November 26, 2008

Article on Greek citizenship and naturalization

The Christian Science Monitor has an article titled Being born in Greece may not make you Greek.
Greece, like most European countries, does not give automatic citizenship to children born in the country. And becoming a naturalized citizen is a long, difficult process: Greece makes it harder than almost any other country in the European Union – only Austria is tougher. It’s also the only one of the original EU 15 that makes no special provisions for children born to immigrants in the country. Members of the Greek diaspora, in contrast, can get a passport easily.
While much can be done to improve the existing legal framework, I am fundamentally in agreement with the basic principle of jus sanguinis, citizenship by descent, rather than jus soli, citizenship by birthplace.

How should one become a Greek citizen? This is an elaboration and amendment of my earlier thoughts on this matter:
  1. The offspring of a Greek citizen are Greek citizens.
  2. Non-citizens may be naturalized by Law passed with increased Majority of 2/3 of the Parliament. (General provisions should be made for persons of Greek origin, although individual persons of non-Greek origin who rendered extraordinary service to the Nation should also be allowed to become citizens).
  3. Spouses of Greek citizens become permanent residents, and may become Greek citizens after ten years of marriage and demonstrable knowledge of Greek language and culture. They cannot, however, confer their citizenship to offspring from non-Greek mates (as in #1)
  4. Legal immigrants have renewable residence permits (for work, study, etc.) of specific time length.
  5. Legal immigrants may obtain permanent residency (of unspecified time length) after 10 years of immigrant status and demonstrable knowledge of Greek language and culture.
  6. Children found in Greece become Greek citizens; if they are claimed by their non-Greek parents before the age of 18, then the provisions of #7 apply to them.
  7. Children educated in Greece are allowed in the country for the duration of their studies, and become permanent residents thereafter.
  8. Illegal immigrants may not be legalized within the country; they may apply for legal immigrant status after departing from Greece.

I believe that such a system is flexible enough to facilitate honest legal immigrants in their everyday life. On the other hand, it also ensures that the Greek citizen body will always consist of ethnic Greeks and their descendants.

54 comments:

Mark Royer said...

I have to agree with you. The United States should seriously consider some of your points. While we do not have the same situation with ethnic Americans as Greece does with ethnic Greeks, I really like the rules about how legal immigrants are treated, as well as illegal immigrants. Americans should quit giving automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.

n/a said...

In what sense do we "not have the same situation with ethnic Americans as Greece does with ethnic Greeks"?

The founding American ethny is (or was) every bit as real as the modern "Greek" ethny, if not more so.

Personally, I like Harry Laughlin's definition of an American. Also see comments on American racial types from Hrdlicka, Coon, and Brues.

Granted, the myth of America as "proposition nation" currently reigns, but officially the same holds true for countries like France. And few would deny that distinction can be made between the French people as they exist (or once existed) and the French citizenry, with its large North African/Polish/sub-Saharan/etc. component.

Kosmo said...

"Americans should quit giving automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens."

Really? Then what country would the children belong to? The country of their parents? What if the country their parents came from didn't want to claim them either? Would they be children without a state?

Or how about this scenario: They're born here; they're raised here, but because their parents were here illegally, that means they get shipped off, as teenagers, to an ancestral homeland which they know nothing about. Perhaps they wouldn't even speak the language.

To me, this would seem very likely to destroy lives.

We're all one people. National borders are just lines in the sand. I say grant the kids citizenship. Anything else just seems mean.

n/a said...

kosmo,

Are you on supplementary estrogen or are you naturally that big of a pussy?

(1) No country I'm aware of (certainly not Mexico, our biggest problem) denies citizenship to the children of its citizens born in America.

(2) If they did, too bad.

(3) The purpose of the American government should be to secure the interests of Americans, not the interests of the children of foreign nationals. The children are their parents' responsibility, not America's.

(4) Refusing to do what's necessary if it "seems mean" is a good way to lose your country very quickly. Obviously you don't have a problem with that, but many of us with deeper ties to this country do.

Guessedworker said...

"I am fundamentally in agreement with the basic principle of jus sanguinis, citizenship by descent ..."

