# The attempt to destroy the nation state



## simonpimonpoo (Nov 20, 2018)

Hello! I haven't really been part of any of the discussions in this part of the forum but since it seems like there are different viewpoints here it would be interesting with this type of discussion.

What is the nation state to you? What do you think of nationalism?

What do you think of the attempt to destroy the nation state and the type of governance that is in the process of being implemented in its place?

I realize that the majority of you are probably americans and the political climate over there is probably a bit different.

In European political circles there is a belief that the nation state must be destroyed and supranational governance in the form of the European Union should take its place to ensure eternal peace. This idea took form after the 2 big wars that completely destroyed the continent.
At least this is how you would interpret it if you want to give the politicians the benefit of the doubt and don't assume that their actions are malevolent.

My viewpoint is that the nation state is the form of governance expressed by the people of a nation and to deny them the right of their nation state is like denying them the right to self determination:

"The right of a people to *self-determination* is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a _jus cogens_ rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms.[1][2] It states that a people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference.[3]"
- quote from wiki.

The tactics used by the political elite to destroy the nation state is as I previously expressed supra-national entities such as the EU but also mass-migration in en effort to erase national identities.

I believe this to be an attack on human sovereignty, basic human freedom and the ability to choose our own destiny.

What are your thoughts on the matter?


----------



## vilk (Nov 20, 2018)

I don't have any full, coherent opinions, so I will share my half-baked, semi-thought-out opinions:

1. Being prideful simply for having been born is stupid. You didn't birth yourself, you didn't decide to have parents from X country, you didn't decide to be raised there. Your nationality has nothing to do with your own achievement and for that reason "nationalism" insofar as it takes the form of "national pride" is stupid. It's always been really confusing to me that my Polish friend whom I consider to be an otherwise highly intelligent person can claim that he takes such great pride in having been born Polish. I could maybe understand if you have like a military career or something, but even so the pride is misplaced if you apply it to your nationality rather than your work as a serviceman.

2. The idea that lines drawn on a map will somehow 'protect your culture' died when we stopped building castle walls and invented the internet. Also, the value placed on 'maintaining culture' is assumed. There's no logical reasoning behind why we ought to do it; it's purely emotional. It's just the opinions of individuals. Historically, the 'culture' of a given region has undoubtedly changed drastically over time. People who want to cling to it are actually only clinging to one particular point in history. This has always happened in all cultures throughout history, yet in the end they do and will always continue change.

Consider that in 2018, even people born in the land of their forefathers will probably not engage in much cultural tradition.

3. Those cultural traditions were appropriated from somewhere else anyway. It's short-sighted to think that they're really "yours", especially using as a basis
what side of an invisible line you were born on.

4. Despite that I believe migration is a human right and we should let in people escaping Islamist states, I don't feel it's the right choice to accommodate or cater to religions or religious laws, whether it be Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, Sikhism, etc. I mean maybe it's not right to full on ban religions or anything, but I think we should continue to fight for humanism as the standard. If a religious practice is mostly incompatible with humanism, as many of them are, then I feel it is not ethically wrong to make those practices illegal or highly controlled.

5. Americans who are critical of destroying the European nation state and imposing a supranational government should consider that we are in many ways already operating under that system here in the United _States_ of America.

ooh it's lunch time! Guess I'm all done for now!


----------



## Drew (Nov 20, 2018)

I'm going to assume you're trolling here - in the US AND in Europe, you see a deep distrust of nationalism dating back to the atrocities of World War II, and about the only places you see nationalism being embraced - sadly, in both countries - are in the white supremacist/extreme right political movements looking for a race-based nationalism.


----------



## simonpimonpoo (Nov 20, 2018)

I am not trolling.

Maybe I should have clarified what i meant with nationalism, but I still find your answers interesting in spite of it since I get to understand what you read into the term. I do not place any notion of "pride" in the term nationalism, I simply mean the belief that the nation state should be the form of governance that should guide one people in a world of many peoples. My "utopia" would be a world full of distinct nations of free peoples democratically deciding the fate of their own people without interference from any other entity and in brotherly cooperation with all other free peoples of the world.

I agree that the distrust towards nationalism and the hate toward nation states stems from the result of the second world war and the shape of how we tell the history of what happened. I do not believe the atrocities that occured during the second world war stems from the nation state since it was nation states that in the end defeated naziism and used nationalism to rally the troops against the nazi ideology.

Nationalism isn't racism but is the embrace of the nation state and the conviction that the nation state is the best form of governance we can create, at least in this point in time.


----------



## simonpimonpoo (Nov 20, 2018)

Having said that i would like to reply to your well thought out post vilk and thank you for your contribution to the discussion.

1. I didn't decide where I was going to be born, you are right in that regard, but my parents did decide. They decided that they wanted me born onto them and that was their choice as free people and it was their parents choice before them. I agree that being prideful for being born could be regarded as stupid. But is being proud of your family stupid? Sure you could argue that since you are not your family you are an individual, but still I don't think the majority of people would regard the notion "I am proud of my mother/father/brother" as a stupid position to hold, but simply a position you hold as a testament to your love for your family.

2. This is maybe where the difference lies since the USA is sort of an artificial construct, but in Europe we have nation states and peoples that have been shaped over thousands of years of history. In that regard the lines on the map are not just random lines but a collection of unique civilizations that all have their purpouse in the world or else they would not exist. This is also true elsewhere in the "old world" aswell of course. And cultures have always changed, you are right about that, but differences between nations have persisted. There is a reason for that i would presume, and I wouldn't go about changing that anytime soon since I see something beautiful about it.

3. All cultures are shaped by the age they live in and their surroundings but they have still remained distinct from each other. Just because they have co-evolved with other cultures does not mean they lack value. Those invisible lines may well exist over there in the USA but in europe i assure you that you would not feel "home" if you cross one of those "imaginary lines" and all of a sudden people speak a different language.

4. I do not believe migration to be a human right, I am even unsure if universal human rights as a concept really exists (enforced by whom, god?). A nation state is the only entity that should enforce the rights of its people which in turn its people decides for themselves democratically. Another people cannot claim rights to land that is not theirs, this is how wars start, but they sure can be invited to stay there!

5. Yes I agree that you are sort of operating under that system already over there and I would not want that type of system in my country. But the difference is America is sort of not a nation state or has ever been? Maybe you have but it's sort of an artifical construct of many different nations trying to coexist. It's an interesting experiment and it has it's place in the world I believe but maybe we should avoid turning the entire world into one giant America, at least in my view.


----------



## Randy (Nov 20, 2018)

ITT: Low Testosterone Fascism


----------



## Drew (Nov 20, 2018)

simonpimonpoo said:


> I agree that the distrust towards nationalism and the hate toward nation states stems from the result of the second world war *and the shape of how we tell the history of what happened*. I do not believe the atrocities that occured during the second world war stems from the nation state since it was nation states that in the end defeated naziism and used nationalism to rally the troops against the nazi ideology.
> 
> Nationalism isn't racism but is the embrace of the nation state and the conviction that the nation state is the best form of governance we can create, at least in this point in time.


Um, a racial interpretation of nationalism, and a belief in the Aryan nation-state, was what got us the Nazi party in the first place. I also question how you got the "nation states was what ended Naziism," seeing that two of the three nations that did the majority of the heavy lifting were Russia, a nation defined not by some sort of nation-state belief but by the economic principles underpinning its economy, and the United States of America, a federation of states rather than a tightly-bound nation-state of its own. And it was patriotism, not nationalism, that rallied the country here in the States, at least.

Also, the bolded bit is _really_ problematic, man.



simonpimonpoo said:


> ...but in Europe we have nation states and peoples that have been shaped over thousands of years of history. In that regard the lines on the map are not just random lines but a collection of unique civilizations that all have their purpouse in the world or else they would not exist.


