39 statements to test if you are a liberal

[fiksal]

The real kicker is "Nationalism". What if you're a Nationalist for a Constitution that protects freedom of speech? Is that the same thing as being a "Nationalist" for death camps or collectivization of private property?

all depends whose speech you protect and whose speech you stop

[Morkonan]

I didn't think our American cousins used sovereigns. How many do you get to the dollar?

It depends on the size of the magazine. With a belt feed, you can get as many as you can fire until the barrel melts...

[clakclak]

[...]
The real kicker is "Nationalism". What if you're a Nationalist for a Constitution that protects freedom of speech? [...]

Isn't that than simply Constitutional patriotism?

Constitutional patriotism (German: Verfassungspatriotismus) is the idea that people should form a political attachment to the norms and values of a pluralistic liberal democratic constitution rather than a national culture or cosmopolitan society.[1][2][3][4] It is associated with post-nationalist identity, because it is seen as a similar concept to nationalism, but as an attachment based on values of the constitution rather than a national culture.[...]

[fiksal]

pluralistic vs cosmopolitan;

kinda thought those two go together; I am not following what cosmopolitan society means in that quote then

[Morkonan]

...Isn't that than simply Constitutional patriotism..

Interesting - I'm probably a Constitutional Patriot in many ways. Though, I also value the idea that our Constitution can be changed, so... What does that make me if I hold to political ideology in a document that is subject to change? Confused? Probably...

[Aye Capn]

@fiksal: If you're stopping anyone's you're doing it wrong.

@clakclak: I didn't know it had a name. Yes, Constitutional patriotism describes most of the Right in America, certainly the Conservative and Libertarian Right.

[clakclak]

[...]

@clakclak: I didn't know it had a name. Yes, Constitutional patriotism describes most of the Right in America, certainly the Conservative and Libertarian Right.

That is really interesting because the people you will find using in it Germany are not exactly conservative. It isn't a very commonly used term, but one of the people who does identify as a constitutional patriot is comedian Jan Böhmermann who is certainly more left leaning.

Maybe that simply has to do with the differences between the German and US American constitution (even though the first one was highly inspired by the later one).

[Hank001]

I don't think you're going to get a clear picture of the political inclinations within this context. I've found that put to the test a central position forms where a ration outlook prevails.

[fiksal]

@fiksal: If you're stopping anyone's you're doing it wrong.

I am not sure it's possible (or efficient) to be a nationalist and not stop someone from talking.

[Aye Capn]

I am not sure it's possible (or efficient) to be a nationalist and not stop someone from talking.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

[fiksal]

I am not sure it's possible (or efficient) to be a nationalist and not stop someone from talking.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

So? Do Nationalists follow that? They seem to be more of a selectively applying the Constitution / laws, sort of crowd. Like, it's totally fine to forcibly remove immigrants from their homes, sort of crowd.

[Aye Capn]

You must be confusing America for some other country. We deport illegal aliens, not legal immigrants.

(The First Amendment by the way confers no right to break other laws.)

[fiksal]

You must be confusing America for some other country. We deport illegal aliens, not legal immigrants.

(The First Amendment by the way confers no right to break other laws.)

No I got it right, I think.

I am talking about nationalists, who don't distinguish.

[Morkonan]

..(The First Amendment by the way confers no right to break other laws.)

None of the first ten Amendments, commonly called "The Bill of Rights," confer or grant any rights at all.

You must be confusing America for some other country. We deport illegal aliens, not legal immigrants.

But, which ones are the "illegals" and which one's aren't?

It all sounds very appropriate, but what really matters is how one defines "illegal," right?

[Aye Capn]

@fiksal:
American Constitutional Nationalists believe in laws, with the Constitution supreme; consequently we hold that laws distinguish law-abiding legal immigrants from lawbreaking illegal aliens and only advocate deportation according to the Rule of Law. One who wished to deport indiscriminately both legals and illegals would of course not be a Constitutional Nationalist.

When an American Constitutional Nationalist says, "Build the wall. Deport them all," that's a reference first to repelling illegal alien invaders and second to deporting them when border security fails. Thus the clue to the antecedent of the pronoun of the second clause lies in the context of the first.

