That would put us in the majority, as most world countries dont confer citizenship automatically through birth

the issue would be though, with how to justify it when such a majority of americans obtained their status because of that very policy being in place when their ancestors were in this country,,,

I can't believe this. they test welfare guys to see if they can live free and on other people's money, by not abusing drugs? This implies that if they are high, they can't spend money handed to them. What slow-witted Congress moron thought this up? I am not in politics, but I am sure that a welfare recipient with any iq over 60 who smokes dope is not incapable of spending money handed to them.

So I find this drug testing thing stupid.

It also sets a dangerous precedent. IF the justification is merely the use of 'other peoples money', the mandate would also be applicable to any number of other programs people use.


For instance, Student loans. Students attending full time and not working are technically using 'other peoples money' for the privilege of school and should likewise all be tested, which would mean even more money spent for little return.

Perhaps , along with the idea of taxing the wealthy (which I dont oppose), we could stop demonizing those who need assistance. Along those lines, maybe the program should be more of a the loan type that educational assistance is.

Those who receive assistance could have a slightly higher tax (based upon how much total assistance they received) once they start working.

But only if the expenses were worth the cost of the personell required to keep track of the balance on financial public assistance of each individual taxpayer and to apply taxes appropriately.

My eyes are tired..I haven't read thru this whole thread....so I wont say all that comes to mind..but I will say this...I utilized the public welfare system for a period of time in my life when I was in need of help...I was/am a productive, contributing, law abiding tax paying citizen. With my pride already battered...how absolutely humiliating it would have been to have been required to submit to a drug test simply because I was in need of help feeding/housing myself and my children. I would have passed it with no problem but that is not the point..please note the key words here...law abiding tax paying citizen in need of help.

If they are here on a student or tourist VISA and have a child while in the US the child is not considered a citizen of the United States until said child is of an age to determine said child wishes to be a citizen of the united States. The nationality of the child or child citizenship is considered to be that of the parents until such time occurs. That child would not be eligible for entitlement programs until the child determines itself to be a citizen of the US. Its written into policy and procedures federally.

That matters not. Countries were formed by people just like this one. There were people long before there were countries. This rule would then apply to all of them. As they have changed their policies so can we.

Newsflash! It was just determined that no person in the United States violated traffic laws because that would be against the law.

I think you are missing the point I was making. Yes, there were people long before there were countries. However, once countries are created, and laws are enacted, it is hard to justify when and why the law should afford privileges to some and then detract them from others...especially with a privilege as significant as citizenship

Not really. A country's loyalties are with its citizens. Currently this law does nothing to help citizens but does a lot to hurt them.

by definition, this law determines who its citizens are

those it disenfranchises will be hurt

Thats misleading. Children cannot legally accept the welfare, and have no legal authority over the welfare. The state does very little to regulate how the parents spend the welfare.

Therefore, the welfare is given to the parents.

It seems to me that MetalWing's point stands.

MsHarmony, I see many different lines of thought intersecting in this dialog, and I'm afraid I might have missed your point - unless its a simple as: "Working drug addicts are not the topic when discussing drug testing for unemployed welfare recipients." Was there more to it than that?

Wait... WHAT?

Would you find it humiliating to take a drug test to get a job operating a fork life?

You know, come to think of it, I found taking the written portion of the test for a drivers license to be insulting. They actually wanted to make sure I could understand the most ridiculously simple set of rules, and take the time to sit down and prove that I could. WTF?

Oh, and I once worked as a food handler and had to get a food handlers permit - that course was insulting. The teachers didn't know **** about microbiology, half of what they said was wrong, but I was required by law to pay them to 'teach' me about food handling safety.

And when I was in high school, to participate in some sporting even I had to let a doctor touch my nuts. (Least thats what he told me... )


But in none of these cases did I take it personally. In all of these cases I understood that there is a procedure in place, a policy, which by necessity must take a 'one size fits all' approach, even if it doesn't really fit.


This is what happens when you turn to a faceless institution to get aid - you have to play by the rules of the faceless institution.

Part of the purpose of this law, from my point of view, is to reduce the insane amount of your tax dollars which are being spent directly on drugs. I personally know many people who say they get anywhere from $200 to $1200 a month (different amounts for different kinds of aid... the holy grail is california's 'crazy check') from the government, who spend most of that money on drugs.

People get food stamps and then offer to buy other people's groceries for them, thereby spending all of that food stamp money on drugs.

Many, many people who get money from the government in other capacities are required to prove what they spent it on. They must keep books! Keeping false records is a significant crime.

But yeah, you mention student loans. Forget students loans - you have to pay that back, right? But how about student grants?

For one, you cannot get grants unless you are enrolled - so right there, there is a bit of a partial guaranteed that at least some of the money is being used for its intended purpose. So right there, there is a difference between that and welfare. But I'm still not opposed to drug testing grant recipients. A good amount of that grant money is going to drugs. If you don't want to play by the rules, find another way to finance your education.

This might give priority to people who aren't spending their college years partying - and I think thats just fine!

yes , Those maintaining employment (regardless of any other issue) are off topic when discussing drug testing for the unemployed (regardless of their income source)

RE: drug test for fork lift operators, there is a specific set of dangers and risk involved which warrant that precaution...but if they ask me questions about my personal life, which have nothing, in my mind, to do with me being able to operate that fork lift, I wouldn't be humiliated I would be pissed....and I would consider checking with an attorney or the labor department or the ACLU to see if they have the right to do so...and if not I just might file a complaint...

As for your other comments...same thing, the requirments are/were specific and relative. (by the way, hope you filed a complaint about the less than qualified teachers)

Believe me I understand policy and procedure and the necessity to take specific precautions for and with specific, risk, dangers or threats in mind. I work in insurance and have a pretty astute understanding of risk analysts.
Having to submit to drug testing simply because you ask for help certainly borders on, in my mind, being just a little too broad spectrum.

I am all for other forms of checks and balances to make sure the money is being used for it's intended purposes..i.e. putting a roof over the kids head, healthy food in their mouths, providing stability so their education doesn't suffer....if there is a drug user/abuser in the home preventing these intended purposes...it will become apparent....then further actions can be taken.

It is important we do not enter into witch hunt mentality in any of the hot point issues and guard the civil liberties of our citizenry; they have been too hard fought for. It makes me even more proud of our country that there are people out there fighting to keep things in check...especially for those who are not in the position to fight that battle....you want aid to feed your kids, you will play whatever game you have to play knowing your back is against the wall and you feel, at that point in time, you do not have a choice.

but hell, really, maybe we should be even more preemptive...let's just regularly drug test all parents because if they are abusing or even using drugs eventually their little offspring will cost society money one way or the other.

Just showing I can be sarcastic also.

Any form of mandatory drug testing is unconstitutional.

Such testing presumes guilt by its very use. (they test to find the guilty).

We do not have to make any statements that might incriminate.

the 5th!

Pissing in a cup is a statement.

Giving blood or hair is a statement.

Refusing the test on these grounds should not get a person fired (that would be a presumption of guilt).

Do politicians get mandatory periodic drug tests?
They, like welfare recipients, are payed by the grace of tax payers.
Funny how you cant operate a fork lift without drug tests but its all cool to run a country off ya chops!
Can i as a politicians employer demand a cup of pee?

I had to take extensive drug testing to get my security clearance. It makes sense for some so what is the difference for others?