Author Topic: Canada should welcome more US migrants/refugees?  (Read 6923 times)

Schwab711

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1641
Re: Canada should welcome more US migrants/refugees?
« Reply #40 on: June 22, 2018, 01:46:30 PM »
@MarkS To be clear, the use of White in (') single-quotes was to emphasize that White is poorly defined. I'm sorry if you misinterpreted it to be double-quotes. I don't understand the victim attitude as your opening. I explicitly stated I wasn't offended and thought it was reasonable to avoid this. No one else said anything negative or judged you personally, despite your expectations. I'm sorry you feel guilty but it's more of a you problem. When talking about the US and race, it is quite reasonable to use the word white.

As to your housekeeping:
Before I get to my concerns, I would like to respond to several of your positions with which I disagree.  First, you assert that the very definition of "white" is very problematic. For support, you cite among other things the Census Bureau.  Here is a clip taken from the Pew Research Center's web site that discusses the Census Bureau's actions.

"The problem with using the word “race” is that many Americans say they don’t know what it means, and how it is different from “origin.” The agency’s focus group research found that some people think the words mean the same thing, while others see race as meaning skin color, ancestry or culture, while origin is the nation or place where they or their parents were born."

The article goes on to imply that the bulk of the problems are related to the confusion associated with the term "race" and the term "Hispanic," which is not a race, and about how often many people, including many Hispanics, confuse the two concepts. Does the above mean that race isn't definable?  Or is it simply a reflection of our educational system.  I suspect it's the latter.

I said race categories such as "Hispanic" and "White" were difficult to define. I explicitly said White was difficult to define. What you are quoting supports exactly what I said. I also directly asked you to attempt to define White. You didn't. Instead you blamed the "education system". I don't really know what to say.

Quote from: schwab711
The term White is extremely difficult to define and eventually the US Census Bureau had to give up trying to classify people and had to start asking people to tell them...

You then go to say:
Quote from: MarkS
I'm fairly certain that most Non-Hispanic Whites entering the country from Mexico, Central America and South America will rarely , if ever, share the same "family and social environment, historical or socio-political constructs, personal experience, context [or] many other immeasurable factors" as most Non-Hispanic White Americans.

May I also suggest that you're "having your cake and eating it too" by claiming that we currently have the same historical percentage of whites while also suggesting that the meaning of the word white is rather ... meaningless.  In the future, you might consider picking one position and sticking with it.  It makes for a better argument.

Your references to Mississippi and other southern states strike me as simply a veiled accusation of historical racism much like Sharper's post with his rather sweeping allegations of apartheid.  You're certainly entitled to your opinion.  And I frankly don't see the point in responding.

First, at no point did I claim that the backgrounds of any immigrant type, at any point in the US's history, was similar to the population present at their arrival. I don't know how the first part could affect my argument when I didn't come anywhere close to making the claim. I'm starting to wonder if you read what I wrote...

To the second part, the point of emphasizing that racial categories are difficult to define and presenting the statistical types that I did was to cover all of my bases. The entire purpose of my argument was to be concise and comprehensive. In that sense, I did implicitly assume multiple definitions of White, including at different points in US history. That is, I acknowledged that the term White is ambiguous and has evolved throughout history. That was my point! I gave you the opportunity to define White and you declined.

As to Mississippi. I'm not a big fan of the latim quips but it was an attempt at reductio ad absurdum. If the majority of the population of southern states in pre-Civil War south were non-white, yet the states were still willing to leave the Union for "their culture", then it's quite possible that demographics are not necessarily the only factor that affects actual or perceived culture in a society. I was not calling you racist. I would not be subtle if I thought that. I was pointing out that more extreme conditions did not share the concern you have today, so maybe your concern is unfounded.


Quote from: MarkS
My friend's post below implicitly covers many of the problems associated with comparing different historical periods.  However there are major difference between historical America and current America that he didn't address namely voting rights along with other judicially imposed protections.  Please don't get me wrong.  I'm in favor of "one man/one vote" along with most of the many modern judicially imposed protections.  I'm just pointing out that when we allow immigrants into the country today they are afforded powers and  protections that previous generations of immigrants only dreamed existed.  For example, voting rights have dramatically changed since the 1700s.  See. http://ourwhitehouse.org/who-gets-to-vote/  The act of immigration remains very much the same as in previous centuries.  But the legal ramifications are vastly different considering the multitude of powers and protections now bestowed on current immigrants versus immigrants from other centuries.

