American Politics X: Is There A Reset Button Around Here?

[Gravlen]

So then you do want to change the laws.

What changes would you make? Would everyone get to stay?

1. Before you can stay you will need to be processed at the checkpoint (which is what happens in general but I want to leave it in there)
2. Once you are processed will be issued a special type of social security card for immigrants which is viable for two years and will be converted to a citizen’s card once citizenship is gained.
3. Once your year is up it will then be time to go to citizenship. Now if you want to stay you can stay. If you don’t want to stay then you are free to leave. To be up for staying you must have a job and a home.
4. After you are able to stay you then will be put on a path to citizenship. This path should hopefully take another year and after that you take the oath of citizenship and you are a citizen.

Now if you are working or a student will get a special social security card but you will need to get it renewed each year.

So no requirements at all? So actually, open borders is a correct description.

[The Jamesian Republic]

1. Before you can stay you will need to be processed at the checkpoint (which is what happens in general but I want to leave it in there)
2. Once you are processed will be issued a special type of social security card for immigrants which is viable for two years and will be converted to a citizen’s card once citizenship is gained.
3. Once your year is up it will then be time to go to citizenship. Now if you want to stay you can stay. If you don’t want to stay then you are free to leave. To be up for staying you must have a job and a home.
4. After you are able to stay you then will be put on a path to citizenship. This path should hopefully take another year and after that you take the oath of citizenship and you are a citizen.

Now if you are working or a student will get a special social security card but you will need to get it renewed each year.

So no requirements at all? So actually, open borders is a correct description.

No the usual requirements are there. Physicals background checks etc.

[Galloism]

Florida Lt. Gov. Jeanette Nuñez (R) claims there is “no right to criticize legislation by duly elected legislators”

Say what

[Grave_n_idle]

1. Before you can stay you will need to be processed at the checkpoint (which is what happens in general but I want to leave it in there)
2. Once you are processed will be issued a special type of social security card for immigrants which is viable for two years and will be converted to a citizen’s card once citizenship is gained.
3. Once your year is up it will then be time to go to citizenship. Now if you want to stay you can stay. If you don’t want to stay then you are free to leave. To be up for staying you must have a job and a home.
4. After you are able to stay you then will be put on a path to citizenship. This path should hopefully take another year and after that you take the oath of citizenship and you are a citizen.

Now if you are working or a student will get a special social security card but you will need to get it renewed each year.

So no requirements at all? So actually, open borders is a correct description.

Is it, though?

[Port Caverton]

Florida Lt. Gov. Jeanette Nuñez (R) claims there is “no right to criticize legislation by duly elected legislators”

1984. The GOP needs to be deleted ASAP

[Kannap]

You could maybe make the argument that Jimmy Carter didn't commit war crimes, but Bush Jr? His signature accomplishment was the Iraq war, which was illegal under both US law and international law!

How?

International law states that war is illegal unless you're engaging in self defense (e.g. the Russian invasion of Ukraine is illegal, but Ukraine fighting can legally fight a defensive war, with all the normal restrictions of war crimes as prescribed by various international laws) OR the UN Security Council authorizes the war. In the case of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, neither are true and thus the war was illegal. This has been the international law since immediately after WW2, that wars of aggression - as seen led by Nazi Germany, Italy, and Japan - were the supreme international war crime rooted in evil.

In a Dutch inquiry in 2003, then-President of the Netherlands Supreme Court, Willibrord Davids, found the invasion of Iraq violated international law

Then-UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw wrote a secret letter to then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair in April 2002 warning that military action against Iraq was of "dubious legality" and "that regime change, per se, is no justification for military action" according to international law (the aforementioned Dutch inquiry would also report that the notion of regime change had "no basis in international law"). Straw continued in his letter, writing that "a fresh UN mandate may be required," such a mandate was never given to authorize the invasion. In March 2003, then-deputy legal advisor to the British Foreign Office Elizabeth Wilmshurst, resigned in respond to the British decision to invade Iraq alongside the United States without UN Security Council authorization. She wrote, "I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution. [A]n unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances that are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law." In 2010, seven years after the invasion and one year before the end of the brutal occupation, the deputy Prime Minister - Nick Clegg - asserted that the Iraq war was illegal.

In 2004, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that the the Iraq War was illegal because regime change was the primary aim.

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg following WW2 stated that the waging of a war of aggression - which the Iraq War was - is "essentially an evil thing ... to initiate a war of aggression ... is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Benjamin B. Ferencz, one of the chief prosecutors for the U.S. at the military trials of German officials after WW2 said in 2006 that Saddam Hussein should be tried for war crimes but that George W. Bush should also be tried for war crimes for illegally beginning the Iraq War without UN Security Council authorization. He writes: "A prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation ... The UN charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States, formulated by the United States, in fact, after World War II. It says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country cannot use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, 'Look, send the weapons inspectors our to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure out what we're going to do.' The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter."

