In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On December 11 2015 05:45 farvacola wrote: A discussion of K-12 education funding in the United States that fails to account for fairly widespread reliance on local tax levy-based funding schemes and the effect of deficient local district finance practice. Yes, employment cost ballooning related union influence is worth a discussion, but it fails to recognize the fact that distorted state/federal incentive programs and incompetent/outdated district budgeting cultures also play figurative roles in the spotty quality of public education.
My home town has 900 people in it. We couldn’t even afford to build a new elementary school and couldn’t raise taxes to due to a local law preventing tax hikes. I went to 5th grade in a basement and learned while sitting next to a boiler. The school as condemned(like legit closed) when I was 18 and the state threatened put the entire education program into receivership. It took 4 years and busing kids all over the county before we got a new school through federal grants.
The response from the town was why would a school need a computer in each class room in 2003. And you can hear stories like this all over the US because towns can’t afford and don’t value their education. And the states are not required to assist them, so we lag behind and always will until we ditch this garbage system.
Is education not the jurisdiction of the State as it is the jurisdiction of the Province up here in Canada? I think we would also have trouble funding schools if it was left to the municipal level, as at least here, cities and communities have less taxation power than one level up.
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
The amount of xenophobia and outright policy ignorance in xDaunt's post should serve to whomever may claim that he's among the "reasonable" conservatives contributing to this thread as clear evidence of the opposite (not that his arguments in favor of islamic genocide in the Middle East didn't qualify as well).
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
The US hasn't been better than that for a long time.
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
The US hasn't been better than that for a long time.
It's not about the reality, it was founded with slavery etc. It's about the aspiration. The point of America is not that it's better, it's that it wants to be better.
On December 11 2015 07:48 kwizach wrote: The amount of xenophobia and outright policy ignorance in xDaunt's post should serve to whomever may claim that he's among the "reasonable" conservatives contributing to this thread as clear evidence of the opposite (not that his arguments in favor of islamic genocide in the Middle East didn't qualify as well).
Where exactly are you seeing xenophobia? Granted, he didn't provide an argument for a blanket ban on Muslims but rather an argument for being extremely selective. But despite what certain people on the left may think, simple statements of facts can't be reasonably called xenophobic and there's no denying that many Muslims harbor extremely problematic beliefs that would be at odds in a Western liberal society.
On December 11 2015 07:48 kwizach wrote: The amount of xenophobia and outright policy ignorance in xDaunt's post should serve to whomever may claim that he's among the "reasonable" conservatives contributing to this thread as clear evidence of the opposite (not that his arguments in favor of islamic genocide in the Middle East didn't qualify as well).
Where exactly are you seeing xenophobia? Granted, he didn't provide an argument for a blanket ban on Muslims but rather an argument for being extremely selective. But despite what certain people on the left may think, simple statements of facts can't be reasonably called xenophobic and there's no denying that many Muslims harbor extremely problematic beliefs that would be at odds in a Western liberal society.
What facts? There's no facts in his postings. Apart from one very clear statement.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all?
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
You think inviting people into a country who don't share those values (and potentially never will) is a good way of furthering those values? That's the trap of multiculturalism.
On December 11 2015 07:48 kwizach wrote: The amount of xenophobia and outright policy ignorance in xDaunt's post should serve to whomever may claim that he's among the "reasonable" conservatives contributing to this thread as clear evidence of the opposite (not that his arguments in favor of islamic genocide in the Middle East didn't qualify as well).
Where exactly are you seeing xenophobia? Granted, he didn't provide an argument for a blanket ban on Muslims but rather an argument for being extremely selective. But despite what certain people on the left may think, simple statements of facts can't be reasonably called xenophobic and there's no denying that many Muslims harbor extremely problematic beliefs that would be at odds in a Western liberal society.
What facts? There's no facts in his postings. Apart from one very clear statement.
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
You think inviting people into a country who don't share those values (and potentially never will) is a good way of furthering those values? That's the trap of multiculturalism.
Yeah, no doubt, Indigenous people never should of let white folks in.
You know people can change their values. If I remember correctly on the statue of liberty it says ""Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses" and not "give me people who are white as snow and have three phds"
Given the fact that practically every American's ancestor was some goat thief from god knows where in Europe I find that elitist attitude somewhat schizophrenic.
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
So the US should tolerate honor killings, FGM, sharia law, death to homosexuals and apostates etc in the name of multiculturalism and diversity? This is liberalism gone insane.
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
You think inviting people into a country who don't share those values (and potentially never will) is a good way of furthering those values? That's the trap of multiculturalism.
Homosexuals could easily be defined at contrary to good Christian morals and family values and subjected to an immigration ban (and indeed they were). The problem with the argument that "they don't share our values" is it assumes firstly that the values in question are virtuous and secondly that they are universally desired.
If Muslims were a pack of rabid murderers then we could agree but they're not. Hell, a lot of ISIS have less blood on their hands than American soldiers. I'm not saying that we should start importing ISIS obviously, just that we can't definitely state that killing innocents to further political goals is unAmerican given recent American history.
It's nowhere near as clear cut as we would like it to be. What is virtuous for one person is not for another. Hell, look at this graphic video of a suicide bomber.
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
So the US should tolerate honor killings, FGM, sharia law, death to homosexuals and apostates etc in the name of multiculturalism and diversity? This is liberalism gone insane.
Yes, clearly as a liberal I am in favour of FGM, sharia law, death to homosexuals and apostates. You caught me. Thanks for participating in the conversation, you truly added value with that.
Can you name some of these innocent people? Can you provide the evidence that they were, in fact, innocent? Can you further provide the evidence that McCarthy should have known they were innocent?
And here's me, thinking that one good thing that came of the US is "innocent until proven guilty", not the other way around. You don't (need to) prove that they were innocent. He had to proof that they were not. Not the other way around. Can you provide evidence that they were innocent, lol. How about you provide evidence that they were, in fact, not innocent? Because that's kinda how it works, instead of asking others to debunk stupid accusations?
That's a fair point, but I think you're all missing something important:
Membership and/or association to/with the Communist Party was evidence that someone was potentially compromised, and if they worked in the government, it was in my opinion, reasonable to suggest an investigation.
But I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because it seems like our priorities are rather different. I fall more in line with the thinking that the Constitution is not a shield for people who actively work to destroy the Union itself. There is no point in having constitutional protections if you're not going to have a Union in which people can be protected. The existential threat the Soviet Union and Communism posed was such that I think certain measures could be justified, even if in normal times we might avoid them.
If you think protecting the potentially innocent is more important than protecting the nation, I can understand that and I can't even really argue against it. It's a logically sound position. I just happen to disagree with it.
EPT![[image loading]](https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/8VreHGz0hRGDb-YiwgfTS0rzRA4=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4340243/Ad_spendingVspolls2-1.jpg)
