Frau Merkel makes a Palestinian kid cry on national TV

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's genuinely jaw-dropping.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Dude, all (well almost all) European countries are as bad as each other wrt the issue of refugees and asylum seekers. From a British point of view the unusual thing here is that a leading politician actually met an asylum seeker: we prefer to keep them concentrated in camps.

That's why I'm proud to be an American.  USA!  USA!  USA!

(Yes I know that we suck on this issue as well, ugh.  But in our history and rhetoric we've tried to be better at times.)

At least in the US, the idea of the police checking people's immigration status out of mere suspicion is controversial...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Staying "on top" by taking immigrants is not really a viable option in an ethnically defined nation states - at least only up to a point. Adjusting to a lower population (and maybe lower living standard) is preferable to a lot of people. It is a legitimate political choice about what kind of society you want and not an expression of evil or stupidity.

We should just accept the fact that the notion of "ethnically based nation-states" is a worthless relic of the past that shouldn't (and anyways won't) reflect what Western countries will be in the 21st century.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Dude, all (well almost all) European countries are as bad as each other wrt the issue of refugees and asylum seekers. From a British point of view the unusual thing here is that a leading politician actually met an asylum seeker: we prefer to keep them concentrated in camps.

That's why I'm proud to be an American.  USA!  USA!  USA!

(Yes I know that we suck on this issue as well, ugh.  But in our history and rhetoric we've tried to be better at times.)

At least in the US, the idea of the police checking people's immigration status out of mere suspicion is controversial...

In my part of the US, this is thankfully true!  But we contain multitudes, and some of those multitudes are Arizona.

Even there, there are people who speak out against it, no? Didn't AZ Dems oppose Brewer's bill?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Staying "on top" by taking immigrants is not really a viable option in an ethnically defined nation states - at least only up to a point. Adjusting to a lower population (and maybe lower living standard) is preferable to a lot of people. It is a legitimate political choice about what kind of society you want and not an expression of evil or stupidity.

We should just accept the fact that the notion of "ethnically based nation-states" is a worthless relic of the past that shouldn't (and anyways won't) reflect what Western countries will be in the 21st century.

But is it? If so, why? What should nationhood be based on in the 20th century, if not?

It should be readily apparent that we are not yet "ready" (if we ever will be) for a single world-nation or, as the events in Europe should show, continent-nations. Hence it seems we should have nations, and they best be based on something.

It's certainly going to take time (perhaps even more than a century), but we need to start preparing the transition instead of desperately clinging to the old order. And fully embracing migratory fluxes is the best way to achieve that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

But why should we transition at all? What if people like the old order? I feel as if you are putting the horse before the cart here.

You could always ask, in 1750, what if people liked feudalism better than industrial capitalism. Certainly many people did, and for good reason, but that just won't be an option in a couple decades. And in the long run (and I do mean when we're all dead) the new order will be better for an overwhelming majority of people than the ancient one ever was.

[Antonio the Sixth]

But why? (Antonio)

Even if it was going to be better, people didn't "prepare" for industrial capitalism in advance. Nor did people try to persuade them. It just came, and they adjusted accordingly. But you haven't explained why  the "single world-nation" is desirable in the first place.

Because I am convinced that it will reduce social ills and improve people's well-being to an extent that is outright unimaginable to this point.

[Antonio the Sixth]

All national stereotyping is stupid and wrong.

However, it is perfectly legitimate to criticize a country's political culture and attitudes on given issues. In the case you missed it, the US is the biggest "victim" on this forum.

[Antonio the Sixth]

But why?

Even if it was going to be better, people didn't "prepare" for industrial capitalism in advance. Nor did people try to persuade them. It just came, and they adjusted accordingly. But you haven't explained why  the "single world-nation" is desirable in the first place.

Because I am convinced that it will reduce social ills and improve people's well-being to an extent that is outright unimaginable to this point.

How?

That would take long to explain, and it's not the topic of this thread, but can't you really see where I'm coming from?

[Antonio the Sixth]

But why?

Even if it was going to be better, people didn't "prepare" for industrial capitalism in advance. Nor did people try to persuade them. It just came, and they adjusted accordingly. But you haven't explained why  the "single world-nation" is desirable in the first place.

Because I am convinced that it will reduce social ills and improve people's well-being to an extent that is outright unimaginable to this point.

How?

That would take long to explain, and it's not the topic of this thread, but can't you really see where I'm coming from?

No, not really. Perhaps it would be best if you continued the discussion elsewhere.

I'm certainly open to having a discussion on this issue in a new thread.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So perfectly fitting for the xenophobic right's narrative. What an idiot.