Nationalism, Patriotism, and Nativism
Published October 06, 2008 @ 09:32PM PT
A few terms often come up in discussions about citizenship and nationality: nativism (usually used in a derogatory way in the U.S.), nationalism (depends on the context, but often has negative connotations), and patriotism (usually seen as a good thing). The similarities and distinctions among these terms, however, aren't always explicitly drawn.
Mirriam-Webster provides the following definitions:
Nationalism: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially: a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.
Nativism: a policy of favoring native inhabitants as opposed to immigrants.
Patriotism: love for or devotion to one's country.
Note that the dictionary definition of nationalism incorporates the definitions of both nativism and patriotism. Likewise, in the immigration context, neither nativism nor patriotism can be fully understood without reference to nationalism. To properly examine nationalism, it's necessary to step outside the context of a particular country for a moment.
Political scientist Benedict Anderson discusses nations as socially constructed "imagined communities," so called because "the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion." Most Americans will never meet or even know the names of 99.99% of their co-nationals. Yet Americans are famously patriotic and most feel bound together by common ideals, especially in the face of attack or criticism from outside.
Patriotism in the U.S. as a positive value is rarely questioned in the public discourse, and when it is, the political damage is swift and quickly quarantined. It is not kosher in the U.S. to too closely examine the ways that nationalism and patriotism are connected. Again, it helps to step outside of the U.S. national context. Two countries where a particularly chauvinistic, aggressive form of patriotic nationalism found full expression during World War Two-Germany and Japan-now have two of the least patriotic societies in the world. Until recently, Japanese schools were legally limited in the extent to which they could include patriotism in the public school curriculum. Germans still feel uncomfortable with demonstrative patriotism of the kind that is common in France, China, or the U.S. This anti-nationalism derives directly from the atrocities committed in the name of national ideals by Germany and Japan during WWII.
Neither Germany nor Japan were democratic polities during WWII. But lamentably, having a democratic government does not immunize a sovereign state from committing misdeeds abroad when there is no comparable version of international democracy in place. Under the anarchic international political system, might makes right, as can be seen with the U.S. invasions of Vietnam and Iraq, Russia in Afghanistan and Georgia, or China in Tibet. In each case, a powerful country disregarded the sovereign borders of a weak country and invaded it against the wishes of the international community. In each case, nothing much was done to stop the powerful state. In each case, the aggressive action was justified as a necessary defensive measure. In each case, domestic appeals to patriotism reached a fever pitch. Those patriotic appeals were rightly seen by outsiders as expressions of nationalism that served no higher purpose beyond the limited national interests of the aggressor state.
Seen then from a global perspective, as in the dictionary definitions, there is little to differentiate nationalism from patriotism. This has important implications for the immigration debate.
Loyalty to the state
Patriotism, or loyalty to country, is valuable to citizens of that country. Loyalty permits the government to collect taxes, build a public infrastructure, provide services, and defend itself. It facilitates a sense of common purpose that enables the incorporation into democratic government of existing trust networks based on religion or family or ethno-linguistic ties.
But unreserved loyalty to the state can also have negative effects-sometimes for citizens, more often for noncitizens. Patriotism is inherently exclusionary and can foster divisions based on national origin. Official expressions of regret for episodes of domestic U.S. nationalist fervor triggered by perceptions of national insecurity have followed the Alien and Sedition Acts, Japanese-American internment, and the McCarthy hearings. One might expect such an apology to come at some point to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, but then might realize that such an apology was never issued to the people of Vietnam after the war there or to Chinese-Americans for the Chinese Exclusion Act, which for 60 years prohibited Chinese from immigrating to the U.S. or naturalizing here. The thousands of noncitizens deported during each periodic nativist retrenchment have usually been unacknowledged, as have the thousands more denied entry during periods of restrictionism.
Charges of disloyalty have been an effective tactic used against political opponents since the U.S.'s founding, from the Alien and Sedition Acts used by the Federalist Party to target Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans to George W. Bush's politicized War on Terror. Since 9/11, immigration policy has been cast by the federal government as a key component of national security. Emblematic of this shift from the more liberal approach that had prevailed from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s was the incorporation in 2003 of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) into the newly-formed Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the domestic agency charged with anti-terrorism efforts.
