Play
Multi-Player
Coins
Community
Settings
Help
Community   Maps   Forum   Mail   Ladders   Clans   Recent Games
Sign In | Sign Up
<< Back to Off-topic Forum   

Posts 1 - 30 of 109   1  2  3  4  Next >>   
intresting article: 8/21/2016 01:47:03


Deutschland
Level 35
Report
The United States has a history of turning away the world’s huddled masses, so yes, anti-immigration is an American value. Before 1890s, and more so before 1880, most immigration was from places like Ireland, Germany, England, Scotland, Scandinavia and so forth. From 1880-1920, most immigration came from Italy, Poland, Russia and other non-Northern European countries, bringing with it large numbers of Jews. The 1924 Immigration Act, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act, set up a national origins quota for who could enter the United States as a reaction to this change. The law replaced the 1921 Immigration Act, which was less strict, passing the House of Representatives by 308 to 58 and the Senate 69 to 9. The 1924 law limited entry visas to two percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890 national census; 1921’s law referred to 1910. The quota system greatly favored Northern European countries over Southern and Eastern European countries, in addition to further restricting immigration from Asia (Asian immigrants already could not become naturalized citizens in most cases).


If Congress were to pass a new immigration act revising the (((Hart-CellerAct))) of 1965, it could also use an old census to set up a new quota system. Like the old Immigration Acts, it would also be aimed at conserving the ethnic and racial character of the United States. If we take a look at this interactive map from Pew Research, we can see how immigration changed over each decade. Here’s 2010:

immigration-2010 https://atlanticcenturion.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/immigration-2010.png?w=640&h=391

Notice how this has and will continue to the change the ethnic admixture of the United States, and reflects almost nothing of the what the population resembled prior to 1965. Meanwhile, here’s 1960, based off immigration from the preceding decade, which was considered the golden age of American economic and military power:

immigration-1960 https://atlanticcenturion.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/immigration-1960.png?w=640&h=391

Can you imagine a plurality or majority of foreigners in DC being German? I can’t. But it used to be that way. If we were to set up new national origins quotas based on the 1960 Census, the only countries with any substantial number of visas would be Germany, Italy, Britain, Canada, and Mexico. That wouldn’t be terrible.

The president also has the authority to block whatever countries he wants and deny entry to their nationals:

“Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” —U.S. Code § 1182 (Inadmissible Aliens)

The problem with executive orders is that they can be rescinded by the next administration with the stroke of a pen. In the long-term it would be better to institutionalize immigration restrictions into the laws of the land and retain enough of a legislative majority to prevent them from being repealed. Such is the way our legal system works.

Edited 8/21/2016 01:48:13
intresting article: 8/21/2016 01:48:51


Deutschland
Level 35
Report
intresting article: 8/21/2016 01:57:02

[FEL]Chatul
Level 22
Report
I'm an individualist that oppose family power before almost everything.
intresting article: 8/21/2016 02:02:41

[FEL]Chatul
Level 22
Report
Most people only talk about immigration, however I believe certain people should be denaturalized and expelled even if they are citizens of liberal democratic nations:

1.Members of militant religious sects
2.Those who hate any constituent group (as defined legally) of the nation
3.Those who hold authoritarian ideologies

Notes:
1.Members of militant religious sects are inherently dangerous to a liberal democratic nation and should be removed if they are indeed dangerous individuals.
2.A nation should define its constituent groups which does not have to include all humanity but should include all groups with reasonable ties to the nation. Anyone who hate any of its constituent groups does not belong to the nation.
3.Authoritarians have no place to exist in a liberal democratic nation since they are inherently subversive elements that may make the nation authoritarian. Hence monarchists, fascists and communists need to be removed from every liberal democratic nation.

Edited 8/21/2016 02:07:56
intresting article: 8/21/2016 02:04:33


DomCobb
Level 45
Report
Good Chatul, you are turning freedom of speech into freedom from speech.
intresting article: 8/21/2016 02:08:59


Onoma94
Level 59
Report
Chatul, what are you typing?
Chatul, but that makes no sense.
Chatul STAHP
plz
intresting article: 8/21/2016 02:09:41

[FEL]Chatul
Level 22
Report
^^Authoritarians are inherently dangerous to a liberal democratic state since they do not believe in liberal democracy. I believe authoritarian parties should be banned on the grounds that they are dangerous to the institutions of the nation and hence should not be allowed to participate in its politics. Authoritarianism in a liberal democratic state is inherently subversive and if authoritarians have their way the state will be subverted.

