Angry nationalists storm Macedonian parliament

[phattonez]

Of course. They do so through governments, state structures, and voting, assuming they live in a democracy.

If the courts based their decision based on legal precedence that overrules local ordinance, then yes. However I'm sure that's not what you mean/what and have a very specific and narrow interpretation you'd like to present otherwise.

If the courts force it, despite the democratic process not wanting it, you're fine with that?

Have you ever heard of Prop 187?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_187

 

[Jredbaron96]

Why even have two separate countries called Macedon and Albania, then? Why not just make them the same? Why do they need to be separate? It's just an arbitrary line, right?

Because Albania is a former isolationist Communist-Monarchy (Yeah, those actually exist) and Macedonia used to be part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and both have inherited significant political differences.

Did Romans in the eastern empire consider them Roman?

The Romans never really considered their Empire "divided", at least in the sense that we know it. They considered their empire still one entity, just ruled by two imperial courts for administrative purposes. To the Romans, the primary differences between the East and West were legal, not national or cultural. That of course changed when the Western half ceased to exist as a functioning state, but while both Empires existed that was the prevailing view.

I make that distinction because I think that culture ends up being more important than race, and it's why African immigrants tend to have better outcomes than American blacks.

Well as a self-described cultural nationalist you must surely understand then how culture is shaped and how it changes.

 

[phattonez]

Because Albania is a former isolationist Communist-Monarchy (Yeah, those actually exist) and Macedonia used to be part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and both have inherited significant political differences.

And Macedonians wish to live among only Macedonians, in their own nation. Should this not be allowed?

The Romans never really considered their Empire "divided", at least in the sense that we know it. They considered their empire still one entity, just ruled by two imperial courts for administrative purposes. To the Romans, the primary differences between the East and West were legal, not national or cultural. That of course changed when the Western half ceased to exist as a functioning state, but while both Empires existed that was the prevailing view.

So did those in the East ever consider Goths to be Romans?

Well as a self-described cultural nationalist you must surely understand then how culture is shaped and how it changes.

Yes, and so I have big issues with importing huge numbers of a foreign culture, to the point that native culture is being overrun. I don't see why Americans should put up with it. What's the advantage to Americans?

 

[Jredbaron96]

If the courts force it, despite the democratic process not wanting it, you're fine with that?

Have you ever heard of Prop 187?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_187

You use "force it" to imply it was undemocratic and therefore wrong. But the overturning of Prop 187 was based on the fact that it was unconstitutional. Are we not a nation based on the rule of law?

 

[Jredbaron96]

And Macedonians wish to live among only Macedonians, in their own nation. Should this not be allowed?

Some* Macedonians do. Does a quarter of Macedonia's population not deserve a vote?

So did those in the East ever consider Goths to be Romans?

Well first question, why are you only concerned with the Eastern Empire? The Western Empire still existed at this point, and they're the ones this actually pertains to, so what are you trying to get at.

Secondly, for the initial years after their separation, both East and West abided by the same statures of law laid down before the separation, and citizenship and other legal relations were handled by the Imperial Court and the Senate. As the time went on both Courts grew increasingly distant thanks in no small part to the growing fragmentation of the Western half, but I don't think there was a single point (other then the actual collapse) that laws pertaining citizenship began unilateral in their recognition.

Yes, and so I have big issues with importing huge numbers of a foreign culture, to the point that native culture is being overrun. I don't see why Americans should put up with it. What's the advantage to Americans?

"American culture"

Extra-Large sodas and burgers do not constitute a culture.

 

[phattonez]

You use "force it" to imply it was undemocratic and therefore wrong. But the overturning of Prop 187 was based on the fact that it was unconstitutional. Are we not a nation based on the rule of law?

California failed to continue fighting the case, and it never even got to the Supreme Court. Does that sound like carrying out the will of the people?

 

[phattonez]

Some* Macedonians do. Does a quarter of Macedonia's population not deserve a vote?