A "post-national" nationalism
A common defense of patriotism in the U.S.-coming both from the native-born and from immigrants-is the argument that the U.S. embraces a nationalism that transcends traditional allegiances to race, religion, or ethnicity. This is an appealing, unifying idea, but only to a point. The ostensible universalism of American nationalism breaks down upon the very real legal distinctions between citizens and noncitizens.
Like nationalism based on common principles, institutional religion can create a sense of community that transcends other divisions-race, gender, nationality, age, or political opinion. But in doing so, religious affiliation can also create what may be a more lasting, significant division: an ideological distinction of identity. Europeans are well-acquainted with the problems of both identity-based religious conflict and of unrestrained nationalism.
Nationalism in the U.S. is similar to religion in that its adherents sometimes promote it as a unifying universal ideology. That's fine as far as it goes-participation in a community of faith enriches people's lives in powerful ways, and inclusive civic participation in the U.S. has brought security and prosperity to its citizens. But when the legal distinctions between citizen and noncitizen represent not just the ability (or inability) to come and go at will, but stark differences in power and access to resources, then nationalism can no longer serve as a valid universal unifying ideology.
Conclusions
If patriotism is simply a form of nationalism, then nativists should be forgiven for conflating patriotism and nativism. After all, together, these two concepts together comprise the dictionary definition of nationalism above. Nativists see through the false universalism of American nationalism, and reject it. An immigration policy predicated on national identity can never convincingly repudiate the claims of nativists, since nativists simply claim that citizens deserve certain rights and benefits that are properly denied to noncitizens. But in an international political system comprised of sovereign states, an immigration policy cannot be based on anything other than national identity. Hence, nativism is an inevitable consequence of the international political system. It looks, then, as though nativism will be a part of the U.S. immigration debate for some time to come.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
Comments (45)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
David is an attorney in Philadelphia, PA, where he helps immigrants to the U.S. navigate the complex immigration legal system. Views he expresses at change.org are his alone and don't represent the views or opinions of his employer, Nationalities Service Center. The information contained on this site is intended for educational and advocacy purposes only.
Deconstructing any aspect of human "identity", not just the political one, is a daunting task, as "identity" and its constructs are the underpinning of every single human endeavor.
Perhaps what we need to do is examine and transcend the current construct, and the beliefs that support it, of what exactly it means to be "human".
Posted by Martina Herrera on 01/03/2009 @ 04:31PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
There shouldn't even be an immigration debate. (for the record, I'm not suggesting suppression of free speech, just expressing puzzlement at how people can with clean consciences advocate its restriction) Every argument against immigration relies on valuing the interests of the existing local community above the rights of people who for whatever reason are dissatisfied or uncomfortable enough in their current circumstances to leave their entire life behind and move hundreds of miles.
Posted by Alan Stevenson on 01/30/2009 @ 09:11PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Putting aside the fact that if 10 boatloads of people move right next door to me then the safehouse network is either woefully insufficient or under utterly incompetent organisation, I would be happy for my children to go to school with a few dozen people of any geographical origin because unlike you(?) I don't have a problem with 'foreigners' and wouldn't push such a prejudice on my child either.
Posted by Alan Stevenson on 04/16/2009 @ 04:01PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The rights relevant here are the right to the necessities of life, the right to freedom of travel, and the right to egality.
And the only legitimate function of law is to uphold the rights of the people, so anyone has a right to break a law which does not, and everyone has a duty to break a law which does the opposite. As for jobs being 'stolen', they're just going where the work is, which I'm sure you would do in their situation and in fact which I'm sure if you haven't done you will increasingly do in the coming times of hardship. Hate the weapon and its wielders, not the other victims. Hate the system which creates artificial scarcity, and the people who continue to enforce and benefit from it.
Posted by Alan Stevenson on 02/02/2009 @ 04:08PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Hate the weapon and its wielders, not the other victims. Hate the system which creates artificial scarcity, and the people who continue to enforce and benefit from it."