This, in a nutshell, is why nationalism is so popular with the white supremacist far right. "It's not racism, it's just that we want to preserve our own unique white culture, bro!"


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Nov 20, 2018)

So let's go ahead and merge this with my Sinead O'Connor/Culture Appropriation thread, I feel like that's possibly where this is headed.


----------



## StevenC (Nov 20, 2018)

simonpimonpoo said:


> 2. This is maybe where the difference lies since the USA is sort of an artificial construct, but in Europe we have nation states and peoples that have been shaped over thousands of years of history. In that regard the lines on the map are not just random lines but a collection of unique civilizations that all have their purpouse in the world or else they would not exist. This is also true elsewhere in the "old world" aswell of course. And cultures have always changed, you are right about that, but differences between nations have persisted. There is a reason for that i would presume, and I wouldn't go about changing that anytime soon since I see something beautiful about it.


This would be a really great point if every border in Europe wasn't culturally ambiguous to the point of being unsure which country you're actually in. Or if there were no hard feelings about what should or shouldn't be France or Germany. Or if Catalonia didn't see itself as distinct from Spain. Or if those "unique civilisations" weren't defined by nationalist wars.


----------



## Demiurge (Nov 20, 2018)

Oh, I don't see it being the destruction of sovereignty as much as it is the equivalent of that old photo that gets posted a million times on social media of two small kids wearing a single t-shirt that says something like "get-along shirt". Be who you want to be- fine, but let's go a few decades without trying to annihilate one another and perhaps the over-reaching attempts to make countries interdependent on one another will eventually cease.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Nov 20, 2018)

vilk said:


> 5. Americans who are critical of destroying the European nation state and imposing a supranational government should consider that we are in many ways already operating under that system here in the United _States_ of America.



The Americans that are critical of the EU are also likely the same Americans that are critical of the federal government having too much power. 



Randy said:


> ITT: Low Testosterone Fascism



How exactly are you correlating nationalism with fascism? They describe totally different things.
I mean, I'll give you that they compliment each other nicely, sure.


----------



## Randy (Nov 20, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> How exactly are you correlating nationalism with fascism?



Well the first part of my post fills in the gap.

Also, the dictionary:



> noun
> 
> ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc.,and *emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.*



Nationalism is essentially the belief, facism is how you put it into practice. If you believe in "nation states" then you believe in defined borders, and those borders designating what's considered 'in' and what's considered 'out'. Back to the dictionary again!



> na·tion-state
> _noun_
> 
> a sovereign state whose citizens or subjects are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language or common descent.



Okay, so now we've got strictly defined borders and the ones inside said 'nation state' adhering to clear cut definitions of accepted language and accepted cultural practices. 

But hey, how do you know what language that is or what culture that is? Oh that's right, someone needs to decide what they are. And who gets to decide those things? Some form of leadership I'd reckon. And if being a nation state requires adhering to those established "norms", that implies something needs to be done to maintain status quo, right? So that would require letting nobody in and ejecting or punishing anyone within who doesn't adhere to those norms.

So to put nationalism into practice is to establish a nation state, and to enforce the rules of a nation state you need leadership to decide the rules and to enforce the rules you need law dictating what language you can speak and what God you can worship. 

Ding ding ding, the facism train arrives at the station right on time.

The only difference between that and what's being floated in this thread (and currently in this country) is nationalists are too limp dicked to admit they're fucking racist and afraid that their cultural is declining while everyone else's is expanding. They just use some folksy 'back in my day'-ism as a sheath for fear of repercussion


----------



## Explorer (Nov 20, 2018)

I like that simonpimonpoo seems to be attempting to make the case that Sweden joined the EU in some way which bypassed its democratically-elected government. 

Also, anti-immigrant party the Sweden Democrats, who have neo-Nazi roots, are firmly and fiercely nationalist. They won a bit more than 16% of the vote recently, so they are leveraging their control by playing the right against the left in order to advance their agenda, using language much like the OP.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 20, 2018)

PunkBillCarson said:


> So let's go ahead and merge this with my Sinead O'Connor/Culture Appropriation thread, I feel like that's possibly where this is headed.



Whoa, hold up!

No one is discussing the difference between carnitas and pastor yet.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 21, 2018)

Drew said:


> This, in a nutshell, is why nationalism is so popular with the white supremacist far right. "It's not racism, it's just that we want to preserve our own unique white culture, bro!"



Oh! That reminded me... remember the discovery in Sweden of Viking boat funeral garments with "Allah" embroidered on them?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41567391

That is amusingly inconvenient for the anti-Muslim element in Sweden who want to make it about the old culture. *laugh*


----------



## Randy (Nov 21, 2018)

Explorer said:


> Oh! That reminded me... remember the discovery in Sweden of Viking boat funeral garments with "Allah" embroidered on them?
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41567391
> 
> That is amusingly inconvenient for the anti-Muslim element in Sweden who want to make it about the old culture. *laugh*



Plot of 13th Warrior confirmed.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 21, 2018)

Randy said:


> Plot of 13th Warrior confirmed.


ITT: Nazis and cannibals.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Nov 21, 2018)

Randy said:


> Nationalism is essentially the belief, facism is how you put it into practice. If you believe in "nation states" then you believe in defined borders, and those borders designating what's considered 'in' and what's considered 'out'. Back to the dictionary again!
> --
> Okay, so now we've got strictly defined borders and the ones inside said 'nation state' adhering to clear cut definitions of accepted language and accepted cultural practices.
> 
> ...



Ah, I gotcha. I was fixating on the dictatorial aspect of fascism and got confused because you can easily have a nation state without a dictator. 
...which is where the lo-T part comes in


----------



## Drew (Nov 21, 2018)

Explorer said:


> I like that simonpimonpoo seems to be attempting to make the case that Sweden joined the EU in some way which bypassed its democratically-elected government.
> 
> Also, anti-immigrant party the Sweden Democrats, who have neo-Nazi roots, are firmly and fiercely nationalist. They won a bit more than 16% of the vote recently, so they are leveraging their control by playing the right against the left in order to advance their agenda, using language much like the OP.


Anyone want to take a wild stab at simon's political alignment? Three guesses, first two don't count?


----------



## Metropolis (Nov 21, 2018)

So... If USA and Mexico were united for same shitty melting pot, and borders were open from second tier countries (or even third world miserable abominations like Haiti) of Caribbean you globalists wouldn't be even mad? Can anyone explain why it shouldn't happen without sounding like a nationalist?


----------



## vilk (Nov 21, 2018)

Metropolis said:


> you wouldn't be even mad?


 Nope. Why would I? 



Metropolis said:


> Can anyone explain why it shouldn't happen without sounding like a nationalist?



Well I might try to steer clear of implying that certain people are lesser than we are by virtue of where they were born.


----------



## Metropolis (Nov 21, 2018)

vilk said:


> Nope
> 
> 
> 
> Well I might try to steer clear of implying that certain people are lesser than we are by virtue of where they were born.



Generally people don't want to share everything what they have, some of it yes, but not everything. That's why many countries keep their policies strict about things like that and control it. Basically whole world thinks like that. Putting a lot of people in the same place with others that have different values and backround is a dangerous game and it has often led to wars, but people just never learn.


----------



## vilk (Nov 21, 2018)

Metropolis said:


> Generally people don't want to share everything what they have, some of it yes, but not everything. That's why many countries keep their policies strict about things like that and control it. Basically whole world thinks like that. Putting a lot of people in the same place with others that have different values and backround is a dangerous game and it has often led to wars, but people just never learn.



So if I'm interpreting you correctly, you say that Nationalism is good because it prevents a hypothetical civil war that could possibly occur between irreconcilably unlike 'groups' that have had the invisible lines redrawn around them [presumably without their consent, by some outside force, because otherwise how did it happen in the first place?]?? Did I get that right?


