Well said, Hiker. People come to this country to build a livelihood for themselves and their families and almost always seek to assimilate into our melting pot culture.
We shouldn’t ban Muslim immigration. We should avoid the foolhardy recklessness of a Merkel and let the wolves in with the sheep.
Also, we should secure our southern border so only those doing so legally can enter.
All very rational, fair, American ideas.
Okay, I missed his ironic intent.
This is an insane debate ! What is the point of doing this ?? How will it stop the mass shooting or ISIS ??
We’re wandering off the topic somewhat but I guess this is relevant to a discussion of immigration policy.
I agree we need to have secure borders (northern and southern). But a part of that needs to be the existence of a legal path for immigrants to follow. My ancestors were able to enter this country legally. I assume yours were as well. We need to make it possible for ordinary people in other countries - including Mexico - to do the same.
As long as we make it impossible for an average Mexican to legally immigrate to the United States, we’re going to have illegal immigration. Part of eliminating illegal immigration must be allowing a reasonable amount of legal immigration.
If you want to swap ordinary Mexican immigration (6%) with the relative-based Mexican immigration (63%) that’s fine with me.
Is that what you wish to see?
If you can identify the wolves with reasonable effort before they enter the country, by all means keep them out. I don’t think anyone would argue with you there. But if you cannot - and that is usually the case - you should trust in your ability to deal with the occasional wolf rather than shutting the door on all the sheep just to be on the safe side. America would be a lot poorer today, if it had refused entry to all Italian immigrants for fear of letting in potential mafiosi.
Exactly. We get a greater benefit overall by allowing these folks in. The one or two crazy mothers that we get are offset by the thousands of good, hardworking folks who add to our culture and our system (and, of course, pay taxes :p).
The thing is, we are talking about a very few people here. Less than 1% of the Muslim Immigrants. Hell, probably a fraction of that even. And for a fraction of a percent people seriously want to bar or ban or (further) restrict all the other 99+% from coming in??? How does that make sense to anyone?
As I’ve said repeatedly through the years, people are just really, really bad at risk assessment and judging relative risk. It constantly amazes me how bad they are at it.
I don’t know what percentages you’re measuring. But I would like to see a system where an ordinary Mexican has a chance to legally immigrate to the United States.
I think we’re ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room. For a lot of people, this isn’t really a concern about terrorism. The goal is to keep Muslims out of the country and terrorism is just the excuse.
Same thing with Mexicans. You can give people the facts about jobs and taxes but they don’t really want to hear it. They just don’t want anyone talking Spanish in their country.
A hundred years ago, it was wanting to keep the Italians out because of organized crime, wanting to keep the Germans out because of radical politics, wanting to keep the Irish out because of the Pope, wanting to keep the Chinese out because of opium, wanting to keep the Jews out because of secret conspiracies. People are always able to invent a reason why “those people” shouldn’t be here. And discrediting the reasons doesn’t change their minds. Because it’s really about xenophobia - they don’t like people who are different from them. The reasons are just attempts to rationalize the irrational.
Well said. America did not become “great” by putting up walls and hiding behind them like a bunch of little bitches.
Not every modern scenario has some precise analogue in the past; that’s what liberals always try to force on anything.
No, not everything in life is oppressor vs. oppressed, rich vs. poor, white vs. “brown,” etc. Marxism failed!
Also, do you mean to tell me that no one minds the unique threat of Islamic terrorism?
You just don’t understand that our Islamic terrorism is home-grown, do you?
And most mass shootings aren’t due to Islam anyway.
No doubt immigration helped make America great, but I doubt a desire for wonderful amounts of diversity was the reason. Wasn’t that the age of industrialization, electrification, industry booming and lots of railroad building, etc? We needed cheap labor. I don’t think it was, “send us your poor because we’re a very warm and loving people.”
We aren’t a cheap labor country anymore so it’s not surprising we’ve gotten pickier.
There may not be a precise analogue between every pair of events. However, the current hysteria over Muslims has two overlapping parallels that are real: Fear of Middle Eastern people uses the same nonsense arguments that were hurled against Irish, Chinese, Japanese, Italians, and others who were all going to “ruin” our “culture”; fear of Islam has a direct parallel to fear of “communism.” The identical arguments have been put forth by the xenophobes in each case. (Even you appear to finally recognize that the great “communism” scare was pointless.)
The issue is not ‘oppressor vs. oppressed, rich vs. poor, white vs. “brown,”’; the issue is “us vs them” where the “us” represents people who see all differences as scary and are too fearful to recognize the similarities and the possibilities of new ideas and mutual assistance.
Extremist Islamic terrorism will never be stopped by slamming shut our borders, but by working to improve the conditions in other nations that promote such terrorism. Disaffected kids will always look to scary groups to join. The majority of Muslim terrorists who have been active in the U.S. have been secular or Christian converts to Islam, not actual Muslims acting on the beliefs with which they were raised. Running around like a flock of Chickens Little crying “The mooslims are coming!” makes the radical Islam more attractive to such kids.
Well, if one can only tolerate people who are exactly like oneself, then of course one will hate most of the country’s citizens, because most of them are not like that. Especially if “exactly like oneself” means the self-described icon of “traditional, white, Western, Christian values”, which I assume to mean a conservative white American male who goes to church regularly, supports a vast military to ensure American hegemony and the obliteration of countries with different values, hates Muslims, reliably votes Republican, and probably carries on an illicit affair with his boss’s married secretary, and of course opposes abortion under any and all circumstances except for the aforementioned secretary, but you can’t tell anyone.
If only there were more people with Traditional White Western Christian Values™, what a world this would be!
But the poem in question doesn’t say “Give me your tired, your poor, because we need 'em to build the railroads and work on Ford’s assembly lines”. It seems to aspire to rather higher principles for immigration. Indeed it aspires to precisely those principles of compassion and human rights that have recently prompted so many countries to open their doors and their hearts to the Syrian refugees.
Agreed, at least with the first part. When you start talking about any group as if it’s a monolith, you’re already half way to bigot town.
Agreed. And thank God. Marxism was a terrible idea.
I’m not saying everything is about bigotry. I’m saying things that are about bigotry are about bigotry.
Of course not. And you already knew that. Islamic terrorism is a terrible thing and we should be opposing it.
But claiming every Muslim is a terrorist is factually wrong. And it’s bigotry, which makes it morally wrong.
Didn’t Carter do it? Didn’t he ban Muslim immigration at one point? Indeed, didn’t America vastly restrict immigration as a whole after WW1?
No, he did not. During the Iran hostage crisis Carter imposed escalating diplomatic sanctions against Iran, including freezing all Iranian assets and denying Iranian visa applications except on humanitarian grounds. He didn’t arbitrarily ban an entire religion and there’s no equivalency whatsoever.
Immigration quotas were implemented, partly out of recession fears and partly out of discrimination against Eastern Europeans. Asians and Middle Easterners were already practically inadmissible. The Chinese Exclusion Act wasn’t repealed until around 1942, and during WW II many Jewish refugees were denied entry because of rampant anti-Semitism. Those are not things to be proud of or that anyone should be striving to revive.