Point of clarification for that statement: I ideally don't think people should be the receipients of hate at all, because I recognise that when people commit acts of evil they are always without exception influenced by material conditions beyond their control. When I say to hate the wielder as well as the weapon itself, I mean in the context of simplistic people like Rutta who seem to feel the need to find a tangible person to pin the blame on for everything that goes wrong - better of course not to hate anyone, but better that she hates the oppressor rather than the other victim.
Posted by Alan Stevenson on 02/03/2009 @ 03:05PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I don't remember saying we should HATE anyone! Please don't try to put your words in my mouth!
It sounds like you think that if material conditions are beyond a persons control then it's alright to commit acts of evil. If everyone who is poor were excused for their evil acts, what kind of country would we have? With that attitude, we wouldn't even need prisons!
If a person steals from, ties and gags, then rapes someone you love, simply because he is poor and has a bad environment. Would you excuse him because of his bad environment and let him go out and continue his evil behavior? Probably!
People should take responsibility for their own actions instead of acting like children and always try to blame someone or something else for their lack of character. Lack of character, which means, if things don't go the way you want them to, then just lie, steal, or whatever it takes to get what you want.
I notice your responses to my comments have been regularly posted. I'm wondering where my comments have gone?
Maybe someone needs to contact President Obama and inform him that, evidently, change.org deletes comments that speak too much truth. Is it that, "The Truth Hurts!" ?
President Obama appears to be a man of integrity. I think he would frown on such behavior!
Posted by Retta Dull on 02/04/2009 @ 03:52PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"I don't remember saying we should HATE anyone!"
No, but you say we should blame someone, and what is hate other than that?
"It sounds like you think that if material conditions are beyond a persons control then it's alright to commit acts of evil"
No, I just think that act doesnt make the *person* evil. I still think we have a responsibility to thwart said act, with consequences to the perpetrator as severe as necessary up to the severity of the act itself, I just don't think believe in punishment.
"With that attitude, we wouldn't even need prisons!"
Point being?
"If a person steals from, ties and gags, then rapes someone you love, simply because he is poor and has a bad environment. Would you excuse him because of his bad environment and let him go out and continue his evil behavior? Probably!"
I fail to see the connection between poverty and rape (in the case of rape, the responsible factor is more often than not that the perpetrator has themselves been a victim of rape, and is messed up in the head as a result - its a vicious circle).
If he seems in danger of raping someone again, then by all means lock him up - but don't go out of your way to make the prisons unpleasent, as they do - until such time as he can be rehabilitated, and in the meantime give him as much help, such as counselling, as you can with rehabilitation.
"I notice your responses to my comments have been regularly posted. I'm wondering where my comments have gone?"
I agree - there's definately censorship going on here, and as much as I don't like what you have to say I can't condone that either.
Posted by Alan Stevenson on 02/05/2009 @ 02:20PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Alan, I really don't believe that blame is hate. Expecting someone to be responsible for their actions is not hate. Being responsible is a healthy thing, it keeps people out of trouble. Hate is what Geraldo had for O'Reilly on the video that Dave posted, where Geraldo said he wanted to take O'Reilly outside and KILL him. Now, that is HATE! I don't want to kill anyone and I don't think you do either.
Posted by Retta Dull on 02/06/2009 @ 05:39PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yes, responsibility is a healthy thing. Punishment, on the other hand, is a product of hate.
Posted by Alan Stevenson on 02/07/2009 @ 06:14AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Do you really think parents that discipline or punish their children with time-out or taking away a toy for doing destructive things to each other, do so because they hate their children?
Do you really think it's hate to punish a murderer, by locking him up, to protect other potential innocent victims?
Don't you think sometimes to protect the guilty as well as the innocent there has to be punishment, not out of hatred, but out of concern for all involved?
Posted by Retta Dull on 02/07/2009 @ 04:48PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Do you really think parents that discipline or punish their children with time-out or taking away a toy for doing destructive things to each other, do so because they hate their children?"
No. I think they do so because society has taught them - in turn through punishment, I might add - that punishment is a good (or even, the best or the only) way of helping a child to develop a conscience.
"Do you really think it's hate to punish a murderer, by locking him up, to protect other potential innocent victims?"