----------



## Metropolis (Nov 21, 2018)

vilk said:


> So if I'm interpreting you correctly, you say that Nationalism is good because it prevents a hypothetical civil war that could possibly occur between irreconcilably unlike 'groups' that have had the invisible lines redrawn around them [presumably without their consent, by some outside force, because otherwise how did it happen in the first place?]?? Did I get that right?



Let's just drop the word nationalism out of it, and think it as a possible cause of war and what kind of things lead to them generally. It's not a certain outcome, just a possibility which no one hopefully doesn't want.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Nov 21, 2018)

Metropolis said:


> Let's just drop the word nationalism out of it, and think it as a possible cause of war and what kind of things lead to them generally. It's not a certain outcome, just a possibility which no one hopefully doesn't want.



But the whole conversation is _about_ the word nationalism though. This is pretty much what vilk said already.
There are different arguments that can be made (overcrowding in certain areas, desertion of other areas, people feeling 'replaced,' etc), but jumping straight to war is a bit of a reach imo.


----------



## Randy (Nov 21, 2018)

Metropolis said:


> Generally people don't want to share everything what they have, some of it yes, but not everything. \



What the fuck is anybody being asked to share? People come over the border from Mexico and that means I need to put them up in my house and add them to my Neflix account? I've never heard that before. Last I knew they still had to fend for themselves, what the fuck are they taking away from me by doing that?


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Nov 21, 2018)

Randy said:


> What the fuck is anybody being asked to share? People come over the border from Mexico and that means I need to put them up in my house and add them to my Neflix account? I've never heard that before. Last I knew they still had to fend for themselves, what the fuck are they taking away from me by doing that?


Brownin' up yer town


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Nov 21, 2018)

Metropolis said:


> Putting a lot of people in the same place with others that have different values and backround is a dangerous game and it has often led to wars, but people just never learn.


Excuse if I'm going a bit off topic but, isn't this often a result of colonialism forcefully grouping people together and not people willingly immigrating?


----------



## simonpimonpoo (Nov 21, 2018)

Drew said:


> Um, a racial interpretation of nationalism, and a belief in the Aryan nation-state, was what got us the Nazi party in the first place. I also question how you got the "nation states was what ended Naziism," seeing that two of the three nations that did the majority of the heavy lifting were Russia, a nation defined not by some sort of nation-state belief but by the economic principles underpinning its economy, and the United States of America, a federation of states rather than a tightly-bound nation-state of its own. And it was patriotism, not nationalism, that rallied the country here in the States, at least.
> 
> Also, the bolded bit is _really_ problematic, man.
> 
> ...



You seem very obsessed with skin colour and "race". I am speaking about nations. The colour of your skin is not what defines your nation. There is no "white nation" or "white culture". There are many nations of peoples with white skin but I have never understood the american obsession with the colour of the human skin. What defines a nation has more to do with language, history and culture. I would like to keep the discussion more focused on ideas and statecraft and not colours.

Furthermore I understand from your previous post that you believe Europe to be a country. I would like to clarify that Europe is a continent which consists of multiple countries. Almost all of the countries of Europe were affected more by the world wars than America was. The resistance against nazi occupation in the different countries of Europe stemmed from nationalism. The free peoples of Europe were being occupied by a socialist regime enforced by a foreign nation. They did not want a foreign power controlling their destiny, they wanted to be free. This is why Americans were later seen as "liberators". They liberated free nation states from foreign occupants. Nationalism is what has fed resistance sentiment in all occupied territories in the history of the world. A recent example would be the Israel/palestine issue. If you are not a nationalist you are susceptible to the belief that it is alright to occupy foreign land and foreign peoples and impose your rule upon them. Since you have no moral compass.

Maybe nationalism is the cure to the endless wars perpetrated by americans against other nations in the world?


----------



## simonpimonpoo (Nov 21, 2018)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> Excuse if I'm going a bit off topic but, isn't this often a result of colonialism forcefully grouping people together and not people willingly immigrating?



colonialism is anti-nationalism. A nationalist would never agree that occupying a foreign nation is morally justifiable. Only self defense is ever justifiable.


----------



## narad (Nov 21, 2018)

simonpimonpoo said:


> There are many nations of peoples with white skin but I have never understood the american obsession with the colour of the human skin. What defines a nation has more to do with language, history and culture.



Probably the obsession stems from the whole.. not having a shared language, history, culture..thing.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Nov 21, 2018)

Randy said:


> What the fuck is anybody being asked to share? People come over the border from Mexico and that means I need to put them up in my house and add them to my Neflix account? I've never heard that before. Last I knew they still had to fend for themselves, what the fuck are they taking away from me by doing that?



He's probably referring to resources.
There's only so much land; cities become overcrowded, rural areas start to develop, there starts to be 'less space,' along with all the other problems that come with that.
Using California as an example, we're freaking out over where we send water to as it is. Still rolling with CA, after Paradise burned down all of the residents are now either in Chico or the surrounding area, and it's made a very noticeable (negative) impact on my daily routine. Traffic is backed up to the point where my 20 minute commute now takes roughly 45 minutes. There are lines everywhere for everything. Pedestrians are everywhere. There are *tons* of accidents. 

This is a very specific case and the proportion of "immigrants" is pretty wildly skewed, but things *do* change. 

Granted, you'd need to be talking about* fuck*_*huge*_ scale immigration for this to be an _actual_ issue, but he's _teeeechnically _not wrong. 



JoshuaVonFlash said:


> Excuse if I'm going a bit off topic but, isn't this often a result of colonialism forcefully grouping people together and not people willingly immigrating?



...which could then lead into this.
If we're talking about relatively unchecked immigration, aren't these people still "forcefully grouped together" if the people that were there initially didn't want to have tons of immigrants? I'm really just splitting hairs at this point, since I think the whole war argument is kind of laughable. Still though. Not everyone wants to just up and move; and why should they? 
--

Overall I don't really have a dog in this fight, I just like thought experiments.


----------



## Metropolis (Nov 21, 2018)

Randy said:


> What the fuck is anybody being asked to share? People come over the border from Mexico and that means I need to put them up in my house and add them to my Neflix account? I've never heard that before. Last I knew they still had to fend for themselves, what the fuck are they taking away from me by doing that?



Your country's resources, creating a market for low wage jobs, grey economy, and low social status following with increased risk for crime. Big groups of people affect to where they come. Sharing those resources works way differently in Nordic countries of Europe than in US, we are small and from american standpoint socialist. I mean it in much larger scale.



JoshuaVonFlash said:


> Excuse if I'm going a bit off topic but, isn't this often a result of colonialism forcefully grouping people together and not people willingly immigrating?



Isn't that what destroying nation state would be?



simonpimonpoo said:


> You seem very obsessed with skin colour and "race". I am speaking about nations. The colour of your skin is not what defines your nation. There is no "white nation" or "white culture". There are many nations of peoples with white skin but I have never understood the american obsession with the colour of the human skin. What defines a nation has more to do with language, history and culture. I would like to keep the discussion more focused on ideas and statecraft and not colours.



I don't either, it just enforces some kind of confrontation between people who just have different skin color.


----------



## simonpimonpoo (Nov 21, 2018)

narad said:


> Probably the obsession stems from the whole.. not having a shared language, history, culture..thing.



I like your thinking! You might be onto something here, will have to think your thoughts through. It does seem plausible that the lack of a unified history/culture/language in a country of mixed nations will result in falling back to the smallest common denominator in an effort to create a new unifying structure of thought. Interesting!


----------



## simonpimonpoo (Nov 21, 2018)

Metropolis said:


> Your country's resources, creating a market for low wage jobs, grey economy, and low social status following with increased risk for crime. Big groups of people affect to where they come. Sharing those resources works way differently in Nordic countries of Europe than in US, we are small and from american standpoint socialist. I mean it in much larger scale.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with you, and confrontation based on skin colour to me is so idiotic? How can anyone with half a brain fall for idiocy like that? When we can all live in prosperous nations by working together we should instead fight eachother based on differences in physical appearence?? Who came up with such an idea and why is it being promoted? Who benefits? It is beyond mind-boggling


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 21, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> He's probably referring to resources.