My compliments, Dienikes. You once told told me that you were probably not standing politically where I thought you might be standing. But where I hoped you might be standing was exactly there, in the spirit of those few words you have written today.

Cosmo,

Mean is only mean. Ethnic survival is something else. When you can tell why one matters more than the other you might be worth listening to. Until then, put away the Homo deracinatus act.

The Sangha said...

Are you on supplementary estrogen or are you naturally that big of a pussy?

Unlike you, he has his picture up. So who's the real pussy?

Like Kosmo said, it's very likely that refusing to grant citizenship based on birth in a state can potentially ruin lives. You don't have to agree with his position to accept this premise.

miz RAND BLOWTON said...

This I know in my heart-just being born somewhere doesn't make you one of those people-that's why DNA is so IMPORTANT to distinguish one so and so from someone who isn't the same kind of so and so.I know this already,except Western Europe and America make no distinction between one ethnicity and another-as if you are just a blank with no details,and the same as everyone else milling about,but it isn't so.

miz RAND BLOWTON said...

America is not anyone's ethnic homeland-not anyone's.But that's no reason for the government to disregard the ethnic group our genes are predisposed to and with which we came here as.America is a 'special' country that anyone can come to,but most other nations are ethnarchys,a kingdom where the people are bound by Race and place,and they seem to do almost as well as America,I mean they are not worse off for it.

miz RAND BLOWTON said...

Mark Royer uses the term 'ethnic Americans' but I think that term is incorrect.There are no ethnic Americans,Americans come from all over the Whole Universe.It would be better to say people who are legal Americans like Legal Immigrants- starting from those that came over on the boat from England in year 1623, and Freed Negro Slaves.And each group should be acknowledged as the ethnic group that their DNA matches,since 'American' is not a 'racial 'ethnicity.

miz RAND BLOWTON said...

The only problem about letting babies born here be citizens is that the babies can't live here without their parents so it is of limited benefit.

miz RAND BLOWTON said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dienekes said...

Stop spamming

n/a said...

Unlike you, he has his picture up. So who's the real pussy?

Good point. Posting photos of yourself on the internet: favorite pastime of teenage girls everywhere. Note also that my response dealt with his words, not his chubby appearance.

it's very likely that refusing to grant citizenship based on birth in a state can potentially ruin lives

Already answered in points (3) and (4) above.

Furthermore, plenty of American lives have been ruined by illegal immigrants (killed by drunk drivers, raped, etc.) and many more Americans have seen their quality of life degraded in more subtle ways.

Demographic changes have consequences. Handing out citizenship to the children of people whose only qualification is a demonstrated willingness to break American laws may make you feel good for a moment, but it's not exactly charitable to your children or grandchildren.

Your ethics are really shit, by the way. Billions of people are poorer than the typical Mexican. The US can't take in even a tiny fraction of them and still be America. But shitty people like you and kosmo think we need to reward Mexicans who come here illegally so you can feel good about yourselves.

Ending the anchor baby interpretation and free public education for the children of illegals will remove two major incentives for illegal immigration. Those who continue to come will do so with the knowledge their children won't have automatic US citizenship. Any "ruined lives" will be on the parents' heads.

miz RAND BLOWTON said...

Actor Jennifer Aniston's dad is from Greece. Is he an ethnic Greek and what is their citizenship status in Greece? The Queen of England's husband has some Greek connections too.
Can't a person just buy a house in Greece for vacation purposes?-that's the only thing I might do if i was rich -I perceive.

hjernespiser said...

OK I admit, "ethnic Americans" made me laugh.

First off, I agree I think I like jus sanguinis to some extent more than jus soli.

I find it naive on a certain level to believe that illegal immigrants come to the US solely to have babies. I knew a very successful daughter of an illegal immigrant who only recently obtained her American citizenship. Her father drove her mother back over the border because he wanted all his children to have Mexican citizenships. Illegal immigration has a lot more to do with economics than citizenship. If no one has noticed, illegal immigration from Mexico is currently down given the economic problems in the US right now.

Antigonos said...