Boy, are you in luck. I'm a Dorrite and I know a fair amount about pre-universal sufferage voting history. I think it's funny that you make this claim. This claim is broadly inaccurate.

Until the Civil War, voting was generally granted to all White male property owners (varied a bit state-to-state, but that's a fair description). This generally included non-citizen residents! Note that non-citizen, White, male property owners were able to vote before White male non-property owners, all Black men, and all women!

Further, it wasn't until the Irish Catholics started immigrating to the US, roughly in the same proportion as Mexican immigrants in the 1990's and 2000's, that states started to revoke non-citizen resident voting rights. The states with the highest Irish Catholic immigrant flux were generally the ones to revoke voting rights. Sound familiar? We revoke federal voting rights of non-citizen residents in 1996.

This is why I briefly emphasized Irish Catholics, but I didn't expect you to raise voting rights. Your link is a highly simplified history of voting rights. The actual history is quite complicated, with periods of progress and regression (as one might imagine). As I explained in a different thread, the "legal ramifications" of illegal immigration specifically generally favor Red states since illegal immigrants are counted in the Census (which determines representation) but are not allowed to vote. Thus, US citizens in the Southwest generally have a higher voting index relative to the rest of the country. New Mexico has the highest voting index, unsurprisingly. Red Southwest states are generally over-represented. You probably don't read or hear about that much though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote_in_the_United_States
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/611

Your Captain Underpants argument goes against the basic tenets of the US Constitution. I have no interest in bettering myself if it means undermining the Constitution. Full stop. I think it's a disgustingly selfish act. You are free to have your own opinion but it's not for me.

As to your friend. First, I ignored the "migration" of Blacks prior to the Civil War. The slave trade was not migration and they were not immigrants.

Now to their comments:
Quote from: MarkS's Friend
It's a stretch to say that all groups assimilated without problems. While recognizing that they have a "special" history, I think it's clear that Afriican-Americans still have lots of problems and that their assimilation is very far from accomplished. And the jury is still out on Hispanic assimilation, especially given the numbers we are now dealing with and given our new policy of open borders.

I never commented on the ease or timing of different groups' assimilation. In general, I wrote what I meant and I meant exactly what I wrote. Making comments/claims about thins I didn't say is going to be a pattern with your friend.

Quote from: MarkS's Friend
Also, the assimilation of previous generations was accomplished under very different circumstances. The economy was expanding more rapidly and we were still agricultural/industrial so there was an almost unlimited demand for unskilled labor. And the model for all previous assimilation was the hugely successful melting pot, not a squirrely multi-cultural one.

I don't know what to say. I disagree but I can't even prove that they are wrong because they aren't saying anything. They are just making generalized claims without even an example. I mean, yes GDP was once higher than today. It was also lower at times during the Ellis Island Era. We had periods of economic depression during the Ellis Island Era. Your friend is over-simplifying US history to fit their pre-conceived views.

Quote from: MarkS's Friend
Moreover, the previous dominant culture was not only overwhelmingly white and Christian (including immigrants) but fiercely patriotic, especially at the elite levels. Immigrants were explicitly expected to adopt such patriotism themselves, and by and large they did. Today our intellectual and media elites sneer at patriotism and preach a toxic mix of white guilt and identity politics, starting in kindergarten. No one asked our forefathers to "check their privilege", though in strictly racial terms it was far greater than ours is today.

This is patently false. First, the country is predominately Christian and always has been. 98% of colonists were Christian. The borders of the original states are due to the religious makeup of the area. Our laws are based on Christian morals. The idea that Church and State are separate is only due to a private letter between Jefferson and a friend. There is nothing codified. Most judicial rulings prior to the 1960's made it painfully clear to non-Christians that we are a Christian nation.

It's fine that we are. Doesn't bother me. But let's not rewrite history.

https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/did-america-have-christian-founding

Further, until the 1850's or so, the nation was quite clearly NOT-patriotic in the sense of supporting a federal government. If you have any questions, I'm sure rkbabang can tell you why pre-Civil War American government/societal attitudes toward federal government were much better. It's the entire point of the small government folks. It's Jacksonian politics. Small federal government and your allegiances should be to God, family, neighbors, and surrounding area, in that order.

