UN Immigration Pact

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Too bad it is not a legally binding upper limit on regulations of immigration (during non-epidemic times and places) for all UN countries.

Such an action would be a travesty of national sovereignty, even the UN isn’t that fucking blatant.

What is wrong with international humanitarian governments being more powerful than patriotic and nationalist federal ones? Federal governments are much stronger than they should be, mostly, particularly when compared to subfederal/local and international governments.

[Hrythingia]

Such an action would be a travesty of national sovereignty, even the UN isn’t that fucking blatant.

What is wrong with international humanitarian governments being more powerful than patriotic and nationalist federal ones? Federal governments are much stronger than they should be, mostly, particularly when compared to subfederal/local and international governments.

Because the decisions of a group of people bound by history, in many cases blood or through bloodshed, language and a general culture should be respected. If they want no part in a wider world system that is their decision -they can run their nation as they please so long as it is not aggressive towards others. As I said earlier here, I have no problem letting someone into my home if I wish them there -but I will not have someone imposed on me. Some of us keep our homes tidy, with working conveniences and tidy gardens, with just enough food to around. Enlarged that image to the nation state.

[New haven america]

I mean, I'm a hardcore internationalist and believe that the entire world should have open borders, but a lot of people get in a fuss over that idea.

-snip-

Boo-fucking-hoo~

[Hrythingia]

-snip-

Boo-fucking-hoo~

Well that’s a nice detailed breakdown of my points isn’t it?

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

What is wrong with international humanitarian governments being more powerful than patriotic and nationalist federal ones? Federal governments are much stronger than they should be, mostly, particularly when compared to subfederal/local and international governments.

Because the decisions of a group of people bound by history, in many cases blood or through bloodshed, language and a general culture should be respected. If they want no part in a wider world system that is their decision -they can run their nation as they please so long as it is not aggressive towards others. As I said earlier here, I have no problem letting someone into my home if I wish them there -but I will not have someone imposed on me. Some of us keep our homes tidy, with working conveniences and tidy gardens, with just enough food to around. Enlarged that image to the nation state.

Why would federal governments that are so nationalist be in the UN anyway? The UN should be able to make laws, and worldwide voting should take place to decide if it is passed. If the majority wants it and in no federal government's "country" is the desire below 30 %, then it should be passed and required.

[New haven america]

Boo-fucking-hoo~

Well that’s a nice detailed breakdown of my points isn’t it?

What points? All I saw was you whining for 4 paragraphs about "muh ancestors!!11!" and "stupid sexy globalism!"

[Hrythingia]

Because the decisions of a group of people bound by history, in many cases blood or through bloodshed, language and a general culture should be respected. If they want no part in a wider world system that is their decision -they can run their nation as they please so long as it is not aggressive towards others. As I said earlier here, I have no problem letting someone into my home if I wish them there -but I will not have someone imposed on me. Some of us keep our homes tidy, with working conveniences and tidy gardens, with just enough food to around. Enlarged that image to the nation state.

Why would federal governments that are so nationalist be in the UN anyway? The UN should be able to make laws, and worldwide voting should take place to decide if it is passed. If the majority wants it and in no federal government's "country" is the desire below 30 %, then it should be passed and required.

Nations are part of the UN because they see it as a forum of discussion that they hope may prevent war, there’s also the issue of looking like pariahs. Personally I’d see the UN dissolved -it’s either bloody useless or too overbearing and mostly a mix of both.

[Saiwania]

The UN building is in NYC. I think that Trump could perhaps have the building shut down, and refuse to reopen it, unless the UN agrees to shelve this potential treaty. Individual nations must retain the power to keep out whoever they want to keep out.

[Hrythingia]

Well that’s a nice detailed breakdown of my points isn’t it?

What points? All I saw was you whining for 4 paragraphs about "muh ancestors!!11!" and "stupid globalism!"

Well let's see shall we?
[*]certain civilisations actually built great things for themselves

[*]also going to turn their locality into an unrecognisable place

[*]How can that part of the world screen out criminals?

[*]What if those people decide that the rest of the world is too violent, capitalistic/socialistic.. do they not have the right to wall themselves off and say 'sorry folks what we have here is good, we're happy to let some in but that's entirely our discretion..'?

[*]To put this into smaller chunks, imagine your country is a house you've owned for a long time, your ancestors owned it too. It's not a stately home but its nice enough with old furniture, its got your young family in it and some elderly grandparents too. You've all put a lot of time into this house, looking after the garden, you've probably had to chase off the odd robber too. It is you that works hard to pay the bills for the house. Then one day the door is forced open and anyone is allowed to come in and stay as they please. You would most likely be outraged -THIS IS YOURS.

That's a wee bit more than ancestors and globalism. If you're not intellectually capable of engaging with what I've said then don't flip me off with some exclamation and move on, maybe go and watch the fucking muppets or something more brain-appropriate. But don't lie to everyone here and say that I've made no points. Be intellectually mature.