Nobody invited the illegal immigrants to Greece and with their arrival they have increaded in some cases 70% the criminality rates in my country!
Also this rate is very poor because these immigrants are only charged for felonies such as murder, rape, robbery, etc. BUT NOT FOR TAXE ESCAPING, NOT PAYING THEIR BILLS, ETC. since the state is not aware of their ID.
Additionally they bring diseases wiped out long ago in Europe and the Western World and they overload the Social Funds since they do not contribute in those.
More important for me is that they alter the physical identity of my nation and anihilate the struggles and efforts of my people through out the centuries to maintain its freedom and existence!

P.S. If Capitalists want through Globalization to have a gigantic "human super market" in the globe in order to increase their wealth amd materialism THEY SHOULD KEEP IMMIGRANTS IN THEIR HOUSES IF THEY WANT!
Each country belongs to its people!

ergosum said...

I like the concept of "honest legal immigrant". What about Greek crooks and assassins. I assume they will lose their citizenship? Unless the quality of being a genuine Greek compensates for the other minor imperfections...

dienekesp said...

What about Greek crooks and assassins. I assume they will lose their citizenship?

No, they will go to prison.

terryt said...

I was certainly under the impression we were all immigrants, where-ever in the world we live (apart perhaps from in parts of Africa).

Kosmo said...

I'm a bit taken aback by the anger directed toward me in these comments. To the poster who goes by "N/A", I can assure you that I'm neither a pussy nor am I on supplemental estrogen. As for the charge of me being chubby... my BMI is about average for my area, but it's true we Midwestern US folk do tend to carry a little extra meat on us compared to other places in the world, so I accept your insult. If you think I'm chubby, fine.

Here's one quote I want to touch on from the above comments: "But shitty people like you and kosmo think we need to reward Mexicans who come here illegally so you can feel good about yourselves."

I respect your right to have an opinion that is different than mine, but I disagree that my opinion makes me a shitty person. In this specific case, I would not see granting citizenship to a child born in the US as rewarding Mexicans who came here illegally, but instead as protecting the rights of a child that was born on US soil—and who just happened to have parents who were Mexican. Regardless of what you may think of me, please know that I don't base my opinions on how they make me feel about myself, but rather on my own moral compass regarding right and wrong. If my own moral compass does not match yours, so be it, but please don't dismiss my views as being motivated by some narcissistic cultivation of self-image. That insult I do not accept.

Kosmo said...

And another comment: "Mean is only mean. Ethnic survival is something else. When you can tell why one matters more than the other you might be worth listening to."

To me, being proud of your nationality has the same inherent flaw as being proud of your race. Everyone is something; everyone is from somewhere. People who are proud of being Greek, or white, or black, or American are basically being proud of something they had nothing to do with. If you're white, it's because your parents were white. If you're American, it's probably because you happened to be born in America. Being proud of that seems a bit silly unless you are going to take credit for having the good sense to pick your parents. To me, being proud of your race or nationality is every bit as ridiculous as being ashamed of it. Be proud of other things. Be proud that you scored in the top 2 percentile on your SAT’s, or that you can bench press 220lbs., or that you helped an old lady carry her bags across the road.

And as for ethnic survival… listen, none of us are getting out of here alive. Do you doubt that? Ten thousand years from now, the ethnic alignments that today exist will likely be little more than an archaeological curiosity-- and that's only if anyone is still around who is interested in digging up our bones. A hundred thousand years from now, the human race might not exist at all, or if it DOES exist, then it may exist in a form as different from us as we are from Homo erectus. In the long run, I don’t think it will matter one hoot what nation you came from, or what ethnic group you belonged to. I certainly am not concerned with "ethnic survival" in a way that translates into me wanting to exclude a child from citezenship because their parents came from the wrong side of a line on a map.

Perhaps I'm wrong about all this though. Other people do seem very concerned about such things.

ergosum said...

I have the same observation, as a genuine R1b1c10/R1b1b2h (S28) Belgian of German origin, working for the UN, married to a Fleming with one Berber (Kabyl) grand-father: we are all immigrants. I put soap, glue, pitch, snakes, nationalism and nationality in the same basket!

Maju said...

Pointless and anti-European, Dienekes. If you're born in any given country, raised in it, use the local laguage and more familiar with the local customs than with those of your parents, then you are member of that nation. Ius solis is much more logical, generally speaking, than ius sanguineum. But what really matter is language, culture and social network. Obviously the descendant of Greek or Basque emigrants have more often than not lost most of their ties with their ancestral homeland, while the descendants of immigrants who have been educated locally are locals however you look at it.

