I think your view of immigrants is much too narrow. You, as a Humanist, don't see the common humanity of us all?

I do recognize the immigration problems in Europe. But I attribute those problems to too much xenophobic thinking on both sides, such as what you just expressed and not enough Humanistic thinking.

According to your line of thinking, everyone not aboriginal should assimilate to the aboriginal culture. Are you ready for that?

@dare2dream

@PBuck0145: The reason multiculturalism seems to be failing in Europe is because of xenophobia. If both migrants and natives were less xenophobic, multiculturalism would work.

All humans have a right to celebrate their culture. Our human rights go with us where ever we are from.

Humanists see the unity, the commonality of all humans. To put nativism first is divisive and factionalizes us.

@dare2dream
Your statements would be correct were it not for Islam. Islam mandates that it the only correct ideology, religion, and culture. Members of other cultures must be converted, subjugated or executed. This gives Islam an evolutionary advantage over humanistic ideologies. Islam's advantage is enhanced by the tolerance and encouragement of the regressive left.

Multiculturalism, open societies and globalism are elegant philosophical theories, but cannot benefit humanity while the existence of Islam persists.

Think carefully before assuming that these statements are bigoted or xenophobic. Islam is not human. I am objecting to Islam, not to ts followers, who are betrayed, oppressed and enslaved by the ideology. They would be much better off assimilating into a more secular and/or humanitarian culture.

Perfectly stated!
Almost said 'can I get an AMEN'! ????

In a junk shop I once came across a 1930's Girl Scout (I think it was) hymn/choral music book that had the "under God"-less version. Worst 10 bucks I never spent. Been kicking myself ever since.

I am so with you on this. I have been looking for jobs in my field outside the US. I will not raise my child here if normalcy is not restored, and I am afraid it will only become more difficult to leave as time goes on. I am committed to ideals, not nations, and the US is letting me down.

@DoctoralZombie If I want to work, my top countries are Canada and New Zealand. If I want to retire, Belize or Honduras. I could retire in Vancouver or Victoria since I don't need to budget $15K/year for healthcare. If Clinton had won, I'd be set where I am assuming she would strengthen the ACA and/or implement Medicare for all. With Trump, I don't know if I'll get my Social Security or Medicare at all.

@shockwaverider I have school to finish here and then the job search will begin with intensity. I have heard good things about New Zealand, too.

@DoctoralZombie New Zealand, at least the part I've seen in and around Auckland, is beautiful and the people are very friendly. I get some preferential treatment in Canada as I went to undergrad and worked full time there, plus my mother took out Canadian Citizenship and lives there.

@shockwaverider I have no ties anywhere but here, but I feel strongly that if things do not get better here soon they will get much worse.

@DoctoralZombie I think you're right. I have connections in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia; as well as Europe and India. I ran a global consulting team for a major software company which helps a lot... I hope you're getting a doctorate in a sought after field.

@shockwaverider Not as in demand as I would like, but certainly with transferable skills. Having my entire CV in the USA is quite detrimental, I am finding.

@DoctoralZombie Seems like your best bet is to get a job at a company that also has offices in Canada and work on getting transferred. Good luck!

@shockwaverider Thanks for the advice.

You do realize, I presume, that the ' founding' principles of the U.S.A., i.e. the Constitution, were drafted by men who were OBSESSED with the Ancient War-Mongering Roman Empire and everything it once stood for?

@Triphid Yes, they studied history. Obsessed with the Roman Empire? No, I don't think so.

I have to say, I've been affected the same way. Love of my country has deepened. Why? I suppose I am looking at it rationally and historically, and it has not only given me, I think, a better understanding, but a much deeper respect for the people, and our trials and tribulations. Fuck Perfect.... It is truly much more profound than that

@sfvpool Then, by your response, I can readily assume that you are NOT so conversant with the historically documented records of your ' Founding Fathers' then.
Let us look at a few things here,
Imperator, Latin for Supreme General, High Commander, Commander in Chief, rings a bell with the American President being called ' Commander in Chief' does it not?,
The president being installed as the ' First Man of the Republic,' Primus Res-Publica - First Man of the Roman Republic, his wife, the First Lady - Prima Donna Res - Publica, First Lady of the Republic,
the seeming obsession with using American usages of city names such as Sparta, etc, ALL from historically known Imperially driven ancient Civilizations,
even down to the 'Oath of Allegiance' 'hi-jacked' straight from the Oath taken by ALL Legionaries of the Roman Empire where those Legionaries swore an Oath under the Standard ( Flag) of the Legion to uphold and die for the Legion, the General/s, the Imperator and the Republic.
Please, do all little research on the true and actual history and background of your country and Constitution, it WILL perhaps enlighten you.

