Democrat Convention 2024 (Chicago)

[Joe Ferguson forever]

35 minutes ago, LeviF said:

It’s supported by both. The ignorance is yours. 
 

To you, nationality is an accidental fiction. Something that you can step into and out of. This is a fundamental philosophical difference that separates you from thousands of years of thinking on the matter. We can’t have a productive conversation about it. 

Is trump a legitimate citizen given his Germanic roots?  At best, he’s tangentially related to the founders.  Is he an American National?

Edited August 21 by Joe Ferguson forever

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

11 minutes ago, LeviF said:

Again, citizenship is a legal matter we apply to people. Nationality is not, at least not in the historic use of the term. 
 

People that claim to be part of a sovereign nation within the United States should lay no claim to the term “native” except as applies to whatever failed state their parentage hailed. 

What does being naturalized mean to you?

[The Frankish Reich]

Just now, LeviF said:

Again, citizenship is a legal matter we apply to people. Nationality is not, at least not in the historic use of the term. 
 

People that claim to be part of a sovereign nation within the United States should lay no claim to the term “native” except as applies to whatever failed state their parentage hailed. 

I can see what you're getting at with respect to what we would call ethno-nationalist states. You mention Japan. OK, let's go with Japan. You suggest there is something ethnically/racially/culturally/linguistically "Japanese" that is understood by the Japanese themselves, such that even the descendants of a white man from England who immigrated to Japan in 1890 would never qualify. Let's assume that's true. On some meaning of the term "Japanese," I suspect that most ethnically Japanese people would agree, even if that English family was otherwise fully acculturated.

 

Where I must disagree is with America. This is the very idea of American exceptionalism. We are not an ethno-nationalist country. Indeed, probably the first non ethno-nationalist country in the world. There were empires composed of various conquered peoples, but those were understood to be agglomerations of different peoples/culture/ethnicities. That is simply not America. There is no "American-ness" akin to "Japanese-ness," no specific racial/cultural/ethnic identity to being American. You may argue that there is a linguistic (English) identity, but that's the one that changes most readily from generation to generation.

 

So the question is this: who, in your definition, has the necessary "American national identity?" Only descendants of those English speaking white men in the colonies at the time of the revolution? Descendants of English speaking black slaves at that time? Descendants of English speaking black slaves at the time of the post-Civil War constitutional amendments? Descendants of Scottish and German 19th century immigrants like Trump? Descendants of Italians or Poles or Irish who immigrated in the early 1900s? Native Americans who do not live on a reservation? White Americans descended from colonists who have married Native Americans and who live in the sovereign Navajo Nation with their spouses?

 

You posit a category that is hard and fast, but it seems to be "I know a true American when I see one." Maybe you can tell me exactly what you're seeing?

[BillsFanNC]

Believe all women.

 

Or something. 

 

 

[LeviF]

6 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

Is trump a legitimate citizen given his Germanic roots?  At best, he’s tangentially related to the founders.  Is he an American National?

I can’t really speak to Trump’s genealogy, but ethnic Germans can be seen as cousins of sorts to the ethnic Americans in general. They assimilate just fine and have intermarried quite a lot with the old American stock. 

8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I can see what you're getting at with respect to what we would call ethno-nationalist states. You mention Japan. OK, let's go with Japan. You suggest there is something ethnically/racially/culturally/linguistically "Japanese" that is understood by the Japanese themselves, such that even the descendants of a white man from England who immigrated to Japan in 1890 would never qualify. Let's assume that's true. On some meaning of the term "Japanese," I suspect that most ethnically Japanese people would agree, even if that English family was otherwise fully acculturated.

 

Where I must disagree is with America. This is the very idea of American exceptionalism. We are not an ethno-nationalist country. Indeed, probably the first non ethno-nationalist country in the world. There were empires composed of various conquered peoples, but those were understood to be agglomerations of different peoples/culture/ethnicities. That is simply not America. There is no "American-ness" akin to "Japanese-ness," no specific racial/cultural/ethnic identity to being American. You may argue that there is a linguistic (English) identity, but that's the one that changes most readily from generation to generation.

 

So the question is this: who, in your definition, has the necessary "American national identity?" Only descendants of those English speaking white men in the colonies at the time of the revolution? Descendants of English speaking black slaves at that time? Descendants of English speaking black slaves at the time of the post-Civil War constitutional amendments? Descendants of Scottish and German 19th century immigrants like Trump? Descendants of Italians or Poles or Irish who immigrated in the early 1900s? Native Americans who do not live on a reservation? White Americans descended from colonists who have married Native Americans and who live in the sovereign Navajo Nation with their spouses?

 

You posit a category that is hard and fast, but it seems to be "I know a true American when I see one." Maybe you can tell me exactly what you're seeing?

Again, ignorance of the history of the early laws of this country with respect to immigration especially is no friend. 
 

I’ve spoken to the heritage black Americans already in this very thread. If you can’t be bothered to read just say so and have done with it. 

[Roundybout]

2 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

Believe all women.

 

Or something. 

 

 

Wait, THAT’S who this obnoxious anti-vax bimbo is?? Jane Doe 5? 
 

