Daniel Wigton's avatar
Daniel Wigton dwigton@getalby.com 3 weeks ago
I will co-sign. I don't particularly care what kind of government we have as long as people are generally free to live good lives. In the end I would boil the function of government down to creating a stable environment for families. If you need more levels because of size then the next level up should be restricted to creating a stable environment for the level below it, but not interfere with levels below that. It would certainly make things simpler here in MN. Right or wrong, if MN wants to support immigrant families, then they shouldn't have to contend with a federal police force swooping in and taking people off the streets and out of homes. The federal gov should regulate states, not the people in them. I don't neven think states should be involved directly with people, that should beling to the smallest local level that can actually get to know them personally.
↑ Parent

Replies (2)

Laeserin's avatar
Laeserin laeserin@theforest.nostr1.com 3 weeks ago
The problem with Minnesota is the same problem with Germany: 1. a state far from the border being overrun, 2. encourages foreigners to overrun it, against the wishes of the other states, 3. some of the foreigners move to that state, but not most of them, 4. fights with the other states, to keep the foreigners around, 5. demands the other states financially support the migrants, 6. other states get pissed off and stop taking it, 7. gets hit. Cries. Their behavior puts into question the joint border, but the wealth of the states is largely based upon the freedom of movement between the states. If MN wants an open border, but TX doesn't want that, is there a moral obligation to side with MN? This is the situation that led to BREXIT, after all. Should TX leave the Union?
↑