The International Commission of Jurists in Geneva found that the invasion of Iraq was neither self-defense nor sanctioned by the UN Security Council and thus the Iraq War ran afoul of the crime of war of aggression. They reported, "War waged without a clear mandate from the UN Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force ... deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression."

The leaders of the countries involved in the invasion of Iraq and the Iraq War were well aware that the war was illegal and went ahead with it anyway.

[The Jamesian Republic]

Florida Lt. Gov. Jeanette Nuñez (R) claims there is “no right to criticize legislation by duly elected legislators”

1984. The GOP needs to be deleted ASAP

And replaced with the resuscitated bodies of Eisenhower and friends?

[Grave_n_idle]

1984. The GOP needs to be deleted ASAP

And replaced with the resuscitated bodies of Eisenhower and friends?

Replaced with an apple would be an improvement, at this point.

[The Jamesian Republic]

So no requirements at all? So actually, open borders is a correct description.

Is it, though?

He wanted me to list the changes. These are it. There will be requirements it’s not just let everyone in willy-nilly.

[San Lumen]

1984. The GOP needs to be deleted ASAP

And replaced with the resuscitated bodies of Eisenhower and friends?

No just sane people.

[Gravlen]

So no requirements at all? So actually, open borders is a correct description.

No the usual requirements are there. Physicals background checks etc.

I'm confused. If the requirements still remain on the books, then your suggestions will have no effect.

People aren't coming to the border because they can't already apply from their countries of origin, they come because they don't meet the requirements for permits.

[Gravlen]

So no requirements at all? So actually, open borders is a correct description.

Is it, though?

If there's no requirements for entry? Sounds like it.

[Kannap]

1984. The GOP needs to be deleted ASAP

And replaced with the resuscitated bodies of Eisenhower and friends?

Nah, we don't need the GOP or a far-right party in power. The Democrats already do well as a conservative party, give me an actual leftist party to challenge them and bring about some of the changes we've seen in other "first world" developed countries.

[San Lumen]

And replaced with the resuscitated bodies of Eisenhower and friends?

Nah, we don't need the GOP or a far-right party in power. The Democrats already do well as a conservative party, give me an actual leftist party to challenge them and bring about some of the changes we've seen in other "first world" developed countries.

There is something called a primary. You can vote for people who are more in line with your views.

[Port Caverton]

And replaced with the resuscitated bodies of Eisenhower and friends?

Nah, we don't need the GOP or a far-right party in power. The Democrats already do well as a conservative party, give me an actual leftist party to challenge them and bring about some of the changes we've seen in other "first world" developed countries.

How are the Dems conservatives? I do agree that the US needs a leftist party though

[The Jamesian Republic]

No the usual requirements are there. Physicals background checks etc.

I'm confused. If the requirements still remain on the books, then your suggestions will have no effect.

People aren't coming to the border because they can't already apply from their countries of origin, they come because they don't meet the requirements for permits.

Well let’s make it easier to get the permits while not having open borders. Surely it’s possible.

[Gravlen]

I'm confused. If the requirements still remain on the books, then your suggestions will have no effect.

People aren't coming to the border because they can't already apply from their countries of origin, they come because they don't meet the requirements for permits.

Well let’s make it easier to get the permits while not having open borders. Surely it’s possible.

That is indeed possible. You always have the opportunity to make changes to the current system in order to make it easier to get permits. It's also possible to streamline the system in general... well, if the legislature was functioning and not the current trainwreck.

Also, provide more resources to the system to make it more efficient, thus reducing waiting times.

This will reduce, not eliminate, pressure at the border.

[Kannap]

Nah, we don't need the GOP or a far-right party in power. The Democrats already do well as a conservative party, give me an actual leftist party to challenge them and bring about some of the changes we've seen in other "first world" developed countries.

How are the Dems conservatives? I do agree that the US needs a leftist party though

They're socially liberal - or at least do a good job of pretending so if they're not. Fiscally, they're conservative. They don't support things like universal college, student loan forgiveness, or universal healthcare, which are overwhelmingly popular with American voters, while they throw continually increasing funds at the police and the military to put down anti-government/anti-police/pro-social change protests domestically or governments/forces against American interests internationally.