Speaking to the United States specifically, the resource argument is tenuous at best and mostly artificial.

We have low population density, an abundance of jobs and too much food. 

The problems we have are social and political, not mechanical. The reason we have poor and starving people in the United States is a feature, not a bug, instituted by the ruling class to better control and herd the cattle (us).


----------



## simonpimonpoo (Nov 21, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> ...which could then lead into this.
> If we're talking about relatively unchecked immigration, aren't these people still "forcefully grouped together" if the people that were there initially didn't want to have tons of immigrants? I'm really just splitting hairs at this point, since I think the whole war argument is kind of laughable. Still though. Not everyone wants to just up and move; and why should they?
> --
> 
> Overall I don't really have a dog in this fight, I just like thought experiments.



I like your thought experiment. Migration waves caused by wars creating refugees would be one example of forced migration i would say. People moving out of love or being hired for their skill would be more voluntary i guess.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Nov 21, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Speaking to the United States specifically, the resource argument is tenuous at best and mostly artificial.
> 
> We have low population density, an abundance of jobs and too much food.
> 
> The problems we have are social and political, not mechanical. The reason we have poor and starving people in the United States is a feature, not a bug, instituted by the ruling class to better control and herd the cattle (us).



Agreed; mathematically, that argument is very, very thin.
I'm talking more about the perception of the populace. Some people like small towns; some people like things just the way they are now. Said fuckhuge scale immigration would crowd these people out and change their way of life. 

Lets also not forget that we do have areas with very high population density, and that _those_ are likely the areas that would be hit hardest.

To which- "just move" you would say, but why should these people have to move because someone else moved in? They were there first. 
--
But yes, overall, I agree with the sentiment in your post.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Nov 21, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> ...which could then lead into this.
> If we're talking about relatively unchecked immigration, aren't these people still "forcefully grouped together" if the people that were there initially didn't want to have tons of immigrants? I'm really just splitting hairs at this point, since I think the whole war argument is kind of laughable. Still though. Not everyone wants to just up and move; and why should they?
> --
> 
> Overall I don't really have a dog in this fight, I just like thought experiments.


Could you clarify what you mean here? It kind of reads like a stream of consciousness. 





Metropolis said:


> Isn't that what destroying nation state would be?


If we are comparing the EU (Which countries willingly participate in) and say a colonial power like the British Empire's colonization of India for example, no, I would not describe the former as destroying the nation-state. They are two very different things. 



simonpimonpoo said:


> colonialism is anti-nationalism. A nationalist would never agree that occupying a foreign nation is morally justifiable. Only self defense is ever justifiable.



Plenty of fascist leaders of the 20th century used nationalism to appeal to the masses and justify why they needed to invade some far-off country (Poland, France, Ethiopia etc). The most famous example is probably Hitler's idea of Lebensraum. My point here is that a set of ideas like you listed in your reply are worthless if the people who adopt them aren't strictly adhering to them. Otherwise, North Korea would be an actual democracy.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 21, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Agreed; mathematically, that argument is very, very thin.
> I'm talking more about the perception of the populace. Some people like small towns; some people like things just the way they are now. Said fuckhuge scale immigration would crowd these people out and change their way of life.



That's a myth. 

We have so much of what I already mentioned (space, jobs, food, etc.) that most people would likely not even know if, for example, we took in 1 million people. 



> Lets also not forget that we do have areas with very high population density, and that _those_ are likely the areas that would be hit hardest.



That's not likely where people would go. 

Right now, the more populous states and counties are typically more liberal and progressive and overall more welcoming to immigrants than sparsely populated states.

If we mandated a level of decorum on the national level the spread of new immigrants wouldn't be so concentrated on already densely populated areas. 

Basically, if you're a new immigrant your choice is California where you'll be welcomed, or South Dakota where you won't be, you're going to go for California. 

Again, this is social and political engineering at work. 



> To which- "just move" you would say, but why should these people have to move because someone else moved in? They were there first.



I've heard this "they'll replace us" argument for decades and it's tripe. 

Who are these people being forced out of their homes by changing demographics? 

The only ones I know of are those who move by choice because they have a bias against those not like them, see: white flight to the suburbs. 

Also, somewhat off topic, but it's hard to take the "we were here first" argument seriously in a country that treats indigenous folks like garbage.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Nov 22, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's a myth.
> 
> We have so much of what I already mentioned (space, jobs, food, etc.) that most people would likely not even know if, for example, we took in 1 million people.
> 
> ...



I think you might be misunderstanding part of what I said- I didn't say that any of this is happening now, or even that any of these possibilities are realistic. I'm just saying that it's possible.
1 million people would be a drop in the bucket compared to something that would cause these types of effects, you'd need million*s*. Even still, my point isn't the "they'll replace us" talking point, it's more the concern that the people that already lived there could potentially have their daily lives affected in a way that they didn't want. To fix it, they would need to relocate. 

I do still disagree though on the notion that people wouldn't flock to areas that are already populated. I would assume that if you make the decision that you want to go to X country, you would want to go to a city that defines X country to you. In the case of the US, this would probably be somewhere like DC, New York, San Francisco, etc. Bigger areas also typically means more opportunities for employment, which would be a chief concern for any immigrant. People go where the money is. Just my 2 cents.



JoshuaVonFlash said:


> Could you clarify what you mean here? It kind of reads like a stream of consciousness.



....because it totally was. Sitting around at work with nothing to do 
Basically, you had proposed that the cause of most of the conflict that was mentioned was due to colonialism, and people being forcefully grouped together. They didn't _*want*_ to play nice, so of course they're going to be at each other's necks. Makes sense.
But, what that made me think, was that if group X was already there, and group Y immigrated, and group X didn't want group Y there, how would that be any different? They would still be "forcibly" grouped together; since not everyone can easily move house. 

Still though, I think the notion that that type of conflict could lead to war is very unrealistic since we're talking about a hypothetical scenario where we opened our borders in the first place.


----------



## AxeHappy (Nov 22, 2018)

Why would a supra national government destroy national governments? Federal Governments didn't destroy State/Provincial Governments which didn't destroy Municipal/Local governments. 

I wonder if there were a bunch of reactionaries saying shit such as, "WE CAN'T LET OUR CITIES STATES BECOME NATION STATES!! IT WILL DESTROY OUR CULTURE," many moons ago. Probably.


----------



## Drew (Nov 23, 2018)

simonpimonpoo said:


> You seem very obsessed with skin colour and "race". I am speaking about nations. The colour of your skin is not what defines your nation. There is no "white nation" or "white culture". There are many nations of peoples with white skin but I have never understood the american obsession with the colour of the human skin. What defines a nation has more to do with language, history and culture. I would like to keep the discussion more focused on ideas and statecraft and not colours.
> 
> Furthermore I understand from your previous post that you believe Europe to be a country. I would like to clarify that Europe is a continent which consists of multiple countries. Almost all of the countries of Europe were affected more by the world wars than America was. The resistance against nazi occupation in the different countries of Europe stemmed from nationalism. The free peoples of Europe were being occupied by a socialist regime enforced by a foreign nation. They did not want a foreign power controlling their destiny, they wanted to be free. This is why Americans were later seen as "liberators". They liberated free nation states from foreign occupants. Nationalism is what has fed resistance sentiment in all occupied territories in the history of the world. A recent example would be the Israel/palestine issue. If you are not a nationalist you are susceptible to the belief that it is alright to occupy foreign land and foreign peoples and impose your rule upon them. Since you have no moral compass.
> 
> Maybe nationalism is the cure to the endless wars perpetrated by americans against other nations in the world?


Ok, kiddie gloves are coming off.

