The Caravan

[Deleted member 365]

Nationalism and patriotism being the same thing is a really strange hill to die on.

I don’t think anyone on this board 3 years ago would’ve disagreed. But now that their boy said it, they have to defend it.

 

[Deleted member 5000]

Done! Work day is over anyway.

Work? Man we got to win elections to eat!

 

[Zombie]

I don’t think anyone on this board 3 years ago would’ve disagreed. But now that their boy said it, they have to defend it.

Oh God I forgot Trump called himself a nationalist recently. This conversation makes so much more sense now.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Oh God I forgot Trump called himself a nationalist recently. This conversation makes so much more sense now.

Yep. He declared himself a nationalist.

Then we had a series of trump-inspired terrorist acts. And his followers still continue to defend nationalism.

Connecting the dots shouldn’t be nearly as hard as some people are making this out to be.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Im adopting six refugees, which is one too many, how many yall takin in? Room for 1 more anyone!

Is it a rule that Trumpers have to be complete d bags all the time?

Just Curious, are you a Native American?

 

[Stoked]

Trump claims he wants to end citizenship by birth. That’s part of the constitution and he wants to end it by executive order.

Now, he can’t.

But it will be interesting to see how many Rs support this despite the horribly dangerous premise it sets.

 

[Red]

Maybe patriotism is simply love of country without any of the dangerous elements that have been associated with nationalism:

https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2016/12/26/why-is-nationalism-dangerous/comment-page-1/

I guess both sentiments can also overwhelm reason, be too emotionally based, which would make leery someone who's overly rational to begin with. There's also the old argument that nationalism is akin to a secular religion.

 

[Gameface]

And these definitions change as our culture and understanding evolve.

Who's arguing that?

Nationalism has a much more specific meaning than patriotism. According to the dictionary AND the way humans use it, right now.

What kind of game are you trying to play here?

 

[Alfalfa]

Who's arguing that?

Nationalism has a much more specific meaning than patriotism. According to the dictionary AND the way humans use it, right now.

What kind of game are you trying to play here?

The specific meaning is self-serving. Nationalists who are uncomfortable with the word 'nationalist' claim they're simply patriotic. There is no real difference aside from your disapproval of how others express their nationalism/patriotism. I haven't seen any explanation of why patriotic sentiment is a positive value to someone who disapproves of nationalism. If you identify with a nation, and pride yourself in what you consider your nation's value, then you're a nationalist. Even if you don't agree with what other nationalists feel are their nation's values.

 

[One Brow]

Trump claims he wants to end citizenship by birth. That’s part of the constitution and he wants to end it by executive order.

The clause was limited to prevent, for example, the children of diplomats from receiving automatic citizenship. In fact, the 14th Amendment was determined to not apply to members of Native American tribes in Elk vs. Wilkins, because their primary allegiance was to their indigenous nation. They were later granted birthright citizenship by The Indian Citizenship Act.

The actual text: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

If Trump's Administration challenges birthright citizenship, it will be based on the claim that the children of illegal immigrants owe their primary allegiance to their parents country of birth, not the US, so they do not fill the intention of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This may have other consequences if they win on this basis, though. Can we jail people we are saying are not subject to our jurisdiction? IANAL.

But it will be interesting to see how many Rs support this despite the horribly dangerous premise it sets.

Indeed.

 

[One Brow]

The specific meaning is self-serving. Nationalists who are uncomfortable with the word 'nationalist' claim they're simply patriotic. There is no real difference aside from your disapproval of how others express their nationalism/patriotism. I haven't seen any explanation of why patriotic sentiment is a positive value to someone who disapproves of nationalism. If you identify with a nation, and pride yourself in what you consider your nation's value, then you're a nationalist. Even if you don't agree with what other nationalists feel are their nation's values.

You can be a patriot and acknowledge that French/Chinese/Russian/Indian/Indonesian/etc. patriots are just as correct in their patriotism as you are in yours; it's true not all patriots acknowledge this, but it is possible. As a nationalist, you are saying that the French/Chinese/Russian/Indian/Indonesian/etc. patriots are less correct, because the US is better. I'm a patriot, not a nationalist.

 

[JAZZGASM]

The clause was limited to prevent, for example, the children of diplomats from receiving automatic citizenship. In fact, the 14th Amendment was determined to not apply to members of Native American tribes in Elk vs. Wilkins, because their primary allegiance was to their indigenous nation. They were later granted birthright citizenship by The Indian Citizenship Act.

The actual text: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

If Trump's Administration challenges birthright citizenship, it will be based on the claim that the children of illegal immigrants owe their primary allegiance to their parents country of birth, not the US, so they do not fill the intention of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This may have other consequences if they win on this basis, though. Can we jail people we are saying are not subject to our jurisdiction? IANAL.



Indeed.

Exactly. The fact is, the Constitution is open to interpretation, and the Supreme Court has never ruled whether the 14th Amendment applies to children of illegals. The most persuasive case I am aware of is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. with Chinese parents was a citizen. But both parents had a permanent domicile and were in the country legally. You also have to keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was passed with the intent to ensure that those that descended from slaves could be citizens (and effectively nullified the Dred Scott case). As absurd as it sounds, Trump may actually be able to do it. There will likely be injunctions, and it would go do the Supreme Court. The outcome may be surprising.