I give great latitude to others I consider part of my "community", but I have 3 requirements I don't compromise on:

1) You have to be able to communicate with existing members of my community before joining it.
2) You don't force your religious beliefs on others. Same goes for trying to change the form of government you are willingly joining into something it isn't (no socialists/communists).
3) You have to abide by the existing laws of my community. Violating one or more of those laws as part of trying to join it is basically an open declaration of disrespect and shows your willingness to break the other requirements listed above.

What you'll find is that a lot of immigrants (especially illegal immigrants) are only coming here to reap the rewards we have sown. They want an "easy out" instead of fixing whatever s**hole they came from. Those are not the people I want here, even if they are hard workers. I want people coming to America for what America has to offer: freedom, rule of law without corruption (comparatively speaking), and capitalism.

Zobel said:

---

Explicit and self-conscious secular morality is newer than our nation, the concept dates to the 1850s.

---

Pen to paper framework definition dates back to then. It's existence predates that much further. It's unquantifiable really. It goes back to the very first humans deciding to not brain each other constantly and instead work together.

A countryman is easy. It's a shared identity based around a nation and common goals that are derived from that identity. Period. Textbook.

Now, the wrench is what that country stands for and what those common goals should be. That's where the real tribalism comes into play, which is whole other debate in itself and not the actual question being posed by the OP. That's where yall can squabble about whether you want your Christian neighbors or nah, Anglo majority, America first, Sense of civil servitude, whatever and etc. All of those can and easily do exist out of the bounds of nationhood though. That debate will never end and will never have a right answer as it will always be in the eyes of the beholder.

So your answer is that this question is so simple that it doesn't need to be asked, and simultaneously so difficult that it can't ever be answered?

I don't think it's that hard. People just don't like to take a stand because it is inherently exclusionary, and that makes them feel bad.

Zobel said:

---

So your answer is that this question is so simple that it doesn't need to be asked, and simultaneously so difficult that it can't ever be answered?

I don't think it's that hard. People just don't like to take a stand because it is inherently exclusionary, and that makes them feel bad.

---

No to your first, yes more or less to your second.

In a local or micro sense, this can be answered. In a global or macro sense, it is extremely hard. At least in terms of narrowing down the nuances of particulars. Which is what we demand these days. You can keep them inherently very abstract which makes things inclusionary but when it starts getting put to the test in the real world, it can fall apart quickly. This is why we have so many offshoots of communities, and offshoots of those offshoots. And the original bodies often fall apart. There will be exceptions but the parameters of what is even being defined at that point can then be argued.

Humans are a mess. Both our downfall and what makes us resilient.

Zobel said:

---

Such an easy question but so hard to answer I guess.

---

It's been answered. Do they believe in the ideas of the DoI and the Constitution?

Do they take care of their community and family?

I don't know, do they? That's what I'm asking you.

I think it's fair to say it is a tough question but I think it is only tough because modern sensibilities have made answering it cleanly off limits.

You can't exclude by any of the things which would make it objective, so you end up with subjective criteria - like whether they believe in certain ideas.

But then, we can't even exclude on that criteria either. Even folks in this thread shows it makes them very uncomfortable to do so, even in examples where it is Not That Hard to see.

This comes down to de facto everyone in, which is basically what has been going on the past two decades. And that ends up with complete dissolution, taken to its obvious end. You can't have a democratic power transfer mechanism based on head count without a somewhat homogenous society insofar as the definition of the Good for the government.

What I mean by that is, you can't have any coherent use of the means until you agree on ends, and different people groups, cultures, whatever, have different ends. When you change enough of them out, the means are going to bend in a different direction.

Americans have a fundamental right to decide who is and is not allowed to immigrate to our country and who is and is not going to be an American. That's not a racist claim, it is descriptive of our right of self governance and continuity of our sovereignty. To negate it ends our nation.

But to exercise that right we need to be ok with excluding people, which will make some people feel bad, and may require people to say things that sound mean. It's ok. We can put on our big boy pants and do it.

Zobel said:

---

I don't know, do they? That's what I'm asking you.

---

If you don't know the answer, why would I? I don't live in Minnesota.

Why did you pick that group specifically and not others?

this is fine as a philosophical basis for what a fellow countryman is, but how do you use it in practice? under this framework, how would one distinguishes a fellow american from a foreigner in non-obvious instances?

Well, for example, this means that there is an immediate disjunction between current law and my definition. If people agree with my definition, it means they should not agree with current law, and vote accordingly.

