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).

Oh damn. I guess we just can’t have nice things.

That’s just a good thing overall assuming appropriate accessibility measures.

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.

But the problem there is that China is clearly ahead of America now when it comes to AI, so if that was it they wouldn’t be getting higher fuel efficiency anymore.

That’d only make sense if this was a total investment thing, but it’s not. America is investing at a higher rate yet China is getting more returns. Who started first is irrelevant here.

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.

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.