I'm talking about race, because _you're_ talking about race, even if you're not willing to admit it openly. "Culture" is a dog-whistle on the part of white nationalists, because while they can't talk about skin color without sounding like a racist bastard, they can make vague, general arguments about the need to protect a common culture, or speak the same language, or whatever, and have everyone _else_ who's a white nationalist know perfectly well that you're saying you don't want immigrants who are a different race than you.

I'm perfectly aware Europe is a continent, and I have no idea why you seem to be under the impression I was calling it a country.

I'm also trying to make heads or tails of the load of crap you're saying about the Nazi resistance being "nationalist." Countries, not free nation states, were occupied, and plenty of non-jewish citiizens of those countries had no problem colluding with the Nazis so long as it was only the Jews (and the homosexuals... and the Gypsies... and all the other "undesireables"...) who were getting sent off to other concentration camps. Meanwhile, it's pretty hard to deny that the Nazis were an Aryan Nationalist party hell-bent on European domination, so I'm not really sure where you're getting this "it's impossible to occupy a country as a nationalist." The Italian fascists didn't seem to have much trouble with it, either. Neither, for that matter, did the French, who you paint as some "free nation state that could not possibly believe it's ok to occupy foreign land," yet during WWII occupied about a quarter of Africa and used their occupied territories as a base of operations to try to retake France itself. In short, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, other than having a hard-on for nationalism.

So, are you denying you're a member of the Sweden Democrats?


----------



## AxeHappy (Nov 24, 2018)

Drew said:


> Ok, kiddie gloves are coming off.
> 
> I'm talking about race, because _you're_ talking about race, even if you're not willing to admit it openly. "Culture" is a dog-whistle on the part of white nationalists,



Less a dog whistle and more a fog horn I'd say.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 24, 2018)

I've been waiting for Simon Poo to clearly repudiate the Sweden Democrats, and to state where they are clearly wrong and where he differs from them. Being able to be crystal clear on the "culture" stuff when he has been fairly unclear and inspecific up to this pont will help him differentiate himself, as the Nazi and white supremacist folks have a hard time actually coming up with unique and original reasoning instead of parotted ideas.

Or, it will be Simon's failed attempt to argue against what has been so obvious.


----------



## DudeManBrother (Nov 26, 2018)

Given that North America is a continent full of Countries, my quick thought on the land mass commonly thought of as The United States of America: it is comprised of 48 independent Countries being called nation states or states. To be a national is to be a state Citizen. This is by birthright. 

Now, the District of Columbia aka the United States is a city-state and has its own citizens and chose “Nationals” as another term for citizens of the United States (federal citizens). Grammar is the only way to easily recognize the differences. There are state Citizens (national) and there are citizens of the United States (as well as US citizens and U.S. Citizens depending on status) (National). 

So with the prerequisite in mind: IMO to be a national is the ideal status for all “Americans”; but to be a National is (for everyone not born in the District of Columbia or the 7 Possessions) to disassociate with your birthright nation state in favor of a city-state.


----------



## Drew (Nov 26, 2018)

Oh, WEIRD. Someone calls him on his shit, and _still no reply_.



Explorer said:


> I've been waiting for Simon Poo to clearly repudiate the Sweden Democrats, and to state where they are clearly wrong and where he differs from them. Being able to be crystal clear on the "culture" stuff when he has been fairly unclear and in specific up to this pont will help him differentiate himself, as the Nazi and white supremacist folks have a hard time actually coming up with unique and original reasoning instead of parotted ideas.
> 
> Or, it will be Simon's failed attempt to argue against what has been so obvious.


Yeah, same. Though, personally, I'm betting he's a member of the Sweden Democrats.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 27, 2018)

DudeManBrother said:


> Given that North America is a continent full of Countries, my quick thought on the land mass commonly thought of as The United States of America: it is comprised of 48 independent Countries being called nation states or states. To be a national is to be a state Citizen. This is by birthright.
> 
> So with the prerequisite in mind: IMO to be a national is the ideal status for all “Americans”; but to be a National is (for everyone not born in the District of Columbia or the 7 Possessions) to disassociate with your birthright nation state in favor of a city-state.



You're really stretching. A US citizen can become a citizen of whatever US city, state and/or territory just by moving there and establishing residency. You can move from Puerto Rico to Wisconsin, for example. 

You seem to like the term "nation-state," without actually knowing what it refers to., and also seem to want residency to be something epic. As you're from Seattle, you might want to see if anyone you know has lived in, say, Portland, and get some perspective on how not-epic and mundane such a move actually is. 

I'm from the DC area, and lots of people I know undertook the process which you view as so epic by just looking on Craigslist for a new apartment. There, you have the choice of moving from state to state, from state to DC, and from DC to state. It's pretty trivial, even if you apparently don't know that.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 27, 2018)

Drew said:


> Oh, WEIRD. Someone calls him on his shit, and _still no reply_.
> 
> Though, personally, I'm betting he's a member of the Sweden Democrats.



I figured that the factual proof of Muslim Vikings would make his brain and/or buttocks clench, and i also knew that the facts would then lead him to an undefendable position regarding what one could defend as Swedish culture. There's no way to draw a line from the current neo-nazi white supremacist BS back to a purely white culture, given that such a culture ended centuries ago, and that undermines the arguments used to defend the anti-immigrant nonsense the neo-nazi Sweden Democrats promote. 

Still, Simon might give it a shot, in spite of the lack of sources to cut and paste. 

I doubt it, though. We've seen this sort disappear instead of being able to muster the resources for a mental challenge like this.


----------



## DudeManBrother (Nov 27, 2018)

Explorer said:


> You're really stretching. A US citizen can become a citizen of whatever US city, state and/or territory just by moving there and establishing residency. You can move from Puerto Rico to Wisconsin, for example.
> 
> You seem to like the term "nation-state," without actually knowing what it refers to., and also seem to want residency to be something epic. As you're from Seattle, you might want to see if anyone you know has lived in, say, Portland, and get some perspective on how not-epic and mundane such a move actually is.
> 
> I'm from the DC area, and lots of people I know undertook the process which you view as so epic by just looking on Craigslist for a new apartment. There, you have the choice of moving from state to state, from state to DC, and from DC to state. It's pretty trivial, even if you apparently don't know that.


I’m fully aware that US citizens can move to different States and establish residency as well as dual citizenship. I was making a point in the sense of 8 USC 1101(a)21 vs (a)22; or Chisholm v. Georgia, or Piqua Branch Bank v. Knoup, where the Supreme Court determined that the United States can be, in certain senses, considered a country, and form a society; but will never be a nation, under the law of nations. It’s why they form a federal government and not a national government. Even if they want to define terms like National, or national of the United States; they aren’t legitimate nationals as the United States isn’t a nation.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Nov 27, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's a myth.
> 
> We have so much of what I already mentioned (space, jobs, food, etc.) *that most people would likely not even know if, for example, we took in 1 million people.*



My small 'city' noticed when only a couple family's were shipped here from NYC to use our welfare system (like a total of 6 or something).

http://wnbf.com/broome-county-to-nyc-stop-sending-your-homeless-to-us/

https://www.newyorkupstate.com/sout...nding_your_homeless_people_to_upstate_ny.html


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 27, 2018)

cwhitey2 said:


> My small 'city' noticed when only a couple family's were shipped here from NYC to use our welfare system (like a total of 6 or something).
> 
> http://wnbf.com/broome-county-to-nyc-stop-sending-your-homeless-to-us/
> 
> https://www.newyorkupstate.com/sout...nding_your_homeless_people_to_upstate_ny.html



Do you have anything other than that it was "noticed"? Is it having an actual impact?

Neither of your sources site any numbers, nor do they link any.

This article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...ould-send-more-homeless-families-upstate/amp/

Seems to indicate that while five families from NYC were relocated to Broome County, around 20 are currently in NYC, _from_ _Broome_ _County_. Seems like Broome made out better in this deal.

