Do you disagree that nations are basically large families? Am I in the wrong to want to hypothetically seek out my biological family or nation of origin?
Or, do you disagree with my viewpoint and want me to shut up?
I didn't downvote you, but yes, I do disagree that nations are large families. And I think the analogy is flawed and attempts to emotionally twist the situation in favor of your conclusion.
Up until a few years ago I would have agreed with you. But, then I started studying genealogy and history and I had to revisit just what the definition of a nation is. Wikipedia states that a nation refers "... to a community of people who share a common territory and government; and who often share a common language, race, descent, and/or history." The USA is comprised of a community of people who, except for recent immigrants, are mostly distantly related. For example, 25% of USA citizens claim descent from the Pilgrims. Also, Obama and Cheney are eighth cousins. My personal ancestors have been here for nearly 400 years. USA citizens are distantly related. The same holds true, and probably more so, for other nations around the world.
Immigration is the official process of adoption into this large family. Illegal immigrants are masquerading as family members. Yeah, the situation sucks for this guy, but he has not gone through the official adoption process either. Instead, he wants us to think that it is cool that he has been knowingly stealing opportunities from legit members of the American family, and that gall, that cheating behavior, just doesn't sit right with me.
Instead, he wants us to think that it is cool that he has been knowingly stealing opportunities from legit members of the American family, and that gall, that cheating behavior, just doesn't sit right with me.
Sorry, dude, but I just can't have a productive discussion with you. This kind of xenophobic attitude is reprehensible in my opinion, and I just don't see either of us changing each others' minds.
Let's assume for a moment that he "stole" writing jobs from legal American citizens (or legal aliens). Let's also assume for the moment that the hiring processes for those jobs were concerned with finding the best candidate for the position.
I don't want a "real American" to fill that position. I want the best person for the job to fill that position. If a citizen/legal alien is actually the best person for the job, that's great. But if not: I don't care who it is, where he/she comes from, or what his/her immigration status is.
Maybe for a job like a newspaper/magazine writer, it isn't absolutely critical to have the best person possible in that job. But for other jobs it's certainly important, and regardless, I'm not willing to make that value judgement.
Most countries today _are_ based on ethnicities. They may not purely be of a particular ethnicity, but their basis is some ethnic grouping. There's a reason why all Germans speak German, and all Finns speak Finnish (to name a couple).
This is one of the things that's so great about America. It wasn't founded on an ethnicity; but an idea. But if you go to some of the other (more backward) countries, people still think of American as an ethnicity.
It's a not-insignificant marker of nationality for nations which have experienced diasporas. The citizenship laws of both Israel and the Republic of Ireland grant citizenship on a fairly liberal basis, based upon Jewish or Irish descent.
Pre 1940s Europe is a transnational jumble of overlapping ethnic groups. Result: war after war after war.
Post 40s and 50s after millions of people relocate to their linguistic and ethnic homelands and coalesce into new nations carved out of empires: lasting peace. Last major war was in former Yugoslavia, which failed to get with the ethnic nationalist program.
Hell, even Belgium is falling apart now. You are dead wrong on this. Ethnic nationalism is the only system that works, long term.
You conveniently left out the late 1930s and 1940s, in which a nation-state perpetuated ethnic war and genocide before being stopped primarily by two fairly transnational states.
Would you be interested in a summary of 20th century armed conflicts, classified by the type of states involved? There are a couple in Asia and Africa I'm thinking of.
Do you disagree that nations are basically large families? Am I in the wrong to want to hypothetically seek out my biological family or nation of origin?
Or, do you disagree with my viewpoint and want me to shut up?