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.
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.
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
The problem is that people who are disagreeing with you have a different understanding of what "American values" are in the first place.
Have to agree on the the meaning of the term before people can argue about how close or far any particular group is from it.
No, we really don't have to agree on a precise definition of "American values" in this case. It's a complete red herring for the conversation at hand because, regardless of whatever we agreed the definition was, Sharia law clearly falls way outside of it.
I'm not pro Sharia law. I'm pro secular law. It's your group that wants America ruled according to religious doctrines, not mine. I think secular law is the only law compatible with American values, your lot want to put the 10 commandments in the court room.
Give me a break. Equating the placement of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse is not the same as codifying religious values. It's not even close.
Neither have any place in a court room. Stop trying to implement religious law in America. It's un-American. You're un-American. We should ask that question whenever people try to enter the United States. Even if they're US citizens returning from holiday or business. Hell, we'll make it even more clear cut. "Do you think the 10 Commandments should be enshrined into the American legal system?". Anyone who says yes is an un-American religious zealot and should be barred from entry. They can go back to wherever their people originally came from.
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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
I am actually an adult. Maybe you should cdf.
I think killing innocents to further political goals is contrary to American values. An awful lot of Americans seem prepared to do it though. That's the problem with defining what is and is not American, it's entirely subjective.
I believe we shouldn't be letting people who set up bombs to fight the Syrian government enter America. But in terms of values, their activities in terms of exercising their rights to fight a tyrannical government could not conform more strongly with the founding fathers. Likewise an awful lot of people on your side of the aisle would proudly exclaim that they would kill for America.
By my definition of America we should let in peaceful, liberal and democratic Muslims. But equally by my definition of America the actions of a lot of American veterans are profoundly unAmerican. I'm sure you'd disagree but that's the problem. Yours is the party most closely ideologically aligned with the Sharia-law adhering Muslims in terms of xenophobia, militarism, the worship of violence as a means of achieving ideological goals and the belief that they are a chosen people.
I think Sharia law is unAmerican. I think the same about you when you say we should keep Muslims out.
First and foremost, I haven't said that we should keep all Muslims out.
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.”
Isn't that the main reason why homosexuals have such a hard time in the US (or anywhere else in the world for that matter) - because codified religious values?
They can go back to wherever their people originally came from.
That would make trump go to germany, so that clearly is not an option.
On December 11 2015 09:01 m4ini wrote: Isn't that the main reason why homosexuals have such a hard time in the US (or anywhere else in the world for that matter) - because codified religious values?
In 1917 the US issued a ban on the immigration of homosexuals. In 1982 the US courts ruled that homosexuals were barred from immigrating to the US on K1 visas. American values at work. Of course I would argue that those were un-American values but that's just me.
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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
The problem is that people who are disagreeing with you have a different understanding of what "American values" are in the first place.
Have to agree on the the meaning of the term before people can argue about how close or far any particular group is from it.
No, we really don't have to agree on a precise definition of "American values" in this case. It's a complete red herring for the conversation at hand because, regardless of whatever we agreed the definition was, Sharia law clearly falls way outside of it.
I'm not pro Sharia law. I'm pro secular law. It's your group that wants America ruled according to religious doctrines, not mine. I think secular law is the only law compatible with American values, your lot want to put the 10 commandments in the court room.
Give me a break. Equating the placement of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse is not the same as codifying religious values. It's not even close.
Neither have any place in a court room. Stop trying to implement religious law in America. It's un-American. You're un-American. We should ask that question whenever people try to enter the United States. Even if they're US citizens returning from holiday or business. Hell, we'll make it even more clear cut. "Do you think the 10 Commandments should be enshrined into the American legal system?". Anyone who says yes is an un-American religious zealot and should be barred from entry. They can go back to wherever their people originally came from.
Like I said, start arguing the issue like a big boy. Quit bringing up ridiculous and baseless strawman arguments that are both 1) completely unrelated to the issue at hand, 2) inconsistent with my posting history. Your post is just one big dishonest dodge of the real issue. If you don't want to discuss it, fine. But don't bring irrelevant shit 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.
