, so while the country is truthfully able to say that the million dollars were used for national healthcare for its citizens, in reality, the money helped to fund the country's military.
And this is to say nothing of the corruption and salaries in governments. Perhaps during the transfer of money, 10% disappears due to corruption and the payment of salaries in the United States and another 15% disappears in the foreign country, as a result of this the country "only" receives 765,000 dollars to use for its national health care. And if you are uncertain of how foreign aid hurts United States citizens, then you should perhaps take an Economics 101 class. And somewhat connected to foreign aid, I support either a scaleback of current U.S. involvement in the U.N. or a complete dissolution from it.
I think convicted murderers should lose the right to vote. By taking away someone's voice and more importantly their life, I think it is easily justifiable to take away a murderer's ability to vote.
Immigration Issues
I support keeping religious elements out of immigration processes. I believe explicitly banning Muslim immigrants, or any other religious minded individuals from entering the U.S.A. is anticonstitutional. I mean, technically I wonder if there could be a case to be made from a safety precedence to keep certain belief systems out of the United States, but realistically I do not think that such a policy could be implemented effectively. As a result, I think that each potential immigrant should be dealt with individually and there should not be any blanket ban on potential immigrants. (Also, Muslims could simply lie if they wanted to and still be acting within their belief system, so implementing a "Muslim ban" would not solve anything, regardless of intentions.)
I think U.S. citizens should get the benefits of living in the U.S. (I typically like to frame things positively, rather than always being 'against' various things and on the defensive. I usually attempt to take a more positively framed aspect of some issue that I support. I will admit that it was tough for this one, so I just had to take a cop-out answer of a generality which sort of applied.) I oppose granting illegal immigrants access to government subsidized health care and tuition grants to college. Although, with that said, I actually oppose granting U.S. citizens access to government subsidized health care and tuition grants to college as well. So yeah, in order to connect the first sentence of the paragraph, I think the benefits of the U.S. do not include access to government-subsidized health care and tuition grants to college.
I support America keeping its citizens safe and able to pursue various economic opportunities. As a result, I support the implementation of further border security measures. I support the further development of a wall which crosses the southern border of the United States and there should also be many electronic measures put into place to easily detect illegal immigrants attempting to enter the United States. I would also support the further hiring of (rough estimate) 8,000 border guards. Also, if possible, drones should be fitted with nonlethal weapons and roughly 1,000 border guards will operate these non-lethal drones.
Furthermore, in any instance of illegal immigrants being discovered in the United States, the individuals should be deported to their respective countries. This would be done regardless of family ties within the United States or political connections. But that's inhumane, why would you tear families apart? First of all, why am I supposed to be on the defensive in regards to individuals intentionally breaking the law? Should not the individuals who break the law be on the defensive? Secondly though, to address your question, yes, I am insensitive in this regard. I would support the deportation of illegal immigrants even if it would separate family members from each other.
That is not the end of the situation, though. I would support the debureaucratization of immigrating to the United States and an increase in the number of immigrants accepted into the U.S. each year. Would some families likely be forced to move back to their respective country because of the situation? Yes, this would be the case for some families. There are typically consequences for breaking the law and a decent amount of the time those consequences are enforced. I do, however, think the majority of families would actually be able to legally be together in the United States within a decade (presuming that other deregulation legislation would pass, of course).
I lightly support "forcing" immigrants to learn English, since it is the common language spoken in the United States and is part of the culture here. But, at the same time, I understand that other peoples and cultures are obviously quite diverse, and I doubt that learning English would truly help America's situation greatly. As a result, I do not consider requiring immigrants to learn English as a very significant or strongly supported issue.
I support a large deregulation of the immigration process. I am uncertain of specifics because I would need to learn more about the situation and legislation to have a concrete, detailed plan. I do think some regulation of the immigration process is certainly a good thing, just not to the extent that currently exists. I think unlimited immigration from other countries would go too far, but I do support much larger numbers of foreign citizens being able to immigrate to the United States.
Thanks for reading.
I think U.S. citizens should get the benefits of living in the U.S. (I typically like to frame things positively, rather than always being 'against' various things and on the defensive. I usually attempt to take a more positively framed aspect of some issue that I support. I will admit that it was tough for this one, so I just had to take a cop-out answer of a generality which sort of applied.) I oppose granting illegal immigrants access to government subsidized health care and tuition grants to college. Although, with that said, I actually oppose granting U.S. citizens access to government subsidized health care and tuition grants to college as well. So yeah, in order to connect the first sentence of the paragraph, I think the benefits of the U.S. do not include access to government-subsidized health care and tuition grants to college.
I support America keeping its citizens safe and able to pursue various economic opportunities. As a result, I support the implementation of further border security measures. I support the further development of a wall which crosses the southern border of the United States and there should also be many electronic measures put into place to easily detect illegal immigrants attempting to enter the United States. I would also support the further hiring of (rough estimate) 8,000 border guards. Also, if possible, drones should be fitted with nonlethal weapons and roughly 1,000 border guards will operate these non-lethal drones.
Furthermore, in any instance of illegal immigrants being discovered in the United States, the individuals should be deported to their respective countries. This would be done regardless of family ties within the United States or political connections. But that's inhumane, why would you tear families apart? First of all, why am I supposed to be on the defensive in regards to individuals intentionally breaking the law? Should not the individuals who break the law be on the defensive? Secondly though, to address your question, yes, I am insensitive in this regard. I would support the deportation of illegal immigrants even if it would separate family members from each other.
That is not the end of the situation, though. I would support the debureaucratization of immigrating to the United States and an increase in the number of immigrants accepted into the U.S. each year. Would some families likely be forced to move back to their respective country because of the situation? Yes, this would be the case for some families. There are typically consequences for breaking the law and a decent amount of the time those consequences are enforced. I do, however, think the majority of families would actually be able to legally be together in the United States within a decade (presuming that other deregulation legislation would pass, of course).
I lightly support "forcing" immigrants to learn English, since it is the common language spoken in the United States and is part of the culture here. But, at the same time, I understand that other peoples and cultures are obviously quite diverse, and I doubt that learning English would truly help America's situation greatly. As a result, I do not consider requiring immigrants to learn English as a very significant or strongly supported issue.
I support a large deregulation of the immigration process. I am uncertain of specifics because I would need to learn more about the situation and legislation to have a concrete, detailed plan. I do think some regulation of the immigration process is certainly a good thing, just not to the extent that currently exists. I think unlimited immigration from other countries would go too far, but I do support much larger numbers of foreign citizens being able to immigrate to the United States.
Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment