₦airaland Forum

IronGalaxy:
We can.. Pakistani immigrants are distinct from Indian South Africans..

Yes I can instantly tell just by looking at this man that he is a South African Indian.

Clap for yourself.

IronGalaxy:
South africans can differentiate between Pakistani immigrants and local South African indians.. theres a huge difference..

You're again attempting to speak for us.. while not in being our country..

What are the differences?

IronGalaxy:
Stop deflecting..

You said " we are used to the Pakistani, its the other Africans we hate..

This is a lie... a flat out lie.. own up your lies

I am doubling down. You are used to the Pakistani people because you cannot discern the different between them and your regular Indian South Africans.

This being the case, definitely harder for you to discriminate but Chidinma Vanessa Adeshitna on a greenbook is easily spotted anywhere, don't you think?

IronGalaxy:
Seppuku... stop this, stop being disingenuous..

You said "we are used to Pakistani , its only other Africans " we dislike..

This is a lie, own up yours lies man

You are used to them within the context that they are unrecognizable from South African Indian.

This is not hard to comprehend.

IronGalaxy:
South africans indians are "indians" for a reason.

That doesn't invalidate what I said nor does it answer the question of you being able to discern which of the Indians taken before 1947 were from what is know as Pakistan today.

Take like me recognizing a Sotho from Lesotho and a Sotho from the free state. They are two nationalities but technically are the same thing.

IronGalaxy:
Look, you don't get to speak for South Africans.. you dont walk our streets, you dont know our experiences.. to say we're "used to the Pakistani but only hate Africans" is a flat out lie! And you do this to deliberately mislead

When in Joburg or capetown walking down the streets I swear I couldn't tell a South Asian South African from an immigrant South Asian one.

How do you discern the difference?

IronGalaxy:
Not historically accurate, don't know what you're disputing here..

Pakistan became independent in 1947, before then they were all Indians. How do you know all the "indian" families that became "coolies" were from the part of India that is still india today?

Originalsly:
Very likely is assuming... they didn't assume for Chidinma ... they dug. I hope they did the same for him. No doubt ... illegal immigrants need to be checked. My problem is instead of going after immigrants they need to pressure the government to do the. cracking down.

Its part of the fear of being replaced. When they quickly caught wind of her non black South African name during the pageant, it triggered that anger and then the probe, then the discovery then all of black South AFrica projected that anger on one innocent girl.

IronGalaxy:
Not Pakistani

Same difference.

IronGalaxy:
Seppuku why lie? Why always pushing propaganda? People in SA literally want illegal Pakistani,Bangladesh gone because they are part of the gang that manufactures poisonous snacks and sell to kids, them and the Somali.

No propaganda. The Pakistani are not as many nor do they integrate with you as much as the Africans so you are not as agitated when you come across them.

ednut1:
nigeria does not have birth right citizenship. Since its good why doesn’t Nigeria have it 😂

Correct yourself. Nigeria DOES HAVE birthright citizenship. If you born in Nigeria AND your parents are citizens. You are a citizen by BIRTH.

TEYA:
They said Chidinma that was born there is considered unworthy of living in south Africa but a Pakistani man born there can be minister, instead of addressing the post, you are busy talking haphazardly.

They are used to Pakistani immigrants who are few in number but detest Nigerians and other Africans because we "purportedly" can wipeout their population in 3 generations.

Originalsly:
If there is a law denying her citizenship because of the status of the mother at time of birth or whatever ... I'm curious to know if this dear Ministers parents were also scrutinized for compliance

His people have been in South Africa very likely before the country became a Union.

You are mistaking him for a new arrival.

This doesn't take away the inherent fear and propaganda that the rest of African people are coming to their country to replace them.

Normal immigrant propaganda.

Originalsly:
Chidinma is South African and so is he ... born in South Africa. Why is she deported?... and how can you report one from his native country? Nelson Mandela must be turning in his grave . ... deporting fellow Africans ... inviting others ... SA being recoloniialized.... after the Black immigrants are chased out... I guess the Black South Africans will then be bereded into ghettos. As we look at them .... we need to also look at what's happening with us

I agree with you that she is "technically" South African. She was born there, she grew up there, that's pretty much all she knows.

The question really is her "citzenship" status as a consequence of the acts of her mother. She can still qualify based on other laws within the immigration act but I would rather leave her lawyers to deal with that issue before some evil people begin to catch wind of it.

TheStoriesOfMan:
IronGalaxy Randdigital

Come here NOW!