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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
I am actually an adult. Maybe you should cdf.
I think killing innocents to further political goals is contrary to American values. An awful lot of Americans seem prepared to do it though. That's the problem with defining what is and is not American, it's entirely subjective.
I believe we shouldn't be letting people who set up bombs to fight the Syrian government enter America. But in terms of values, their activities in terms of exercising their rights to fight a tyrannical government could not conform more strongly with the founding fathers. Likewise an awful lot of people on your side of the aisle would proudly exclaim that they would kill for America.
By my definition of America we should let in peaceful, liberal and democratic Muslims. But equally by my definition of America the actions of a lot of American veterans are profoundly unAmerican. I'm sure you'd disagree but that's the problem. Yours is the party most closely ideologically aligned with the Sharia-law adhering Muslims in terms of xenophobia, militarism, the worship of violence as a means of achieving ideological goals and the belief that they are a chosen people.
I think Sharia law is unAmerican. I think the same about you when you say we should keep Muslims out.
First and foremost, I haven't said that we should keep all Muslims out.
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.”
On December 11 2015 09:01 m4ini wrote: Isn't that the main reason why homosexuals have such a hard time in the US (or anywhere else in the world for that matter) - because codified religious values?
In 1917 the US issued a ban on the immigration of homosexuals. In 1982 the US courts ruled that homosexuals were barred from immigrating to the US on K1 visas. American values at work. Of course I would argue that those were un-American values but that's just me.
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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
I am actually an adult. Maybe you should cdf.
I think killing innocents to further political goals is contrary to American values. An awful lot of Americans seem prepared to do it though. That's the problem with defining what is and is not American, it's entirely subjective.
I believe we shouldn't be letting people who set up bombs to fight the Syrian government enter America. But in terms of values, their activities in terms of exercising their rights to fight a tyrannical government could not conform more strongly with the founding fathers. Likewise an awful lot of people on your side of the aisle would proudly exclaim that they would kill for America.
By my definition of America we should let in peaceful, liberal and democratic Muslims. But equally by my definition of America the actions of a lot of American veterans are profoundly unAmerican. I'm sure you'd disagree but that's the problem. Yours is the party most closely ideologically aligned with the Sharia-law adhering Muslims in terms of xenophobia, militarism, the worship of violence as a means of achieving ideological goals and the belief that they are a chosen people.
I think Sharia law is unAmerican. I think the same about you when you say we should keep Muslims out.
First and foremost, I haven't said that we should keep all Muslims out.
On December 11 2015 07:14 xDaunt wrote:
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.”
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all?.
Yes, clearly the only logical conclusion to draw is that the posing of a hypothetical question is the same as making an affirmative declaration.
Brilliant work, Sherlock.
you posed the position that muslims don't adhere to american values, then when people ask what are these values, you say that it is irrelevant. love the patronising overtone
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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
I am actually an adult. Maybe you should cdf.
I think killing innocents to further political goals is contrary to American values. An awful lot of Americans seem prepared to do it though. That's the problem with defining what is and is not American, it's entirely subjective.
I believe we shouldn't be letting people who set up bombs to fight the Syrian government enter America. But in terms of values, their activities in terms of exercising their rights to fight a tyrannical government could not conform more strongly with the founding fathers. Likewise an awful lot of people on your side of the aisle would proudly exclaim that they would kill for America.
By my definition of America we should let in peaceful, liberal and democratic Muslims. But equally by my definition of America the actions of a lot of American veterans are profoundly unAmerican. I'm sure you'd disagree but that's the problem. Yours is the party most closely ideologically aligned with the Sharia-law adhering Muslims in terms of xenophobia, militarism, the worship of violence as a means of achieving ideological goals and the belief that they are a chosen people.
I think Sharia law is unAmerican. I think the same about you when you say we should keep Muslims out.