She filed a sworn statement that said the assault never happened! 
 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 minutes ago, Starr-Bills said:

I mean you may not like my answer but I did (and do try to answer) so whatever grandstanding makes you feel better, cool.

 

okay so lines, rule of law, you want a medal for driving on the right side of the road and stopping at stop signs as well? 🏅🏅🏅(so socialist of you btw 😉)

 

people are coming, the promise of America is strong. So instead of walls and detention why not welcome them in, document them and let them contribute to society (with work and taxes) as they earn the rights of citizenship. Often the converts are the strongest adherents, what a great way to melting pot the situation. Feeding two birds with one scone. 

You see a recitation of facts as “grandstanding”?  Congrats on having the softest life ever. 
 

I’ve never considered receiving a medal (or certificate even!) for driving on the correct side of the road, or stopping at stop sign, I’m not sure where that came from.  I will tell you, though, that using your analogy, a reasonable person would assume that when a driver disregards the aforementioned stop sign, it would not be unusual or unreasonable or unfair for the driver to be stopped, detained, asked for papers, and issued a citation, or in extreme cases, arrested and/or vehicle impounded.  
 

Obviously one could run with the “Stop signs are socialist” play, or the old “People are driving on these roads everyday so why not just let me ignore the stop sign” or complain the Officer was grandstanding, but you would support a reasonable punishment of some sort for disregarding the laws (customs/standards) that regulate human behavior, yes?  
 

I mean, I do, and I’m not certain that makes me an outlier.  
 

Anyway, yes, a sensible process to address immigration makes sense to me, as does welcoming those looking for a better way of life.  
 

Oh, and you may be soft as butter on what constitutes grandstanding, but nice word play on scones.  

[The Frankish Reich]

7 minutes ago, LeviF said:

Again, ignorance of the history of the early laws of this country with respect to immigration especially is no friend. 

Would you care to remind me of what the "history of the early laws of this country with respect to immigration" were?

Could it be that there was no law at all with respect to immigration?

[LeviF]

4 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Would you care to remind me of what the "history of the early laws of this country with respect to immigration" were?

Could it be that there was no law at all with respect to immigration?

The first time non-European aliens were made eligible for naturalization didn’t come until the 1830s. And it was some Indian tribe and came with some strings attached. 

[The Frankish Reich]

1 minute ago, LeviF said:

The first time non-European aliens were made eligible for naturalization didn’t come until the 1830s. And it was some Indian tribe and came with some strings attached. 

And so what would that have to do with who is considered "American" in your sense of the word?

I'll cut to the chase: you seem to be saying that the only true "Americans" in an non-purely legalistic sense are the descendants of white people who would have been able to naturalize under the first Naturalization Law of 1790. In other words, the rest of us are all kind of American citizens by law, but we're not, you know, really Americans.

[Starr-Bills]

7 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You see a recitation of facts as “grandstanding”?  Congrats on having the softest life ever. 
 

I’ve never considered receiving a medal (or certificate even!) for driving on the correct side of the road, or stopping at stop sign, I’m not sure where that came from.  I will tell you, though, that using your analogy, a reasonable person would assume that when a driver disregards the aforementioned stop sign, it would not be unusual or unreasonable or unfair for the driver to be stopped, detained, asked for papers, and issued a citation, or in extreme cases, arrested and/or vehicle impounded.  
 

Obviously one could run with the “Stop signs are socialist” play, or the old “People are driving on these roads everyday so why not just let me ignore the stop sign” or complain the Officer was grandstanding, but you would support a reasonable punishment of some sort for disregarding the laws (customs/standards) that regulate human behavior, yes?  
 

I mean, I do, and I’m not certain that makes me an outlier.  
 

Anyway, yes, a sensible process to address immigration makes sense to me, as does welcoming those looking for a better way of life.  
 

Oh, and you may be soft as butter on what constitutes grandstanding, but nice word play on scones.  

Look how close we are. I guess I’m soft, have no idea what that means or where it came from, who am I to kink shame?
 

so the driving analogy was expanding on your rule following comments about lines.

 

but taking the analogy further, maybe identify document and provide paper work, I don’t know maybe give them a card, a green one or maybe pink, ask them to check in periodically, set rules around any criminal behavior and enforce hiring of document workers with business and collect taxes on their wages, maybe even add a surcharge on immigrant wages to directly fund all of these measures.  
 

this is kinda like Mary-Jane legalize, license and tax it.
 

then increases the staffing at these cross boarder immigration centers and provide a path to naturalized citizenship to incentivize compliance and good behavior and preventing the creation of a sub class.
 

The felon has brought over several immigrant workers maybe we should get his experiences…

1 hour ago, LeviF said:

 

Then being "American" is pure accident, meaningless. 

 

And as far as they go, many of them "choose" to not be American. So why should they be able to lay claim to the term "native American?"

Seems to me being part of the first non-ethno state is anything but meaningless.

 

even the ‘native Americans’ immigrated from Asia or Europe, and Europeans and Asians from Africa… we are world species and sooner we realize it, and the us is the real experiment, the better for everyone.