You dey find trouble. They are busy fixing their country.

WriterNig:

---

Chidinma was born in South Africa too yet almost killed by the Xenophobes.

Between her and this man, who looks more African?

Even South African women married to foreign men are being beaten and dragged on the streets by these xenophobes.

Do not support EVIL.

TELL THEM O!

KLEINBASS:
Yes she was denied visa but like a typical Nigerian she found creative ways to enter illegally

Stop lieing. She did not find any creative ways. Her case was pending in court after a lawyer must have filed for the courts to review her case.

You people don't even know your own laws which is why you run around asking people for Dompass...sorry papers on the streets.

Kobojunkie:
1. So you didn't answer the question!

2. China? Anyway, the U.S., like every other one of the over 160 countries out there without a birthright citizenship(plop out a baby on foreign soil and automagically skip to the front of the line to become a citizen) agreement, has a right to change its laws to better protect itself.

No one is contesting that the US has every "right" to do this if the people elected to represent the people i.e. congress approve and ratify the amendment of the constitution to redefine or clarify the 14 amendment.

Currently this interpretation has been upheld by the judiciary since the Dredd Scott case and the people have so far agreed with their judiciary .

Hey but anything can change.

Kobojunkie:
Even Nigeria does not offer birthright citizenship.

I don't see why the US should continue to maintain that which it has already identified as a problem. Another issue is the dual citizenship confusion.

Just Sanguinus vs Jus Soli. Nigeria's history as an entity is relatively new and thus it will naturally follow cultural trends that align with its history.

The history of the United states and other European states have a different cultural narrative inheriting the concepts of blood rights and soil right from Roman law.

There is no confusion in dual citizenship since the concept of allegiance is not a natural law.

Kobojunkie:
Conclusion...bullsheet!

Explain why its bullsheet!

Reason it out.

Kobojunkie:
To challenge, say an existing notion, you put forward facts and evidence, not delusions.

Premise- Freedom of movement is a fundamental human right.

Evidence- Humans have moved and continue to move for millenia around the globe restricted and unrestricted.

Kobojunkie:
On Monday, the Supreme Court clarified that the US is not allowed to offer citizenship to individuals who arrive at the border. Again, it will not end with the closing of loopholes allowing criminal/illegal elements to cut to the front of the line before others? And you base this on what?

Has the US ever offered citizenship to individuals who arrive at any border, if so can you point us to one case?

Kobojunkie:
Actual philosophical reasoning is never accused of being devoid of meaning. Brain farts are not philosophical.

2. You challenged nothing! Rather, it revealed what you continue to lack!

I challenged everything my boy. If you wish to keep going we can. If you surrender in defeat then just say so.

Kobojunkie:
As expected, you didn't answer the question.

I did. I answered it with a rhetorical question.

Kobojunkie:
Again, it will not end with the closing of loopholes allowing criminal/illegal elements to cut to the front of the line before others? And you base tIt

it is currently not illegal or criminal to hop on a plane from China while pregnant and come give birth in the United States. When your republican friends manage to get congress to amend the constitution then we can have a proper arguement about illegality or criminality., no?

Kobojunkie:
1. You literally can't even help yourself see how terrible and utterly devoid of meaning your ramblings come off. How then can you expect to be able to help me with anything?

2.

Philosophical reasoning is often accused of being devoid of meaning when in reality it challenges that which we believe is real and to the "restricted" mind it all sounds like jobbly gook.

Kobojunkie:
It will not end with the closing up of loopholes allowing criminal/illegal elements to cut to the front of the line before others? And you base this on what?

Ask the illegals who arrived here on Ellis island from Europe years ago who's children took advantage of the constitution way after the 14 amendment was enacted to make blacks full citizens.

Kobojunkie:
1. You literally explained that to enter, you would need to force your way in, implying that there is a law enforced --- a door, gate, window -- not necessarily with your consent(since a thief/terrorist/criminal would not care for such things), restricting your so-called "freedom of movement" right. You are literally arguing around your own self, and you don't see how nonsensical you sound with this?

The restriction is a human construct.

The innate desire to conquer your space and subplant myself in that space is an ahbberation of nature.

Tde freedom to move from one place to another is a natural state of being.

If you are still confused, I am sorry I can't help you because your arguement is based within a construct you have accepted as natural.

Kobojunkie:
2. You literally explained that you, not nature or some unseen force, are the Force behind your claim to freedom of movement. It is all made up by you, and your intention is to impose it on others by forcing your way into their territory and property as you feel entitled to. What in the world are you still droning on about then?

