3 ms·

Apartheid was bad. Immigration enforcement isn't bad... it's what alot of people want. These people feel as if they are (in part, collective) owners of the coun

Apartheid was bad. Immigration enforcement isn't bad... it's what alot of people want. These people feel as if they are (in part, collective) owners of the country, and owning it they want to exclude people who do not own it. The same way, I might add, that you or I want to exclude squatters from our homes, and the same way (I assume) most of us don't invite hobos in to sleep in our beds. If you say that's bad too and that it's much like Apartheid, then all I can conclude is that maybe I need to learn more about Apartheid. Maybe it's not so bad as I have been told.

trymas 2mo ago
Which part of “immigration enforcement” is executing citizens in broad daylight?
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- kardianos 2mo ago
  [flagged]
mathisfun123 2mo ago
> These people feel as if they are (in part, collective) owners of the country But they don't in absolutely any sense (legal, moral, philosophical) own the country. And especially they do not "own" the culture (because that's actually impossible). So all you have is jingoism propping up this entire notion.
- wang_li 2mo ago
  Citizens most certainly do own the country. It comes directly from the fact that all government power is granted to it by the people. >That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed To the extent that the land claimed as part of the United States belongs to and is controlled by the United States, it belongs to the people. People certainly own an interest in the culture and have a right to keep it from changing too much too quickly and to fight and refuse the changing of certain aspects of that culture.
  - mathisfun123 2mo ago
    > Citizens most certainly do own the country.. To the extent that the land claimed as part of the United States belongs to and is controlled by the United States, it belongs to the people. Citizens are the beneficiaries of a trust. The land is held in a trust. That is not the same thing as ownership. Think about it: in some other countries you can't even outright own land. That should indicate to you that your notion is overly facile. The underwriters of that trust are all of the current citizens and more importantly all those that came before. In the USA that includes indigeneous peoples, slaves, naturalized immigrants, etc. > People certainly own an interest in the culture and have a right to keep it from changing too much too quickly and to fight and refuse the changing of certain aspects of that culture. Lol what does it mean to "own an interest"? I own an interest in blue spotted blue spotted stingrays - what rights does that bestow upon me with respect to the stingrays? None.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 2mo ago
      >Citizens are the beneficiaries of a trust. The land is held in a trust. That is not the same thing as ownership. Citizenship is the most absolute (though diluted) ownership possible. I own a car, but if I commit a crime heinous enough I can have that confiscated as a penalty. On the other hand, in the United States there is no crime for which my citizenship can be revoked. What about the other elements of ownership? Participating in the decision-making process of the disposition of the property for instance... that's called voting or representative democracy or whatever you want to call it. At times, the government, acting on behalf and with the consent of people, has bought more territory, or traded it away to other nations. We employ a policy of absolute defense against any belligerent encroachers. Looks like ownership to me. Calling it a "trust" is just the weasel words.
      - mathisfun123 2mo ago
        > Calling it a "trust" is just the weasel words. I don't care what you think - this isn't a creative writing exercise. Trust is the technical term describing the legal framework for much of the land in the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Trust_Lands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Trust_Lands I'm not gonna respond to the rest because you're clearly just going off vibes and feelings.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2mo ago
  >But they don't in absolutely any sense (legal, moral, philosophical) own the country. Citizens do own their countries. In any meaningful sense of the word "own", they do own them. Legally, morally, and philosophically. > And especially they do not "own" the culture This is a strange non sequitur. Sure. No one owns culture. The immigrants can take their culture with them back home.
sentrysapper 2mo ago
[dead]

trymas 2mo ago

Which part of “immigration enforcement” is executing citizens in broad daylight?

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
kardianos 2mo ago
[flagged]

mathisfun123 2mo ago

> These people feel as if they are (in part, collective) owners of the country But they don't in absolutely any sense (legal, moral, philosophical) own the country. And especially they do not "own" the culture (because that's actually impossible). So all you have is jingoism propping up this entire notion.

wang_li 2mo ago
Citizens most certainly do own the country. It comes directly from the fact that all government power is granted to it by the people. >That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed To the extent that the land claimed as part of the United States belongs to and is controlled by the United States, it belongs to the people. People certainly own an interest in the culture and have a right to keep it from changing too much too quickly and to fight and refuse the changing of certain aspects of that culture.
- mathisfun123 2mo ago
  > Citizens most certainly do own the country.. To the extent that the land claimed as part of the United States belongs to and is controlled by the United States, it belongs to the people. Citizens are the beneficiaries of a trust. The land is held in a trust. That is not the same thing as ownership. Think about it: in some other countries you can't even outright own land. That should indicate to you that your notion is overly facile. The underwriters of that trust are all of the current citizens and more importantly all those that came before. In the USA that includes indigeneous peoples, slaves, naturalized immigrants, etc. > People certainly own an interest in the culture and have a right to keep it from changing too much too quickly and to fight and refuse the changing of certain aspects of that culture. Lol what does it mean to "own an interest"? I own an interest in blue spotted blue spotted stingrays - what rights does that bestow upon me with respect to the stingrays? None.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2mo ago
    >Citizens are the beneficiaries of a trust. The land is held in a trust. That is not the same thing as ownership. Citizenship is the most absolute (though diluted) ownership possible. I own a car, but if I commit a crime heinous enough I can have that confiscated as a penalty. On the other hand, in the United States there is no crime for which my citizenship can be revoked. What about the other elements of ownership? Participating in the decision-making process of the disposition of the property for instance... that's called voting or representative democracy or whatever you want to call it. At times, the government, acting on behalf and with the consent of people, has bought more territory, or traded it away to other nations. We employ a policy of absolute defense against any belligerent encroachers. Looks like ownership to me. Calling it a "trust" is just the weasel words.
    - mathisfun123 2mo ago
      > Calling it a "trust" is just the weasel words. I don't care what you think - this isn't a creative writing exercise. Trust is the technical term describing the legal framework for much of the land in the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Trust_Lands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Trust_Lands I'm not gonna respond to the rest because you're clearly just going off vibes and feelings.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2mo ago
>But they don't in absolutely any sense (legal, moral, philosophical) own the country. Citizens do own their countries. In any meaningful sense of the word "own", they do own them. Legally, morally, and philosophically. > And especially they do not "own" the culture This is a strange non sequitur. Sure. No one owns culture. The immigrants can take their culture with them back home.

sentrysapper 2mo ago

[dead]