Everyone on the Planet is entitled to US Citizenship

[dubs]

Topic : "Everyone on the planet is entitled to US Citizenship"

True/False?
Feasable?
Practical?

If NOT feasable/practical

= Nazi?
= Brownshirt?
= Racist?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46562499

A seven-year-old girl who illegally crossed the Mexico-US border with family died hours after being taken into custody, US officials say.

The Guatemalan girl, who arrived in the US last week as part of a group of migrants, died of dehydration and shock, the Washington Post reports.

AP news agency quotes border officials as saying she had not had food or water for several days.

Leftists encouraged these people to make this harrowing journey.

If there was a 50 foot wall there, would they have spend days in the desert?

The blood of that little girl is on your hands.

The blood of everyone who died on the journey is on your hands.

You told them to come.

All of your "sanctuary cities."

You encouraged them.

You told them everyone can live in Mr Rogers Neighborhood.

You lied to them.

[cpb]

Same reason the Mediterranean sea is filled with immigrant bodies.

[Mifune]

If I own a plot of land, I'm allowed to decide who is and isn't allowed on that land.
If a friend of mine and I go in together 50/50 on a plot of land, we're both allowed to decide who is and isn't allowed on that land.
If 100 people get together and form some kind of co-op, on a big plot of land, then they can form some kind of procedure for determining who can and can't be on that land.

Why does this not scale? Where does it break down and the People lose their sovereignty? Is it once you cross 1,000,000? is it once you start calling yourself a nation?

Anywhere up the chain, the People should be able to put into place processes and procedures for deciding who is and isn't welcome.

When did this become controversial?

[simpleman]

If I own a plot of land, I'm allowed to decide who is and isn't allowed on that land.
If a friend of mine and I go in together 50/50 on a plot of land, we're both allowed to decide who is and isn't allowed on that land.
If 100 people get together and form some kind of co-op, on a big plot of land, then they can form some kind of procedure for determining who can and can't be on that land.

Why does this not scale? Where does it break down and the People lose their sovereignty? Is it once you cross 1,000,000? is it once you start calling yourself a nation?

Anywhere up the chain, the People should be able to put into place processes and procedures for deciding who is and isn't welcome.

When did this become controversial?

I can give you equally misleading arguments on the opposite direction...

For instance...

I open a food truck on a beach, then I let my friend have a food truck on the other end of the beach (we are 50/50)... eventually we claim we own the beach and say nobody else can open any business in that beach... because we own it... It is our right to run our business there, and we reserve the right to allow other people run their business there.

If all it toke for me to start up was to show up and claim rights... why the people after me can't obtain the same rights by the same means I got them?

[JamesNunya]

But seriously, simpleman, the difference is ownership. Mifune's scenario states ownership of the land. Yours doesn't.

[Mifune]

I can give you equally misleading arguments on the opposite direction...

For instance...

I open a food truck on a beach, then I let my friend have a food truck on the other end of the beach (we are 50/50)... eventually we claim we own the beach and say nobody else can open any business in that beach... because we own it... It is our right to run our business there, and we reserve the right to allow other people run their business there.

If all it toke for me to start up was to show up and claim rights... why the people after me can't obtain the same rights by the same means I got them?

Essentially throughout history the situation you describe was settled with negotiation. When someone wants to open the third food-truck, you and your buddy can try to stop them. Then you end up negotiating or arguing. If a higher venue for resolving the dispute exists, you go there. That's what Civil Court essentially is.

When negotiation fails, and there's no higher venue in which to settle the dispute, then human nature usually means violence. Like it or not, violence in the past has settled certain things. The reason people can't just show up and do what they want now is because we've established a venue to peacefully resolve those disputes and entrusted the government with a monopoly on the use of force.

I suppose if your hypothetical "people who came after" came in violence to take what they want, if they could win the ensuing war, then they could establish that right.