The rest of his paragraph is just repeating right-wing talking points. That are just general statements that are difficult to interpret a specific meaning to. They are difficult to say whether they are accurate or not because he's not saying anything. I definitely know who he reads and listens to. I also know your friend doesn't have many original or unique opinions. I have heard these phrases ad nauseam.

Quote from: MarkS's Friend
Then too, we used to expect a lot from immigrants, beginning with loyalty and assimilation to their new country. They were offered a shot at a better life, not a guarantee of one. If they got economic assistance it was from within their own communities, not from public welfare. It was not just hard to succeed in this country it was difficult to even subsist without a lot of effort. Schools, for instance, were taught in a English only and there were no anti-discrimination agencies or activists to rely on. This was a harsh environment but it turned out to be one in which immigrants thrived. I am not convinced that showering new arrivals with benefits and empathy is actually helpful.

I happen to be a collector of US history textbooks. This is Horatio Alger, Gilded Age/post-reconstruction views. This type of thinking is straight out of US history textbooks from the 1920's. It's not completely wrong, it's just very simplified and incomplete. I'm kind of surprised that he sent it to you since you said he is a historian. This type of thinking definitely had a revival with Buckley. Buckley would never have lied about this view being a comprehensive view of the period of US history we are discussing. Modern right-leaning commentators (say, radio hosts), has twisted Buckley's thinking in to the crap quoted above. US history is complicated.

There was actually quite a bit of social welfare in the late-1800's, early-1900's. Most of it was privately organized by the rich or politicians. Part of the idea of Federal social welfare was to remove the 'agenda' from the aid.

Quote from: MarkS's Friend
Finally, the last great wave of immigration, back in the Ellis Island era, was followed by a long period of much slower immigration which gave both immigrants and native born a chance to meld. The result was that by the time of Pearl Harbor we were unquestionably one nation and could meet the challenges of mid-century as such. The de facto position of the Left, almost the explicit one, is that no immigrant must ever be turned away for any reason. How can that be anything but a disaster?

I always find these phrases to be humorous. Neither your friend, you, me, nor anyone else on this board is a representative of any political party or the US. What's more, we already have people in those roles, such as Congressmen, the POTUS, SCOTUS, and so on.

With that out of the way, the bolded sentence is factually incorrect. Obama had a quota of 120,000 refugees/yr. Clinton ran on a platform of 120,000, but wanted a quota of 70,000. The current quota under Trump is the same as the platform he ran on, 45,000 refugees/yr. I've made this point repeatedly, but the Democrat and Republican party policy platforms are probably as close right now as they have been in many decades. The issue is polarization. You won't get elected if you compromise. Philosophically, our elected representatives actually agree on a lot of stuff (or are close in thought) and like each other. Political polarization and hyperbolic rhetoric is leading to gridlock. Instead of learning the Left's position from a right-wing commentator, why didn't you friend just google the platform of actual left-wing representatives? Seems like that would be the logical move to me.

Quote from: MarkS's Friend
He may be right about 2050. Whites could even still be a bare majority by then. But why is he offering that as consolation? Presumably he does not think  a white majority is especially desirable, and if it is why is he himself not alarmed by immigration trends? The truth is that we have always been an overwhelmingly majority white country even, as I said, including immigrants. Multi-culturalism sounds good in the class room but we don't know how it will work in the real world, especially after 50 years of guilt and grievance mongering. As a white person I am more than skeptical.

I didn't offer a consolation, but we get to see view your friend's thought process. I do not fear anyone in this country, at least not from a political power perspective. I'm protected by laws and enforcers of those laws. More than any person on this globe, I am most likely to see justice served right here in the US. I'm sorry your friend doesn't see that.

I think it's weird that your friend thinks that races are tribes that are out to concur one another. I don't see evidence of that at all. Either way, that type of tribalism is illegal, so it can't exist for long. Again, if you or your friend had bothered to define White or how culture has changed in the US, it would be easier to debate. Your friend is engaging in vague right-wing commentator talking points again. It's like saying "Soros-funded" [something], with implied omnipresent power attributed to Soros. He's just a political donor, like the Koch brothers. He donates roughly half as much as the Koch brothers annually. But there is no aura around the Koch brothers like there is with Soros. Similar idea to the "race wars" and "multi-culture" ranting your friend engaged in.

