Should the US Lower Muslim Immigration?

[DerekMichaels00]

@T.M

[/COLOR]

The problem here is that the left are the greatest supporters of Islam and their rights BUT Islam is against many of the ideals of the Left. Islam is very much towards the right and sadly fits your description of conservatives.

that’s one of the reasons I’ve become so disillusioned with the Democratic Party. I’ve been a registered Democrat since I turned 18 in 2006; I still support abortion rights for all occasions (including late term), gay rights, embryonic stem cell research, and environmental protection. I was an adolescent during Bill’s years, a teen during Bush’s, and the contrast gave me a Dem start because of both the deficit/economy and the issues I just mentioned.

today I find myself for sure voting GOP Congress and Senate candidates. I’m still likely to vote for Hillary for POTUS because Trump’s foreign policy, with the exception of his Muslim immigration curbs, is almost like Michael Moore/MoveOn from the 2000s (isolationism, against US leadership, MAYBE anti-Israel but its hard to tell with Trump, given both “Neutral with Israel & ‘Palestine’,” the paleocons behind him tho he has tried to backtrack on that). Hillary is a closet “neo-con,” which I quite frankly, regard as a good thing.

Tho whats stopping her from sealing the deal 100%, instead of the 85% she’s got with me, is how she is still trying to please the left regarding Muslims immigration and the specter of Zogby/West at the DNC. Nonetheless, her triangulation on the term “Radical Islam” gives me hope that she’ll trianglate on Muslim immigration.

But the point is real liberals should be against mass Muslim immigration, but for the extreme-left viewpoints peddled in liberal arts classes in universities.

[iiandyiiii]

@Arcite

It’s based on its conflict with traditional, white, Western, Christian values.

What on earth are “white” values?

[DerekMichaels00]

@Arcite

My opposition to Islam isn’t based on its conflict with modern, liberal, secular values. It’s based on its conflict with traditional, white, Western, Christian values.

While I’m against mass Muslim immigration, you’re opposed for the wrong reasons. Your reasons do not speak for me or the growing number of non-paleocons who object to Muslim immigration.

I embrace welcome people of not only Jewish/Christian beliefs, but of other great religions such as Jainism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Bahaism, Buddhism, Taoism, and even non-religion. Personally, I’m not a fan of religion at all, but my biggest problem is with the one that is the inspiration for the highest proportion of terrorist attacks and regressive societies out there.

[Monty]

@iiandyiiii

What on earth are “white” values?

Beats me. But here is an example of Christian values.

[Monty]

@DerekMichaels00

While I’m against mass Muslim immigration, you’re opposed for the wrong reasons. Your reasons do not speak for me or the growing number of non-paleocons who object to Muslim immigration.

I embrace welcome people of not only Jewish/Christian beliefs, but of other great religions such as Jainism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Bahaism, Buddhism, Taoism, and even non-religion. Personally, I’m not a fan of religion at all, but my biggest problem is with the one that is the inspiration for the highest proportion of terrorist attacks and regressive societies out there.

Every one of those religious groups which you’ve listed has current (or at least very recent) violence directed against those of other faiths. Care to explain your prejudice?

[Kimstu]

@DerekMichaels00

I embrace welcome people of not only Jewish/Christian beliefs, but of other great religions such as Jainism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Bahaism, Buddhism, Taoism, and even non-religion. Personally, I’m not a fan of religion at all, but my biggest problem is with the one that is the inspiration for the highest proportion of terrorist attacks and regressive societies out there.

Oh well, if you’re only trying to exclude the top scorer in the global religious-terror contest, then you’re fine.

If it’s religious terror in general that you’re opposing, though, you might want to look a little more carefully at some of those also-rans.

For instance:

In the past decade, extremist Hindus have increased their attacks on Christians, until there are now several hundred per year. But this did not make news in the U.S. until a foreigner was attacked. In 1999, Graham Staines, an Australian missionary who had worked with leprosy patients for three decades, was burned alive in Orissa along with his two young sons. The brutal violence visited on Muslims in Gujarat in February 2002 also brought the dangers of Hindu extremism to world attention. Between one and two thousand Muslims were massacred after Muslims reportedly set fire to a train carrying Hindu nationalists, killing several dozen people.

These attacks were not inchoate mob violence, triggered by real or rumored insult; rather, they involved careful planning by organized Hindu extremists with an explicit program and a developed religious-nationalist ideology. Like the ideology of al-Qaeda and other radical Islamists, this ideology began to take shape in the 1920s as a response to European colonialism. It rejected the usually secular outlook of other independence movements; in place of secularism, it synthesized a reactionary form of religion with elements of European millenarian political thought, especially fascism.

Also:

Israel’s Jewish-Terrorist Problem

For nearly a decade, a radical minority among Jewish settlers has carried out “price-tag attacks” in response to Palestinian violence or any action by the police or military that these settlers deem unjust. The attacks have included the destruction of property—setting fire to cars, livestock, and homes—and the desecration of mosques and churches. Some attacks, such as the vandalism of a military base in 2011, have been aimed directly at authorities, but more often they target Palestinians. […]

The first price-tag attacks took place in 2006, in response to Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and evacuations of Jewish outposts in the West Bank, which riled and radicalized the settler camp. The attacks grew rampant in 2008. The Yesha Council, the main body that represents settlers, denounced the attacks as immoral in 2011. But the Yesha Council’s authority has weakened dramatically in recent years, as violent far-right settlers, backed by extremist rabbis, have taken the law into their own hands. The group behind these attacks is estimated to range from a few hundred to some three thousand members. As it has become more radical, so have its attacks, which have evolved from property destruction to torching Palestinian homes at times when residents are likely to be in them. Last year, for the first time, the U.S. State Department included price-tag attacks in its annual terrorism report.