I think if the reason for locking up a murderer is to punish him then yes, its hate. But locking him up to protect other potential victims, in the case that it seems likely he will attack again, isn't punishment.
"Don't you think sometimes to protect the guilty as well as the innocent there has to be punishment, not out of hatred, but out of concern for all involved?"
No, because if its about protection then its not punishment, its just that - protection.
Posted by Alan Stevenson on 02/08/2009 @ 02:51PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Much of the time both Geraldo and O'Reilly are pompous jerks, but in this exchange Alan shows us, O'Reilly was clearly in the right - albeit very unclear in his articulation of the core issue.
Geraldo wanted to say crime by illegals wasn't a big deal because their crime rates weren't all that different from those of legal residents. That is a red herring.
First, information on crime rates is notoriously poor because estimates on the number of illegals living in any given region are little more than guesses.
More importantly, it is the numbers of crimes that matter to us legal residents, not some set of abstract rates. If it is your child that is killed or raped by an illegal alien, do you care whether the rates for legal and illegals differ?
No, you are furious with the powerful politicians (e.g. Clinton, Bush, McCain, Graham, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, etc.) who for decades have been encouraging illegal immigration and for preventing the border patrol and other law enforcement agencies from doing their job efficiently. As much as the murderer himself, it is these ideologues of the right and the left who have blood on their hands.
Here in California there are tens of thousands of violent crimes commited every year by illegal aliens against legal residents. Courtesy of our government. What drove O'Reilly into a fury is that Geraldo was trying to take not only the criminals off the hook but the non-enforcement ideologues in the White House and Congress as well.
Obama may be one of the few people in Washington smart enough to see this big picture. Wish him continued courage in dealing with it.
Posted by Stuart Hurlbert on 05/14/2009 @ 12:58PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If your child is killed or raped by a born-and-bred American, do you advocate profiling and deportation of Americans?
Posted by Alan Stevenson on 05/14/2009 @ 02:52PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"I would be for profiling and deportation of born-and -bred Americans who are found to be in criminal activity"
Whereas if it was a Mexican, for example, you would be preaching for measures against/the deportation of *all* Mexicans in America? Double standards much?
Posted by Alan Stevenson on 05/15/2009 @ 07:09AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
In answer to your question, No, Alan, I would not such an American rapist/killer deported immediately.
He should be executed.
Then "deport" him by giving him an anonymous burial in the sea where maybe he can contribute to the health of the shark populations.
Posted by Stuart Hurlbert on 05/15/2009 @ 12:20PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I moderate these threads, as I described here:
http://immigration.change.org/blog/view/a_note_on_comments
... so they don't end up like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Nt8MQaKko
Posted by Dave Bennion on 02/05/2009 @ 06:33PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Nativism? huh? Is that the same as Europeanism, Africanism, Islrealism, Gayism, racism, Communism?
Posted by Howard Fuller on 03/17/2009 @ 11:36PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Ism?
Posted by Howard Fuller on 03/17/2009 @ 11:38PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Jism?
Posted by Howard Fuller on 03/17/2009 @ 11:39PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
lolwut
Posted by Alan Stevenson on 03/18/2009 @ 09:37AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If the pay, they are like us!
My father used to say that he paid the gov with his income tax and most immigrants can pay, so that give them rights!
W-7 they get a number, like the SSN but for taxes.
Then every year they can do their income tax on a 1040 like everyone else.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24054024/
Posted by Josh Martin on 05/09/2009 @ 04:34PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
And if for whatever reason they happen to be exempt from taxation - generally meaning if they have no income to tax, for example if they're a student or can't find a job - they're *still* like us! Imagine that...
Posted by Alan Stevenson on 05/10/2009 @ 03:55AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Without integrity of language, useful discussion is not possible. Let's look at parts of David's essay with that thought in mind.
"Nativism: a policy of favoring native inhabitants as opposed to immigrants." This definition may be found in a dictionary, but it is NOT the sense in which it is used by groups favoring open border or mass immigration into the U.S. So why bother with it?
