Tolerant Eutopia?


PDA






DRZinn
December 3, 2004, 10:28 PM
<from my blog (http://drzinn.blogspot.com)>

Eur-topia

It seems all is not rosy in socialist eutopia. In a soccer match between Spain and England, Spanish fans shouted monkey noises every time a black English player got near the ball. This was touched off by the Spanish coach's earlier refernce to a black player as "black s---."

And in Belgium, the second-largest political party in Flanders has supported denials that the Holocaust ever occurred, and called for the expulsion of all Muslim immigrants from Belgium. It was recently commanded to disband by the Belgian Supreme Court, but its leader has announced his intention to simply change the name of the party and carry on business as usual.

If you enjoyed reading about "Tolerant Eutopia?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sindawe
December 3, 2004, 10:35 PM
And in Belgium, the second-largest political party in Flanders has supported denials that the Holocaust ever occurred, and called for the expulsion of all Muslim immigrants from Belgium.

Source for the claims that the holocaust never happened? As for calling for the expulsion of all Muslim immigrants, after what happened to Van Gogh they are likely correct.

DRZinn
December 3, 2004, 11:02 PM
If you mean my source for their claiming that the Holocaust never happened, it's a newsmagazine called The Week (http://www.theweekmagazine.com). And I can certainly understand their frustration, but that's not my point.

Oleg Volk
December 4, 2004, 12:08 AM
As for calling for the expulsion of all Muslim immigrants, after what happened to Van Gogh they are likely correct. A bit like expelling all Jews for the actions of one French Jew in 1938?

nick89302
December 5, 2004, 01:00 PM
Source for the claims that the holocaust never happened?

I have heard it straight from the horse's mouth here. They say it's a Zionist conspiracy to make people empathize with the Jews.

There are people here who seem to be completely removed from reality.

Glock Glockler
December 5, 2004, 01:19 PM
A bit like expelling all Jews for the actions of one French Jew in 1938?

Oleg, do you really think the situations are equivalent? I never knew about there were hordes of Jews in Europe before WWII who were bent on radical Judaism (suing all non-Jews?). The actions of that French Jew in 1938 were an excuse for the Nazis to do what they wanted to all along, while the gelded Europeans today genuinely want to be all multicultural and tolerant even when they shouldn’t, and therefore welcome the opportunity to allow Muslims in. They want to be one big happy family, and would love to show up the US by how great they are because everyone lives so peacefully in Europe. The only problem is that it hasn’t worked out, the invited scores of people into it's house who have no intent on being peaceful, more accurately they want to take over and subjugate the Europeans.

Sindawe
December 5, 2004, 01:22 PM
I don't recall reading of roving gangs of Jewish youths raping non-jewish women in the 1930s. I don't recall reading of Rabbi's preaching a holy war againsts the Gentiles in the 1930s. I don't recall reading of calls for death of Jews who dared to publish fiction that was critical of the old testiment prophets in the 1930s.

I have heard it straight from the horse's mouth here. They say it's a Zionist conspiracy to make people empathize with the Jews.

Hearsay, unless you can document the converstaion. Please provide a link to the published article or policy statement by the political party that supports your assertion. Citing the front page of a news site does not fit the criteria, any more than my telling you to look in Nature (http://www.nature.com/) for support of my claims that caloric restricted diets lead to longer lifespans.

beerslurpy
December 5, 2004, 01:36 PM
I dont think we should confuse the anti-jewish activity of the 1930s with the anti-muslim activity of today.

Although european jews historically did a poor job of integrating with society at large, they also didnt try to force their views upon others. Additionally, they were, as far as I can tell, entirely non-violent. Essentially, the jews did nothing to deserve being made the bogeyman of european politics. Obviously my opinion.

The current problem with the muslims is that unlike the Jews, they actually are causing severe problems (crime, draining the welfare system, terrorism, trying to institute a muslim theocracy) and they are trying to force their host countries to conform to their imported cultural norms. The europeans are justifiably worried about the cultural impact and also about the rising tide of terrorism and violence that the muslims have brought with them. It seems to be fairly well understood in both europe and america that violence is something used as a last resort, not as a bargaining tactic. Murdering people that disagree with you is not civilized under any definition of the word.

modifiedbrowning
December 5, 2004, 02:45 PM
There is actually a Belgian who posts on my Brothers blog site, who recently joined that party, the Voms Blok, or something similar. Apparently he was fed up with the party he had been in for a longtime. I hadn't heard about the denying the Holocaust bit, though. I'll have to ask next time I go to the blog. If anyone wants to check it out the address is www.Downeastblog.blogspot.com

Chuck Dye
December 5, 2004, 02:58 PM
Citing the behavior of soccer fans in fan mode, or anyone connected with pro soccer, as representative of all Europeans is rather like citing the behavior of U.S. sports pros and fans as representative of all Americans. It severely diminishes the credibility of any accompanying argument.

beerslurpy
December 5, 2004, 03:27 PM
Actually that is a very good point. Drunken sports fans are not known to be the most civil group of people lol riots.