Some, but why should those who only want to live with Macedonians be forced to live with Albanians?

Well first question, why are you only concerned with the Eastern Empire? The Western Empire still existed at this point, and they're the ones this actually pertains to, so what are you trying to get at.

Secondly, for the initial years after their separation, both East and West abided by the same statures of law laid down before the separation, and citizenship and other legal relations were handled by the Imperial Court and the Senate. As the time went on both Courts grew increasingly distant thanks in no small part to the growing fragmentation of the Western half, but I don't think there was a single point (other then the actual collapse) that laws pertaining citizenship began unilateral in their recognition.

But then the Western Empire fell, which actually would seem to support my argument.

"American culture"

Extra-Large sodas and burgers do not constitute a culture.

The case for open immigration ultimately consists of self-loathing.

 

[Jredbaron96]

California failed to continue fighting the case, and it never even got to the Supreme Court. Does that sound like carrying out the will of the people?

We are a representative democracy specifically because we do not let our country be ruled through tyranny of majority. That's why we have a constitution that supersedes all lower level legal statures and laws.

 

[Geoist]

Nationalists storm Macedonian parliament - CNN.com

and

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...t-zaev-nationalist-violence-eu-europe/524733/

Why Macedonia'''s Parliament Was Stormed by Masked Protesters - NBC News

It appears Macedonian nationalists have a long way to go until they reach an understanding about democracy, integration, and tolerance. They cannot accept a spokesman because he was an Albanian?

I invite users whom are fed up with Trump news to post your thoughts here as an alternative.

But the Right doesn't riot! I was assured of this...

 

[phattonez]

We are a representative democracy specifically because we do not let our country be ruled through tyranny of majority. That's why we have a constitution that supersedes all lower level legal statures and laws.

So democracy be damned, our laws say that we have to allow an unlimited number of foreigners?

So then why didn't we have this problem before the 1965 Immigration Act?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Some, but why should those who only want to live with Macedonians be forced to live with Albanians?

Because the Macedonian government doesn't decree that only ethnic Macedonians are allowed to live there, and neither does the Macedonian constitution.

But then the Western Empire fell, which actually would seem to support my argument.

The Western Empire fell because it was the epicenter of the central problem of Rome; unclear and often time conflicting lines of succession. Contrary to what you assume, it was not the Gothic immigration that spelled the end of Rome; the Crisis of the Third Century had already set the state for the collapse of the Western half. In fact it as the rapid influx of Gothic auxiliaries and soldiers that gave Rome the much needed manpower to fight off attacks from other tribes that were fleeing the Huns, and it was later the Visigoths that proved decisive in driving Attila out of Gaul.


QUOTE]The case for open immigration ultimately consists of self-loathing.[/QUOTE]

More like an objective understanding of what makes America America. Because contrary to the assumption of a narrow minded few, immigration to the US is a complex and multifaceted issue that needs to be addressed in full, not dismissed in unbridled, grand sweeping measures that ultimately harm us in the long run.

 

[phattonez]

Because the Macedonian government doesn't decree that only ethnic Macedonians are allowed to live there, and neither does the Macedonian constitution.

But what do Macedonians say? Isn't it ultimately their nation?

The Western Empire fell because it was the epicenter of the central problem of Rome; unclear and often time conflicting lines of succession. Contrary to what you assume, it was not the Gothic immigration that spelled the end of Rome; the Crisis of the Third Century had already set the state for the collapse of the Western half. In fact it as the rapid influx of Gothic auxiliaries and soldiers that gave Rome the much needed manpower to fight off attacks from other tribes that were fleeing the Huns, and it was later the Visigoths that proved decisive in driving Attila out of Gaul.

In other words, importing foreigners was not able to save a dying civilization.

More like an objective understanding of what makes America America. Because contrary to the assumption of a narrow minded few, immigration to the US is a complex and multifaceted issue that needs to be addressed in full, not dismissed in unbridled, grand sweeping measures that ultimately harm us in the long run.

