Diversity and Multiculturalism II:Make Diversity Great Again

[Post War America]

I mean Trumptonium did imply that I should be deported for having the audacity to speak Spanish with Spanish speaking friends, despite the fact that I am a natural US citizen by blood and soil.

You wouldn't be a natural citizen in any country in Europe as this continent doesn't have retarded jus soli laws.

On what grounds are you American, bar what it says on your ID?

Except it's by blood too given that both of my parents are citizens who were born to citizen parents who were born to citizen parents. You'd have to go back at least four generations to find an immigrant in my family tree. If we really want to get technical I can claim direct lineage to Mayflower passengers, and veterans of the Rev War, the Civil War, and both World Wars. As for other ways in which I am American I believe you created a litmus test, and I responded. The fact that you continue to claim that I've no right to call myself as such is incorrect, and quite frankly insulting.

[Liriena]

You wouldn't be a natural citizen in any country in Europe as this continent doesn't have retarded jus soli laws.

Ah, yes, those silly jus soli laws. Because, in modern times, with our understanding of genetics and ethnic diversity, it makes perfect, logically and scientifically sound sense, to hand out citizenship on the basis of an arcane notion of "blood" rather than, you know, being born and raised in the territory and actively participating in society within that territory.

[Liriena]

You wouldn't be a natural citizen in any country in Europe as this continent doesn't have retarded jus soli laws.

On what grounds are you American, bar what it says on your ID?

Except it's by blood too given that both of my parents are citizens who were born to citizen parents who were born to citizen parents. You'd have to go back at least four generations to find an immigrant in my family tree. If we really want to get technical I can claim direct lineage to Mayflower passengers, and veterans of the Rev War, the Civil War, and both World Wars. As for other ways in which I am American I believe you created a litmus test, and I responded. The fact that you continue to claim that I've no right to call myself as such is incorrect, and quite frankly insulting.

But you don't speak Murrican!

[Post War America]

Except it's by blood too given that both of my parents are citizens who were born to citizen parents who were born to citizen parents. You'd have to go back at least four generations to find an immigrant in my family tree. If we really want to get technical I can claim direct lineage to Mayflower passengers, and veterans of the Rev War, the Civil War, and both World Wars. As for other ways in which I am American I believe you created a litmus test, and I responded. The fact that you continue to claim that I've no right to call myself as such is incorrect, and quite frankly insulting.

But you don't speak Murrican!

But I do something like 85-90% of the time, I don't get why that 10% disqualifies me.

[Liriena]

But you don't speak Murrican!

But I do something like 85-90% of the time, I don't get why that 10% disqualifies me.

Because some people have this weird boner for everything Anglo and think it should be mandatory. The worst in BDSM etiquette, really.

[San Lumen]

You wouldn't be a natural citizen in any country in Europe as this continent doesn't have retarded jus soli laws.

On what grounds are you American, bar what it says on your ID?

Except it's by blood too given that both of my parents are citizens who were born to citizen parents who were born to citizen parents. You'd have to go back at least four generations to find an immigrant in my family tree. If we really want to get technical I can claim direct lineage to Mayflower passengers, and veterans of the Rev War, the Civil War, and both World Wars. As for other ways in which I am American I believe you created a litmus test, and I responded. The fact that you continue to claim that I've no right to call myself as such is incorrect, and quite frankly insulting.

And my family came to America from Romania and Russia right before WW1 to escape the pogroms. Unless you are Native American you are a descendent of immigrants.

[Trumptonium]

You wouldn't be a natural citizen in any country in Europe as this continent doesn't have retarded jus soli laws.

Ah, yes, those silly jus soli laws. Because, in modern times, with our understanding of genetics and ethnic diversity, it makes perfect, logically and scientifically sound sense, to hand out citizenship on the basis of an arcane notion of "blood" rather than, you know, being born and raised in the territory and actively participating in society within that territory.

Participating my arse.

Europe doesn't have a problem with anchor babies. America does.

[Zyr and Pony]

Ah, yes, those silly jus soli laws. Because, in modern times, with our understanding of genetics and ethnic diversity, it makes perfect, logically and scientifically sound sense, to hand out citizenship on the basis of an arcane notion of "blood" rather than, you know, being born and raised in the territory and actively participating in society within that territory.

Participating my arse.

Europe doesn't have a problem with anchor babies. America does.

I live in what could be considered near ground zero for hispanic immigration (Southern California, specifically Inland Empire) and I have seen no issue with "anchor babies."

WaPo agrees with me, and explains why the whole argument about "anchor babies" is ridiculous. They're not going to be abloe to help their parent(s) stay in the country until they're 21, and the parent(s) will have to leave the country for a time while citizenship gets worked out.

[Trumptonium]

Participating my arse.

Europe doesn't have a problem with anchor babies. America does.

I live in what could be considered near ground zero for hispanic immigration (Southern California, specifically Inland Empire) and I have seen no issue with "anchor babies."