@Morkonan:
Ahh, you got me. I am aware of the philosophical premise of the Constitution on the origin of rights, but I was sloppy in my language, and you've busted me for it.

On the topic of who is "legal" the Constitution authorizes Congress and Congress writes ridiculously convoluted rules.

On illegal entry, though, there is no ambiguity: illegal entrants are illegal aliens, at least until they are either deported or have some administrative adjustment made to their status.

[Morkonan]

...On illegal entry, though, there is no ambiguity: illegal entrants are illegal aliens, at least until they are either deported or have some administrative adjustment made to their status.

Obviously, the Law must be obeyed. However, in absence of specific qualifications of the Law or where new circumstances arise, what are we to do? We must attempt to stay true to the "Spirit of the Law."

If there is a large group of werewolves prowling around "legal" entry points or the area is currently being sprayed by black helicopters with some unidentifiable, and obviously terribly mutagenic, virus or the Fifth-Circle of Hell has cracked open right beneath the carefully planed legal entry-points... What then?

What if a person who is seeking "asylum" which they claim, believably so, is based upon reasons that are listed in our own Laws as requiring special consideration, yet they have understandably, because of the werewolf menace, have chosen to enter the country at an illegal entry point? What if they didn't get the pamphlet that showed them were they needed to go? What if we did not act to prevent werewolves from interfering in our own legal system?

The point is that the spirit of the law is important and it's that premise that is seen as being ignored by the current administration. That's what the issue is. It's not that these people must be admitted just because they showed up, it's because it appears that the administration is not obeying the spirit of the Law and appears to be simply manipulating it in order to achieve a very hardline political agenda that some of its political supporters with more extreme social views would seem to approve of.

Nobody thinks the border should be a sieve. A nation that can not maintain sovereignty over its own region is not a "State." So, border-security is a viable concern. But, it appears that people who are innocent of our internal political arguments are being used, or abused, as a result of them and many people believe that is not fair or just.

There are still children that haven't been reunited with their families. 1 Is that the sort of country we really want to be? Do those families, no matter if they're illegal aliens or not, deserve that sort of treatment? Should we be known as a society of child-abductors because the fall-out from internal political battles has chosen them as a tool to further a particularly repulsive political agenda that does not see them as being more than that?

[Aye Capn]

Once we have our wall unless your hypothetical werewolf plague invades Mexico all this will become remarkably easier to handle. Build the wall; deport them all.

"Children in cages!" Deport them. Problem solved.

"Family separation!" Deport them all. Problem solved. (If some are here legally they can of course opt out of joint deportation, in which case the separation is voluntary thus not our concern.)

"The immigration courts are overflowing." And here's where the wall comes in. With a 60% reduction in illegals clogging the system (40% get in on visas they overstay) we'll be able to clear the caseload and set everyone to rights quickly rather than have people languishing in custody.

[Morkonan]

Once we have our wall unless your hypothetical werewolf plague invades Mexico all this will become remarkably easier to handle. Build the wall; deport them all.

This is a ridiculous idea to hold to. It shows a very deep lack of understanding.

People will continue to try to come here as long as "here" is better than where they currently are. That is an inescapable fact.

Wall or no, they will come. If you want to keep "them" out, there is only one acceptable way to do it - Help make where they are, right now, better.

This was the accurate and completely legitimate foresight that was used as the foundation for NAFTA. That is why NAFTA existed in the first place. It had nothing much to do with "trade" as far as the major powers, Canada and the US, were concerned, and everything to do with the economic destabilization going on in Mexico and South America.

Did it work? Partially, yes. But, it was not strong enough in its effect. It would take more work, over more time, with equal political efforts to help prevent more instability in South America. NAFTA was also envisioned before the impact of illegal drug-trade gangs was made so very obvious.

Your proposed solution will not work. It would never work. You can not prevent people from trying to improve their lives and the lives of their families by "building a wall." And, the sort of wall that's being discussed is meaningless, to begin with. You would need a substantial increase of border agents and surveillance in order for a wall to be effective. I'll give you the old proverb about placing barbed-wire in a defensive position - "Never put barbed wire where you can't see it." IOW - In order for any barrier to be effective, it must have eyeballs on it. If you're so enthusiastically in favor of that, are you willing to pay a substantial increase in taxes in order to pay for that?

