The attempt to destroy the nation state

[TedEH]

it is comprised of 48 independent Countries being called nation states or states

I know I'm not "American", so maybe I'm missing something, but I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Sarcasm? Something that historically was true but isn't anymore? Was there a joke or something being made that went over my head?

 

[DudeManBrother]

Citation for that? I'll admit, that sounded implausible enough that I actually bothered to track down the application online, and, well, I have no idea what you're talking about.

It does look like they’ve changed the words, but it’s still basically achieving the same thing. In the Declaration section just above the Applicant Signature one declares a status of either citizen or non-citizen national of the United States in conjunction with checking “NO” in the U.S. citizen boxes, and accompanied by your Birth Certificate to prove state Citizenship (or non-citizen national status).

 

[MaxOfMetal]

It does look like they’ve changed the words, but it’s still basically achieving the same thing. In the Declaration section just above the Applicant Signature one declares a status of either citizen or non-citizen national of the United States in conjunction with checking “NO” in the U.S. citizen boxes, and accompanied by your Birth Certificate to prove state Citizenship (or non-citizen national status).

It doesn't look like it's as easy as checking a box, unless I'm misunderstanding, which is a definite possibility.

https://travel.state.gov/content/tr...hip/Certificates-Non-Citizen-Nationality.html

It looks like there is a narrow criteria to receive non-citizen national status.

 

[DudeManBrother]

I know I'm not "American", so maybe I'm missing something, but I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Sarcasm? Something that historically was true but isn't anymore? Was there a joke or something being made that went over my head?

A state is a territory with its own institutions and populations.
A sovereign state is a state with its own institutions and populations which has a permanent population, territory, and government. It must also have the right and capacity to make treaties and other agreements with other states.
A nation is a large group of people that inhabit a specific territory and are connected by history, culture or another commonality.
A nation-state is a cultural group (a nation) that is also a state (and may, in addition, be a sovereign state).
The word country can be used to mean the same thing as state, sovereign state, or nation-state. It can also be used in a less political manner to refer to a region or cultural area that has no governmental status. Examples include Wine Country (the grape-growing area of northern California) and Coal Country (the coal-mining region of Pennslyvania).
coun·try (kŭn′trē)
n. pl. coun·tries
1.
a. A nation or state.
b. The territory of a nation or state; land.
c. The people of a nation or state; populace: The whole country will profit from the new economic reforms.
2. The land of a person's birth or citizenship: Foreign travel is restricted in his country.
3. A region, territory, or large tract of land distinguishable by features of topography, biology, or culture: hill country; Bible country.

 

[DudeManBrother]

It doesn't look like it's as easy as checking a box, unless I'm misunderstanding, which is a definite possibility.

https://travel.state.gov/content/tr...hip/Certificates-Non-Citizen-Nationality.html

It looks like there is a narrow criteria to receive non-citizen national status.

That is the truth. It seems to be more difficult to achieve the distinction every year. The definitions and terms seem to change somewhat frequently. This is a few paragraphs from that link. I believe it was John Kerry as Sec. of State that made this determination:

As the Department has received few requests, there is no justification for the creation of a non-citizen national certificate. Designing a separate document that includes anti-fraud mechanisms was seen as an inefficient expenditure of resources. Therefore, the Department determined that those who would be eligible to apply for such a certificate may instead apply for a United States passport that would delineate and certify their status as a national but not a citizen of the United States.

If a person believes he or she is eligible under the law as a non-citizen national of the United States and the person complies with the provisions of section 341(b) of the INA, 8 USC 1452(b),he/she may apply for a passport at any Passport Agency in the United States.. When applying, applicants must execute a Form DS-11 and show documentary proof of their non-citizen national status as well as their identity.

 

[TedEH]

The word country can be used

I mean, you can use any word to mean anything if you really want to. By your definitions, I could stretch any city to be called it's own country. Picking definitions to fit what you want them to mean doesn't help any conversation though. If I go by the wikipedia definition, or how people usually/colloquially use the term, then the only one of those that actually applies is the country = sovereign state definition, which I'm pretty sure is how most people understand the word "country" until you explicitly define it for them.
U.S.A. is a country.
Each state within it is not (by any definition that is meaningful to me).
Much like Quebec is not it's own country, as much as it wants to be.