Those groups routinely use "nativism" to characterize any individual or organization that opposes illegal immigration and favors reduction to legal immigration to moderate levels. None of the major organizations (CAPS, FAIR, NumbersUSA, CCN, NPG, the various Minutemen groups, etc.) fighting for reduced immigration believes or advocates that legal immigrants should be treated any differently than native borne citizens, except that the former obviously don't have the right to vote until they become citizens.
So why bring up the red herring issue of "nativism," David?
Are you calling "nativist" that majority of the US population who thinks that non-citizens should NOT have the vote and that illegal aliens should NOT have the same rights as legal immigrants?
Posted by Stuart Hurlbert on 05/14/2009 @ 12:17PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Those groups routinely use "nativism" to characterize any individual or organization that opposes illegal immigration and favors reduction to legal immigration to moderate levels. None of the major organizations (CAPS, FAIR, NumbersUSA, CCN, NPG, the various Minutemen groups, etc.) fighting for reduced immigration believes or advocates that legal immigrants should be treated any differently than native borne citizens, except that the former obviously don't have the right to vote until they become citizens"
Many do. But even the ones that don't do believe that migrants should be held to standards to which native inhabitants would not be in order to *become* legal immigrants (including luck of the draw, in the case of those groups which support quotas)
Posted by Alan Stevenson on 05/14/2009 @ 03:00PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Every country in the world is selective in who it admits as legal immigrants.
Reasonable criteria include work skills, educational level, lack of a criminal record, willingnes to accept church-state separation, lack of contagious diseases, etc.
But if doing so is "nativist" then I guess every government in the world is "nativist" and the word becomes meaningless for purposes of communication -- though still useful, of course, as a cudgel and an epithet.
Posted by Stuart Hurlbert on 05/15/2009 @ 12:36PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yes, every government in the world *is* nativist (with the exception of the largely unrecognised Zapatista government of Chiapas and the possible exception of the Bolivarian government in Venezuela which actively encourages people to go there to make use of its healthcare services), but I don't understand why you think that would make it useless for communication. Institutional racism is institutional racism, regardless of whether it applies to one government or all.
Posted by Alan Stevenson on 05/17/2009 @ 07:17AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Why was my earlier comment deleted that pointed out that it is ridiculous to claim that immigration laws constitute "institutional racism"?
Is common sense now being outlawed here?
Posted by Stuart Hurlbert on 05/19/2009 @ 03:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
As I tried to say on your original post before it was deleted, its by no means common sense to assume that the fact that all governments do it means it's not racist.
As a side note to the mod, kindly quit with the censorship. It's not helping anybody, least of all the cause of internationalism.
Posted by Alan Stevenson on 05/19/2009 @ 05:26PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Moderation necessarily involves some editing or deletion, else, what is being moderated?
With a controversial subject like immigration, unmoderated threads tend to devolve into flame wars. One of my goals with comment threads is to energize the pro-migrant community and persuade people on the fence, not to spend hours battling trolls who will never change their minds. These threads tend to attract very dedicated restrictionists who drive away moderates who might otherwise participate, and I'm not willing to cede that ground on a pro-migrant blog. If you are keen to read unmoderated restrictionist drivel, read any comment thread on any online newspaper article on immigration in the country. I'm not the government, I'm not preventing anyone from having their say, but like the editor of a newspaper, I have no obligation to give a forum to anyone and everyone who believes their words fall like jewels into the outstretched arms of an adoring public.
I don't particularly care about cursing ... when I'm not in court or with my parents, I curse like a sailor. Of course, the phrase "curse like a sailor" doesn't mean much anymore, rather it's "curse like you're under 40." I don't much like the "illegal" designation, especially in all caps, it upsets me and I feel a strong urge to delete comments that make use of it. A good rule of thumb is the more caps in a comment, the less coherent the writing.
Posted by Dave Bennion on 05/21/2009 @ 07:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"With a controversial subject like immigration, unmoderated threads tend to devolve into flame wars"
Then by all means, edit the flames out of posts. But don't delete one side's posts, including their argument as well as their flames, while leaving the other side's intact.
Posted by Alan Stevenson on 05/22/2009 @ 05:47AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
My comment about the problems with ILLEGAL immigration was also deleted. It was posted under - Top Ten Ways to Make a Difference - Immigration.