Did you design your body to function the way it does. If not then what did?

Kobojunkie:
1. So, never mind that the two groups marked their territories in which they have mostly lived for thousands of years, you bring it down to the claim that since they must have moved at one point in time, therefore, that nonsensical idea of yours must apply? I see why folks try their best to avoid engaging people with these sorts of talking points.

Marking one's territory does not negate the fundamental right of people to move from one place to another. The same people who marked these territories were "free" to move to those territories. This is not hard to comprehend.

Kobojunkie:
2. Who are the we in this case, the power behind this illusion you claim as a right? Endowed by what force or power?

Why did your mother not unalive you when she had you. What force drove her to take care of you and nuture you?

Kobojunkie:
3. This makes no sense! How does not having this "freedom of movement" right result in a freedom to kill each other? Please, help me make this make sense!

One is a natural right the other is an abberation of nature.

Kobojunkie:
4. Now, I know you are just bullsheeting! Does a lion hunting prey amount to a lion having the right to freedom of movement? Are you sheeting me? Actually, you are definitely sheeting!

The Lion is designed to hunt for food and roams the savannah freely in the state of nature. If it is restricted by artificial forces or boundaries. It will eventually die.

Kobojunkie:
If your parents are Americans and you are born, in Nigeria for example, you are an American because your parents are themselves Americans. You are not necessarily a Nigerian even though you were born on Nigerian soil. 🥱

Trump's parents were naturalized Americans before they had him making him American no matter were on earth he may have been born. Let's at least get this much straight at this point in the debate. 🥱

What is currently being contested is the fact that an illegal alien, or a temporary visitor to the United States could simply claim citizenship by plopping down a baby on American soil. That is what is contested and to be removed in other that all immigrants to the United States are forced to go through the same process to become naturalized. 🥱

In most of modern history birthrights and citizenship rights have been based on Jus sanguinus " a blood right" and Jus Soli, " born of the soil. Most countries have removed Jus soli except for the United Sates who enshrined in its constitution the right to "jus soli".

People often want to retain advantages over other people so they feel special or better than them which is why after attaining advantage, they want to shut doors behind them. It will start with "illegal" immigrants but it will not end there which is why we must be careful with people who aspouse such rhetoric.

Kobojunkie:
1. You claimed you were a Progressive globalist but also not a nationalist. Did you not say these things?

Yes I did. How does this factor into your arguement?

Kobojunkie:
2. So, you are not for freedom to move, after all?

Please clarify your question.

Kobojunkie:
3. How? If my laws restrict your ability to freely move into my house, doesn't that then mean the freedom you claim to have is only an imagined one?

No. I can force my way into your house, kill you and take the house. The ability for you to restrict entrance into the house is not contingent upon the "imaginary" law you enact. It is contingent upon we both agreeing that the law is enforceable by you and I am subject to it.

It still does not trump the fundamental and nature given right for me to move from one place to another.

Kobojunkie:
4. When a person illegally enters a nation, he is no different from a thief illegally entering a home. Why? Because in both cases, the laws and borders of the space are violated by the intruder. So, where does this imagined freedom to break into a home or nation, which you keep insisting on, come from?

When does the law come from that allows a person or group of people invade an entire continent, usurps powers from no where, wipe the indigenous group out of that space and subplant themselves in that space, enacts laws and restrict others from moving into that space.

Kobojunkie:
5. Again, citizenship has never been an artificial construct. Humans(and animals) have almost always been territorial. And members of each territory have always had ways of identifying each other and separating themselves from outsiders. That has been part of human tradition from the beginning. It used to be about bloodlines and, at some point, language and dialect. Citizenship is merely a modern approach to pretty much the same idea.

Group identity is a human ideal and thus is fluid in nature. It can morph or change over time making it an artificial construct.

Citizenship is a construct based on artificial boundaries. It is a useful identifier of imaginary lines on the earth's surface as a means of safe guarding and distributing resources amongst a group of people who collectively agree upon a group of criteria.

The conundrum is when people conflate the superiority of citizenship rights over basic human rights. The right to move from one place to another is driven by an innate force fundamental to the human experience. Becoming a citizen of a country and agreeing to its rules, restrictions and boundaries is not fundamental.

Kobojunkie:
So, when you say citizenship created some sort of conundrum, you are literally making no sense at all, particularly as you keep insisting on humans having some sort of right which you have yet to reveal what it is backed by.