Additionally, it points to the majority of the aid being from federal coffers, not from Broome County or its tax payers.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Nov 27, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Do you have anything other than that it was "noticed"? Is it having an actual impact?
> 
> Neither of your sources site any numbers, nor do they link any.
> 
> ...


I can't find any other sources.

But, considering the population difference (45k vs 8.6 million), 5 family's is more noticeable then then 20. This impact was big enough for use to try and sue NYC.

Also: "Garnar contends that the New York City agency works to move homeless people to other counties knowing they don't intend to return to the city. He said once they are "abandoned" by the Human Resources Administration, they seek public assistance from the *targeted county*."


The only thing I see being federally funded are food stamps and Medicaid. Who's going to pick up the rent once they leave? My county doesn't exactly have any money. We can barely care for the poor/homeless that are locals.


All I'm trying to say is that maybe not every place will notice an impact, but we did.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 27, 2018)

cwhitey2 said:


> I can't find any other sources.
> 
> But, considering the population difference (45k vs 8.6 million), 5 family's is more noticeable then then 20. This impact was big enough for use to try and sue NYC.
> 
> ...



So, no? Nothing?

I'm a numbers guy. Give me the info. Without knowing what the impact, if any, there doesn't really seem to be anything to this other than a small town doesn't want any city riff raff. 



> All I'm trying to say is that maybe not every place will notice an impact, but we did.



Good thing I didn't say "all". 

But, if you're going to talk about "impact" please demonstrate it.

If you take the time to find the source, I will read it. I looked through a page of Google and found nothing.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Nov 27, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> So, no? Nothing?
> 
> I'm a numbers guy. Give me the info. Without knowing what the impact, if any, there doesn't really seem to be anything to this other than a small town doesn't want any city riff raff.
> 
> ...


As I stated there are no sources or I would gladly provide them. there is a total of 6 articles when searching google.

I still stand by my point (without sources) whether you agree with it or not...


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 27, 2018)

cwhitey2 said:


> As I stated there are no sources or I would gladly provide them. there is a total of 6 articles when searching google.
> 
> I still stand by my point (without sources) whether you agree with it or not...



It's not about agreeing with you or not. Don't make this personal. This is about facts and the discussion of them. Without facts there is no discussion. I can find an unsourced article that says practically anything. 

I'd be willing to go as far as saying that there is likely _some_ form of impact of these five families on the estimated 21,150 households in Binghamton. But, I doubt that it's much. So little that it's _probably_ insignificant. 

But, since we don't know, it's silly to use it as an argument for or against anything.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Nov 27, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's not about agreeing with you or not. Don't make this personal. This is about facts and the discussion of them. Without facts there is no discussion. I can find an unsourced article that says practically anything.
> 
> I'd be willing to go as far as saying that there is likely _some_ form of impact of these five families on the estimated 21,150 households in Binghamton. But, I doubt that it's much. So little that it's _probably_ insignificant.
> 
> But, since we don't know, it's silly to use it as an argument for or against anything.


Fair enough.


----------



## Drew (Nov 27, 2018)

DudeManBrother said:


> I’m fully aware that US citizens can move to different States and establish residency as well as dual citizenship. I was making a point in the sense of 8 USC 1101(a)21 vs (a)22; or Chisholm v. Georgia, or Piqua Branch Bank v. Knoup, where the Supreme Court determined that the United States can be, in certain senses, considered a country, and form a society; but will never be a nation, under the law of nations. It’s why they form a federal government and not a national government. Even if they want to define terms like National, or national of the United States; they aren’t legitimate nationals as the United States isn’t a nation.


Keep that in mind the next time you use your Washington passport to visit a foreign country.


----------



## DudeManBrother (Nov 27, 2018)

Drew said:


> Keep that in mind the next time you use your Washington passport to visit a foreign country.


Everybody has the option of choosing US citizenship or state Citizenship (national) on their passport; so thanks, I will?


----------



## Drew (Nov 27, 2018)

DudeManBrother said:


> Everybody has the option of choosing US citizenship or state Citizenship (national) on their passport; so thanks, I will?


Citation for that? I'll admit, that sounded implausible enough that I actually bothered to track down the application online, and, well, I have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 27, 2018)

DudeManBrother said:


> it is comprised of 48 independent Countries being called nation states or states


I know I'm not "American", so maybe I'm missing something, but I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Sarcasm? Something that historically was true but isn't anymore? Was there a joke or something being made that went over my head?


----------



## DudeManBrother (Nov 28, 2018)

Drew said:


> Citation for that? I'll admit, that sounded implausible enough that I actually bothered to track down the application online, and, well, I have no idea what you're talking about.


It does look like they’ve changed the words, but it’s still basically achieving the same thing. In the Declaration section just above the Applicant Signature one declares a status of either citizen or non-citizen national of the United States in conjunction with checking “NO” in the U.S. citizen boxes, and accompanied by your Birth Certificate to prove state Citizenship (or non-citizen national status).


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 28, 2018)

DudeManBrother said:


> It does look like they’ve changed the words, but it’s still basically achieving the same thing. In the Declaration section just above the Applicant Signature one declares a status of either citizen or non-citizen national of the United States in conjunction with checking “NO” in the U.S. citizen boxes, and accompanied by your Birth Certificate to prove state Citizenship (or non-citizen national status).



It doesn't look like it's as easy as checking a box, unless I'm misunderstanding, which is a definite possibility. 

https://travel.state.gov/content/tr...hip/Certificates-Non-Citizen-Nationality.html

It looks like there is a narrow criteria to receive non-citizen national status.


----------



## DudeManBrother (Nov 28, 2018)

TedEH said:


> I know I'm not "American", so maybe I'm missing something, but I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Sarcasm? Something that historically was true but isn't anymore? Was there a joke or something being made that went over my head?


A state is a territory with its own institutions and populations.
A sovereign state is a state with its own institutions and populations which has a permanent population, territory, and government. It must also have the right and capacity to make treaties and other agreements with other states.
A nation is a large group of people that inhabit a specific territory and are connected by history, culture or another commonality.
A nation-state is a cultural group (a nation) that is also a state (and may, in addition, be a sovereign state).
The word country can be used to mean the same thing as state, sovereign state, or nation-state. It can also be used in a less political manner to refer to a region or cultural area that has no governmental status. Examples include Wine Country (the grape-growing area of northern California) and Coal Country (the coal-mining region of Pennslyvania).
coun·try (kŭn′trē)
n. pl. coun·tries
1.
a. A nation or state.
b. The territory of a nation or state; land.
c. The people of a nation or state; populace: The whole country will profit from the new economic reforms.
2. The land of a person's birth or citizenship: Foreign travel is restricted in his country.
3. A region, territory, or large tract of land distinguishable by features of topography, biology, or culture: hill country; Bible country.


----------



## DudeManBrother (Nov 28, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> It doesn't look like it's as easy as checking a box, unless I'm misunderstanding, which is a definite possibility.
> 
> https://travel.state.gov/content/tr...hip/Certificates-Non-Citizen-Nationality.html
> 
> It looks like there is a narrow criteria to receive non-citizen national status.


That is the truth. It seems to be more difficult to achieve the distinction every year. The definitions and terms seem to change somewhat frequently. This is a few paragraphs from that link. I believe it was John Kerry as Sec. of State that made this determination:

As the Department has received few requests, there is no justification for the creation of a non-citizen national certificate. Designing a separate document that includes anti-fraud mechanisms was seen as an inefficient expenditure of resources. Therefore, the Department determined that those who would be eligible to apply for such a certificate may instead apply for a United States passport that would delineate and certify their status as a national but not a citizen of the United States.

