Should politicians be required to take an oath that says they " will not put foreigners welfare first"?

Answer 1

There are treaties of "friendship, commerce and navigation" that would be violated; as would Constitutional law that requires equal treatment.

Foreigners' welfare is never put first. But would you cut off the Colorado River and deliver no water at all to Mexico in violation of treaty and custom? For example.

Answer 2

Some oaths are stupider than others. This one is exceptionally so. How is anyone to determine exactly how or by what means the welfare of "foreigners'" has been placed above the interests of Americans (American citizens?)? The welfare of foreigners is not as easily separated from "American" welfare as your question pretends. When legislation, for example, affords the spanish-speaking (legal) immigrant the opportunity to get forms and employment help in English and Spanish both, and the person ends up employed and paying taxes as a result, has the "foreigner's" welfare been placed ahead of Americans' interests? The illiberal often like to portray the issues as a kind of see-saw; either my idea prevails or total anarchy prevails. In reality there are benefits that all enjoy when justice prevails. Unfortunately, some people's idea of 'justice' is infused with the vilest persecution and bigotry.

Do only what you are able. But I hope you are able, among other things, to grow your self-respect to such an extent that you feel no animus whatever toward the poor, the homeless, the disabled, the elderly, the unemployed, the victimized, the sick, the disenfranchised, and the 'foreign'.

Answer 3

Are they include Israeli welfare? If yes, I should give thumb up to Palestineans.

Answer 4

yes

Answer 5

Or at least illegal ones.