human_murda

Stupid socialist: "Capitalism is bad" Stupid capitalist: "If capitalism is so bad, why don't you nuke third world countries first? HMM?" If stupid capitalists keep characterizing Nordic countries as socialist and countries like India as capitalist, they shouldn't cry when people vote for socialism. When people attack capitalism, these idiots should stand up for themselves instead of pointing fingers at barely developed third world countries which are not capitalist. It is not inconsistent that socialists who attack capitalism/industry does not want to attack India.

Why the fuck does this idiot keep dragging India into this again and again. India's greenhouse gas emission is extremely low. It was practically zero until recently and the only way it can go is up. India is barely industrialized. On the bright side, he didn't randomly start talking about rape and street-shitting.

I could, but you usually deny any implications for your statements. Besides, your reasoning is circular (according to you, suspicion would be established even before collecting intelligence. Then you use this intelligence to establish suspicion to search people). Why would there be license plates in a world where cars don't need to be registered (and even if they did, suspects could just get out of the car and just walk across the border)?

And by what right are these intelligence agencies allowed to spy on people? Isn't that a violation of right to privacy of foreigners? Intelligence agencies wouldn't exist if right to privacy was an absolute right. And how would these border patrol agents know that the person standing in front of them is the person that they're looking for, without asking for identification?

If you can't convict a person before you have any information, wouldn't you have to "initiate force" (by your own logic) to search potentially innocent but suspicious people, then gather information and convict them? Or are you suggesting that it's not a violation of rights to initiate force against innocent people, as long as they're "suspicious-looking"? Or do people stop being innocent if they're "suspicious-looking"? Why are you using double standards for immigrants? If innocent but suspicious citizens can be searched for information without violating rights, why can't immigrants be asked for information? Also, your magical solution to let anyone walk through the border without being asked for information is probably the stupidest immigration policy ever and hurts legitimate immigrants. For example, across the India-Pakistan border, the Pakistani Agency (ISI) trains and sends terrorists and insurgents across the border, disguised as immigrants. Pakistan has government projects setup to infiltrate India, disguised as immigrants. Since these terrorists are part of the Pakistani government, they can easily obtain Pakistani passports and fake visas to India. Now your solution to all this is to just let the Pakistani Army just walk in, no questions asked?

So, the focus should instead be on blaming India even though literally every western country (and non-western country) emits more CO2 (per capita) than India? Of course, most of the increases are coming from India, but India is basically starting from zero. Most of the reductions are coming from Western countries, but they're starting from very high numbers (way higher than India). The only way India's emissions wouldn't increase is if it was left at zero (comparing increases in India to reductions in Western countries and assigning blame accordingly is non-sense, because we're starting from different base levels). Even after the "reductions", emissions by Western countries are orders of magnitudes higher than India (but apparently, "depriving only Western economies of the fuel they need" is the real injustice). India's emissions should be way higher, if "equality of blame" is the goal.

And China is nothing like the other four.

Your IQ is off the charts mahn. You understood everything I said (and didn't say).

It's like having the right to life but not having that right written down in a legal document. Non-citizens would face the same problem that undocumented immigrants face: the constant fear that a new government could deport them, since it's not written down anywhere that they don't belong to a foreign country. You could say that under new laws, everyone inside the country's territory would have rights even without citizenship, but citizenship is the only way to guarantee, with a legal document, that no future government can deport immigrants. Without the promise of rights protection being written down as a legal document (via citizenship), it's not really a law, just a promise. Just like rights like "right to life", "right to property", etc need to be written down on paper, the "right to non-deportation" (aka citizenship) also needs to be written down on paper. Since US law doesn't apply to everyone in the Universe, it needs to be written down to whom the law applies to (via citizenship), not just the geographical jurisdiction (which is indirect and incomplete [earlier example]). Without legal documents, immigrants would be no different from slave workers in UAE, who don't even have a right to get a passport to escape (because they're not citizens). If you're not a citizen, technically, you're not a legal entity. Just like the US doesn't have to grant rights to animals (even when they are within US territory), they don't have to grant rights to you (if they don't recognize you as a legal entity to whom rights apply). Even historically, people from certain races as well as women were excluded from citizenship. Immigrants would have the same fate.

That translates to this: not what Yaron Brook said (and no, it's not a matter of definition. You can't define citizenship away and expect it to have no consequences).

If not for rights protection, why would all these immigrants be given legal status? What makes it necessary to give every immigrant legal status? What is every immigrant entitled to, apart from rights protection (that makes it necessary to give all of them some so-called legal status in your society)? If there is nothing more (than rights protection) all immigrants are entitled to, they're not getting any legal status (in your society).

Essentially implying that there would be some immigrants stuck with the bare minimum: no legal status.

Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that immigrants shouldn't get citizenship and don't even need legal status.

I'm disagreeing with the idea that you should take away people's citizenship. The point was that geographical jurisdiction wasn't the quality that determines which government enforces your rights, as you said earlier. I don't know what kind of hypothetical world you're inhabiting where (a fraction of people) not having citizenship or visas or legal status of any kind (while others do) doesn't make them illegal aliens.