It means that the child of a foreigner here, illegally or legally, is not inherently my countryman. Or any particular citizen. It specifically highlights the very real gap we have between citizenship and a coherent understanding of shared nationality.

You use it in practice by saying - such a person is not my countryman, because they haven't formed real social bonds, they haven't integrated with society, they follow a philosophy or a religion which is incompatible with our society, and so on.

sam callahan said:

---

Also want to add, either from a high trust culture or have the ability and desire to adapt to a high trust culture.

---

This, if we were importing a vastly disproportionate number of non-Christian, uncivilized third world foreigners in the 1700's and 1800's, like we do today, this place would have fallen a long time ago.

Old McDonald said:

---

this is fine as a philosophical basis for what a fellow countryman is, but how do you use it in practice? under this framework, how would one distinguishes a fellow american from a foreigner in non-obvious instances?

---

You can't...that's the scary part. That is why you should thoroughly vet immigrants before allowing entry and focus on nuclear families, rather than hordes of military aged males.

Poland is very strict about who they let in. They are able to maintain a national identity and social cohesion and a much greater degree of unity and shared vision than us...and if you look at videos of the most bustling and polular city hot spots, it is orderly, and peaceful, and not a bunch of third world foreigners or dead beat drug addicts. In other words, kind of looks like how things used to be here, once upon a time.

Zobel said:

---

It's ok man I know this is hard for you.

I picked that because I thought it was pretty easy, but it was kind of mean. Because on the one hand if you say yeah of course they're your countrymen you're carrying water for a group of people that is objectively not assimilating and a group which you probably wouldn't want in power. But if you say they're not Americans you have to actually use your rule and intuit the mental state of a bunch of people you've never met.

Quite the quandary.

So you just don't answer. And that's the same decision made over and over again by millions, and the result is effectively the same as having no rule at all.

What use is your rule if you yourself can't manage to use it?

"I know what an American is, but I would never, ever, ever say that someone isn't one."

---

I answered the question numerous times.. I'm not speaking for a group but for individuals. Speaking for groups is impossible because the people within the group are so different. You want a perfect answer but it doesn't exist. If you dislike my view, please explain why instead of a poor attempt at a Socratic seminar. If the answer to my questions is no, then we have an issue and they probably aren't someone I would consider to be a fellow countrymen.

Zobel said:

---

I think it's fair to say it is a tough question but I think it is only tough because modern sensibilities have made answering it cleanly off limits.

You can't exclude by any of the things which would make it objective, so you end up with subjective criteria - like whether they believe in certain ideas.

But then, we can't even exclude on that criteria either. Even folks in this thread shows it makes them very uncomfortable to do so, even in examples where it is Not That Hard to see.

This comes down to de facto everyone in, which is basically what has been going on the past two decades. And that ends up with complete dissolution, taken to its obvious end. You can't have a democratic power transfer mechanism based on head count without a somewhat homogenous society insofar as the definition of the Good for the government.

What I mean by that is, you can't have any coherent use of the means until you agree on ends, and different people groups, cultures, whatever, have different ends. When you change enough of them out, the means are going to bend in a different direction.

Americans have a fundamental right to decide who is and is not allowed to immigrate to our country and who is and is not going to be an American. That's not a racist claim, it is descriptive of our right of self governance and continuity of our sovereignty. To negate it ends our nation.

But to exercise that right we need to be ok with excluding people, which will make some people feel bad, and may require people to say things that sound mean. It's ok. We can put on our big boy pants and do it.

---

See, this is where your argument falls apart though. Where offshoots develop and a sense of nationhood dies.

You say Americans have a fundamental right to decide who is American. Cool. America is not homogenous. It has not been for quite some time. You say what must be done for the Good of the government. Which is exactly my entire point you seem to be missing. YOU are saying what you decide to be good for the government. What if someone disagrees with something you hold dear? Let's say they happen to be American as well? Just as red blooded and papered as you?

You yourself declare we end up with subjective criteria. Which is why it inherently fails the test. Always. You have not removed yourself from the equation and your biassed opinions are extremely obvious. This isn't even a hard debate, like at all.

Nah, that's not really an objection any more than the fact that individuals having individual preferences breaks the system.

It's never been homogeneous. Ever.

Zobel said:

---

Nah, that's not really an objection any more than the fact that individuals having individual preferences breaks the system.

---

That makes literally zero sense. You don't have a collective without the individual. Unless you are saying we need a system of people voting for something that is considered to be the "correct" way by a committee, caucus, junta, etc even if that goes against their own conscious.