As I said in another thread. Immigration criteria should be based on commitment to American values. If you want to come to the US for a better quality of life, then you should care about the values that support the system that offers you that quality of life.

[Angelica]

Topic : "Everyone on the planet is entitled to US Citizenship"

True/False?
Feasable?
Practical?

...

There is not much point in having any citizenships if it's a human right to have whichever you want and of course that's exactly what globalists aim for: The demise of nation state, culture, identity... all are to be equally equal (except for the pigs... they are more equal on Animal Farm).
Marxist dystopia

IMHO it's not a question of whose ancestors were on that land first, it's a question of who developed the infra structures, what are their values, their prevailing culture... They are the ones who get to decide who joins them and who is not welcome and ultimately control of the land is a military matter.

[dubs]

Land ownership is patriarchal system to justify colonial conquest of stolen land.

Unless you're jewish, then god gave you the land and you should put up fences and landmines and snipers and dogs and send a hellfire missile into the apartment complex of anyone who disagrees.

If you're black, just be your obnoxious self until everyone else moves away voluntarily, then the land becomes yours

If you're muslim you politely knock on the doors of your christian neighbors and ask them to pay the infidel tax, if they don't you lovingly chop their heads off and peacefully dump their body into a ditch.

If you're chinese, you don't even bother trying to be diplomatic about it, just show up with enough tanks/troops and repeat "this is part of China" over and over.

If you're white, your land belongs to everybody, your money belongs to everybody, your daughters belong to everybody, your inventions belong to everybody and any attempts at enforcement/ownership is met with a pink raised fist, a communist manifesto, black power, islamic jihad, jewish cuckslavery, and a sterm lecture about how bad everyone else has it and you should use your white male cis-het privilege so that white women are like "tee hee I just got promoted" while you handle their workload over Xmas because they're spending it in Cancun getting plowed by chad (soon to be maternity leave.)

This is the model of globalism, diversity and "progress."

Two things I hate in this world :

1. Bullies
2. Timid acquiescence

I see white people, and specifically white males as the most bullied group in the world, the group that takes the most shit from everybody, never fights back and just timidly sit there and get kicked.

We see this in white men vis-a-vis white women.
We see this in white people vis-a-vis other races.
We see this in Christianity vis-a-vis Islam and Judaism.

Every other group protects their own, every other group attempts to fight back, even white women, they form groups to defend each other, white men just sit there and get picked off one by one, either legally or some other fashion. They do the same thing on a national level and international level. They don't help each other and every assclown on the planet takes potshots at them.

If people talked shit about Islam or Judaism the same way people talk shit about Christianity, you'd go to start your car one day and it would explode, or you'd get murdered by some "asylum seeker" or the ghost of Irv Rubin. If you talked shit about Islam or Judaism, someone somewhere would put a bullet in your head sooner or later.

But every atheist assclown feels free to protest that there's a Xmas tree in grand central station.

Bullies one and all.

I can't wait till the white people are gone so I can watch you scumbags cannibalize each other.

Atheism vs Islam. Round 1. FIGHT!
The winner fights Judaism. Round 2.

You know what?

Let them in.

Let them all in.

"Agree and Amplify."

It will almost be worth it just to watch the Linda Sansour crowd pull the same SJW shit on the Pro Israel crowd, tell them they have no right to exclude anybody and that they're living on stolen land.

What goes around comes around.

All of you assholes have earned a lifetime of bad karma for the way you've treated white men, I mean hey, they're just the assholes who pay the taxes right, off they go into the deep dark night, what could possibly go wrong.

And all of you "interracial" guys, go ahead and sleep with white women, they'll stick a knife in your back the same as they stuck a knife in their own men.

All of you go ahead and lay with hyenas, see how far that gets you.

You have my blessing.

Just don't cry to me when GloboHomoMultiplex turns on YOUR group.

A pox on all your houses.