[LeviF]

12 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

And so what would that have to do with who is considered "American" in your sense of the word?

I'll cut to the chase: you seem to be saying that the only true "Americans" in an non-purely legalistic sense are the descendants of white people who would have been able to naturalize under the first Naturalization Law of 1790. In other words, the rest of us are all kind of American citizens by law, but we're not, you know, really Americans.

 

Your statement was that America was not founded as an ethno-nationalist state. The first, and several subsequent, Naturalization laws as well as the Constitution itself contradict this at least to some extent. We can argue to what degree that might be but your initial statement is categorically false.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

38 minutes ago, LeviF said:

Germans can be seen as cousins of sorts to the ethnic Americans in general. They assimilate just fine and have intermarried quite a lot with the old American stock.

 

[The Frankish Reich]

9 minutes ago, LeviF said:

 

Your statement was that America was not founded as an ethno-nationalist state. The first, and several subsequent, Naturalization laws as well as the Constitution itself contradict this at least to some extent. We can argue to what degree that might be but your initial statement is categorically false.

So here's that first Naturalization Law of 1790: Only "free white persons" who had lived in the U.S. for at least two years and demonstrated good character were eligible for citizenship.

 

Obviously most free white persons at that time in the colonies were of British/Northern Irish ancestry. But not all. So a lot of persons of German ancestry were eligible, as were a lot of Spanish-descended persons. These people were all considered "white" but there was certainly no ethnic commonality between English Anglicans, Spanish and other Catholics, and German Lutherans. So really all you've got is "white."

 

And there you have it. White nationalism.

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

7 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

So here's that first Naturalization Law of 1790: Only "free white persons" who had lived in the U.S. for at least two years and demonstrated good character were eligible for citizenship.

 

Obviously most free white persons at that time in the colonies were of British/Northern Irish ancestry. But not all. So a lot of persons of German ancestry were eligible, as were a lot of Spanish-descended persons. These people were all considered "white" but there was certainly no ethnic commonality between English Anglicans, Spanish and other Catholics, and German Lutherans. So really all you've got is "white."

 

And there you have it. White nationalism.

 

yup, and I'm not sure his definition includes "dark" Europeans eg, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian etc..  Does he want them intermarrying and "assimilating"?

[LeviF]

8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

So here's that first Naturalization Law of 1790: Only "free white persons" who had lived in the U.S. for at least two years and demonstrated good character were eligible for citizenship.

 

Obviously most free white persons at that time in the colonies were of British/Northern Irish ancestry. But not all. So a lot of persons of German ancestry were eligible, as were a lot of Spanish-descended persons. These people were all considered "white" but there was certainly no ethnic commonality between English Anglicans, Spanish and other Catholics, and German Lutherans. So really all you've got is "white."

 

And there you have it. White nationalism.

 

 

Considering the (British) act that preceded it we can almost certainly deduce that "good character" meant Protestant as well.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

13 minutes ago, Starr-Bills said:

Look how close we are. I guess I’m soft, have no idea what that means or where it came from, who am I to kink shame?
 

so the driving analogy was expanding on your rule following comments about lines.

 

but taking the analogy further, maybe identify document and provide paper work, I don’t know maybe give them a card, a green one or maybe pink, ask them to check in periodically, set rules around any criminal behavior and enforce hiring of document workers with business and collect taxes on their wages, maybe even add a surcharge on immigrant wages to directly fund all of these measures.  
 

this is kinda like Mary-Jane legalize, license and tax it.
 

then increases the staffing at these cross boarder immigration centers and provide a path to naturalized citizenship to incentivize compliance and good behavior and preventing the creation of a sub class.
 

The felon has brought over several immigrant workers maybe we should get his experiences…

Seems to me being part of the first non-ethno state is anything but meaningless.

 

even the ‘native Americans’ immigrated from Asia or Europe, and Europeans and Asians from Africa… we are world species and sooner we realize it, and the us is the real experiment, the better for everyone.

Oh, you made it weird.  Everyone is into something, I guess. 

 

As for your plan, sure, but what you're describing is the rudimentary framework of a process.    That's all I was talking about but you went all Brittney Spears over it. 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

55 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

yup, and I'm not sure his definition includes "dark" Europeans eg, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian etc..  Does he want them intermarrying and "assimilating"?

I'm sure he's worried about that.

Or maybe she's a Daughter of the American Revolution.

54 minutes ago, LeviF said:

 

Considering the (British) act that preceded it we can almost certainly deduce that "good character" meant Protestant as well.

I don't think so. There's plenty in the historical record regarding Catholics (Maryland) at a minimum.

Still: weird that you act like that would be a good thing, that only WASPs as we used to call them count as fully "American"

Maybe you can revive the Whig Party

[Pokebball]

1 hour ago, Roundybout said:

Wait, THAT’S who this obnoxious anti-vax bimbo is?? Jane Doe 5? 
 

She filed a sworn statement that said the assault never happened! 
 

 

do you believe any of the 8 alleged assaults (that I'm aware of)happened?

Edited August 21 by Pokebball