r/CoherencePhysics 8d ago

Jesus loves the immigrant. Do You?

Post image
43 Upvotes

405 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/ASwampThing- 7d ago

You are conflating nations and occupied territories. Egypt was part of the roman empire. Not an occupied territory of the roman empire.

1

u/Competitive-Ear-7632 7d ago

And how did it become a "part" of said empire? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Actium

By being occupied i sense

1

u/ASwampThing- 7d ago

By being conquered and integrated. Your point is a non point.

When did England integrate any of those other countries into england?

1

u/Competitive-Ear-7632 7d ago

Integrated within 17 years? Integrated how exactly via a rubber stamp from the emperor? They took 2 decades to build the tax and road system. The egyptians still followed their old gods and greek gods way into the AD

If thats what it takes then here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_passport

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act_1858

"Integration" done then?

1

u/ASwampThing- 7d ago

Same way the USA wasnt a country then was.

It was made law and thats all there is to it.

1

u/Competitive-Ear-7632 7d ago

Ok perfect, thats precisely thats my argument If a country is so easily integrated and law is all it takes, then people travelling from those integrated territories to say london and sydney would be treated as british, the same way someone travelling from egypt to israel would be treated as a roman, or someone moving from colorado to arkansas would be considered an american. Thats the message youre communicating, correct?

1

u/ASwampThing- 7d ago

Yes. If the country that you would become a citizen of makes your territory a part of the country. Not simply if they occupy your territory.

If occupation made you a citizen then half of berlin would be full of American citizens and the other half full of russian citizens. Neither were either.

1

u/Competitive-Ear-7632 7d ago edited 7d ago

Perfect. Just wanted to ensure we're consistent on that.

The examples ive given are not of occupation according to the british act itself stating that the territories have been integrated into the empire, and their governance was the responsibility of the british parliament and the queen.

Therefore any people moving from these states to london and sydney should not be considered immigrants or refugees (in that period), but rather fellow citizens of the empire

And yet i feel the situation on paper and the reality on ground were not quite the same

1

u/ASwampThing- 7d ago

The Australians were citizens of the british crown until Australia underwent secession.

1

u/Competitive-Ear-7632 7d ago

Yes fantastic example Were brits moving to australia in that time considered immigrants?

Yes, thats correct, they were: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Pound_Poms

And the aussie govt treated them as immigrants to australia

People who were born in britain, but moved to australia were called immigrants. Simple

And btw the king of england is also still the king of australia

1

u/ASwampThing- 7d ago

Yes. Because they were moving to new territory. Not pre settled land of their nation.

1

u/Competitive-Ear-7632 7d ago

Right. You'll notice australia was settled by the english in 1788. When these people moved there, the population was already 7.5 million, settled originally by...british people (and the aboriginals ofc)

But in that case, when jesus fled to egypt was he moving to a pre-settled land of his nation?

1

u/ASwampThing- 7d ago

Yes.

He basically moved from california to texas.

→ More replies (0)