Whatever else is racism and against illustration and humanism. I really despise those counties that have such racist provisions and think they should be expelled from EU, germany included.

miz RAND BLOWTON said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dienekes said...

The main problem with the jus soli regime is that it may lead to unassimilated minorities. Such minorities may then -through the power of their vote- affect the policies and future course of the country.

n/a said...

@kosmo:

*I* was taken aback by the sight of what appears to be an adult male displaying moral/political reasoning of the caliber one would normally expect from a committee of elementary public school children or their teachers ("don't be mean").

none of us are getting out of here alive

If this justification suffices for giving your country away, it should apply much more strongly for your personal property. Yet I have a feeling you wouldn't offer an intruder in your house permanent use of a spare bedroom on the basis of your impending death.

How much you bench press and particularly what you score on the SAT are not purely functions of how hard you work but are heavily influenced by who your parents are and thus by your reasoning nothing to be proud of.

Anyway, who said anything about pride? Try responsibility.

The descendants of Mexican immigrants as a group will never perform academically or economically at the level of white Americans.


@hjernespiser OK I admit, "ethnic Americans" made me laugh.

Why?

I find it naive on a certain level to believe that illegal immigrants come to the US solely to have babies.

You are the naive one. See, e.g., Korean "birth tourism". For Mexicans, automatic citizenship (and the government funds which follow) for anchor babies is one of many draws. Cut it off and you will have removed an incentive. Other incentives also need to be removed, but citizenship is more fundamental than many other issues related to immigration. (Because it's so unlikely the U.S. will ever revoke citizenship, after it's been granted, of anchor babies and their chain migrant relatives.)

The Sangha said...

n/a wrote: "Your ethics are really shit, by the way. Billions of people are poorer than the typical Mexican. The US can't take in even a tiny fraction of them and still be America. But shitty people like you and kosmo think we need to reward Mexicans who come here illegally so you can feel good about yourselves."

Man, lighten up. I did not state I agreed with Kosmo; I merely accepted his premises as factual and his conclusions as reasonable.

Apparently, you see everyone else as a potential enemy: that's not a pleasant way to live in this world.

One day, hopefully, assuming there is an iota of spiritual or moral intelligence within you, you will look back and see how silly you are behaving.

I also highly suspect that you are nowhere near as aggressive when people are able to see you face to face. While I may get into some trouble for saying this, I just can't see an alpha male so fixated on early 20th-century anthropology. Perhaps, though, you are a marvelous exception. :)

Crimson Guard said...

In short, Jus Sanguinis is Un-American. Most American nations within the Americas practice Jus soli, as we were built by it.. whether it be the USA, Canada, Mexico, Argentina ect.

"Ethnic-American" is as silly as the term "Native-American". All Americans(i.e. people in the USA) are broken down into ethnic groups and are native to the soil once born here.

Biggest threat to the USA today are politicians.

terryt said...

"Apparently, you see everyone else as a potential enemy: that's not a pleasant way to live in this world".

Unfortunately mant citizens of the USA seem to feel that way. And the attitude has been used to great effect by those wishing to become President of that country. Mind you, it pays us to remember it's not the only country where such things happen.

"The descendants of Mexican immigrants as a group will never perform academically or economically at the level of white Americans".

If you are so sure of this perhaps you would be in favour of expelling those white Americans who fall below the average academic performance of Mexican immigrants. Surely this would raise the average academic performance substantially.

Maju said...

The main problem with the jus soli regime is that it may lead to unassimilated minorities. Such minorities may then -through the power of their vote- affect the policies and future course of the country.

Agree that can happen and should not happen. But native born people are likely to feel largely part of the country they have been raised at, regardless of ancestry, unless ghettoes are created.

Ghettoization can at times be blamed upon the minorities themselves (at least partly) but is often also problem of poor intergation by the locals. In extreme cases you could end like the Gulf states, where a shrinking minority rules over a mass of rightless, virtually enslaved, "foreign" workers. That doesn't make any sense either and is against any common sense regarding labor policies (i.e. it damages the status of national workers as well as of foreigners by creating an apartheid system). And anyhow, if they are producing all the wealth, they should have all the rights.

just say negro said...