If true, **** that. Most unAmerican thing I have considered on this site in a loooooong time and I sincerely hope that the vast majority of posters here would have fought and died against this before it went into effect. Include me in that.

Did somebody already point out that countryman and citizen seem to be conflated?

If I move to Wales and get my citizenship, do you think the fellow citizens will consider me a Welshman? I'd wager, no. If I have kids there, would they be? Maybe. It depends on how well they have integrated into the culture. If I raise them as Texans abroad and they wear cowboy hats, fly American flags, speak with my accent, show no effort to learn any Welsh, demand the culture adapt to them, and insist on thumbing their nose at local laws, probably not. And that is where my ancestral roots are.

Pick a different spot. How many generations would my family have to live in Jamaica to be considered a countyman there? Japan? It would never be enough. Estonia? India? Saudi Arabia? Kenya? Somalia? My family would never be accepted as full countrymen in those places. In fact, most of the world would call us colonizers.

Even for the nominally white Christian countries, if we lived in enclaves and made no attempt to assimilate (or worse, subvert the dominant culture), I would not be considered a countryman.

America is the most culturally diverse nation in the world. You can be from any of those places and be seen as a countryman here. Just love it and the things that make it great.

? I have no idea how you got there from what I wrote. More or less your objection (echoed by the other guy) is that because perfect homogeneity is not possible, homogeneity as such can't be a criterion.

My response to that is that, taken at face value, this invalidates society itself because humans are not homogenous. But this is absurd! The existence of differences can't in and of itself destroy the concept of the state.

But it's ok, we can go back to Aristotle again. You're mixing differences <within> a political community and differences about what <constitutes> that community.

Aristotle himself rejects that perfect uniformity is desirable. If it becomes completely uniform, it stops being a city, and he likens this to harmony being reduced to a single note. This comes from earlier in Politics than what I quoted before - in book 2. So differences in desires, functions, needs, wants, don't break community / shared commitments or the social bonds I described.

The next important thing is to distinguish kind of homogeneity from degree. Differences in kind describes hte things people share (ancestry or kinship, customs, faith, institutions) and differences in degree ask how much they share any particular characteristic. Conceptually you could see that a difference in social customs don't necessarily cause an objection to form of government. In either case - differences of kind and degree - they only matter if they concern the organizing structure of the state. This even glosses over relatively large or deeply held differences! This is why what I'm talking about ends up being a question of coherence.

The aim at a common end doesn't require having identical opinions, but on consequential common interests. In other words, there is a difference between having a disagreement within certain political undertaking and having a disagreement over the undertaking itself. One works, the other doesn't.

In Book 3 ch 9 Aristotle even examines the question about groups mistaking partial interests for the whole. He doesn't say that these disagreements make judgment impossible but that their claims need to be examined against the political community's purpose. So you can't say judgment is subjective therefore arbitrary.

And lastly there is a difference between whether someone IS a citizen and whether they OUGHT to have been admitted.

So, flipping back to the first post. Political association requires common commitments; certain differences could undermine those commitments; therefore particular people should not be members of the political association.

Pointing out differences as such is insufficient to talk about whether differences are disqualifying from political coherence.

Aristotle's point is that, at the root, the kind of commonalities which matter are at the very root layer - which are the ones I pointed out in the OP.

To follow up, it would be a useful exercise to think about the types of differences you see in the US polity going back to the beginning between various immigration waves, and then the degree of differences, and whether those types AND degrees taken together challenge coherence.

I think youll find that in both type and degree we were admitting people who much more homogenous on a relative basis before the Immigration Act of 1965 than after.

Zobel said:

---

? I have no idea how you got there from what I wrote. More or less your objection (echoed by the other guy) is that because perfect homogeneity is not possible, homogeneity as such can't be a criterion.

My response to that is that, taken at face value, this invalidates society itself because humans are not homogenous. But this is absurd! The existence of differences can't in and of itself destroy the concept of the state.

But it's ok, we can go back to Aristotle again. You're mixing differences <within> a political community and differences about what <constitutes> that community.

Aristotle himself rejects that perfect uniformity is desirable. If it becomes completely uniform, it stops being a city, and he likens this to harmony being reduced to a single note. This comes from earlier in Politics than what I quoted before - in book 2. So differences in desires, functions, needs, wants, don't break community / shared commitments or the social bonds I described.