First and foremost, I haven't said that we should keep all Muslims out. I agree that "peaceful, liberal, and democratic" Muslims should be allowed in. All that I am doing is pointing out the obvious: there clearly is a large number of Muslims who do not fit the definition of being "peaceful, liberal, and democratic" as a consequence of their views on what their faith requires of them. Because of this, why wouldn't a sane, western, liberal nation view Muslims with an added degree of suspicion and tailor its immigration policies accordingly? The issue is as simple as that.
Is the population of the peaceful/liberal/democratic Muslims that want to enter the US larger or smaller than the population of the non-peaceful bad kind?
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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
I am actually an adult. Maybe you should cdf.
I think killing innocents to further political goals is contrary to American values. An awful lot of Americans seem prepared to do it though. That's the problem with defining what is and is not American, it's entirely subjective.
I believe we shouldn't be letting people who set up bombs to fight the Syrian government enter America. But in terms of values, their activities in terms of exercising their rights to fight a tyrannical government could not conform more strongly with the founding fathers. Likewise an awful lot of people on your side of the aisle would proudly exclaim that they would kill for America.
By my definition of America we should let in peaceful, liberal and democratic Muslims. But equally by my definition of America the actions of a lot of American veterans are profoundly unAmerican. I'm sure you'd disagree but that's the problem. Yours is the party most closely ideologically aligned with the Sharia-law adhering Muslims in terms of xenophobia, militarism, the worship of violence as a means of achieving ideological goals and the belief that they are a chosen people.
I think Sharia law is unAmerican. I think the same about you when you say we should keep Muslims out.
First and foremost, I haven't said that we should keep all Muslims out.
On December 11 2015 07:14 xDaunt wrote:
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.”
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all?.
Yes, clearly the only logical conclusion to draw is that the posing of a hypothetical question is the same as making an affirmative declaration.
Brilliant work, Sherlock.
Without going into the actual statement, that question is not hypothetical, but rhetorical. Big, important difference, and pretty much the reason why you might feel misquoted.
An intriguing report Thursday in the Washington Post revealed that top Republicans leaders huddled at a restaurant in DC Monday night to scope out what to do if the GOP convention next summer ended up being contested convention.
With Donald Trump the commanding frontrunner now for months, it wasn't immediately clear why party leaders would be anticipating that the convention would be contested or deadlocked or anything other than a coronation of the new nominee. The scenario being laid out was more of how the party establishment would stop Trump on the convention floor.
"Several longtime power brokers argued that if the controversial billionaire storms through the primaries, the party’s establishment must lay the groundwork for a floor fight, in which the GOP’s mainstream wing could coalesce around an alternative," the Post's Robert Costa writes.
According to the Post, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and RNC Chairman Reince Priebus dined with 20 party elites but said little during the meeting, although they "did acknowledge to the group that a deadlocked convention is indeed something the party should prepare for."
Sean Spicer, the RNC’s chief strategist and spokesman, told the Post: “The RNC is neutral in this process and the rules are set until the convention begins next July. Our goal is to ensure a successful nomination and that requires us thinking through every scenario, including a contested convention.”
The last time the Republican Party entered a convention without a clear frontrunner and nominee was 1976, the Post noted.
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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
I am actually an adult. Maybe you should cdf.
I think killing innocents to further political goals is contrary to American values. An awful lot of Americans seem prepared to do it though. That's the problem with defining what is and is not American, it's entirely subjective.
I believe we shouldn't be letting people who set up bombs to fight the Syrian government enter America. But in terms of values, their activities in terms of exercising their rights to fight a tyrannical government could not conform more strongly with the founding fathers. Likewise an awful lot of people on your side of the aisle would proudly exclaim that they would kill for America.
By my definition of America we should let in peaceful, liberal and democratic Muslims. But equally by my definition of America the actions of a lot of American veterans are profoundly unAmerican. I'm sure you'd disagree but that's the problem. Yours is the party most closely ideologically aligned with the Sharia-law adhering Muslims in terms of xenophobia, militarism, the worship of violence as a means of achieving ideological goals and the belief that they are a chosen people.