If a person believes he or she is eligible under the law as a non-citizen national of the United States and the person complies with the provisions of section 341(b) of the INA, 8 USC 1452(b),he/she may apply for a passport at any Passport Agency in the United States.. When applying, applicants must execute a Form DS-11 and show documentary proof of their non-citizen national status as well as their identity.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 28, 2018)

DudeManBrother said:


> The word country can be used


I mean, you can use any word to mean anything if you really want to. By your definitions, I could stretch any city to be called it's own country. Picking definitions to fit what you want them to mean doesn't help any conversation though. If I go by the wikipedia definition, or how people usually/colloquially use the term, then the only one of those that actually applies is the country = sovereign state definition, which I'm pretty sure is how most people understand the word "country" until you explicitly define it for them.
U.S.A. is a country.
Each state within it is not (by any definition that is meaningful to me).
Much like Quebec is not it's own country, as much as it wants to be. 

At the end of the day, I think people put too much stock into where they come from, and where other people come from, and what other people have or don't have, or think or don't think, etc. This level of political conversation admittedly goes way over my head, but I just can't see the value in a lot of it. Way too much of it boils down to "you're not like me, so stay out of my space". The bigger the words and the more complicated the systems at play, the more harmful-isms you can hide in it- race-ism, class-ism, whatever else -ism. And this is coming from a guy who hates when isms get thrown around.

I can't think of any other reason to want to have more hard-defined lines between people than to keep everyone else out. Call your state a country so that you have more basis to say that others aren't from the same place.


----------



## Drew (Nov 28, 2018)

DudeManBrother said:


> That is the truth. It seems to be more difficult to achieve the distinction every year. The definitions and terms seem to change somewhat frequently. This is a few paragraphs from that link. I believe it was John Kerry as Sec. of State that made this determination:
> 
> As the Department has received few requests, there is no justification for the creation of a non-citizen national certificate. Designing a separate document that includes anti-fraud mechanisms was seen as an inefficient expenditure of resources. Therefore, the Department determined that those who would be eligible to apply for such a certificate may instead apply for a United States passport that would delineate and certify their status as a national but not a citizen of the United States.
> 
> If a person believes he or she is eligible under the law as a non-citizen national of the United States and the person complies with the provisions of section 341(b) of the INA, 8 USC 1452(b),he/she may apply for a passport at any Passport Agency in the United States.. When applying, applicants must execute a Form DS-11 and show documentary proof of their non-citizen national status as well as their identity.


Still doesn't hold water. For one, if you were born in a US state or territory, then you're automatically granted US citizenship. The non-citizen national application process is explained in Section 341(b) and requires first proving that you are NOT a US citizen, but ARE a US National. At present, that basically means proving you were born in American Samoa or the Swain Islands, per MaxofMetal's link. 

And, of course, even if you WERE born in the American Samoa or Swain Islands, you would still be getting a US passport, not an American Samoa passport. 

We're splitting hairs over a tossed-off comment, sure... But, no, there is absolutely no way you can get a State of Washington passport, or as a US citizen get a passport saying you are NOT a US citizen but still a US national.


----------



## DudeManBrother (Nov 28, 2018)

Drew said:


> Still doesn't hold water. For one, if you were born in a US state or territory, then you're automatically granted US citizenship. The non-citizen national application process is explained in Section 341(b) and requires first proving that you are NOT a US citizen, but ARE a US National. At present, that basically means proving you were born in American Samoa or the Swain Islands, per MaxofMetal's link.
> 
> And, of course, even if you WERE born in the American Samoa or Swain Islands, you would still be getting a US passport, not an American Samoa passport.
> 
> We're splitting hairs over a tossed-off comment, sure... But, no, there is absolutely no way you can get a State of Washington passport, or as a US citizen get a passport saying you are NOT a US citizen but still a US national.


You are correct. American Samoa and Swain Islands citizens fall under the definition outlined in 8 USC 1101 a22. You are also correct in that there is no State of Washington passport. That still falls under citizen of the United States. Anybody that said they aren’t a citizen of the United States, but are a national of the United States would be confused as it’s the same thing. We’re talking about different scenarios entirely; which is cool, but I don’t feel like dragging this on any further. The grammatical distinctions and implications thereof have seemingly been lost on everyone trying to follow along.


----------



## Drew (Nov 28, 2018)

DudeManBrother said:


> You are correct. American Samoa and Swain Islands citizens fall under the definition outlined in 8 USC 1101 a22. You are also correct in that there is no State of Washington passport. That still falls under citizen of the United States. Anybody that said they aren’t a citizen of the United States, but are a national of the United States would be confused as it’s the same thing. We’re talking about different scenarios entirely; which is cool, but I don’t feel like dragging this on any further. The grammatical distinctions and implications thereof have seemingly been lost on everyone trying to follow along.


...but, to come full circle back to my original point, it's just one more reason it's hard to argue that the US is somehow not a nation. 

Which is a sentence I never ever expected to have to write.


----------



## DudeManBrother (Nov 28, 2018)

Drew said:


> ...but, to come full circle back to my original point, it's just one more reason it's hard to argue that the US is somehow not a nation.
> 
> Which is a sentence I never ever expected to have to write.


You’ll have to take that up with the Supreme Court!


----------



## Drew (Nov 28, 2018)

DudeManBrother said:


> You’ll have to take that up with the Supreme Court!


No, I won't.  

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/about.aspx

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW" - These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States.* The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States.* As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."


----------



## wat (Dec 1, 2018)

AxeHappy said:


> Why would a supra national government destroy national governments? Federal Governments didn't destroy State/Provincial Governments which didn't destroy Municipal/Local governments.



Apples to Orangutans. Why would the United Nations try to coerce nations into agreeing to make it illegal to criticize mass immigration policies? 

Why do you think the US, Poland, Australia, would want to back put of the agreement? 



Drew said:


> I'm talking about race, because _you're_ talking about race, even if you're not willing to admit it openly. "Culture" is a dog-whistle on the part of white nationalists. ....



This is not unlike calling someone racist for being concerned about illegal immigration from Mexico, because most of the illegal immigrants are...a race.  


vilk said:


> Despite that I believe migration is a human right


So you believe nations should NOT have the right to chose who and how many they allow to immigrate?


----------



## Randy (Dec 1, 2018)

wat said:


> This is not unlike calling someone racist for being concerned about illegal immigration from Mexico, because most of the illegal immigrants are...a race.



Treading lightly because I know you have a tendency to just come in to deposit something inflammatory and leave but you seem like an intelligent enough guy and it's a discussion worth having.

The functional issue here is that if the majority of people who mass migrate into your country are from a common region and, not so coicidentally, of a common race and you oppose their migration, how does one from the outside determine if that opposition is based on race or based on other mitigating factors?


----------



## Drew (Dec 3, 2018)

Randy said:


> Treading lightly because I know you have a tendency to just come in to deposit something inflammatory and leave but you seem like an intelligent enough guy and it's a discussion worth having.
> 
> The functional issue here is that if the majority of people who mass migrate into your country are from a common region and, not so coicidentally, of a common race and you oppose their migration, how does one from the outside determine if that opposition is based on race or based on other mitigating factors?


Ignoring for the fact that you DO see the white nationalist right swear up and down that they don't hate brown people, per se, they just want to "preserve our (implicit: white) American culture and history"...

...I think you also have to reconcile that with the fact that you don't see the same level of concern for immigrants coming from Sweden and Norway, the two non-"shithole countries" that Trump mentioned wanting to see more immigrants from, rather than Mexico or Guatemala or the Dominican Republic. So, yes, it starts to become racist when you start to selectively single out countries and the one weird connection pulling them all together is the color of their skin. 

OP seems to have vanished. Weirdest thing.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 3, 2018)

It's worth remembering that Trump has an actual business which lets pregnant women from Russia stay at Mar a Lago so they can give birth there and thus have an anchor baby which is a US citizen.


----------



## narad (Dec 4, 2018)

Explorer said:


> It's worth remembering that Trump has an actual business which lets pregnant women from Russia stay at Mar a Lago so they can give birth there and thus have an anchor baby which is a US citizen.