Edited 8/21/2016 02:11:50
intresting article: 8/21/2016 02:13:26


DomCobb
Level 45
Report
Chatul, banning those with authoritarian views is giving the ruling party a reason to ban people who have differing views.
intresting article: 8/21/2016 02:15:02

[FEL]Chatul
Level 22
Report
^But this still has to be banned or at least all children of serious authoritarians must be removed from their families and instead should be educated by the state to contain authoritarianism and prevent it from spreading to the next generation.

It is not about which party rules. It is about removing parties that do not abide by democratic rules. It is just like the red cards during a soccer game. Rules exist so that political parties compete within them. If authoritarianism is tolerated the democratic game may not exist any more.

Edited 8/21/2016 02:18:07
intresting article: 8/21/2016 02:23:48

[FEL]Chatul
Level 22
Report
^I will certainly agree with you on that if you can prove that Islam is true beyond a reasonable doubt. There are many good aspects of Islam from a secular and neutral point of view such as its hygienic practices which I believe should have at least alleviated the issue of lack of sanitation in the Muslim world. However if there is a significant possibility for atheism and other religions to be true I don't think enforcing Sharia is a good thing.

The main issue is with faith (defined as belief without evidence) as opposed to anything else. When religion is based on facts as opposed to faith everyone should be religious. However I do not see this being true right now.

So we have to disagree.:-)

Edited 8/21/2016 02:28:48
intresting article: 8/21/2016 02:28:49


Жұқтыру
Level 55
Report
Taxation is oppression !
intresting article: 8/21/2016 02:29:45

[FEL]Chatul
Level 22
Report
^Well the government needs to exist (to enforce individual freedom) and hence it needs to be paid. So taxation has to exist or the state needs to own some business to provide funds.

Edited 8/21/2016 02:30:16
intresting article: 8/21/2016 02:31:53


Жұқтыру
Level 55
Report
I'm not a secularist.
intresting article: 8/21/2016 02:38:49


(((Tabby Juggernaut)))
Level 50
Report
^Why not? My concept of secularism provides freedom of religion for individuals. However I do not recognize the power a family, tribe or "ethnic group" has over individuals hence under this form of theoretical secularism you can not force anyone to do anything.

The reason freedom of religion must exists is that each individual has to face eternal consequences if some form of theism is true. If people have to be condemned to hell for not knowing the correct religion, may it happen because of their individual choice as opposed to coercion. I know a theist universe can be harsh but this form of secularism will at least keep a bit more humans out of hell than the current world by removing any regulation on individual religious beliefs and practices as long as they do not interfere with others' lives.

Edited 8/21/2016 02:44:26
intresting article: 8/21/2016 03:48:31


Жұқтыру
Level 55
Report
A muslim believes in The Law of ALLAH. If a person describes himself to Islam, and that person believes in secularism or democracy or any other man made law, then such a person is an apostate. An apostate is an infidel.

Edited 8/21/2016 04:11:58
intresting article: 8/21/2016 04:03:47


OxTheAutist 
Level 58
Report
Meow!
intresting article: 8/21/2016 15:36:18


(((Tabby Juggernaut)))
Level 50
Report
Authoritarianism is a problem unless theism can be proven.
intresting article: 8/21/2016 20:50:36


Deutschland
Level 35
Report
Fight authoritarianism with authoritarianism!!!!!!!!!!
intresting article: 8/21/2016 21:00:16


(((Tabby Juggernaut)))
Level 50
Report
^Not really but authoritarianism has to go. Many people worry about racism. However authoritarian alt rightism is worse than mere racism since it does not even want the "master race", no matter how it is defined, to have freedom and democracy, let alone those they condemn as subhumans.

Alt rightists, monarchists, members of authoritarian religious sects (Quiverful, ultra-Orthodox Jews, any form of Islamist, etc) should be disenfranchised as soon as possible throughout the world. We need to take votes away from those who hate the right to vote.

Edited 8/21/2016 21:02:54
intresting article: 8/21/2016 21:02:50


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
You literally want to subjugate every Muslim country, rob millions of their weaponry, and stop folk from reproducing naturally. You're an authoritarian Chatul.
intresting article: 8/21/2016 21:03:53


(((Tabby Juggernaut)))
Level 50
Report
^Sexuality is awful. Yeah asexual reproduction is better.

No, not robbing. Just removing. It's fine if they want to be compensated for such removal and we should buy these weapons at fair market price.

You said that I want to subjugate every Muslim country. The reality is that as long as Islamist countries exist they keep subjugating their women, children and unbelievers. So this "subjugation" is in fact liberation of individuals from authoritarianism.