The next important thing is to distinguish kind of homogeneity from degree. Differences in kind describes hte things people share (ancestry or kinship, customs, faith, institutions) and differences in degree ask how much they share any particular characteristic. Conceptually you could see that a difference in social customs don't necessarily cause an objection to form of government. In either case - differences of kind and degree - they only matter if they concern the organizing structure of the state. This even glosses over relatively large or deeply held differences! This is why what I'm talking about ends up being a question of coherence.

The aim at a common end doesn't require having identical opinions, but on consequential common interests. In other words, there is a difference between having a disagreement within certain political undertaking and having a disagreement over the undertaking itself. One works, the other doesn't.

In Book 3 ch 9 Aristotle even examines the question about groups mistaking partial interests for the whole. He doesn't say that these disagreements make judgment impossible but that their claims need to be examined against the political community's purpose. So you can't say judgment is subjective therefore arbitrary.

And lastly there is a difference between whether someone IS a citizen and whether they OUGHT to have been admitted.

So, flipping back to the first post. Political association requires common commitments; certain differences could undermine those commitments; therefore particular people should not be members of the political association.

Pointing out differences as such is insufficient to talk about whether differences are disqualifying from political coherence.

Aristotle's point is that, at the root, the kind of commonalities which matter are at the very root layer - which are the ones I pointed out in the OP.

---

Cool. Not worried about Aristotle's works at the moment. Want some original thought from you which you had provided up till now and I had responded to. Also, sure as **** can say judgement is subjective. Aristotle and his peers were great men. Their ideas and tenets are not end all, be all for every situation filtered throughout the ages. A very common fallacy these days from over degree'ed individuals. (not calling you that btw).

Either way, it is pretty clear how I got to where I got from what you wrote, to me at least. Crystal even. Even after your segue into the Ancients, which did not help your case at all IMO. Just obfuscation at best. to me.

May be at an impasse. I honestly do not know you as a poster so not sure if we should just call it and move our separate ways. Been a fun distraction though!

Zobel said:

---

To follow up, it would be a useful exercise to think about the types of differences you see in the US polity going back to the beginning between various immigration waves, and then the degree of differences, and whether those types AND degrees taken together challenge coherence.

I think youll find that in both type and degree we were admitting people who much more homogenous on a relative basis before the Immigration Act of 1965 than after.

---

Well, there was a bit more subjugation on immigrants of all colors and creeds back then. Plus, the immigrants of those times were more interested in escaping more hellish areas and were more liable to be grateful upon reaching our shores. Neither of which have much inherently to do with our policies I would posit. Both of those points are no longer predominately true these days and are more likely than not, the main driving difference between then and now of the homogeneity of the immigrant waves.

It's not crystal clear to me at all. And I'm not saying Aristotle is right because Aristotle. I'm saying, this is a useful logical framework that points out why you're mixing categories and why that's an error.

Not for nothing, the founding fathers broadly speaking were familiar with this kind of work and it informed the decisions they made when structuring our government.

Sorry, no. None of that has to do with immigration differences. You're describing difference in assimilation. That's not the same thing.

Zobel said:

---

Sorry, no. None of that has to do with immigration differences. You're describing difference in assimilation. That's not the same thing.

---

Which equates to homogeneity. Which is the discussion at hand. What are you talking about?

Before and after. Assimilation is the process of going from heterogeneity to homogeneity.

The point I'm making is the differences on a relative basis were less to begin whth. Which also makes assimilation easier.

Zobel said:

---

It's not crystal clear to me at all. And I'm not saying Aristotle is right because Aristotle. I'm saying, this is a useful logical framework that points out why you're mixing categories and why that's an error.

Not for nothing, the founding fathers broadly speaking were familiar with this kind of work and it informed the decisions they made when structuring our government.

---

Your exact verbiage brooks no room for debate. You adhere to his works as the correct answer and only the correct answer.

Quote:

---

In Book 3 ch 9 Aristotle even examines the question about groups mistaking partial interests for the whole. He doesn't say that these disagreements make judgment impossible but that their claims need to be examined against the political community's purpose. So you can't say judgment is subjective therefore arbitrary.

---

You do this several times. Sorry but this is not how you reference philosophical works and then immediately deny you are not appealing to authority. You know this though, I highly suspect.

I also do not believe I am mixing categories at all and think you are trying to deflect the base matter at hand. I do not think this discussion is going anywhere at all tbh and will call it an agree to disagree. First time I have stretched my legs even a little on TA in ages, so thanks for that! Was fun!

lol ok, but this is not even an attempt at discussion. Take Aristotle out of it, the point still stands. It's not right because he said it, it's right because it makes sense and its useful that he already did such a thorough examination of the topic.