So why bring up how much you loathe American culture? Tell me, are there any other cultures that you would portray so derisively?

 

[Jredbaron96]

So democracy be damned, our laws say that we have to allow an unlimited number of foreigners?

No. Did you even read your own article? Prop 187 was overturned because it's the Federal Government's job to preside over immigration and it's related affairs, and Prop 187 attempted to infringe on that.

So then why didn't we have this problem before the 1965 Immigration Act?

Are you really going to refer back to racially biased and unjust laws prior to 1965 as justification for your argument?

 

[Jredbaron96]

But what do Macedonians say? Isn't it ultimately their nation?

Clearly Macedonia is not a country defined by a single ethnicity, so it's not just their nation. Just like America isn't just a white people's nation.

In other words, importing foreigners was not able to save a dying civilization.

Rome would've collapsed two hundred years earlier had it not been for the Goths.

So why bring up how much you loathe American culture?

I don't loathe American culture, it's just stupid to pretend that American culture is some deep seated, heartfelt tradition when it changes every ten years and has rarely if ever applied to the whole populace.

Tell me, are there any other cultures that you would portray so derisively?

Sure.

The Germans are boring and unfunny; German humor is no laughing matter. The Irish are a bunch of tone deaf pug faced drunkards, the Russians are a bunch of dim witted followers of whatever authoritarian regime is in charge that weekend, and the Koreans like to think they're the most purest of Asian races when they're probably the biggest mutts of them all. Want more?

 

[phattonez]

No. Did you even read your own article? Prop 187 was overturned because it's the Federal Government's job to preside over immigration and it's related affairs, and Prop 187 attempted to infringe on that.

It was a ridiculous decision and it should have been appealed. California, however, just gave up because they elected a Democratic governor.

Are you really going to refer back to racially biased and unjust laws prior to 1965 as justification for your argument?

If it was biased and unjust, then why do we have quotes like these from Ted Kennedy:

"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset ... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia ... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think."

Or this by Lyndon Johnson:
"This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives."

They lied to us and then called us racist for noticing that exactly what they said would not happen did happen.

 

[phattonez]

Clearly Macedonia is not a country defined by a single ethnicity, so it's not just their nation. Just like America isn't just a white people's nation.

Japan for Japanese. Israel for Jews. Macedon for everyone?

Rome would've collapsed two hundred years earlier had it not been for the Goths.

Then it wasn't much of a survival.

I don't loathe American culture, it's just stupid to pretend that American culture is some deep seated, heartfelt tradition when it changes every ten years and has rarely if ever applied to the whole populace.

Sure.

The Germans are boring and unfunny; German humor is no laughing matter. The Irish are a bunch of tone deaf pug faced drunkards, the Russians are a bunch of dim witted followers of whatever authoritarian regime is in charge that weekend, and the Koreans like to think they're the most purest of Asian races when they're probably the biggest mutts of them all. Want more?

At least you're consistent about it, which is more than most I debate with. Still, what conclusions do we draw? Should we force cultures to mix and live with each other? Do separate cultures not get a right to set up their own nations? How do we draw national lines? Or should there be no nations?

 

[Jredbaron96]

It was a ridiculous decision and it should have been appealed. California, however, just gave up because they elected a Democratic governor.

It was appealed and then dropped by the Democratic governor who viewed it as biased and unfair.

If it was biased and unjust, then why do we have quotes like these from Ted Kennedy:

"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset ... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia ... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think."

Or this by Lyndon Johnson:
"This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives."

They lied to us and then called us racist for noticing that exactly what they said would not happen did happen.

I didn't say the Immigration Act of 1965, I was referring to the fact that you said "Before it wasn't a problem" and referencing the racially biased laws passed before that.

 

[phattonez]

It was appealed and then dropped by the Democratic governor who viewed it as biased and unfair.