[San Lumen]

How are the Dems conservatives? I do agree that the US needs a leftist party though

They're socially liberal - or at least do a good job of pretending so if they're not. Fiscally, they're conservative. They don't support things like universal college, student loan forgiveness, or universal healthcare, which are overwhelmingly popular with American voters, while they throw continually increasing funds at the police and the military to put down anti-government/anti-police/pro-social change protests domestically or governments/forces against American interests internationally.

Some do support those things but there are some in power that don't. Democrat also suck at messaging.

Defund the police is not a winning strategy. A referendum on it got voted down in Minneapolis last year.

[Kannap]

Nah, we don't need the GOP or a far-right party in power. The Democrats already do well as a conservative party, give me an actual leftist party to challenge them and bring about some of the changes we've seen in other "first world" developed countries.

There is something called a primary. You can vote for people who are more in line with your views.

The "democratic" electoral system in America only exists to keep those in power where they are and make them richer at the expense of the rest of us. I can vote for those who align with my views, but that's meaningless when the machine of capitalism and our systems in place would never allow anti-capitalist politicians to achieve real, meaningful power. Your statement probably only really rings true at the local level, where the corporations and wealthy don't care if a socialist wins a city council seat.

[Neutraligon]

There is something called a primary. You can vote for people who are more in line with your views.

The "democratic" electoral system in America only exists to keep those in power where they are and make them richer at the expense of the rest of us. I can vote for those who align with my views, but that's meaningless when the machine of capitalism and our systems in place would never allow anti-capitalist politicians to achieve real, meaningful power. Your statement probably only really rings true at the local level, where the corporations and wealthy don't care if a socialist wins a city council seat.

It often is not true at the local level in many locations, because in those locations the primary business, the one that employs 3/4 of the town, have a vested interest in ensuring that the politicians that support them remain in office.

[Port Caverton]

How are the Dems conservatives? I do agree that the US needs a leftist party though

They're socially liberal - or at least do a good job of pretending so if they're not. Fiscally, they're conservative. They don't support things like universal college, student loan forgiveness, or universal healthcare, which are overwhelmingly popular with American voters, while they throw continually increasing funds at the police and the military to put down anti-government/anti-police/pro-social change protests domestically or governments/forces against American interests internationally.

That just sounds like they're libs tbh

[The Jamesian Republic]

Well let’s make it easier to get the permits while not having open borders. Surely it’s possible.

That is indeed possible. You always have the opportunity to make changes to the current system in order to make it easier to get permits. It's also possible to streamline the system in general... well, if the legislature was functioning and not the current trainwreck.

Also, provide more resources to the system to make it more efficient, thus reducing waiting times.

This will reduce, not eliminate, pressure at the border.

Well that’s what I was trying to propose. I just didn’t have the right knowledge.

[Kannap]

They're socially liberal - or at least do a good job of pretending so if they're not. Fiscally, they're conservative. They don't support things like universal college, student loan forgiveness, or universal healthcare, which are overwhelmingly popular with American voters, while they throw continually increasing funds at the police and the military to put down anti-government/anti-police/pro-social change protests domestically or governments/forces against American interests internationally.

Some do support those things but there are some in power that don't. Democrat also suck at messaging.

Defund the police is not a winning strategy. A referendum on it got voted down in Minneapolis last year.

Police reform and defunding the police will never be a winning strategy with Democrats and Republicans in office continue throwing more and more money at police departments and while liberal and conservative mainstream news media alike portray police officers in a positive light an overwhelming amount of time or fearmonger about rising crimes (which, besides "rising crimes" being mostly fearmongering via misrepresentation of data, police statistically don't solve nor prevent most of them)

[San Lumen]

There is something called a primary. You can vote for people who are more in line with your views.

The "democratic" electoral system in America only exists to keep those in power where they are and make them richer at the expense of the rest of us. I can vote for those who align with my views, but that's meaningless when the machine of capitalism and our systems in place would never allow anti-capitalist politicians to achieve real, meaningful power. Your statement probably only really rings true at the local level, where the corporations and wealthy don't care if a socialist wins a city council seat.

How did the progressives people love so much win in state legislatures or congress? City council is a great place to start.

Some do support those things but there are some in power that don't. Democrat also suck at messaging.

Defund the police is not a winning strategy. A referendum on it got voted down in Minneapolis last year.

Police reform and defunding the police will never be a winning strategy with Democrats and Republicans in office continue throwing more and more money at police departments and while liberal and conservative mainstream news media alike portray police officers in a positive light an overwhelming amount of time or fearmonger about rising crimes (which, besides "rising crimes" being mostly fearmongering via misrepresentation of data, police statistically don't solve nor prevent most of them)

Defunding the police solves nothing and its terrible messaging. You could get the same point across with reform the police.