Quote from: MarkS's Friend
I'm not particularly worried about "shading" but México and many other Latin cultures are. They're obsessed with it. What does that tell him?

Who is they? What is he talking about? Just one paragraph prior your friend explicitly said he was alarmed by non-Hispanic Whites losing power to other races. Now he's not worried. I don't understand.


Quote from: MarkS's Friend
Certainly there is more friction in an ethnically and racially mixed  country than in a relatively homogenous one. Ask Sweden, which is now about 15% immigrants. Or ask the inhabitants of the Western Roman Empire, who perished under a demographic flood of newcomers that began as a trickle.

He then immediately contradicts himself (or herself) again. There is no certainty to this opinion. It is an unprovable opinion. They offer no support for it, so it's hard to provide much merit to their assertion. This assertion is exactly why I started with stat #1. To pre-emptively counter this claim that there's an immigration/foreign-born threshold that leads to problems. Our current non-White/foreign-born percentage of the population is lower than at the dawn of our country. There is no 1-1 correlation here.

Quote from: MarkS's Friend
Rather those proposing it were asked to prove why it was needed. And if you had proposed “massive, unplanned and illegal” immigration then you would have been derided as a lunatic. In the final analysis I don’t know why any ethnic majority should be asked to hasten it’s transition to minority status. The Left has a word for such a practice when it is foisted upon non-whites: genocide.

These sentences seem incoherent and the conclusion escalates quickly. I can't figure out what point I made that he's arguing against. It looks like an angry rant. I have no counter here.


Quote from: MarkS's Friend
But this is America and in some sense we are, to use a relatively recent turn of phrase, “a nation of immigrants”. So I would happily concede that our immigration history has not been disastrous. All I expect for future immigration is that it should be legal. Why is that unreasonable?  And if we are going to radically change the ethnic composition of the country that we do so only after open deliberation and debate. I’m not afraid to have that debate. Why is the Left?

Back to what I said earlier: Neither your friend, you, me, nor anyone else on this board is a representative of any political party or the US. What's more, we already have people in those roles, such as Congressmen, the POTUS, SCOTUS, and so on.

There is no debate among private citizens on this topic. It is a power inferred upon Congress. We have a Constitutional Republic. We elect representatives. You must trust the representatives sent by other districts and states in the country. "The Left" obviously sends representatives just like "the Right". I'm not sure why your friend is implying there's a "we" amongst him and Republicans when it is a royal we. Considering your friend failed to address any of my points, made false claims (from right-wing commentators, not even reporters), and spoke in vague generalities, I'm not sure how he can then claim he is unafraid of debate.


Anyway, I'd write more but there's not really much to respond to. For the most part, I see common talking points, not original opinions/ideas/beliefs. I don't want to debate Rush Limbaugh, he's not here to respond to many counter-arguments. Hopefully you read this in the best tone possible. I did not intend to write in an aggressive tone, if that's how any of this reads. I would make it quite clear if I was upset. Feel free to ask Jurgis :). At times, I was frustrated by the responses. It didn't seem like either of you put much thought in to my original response. You seem to have both concluded your opinions prior to the debate and your only purpose to writing was to convert others to your opinion. That's not debate.

This is as far as I go on this topic. I'll allow you the final rebuttal if you'd like it.



As to others, thank you for the kind words! Very much appreciated.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2018, 02:01:34 PM by Schwab711 »


MarkS

  • Guest
Re: Canada should welcome more US migrants/refugees?
« Reply #41 on: June 23, 2018, 06:58:57 AM »

Hi Scwhab,

Thank you for your response. 

You are entitled to your opinions.  However, you aren't entitled to your own facts. So I will limit my response to the areas where I feel that you are just plainly wrong. 

First let me remind you that you asked for my opinion. I sincerely tried to answer most of your questions.   If your not going to graciously accept the opinion that you asked for ... perhaps you should learn not to ask.

As to my friend's response please read my post again. I clearly stated that I gave him the gist of your positions and questions. He never saw your post.   His response was to a close friend.  I did not ask for or expect supporting documentation or for that matter a polished ready for publication response.   I actually took the liberty of attaching his response because I thought that it might help to answer your questions. He did not know in advance that I was attaching his response.  So a lot of your attacks aren't justified.
-------------------------------------------
You put in bold this portion of my friend's response : 

"Moreover, the previous dominant culture was not only overwhelmingly white and Christian (including immigrants) but fiercely patriotic...."
 
