The 1800’s called. They want their anti-Irish immigration rants back.
Some things never change.
Sheesh, this thread only further convinces me that Clinton needs to win to prevent highly discriminatory laws against Muslims or anti-refugee nonsense from passing.
Just checking but: you realize both SlackerInc and DerekMichaels00 are voting for Clinton, right?
They are going to be in for quite a surprise, considering Clinton is diametrically opposed to their restrictions.
She moved to the center on radical Islam once Bernie was gone, so given that and the Clintons record of triangulation, I think her moving center on refugees is likely.
Plus, she probably wants to win reelection.
By the strictest definition of the word, Obama and Clinton are already very conservative regarding who is accepted as a refugee from the middle east. What the right wing demands nowadays is to the right of Attila the Hun, not centrist at all.
We already have a ton of anti discrimination laws. No one is giving the Muslims special rights. This isn’t Saudi Arabia or Iran.
SlackerInc is a highly partisan Dem and a bit of a Clinton fanboy. Frankly, I would be rather shocked if he didn’t know her positions at least as well as you.
Indeed. Mass deportation of Muslims born in the USA is the right wing demand.
who is calling for that? At least here on SDMB? People simply think that until Islamist sentiments cool down among Middle East Muslims, maybe its a good idea to cool it with Muslim immigration until modern Muslim immigrants can melt into the melting pot, not melt the melting pot.
And other Democrats are starting to admit the problem with Islam. Barney Frank just did, as did Joe Manchin. Trump is not gonna lose the election over his Muslim ban; he’s gonna lose it because people see him as a neophyte loose cannon and racist against Hispanics (and Hispanics are an ethnicity, unlike Islam). Still tho, he’s polling well on security/terror.
No it isn’t. This is religious bigotry and many of us cannot abide by it. We’ve had Muslims in the US for generations and the problem isn’t them melting in, it’s people like you refusing to believe that they do.
I have no doubt that the ones who moved here before Islamism became popular assimilate pretty well. But as Europe has shown us, the younger generations are enthralled with it. Also, most Muslim Americans live in heteroethnic areas, unlike in Europe where they (voluntarily) cluster. If that changes, we’re in for problems.
Also, from those like you; where does physical safety come into this debate?
None of what Frank says conflicts with anything Obama or Hillary Clinton have said, and Joe Manchin’s argument is simply a quibble about tactics and nothing more.
it has to do with the constant obfuscation and deflection and willful ignorance of progressives in the media on sites like Salon, Slate, Daily Kos, etc. about the role of Islam in this, the “ISIS is un-Islamic” or “nothing to do with Islam” crowd. That some Democrats are starting to recoil is a great development.
It doesn’t. Your unfounded fears for your safety aren’t enough for all of us to engage in religious persecution.
We don’t actually have a lot of Muslims, so there have been no opportunities to form enclaves as in Europe. Our levels of Muslim immigration are fine, and as a sovereign nation we have every right to be choosy about who comes here. We have quotas, and they are pretty low from the Middle East:
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/how-united-states-immigration-system-works-fact-sheet
Clinton’s not stupid, she would never in a zillion years argue to increase that quota, and it’s so low that assimilation will never be a problem. But if we started doing like Europe, so that 10-15% of our population was Muslim, that would change things a lot.
But let’s be clear, we already discriminate against Muslims, we just don’t write it into our laws, “bring in as few Muslims as possible”. And in practice, the Arabs and Africans we do import, a large percentage of them are Christian, perhaps a majority.
You do make a point, tho 50k refugees does produce a lot of children who could have, at least for me, the worst of both worlds’ politics; social conservatism, but anti-American exceptionalism, anti-Israelism, and religious anti-blasphemy laws, new blue laws, etc. Also, the Muslim Syrian refugees are not fleeing religous/racial persecution; Yazidis and Christians are!
But as I’ve said, I suspect she’ll move to the center on that as she did on the term “Radical Islam,” which I also had a hunch she’d go center on. Not to mention, she and Bill know very well the political consequences of refugees, as what happened in Arkansas in 1980. Also, if Hillary can get back some of the white voters Obama lost, which with a big enough margin, she might be able to, Dems won’t need hordes of new Muslim voters.
I think that Clinton’s going to try to just stay in the reasonable zone. Her tweet about terrorism having nothing to do with Muslims was just stupid. But I think she’s realized where she needs to be on the issue. Trump’s Muslim ban is not very popular, she doesn’t need to back that. But she also doesn’t need to call for a lot more refugees to enter the country. I think the last number she cited was 65,000, really just a drop in the bucket. Of course, they need to be well vetted. Only takes one of them to slip through and do something bad and it’s curtains for Democrats, and rightfully so.
That’s cuz its Trump’s idea. Once his taint is gone, it might change. Also, polls might be moving in the direction, tho its hard to know given Breitbart. Still tho, this nation will have a dialogue about Muslim immigration before we wind up like Eurabia.
Some of that stuff (mainly from Salon – I haven’t seen that same crap from Kos and Slate) is indeed silliness, but it is apart from Obama and the party in the mainstream, as well as the arguments we’ve been having. You’ve been conflating the worst and weakest arguments on the left with Obama, and Obama has nothing to do with these. He’s been as harsh a critic (and certainly as harsh a foe – materially, perhaps the greatest killer of terrorists, and certainly holder of the largest ratio of dead terrorists to dead Americans, in US history) of Muslim terrorists as anyone in America. He’s just nuanced, and specific, and targeted, and doesn’t paint with a broad brush.
By the way, your focus on the supposed importance of the term “radical Islam” is as absurd and pointless as Trump’s focus on it. No one has presented any way in which using that phrase strengthens America or weakens our terrorist foes.