I think Sharia law is unAmerican. I think the same about you when you say we should keep Muslims out.
First and foremost, I haven't said that we should keep all Muslims out. I agree that "peaceful, liberal, and democratic" Muslims should be allowed in. All that I am doing is pointing out the obvious: there clearly is a large number of Muslims who do not fit the definition of being "peaceful, liberal, and democratic" as a consequence of their views on what their faith requires of them. Because of this, why wouldn't a sane, western, liberal nation view Muslims with an added degree of suspicion and tailor its immigration policies accordingly? The issue is as simple as that.
Is the population of the peaceful/liberal/democratic Muslims that want to enter the US larger or smaller than the population of the non-peaceful bad kind?
Yep. I haven't seen anything to suggest that there are more violent than peaceful Muslims. The bigger question is the extent to which they are sufficiently secular.
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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
I am actually an adult. Maybe you should cdf.
I think killing innocents to further political goals is contrary to American values. An awful lot of Americans seem prepared to do it though. That's the problem with defining what is and is not American, it's entirely subjective.
I believe we shouldn't be letting people who set up bombs to fight the Syrian government enter America. But in terms of values, their activities in terms of exercising their rights to fight a tyrannical government could not conform more strongly with the founding fathers. Likewise an awful lot of people on your side of the aisle would proudly exclaim that they would kill for America.
By my definition of America we should let in peaceful, liberal and democratic Muslims. But equally by my definition of America the actions of a lot of American veterans are profoundly unAmerican. I'm sure you'd disagree but that's the problem. Yours is the party most closely ideologically aligned with the Sharia-law adhering Muslims in terms of xenophobia, militarism, the worship of violence as a means of achieving ideological goals and the belief that they are a chosen people.
I think Sharia law is unAmerican. I think the same about you when you say we should keep Muslims out.
First and foremost, I haven't said that we should keep all Muslims out.
On December 11 2015 07:14 xDaunt wrote:
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.”
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all?.
Yes, clearly the only logical conclusion to draw is that the posing of a hypothetical question is the same as making an affirmative declaration.
Brilliant work, Sherlock.
Without going into the actual statement, that question is not hypothetical, but rhetorical. Big, important difference, and pretty much the reason why you might feel misquoted.
On December 11 2015 09:20 Nyxisto wrote: Also the last time I checked immigration is an individual process, so I don't see how this group stuff is relevant at all.
Well, poor Mr. Trump is being derided as a spawn of Satan for daring to suggest that that all Muslim immigration be suspended to allow for the federal government to ensure that Muslim immigration is being handled properly. The attributes of the group are relevant to that particular conversation.
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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
I am actually an adult. Maybe you should cdf.
I think killing innocents to further political goals is contrary to American values. An awful lot of Americans seem prepared to do it though. That's the problem with defining what is and is not American, it's entirely subjective.
I believe we shouldn't be letting people who set up bombs to fight the Syrian government enter America. But in terms of values, their activities in terms of exercising their rights to fight a tyrannical government could not conform more strongly with the founding fathers. Likewise an awful lot of people on your side of the aisle would proudly exclaim that they would kill for America.
By my definition of America we should let in peaceful, liberal and democratic Muslims. But equally by my definition of America the actions of a lot of American veterans are profoundly unAmerican. I'm sure you'd disagree but that's the problem. Yours is the party most closely ideologically aligned with the Sharia-law adhering Muslims in terms of xenophobia, militarism, the worship of violence as a means of achieving ideological goals and the belief that they are a chosen people.
I think Sharia law is unAmerican. I think the same about you when you say we should keep Muslims out.
First and foremost, I haven't said that we should keep all Muslims out. I agree that "peaceful, liberal, and democratic" Muslims should be allowed in. All that I am doing is pointing out the obvious: there clearly is a large number of Muslims who do not fit the definition of being "peaceful, liberal, and democratic" as a consequence of their views on what their faith requires of them. Because of this, why wouldn't a sane, western, liberal nation view Muslims with an added degree of suspicion and tailor its immigration policies accordingly? The issue is as simple as that.