Face it guys! Dave is looking for comments from far-left, intellectually challenged, brown nosed robots who have given up their common sense for the cause, the 20% anti-America groupies!
Posted by Retta Dull on 05/20/2009 @ 10:16AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Its nice to see I'm loved. After all, I couldn't be prouder of my stupidity, my conformism, my lack of common sense and my pathetic submission to authority.*
Here's a thought - would you restrict the number of people who can move to Texas from, say, Colorado? No? Then what makes migrants of Mexican origin different?
*footnote: the irony of course being that all of the above are most commonly associated with the authoritarian right.
Posted by Alan Stevenson on 05/20/2009 @ 01:34PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
There goes that lack of common sense again!
The difference in people from Colorado and Mexican is obvious to the "thinkers!". The people from Colorado are legal, if not, they need to return to their own country where they are legal.
Posted by Retta Dull on 05/20/2009 @ 01:54PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Its nice to see I'm loved. After all, I couldn't be prouder of my stupidity, my conformism, my lack of common sense and my pathetic submission to authority.*"
I can like, even love a person, but it's hard to love destructive comments and behavior.
I've noticed that most far-left liberals are PROUD
of their ineptness!
"*footnote: the irony of course being that all of the above are most commonly associated with the authoritarian right."
I am an Independent, NOT an authoritarian right.
I vote for the person NOT for a party. It's called being an "Independent Thinker!". You might want to try it!
Posted by Retta Dull on 05/20/2009 @ 02:15PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"I can like, even love a person, but it's hard to love destructive comments and behavior.
I've noticed that most far-left liberals are PROUD
of their ineptness!"
There you have it, they don't even understand sarcasm =]
"I am an Independent, NOT an authoritarian right."
I consider myself independent too, although I happen to be a member of several organisations for networking and coordinational purposes, but I don't claim it takes me off the political spectrum. Your political position is defined by your politics, not by your party affiliation.
"I vote for the person NOT for a party. It's called being an "Independent Thinker!". You might want to try it!"
Really? It sounds like being a "Personality Cultist" to me. I don't vote for the person or the party, I vote for the policy...you should try that sometime, too.
Posted by Alan Stevenson on 05/20/2009 @ 04:37PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"The difference in people from Colorado and Mexican is obvious to the "thinkers!". The people from Colorado are legal, if not, they need to return to their own country where they are legal."
So...the Mexicans shouldn't be allowed to move across the border because...they're not allowed to move across the border? There's that lovely circular logic again.
Posted by Alan Stevenson on 05/20/2009 @ 04:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I've noticed that most far-left liberals are PROUD
of their ineptness!"
"There you have it, they don't even understand sarcasm =]"
We understand sarcasm, but we also understand honesty!
"I consider myself independent too, although I happen to be a member of several organisations for networking and coordinational purposes, but I don't claim it takes me off the political spectrum. Your political position is defined by your politics, not by your party affiliation."
My political position is defined by my values and love of country that's why I'm an Independent.
" It sounds like being a "Personality Cultist" to me. I don't vote for the person or the party, I vote for the policy...you should try that sometime, too."
I vote for the person who represents my values and takes actions in line with those values (policy!). Wow! How do you vote for the policy without voting for a person. That's amazing! Are you a legislator?
"So...the Mexicans shouldn't be allowed to move across the border because...they're not allowed to move across the border? There's that lovely circular logic again."
Exactly! Mexicans should not be allowed to come across the border to live in this country because it makes them ILLEGAL! Call it circular logic or what you want, it doesn't change the fact that they are ILLEGAL.
Posted by Retta Dull on 05/20/2009 @ 06:26PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"We understand sarcasm, but we also understand honesty!"
In that case, I'd recommend taking the next step - Spot The Difference! I believe a lot of kiddies colouring books have sections for that, if you need assistance.
"My political position is defined by my values and love of country that's why I'm an Independent."
So...what is it? Because to me, you come off as a die-hard conservative, ie advocate of the authoritarian right.