You then write:

"This is patently false. First, the country is predominately Christian and always has been. 98% of colonists were Christian. The borders of the original states are due to the religious makeup of the area. Our laws are based on Christian morals. The idea that Church and State are separate is only due to a private letter between Jefferson and a friend. There is nothing codified. Most judicial rulings prior to the 1960's made it painfully clear to non-Christians that we are a Christian nation."

My response:
 
It looks to me that my friend clearly recognizes that Christians did in fact make up the majority of our country.  So I have no clue as to what your talking about.

-------------------------------------
You put in bold this portion of his response:

 "The de facto position of the Left, almost the explicit one, is that no immigrant must ever be turned away for any reason. How can that be anything but a disaster?

You then write:

"... the bolded sentence is factually incorrect. Obama had a quota of 120,000 refugees/yr. Clinton ran on a platform of 120,000, but wanted a quota of 70,000. The current quota under Trump is the same as the platform he ran on, 45,000 refugees/yr. I've made this point repeatedly, but the Democrat and Republican party policy platforms are probably as close right now as they have been in many decades.
 
My response:

 My friend stated that the left has been a proponent of open borders.  He never referenced any political leader. I have personally heard the argument for open borders from numerous sources for many,  many years.  Here is just one example: https://openborders.info/leftist-agenda/  I've even recently seen it suggested on this board.  You are grossly overstating things. The only way that he could be "factually incorrect" is if we accept your silly assertion that the left is somehow mandated to conform their desire for open borders with the refugee policies of Barack Obama - and that has not and will not happen.
-------------------------------

You claim that he didn't support his claim that Sweden has problems integrating recent immigrants. Okay. Here is support.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/how-sweden-became-an-example-of-how-not-to-handle-immigration/

-----------------------------
You claimed in your original post: 

"....the term White is extremely difficult to define and eventually the US Census Bureau had to give up trying to classify people and had to start asking people to tell them (sometime around 1930-1960)" .

My response:

According to the Pew Research Center:

"Until 1960, Americans did not choose their own race on census forms; enumerators did it for them. Racial categories have changed extensively through the decades, and question wording also has been revised.

The word “color,” not “race,” was used in census-taker instructions and some census forms in the 1800s. The word “race” appeared for the first time in 1880 enumerator instructions that talked about “color or race,” and the use of both terms continued on census forms or instructions through 1940. The term “color” was dropped from the 1950 census form, but returned on the 1970 census form.

The word “race” was not included in the 1960 census or 1980 census. Instead, the forms asked, “Is this person­ –” and listed the racial categories."

 You can tell by "Is this person -- and listed the racial categories" that the census taker determined the race of the person answering the census.  Since the enumerators seemed able to determine whether someone in front of them was white, black or asian - maybe it's just difficult for you.
-------------------------------
You wrote:

 "As to Mississippi. I'm not a big fan of the latim quips but it was an attempt at reductio ad absurdum. If the majority of the population of southern states in pre-Civil War south were non-white, yet the states were still willing to leave the Union for "their culture", then it's quite possible that demographics are not necessarily the only factor that affects actual or perceived culture in a society. I was not calling you racist. I would not be subtle if I thought that. I was pointing out that more extreme conditions did not share the concern you have today, so maybe your concern is unfounded."

My response:
 
Before the civil war blacks in general were viewed as property and not people.   The black majority you referred to were mostly slaves without any input as to whether the States in question would leave the union. (For the record I categorically reject slavery.)  Slaves could not vote on the matter.  You could certainly argue that the white males in Mississippi were wrong about a host of issues.  I would actually tend to agree with you.   But your argument has little to nothing to do with maintaining a collective right to vote for a perceived interest - the topic actually under discussion.

(Arguments that use universal language like always, never, everyone , nobody ect. are prone to attacks using Reductio ad Absurdum.  The universal language is turned against the user like in "everyone is doing it dad" to which the dad responds "if everyone was jumping off a bridge ...."  I don't know what form, if any, your argument is but it's not Reductio ad Absurdum.)
----------------------------
You wrote:

"Your Captain Underpants argument goes against the basic tenets of the US Constitution. I have no interest in bettering myself if it means undermining the Constitution. Full stop. I think it's a disgustingly selfish act. You are free to have your own opinion but it's not for me."

