[flagged]
Smart phones and social media have impacted culture most places far more than a few immigrants ever could - folks should spend more time worrying about those and less scapegoating of immigrants
Citizenship obligations for multiple citizenship is quite interesting from a legal perspective. Some citizenship require taxation regardless of where one live, which makes it possible to have a requirement to pay taxation to multiple countries. Military service is also an other interesting aspect. Giving people with multiple citizenship more rights than people with single citizenship would naturally cause problems, and yet you don't want citizens with different rights as that would indeed create different classes of citizenship.
A person can also end up with one citizenship in a country that allows multiple citizenship, and one which does not, and the citizenship of the person then depend on which country is being asked.
You just mentioned multiple citizenship means multiple taxation... That's "more obligations", not "more rights". You are not making any sense.
>A person can also end up with one citizenship in a country that allows multiple citizenship, and one which does not, and the citizenship of the person then depend on which country is being asked.
...What? You don't make any sense. I know Japanese people who live in Switzerland. Switzerland accepts dual citizenship; Japan doesn't. The stricter country wins out, and they had to choose whether to be Swiss or Japanese, full stop.
If anything it's basic democracy that if 51% of the population demands someone is kicked out, they're kicked out, no matter how unjust.
Democracy means doing what is popular, not what is right.
You do know learning ancient Greek and Latin was standard education of any well-educated person at the time of the American and French revolutions, don't you? And thus that they were perfectly aware of your tidbit of information? And that they elected not to adopt it? Maybe they even wrote about it? Maybe, if you were curious enough, you could have made all this reasoning above by yourself and looked up their arguments and the decades of back-and-forth on the topic before going, today, October 2026, right at "aktchually, Athenian democracy had ostrakon" as if this was a recent discovery that rewrites everything we believe about Democracy?
What the Swedish party in question is proposing, mass denaturalization and deportation of citizens (i.e. ethnic cleansing), is a human rights violation and violation of international law and wouldn't be done even by otherwise intolerant or autocratic nations. This harkens back to the darkest days of the Soviet Union and expulsions by Communist regimes towards the end of Yugoslavia, or early 20th century regimes.
The US is still a fairly homogenous place. Only 20% of the population is bilingual compared to over 60% of the world, only 7% follows non-Christian religions.
Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia, Singapore, the 'stans', Lebanon, the UAE of the top of my head places where within probably an hour of arriving you'd notice you are in a much, much more diverse place.
And trying to cover blatant racism with justifications like "tolerance of cultural and ethnic diversity" is cowardly. Just say you judge people who are different than you and are willing to break fundamental promises in order to make them go away.
100%. I don't think that's happening in the USA today. There are grumblings in the far right red corners about the possibility, though.
> trying to cover blatant racism with justifications like "tolerance of cultural and ethnic diversity" is cowardly. Just say you judge people who are different than you and are willing to break fundamental promises in order to make them go away.
Are you accusing me of this? I assume you're not, but I'm not entirely sure what your angle is.
I know the word is used in cases where it’s hyperbole or just not accurate but there in fact people where the term racist is perfectly applicable.
This phrase is problematic and dangerous:
A country doesn't want anything; it's not a person. People use this phrasing to claim some authority (always for what that individual wants, of course) over others who disagree - 'the country wants, and I speak for the country'.
More importantly, humans have fundamental individual rights, including freedom - again, not countries but individuals. The rights are no less because some other people don't like the individual - immunity to the majority's desires almost defines rights in a practical sense; otherwise they aren't generally needed. You can't force people to leave or to do anything else because you don't like them.
It's dangerous because it's often used to violate rights and rationalize cruelties.