Is the population of the peaceful/liberal/democratic Muslims that want to enter the US larger or smaller than the population of the non-peaceful bad kind?
Yep. I haven't seen anything to suggest that there are more violent than peaceful Muslims. The bigger question is the extent to which they are sufficiently secular.
Why does it matter how secular they are when large parts of the US are deeply christian?
On December 11 2015 09:20 Nyxisto wrote: Also the last time I checked immigration is an individual process, so I don't see how this group stuff is relevant at all.
Well, poor Mr. Trump is being derided as a spawn of Satan for daring to suggest that that all Muslim immigration be suspended to allow for the federal government to ensure that Muslim immigration is being handled properly. The attributes of the group are relevant to that particular conversation.
How the heck is American immigration not handled correctly? It's the most rigorous process on the whole planet. If I want to take a flight from Germany to the US there is American security personnel in German airports . On a scale of one to ten you already have security cranked up to 35, you're already one step short of giving everybody a colonoscopy before they arrive.
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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
I am actually an adult. Maybe you should cdf.
I think killing innocents to further political goals is contrary to American values. An awful lot of Americans seem prepared to do it though. That's the problem with defining what is and is not American, it's entirely subjective.
I believe we shouldn't be letting people who set up bombs to fight the Syrian government enter America. But in terms of values, their activities in terms of exercising their rights to fight a tyrannical government could not conform more strongly with the founding fathers. Likewise an awful lot of people on your side of the aisle would proudly exclaim that they would kill for America.
By my definition of America we should let in peaceful, liberal and democratic Muslims. But equally by my definition of America the actions of a lot of American veterans are profoundly unAmerican. I'm sure you'd disagree but that's the problem. Yours is the party most closely ideologically aligned with the Sharia-law adhering Muslims in terms of xenophobia, militarism, the worship of violence as a means of achieving ideological goals and the belief that they are a chosen people.
I think Sharia law is unAmerican. I think the same about you when you say we should keep Muslims out.
First and foremost, I haven't said that we should keep all Muslims out. I agree that "peaceful, liberal, and democratic" Muslims should be allowed in. All that I am doing is pointing out the obvious: there clearly is a large number of Muslims who do not fit the definition of being "peaceful, liberal, and democratic" as a consequence of their views on what their faith requires of them. Because of this, why wouldn't a sane, western, liberal nation view Muslims with an added degree of suspicion and tailor its immigration policies accordingly? The issue is as simple as that.
Is the population of the peaceful/liberal/democratic Muslims that want to enter the US larger or smaller than the population of the non-peaceful bad kind?
Yep. I haven't seen anything to suggest that there are more violent than peaceful Muslims. The bigger question is the extent to which they are sufficiently secular.
Why does it matter how secular they are when large parts of the US are deeply christian?
Again why are Muslims bad but Christians good?
Because the deeply Christian elements of the US are still more secular than the "deeply religious" Muslims that would be coming from overseas. The deeply religious Christians in the US are pretty much fully assimilated. No one worries about them being an insular -- must less, hostile -- presence in the country.
On December 11 2015 09:20 Nyxisto wrote: Also the last time I checked immigration is an individual process, so I don't see how this group stuff is relevant at all.
Well, poor Mr. Trump is being derided as a spawn of Satan for daring to suggest that that all Muslim immigration be suspended to allow for the federal government to ensure that Muslim immigration is being handled properly. The attributes of the group are relevant to that particular conversation.
How the heck is American immigration not handled correctly? It's the most rigorous process on the whole planet. If I want to take a flight from Germany to the US there is American security personnel in German airports . On a scale of one to ten you already have security cranked up to 35, you're already one step short of giving everybody a colonoscopy before they arrive.
There are numerous reasons why our immigration system is bad. Administrative hassle is not the sign of a good system.
EPT