"Guessedworker" writes: My compliments, Dienikes. You once told told me that you were probably not standing politically where I thought you might be standing. But where I hoped you might be standing was exactly there, in the spirit of those few words you have written today.

Before "Guessedworker" further wets himself with excitement, let's look at what Dienekes seems to be saying with his definition of "jus sanguinis."

The offspring of a Greek citizen are Greek citizens.

"a" in this context means singular, not plural. I am not aware that Greeks can reproduce by binary fission; thus, two parents are needed. If only one needs to be Greek as per Dienekes' apparent definition, then a Greek-Nigerian hybrid is just as much a Greek citizen that is an unmixed Greek.

I won't even mention Dienekes' points 2-8.

Dienekes summarizes:

I believe that such a system is flexible enough to facilitate honest legal immigrants in their everyday life. On the other hand, it also ensures that the Greek citizen body will always consist of ethnic Greeks and their descendants.

Putting aside the acceptance of immigrants, we note that Dienekes mentions "descendants" of "ethnic Greeks" - he does not say unmixed descendants.

I see nothing there that would object to a 31/32 Nigerian, 1/32 Greek from being considered the "descendant" of an "ethnic Greek" and thus eligible for a jus sanguinis citizenship.

If my interpretation is incorrect, then Dienekes can clarify his meaning; the point remains that there is nothing in Dienekes' original post that argues against a "single drop of blood" interpretation of jus sanguinis.

Therefore, and not surprisingly, "Guessedworker" exercises poor judgment in his praise of Dienekes, assuming that, as one may reasonably conclude from a perusal of "Guessedworker's" own "blog," that he himself would oppose a "single drop" interpretation of English citizenship, in which a 31/32 Nigerian, 1/32 Englishman would be eligible for citizenship based upon that 1/32 ancestry.

Dienekes said...

Most American nations within the Americas practice Jus soli, as we were built by it.. whether it be the USA, Canada, Mexico, Argentina ect.

That is a good point; the nations of the New World had to deal with the issue of naturalization from their inception since they were net importers of immigrants. They grew to a large extent due to immigration (on top of the natural growth due to fertility increases).

Nations of the Old World, and especially those that were established by the breakup of Empires did no grow primarily by immigration but rather by the addition of their co-ethnics either due to changes of borders after war or the relocation of their co-ethnics into the national territory.

Dienekes said...

Agree that can happen and should not happen. But native born people are likely to feel largely part of the country they have been raised at, regardless of ancestry, unless ghettoes are created.

Whether they feel that way or not depends on several factors. Immigrants from neighboring countries are likely to retain a connection to their home country; immigrants that are phenotypically or culturally or religiously very distant from the native population are more difficult to integrate.

Dienekes said...

I am not aware that Greeks can reproduce by binary fission; thus, two parents are needed. If only one needs to be Greek as per Dienekes' apparent definition, then a Greek-Nigerian hybrid is just as much a Greek citizen that is an unmixed Greek.

Indeed; to do otherwise would be to infringe on a Greek citizen's fundamental right to marry whoever they please. A ban on Greek-foreigner marriages as state policy is not a practical or desirable law.

just say negro said...

Dienekes: Indeed; to do otherwise would be to infringe on a Greek citizen's fundamental right to marry whoever they please. A ban on Greek-foreigner marriages as state policy is not a practical or desirable law.

Dienekes, thank you for that clarification, although it was strictly not necessary - any person of reasonable intelligence can easily discern the intent of your original post.

Is then Dienekes "standing exactly politically" where "Guessedworker" hoped he would be standing?

If so, then does "Guessedworker" agree with Dienekes' "drop of blood" interpretation of jus sanguinis?

If not, does "Guessedworker" admit his error with respect to Dienekes' "fundamental" agreement with a broad and inclusive jus sanguinis policy?

n/a said...

sangha,

You really need to worry less about others' states of mind and more about not making pointless comments.