[Novus America]

Because the decisions of a group of people bound by history, in many cases blood or through bloodshed, language and a general culture should be respected. If they want no part in a wider world system that is their decision -they can run their nation as they please so long as it is not aggressive towards others. As I said earlier here, I have no problem letting someone into my home if I wish them there -but I will not have someone imposed on me. Some of us keep our homes tidy, with working conveniences and tidy gardens, with just enough food to around. Enlarged that image to the nation state.

Why would federal governments that are so nationalist be in the UN anyway? The UN should be able to make laws, and worldwide voting should take place to decide if it is passed. If the majority wants it and in no federal government's "country" is the desire below 30 %, then it should be passed and required.

Given that much of the UN is controlled by dictatorships a worldwide vote is never going to happen.
It is logistically and politically impossible.
And would not even be desirable. One sized all solutions usually fit no one well.

[Novus America]

The UN building is in NYC. I think that Trump could perhaps have the building shut down, and refuse to reopen it, unless the UN agrees to shelve this potential treaty. Individual nations must retain the power to keep out whoever they want to keep out.

This agreement is just a bunch of pretentious clap trap and buzzwords. It is barely coherent (who wrote this? The UN needs better writers).

It is not anything worth taking any action over.

[The Two Jerseys]

The UN building is in NYC. I think that Trump could perhaps have the building shut down, and refuse to reopen it, unless the UN agrees to shelve this potential treaty. Individual nations must retain the power to keep out whoever they want to keep out.

This agreement is just a bunch of pretentious clap trap and buzzwords. It is barely coherent (who wrote this? The UN needs better writers).

It is not anything worth taking any action over.

I bet it uses "synergy" and "paradigm" at least once...

[New haven america]

What points? All I saw was you whining for 4 paragraphs about "muh ancestors!!11!" and "stupid globalism!"

Well let's see shall we?
[*]certain civilisations actually built great things for themselves

[*]also going to turn their locality into an unrecognisable place

[*]How can that part of the world screen out criminals?

[*]What if those people decide that the rest of the world is too violent, capitalistic/socialistic.. do they not have the right to wall themselves off and say 'sorry folks what we have here is good, we're happy to let some in but that's entirely our discretion..'?

[*]To put this into smaller chunks, imagine your country is a house you've owned for a long time, your ancestors owned it too. It's not a stately home but its nice enough with old furniture, its got your young family in it and some elderly grandparents too. You've all put a lot of time into this house, looking after the garden, you've probably had to chase off the odd robber too. It is you that works hard to pay the bills for the house. Then one day the door is forced open and anyone is allowed to come in and stay as they please. You would most likely be outraged -THIS IS YOURS.

That's a wee bit more than ancestors and globalism. If you're not intellectually capable of engaging with what I've said then don't flip me off with some exclamation and move on, maybe go and watch the fucking muppets or something more brain-appropriate. But don't lie to everyone here and say that I've made no points. Be intellectually mature.

If you think you're making new, groundbreaking arguments, and not just repeating the same useless points I've seen countless times before, you're wrong.

You're just whining and treading the exact same ground as those who came before you. You are boring me.

[Kannap]

-snip-

Boo-fucking-hoo~

This one, I like it.

[Kannap]

The UN building is in NYC. I think that Trump could perhaps have the building shut down, and refuse to reopen it, unless the UN agrees to shelve this potential treaty. Individual nations must retain the power to keep out whoever they want to keep out.

Acting hostile against nations of the world to make his will be done? I don't think that'll turn out how you want it. I mean, if he locks down the building with people in it then he's holding an international hostage situation and some nations aren't going to respond to that diplomatically. I don't even know why the UN bothers meeting in New York City anyway, not like the United States is being a nice player, move it to Geneva or Brussels.

[Snottistan]

Such an action would be a travesty of national sovereignty, even the UN isn’t that fucking blatant.

What is wrong with international humanitarian governments being more powerful than patriotic and nationalist federal ones? Federal governments are much stronger than they should be, mostly, particularly when compared to subfederal/local and international governments.

International governments dominating national ones is also called imperialism, and generally boils down to one group of national governments exerting influence over others. It's a model that's always unsustainable and usually oppressive.

[Ifreann]

What is wrong with international humanitarian governments being more powerful than patriotic and nationalist federal ones? Federal governments are much stronger than they should be, mostly, particularly when compared to subfederal/local and international governments.

International governments dominating national ones is also called imperialism, and generally boils down to one group of national governments exerting influence over others. It's a model that's always unsustainable and usually oppressive.

Yes, there are many, many examples of international governments being unsustainable. Like...um...well the EU still exists so that can't be it. The HRE? That lasted for several centuries.

[Attempted Socialism]

What is wrong with international humanitarian governments being more powerful than patriotic and nationalist federal ones? Federal governments are much stronger than they should be, mostly, particularly when compared to subfederal/local and international governments.