Right, or rather he's pro immigration and so he found an opportunity to just disregard the proposition.

I didn't say the Immigration Act of 1965, I was referring to the fact that you said "Before it wasn't a problem" and referencing the racially biased laws passed before that.

I brought it up, and I responded to your response to it. So, were Americans lied to in 1965?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Japan for Japanese. Israel for Jews. Macedon for everyone?

You're telling me there isn't thousands of Muslims and Arabs in Israel?

Then it wasn't much of a survival.

It was better than what they would've gotten

At least you're consistent about it, which is more than most I debate with. Still, what conclusions do we draw? Should we force cultures to mix and live with each other? Do separate cultures not get a right to set up their own nations? How do we draw national lines? Or should there be no nations?

History's full of nations and powers that at one point or another wanted nothing but purity, whether it was political, racial, ethnic, or otherwise. They fall failed. The reality is that segregation of cultures and nations never last because these states never have all they need to survive, at least for a long time. At one point or another something happens. Famine, war, depression, declining birthrates. America is not the exception to that.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Right, or rather he's pro immigration and so he found an opportunity to just disregard the proposition.

Pro-immigration? Of course. There's no problem with accepting people legally immigrating to our country.

I brought it up, and I responded to your response to it. So, were Americans lied to in 1965?

Lied to? No, that implies deliberate deceit. More likely is that neither man recognized that with the rebuilding of Europe, European immigration would decline (as it had made up the majority of immigrants in the first half of the 20th Century, thanks in no small part to both World Wars).

 

[phattonez]

You're telling me there isn't thousands of Muslims and Arabs in Israel?

Religious Jews are 75% of the population. Religious Muslims are only 17.5%. Christians are 1.97%. Have you seen Israel's immigration policies?

It was better than what they would've gotten

Delayed destruction isn't survival.

History's full of nations and powers that at one point or another wanted nothing but purity, whether it was political, racial, ethnic, or otherwise. They fall failed. The reality is that segregation of cultures and nations never last because these states never have all they need to survive, at least for a long time. At one point or another something happens. Famine, war, depression, declining birthrates. America is not the exception to that.

So I'll ask again, how do we draw national lines? Or should there be no nations?

 

[phattonez]

Pro-immigration? Of course. There's no problem with accepting people legally immigrating to our country.

Except that disregarding that proposition supported illegal immigrants.

That said, why can't I criticize our massive immigration numbers?

Lied to? No, that implies deliberate deceit. More likely is that neither man recognized that with the rebuilding of Europe, European immigration would decline (as it had made up the majority of immigrants in the first half of the 20th Century, thanks in no small part to both World Wars).

So since the bill was passed with the understanding that it would not do what it actually did, does that mean that democratic will was subverted?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Religious Jews are 75% of the population. Religious Muslims are only 17.5%. Christians are 1.97%. Have you seen Israel's immigration policies?

So not just a nation of Jews, huh?

Delayed destruction isn't survival.

The Western Empire's survival was never in doubt.

So I'll ask again, how do we draw national lines? Or should there be no nations?

Are you asking me theoretically or realistically?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Except that disregarding that proposition supported illegal immigrants.

That said, why can't I criticize our massive immigration numbers?

You have every right to criticize it. That does not itself free you from criticism.

So since the bill was passed with the understanding that it would not do what it actually did, does that mean that democratic will was subverted?

Was there a democratic referendum for the bill?

 

[phattonez]

So not just a nation of Jews, huh?

Check out Jewish immigration law. Unless you're a Jew it's very difficult. You have to be a resident for 3 years, know Hebrew, and waive other citizenship. And that residency requirement is tough, because unless you're a Jew, the only real way that you have of entering is being a spouse of an Israeli.

Immigration to Israel and Israeli Citizenship - DCLO Law Offices

Are you asking me theoretically or realistically?

Theoretically what's best?