 My response:

Blacks have advocated and used collective block voting for decades.  See. http://blackwomenvote.com. This activity is actually protected by the Voting Rights Act - to which I say good for them.  People should have the right to collectively vote their interest.  However, what's good for the goose should also be good for the gander.   Your assertion that collectively voting for perceived interests is unconstitutional when performed by whites is patently absurd.

I could go on.  But I've wasted enough time on this pointless and futile effort. I'm actually sorry that I ever opened my mouth and participated in this thread.  I don't know what I was thinking.   Thank you for giving your word that I will have the last word on the subject.





Cigarbutt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1901
Re: Canada should welcome more US migrants/refugees?
« Reply #42 on: June 23, 2018, 07:26:10 AM »
I could go on.  But I've wasted enough time on this pointless and futile effort. I'm actually sorry that I ever opened my mouth and participated in this thread.  I don't know what I was thinking.   Thank you for giving your word that I will have the last word on the subject.

Online forums can empower citizens in democratic participation.

Such discussions may contribute to elevate the debate above narrow private interests, help to navigate between the tyranny of minorities and herd-like majorities and contribute to individual actions leading to a stronger civil society.

I think Tocqueville called this the town hall democracy.

Most progress happens unseen.

rukawa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 964
Re: Canada should welcome more US migrants/refugees?
« Reply #43 on: July 27, 2018, 09:04:41 PM »
I pulled these numbers off wikipedia.
Racial and Ethnic Demographics of the United States (Percentages) Between 1910 and 2010

                                 1950.        1960.       1970.       1980.        1990.       2000.      2010.
Hispanic.                    2.1%.        3.2%.       4.4%.       6.4%.       9.0%.     12.5%.    16.3% 
Non-Hispanic White.    87.5%       85.4%.     83.5%.     79.6%.     75.6%.    69.1%.     63.7%

This is a lot to ask of a culture - to essentially go from a overwhelmingly white, homogenous culture to one in which non-hispanic whites are a minority in about a one generation.  That's a lot of cultural stress to inflict on a population.  I feel certain that many will accuse me of racism for making this comment.  Nevertheless, it remains a large ask of a population.

America was never a homogeneous culture. Hispanics are better behaved, more educated, cleaner and to be honest just plain BETTER than the white European immigrants that are your ancestors. All yours ancestors were poor, dirty, criminals or white people from freakish Christian cults like the Puritans. If you think Hispanics put your supposedly homogeneous culture under stress you have zero clue about how fucked up your own history is or the means by which America achieved its greatness.

America historically is really a nation of freaks, crazy people, losers and poor dirty refugees. None of whom were respectable by the standards of the time.

When was the last time a Hispanic immigrant inspired an assassination:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_William_McKinley

Or killed 7 rival gangs in broad daylight:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone

Finally the idea that white are homogeneous is ridiculous. If you are so homogeneous how the hell did you manage a civil war, 2 world wars not to mention hundreds of years of nearly continuous war in Europe. Historically Polish, Italians, Jews and Greeks were not considered "white" by Americans. YOu can read the original anti-immigrant screed here:
https://qz.com/904933/a-history-of-american-anti-immigrant-bias-starting-with-benjamin-franklins-hatred-of-the-germans/

MarkS

  • Guest
Re: Canada should welcome more US migrants/refugees?
« Reply #44 on: July 28, 2018, 05:04:11 AM »
Hi rukawa,

So I won't be getting a Christmas card from you this year?

rukawa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 964
Re: Canada should welcome more US migrants/refugees?
« Reply #45 on: July 28, 2018, 06:54:11 AM »
Quote
Your Captain Underpants argument goes against the basic tenets of the US Constitution. I have no interest in bettering myself if it means undermining the Constitution. Full stop. I think it's a disgustingly selfish act. You are free to have your own opinion but it's not for me.

To me making an argument like that is a bit like highly valuing the chastity of a prostitute. Liberals supreme court justices shredded both the Canadian and US constitutions a while ago. We all now live in vaguely constitutional republics.

For instance, under US constitutional design the States have unspecified powers whereas the federal governments are specifically enumerated in order to limit it. But the liberals got around this by interpreting the interstate commerce clause to mean that the federal government could basically do whatever it wanted. In a truly constitutional republic most environmental legislation, labor legislation, social security, minimum wage...I would say 90% of all US federal laws would be unconstitutional.