Because the decisions of a group of people bound by history, in many cases blood or through bloodshed, language and a general culture should be respected. If they want no part in a wider world system that is their decision -they can run their nation as they please so long as it is not aggressive towards others. As I said earlier here, I have no problem letting someone into my home if I wish them there -but I will not have someone imposed on me. Some of us keep our homes tidy, with working conveniences and tidy gardens, with just enough food to around. Enlarged that image to the nation state.

In this analogy, however, you have burnt down the homes of several families, stolen a large part of their personal belongings, plowed up their gardens to plant whatever you prefer and seized their workplaces, employing known murderers as security. It's at this point they request some roof over their head, and you start talking about your right to isolate yourself and not be aggressive towards others.
...
If you want an analogy to the North American and European governments closing our borders, at least make it an accurate analogy.

[Olerand]

The Pact is meaningless, and thus harmless. It is a sign of great political idiocy, however, to have it formulated and signed today, what with all the potential for inflamation this issue causes.
This should have been placed on the back burner, until further notice. But I guess not, for what does the West love more than polarizing fights over nothing.

[Hrythingia]

Because the decisions of a group of people bound by history, in many cases blood or through bloodshed, language and a general culture should be respected. If they want no part in a wider world system that is their decision -they can run their nation as they please so long as it is not aggressive towards others. As I said earlier here, I have no problem letting someone into my home if I wish them there -but I will not have someone imposed on me. Some of us keep our homes tidy, with working conveniences and tidy gardens, with just enough food to around. Enlarged that image to the nation state.

In this analogy, however, you have burnt down the homes of several families, stolen a large part of their personal belongings, plowed up their gardens to plant whatever you prefer and seized their workplaces, employing known murderers as security. It's at this point they request some roof over their head, and you start talking about your right to isolate yourself and not be aggressive towards others.
...
If you want an analogy to the North American and European governments closing our borders, at least make it an accurate analogy.

Fair enough of course but then I suppose it comes down to a wee bit of the old Vae Victis. Those civilisations were unable to defend themselves and got shafted in a European power struggle that consumed the globe. Its not so much about 'rights', I tend to avoid using that word because I believe the only rights you have are those you secure for yourself by various means. The English and wider British people secured for themselves liberties through English Common Law, the Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill Of Rights. Those are concrete rights because we made them ourselves and those rights are ours alone. Mr Oongadoonga from whereverstan has no such rights because he was too busy banging rocks together, his civilisation made no attempt to enshrine such things so as far as I am concerned he is entirely at the mercy of people's basic human decency to not infringe on what you may call rights.

A self determining people have rights so long as they can enforce them and maintain them and came up with them themselves. Why should a nation not be allowed to isolate itself if it wishes to? Who's authority is it? Where does the authority come from? The Third World lost out in the game of early statecraft, now that's no fault of its individual inhabitants but neither is it our burden to bear as victors when had tables been turned the same would have very probably happened to us. If we choose to shoulder that burden, then fine. But we are wholly entitled to turn our backs and say tough shit.

[Snottistan]

International governments dominating national ones is also called imperialism, and generally boils down to one group of national governments exerting influence over others. It's a model that's always unsustainable and usually oppressive.

Yes, there are many, many examples of international governments being unsustainable. Like...um...well the EU still exists so that can't be it. The HRE? That lasted for several centuries.

If you think the EU in its current state is sustainable I don't think you're paying very close attention. Can't comment on the Holy Roman Empire all that much as I don't know much about it.

[Ifreann]

Yes, there are many, many examples of international governments being unsustainable. Like...um...well the EU still exists so that can't be it. The HRE? That lasted for several centuries.

If you think the EU in its current state is sustainable I don't think you're paying very close attention. Can't comment on the Holy Roman Empire all that much as I don't know much about it.

So how, exactly, did you come to the conclusion that international governments are always unsustainable?

[Kannap]

International governments dominating national ones is also called imperialism, and generally boils down to one group of national governments exerting influence over others. It's a model that's always unsustainable and usually oppressive.

Yes, there are many, many examples of international governments being unsustainable. Like...um...well the EU still exists so that can't be it. The HRE? That lasted for several centuries.

Only several centuries, then what happened? Poof!

[Budapest Hungary]

According to this article in the New York Times: Prime Minister Charles Michel of Belgium announced the end of his majority government late Saturday, after its biggest coalition partner, the right-wing Flemish party, left in opposition to the planned signing this month of an international agreement on migration.

Prime Minister Charles Michel of Belgium, has formed a minority coalition government with Ministers from the other coalition parties in his government, I support the right-wing Flemish Party's decision.

A good read to read and comment on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/09/worl ... ation.html

[Kannap]

If you think the EU in its current state is sustainable I don't think you're paying very close attention. Can't comment on the Holy Roman Empire all that much as I don't know much about it.

So how, exactly, did you come to the conclusion that international governments are always unsustainable?

Because internationalism and open borders are scary and gross