"How do you vote for the policy without voting for a person"
Tsch. What I meant is that I vote for the body of policy the person lays out, and that nothing beyond that - such as personal charisma, personality, what they do in their private life, and other crap you seemed to be implying factors into your decision on how to vote - concerns me in the slightest.
"Exactly! Mexicans should not be allowed to come across the border to live in this country because it makes them ILLEGAL! Call it circular logic or what you want, it doesn't change the fact that they are ILLEGAL."
And you were accusing me of seeing my common sense off at the airport, I seem to remember? You forget the fact that if Mexicans were allowed to come across the border, then they would *not* be illegal? God, I love law for law's sake, nothing funnier.
Posted by Alan Stevenson on 05/20/2009 @ 06:42PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"We understand sarcasm, but we also understand honesty!"
"In that case, I'd recommend taking the next step - Spot The Difference! I believe a lot of kiddies colouring books have sections for that, if you need assistance."
Your comment was obviously sarcasm, but my comment was honest. The problem seems to be that you didn't recognize my comment as being honest. I do see a lot of far-left liberals that are PROUD of their inability to see the facts or twist the facts to fit their agenda. They seem to think that that's being INTELLIGENT instead of dishonest!
"My political position is defined by my values and love of country that's why I'm an Independent."
"So...what is it? Because to me, you come off as a die-hard conservative, ie advocate of the authoritarian right."
It's keeping the "Rule of Law". Something you seem to have NO respect for. To encourage people from other countries to come here and break the law is choosing to disrespect our law.
"How do you vote for the policy without voting for a person"
"Tsch. What I meant is that I vote for the body of policy the person lays out, and that nothing beyond that - such as personal charisma, personality, what they do in their private life, and other crap you seemed to be implying factors into your decision on how to vote - concerns me in the slightest."
Are you implying that I voted for President Obama because of his charisma, personality and other crap about him? I'm sure he would love to hear that.
"And you were accusing me of seeing my common sense off at the airport, I seem to remember? You forget the fact that if Mexicans were allowed to come across the border, then they would *not* be illegal? God, I love law for law's sake, nothing funnier."
Law is not just for law's sake, it is to protection!You seem to forget that they are not allowed by law to come across the border so they are ILLEGAL. God, you can't seem to comprehend what ILLEGAL means! You talk like the law has all ready been changed. It hasn't been changed! And, IF or until it is changed they need to STOP breaking the "Law of the Land!" by crossing our border ILLEGALLY.
Posted by Retta Dull on 05/20/2009 @ 09:44PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"It's keeping the "Rule of Law". Something you seem to have NO respect for."
Damn right.
"Law is not just for law's sake, it is to protection!"
In this case, you seem to be advocating the maintainance of an existing law...because it is the law.
"You seem to forget that they are not allowed by law to come across the border so they are ILLEGAL"
And yet, if you get rid of that law, they would suddenly stop being illegal. So whats stopping you?
"God, you can't seem to comprehend what ILLEGAL means!"
Sure I do. I just don't give a flying fuck.
Posted by Alan Stevenson on 05/21/2009 @ 04:41AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"It's keeping the "Rule of Law". Something you seem to have NO respect for."
"Damn right."
Finally the truth comes out! Alan, proven by his own words, has NO respect for the law. Just like the 20% in this country who want lawbreakers to be rewarded with the Dream Act Amnesty for breaking the law.
"In this case, you seem to be advocating the maintainance of an existing law...because it is the law."
God, are you brain dead? I advocate the maintenance of an existing law because it would keep our country protected IF it was enforced!
"And yet, if you get rid of that law, they would suddenly stop being illegal. So whats stopping you?"
Why would any sane person want to get rid of the law, when it protects us from millions of illegals? In numbers of cases those ILLEGALS are hardened CRIMINALS or drunkards like the illegal who ran a red light in Nebraska recently and killed a little four year old girl. Also, I suppose you have never heard of a "Population Explosion!"? We WILL have one if we don't enforce our law! Also, California is a perfect example of allowing illegal immigrants to receive entitlements that they are not entitled to receive. California didn't enforce the "Law of the Land!". Now, their politicians expect the rest of the nation to bail them out. That's what happens when the "Rule of Law" is ignored or disrespected. I repeat, Laws are not created for destruction of a nation, they are created to protect a nation. Far-left liberals don't care about the "Law" because they don't care about this nation. That's why they are labeled Anti-Americans! Like the bumper sticker says, "IF YOU DON'T LOVE IT, LEAVE IT!"