Tear-jerking "ruined lives" stories are a staple of major media immigration reporting. That "argument" is hardly novel. I did not take issue with the proposition that people's lives might be less pleasant if sent back to their own countries. (That's pretty much a given; why else would they be here?) I reacted to the idea that these hypothetical scenarios in and of themselves form some sort of devastating counterargument in favor of automtic citizenship for children of illegals. When you chimed in to assure us that "lives could be ruined" all you did was signal your agreement with kosmo (i.e., that you approach politics like an overemotional woman) whether you intended to or not. If you in fact favor sane immigration policy, why the fuck are you wasting my time?



re: crimson tard's expectoration, Mexico does not have birthright citizenship.

Mexico’s law of the land distinguishes between nationality and citizenship. It
includes both criteria, jus soli and jus sanguinis to establish that Mexican nationality
is acquired either by birth within the Mexican territory or, regardless of birth place,
by being the child of a Mexican father or a Mexican mother or both. Mexican
nationality can also be acquired by naturalization. Mexican nationality however, is
a neccesary but not a sufficient condition to become a Mexican citizen. A Mexican
national by birth needs, a) to be 18 years of age or older or, b) in the case of being
born in other country of Mexican parents, or being born in Mexico of both parents
being citizens of other country, to have expressly and formally resigned being a
citizen of any other country
, after being 18 years of age. Such a distinction between
nationality and citizenship in Mexico has important implications for patrimonial
and job-related rights.


Nor does Mexico allow dual citizenship:

A Mexican national by birth might acquire dual or multiple nationalities
without losing his or her original Mexican nationality obtained by either jus soli or
jus sanguinis, when in Mexican territory. However, such an individual cannot have
more than one country of citizenship
.


Mexico overall is much more restrictive on immigration than America.

Retarded immigrant spawn CG is in no position to tell Americans what is "un-American". The founders limited naturalization to "free white persons". And the Senator who wrote the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment certainly did not intend that birthright citizenship apply to foreigners:

"This amendment which I have clarified is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already..[It] does not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of person. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."

n/a said...

Unfortunately mant citizens of the USA seem to feel that way.

You sound prejudiced.

If you are so sure of this perhaps you would be in favour of expelling those white Americans who fall below the average academic performance of Mexican immigrants. Surely this would raise the average academic performance substantially.

My rejection of non-traditional immigration is not based on academics (or economics). It's based on more fundamental issues.

But no it does not follow that if one see's the wisdom in not importing low-skilled foreigners one must also reject one's unskilled co-nationals. For one thing, to the extent one cares about one's co-nationals more than about random inhabitants of earth, unskilled co-nationals are the ones who will be most negatively impacted by the importation of unskilled foreigners and who will benefit most from immigration restriction. For another, there is a place for unskilled workers in First World economies, but not for massively growing numbers of unskilled workers. A glut of unskilled labor will lead to less investment in technology and ultimately lower standards of living.

Dienekes said...

If so, then does "Guessedworker" agree with Dienekes' "drop of blood" interpretation of jus sanguinis?

That is not an "interpretation", that is the standard use of the term.

Brittanica: "there are two main systems used to determine citizenship as of the time of birth: jus soli, whereby citizenship is acquired by birth within the territory of the state, regardless of parental citizenship; and jus sanguinis, whereby a person, wherever born, is a citizen of the state if, at the time of his birth, his parent is one."

just say negro said...

That is not an "interpretation", that is the standard use of the term.

Brittanica...


I do not refer to the "official" or "standard" use of the term, but the different interpretations of someone like Dienekes ("standard") and someone, like "Guessedworker," who I presume has a more exclusive definition of jus sanguinis.

However, I may be mistaken. If "Guessedworker's" enthusiasm for Dienekes' fundamenal support of "standard" jus sanguinis means that he ("Guessedworker") agress that half-Nigerians should be citizens of Greece (or England, for that matter), we'd all be interested in knowing this.

What does it mean for Dienekes to be "standing exactly," politically speaking," where "Guessedworker" hopes he would be?

My interest in interpretations of jus sanguinis is Dienekes vs. "Guessedworker." We can leave encylopedia definitions to the side for the moment.

Maju said...

Retarded immigrant spawn CG is in no position to tell Americans what is "un-American".