And.. practically doubling the size of the Coast Guard and paying a bit extra for Air Force surveillance?

If all of what you suggest, and especially the spirit by which it seems to be informed, came to pass, I would not wish to live in your version of The United States of America.

[Aye Capn]

Hungary's wall worked. Israel's wall worked. If you're right and American engineers, deficient relative to Hungarians or Israelis, can't build a wall that works we can hire the Israelis to do it, because they clearly possess the expertise to get it done which you presume we do not.

So be it. Hire the Israelis. (Or the Hungarians; make it an open bid.)

As for making the world a better place, the core function of government is to enforce its own laws. While we are unable to do this we have no business trying to fix anyplace else.

Once we prove to the world that we are a Nation of Laws whose laws are to be respected we can serve as the sort of example necessary to help others become more like us.

[Morkonan]

Hungary's wall worked. Israel's wall worked. If you're right and American engineers, deficient relative to Hungarians or Israelis, can't build a wall that works we can hire the Israelis to do it, because they clearly possess the expertise to get it done which you presume we do not.

Size matters.

So be it. Hire the Israelis. (Or the Hungarians; make it an open bid.)

I haven't seriously studied either. But, I have tried to work out how much material and work it would cost to build a "Berlin Wall" for our Mexican Border... We don't make enough concrete... The fencing materials alone to reproduce a "Berlin Wall" would exceed our production. Manpower, even with drones and cameras, to make the wall actually effective would require hundreds of thousands of dollars more per week. (or therabouts, forget the actual amount) Keep in mind, a wall is meaningless without a set of human eyes on it.

As for making the world a better place, the core function of government is to enforce its own laws. While we are unable to do this we have no business trying to fix anyplace else.

Ah... "Laws" like the ones you mentioned? Keep in mind that the "interpretation" of the Laws matter. And, if one President interprets them differently than another, just what friggin' "Laws" are being enforced? Also remember that the President can neglect to enforce laws... Yeah, that's a thing. It's why bunches of potheads aren't getting arrested by the FBI right now. So, what "Laws" are being enforced, there?

The spirit of the law is pretty clear, isn't it? We are not a closed society. We accept immigrants. We have a "legal process" that an immigrant must go through. And, we also have exceptions there, that put a pottential imigre' into a special status, like for immigre's who's lives may be in danger. (Just about everyone country in the world has a similar law regarding such cases.)

So, what about that Law? It's not being enforced, is it? Nope. Instead, parts of the Law are being enforced, like "If you don't come to my desk, you're an illegal immigrant and will be immediately deported even if you make a claim that, legally, must empower a new process." Oh noes! That "Law" isn't really being enforced, is it? I mean... not really, right? /nudge nudge, wink wink.

So, which Laws do you say are legimitate ones that should be enforced and which are the illegitimate ones that shouldn't be enforced? Remember, as you wrote, the government must "enforce its own laws"...

(You do see how that statement sort of "falls flat" here, right? Some laws are being enforced and some are being completely ignored. Some judge's orders, like the reunification of families, are being ignored or, at the very least, not being complied with. Those are our Laws, too. Your's and mine. Ours. They are laws that both of us, I assume, support. Right? So, when you say "laws must be enforced" then you mean "all of them," don't you? You don't single out only the ones that you like, right? Should anyone?)

Once we prove to the world that we are a Nation of Laws whose laws are to be respected we can serve as the sort of example necessary to help others become more like us.

If it's as you describe, I don't see how anyone would want to be "more like us."

A "Nation" must do one thing - Ensure its sovereignty. That's not about its internal "Laws." It has absolutely nothing at all to do with that in the least. Not even a little bit. Go to the UN, declare that you have instituted a "law" and you are now proclaiming yourself an independent country and see exactly how long you last... Anyone telling you that what defines a nation is that nation upholding its own laws does not have a clue what they're talking about.

If you'll note: I explained above that we must maintain our own borders because that is a "Sovereignty Issue." THAT is how a nation defines itself in this world. There are a number of attempts to define "nations/states" by "belief systems" or "political practices" but none of these, not a one, have ever been acknowledged as being Sovereign States. Even Vatican City, an independent city-state, has borders and is not a "state" based upon any "principles," like "laws" it chooses to enforce.