The fact that humans and human societies aren't perfectly homogenous doesn't change the conclusion that some kinds of homogeneity, to certain degrees, are necessary for political coherence.

This is why the objection "but it has never been homogenous" is not actually an issue. And even the part you highlighted in my own writing specifically says "somewhat homogenous".

And it is also why, by extension, you can come to the conclusion that the absence of sufficient homogeneity causes incoherence.

Some people are my countrymen and some people aren't. From your perspective we'd be forced to say that because everyone is different, and perfect alignment is not possible, it's hopeless to ever know. Maybe no one is? Maybe everyone is? But this is obviously useless.

If you identify yourself with anything "XXXXX-American" instead of just "American", then you aren't a countryman to me because you are doing everything you can to self segregate and put whatever country or race or whatever above being an American.

It's perfectly fine if your heritage is from somewhere else, not everybody can be a 5th or 6th or 7th generation. If you are a 1st generation and embrace the societal norms, culture, etc. around you and are a productive member of society (meaning you didn't come here to find ways to defraud our systems and send my taxpayer money overseas), then odds are you are going to be welcomed by the overwhelming majority of society just fine.

But if you come over here and subsequently demand everybody cater to you in whatever means you think we should and your loyalties remain steadfast to whatever land you came from or your parents came from, etc. then you aren't a countryman. You are an invader at worst, foreigner at best.

Hardcore Greg said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

this is fine as a philosophical basis for what a fellow countryman is, but how do you use it in practice? under this framework, how would one distinguishes a fellow american from a foreigner in non-obvious instances?

---

You can't...that's the scary part. That is why you should thoroughly vet immigrants before allowing entry and focus on nuclear families, rather than hordes of military aged males.

Poland is very strict about who they let in. They are able to maintain a national identity and social cohesion and a much greater degree of unity and shared vision than us...and if you look at videos of the most bustling and polular city hot spots, it is orderly, and peaceful, and not a bunch of third world foreigners or dead beat drug addicts. In other words, kind of looks like how things used to be here, once upon a time.

---

how do you figure? poland's ethnic homogeneity is due in large part to the holocaust more so than immigration policy, and they are even more ideologically polarized than the US despite having high homogeneity.

Zobel said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

1. People who believe the ideas of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are the most important ideas we should believe in.
2. Take care of your family and your community without limiting the opportunities for others.

---

Are legal Somali immigrants in Minnesota your countrymen, then? And their children who are citizens?

---

Most of them are going to be my enemy, but thankfully I don't live there.

Old McDonald said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

this is fine as a philosophical basis for what a fellow countryman is, but how do you use it in practice? under this framework, how would one distinguishes a fellow american from a foreigner in non-obvious instances?

---

You can't...that's the scary part. That is why you should thoroughly vet immigrants before allowing entry and focus on nuclear families, rather than hordes of military aged males.

Poland is very strict about who they let in. They are able to maintain a national identity and social cohesion and a much greater degree of unity and shared vision than us...and if you look at videos of the most bustling and polular city hot spots, it is orderly, and peaceful, and not a bunch of third world foreigners or dead beat drug addicts. In other words, kind of looks like how things used to be here, once upon a time.

---

how do you figure? poland's ethnic homogeneity is due in large part to the holocaust more so than immigration policy, and they are even more ideologically polarized than the US despite having high homogeneity.

---

Saying it does not make it true.

Zobel said:

---

Well, for example, this means that there is an immediate disjunction between current law and my definition. If people agree with my definition, it means they should not agree with current law, and vote accordingly.

It means that the child of a foreigner here, illegally or legally, is not inherently my countryman. Or any particular citizen. It specifically highlights the very real gap we have between citizenship and a coherent understanding of shared nationality.

You use it in practice by saying - such a person is not my countryman, because they haven't formed real social bonds, they haven't integrated with society, they follow a philosophy or a religion which is incompatible with our society, and so on.

---

the problem with your definition is it's not helpful in meaningfully closing this gap if put into legal practice. it sounds unobjectionable on the surface, but it's imprecise enough to be arbitrarily exclusionary.

No, sorry. Arbitrary means without logic, and the logic I laid out can be used to create objective criteria. Unlike "creedal nation" which can't, and doesn't.

It is supposed to be exclusionary, that's the point.