At the end of the day, I think people put too much stock into where they come from, and where other people come from, and what other people have or don't have, or think or don't think, etc. This level of political conversation admittedly goes way over my head, but I just can't see the value in a lot of it. Way too much of it boils down to "you're not like me, so stay out of my space". The bigger the words and the more complicated the systems at play, the more harmful-isms you can hide in it- race-ism, class-ism, whatever else -ism. And this is coming from a guy who hates when isms get thrown around.

I can't think of any other reason to want to have more hard-defined lines between people than to keep everyone else out. Call your state a country so that you have more basis to say that others aren't from the same place.

 

[Drew]

That is the truth. It seems to be more difficult to achieve the distinction every year. The definitions and terms seem to change somewhat frequently. This is a few paragraphs from that link. I believe it was John Kerry as Sec. of State that made this determination:

As the Department has received few requests, there is no justification for the creation of a non-citizen national certificate. Designing a separate document that includes anti-fraud mechanisms was seen as an inefficient expenditure of resources. Therefore, the Department determined that those who would be eligible to apply for such a certificate may instead apply for a United States passport that would delineate and certify their status as a national but not a citizen of the United States.

If a person believes he or she is eligible under the law as a non-citizen national of the United States and the person complies with the provisions of section 341(b) of the INA, 8 USC 1452(b),he/she may apply for a passport at any Passport Agency in the United States.. When applying, applicants must execute a Form DS-11 and show documentary proof of their non-citizen national status as well as their identity.

Still doesn't hold water. For one, if you were born in a US state or territory, then you're automatically granted US citizenship. The non-citizen national application process is explained in Section 341(b) and requires first proving that you are NOT a US citizen, but ARE a US National. At present, that basically means proving you were born in American Samoa or the Swain Islands, per MaxofMetal's link.

And, of course, even if you WERE born in the American Samoa or Swain Islands, you would still be getting a US passport, not an American Samoa passport.

We're splitting hairs over a tossed-off comment, sure... But, no, there is absolutely no way you can get a State of Washington passport, or as a US citizen get a passport saying you are NOT a US citizen but still a US national.

 

[DudeManBrother]

Still doesn't hold water. For one, if you were born in a US state or territory, then you're automatically granted US citizenship. The non-citizen national application process is explained in Section 341(b) and requires first proving that you are NOT a US citizen, but ARE a US National. At present, that basically means proving you were born in American Samoa or the Swain Islands, per MaxofMetal's link.

And, of course, even if you WERE born in the American Samoa or Swain Islands, you would still be getting a US passport, not an American Samoa passport.

We're splitting hairs over a tossed-off comment, sure... But, no, there is absolutely no way you can get a State of Washington passport, or as a US citizen get a passport saying you are NOT a US citizen but still a US national.

You are correct. American Samoa and Swain Islands citizens fall under the definition outlined in 8 USC 1101 a22. You are also correct in that there is no State of Washington passport. That still falls under citizen of the United States. Anybody that said they aren’t a citizen of the United States, but are a national of the United States would be confused as it’s the same thing. We’re talking about different scenarios entirely; which is cool, but I don’t feel like dragging this on any further. The grammatical distinctions and implications thereof have seemingly been lost on everyone trying to follow along.

 

[Drew]

You are correct. American Samoa and Swain Islands citizens fall under the definition outlined in 8 USC 1101 a22. You are also correct in that there is no State of Washington passport. That still falls under citizen of the United States. Anybody that said they aren’t a citizen of the United States, but are a national of the United States would be confused as it’s the same thing. We’re talking about different scenarios entirely; which is cool, but I don’t feel like dragging this on any further. The grammatical distinctions and implications thereof have seemingly been lost on everyone trying to follow along.

...but, to come full circle back to my original point, it's just one more reason it's hard to argue that the US is somehow not a nation.

Which is a sentence I never ever expected to have to write.

 

[DudeManBrother]

...but, to come full circle back to my original point, it's just one more reason it's hard to argue that the US is somehow not a nation.

Which is a sentence I never ever expected to have to write.

You’ll have to take that up with the Supreme Court!

 

[Drew]

You’ll have to take that up with the Supreme Court!

No, I won't.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/about.aspx

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW" - These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."

 

[wat]

Why would a supra national government destroy national governments? Federal Governments didn't destroy State/Provincial Governments which didn't destroy Municipal/Local governments.

Apples to Orangutans. Why would the United Nations try to coerce nations into agreeing to make it illegal to criticize mass immigration policies?

Why do you think the US, Poland, Australia, would want to back put of the agreement?

I'm talking about race, because you're talking about race, even if you're not willing to admit it openly. "Culture" is a dog-whistle on the part of white nationalists. ....