"God, you can't seem to comprehend what ILLEGAL means!"
"Sure I do. I just don't give a flying fuck."
I hesitated to even add this comment, your language is too low class, but typical of lefties.
According to respectable polls 80% of the American people from every political party disagree with you. We believe in upholding the law.
With such contempt for the law, it's amazing that more people aren't arrested!
Since Dave is an ACLU LAWyer, I'm sure he will completely agree with you in your contempt for the LAW! (That was sarcasm in case you didn't recognize it!) I'm sure that this comment will frighten him to the point of deleting it.
Posted by Retta Dull on 05/21/2009 @ 01:20PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Finally the truth comes out! Alan, proven by his own words, has NO respect for the law"
'The truth comes out'? You make it sound like I've pretended otherwise, or like I'm somehow ashamed of it. I call bullshit on that. After all, its an (or, the) essential part of being an anarchist. I make allowances when the law in question serves to uphold rights and freedom while not infringing on it beyond the infringement of freedom inherent in the existence of a law, but beyond that zero tolerance for law.
"In numbers of cases those ILLEGALS are hardened CRIMINALS or drunkards like the illegal who ran a red light in Nebraska recently and killed a little four year old girl."
Its no more common for an 'illegal immigrant' to be a 'hardened criminal' than anyone else.
"Also, I suppose you have never heard of a "Population Explosion!"?"
If global capitalism - largely dominated by the American oligarchy - didn't fuck up so much of the world, there would be less people coming into America and more people leaving to go elsewhere, just like population movements elsewhere would also become largely zero-sum. Likewise if the problems caused by said system of domination were fixed.
"Like the bumper sticker says, "IF YOU DON'T LOVE IT, LEAVE IT!""
Most internationalists (I say most, but its inherent in the phrase) only care about Humanity as a whole and not about *any* 'nation'. So by your logic, where would you suggest we go?
"According to respectable polls 80% of the American people from every political party disagree with you"
Which polls? The ones run by Fox News?
"Since Dave is an ACLU LAWyer, I'm sure he will completely agree with you in your contempt for the LAW!"
Since ACLU is about defending freedom and not about the law, I'm sure there are varying viewpoints among its lawyers with regards to the role of the law. I'm sure some of them see their interpretation of certain laws as the reason people should be defended from oppression, but I'm equally certain that some of them only see the law as a means to the end of that defence. Dave could belong to either group, I don't know him.
Posted by Alan Stevenson on 05/21/2009 @ 02:14PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Its no more common for an 'illegal immigrant' to be a 'hardened criminal' than anyone else."
Check the Data!
"Most internationalists (I say most, but its inherent in the phrase) only care about Humanity as a whole and not about *any* 'nation'. So by your logic, where would you suggest we go?"
Any place you choose!
"Which polls? The ones run by Fox News? "
Since Fox News is knocking out every other news network, it would probably poll a much larger number of people, so YES! But, there are other respectable polls showing the same. Check the Data!
I don't know Dave either. I just know he deletes comments that are speaking against ILLEGAL immigration and he leaves comments that are FOR ILLEGAL immigration even if the comments have profanity. Maybe the F word D word or the S word that you use is not profanity to him, though!
Posted by Retta Dull on 05/21/2009 @ 05:40PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"he leaves comments that are FOR ILLEGAL immigration even if the comments have profanity. Maybe the F word D word or the S word that you use is not profanity to him, though!"
Maybe not. Maybe he agrees that linguistic taboos are inherently reactionary. He should learn that political censorship is no better though, I'm with you on that.
As a side note, fuck taboo.
Posted by Alan Stevenson on 05/21/2009 @ 06:27PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
''He should learn that political censorship is no better though, I'm with you on that.''
I'm glad we finally found one thing we can agree on!
Posted by Retta Dull on 05/21/2009 @ 07:23PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.