Edited 8/21/2016 21:06:30
intresting article: 8/21/2016 21:06:04


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
Your ideology is awful. Ideological consistency is better.
intresting article: 8/21/2016 21:08:16


(((Tabby Juggernaut)))
Level 50
Report
^Well I don't see any inconsistency. Muslim countries are largely unfree since there are legal and social authoritarianism going on. We should free them from these nonsense, prevent women from being beaten by their husbands, stop Sharia courts from sentencing people to death, etc.
intresting article: 8/21/2016 21:08:52


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
No, not robbing. Just removing. It's fine if they want to be compensated for such removal and we should buy these weapons at fair market price.

No, not removing, these are possessions and people own them. If you take them without consent, that is robbing. And if they refuse what will you do? Kill or harm them.

You said that I want to subjugate every Muslim country. The reality is that as long as they exist they keep subjugating their women, children and unbelievers. So this "subjugation" is in fact liberation of individuals from authoritarianism.

The reality is that these countries would be run by foreign governments and ruled by foreign armies, with no regard for the well being of the folk in those countries. You are about as liberating as the Nazis in Russia.
intresting article: 8/21/2016 21:10:29


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
Well I don't see any inconsistency

You are enforcing martial law on folk in an attempt to free them from oppression. Martial law is oppression. You are trying to free oppressed folk with oppression.
intresting article: 8/21/2016 21:17:17


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Islam_attitudes.png/600px-Islam_attitudes.png

You haven't even explained how this would actually work. While countries like Banglesdesh would be easy to invade, you will run quickly into the problem of certain countries being extremely militant in general. Pakistan and Turkey are ones for example. Both have large militaries, both have been involved in conflicts, and Pakistan is nuclear armed. Both are large in regards to population, have some good defensive terrain and have allies who wouldn't take lightly to your crusade. In regards to Africa, there are numerous states with small to mid sized militaries that could conscript and defend some key points, like the region of Africa where only the coast is really usable in regards to military advancing, and the Suez Canal, which could be closed off. The Sahara would provide a good defensive barrier.

Edited 8/21/2016 21:19:18
intresting article: 8/21/2016 21:46:45

[FEL]Chatul
Level 22
Report
Pakistan needs to have all its nukes suddenly snatched by peacekeepers before the disarmament campaign officially begins.

If the nukes can be removed we can begin our campaign (no, not a Crusade, many participants are Hindu or secular).

A UN Standby Force has to exist to ensure that the global campaign against militant religious groups is successful everywhere including in Africa. If the AU can not deal with Islamists in Sudan or Chad for example we need to airlift the UNSF in to disband them. Weak non-Islamist countries such as Central African Republic need to be supported by the UNSF in dealing with domestic extremism.

Extremism will finally alienate all non-extremists since extremists can be at war with everyone else.

Edited 8/21/2016 21:52:37
intresting article: 8/21/2016 21:56:11


Deutschland
Level 35
Report
Can we talk about the article?
intresting article: 8/21/2016 22:02:35


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
Pakistan needs to have all its nukes suddenly snatched by peacekeepers before the disarmament campaign officially begins.

Which is improbable, and will be a catalyst for Iran and other Muslim countries to speed up production of nuclear weapons.

If the nukes can be removed we can begin our campaign (no, not a Crusade, many participants are Hindu or secular).

Your crusade will be likely volunteer at the first phase, and guess who's most likely to join, Christians like Paugers and GeneralPE, radicals.

A UN Standby Force has to exist to ensure that the global campaign against militant religious groups is successful everywhere including in Africa.

Your UNSF will be in combat with mostly conventional militaries as the conventional hostile militaries are huge and in good positions. Any forces that could participate in small scale campaigns would be at other fronts.

If the AU can not deal with Islamists in Sudan or Chad for example we need to airlift the UNSF in to disband them.

The conventional militaries of dozens of countries will be able to participate against the UNSF.

Extremism will finally alienate all non-extremists since extremists can be at war with everyone else.

You're bringing war to the entire Islamic world; there will be no extremism, as everyone will universally support war against the non-Muslims. You have entered a war you cannot possibly hope to win against a group of folk galvanized in their cause to stop you.
intresting article: 8/21/2016 22:03:21


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
Note; it is likely that this will be the bloodiest war in human history.
Posts 1 - 30 of 109   1  2  3  4  Next >>   

Contact | About WarLight | Play Risk Online | Multiplayer Strategy Game | Challenge Friends, Win Money | Skill Game | Terms of Service