NoneOfUrBusiness

Gee, you think?!

So you don’t have an effective caste system (see: Japan and East Jerusalem). Citizenship is essentially a statement from the government entitling you to political rights and some civil rights; the fact that that’s something that even needs to be given is an affront to democracy.

I mean did citizenship even replace anything? AFAIK there wasn’t an analogous system before nation-states (and therefore modern citizenship).

The thing is that conservatism is just support for established power structures, meaning it changes with time and place, while liberalism is a specific ideology/strain of ideologies. For example conservatism in 19th century America would’ve been pro-slavery, not limited government. Meanwhile in France conservatism would’ve been monarchist, and in early 20th century Europe it would’ve been monarchist or fascist. Besides, even in modern politics conservatism implies positions on race, sexuality and religion relations(among others) that are pretty illiberal. It’s only economic policy that overlaps, which makes sense because economically liberalism is pro-capital owners, conservatism is pro-the rich and powerful and right now the rich and powerful are all capital owners.

Nope, that’s what liberalism is. Americans (and Canadians) use “liberal” to refer to anyone left of center, but globally and historically liberalism refers to an ideology that promotes individual liberties, private property rights and free trade (anong other things) and posits that the sole purpose of government is to guarantee those things. This means that on the modern political spectrum, “pure” liberalism would be center-right, with varying amounts of leftwing influence spanning the spectrum from center-right to center-left. Canada’s Liberal Party definitely fits.

Oh yeah you’re right. Then yeah nevermind.

I mean to be fair it’s not the company director; it’s the store manager. Presumably the company’s C-suite wouldn’t want this to happen as it’d expose them to liability.

Edit: See below.

If Israel is a member of that club, then America has been too for a long time.

Worse, prediction markets measure what people with money (AKA the ruling class) think is going to happen. Given their higher access to information and people to more or less objectively process that information, that means you’d expect a decent correlation between prediction market predictions and reality.

I don’t care if 100% of Americans support it or have resigned to it happening,

I mean you should, because if a critical mass of Americans supports it it’s gonna happen. Welcome to the business end of American imperialism.

When it’s fucking armed and organized into an army what the hell even is this question?

Are you just not reading what I wrote or is that your idea of a relevant response?

What happened to the Native Americans can be called “immigration” only as much as WWII can be described as “the Germans immigrated east.” This is a complete non-sequitur.

Generally people respect the autonomy of native americans

Uh… not really but sure? It’s not the native Americans that started controlling immigration; it was white Americans.

but different cultures do have different social systems, more diverse than what we realise.

And this, a complete non-issue for the vast majority of human history, suddenly became a massive problem just as developed countries were getting worried about lesser races compromising their racial purity. Yeah, right.

Less sarcastically, what you’re presenting is one of multiple competing rebrandings for a system that is ultimately about racial purity. That’s how it started and it was never meaningfully reformed from there.

Some ways are more sensible than others, but the whole concept of illegal immigration emerged from racists trying to maintain their racial purity so it’s fundamentally flawed from the get go.

The reconquista. When Christian Spanish kingdoms were conquering Muslim Iberia they took part of North Africa with it, as a treat, and just kept it since. The (honestly kinda sensible) Spanish position is these are core Spanish territories that simply happen to be in Africa rather than colonial territories that should be given back. Historically the Spain (or equivalents)-Morocco (or equivalents) border has been pretty fluid, so there’s no reason per se that “Africans stay in Africa, Europeans stay in Europe” should hold here, but in that case they don’t get to complain about having a land border with their former colonies.

The leopards eating faces is strong with this one, but I’ll take it.

They have been attacking saudi’s interests in a long time…

Uh… explain?

The border between Iran and Iraq is more de jure than de facto until you go west enough to find Sunnis, so you can just count Iraq with Iran here.

I’d like to say the same, but it’s been cool to hate America longer than I’ve been alive where I’m from.