[simpleman]

Essentially throughout history the situation you describe was settled with negotiation. When someone wants to open the third food-truck, you and your buddy can try to stop them. Then you end up negotiating or arguing. If a higher venue for resolving the dispute exists, you go there. That's what Civil Court essentially is.

When negotiation fails, and there's no higher venue in which to settle the dispute, then human nature usually means violence. Like it or not, violence in the past has settled certain things. The reason people can't just show up and do what they want now is because we've established a venue to peacefully resolve those disputes and entrusted the government with a monopoly on the use of force.

I suppose if your hypothetical "people who came after" came in violence to take what they want, if they could win the ensuing war, then they could establish that right.

As I said in another thread. Immigration criteria should be based on commitment to American values. If you want to come to the US for a better quality of life, then you should care about the values that support the system that offers you that quality of life.

The thing is that the law actually says that anyone can walk in and apply for asylum... so... when the law says something you don't like... then what we do?

I am very intrigue, however on your take on how do you define the "American values"... I would like to see how that looks like, if possible.

I am asking, because I have the feeling that every single color on the political spectrum will claim that they are all up for the true american values... If I ask a leftie, he will give me a totally different list of values than if I ask a conservative... but hey... I am right no the others... LOL.

[dubs]

Asylum is like a ping.

Migrant caravan is like a DDOS attack.

[Angelica]

Land ownership is patriarchal system to justify colonial conquest of stolen land.
...

I disagree.
It can't be stolen if it wasn't owned.

Hunter-gatherer tribes used to migrate with the season.
The land occupation was transitory... nobody owned it.
Then came agricultural revolution
People, both men AND women invested their time and energy clearing waste land, planting crops, building infra structure.
Watch "Out of Africa" (Karen Blixen) for a modern day version.

These agricultural people were justified in defending their territory against migrants who might come feast on the fruits of their labor and leave nothing for those who did all the work.
Defending the land fell to male people, because they are instinctively the defenders of the reproductively more valuable women and their offspring.
This isn't Patriarchy - it is biology and evolution - instinctive gynocentrism.

That is the origin of land ownership.

As for Christianity, it's not a white man thing... it came from the Middle East as a kind of contagious disease spreading with the expanding Roman empire.
It has the same origin as Islam and Judaism and they are all retarded superstitions driven by fear of what bronze age people could not understand.

I don't think any of it is genetically linked to skin color.

[dubs]

It can't be stolen if it wasn't owned.
Hunter-gatherer tribes used to migrate with the season.
The land occupation was transitory... nobody owned it.
Then came agricultural revolution
People, both men AND women invested their time and energy clearing waste land, planting crops, building infra structure.
Watch "Out of Africa" (Karen Blixen) for a modern day version.

These agricultural people were justified in defending their territory against migrants who might come feast on the fruits of their labor and leave nothing for those who did all the work.
Defending the land fell to male people, because they are instinctively the defenders of the reproductively more valuable women and their offspring.
This isn't Patriarchy - it is biology and evolution - instinctive gynocentrism.

That is the origin of land ownership.

Yep

As for Christianity, it's not a white man thing... it came from the Middle East as a kind of contagious disease spreading with the expanding Roman empire.
It has the same origin as Islam and Judaism and they are all retarded superstitions driven by fear of what bronze age people could not understand.

Christianity is part of Western culture.

Granted it has middle-eastern origins, but europe was settled by proto-indo-europeans.

If you really want to know, Israel is part of the west too.

The Levant is like "Greater Europe" at its peak.

I consider Islam to be "Pan Western." (ie part of "Greater Europe")

Judaism could be Western or Pan-Western depending how you look at it.

Anyway that's my worldview.

I think what we call "The West" is shaping up to become the framework of what will eventually be global power.

[Angelica]

Christianity is part of Western culture.

Granted it has middle-eastern origins, but europe was settled by proto-indo-europeans.

If you really want to know, Israel is part of the west too.

The Levant is like "Greater Europe" at its peak.