Personally, my “embrace welcome” level for prospective immigrants is dependent not on their general religious identification, but rather on what they’ve been up to before their immigration attempt.

[DerekMichaels00]

@Monty

Every one of those religious groups which you’ve listed has current (or at least very recent) violence directed against those of other faiths. Care to explain your prejudice?

Governments around the globe aren’t spending billions of dollars and thousands of man/hours to stop attacks accompanied by “Vishnu Akbar” as they are with ones accompied by “Allahu Anbar.” Why is that so hard to grasp? Scale and scope matter!!

This is in both re to u and Kimstu as well.

[Monty]

@DerekMichaels00

Governments around the globe aren’t spending billions of dollars and thousands of man/hours to stop attacks accompanied by “Vishnu Akbar” as they are with ones accompied by “Allahu Anbar.” Why is that so hard to grasp? Scale and scope matter!!

This is in both re to u and Kimstu as well.

Well, a few governments, including the US, are spending a hell of a lot of money to (try to) catch a Christian terrorist group over in Africa, just to name one. I don’t see you whining about that.

[Kimstu]

@DerekMichaels00

“Vishnu Akbar”

:smack:

[Little_Nemo]

@Arcite

But it’s Western civilization that I’m trying to preserve, and Christianity is part of that. I oppose Islamic immigration because Islam is inimical to Western civ, not because it’s bigoted or homophobic or whatever.

Christianity is just as inimical to Western values as Islam is. Western civilization is a defiance of Christianity.

[Little_Nemo]

@iiandyiiii

What on earth are “white” values?

White men who haven’t accomplished much trying to take credit for things other white people did.

“Hey, you have to respect me! My skin’s the same color as the guy who invented the light bulb!”

[Little_Nemo]

@T.M

The problem here is that the left are the greatest supporters of Islam and their rights BUT Islam is against many of the ideals of the Left. Islam is very much towards the right and sadly fits your description of conservatives.

The left doesn’t support Islam. The left supports freedom - such as the freedom to practice your religion without government interference.

And the left is fully aware that some of the people whose rights it supports would not return the favor.

[Corry_El]

@BrainGlutton

And a religious test for immigrants would never survive a First Amendment challenge.

A religious test for say awarding green cards to immigrants already legally in the US would almost surely fail a 1st amendment challenge. Such a test for people who aren’t and have never yet been in the US? That’s much less obvious. Constitutional protections don’t necessarily apply to non-US citizens/legal residents outside the US, as shown in many cases.

But there’s a limited value in speculating about such a hypothetical court case. I don’t think a religious test for immigrants is desirable: not practical, negative diplomatic fall out etc. : I oppose it. But I wouldn’t have any problem with a vetting regime that as a practical matter drastically reduced immigration from the ME and portions of Asia and Africa where Islamist extremism is a serious problem. That’s where the probability is greatest of exacerbating the problem of ‘home grown’ Islamic terrorism.

The US has no obligation whatsoever IMO to avoid ‘disparate impact’ in its immigration policies. The logic which would say my second paragraph ‘amounts to’ a religious test might potentially be valid for say a color blind policy in the US but where one race tends to do worse in the actual outcome (debatable, but potentially valid, IMO). It would have no validity whatsoever IMO when it comes to deciding which foreign people get to come to the US. There is no valid principal that the US has to set up a system of equal outcomes for people from all corners of the world trying to enter the US.

[sciurophobic]

For those of you who want to restrict Muslim immigration do you consider “radical Islam” to be redundant, and if not why do you want to hinder the freedom of many because of the actions of a few?

[DerekMichaels00]

@sciurophobic

For those of you who want to restrict Muslim immigration do you consider “radical Islam” to be redundant, and if not why do you want to hinder the freedom of many because of the actions of a few?

people who are not here yet have no US rights. They only have rights when they get here. I wanna protect the physical right to safety and ultimately the rights to civil liberties that mass Muslim immigration would take away (via the ballot box, by getting pols to pander to them).

[Peremensoe]

@DerekMichaels00

people who are not here yet have no US rights. They only have rights when they get here.

Conversely, some hold it to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain unalienable rights.

[DerekMichaels00]

@Peremensoe

Conversely, some hold it to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain unalienable rights.

See, there are these things called “borders” and “nations.” Sovereign countries are characterized by having the right and ability to enforce them.

[Peremensoe]

@DerekMichaels00

See, there are these things called “borders” and “nations.” Sovereign countries are characterized by having the right and ability to enforce them.

No doubt. But that has nothing to do with any principle of universal human rights.

[QuickSilver]

@DerekMichaels00

people who are not here yet have no US rights. They only have rights when they get here. I wanna protect the physical right to safety and ultimately the rights to civil liberties that mass Muslim immigration would take away (via the ballot box, by getting pols to pander to them).

Seem to me you define mass Muslim immigration as “one Muslim is too many”.

[sciurophobic]

@DerekMichaels00

people who are not here yet have no US rights. They only have rights when they get here. I wanna protect the physical right to safety and ultimately the rights to civil liberties that mass Muslim immigration would take away (via the ballot box, by getting pols to pander to them).

Do you have any evidence that 1) A significant percentage of Muslim immigrants oppose civil liberties and that 2) there are potentially enough of them to have an effect on our laws?