This is not unlike calling someone racist for being concerned about illegal immigration from Mexico, because most of the illegal immigrants are...a race.

Despite that I believe migration is a human right

So you believe nations should NOT have the right to chose who and how many they allow to immigrate?

 

[Randy]

This is not unlike calling someone racist for being concerned about illegal immigration from Mexico, because most of the illegal immigrants are...a race.

Treading lightly because I know you have a tendency to just come in to deposit something inflammatory and leave but you seem like an intelligent enough guy and it's a discussion worth having.

The functional issue here is that if the majority of people who mass migrate into your country are from a common region and, not so coicidentally, of a common race and you oppose their migration, how does one from the outside determine if that opposition is based on race or based on other mitigating factors?

 

[Drew]

Treading lightly because I know you have a tendency to just come in to deposit something inflammatory and leave but you seem like an intelligent enough guy and it's a discussion worth having.

The functional issue here is that if the majority of people who mass migrate into your country are from a common region and, not so coicidentally, of a common race and you oppose their migration, how does one from the outside determine if that opposition is based on race or based on other mitigating factors?

Ignoring for the fact that you DO see the white nationalist right swear up and down that they don't hate brown people, per se, they just want to "preserve our (implicit: white) American culture and history"...

...I think you also have to reconcile that with the fact that you don't see the same level of concern for immigrants coming from Sweden and Norway, the two non-"shithole countries" that Trump mentioned wanting to see more immigrants from, rather than Mexico or Guatemala or the Dominican Republic. So, yes, it starts to become racist when you start to selectively single out countries and the one weird connection pulling them all together is the color of their skin.

OP seems to have vanished. Weirdest thing.

 

[Explorer]

It's worth remembering that Trump has an actual business which lets pregnant women from Russia stay at Mar a Lago so they can give birth there and thus have an anchor baby which is a US citizen.

 

[narad]

It's worth remembering that Trump has an actual business which lets pregnant women from Russia stay at Mar a Lago so they can give birth there and thus have an anchor baby which is a US citizen.

I want that to be true but that sounds fake?

 

[MaxOfMetal]

I want that to be true but that sounds fake?

It's somewhat exaggerated, but not completely off base.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russians-flock-to-trump-properties-to-give-birth-to-us-citizens

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/birth-tourism-brings-russian-baby-boom-miami-n836121

So there's supposedly an uptick in "birth tourism" and they just so happen to come to traditionally Russian enclaves which Trump owns some property in.

I wouldn't go as far as saying it's a direct business.

 

[narad]

Yea, I mean - I'm not seeing the Mar a Lago connection, which would be like the smoking gun for that narrative imo.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Yea, I mean - I'm not seeing the Mar a Lago connection, which would be like the smoking gun for that narrative imo.

Yeah, there's a lot of sketchy articles stretching things to try and fit what Explorer said. Some kind of "fake news" if you would.

I think latching onto this kind of stuff just helps reinforce the "fake news" narrative.

 

[wat]

Treading lightly because I know you have a tendency to just come in to deposit something inflammatory and leave but you seem like an intelligent enough guy and it's a discussion worth having.

The functional issue here is that if the majority of people who mass migrate into your country are from a common region and, not so coicidentally, of a common race and you oppose their migration, how does one from the outside determine if that opposition is based on race or based on other mitigating factors?

Well, you can't determine that without mind-reading. But I don't think the next best thing is to just assume racism... barring any "mitigating circumstances"

I constantly see terms like "racist dogwhistle" and "alt-lite" being used by bloggers, journos, vloggers, etc, in order to lump people in with the alt-right/racists in leiu of actually engaging their arguments. Comes across as very "racist until proven otherwise" to me.

I get it. Being concerned about illegal immigration technically means the person has something idealogically in common with literally 100% of KKK members. I know.

...I think you also have to reconcile that with the fact that you don't see the same level of concern for immigrants coming from Sweden and Norway, the two non-"shithole countries" that Trump mentioned wanting to see more immigrants from, rather than Mexico or Guatemala or the Dominican Republic. So, yes, it starts to become racist when you start to selectively single out countries and the one weird connection pulling them all together is the color of their skin.

But brown skin isn't the only thing tying those countries together.

In an alternate universe where the only thing that changed was that Sweden and Mexico swapped geographical locations, education programs and murder rates, there would be more talk about Swedish immigration. And we'd be regionalists instead of racists I guess.