@Triphid I am well read on the founding ideas of the United States. Like I stated, they studied history, including the history of the Roman Republic. I wouldn't say that they were obsessed with the Roman Republic by any means, though. They studied every form of government of which they could find information and created the greatest government in history, in my opinion.

And protect the place means inside the borders.

@Pedrohbds But, are not State and National ' Borders' simply just imaginary lines ( to quote a Julian Lennon song) drawn on mere paper maps by men themselves?
When one looks at the planet in a photo taken from space there are NO State or National Borders, just land masses and seas and oceans are there not?

@Triphid without enforced borders, there is no country.

@Triphid you are correct. But we still need administrative borders or administrative authorities from one place will begin conflicts with neighbors.
Now the porosity to people and products of this borders can be discussed.
Migration is a human right...

@twill That may be so, BUT are WE all not members of the one Species, the Human Race, despite colour, etc, and are we not ALL living on the exact same planet, so WHY did mankind decided so suddenly that we needed State and National Borders in the first place, can you answer that?

@Pedrohbds Don't we already have such ' border conflicts' occurring, just as they have done for innumerable centuries before, with monotonous regularity?
In true reality, the only thing any person actually OWNS is the sack of skin, bone, meat and blood that we were born with and even then that ' ownership' is questionable since religions and their ideologies, governments and their laws, etc, lay claim to even that.
What actual ' help' has being governed by religions and Governments truly done for us as a species?
Yes they have brought us ' civilization,' sanitation, roads, housing, etc, etc, BUT also pollution, taxes, duties, etc, etc, and most of ALL social divisiveness.

@Triphid Laws & Jurisdiction come to mind

@twill Laws are made by men to exert control and power over other men are they not?
The laws of Nature are NOT made by men but by the necessities of nature itself and since we ARE a part of nature those laws and the jurisdiction of the Natural World should be paramount, NOT the whims and wills of the few people in power.
I am in no advocating total ANARCHY here but what I am trying to say is that WE ALL need to work together as ONE species for the BENEFIT of ALL species that depend on this planet.

@Triphid Would control & Power be a reason? Yes. So would social order. Do you not think there was not a need for such things historically as populations grew and arguments increased?

How about protection? Compromise? Simple agreements? Share a river. Resources. Water. .......Whether speaking of nations or just tribes, how's that accomplished ? It's like the weather, might be raining across the street but dry here....it has to stop and start somewhere. That's a law of nature. So my land stops at the river. Yours starts at the river. Not a law of nature?

Speaking of tribes.... Tribalism is on the rise.and the idea of ONE species, looks further and further away. I do believe that organized religion is dumping fuel on that fire. And why not? It always has.

@twill No-one truly OWNS the land, the land, as is the sea, the air, the rivers, etc, belongs to the planet, it is a part of the planet and ANY claims upon such are merely FALSE claims dreamed up by humans.

@Triphid I suppose God owns it then? (humor) Well there were no rules written when the Big Bang went off. No inscriptions on rocks from the sun or other stars either. No real owners manual was provided. So, many humans got together and decided that the majority rules. Or, the most powerful rule. Sumpin' like dat. All I really know is that when these rules went into effect, there were several less billion people on the planet.

Everyone wants a little space to call their own. Decide whether to plant peaches or pumpkins

@twill Since there is NO God, the no-one or thing actually OWNS the planet/s, they simply belong to themselves and the life-forms that may or may not inhabit them are merely just caretakers, though in my opinion, we humans are sorely lacking as caretakers.

@Triphid
Ok lets clarify some stuff:
Property is not a natural right, no one has the right to have a military power (state) enforcing that what is written on a piece of paper can be only used by the person with the name in that paper, in nature is quite contrary, you have the right to take whatever you can take and keep whatever you can defend. So property is a USEFUL AND ESSENTIAL right to build the society as we know today.

Second, yes who is in charge matters, if borders fall, how would be the new system? you can say about american democracy, or the many forms of European parliaments, theocratic absolute monarchies, single party republics, etc... See, even among US states there is different methods to choose the administrators, it would be impossible to use a single system in all the world, even discarding local power hungry people.

The modern concept of borders and sovereignty started on the Peace of Westphalia, ending a period of almost 200 years of wars for territory and religion (you can interpret this as culture or government systems on the modern era).

The border conflicts nowadays are infinitely smaller and localized in small problems that in this period.
At that period it was practically savage law: "I rule where my armies can enforce my power".

As I said, you can make borders extremely porous like the border between the states in America, or between municipalities in most of the world, or the countries en Schengen area. But there must be borders to show which rules are applied in each piece of land. And variable set of rules is good, at least localized experiments can be done, improved and replicated.