Most European countries actually do in a limited fashion. Countries that have signed the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness grant automatic citizenship at birth to people that would otherwise be born stateless.

More countries should adopt birthright citizenship. It has a lot of utility to it. It prevents the formation of a multigenerational undocumented underclass and greatly assists in the assimilation of immigrants into the broader culture. It’s simply a fact of life that some immigrants will enter a country illegally. And while it is bad enough that they may live the rest of their lives in hiding, it’s even worse when people are born into that condition. You can end up with generation after generation, people with little to no ties to their “homeland,” living as a permanent underclass because they lack citizenship.

It’s also a protection against some forms of tyranny and oppression. A favorite tool of tyrants is to strip citizenship from their victims. They’ll sometimes go back generations and declare decades-old immigration cases as fraudulent or invalid. Look at the Rohingya genocide, where the Myanmar government declared an entire minority group to be illegal immigrants. Having a hard rule that says, “if you were born here, you have citizenship,” prevents these tactics from being used on anyone except actual immigrants. Tyrants can still target immigrants, but their children are protected.

They have deathright citizenship. You automatically become a citizen if you die in their territory.

That is technically true, while missing a key fact. Birthright citizenship is the norm for countries in the Western Hemisphere. The vast majority of countries in the Americas have birthright citizenship. The USA is not some rare outlier here.

deleted by creator

In many ways it is. The actual science on trans athletics supports policies like those sports agencies have typically used - allowing people to compete if they’ve been on certain hormonal treatments for a specific period of time. Cis athletes also have advantages and disadvantages, relative to each other, based on testosterone level. Trans women on HRT are well within that range of performance. In many sports, trans women are actually at a disadvantage to cis women, due to the fact that trans women tend to have lower testosterone levels than cis women.

In other words, the science is completely against sports bans. There is no logical reason to do them. The truly scientific solution is to consider sports on an individual basis, and let the sport figure out what advantage/disadvantage trans folks might have. Then, if that advantage/disadvantage is well within normal player ranges, then competing is fine. If not, if it’s an individual sport, maybe a handicap system. If it’s a group sport, well maybe rules about how many trans people can be on any one team. Etc. You start at a position of aiming for fairness. Then you only prevent people from competing if a clear advantage can be justified. In other words, the complete opposite of blanket sports bans.

With sports bans, you’re not meeting someone halfway on an issue of great scientific debate. You are simply caving to irrational bigotry. People think trans people are gross, so they want to hurt them. That’s really the root of this. And you can’t compromise with someone that isn’t actually trying to craft good public policy. Two people can compromise on tax rates or the generosity of government benefits. But how do you compromise with someone that just wants to hurt other people? Their desire to hurt others isn’t going to end. They’ll just want more. Compromising with bigots only emboldens them.

I can’t think of any other nation that has literally been wiped off the map more times than Poland, and still managed to come back again and again. If any country needs nukes, it’s Poland.

As far as I’m aware, the military, in the best case, will simply refuse to follow unlawful orders. There are formal processes to do so. That’s part of military culture and law. Whether that system will hold up to Trump is unknown. When he issues unlawful orders, will soldiers simply refuse to comply? Unknown.

But one thing is for sure. It’s not part of military culture to actively resist. There is no formal process for that to be protected or OK. That’s simply insurrection and rebellion.

We need to wipe them from existence.

Let every nation have a maximum wealth cap. 1000x the median national household income. Anything else is taxed at 100%. This cap in the US would be about $80 million today.

But if you’re somehow in flagrant violation of this limit? If your wealth is the equivalent of over one billion 2025 dollars? Unless you quickly earn a multi-billion fortune and immediate give it away or spend it, having a net worth over $1 billion will be a felony. It will be a capital offense. Oh you’re secretly billionaire, having hid your vast illegal fortune from the IRS? You are guilty of trying to amass a geopolitically-significant level of wealth. We’re going to treat this as seriously as we would someone who attempts to build their own personal nuclear weapons. Really, you are guilty of a form of treason. Except instead of aiding a foreign nation, you were trying to become a threat to your nation yourself. And the traditional penalty for treason will be applied.

This is the world we could have. We could, if we wanted it badly enough, simply make being a billionaire a capital offense. Force them to give away or spend most everything they have. Either way, given or spent, wealth is distributed enough so that no individual can threaten the nation through their own personal wealth.

It is time we wiped billionaires off the face of the Earth. No individual should ever be allowed to become so wealthy that they become a threat to nation states.