Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "Minhag America (1789-1885)" video.

@samwill7259 You'd be surprised how often it works, actually. The best way to unite people is often against a different entity. And frankly, the argument against bigotry can sometimes sound like arguments against common sense; like thinking about the arguments about illegal immigration for example. But shilling for literal race supremacy is always a bad, so cursing them out is more than fair. It's just the logic behind your comment that I contend with.
2
@samwill7259 Well, yeah, that's basically the issue with your logic right there. If you don't recognize any immigration laws, then you don't respect the law of the land; at which point the existence of a country itself basically doesn't exist for you since it requires borders to enforce law and order without stepping on another national entity's toes. It's the country itself which allows your freedom to exist to begin with, since it's a guarantor.
2
@marksimons8861 It does, but such horrid institutions also shape the present of every nation in history. The US is just far more honest about it rather than trying to pretend it doesn't exist.
2
@samwill7259 Untrue. That's the current major dividing line, since the nation-state is the biggest entity which people can place their identity onto. Without the nation-state, it becomes the local provincial/state entities, and progressively smaller until it becomes family/tribal structures. In which case that major dividing line will still exist; but with everyone's standard of living crumbling into hell and tribal chieftains taking advantage to rule like kings. There will ALWAYS be a dividing line; the only alternative is a unitary state, not a world without borders. And even then, the dividing lines will still exist. "enforcement of borders is ALWAYS hypocritical in one way or another" Being human means always being hypocritical; that isn't problematic as long as it holds some standards somewhere. As for violence against the innocent? That's standard, but it has decreased MASSIVELY with the advent of the nation-state since now government entities can enforce peace with control over the use of force instead of allowing smaller entities to take violence with their own hands. In short, you're hypocritical. Which is human.
1
@samwill7259 Never said it was always correct, just that the entity itself is required to maintain the peace at all. A state that has the power to keep the peace can easily abuse it. Also the children placed in cages were unfortunate enough to cross illegally into a country that didn't want them. That includes non-brown peoples. A illegal Russian dude I knew who was a barber was kicked out by the authorities when they learned of his status. "If my ancestors deserved to be in this country, so does everybody else, by definition." This runs on "because someone else did it in the past, everyone else is allowed to do it today" logic. Which is beyond flawed. After all, someone's ancestors owned slaves once, so does that mean that stopping slavery was hypocrisy? Of course not; what matters is maintaining the human rights of members of the US citizenship as outlined as the promise via the Declaration of Independence. Or some other metric you choose. Either way, again, the nation is the arbiter of that choice. You have no right to decide who gets to come in and out of the country unless you convince your fellow citizens; since it's not just your house. It's everyone's house. If such laws can be dismissed, then so can laws which protect your rights as an individual. Yet again; you're being hypocritical. Why can you ignore such laws but then reap the benefit of others?
1
@samwill7259 And that's not their right to come here if the people here don't want them. That being said, it's important to empathize with people who are less fortunate; so I tend to support legalizing illegal immigrants with some caveats. But they ARE illegal. You don't get to ignore that. You're not God, my friend. All that being said, I never once talked about immigration limits. Just that people of a nation have a say on who comes into the country or not. I'm in favor of opening up immigration to allow for more people to come in; it's a country of immigrants and I'm the grandson of Hispanic immigrants, after all.
1
@eliezercohen750 Idk how that makes it a country of sinners.
1