Birthright citizenship needs to end, too many illegal spics and H1B curry monsters are able to abuse it.
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
7 comments:
8
10 hours ago
8 points
(+0
/
-0
/
+8Score on mirror
)
Permalink
Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
There should be tiers of citizenship, imo.
Level 1 - Anyone can become. You pay taxes but you don't get to vote.
Level 2 - Only White people can become. You don't pay taxes but you also can't vote.
Level 3 - Only White people can become after one's ancestors have been living in the country for 3 generations. You don't pay taxes and you can vote.
Level 1 - Anyone can become. You pay taxes but you don't get to vote.
Level 2 - Only White people can become. You don't pay taxes but you also can't vote.
Level 3 - Only White people can become after one's ancestors have been living in the country for 3 generations. You don't pay taxes and you can vote.
Amendment: no voting, because voting doesn't work, because too many people are retarded. Maybe if there is a one party system it will work. Even aristocratic republics end up destroying themselves every single time, because *enough* of the aristocracy is either retarded or corrupt enough that it causes problems.
It's the nature of any system with competing parties. It becomes a disastrous shitshow of "good party" vs "bad party". America started descending into this literally the exact moment washington left office.
One party or no parties, that's it. A parliamentary system, or even worse the American system, makes a long term plan for the nation completely untenable because someone will eventually come and fuck up whatever the last guy did. China is able to plan things 100 years in the future because they're a 1 party state. If I enter politics in china, I will more than likely agree with the communist party. If I have a different opinion, it is within the framework of the guiding principles of the party. If I were to replace xi jinping, I would build on what he's doing because I already agreed with him in the first place. If i did disagree with him, i will still make changes within the framework of what the party as a zeitgeist wishes to accomplish long term. This does not happen in multi party systems, because if a different party is elected, everything that the last party did is now gone forever. This can be good, but it leads to a lot of literally nothing happening.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
It's the nature of any system with competing parties. It becomes a disastrous shitshow of "good party" vs "bad party". America started descending into this literally the exact moment washington left office.
One party or no parties, that's it. A parliamentary system, or even worse the American system, makes a long term plan for the nation completely untenable because someone will eventually come and fuck up whatever the last guy did. China is able to plan things 100 years in the future because they're a 1 party state. If I enter politics in china, I will more than likely agree with the communist party. If I have a different opinion, it is within the framework of the guiding principles of the party. If I were to replace xi jinping, I would build on what he's doing because I already agreed with him in the first place. If i did disagree with him, i will still make changes within the framework of what the party as a zeitgeist wishes to accomplish long term. This does not happen in multi party systems, because if a different party is elected, everything that the last party did is now gone forever. This can be good, but it leads to a lot of literally nothing happening.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
Toast message