All Gringos or US citizens ("Americans" may refer to Cubans or Brazilians, for instance) are "immigrant spawn", except arguably the descendants of Natives. So shut up, racist smartie.

You sound prejudiced.

You do too. And very much so.

n/a said...

I draw a distinction between settlers and immigrants.

Leftist dumbfuck with nothing interesting to add needs to shut the fuck up. Next time, go check a dictionary before trying to tell your betters how to speak their own language.

Remedial English for boring, subliterate mulleted trash like CG and Maju:

A?mer?i?can
/??m?r?k?n/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-mer-i-kuhn]

–adjective
1. of or pertaining to the United States of America or its inhabitants: an American citizen.

–noun
4. a citizen of the United States of America.



re: jus sanguinis, the "standard" (dictionary) definition includes the word "parents".

Dienekes said...

re: jus sanguinis, the "standard" (dictionary) definition includes the word "parents".

There is nothing in the standard definition of jus sanguinis requiring both parents to have the same nationality.

the sangha said...

If you in fact favor sane immigration policy, why the fuck are you wasting my time?

Self-amusement, and because I see you the way a scientist sees a lab rodent in a cage.

At least be a little original. "Fuck this and fuck that, fuck this and fuck that" gets you bitch-slapped where I am from. It annoys people.

I can understand your position and I can't say I disagree with you; I just think you shouldn't be a bitch about it with those who are actually being polite to you.

I'm all for strict controls of immigration. I'm all for ethnic homogeneity and preservation. But bitching in a thread is not the way to accomplish that.

n/a said...

@sangha:

You sound as cool as you look and I'm thoroughly impressed.

Cyd the Kid said...

You sound as cool as you look and I'm thoroughly impressed.

LOL Yes, me too.

Self-amusement, and because I see you the way a scientist sees a lab rodent in a cage.

More coolness. Try more thoughtful intellectual rigor and less youthful stupidity, please.

At least be a little original. "Fuck this and fuck that, fuck this and fuck that" gets you bitch-slapped where I am from. It annoys people.

He is "original", or at least original in the current context of PC dogma. What you, Maju the moron and fat Kosmo eruct is unoriginal bile. Happily parroting idiotic indoctrination and claiming originality.

I really despise those counties that have such racist provisions and think they should be expelled from EU, germany included. - from Maju

What a moron. Perhaps this yapping leftist dipshit would care to turn the looking glass onto his own anti-racist egalitarianism and see that he exudes intolerance and...gasp...racism himself. Yes, the two things he supposedly despises. Though they happen to be directed at what is currently socially acceptable, that being white Europeans. Ohhhh what a picture of "leadership" we have in Maju. Edgy in fact.

Here's a thought, instead of ejecting nations out of the EU for "racism". How about we eject Maju the moron, along with all his braindead ilk, so he can be free to lap any pair of black balls he sees fit in order to fill his aching anti-racist heart? Deal Maju? Win-win by my account.

the sangha said...

Try more thoughtful intellectual rigor and less youthful stupidity, please.

OK, so someone has entered the thread in defense of a person who has engaged in anonymous, gratuitous attacks on others. Actually, I am impressed. :P

He is "original", or at least original in the current context of PC dogma. What you, Maju the moron and fat Kosmo eruct is unoriginal bile. Happily parroting idiotic indoctrination and claiming originality.

I haven't yet observed any intelligent arguments from you or n/a. Let me help you:

http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/birthrightcitizenship.htm

The site I refer to offers evidence that the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S., is not in accord with the original intent of the authors.

I have yet to see n/a specifically cite anything to support his views. He's vague and unclear. He needs to work on his persuasion.

How about we eject Maju the moron, along with all his braindead ilk, so he can be free to lap any pair of black balls he sees fit in order to fill his aching anti-racist heart?

He would have to learn from the best, so you can go ahead and start training him...

the sangha said...

Actually, I see that n/a has brought up the issue of original intent and cited Frank Salter, to his credit.

It's easy to miss the points he makes with all of the personal rubbish he includes along with them.

So perhaps he is redeemable after all.

Cyd the Kid said...

"Cool" one, with the stellar reading and argumentative skills you have put on display, it is clear why you feel anyone wandering into your turf would get "bitch slapped". Obviously spoken from experience...

