Frau Merkel makes a Palestinian kid cry on national TV

[Simfan34]

Good for her for having the courage to say that to someone's face rather than pandering while simultaneously vetoing asylum behind a desk like every other politician.

Curiously enough, she just signed an asylum bill today.

[Simfan34]

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.

[Simfan34]

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.

[Simfan34]

Transition to what?

Anyway, the issue of refugees ought to be decoupled from that of entirely voluntary immigration (which is always going to be contentious as an issue; like it or not). Or at least it's not politically clever for people who favour better treatment of refugees to fail to do so.

The transition Antonio speaks of, which I assume I is to a "single world-nation", as I mentioned above.

[Simfan34]

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.

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.

Well, what is American nationhood based on?  

I have a fair bit of sympathy for historically oppressed groups that want their own nation in order to protect themselves.  I understand that, as a practical matter, it's easier to have economic and bureaucratic ties with people who speak the same language as you.

American nationhood is based on civic values derived from its nature as a settler state. They cannot be grafted on to nations that formed by other means.

Why do only oppressed groups deserve nations? Do un-oppressed groups not have such a right?

[Simfan34]

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?

[Simfan34]

Oh come on, Mark. Germans? Sausages? Do I have to spell it out? The sausage-munching Boche. Fritz, the bratwurst guzzler.

Pretend I'm "liking" this.

I agree that we need a like button.

[Simfan34]

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.