I consider Islam to be "Pan Western." (ie part of "Greater Europe")

Judaism could be Western or Pan-Western depending how you look at it.

Anyway that's my worldview.

I think what we call "The West" is shaping up to become the framework of what will eventually be global power.

Certainly people from Arabia and India are more closely related to those of Western Europe. Yet visibly distinctly different too. The original Anglo Saxons and Germanic people were Pagans, not followers of Abrahamic faith. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_paganism
My distant ancestors had moved thru Mesopotamia and even assimilated some of the resident Neanderthals long before those Middle Eastern beliefs came into existence.
AncestryDNAStory-Frilly-231018-crop.png

As an atheist I acknowledge "mother Nature" as the supreme creatrix of the cosmos and in my "religion" life can only exist as a symbiotic balance between opposing forces.
Could atheist paganism be in my genes even ... I just don't know, but one thing I do know is that Islam and Christianity are extremely hostile to male women like me. So I repudiate their superstitious nonsense and assert my own reality... )

A mono culture global power, be it cultural Marxism from the West or outright Communism from the East can never come to fruition as without war with an outsider (East vs West) they degenerate to a slave under class and a parasitic elite. A society that lacks internal regulating "feedback" mechanism.

[dubs]

Before monotheism, everyone was pagan, including levantines.

Abrahamic ideas offered a more highly developed cosmology and thought-process.

Nation-states at the time were ruled by their intellectual elite, in other words, they were run by the only people who could actually read and had time to study, thus Christianity was adopted by kings and rammed down the throats of their pagan subjects.

Eventually Christianity and Islam became like "NATO vs Warsaw Pact."

In other words they were not merely religions, it was more like a cultural marker.

Christianity became the intellectual nugget or kernal of the Enlightenment, which was the progenitor of modern Western Liberal society.

Christianity -> Enlightenment -> Renaissance/Reformation -> Western Liberal society

And yes, also part of Western Liberal society is the Luciferian understanding of Biblical paradox (Adam and Eve and the Apple, God/Nature/Evolution vs Satan/Science/Eugenics/Engineering.) It is an understanding that human (worldly) affairs will always be dominated by the people with money and power who will "socially engineer" and even genetically engineer everything to their own benefits and their own agenda.

A wild carrot flower growing out in the prarie somewhere. That's God.

Taking that carrot flower, breeding it with other plants, refining it into something more delicious and profitable to harvest. That's man playing God. That's science. That's luciferianism.

This then is "the original sin" that all of us are cursed with as humans.

That we are men, we have a big brain and we like to play God, it is in our nature to bend the natural world to our whims and desires, it is also in our nature to bend each other to our whims and desires and also kick the shit out of each other as necessary to effect those whims and desires.

It is within this paradox that man-women such as yourself are able to survive (in fact it may be this paradox that gave you the desire to be a man-woman in the first place, the idea of transhumanism.)

[Angelica]

lol - IDK what gave me the idea or maybe just the way I am...

Anyway I think the Abrahamic religions thrived because they taught obedience and conformance.
They control the masses with fear, but they have no future as they are based on delusions and superstition that is contradicted by science and evidence.

Paganism taught symbiosis with Nature.
Our nature and religion too, are products of that evolution and our desire to "play God" is because the collective intelligence of life on Earth is the intelligent designer.

It is our insights, aspirations and ingenuity exploring alternatives that shapes the future of life here on Earth and the ultimate arbiter is without prejudice: "survival of the fittest".
Even a mono culture will ultimately fragment and adapt in different ways. "Balkanization".
Hopefully diversity that is symbiotic proves more viable than the ones that are parasitic or exploitative.

The intransigence of feminist dogma to acknowledge reciprocal benefits of the male-female dynamic will just cause our societies, and in the long run races and species to diverge with alternative dynamics... but IMHO their dystopian "equality" is unstable as is their globalist Marxist agenda. If Darwinism has taught us anything, it is that Nature will diversify it... one way or the other.