WaPo agrees with me, and explains why the whole argument about "anchor babies" is ridiculous. They're not going to be abloe to help their parent(s) stay in the country until they're 21, and the parent(s) will have to leave the country for a time while citizenship gets worked out.

So you and Wapo admit that their existence allows illegals to legally migrate into the US by popping out a kid through prior trespass.

Thanks, issue solved.

[Zyr and Pony]

I live in what could be considered near ground zero for hispanic immigration (Southern California, specifically Inland Empire) and I have seen no issue with "anchor babies."

WaPo agrees with me, and explains why the whole argument about "anchor babies" is ridiculous. They're not going to be abloe to help their parent(s) stay in the country until they're 21, and the parent(s) will have to leave the country for a time while citizenship gets worked out.

So you and Wapo admit that their existence allows illegals to legally migrate into the US by popping out a kid through prior trespass.

Thanks, issue solved.

Believe what you will. It's extremely difficult to get immigration status through "anchor babies." It might be easier through other channels, for all we know.

Plus how is that a problem, as you claim it is?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

And I thought we already went over that "anchor baby" is a slur
https://www.google.com/search?q=anchor+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

[Ors Might]

Though I don’t agree with everything he’s said, Trumptonium is right in that the US government has no moral obligation to help every refugee in the world. A government’s first responsibility is to its own people. Once it’s able to manage taking care of them, then it can consider aiding in the rest of the world’s troubles.

[Post War America]

Though I don’t agree with everything he’s said, Trumptonium is right in that the US government has no moral obligation to help every refugee in the world. A government’s first responsibility is to its own people. Once it’s able to manage taking care of them, then it can consider aiding in the rest of the world’s troubles.

The problem is the US isn't really even helping its fair share, which is a shame because the US is also when of the better countries in the world when it comes to integrating refugees into society.

[Ors Might]

Though I don’t agree with everything he’s said, Trumptonium is right in that the US government has no moral obligation to help every refugee in the world. A government’s first responsibility is to its own people. Once it’s able to manage taking care of them, then it can consider aiding in the rest of the world’s troubles.

The problem is the US isn't really even helping its fair share, which is a shame because the US is also when of the better countries in the world when it comes to integrating refugees into society.

Fair share implies an obligation beyond treaties and written agreements. I do want my nation to help these people, I do, I simply disagree with the notion that we’re obligated to do shit beyond what we’ve agreed to.

[Post War America]

The problem is the US isn't really even helping its fair share, which is a shame because the US is also when of the better countries in the world when it comes to integrating refugees into society.

Fair share implies an obligation beyond treaties and written agreements. I do want my nation to help these people, I do, I simply disagree with the notion that we’re obligated to do shit beyond what we’ve agreed to.

I would not really claim to be an expert on what refugee treaties the US has signed, but the point is that other nations which are much less capable of handling large numbers of refugees are taking on many more than us, and then we complain about taking in refugees in the low tens of thousands. Given that climate refugees are likely to become a thing, it will soon become necessary for us to take many more than we have been taking in. I for one would rather the country be prepared for that than implode when the inevitable comes.

[Ors Might]

Fair share implies an obligation beyond treaties and written agreements. I do want my nation to help these people, I do, I simply disagree with the notion that we’re obligated to do shit beyond what we’ve agreed to.

I would not really claim to be an expert on what refugee treaties the US has signed, but the point is that other nations which are much less capable of handling large numbers of refugees are taking on many more than us, and then we complain about taking in refugees in the low tens of thousands. Given that climate refugees are likely to become a thing, it will soon become necessary for us to take many more than we have been taking in. I for one would rather the country be prepared for that than implode when the inevitable comes.

What I’m saying is that the US has no obligation to take care of all of those refugees. We have our own problems to deal with and we’re hardly the only nation in the world with the resources to spare. Would I like to see us take in some of them? Yes. But on our terms.

[Kubumba Tribe]

I would not really claim to be an expert on what refugee treaties the US has signed, but the point is that other nations which are much less capable of handling large numbers of refugees are taking on many more than us, and then we complain about taking in refugees in the low tens of thousands. Given that climate refugees are likely to become a thing, it will soon become necessary for us to take many more than we have been taking in. I for one would rather the country be prepared for that than implode when the inevitable comes.

What I’m saying is that the US has no obligation to take care of all of those refugees. We have our own problems to deal with and we’re hardly the only nation in the world with the resources to spare. Would I like to see us take in some of them? Yes. But on our terms.

Literally anyone and everyone can set terms. "Terms" could be decades of closed borders to people that seriously need our (humanity's) help.
I get what you're saying tho, but there has to be a compromise: help on our terms and their terms.

[Post War America]

I would not really claim to be an expert on what refugee treaties the US has signed, but the point is that other nations which are much less capable of handling large numbers of refugees are taking on many more than us, and then we complain about taking in refugees in the low tens of thousands. Given that climate refugees are likely to become a thing, it will soon become necessary for us to take many more than we have been taking in. I for one would rather the country be prepared for that than implode when the inevitable comes.