I have already answered this question. The driving force is nature.

Kobojunkie:
6. Systems/territories create scarcity? How do they do that when it is instead that resources themselves are scarce, to begin with?

Can you name a resource that is needed for human survival that is scarce in this modern age?

Elon musk is worth a good number of billions of dollars and the United states has only 340 million people. Is that scarcity.

The United states produces food and wastes what can entire countries. Is that Scarcity?

Kobojunkie:
Are you somehow insinuating that once this freedom of movement is exercised by all, there would no longer exist a scarcity of resources?

All people cannot exercise movement all at once at the exact same time which is why resources cannot become scarce at the same time.

Kobojunkie:
1. This literally reads like gobbledegook!

Take it as you will.

Kobojunkie:
2. What a crock of bull! The Aboriginals of Australia have inhabited the land for 50,000 to 70,000 years. They didn't move, and they are doing well to this day. The Chinese have lived mostly in China for about 4000 years now. There are examples out there to help you realize the absurdity of what you keep regurgitating!

Reasoning in the same breadth as the above statement it is also clear that the Aboriginals did not exist in that land 100,000 years ago. What pushed them into the island of Australia?

The Chinese did not originate in the Land mass as they do today 100,000 years ago. How did they end up there.

The Chinese are are spread out all over the globe today. Why did they not stay put in China. What drives them to move anywhere else but the land that has been created for them?

Kobojunkie:
3. These are your own words. If it is not a fundamental human right than what the heck is this nonsense you keep referring to as a right? :-

A fundamental right is that which we cognitively and collectively recognize as being endowed by a force or power beyond us such as the right to life. If you didn't have this right then we all would be free to go about killing each other willy nilly.

Even animals are cognitive of this law of nature which is why a Lion hunts a herd of zebra for food and not for sport.

Kobojunkie:
4. Nature comes down to enforce it? How? How does nature go about enforcing this so-called right when by your own words, it can be restricted by human laws and actions?

You cannot restrict nature's laws, you can only delay them. You will die one day because your body will wear out eventually. You can delay that process but you cannot stop it.

Kobojunkie:
1. I think you probably need to look up the meaning of the term. Saying that humans are territorial refers to our human need to claim, control, and defend specific spaces, resources, or even abstract concepts (like ideas or relationships) as our own. Doing that does not deter migration when necessary. Humans, also like animals, migrate as needed to form new territories or with the hopes of joining other already established territories.

Ergo nature has thus endowed us to be both territorial in nature as a means of survival owing to the the concepts you have listed above and adventurous- the need to seek out new spaces as a means of that same survival instinct. If we don't move we become extinct.

Kobojunkie:
2. Yet moments ago, you suggested that this right be denied the terrorists ravaging Nigeria and Nigerians' lives. How come?

Remind me of that again. I have no clue what you are on about?

Kobojunkie:
More importantly, what exactly is the force behind this so-called right, which you claim as a fundamental human right? What Force out there is there to enforce/provide needed backing for this right, which you claim all humans have?

Nature-natural design

Kobojunkie:
1. But you said people should be able to freely access any space out there without restriction, something that is illegal in almost every state out there, including the one these invaders came from.

I didn't say that.

Kobojunkie:
If I, for example, exercised this right of freedom of movement and moved myself into your house, and helped myself to your property, would you consider my actions illegal? If yes, why? If no, why?

Those actions would be illegal based on whatever "laws" you set up for entry into your house. Your laws however do not trump the freedom I have to move into your house.

Kobojunkie:
2. I didn't conclude! I instead asked because it could be that you are OK with terrorists being able to freely enter even Nigerian space and massacre the people as they so please.

The fundamental right to move from one area to another is not equal to allowing a thief to enter into your house to massacre you.

Kobojunkie:
3. So, a person who submits to the laws and regulations of any particular space is to you, someone who just wants to see people who are identical to them in belief and looks hanging around them all they. That is what you believe? If a person invades your private space without your permission and helps himself to your property, as a non-nationalist, you would be welcoming in this treatment because to you, doing otherwise would amount to you being nationalistic about your space and property, right?

A conundrum created by the artificial creation of citizenship rights which do not supersede the fundamental right to freedom of movement.

Kobojunkie:
4. Primal sentiment? On the other thread, you claimed that humans had not always been nationalistic from the beginning, but here you admit to the tradition being primal. How come?

The primal instinct of survival within systems that create scarcity and distribution of limited resources drives the so called feeling of nationalism.