If you prevent them from landing for no legitimate reason (involving any actual, past violation of rights), then yes. If you just ask them questions and let them land anyway, no. People can travel without violating the life and property of people within a border. That's not physically impossible (unless they're on a 737 max). If they do violate it, they can be deported, but not beforehand. I would say that the government controls, not the entry, but the flow of people through the border. They can check the immigrants for any past crimes committed or if they have enough funds for rent, etc but if they satisfy the criteria, the government cannot stop them. That privilege is not theirs to grant. The government cannot control your destination, even if they control how you reach there.

Maybe if you stick to actual meanings of words, your arguments wouldn't be worse than trash. Clearly, everyone has been wrong all along. Taking away citizenship, making every immigrant an illegal immigrant is the solution everyone has been yearning for. Everyone should be an illegal immigrant because anything else is "dumb as shit" and all its corollaries.

They have the same rights as anyone else. Their rights are just going to be enforced by a different government. However, once they enter the country, the foreign government doesn't have any jurisdiction, so it's better to transfer citizenship (or give them visa, depending on intentions). Citizenship is part of the machinery that determines who enforces the protection of your rights. People still have rights, even if they're not citizens. Not being a citizen only means that your rights cannot be enforced (by the government you're not a citizen of). If you're not a citizen, you still have the right to enter a country, although that right is to be enforced by a foreign government (which is an awkward arrangement). The correct way would be to transfer citizenship, so that enforcement of rights can still be followed (deportation would be contrary to the enforcement of rights, for which the concept of citizenship was designed anyway).

And what about citizens? What if an American student studying in China or, say, Saudi Arabia gets detained by the Chinese government or Saudi government? Should the American government care? Why should they care? I'm not questioning whether non-citizens have rights. I'm questioning whether the rights of non-citizens can be legally enforced by a particular government (since if you're not a citizen of a country, the legal enforcement of your rights don't come under that government, even if you're physically present in that country). If you don't have legal status (citizenship/visa), the government has no obligation to protect your rights, even if you're in that country (as is the case with many "illegals" in USA currently). Citizenship is your legal status, that entitles you to protection from a particular government. The fact that a particular government has jurisdiction over a geographic area is not sufficient.

Can you define what a citizen is? What makes a citizen different from a non-citizen? Citizenship is the permission. How are you "permitted" to have free speech if you're not a citizen? Who permits you and for what reason? What quality determines which government enforces your rights? Does the American government protect my free speech in India? Why not? Between who?

But that's exactly what citizenship means: that they come under the country's legal system. It's not just semantics, that's the definition of citizenship. If you're not a citizen of a country (or part of their visa system), then that country's government has no legal obligation to protect your rights. Being legally entitled to a country's court system and not being a citizen/national are contradictory ideas. Of course, the police may accidentally protect your rights, but accidental rights are worse than the worst legal systems currently existing in the world. Enforcement of rights are not possible without citizenship. Citizenship determines which government enforces your rights. Having no citizenship means having no government to enforce your rights. Then why take away citizenship? Sure, in most countries citizenship automatically qualifies you for voting, but what's the point of taking away all legal rights, just so that you can be disqualified from voting. Citizenship and voting rights are two completely separate things. Citizenship is what entitles you to any possible rights by a particular government. If you're not a citizen, then legally, you have no rights. Citizenship usually qualifies you for voting, but getting rid of citizenship just to disqualify people from voting is absurd.

So people would become permanent foreigners in their own country? Would they always be considered foreign nationals? Sure, they don't need to vote, but why can't people become members of nations they immigrate to? (A citizen is a member of a nation and is entitled to protection of their rights by the nation's government. If citizenship should be hard for immigrants, aren't immigrants entitled to have their rights protected by that nation's government? What exactly does "citizenship should be hard" mean?)

In a democracy, the government regularly polls the population about their beliefs and acts according to the results of that poll. Of course, your belief by itself doesn't constitute action but a government is going to survey your opinion and is going to act on it using force (even if you dislike that). In a democracy, beliefs and opinions become law (because there exists legal machinery that converts belief to law). Of course, the actions are carried out by the government (based on people's beliefs), so the people should not be blamed, punished or "screened" for it.

Well, the Modi government has repealed Article 370 without any mass Kashmiri movement or support and it's definitely been controversial. Kashmiris (atleast the ones in Kashmir valley) were flying Pakistani and ISIS flags (as well as flags of other terrorist organizations as a symbol of freedom) and clearly don't seem to want to join India. There has been a communications blackout in the region aimed at curbing protests (the curfew has been lifted in the Jammu & Ladakh regions which have majority Hindu/Buddhist population). Temporarily, there is no freedom of speech or freedom of movement in the region. When curfew in Kashmir valley is lifted, there's probably going to be mass protests and conflicts between Kashmiris and the Indian Army. India is definitely not a capitalist country and it's questionable if this move is economically useful for Kashmiris. However, now private companies and investors (as well as Indians from other states) would be allowed to buy land in Kashmir (so it would probably be better). Pakistani prime minister, Imran Khan has been going from door to door, calling the Indian government fascist Nazis and Hindu supremacists (and anyone who doesn't oppose India to be Hitler appeasers). Many media outlets are also fueling the fear mongering, with clickbait titles such as "Is India trying to 'ethnically cleanse' Kashmir?". Once curfew is lifted in the Kashmir valley, we'll know what to make of all this.