What I’m saying is that the US has no obligation to take care of all of those refugees. We have our own problems to deal with and we’re hardly the only nation in the world with the resources to spare. Would I like to see us take in some of them? Yes. But on our terms.

That won't be sufficient soon enough. There are other countries with the capacity to take in refugees, and despite frequently having smaller populations and economies, and being far worse than the US at turning refugees into contributing members of the society, they tend to be taking in as many if not more than the US. Us shutting down the borders and saying "we dun wanna take any more smelly kebab" is a surefire way to cause much bigger problems than having refugees.

[Ors Might]

What I’m saying is that the US has no obligation to take care of all of those refugees. We have our own problems to deal with and we’re hardly the only nation in the world with the resources to spare. Would I like to see us take in some of them? Yes. But on our terms.

Literally anyone and everyone can set terms. "Terms" could be decades of closed borders to people that seriously need our (humanity's) help.
I get what you're saying tho, but there has to be a compromise: help on our terms and their terms.

I’m not opposed to give them a helping hand. But we’re doing them the favor, not the other way around. An example of what I mean by “term” is that unless they go through the process of becoming naturalized citizens, then they should go home the moment the danger has passed or at least become tolerable. I personally prefer providing humanitarian aid to taking on refugees.

[Post War America]

Literally anyone and everyone can set terms. "Terms" could be decades of closed borders to people that seriously need our (humanity's) help.
I get what you're saying tho, but there has to be a compromise: help on our terms and their terms.

I’m not opposed to give them a helping hand. But we’re doing them the favor, not the other way around. An example of what I mean by “term” is that unless they go through the process of becoming naturalized citizens, then they should go home the moment the danger has passed or at least become tolerable. I personally prefer providing humanitarian aid to taking on refugees.

The problem then in siding with Trumptonium, is that Trumptonium does not believe that refugees should ever become naturalized citizens.

[Ors Might]

What I’m saying is that the US has no obligation to take care of all of those refugees. We have our own problems to deal with and we’re hardly the only nation in the world with the resources to spare. Would I like to see us take in some of them? Yes. But on our terms.

That won't be sufficient soon enough. There are other countries with the capacity to take in refugees, and despite frequently having smaller populations and economies, and being far worse than the US at turning refugees into contributing members of the society, they tend to be taking in as many if not more than the US. Us shutting down the borders and saying "we dun wanna take any more smelly kebab" is a surefire way to cause much bigger problems than having refugees.

There’s a difference between isolationism and having a limit on how many refugees you’re willing to take. No one has any obligation to take on the problems of others. That’s what I’m saying.

[Ors Might]

I’m not opposed to give them a helping hand. But we’re doing them the favor, not the other way around. An example of what I mean by “term” is that unless they go through the process of becoming naturalized citizens, then they should go home the moment the danger has passed or at least become tolerable. I personally prefer providing humanitarian aid to taking on refugees.

The problem then in siding with Trumptonium, is that Trumptonium does not believe that refugees should ever become naturalized citizens.

Like I said, I don’t agree with everything that he’s been saying. I’d happily welcome anyone who’s gone through the proper process of vetting and application to become a citizen.

[Sovaal]

But I do something like 85-90% of the time, I don't get why that 10% disqualifies me.

Because some people have this weird boner for everything Anglo and think it should be mandatory. The worst in BDSM etiquette, really.

Should we tell them that most Americans aren’t of Anglo descent?

[Pope Joan]

I’m not opposed to give them a helping hand. But we’re doing them the favor, not the other way around. An example of what I mean by “term” is that unless they go through the process of becoming naturalized citizens, then they should go home the moment the danger has passed or at least become tolerable. I personally prefer providing humanitarian aid to taking on refugees.

The problem then in siding with Trumptonium, is that Trumptonium does not believe that refugees should ever become naturalized citizens.

He would like us to share the standards used in Canada. There, if you are not from the Commonwealth of Nations, you must have a desirable skill before you may emigrate or seek citizenship. That is not the demonic Trump talking, it is the enlightened Canucks and Trudeau.

[Post War America]

That won't be sufficient soon enough. There are other countries with the capacity to take in refugees, and despite frequently having smaller populations and economies, and being far worse than the US at turning refugees into contributing members of the society, they tend to be taking in as many if not more than the US. Us shutting down the borders and saying "we dun wanna take any more smelly kebab" is a surefire way to cause much bigger problems than having refugees.

There’s a difference between isolationism and having a limit on how many refugees you’re willing to take. No one has any obligation to take on the problems of others. That’s what I’m saying.

The issue is that many in the US don't want to help any refugees. I'd be all for the countries the refugees be coming from be better. The problem is that refugees are going to happen, and if everyone just turned up their noses and said "we don't want them" millions of people would die, or worse turn to some form of extremism or another and starting bombing their way in. The simple fact of the matter is that not helping anyone, which is what the US is functionally doing, and not improving the conditions in the home countries of refugees to reduce the need to flee, will result in endless suffering, and likely increased threats to national security.