I want that to be true but that sounds fake?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Dec 4, 2018)

narad said:


> I want that to be true but that sounds fake?



It's somewhat exaggerated, but not _completely_ off base. 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russians-flock-to-trump-properties-to-give-birth-to-us-citizens

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/birth-tourism-brings-russian-baby-boom-miami-n836121

So there's supposedly an uptick in "birth tourism" and they just so happen to come to traditionally Russian enclaves which Trump owns some property in.

I wouldn't go as far as saying it's a direct business.


----------



## narad (Dec 4, 2018)

Yea, I mean - I'm not seeing the Mar a Lago connection, which would be like the smoking gun for that narrative imo.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Dec 4, 2018)

narad said:


> Yea, I mean - I'm not seeing the Mar a Lago connection, which would be like the smoking gun for that narrative imo.



Yeah, there's a lot of sketchy articles stretching things to try and fit what Explorer said. Some kind of "fake news" if you would. 

I think latching onto this kind of stuff just helps reinforce the "fake news" narrative.


----------



## wat (Dec 9, 2018)

Randy said:


> Treading lightly because I know you have a tendency to just come in to deposit something inflammatory and leave but you seem like an intelligent enough guy and it's a discussion worth having.
> 
> The functional issue here is that if the majority of people who mass migrate into your country are from a common region and, not so coicidentally, of a common race and you oppose their migration, how does one from the outside determine if that opposition is based on race or based on other mitigating factors?



Well, you can't determine that without mind-reading. But I don't think the next best thing is to just assume racism... barring any "mitigating circumstances" 

I constantly see terms like "racist dogwhistle" and "alt-lite" being used by bloggers, journos, vloggers, etc, in order to lump people in with the alt-right/racists in leiu of actually engaging their arguments. Comes across as very "racist until proven otherwise" to me.

I get it. Being concerned about illegal immigration _technically_ means the person has something idealogically in common with literally 100% of KKK members. I know. 





Drew said:


> ...I think you also have to reconcile that with the fact that you don't see the same level of concern for immigrants coming from Sweden and Norway, the two non-"shithole countries" that Trump mentioned wanting to see more immigrants from, rather than Mexico or Guatemala or the Dominican Republic. So, yes, it starts to become racist when you start to selectively single out countries and the one weird connection pulling them all together is the color of their skin.



But brown skin isn't the only thing tying those countries together.

In an alternate universe where the only thing that changed was that Sweden and Mexico swapped geographical locations, education programs and murder rates, there would be more talk about Swedish immigration. And we'd be regionalists instead of racists I guess.


----------



## Drew (Dec 10, 2018)

wat said:


> Well, you can't determine that without mind-reading. But I don't think the next best thing is to just assume racism... barring any "mitigating circumstances"
> 
> I constantly see terms like "racist dogwhistle" and "alt-lite" being used by bloggers, journos, vloggers, etc, in order to lump people in with the alt-right/racists in leiu of actually engaging their arguments. Comes across as very "racist until proven otherwise" to me.
> 
> ...


...yet, you also missed about a dozen solid chances to _deny_ racism being a primary motivator of your beliefs. And, considering those arguments are the same ones being used _by_ racists to justify their beliefs ("I want to preserve American - read, white - culture!") I think the onus is on you to clearly articulate how your views differ from white supremacists, because right now I'm not seeing any daylight between your arguments and theirs.

Now, for the third time... Are you a member of the Swedish Democrats?


----------



## MFB (Dec 10, 2018)

That's not simon whatever his name was


----------



## Randy (Dec 10, 2018)

Drew said:


> ...yet, you also missed about a dozen solid chances to _deny_ racism being a primary motivator of your beliefs. And, considering those arguments are the same ones being used _by_ racists to justify their beliefs ("I want to preserve American - read, white - culture!") I think the onus is on you to clearly articulate how your views differ from white supremacists, because right now I'm not seeing any daylight between your arguments and theirs.



I'm not especially emotionally invested in this conversation because even if someone admits to being racist, what do you do? I find racism to be an especially abhorrent, ignorant outlook, and certainly one that effects how seriously I take someone's arguments but outside of that, it's not like anybody's going to jail over it.

Anyway, to your point, I think the bolded here pretty much answers your questions...



wat said:


> In an alternate universe where the only thing that changed was that Sweden and Mexico swapped geographical locations, *education programs* and *murder rates*, there would be more talk about Swedish immigration.


----------



## Drew (Dec 10, 2018)

Randy said:


> I'm not especially emotionally invested in this conversation because even if someone admits to being racist, what do you do? I find racism to be an especially abhorrent, ignorant outlook, and certainly one that effects how seriously I take someone's arguments but outside of that, it's not like anybody's going to jail over it.
> 
> Anyway, to your point, I think the bolded here pretty much answers your questions...


I guess, when push comes to shove, wanting racists to be openly accountable for their views, to own them honestly, and to not be hypocritical is probably a waste of time, since it doesn't really change anything, does it? 

Heck, the poor bastard probably honestly _believes_ his desire to keep Sweden immigrant free is about "preserving Nordic culture," and not because he hates brown people, poor fool.


----------



## wat (Jan 18, 2019)

Drew said:


> ...yet, you also missed about a dozen solid chances to _deny_ racism being a primary motivator of your beliefs. And, considering those arguments are the same ones being used _by_ racists to justify their beliefs ("I want to preserve American - read, white - culture!") I think the onus is on you to clearly articulate how your views differ from white supremacists, because right now I'm not seeing any daylight between your arguments and theirs.
> 
> Now, for the third time... Are you a member of the Swedish Democrats?



That was the OP, not me. I've already said how I feel about "racist until proven otherwise" 



Drew said:


> I guess, when push comes to shove, wanting racists to be openly accountable for their views, to own them honestly, and to not be hypocritical is probably a waste of time, since it doesn't really change anything, does it?
> 
> Heck, the poor bastard probably honestly _believes_ his desire to keep Sweden immigrant free is about "preserving Nordic culture," and not because he hates brown people, poor fool.



Idk about him/her, but I personally don't see anything particularly wrong with someone who lives in a more or less culturally and ethnically homogenous society being concerned or even upset at the notion of an ethnic & cultural demographic shift being forced on them. And tax currency being used to house and feed the newcomers when they fail to assimilate. 

Considering how mass immigration is working out in many cities across Europe, jumping straight to "hates brown people" comes off as a little un-nuanced, and maybe a bit hysterical.


----------



## Drew (Jan 18, 2019)

wat said:


> That was the OP, not me. I've already said how I feel about "racist until proven otherwise"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, but I'd say parroting the same talking points as an openly racist political party, on the other hand... That's not hysterical, that's pure cynicism and distaste.

As far as your posts... again, if you're going to use the same terms and make the same arguments as white nationalist groups... Well, if it looks like a rose and smells like a rose... You're certainly not doing yourself any favors, and if you don't want to get called a racist, then maybe not using the same arguments as racists would be a great place to start. 

You say "racist until proven otherwise," like that's the starting point here... But it's not. We're starting from neutral, and then once you start using the language and arguments of white nationalists to condemn immigration, well, yeah, you've given us some evidence that you're racist, so at that point the onus is on you to demonstrate that you're not.


----------



## Andromalia (Jan 22, 2019)

> Idk about him/her, but I personally don't see anything particularly wrong with someone who lives in a more or less culturally and ethnically homogenous society being concerned or even upset at the notion of an ethnic & cultural demographic shift being forced on them



It would take hundreds of times the current immigration rates *and* intercultural marriages to start an "ethnic shift". In France we had a lot of immigration in the 60es to man our factories, guess what, we still have enough white people to have a racist party going in second at the presidential election. 
The "big replacement" theory is completely woven from thin air to propagate fear to the uneducated.


----------



## Jason B (Jan 23, 2019)

Drew and Wat may have to settle for agreeing that facts are racist.


----------