We'll let you know when you say anything worthy of respectful dialogue. Maju has proven himself to be incapable of anything other than cringing leftist bilge. You seem to be moving along those same lines.

n/a said...

@sangha:

Your posts in this thread clearly do not reflect the spirit of enlightened detachment you seem to fancy yourself possessed of. Given your apparent youth, I don't hold that against you.

If you believe what you say you believe, I recommend you think more deeply about how to most effectively advance those causes.

If you think you know how to argue persuasively, do so -- and not as devil's advocate for the side that already dominates public discourse.

the sangha said...

I'd like to thank n/a for showing me, inadvertently, that the U.S. constitution has yet again been a casualty of scheming and irresponsible politicians.

This is of course a very serious issue, one that I think requires a more serious discourse from both myself and n/a, and any other participants.

As for Frank Salter, I am really curious about his work, yet I'm not so blind to ideology that I will unquestionably accept what he says because a nationalist movement embraces him. From my standpoint, nationalism comes from the passions (which have a biological component) -- it is not something you can convince someone to have based on arguments over changing gene frequencies. That's one reason why I am not a big fan of a lot of reductionist science (which is popular here), and it's also why I think lacing speeches with profanity is unnecessary (not that I oppose profanity, specifically). :P

Regarding enlightened detachment, I think it's something we both -- whether you admire Shakyamuni (Eastern) or Socrates/Stoics (Western) -- could work on.

I'm just having fun, man. I think you have some potential within you.

n/a said...

I'd recommend Majority Rights (Guessedworker's site) to the sangha, Cyd, and anyone else interested in discussing these issues (immigration, Salter, etc.) further. I don't endorse a lot of what gets posted there, but they welcome debate.

just say negro said...

"Guessedworker" (who obviously does read Dienekes' blog) still hasn't told us whether or not Dienekes is still "standing" where he ("Guessedworker") hoped he would be.

Dienekes' comment that he was fundamentally in agreement with (his definition of/Britannica's definition of) "jus sanguinis" led "Guessedworker" to write:

My compliments, Dienikes. You once told told me that you were probably not standing politically where I thought you might be standing. But where I hoped you might be standing was exactly there, in the spirit of those few words you have written today.

Where politically was it hoped that Dienekes was standing? The following quote by "Guessedworker" from his own blog suggests the answer:

As distinct peoples, we have the same right to preserve our distinctiveness as any other peoples anywhere - the same right, let it be said, as Tibetans, Yamomani and Palestinians whose survival the liberal-left backs to the hilt.

Mixed-race people, in particular, do not like to hear that the host population is genetically distinct, and that European genotypes define European peoples. They don’t like to know that, say, Bantu admixture - most of them are African half-breeds - ends European distinctiveness and, with that, ends the European peoples. They tend to reify the National Socialist doctrine of racial purity and wave it at us. But it doesn’t help them. No people is genetically pure. But there remain large genetic distances between the major races, and such ancient admixture that exists in the European genotypes is not a licence to include someone with 50% Bantu ancestry today.


However, it is obvious from Dienekes' original post that this is not what he was defending - a point (needlessly) confirmed when Dienekes agreed with the idea that a half-Nigerian half-Greek would be as much as a Greek citizen by "jus sanguinis" as would be an unmixed Greek. This suggests that Dienekes' idea of "jus sanguinis" would view a half-Bantu half-Englisg individual as much as a English citizen (by "jus sanguinis") as "Guessedworker" himself.

Therefore, it is obvious - and should have been from the beginning - that Dienekes is, and never was and likely, never will be) - standing politically where "Guessedworker" hoped he would be.

Admission of error is a prerequisite for open debate.

just say negro said...

typo

"Englisg" = "English"

the points about the Dienekes' original post remain.

just say negro said...

"Guessedworker" (who obviously does read Dienekes' blog) still hasn't told us whether or not Dienekes is still "standing" where he ("Guessedworker") hoped he would be.

Still no answer. Typical. When these guys are wrong, instead of honorably admitting it and learning from their (all too frequent) mistakes, they just go blithely ahead to make their next gross error.

And then they wonder why they never achieve anything. Some "leadership."