Israel accused of planting mysterious spy devices near the White House

For the same reason your spouse "deserves" sitting on the couch you got at home eating something from the fridge and somebody you don't know outside doesn't, and you don't consider it much of a discrimination.

Because e.g. it's your house, you've built it (a nation is something people build, over centuries and generations, often with huge sacrifices, not something they merely rent), you've stocked it, you paid the taxes for it, etc. And you might, or might not, accept someone in it.

Why doesn't the same-nation homeless person outside "deserve" good healthcare, food, housing? Why not fix their situation before you solve that of "someone born in Syria"?

Probably because the latter just seems of no cost (just let them in), whereas the other one understands that involves some sacrifices (share income, increased taxes for social welfare, etc, etc).

And for a large (land-wise) nation state, like the US, with tons of recent 1-2-3 generation immigrants, many people tend to think it's inexhaustible and can accommodate everybody with no problem. And new/newish (1/2nd gen) immigrants now citizens wont understand whats the big claim of those whose ancestors built it over time, sacrifices to sustain it, etc anyway. After all they came there when it was already prospering. It's more like a hotel to them. This is quite more obvious in a more historical country with more homogenous population, which lived there and built it over many centuries or millennia.

And yet, one of the reasons the people several generations ago built it (the nation state), was to have a place of their own, where they live as they see fit (because they were persecuted in their own places), and be able to deny access to it to others outside -- and occasionally invite whoever they like, as long as they play with their rules/laws.

Also, notice how the direction is one way? Not many Americans want to go to Syria or Nigeria or Lagos or whatever. Seems people, ideologies, bad history, etc can screw up a nation state and its prospects, so they're not all interchangeable. That's part of what makes having a good nation state valuable, and wanting to maintain it that way (and not just make every country an open borders free-for-all).

Honest question:

Would WikiLeaks "work" if all we had was anonymous "former officials" making broad/general statements, providing no proof whatsoever?

What about Snowden's leaks? Imagine a really long article on Politico listing every single thing exposed in the Snowden docs, but without the names/documents/specifics. In a style very similar to what we have here in this Politico piece. Without us even knowing it was leaked by Snowden, but by some random "former NSA official".

Look, I'm not saying this Politico piece is right or wrong. All I'm saying is - this piece is making very big statements, backed by absolutely no proof whatsoever. And yet people are taking out the pitchforks... this isn't journalism, it's just spreading unsubstantiated FUD. And we should be discouraging this, not defending it.

People are misinterpreting the news. It seems like your position is to blame the news, and you seem to think this is a new issue.

My position is that this is an inherent factor in production and consumption of the news. Books like Manufacturing Consent, and The Condition of Postmodernity are important to understanding this view and the social processes that support it. A classic example is the reporting on the sinking of the Maine more than 100 years ago.

I don't think that forcing news agencies or social media companies to change is a real solution. The solution lies in improving people's ability to read news critically across all mediums and to understand the context of media and social conversation and how it subtly serves those in power.

Lastly, I don't agree with your characterization of very standard reporting practices as "presenting speculation as fact" and I've clearly explained why above.

This will be my last comment in the thread. Thanks for engaging.

If you look at the people who are traped like that, it's because their nation state failed.

They mostly want to migrate to places with strong nations states, why do you think that is ?

It's because strong nation states, can create good living conditions.

That said that doesn't mean many of us couldn't take a lot more immigrants than we currently do.

People tend to forget, the only guarantee that you are born with is that one day you will die.

Every other privilege, right or whatever you want to call it was fought for (often quite bloody ) and build by societies, and nation states are latest iteration of societies.

Is that fair? No. But that is life.