I was in the UK when the monkey hooting thing happened and I thought it was just a bunch of noise over nothing. So big ????ing deal if they made monkey noises. Just drop your pants and moon them or something.

It not like they had giant signs saying "death to ******s" or something similarly _bad_. I wasnt even aware from the video that it was directed against the black players.

DRZinn
December 5, 2004, 08:00 PM
I never knew about there were hordes of Jews in Europe before WWII who were bent on radical Judaism
Oleg was replying to a post that used one incident as a supporting example:

As for calling for the expulsion of all Muslim immigrants, after what happened to Van Gogh they are likely correct.

Please provide a link to the published article or policy statement by the political party that supports your assertion. Citing the front page of a news site does not fit the criteria
I'm not "citing" the site. I got it from the print version. I provided the link only to show that it is an actual news magazine. You don't have to believe me, and in fact I don't care of you don't. If I tried to cite supporting evidence for every assertion I ever made, I'd never be able to talk about anything more than basic science. Either you accept my assertion for the sake of argument, or you don't.

Citing the behavior of soccer fans in fan mode, or anyone connected with pro soccer, as representative of all Europeans is rather like citing the behavior of U.S. sports pros and fans as representative of all Americans.
In what way did I use that example to characterize all Europeans? I used it to show that Europe is not the ultra-tolerant place that leftists here like to portray it as. And they didn't taunt the team, they taunted just the black players. Imagine if something similar happened here, the worldwide outcry you'd hear. Or if an American coach of a pro soccer team publicly referred to a player on the the rival Mexican team as a f---ing beaner."

c_yeager
December 6, 2004, 02:09 AM
I don't recall reading of roving gangs of Jewish youths raping non-jewish women in the 1930s. I don't recall reading of Rabbi's preaching a holy war againsts the Gentiles in the 1930s. I don't recall reading of calls for death of Jews who dared to publish fiction that was critical of the old testiment prophets in the 1930s.

Read some period literature. Worse things than this were written about the Jews all through Europe. That of course does not make it true. Hell, pick up any of a variety of Middle Eastern papers to read all sorts of horror stories about the Jews. Up to and including the idea that they kidnap little Arab children so that they can drink their blood for one festival or another*. Demonizing the chosen "Judas goat" ethnicity isnt exactly a new thing.

(*this is not a made up example I read it myself in a hardcopy of an Egyptian newspaper purchased in Cairo, it was on PAGE ONE.)

Art Eatman
December 6, 2004, 08:40 AM
Europe has long been full of hatreds, whether ethnic or religious. In Germany, for instance, there have been numerous fusses about the Turks, who for Germany have come in to take low-end jobs, much as many of the Latins in the US.

France has seen a rise in anti-Jewish nonsense, as well as having had serious political fusses over aliens in general.

There's a fair number of idiots who deny that the Holocaust happened, in spite of the numerous paper documents (tons!) captured from the Nazis and the thousands of our GIs who saw the camps. (My father was involved in the liberation of the camp at Dortmund.) And, as kids at the end of WW II, we saw the newsreels when at the movies.

Lots of hate groups. Generally, they don't have the common sense of a mouse in heat. They're so sorry that if they couldn't find a group to look down on, they'd commit suicide. These cretins are so low, they'd have to look up to see whale poop, and that's at the bottom of the ocean.

Art

iapetus
December 6, 2004, 02:57 PM
I don't recall reading of roving gangs of Jewish youths raping non-jewish women in the 1930s. I don't recall reading of Rabbi's preaching a holy war againsts the Gentiles in the 1930s. I don't recall reading of calls for death of Jews who dared to publish fiction that was critical of the old testiment prophets in the 1930s.

In Europe, a few Jews caused trouble in the 1930s.

In the UK, a few Irishmen caused rather a lot of trouble in the 1960s-1990s.

A few Muslims are causing rather more trouble now.

None of those cases justified or justifies mass expulsion/ punishment of the entire ethnic/religious group.

Werewolf
December 6, 2004, 04:21 PM
None of those cases justified or justifies mass expulsion/ punishment of the entire ethnic/religious group. I wonder if that attitude will change when the muslim population reaches critical mass in Europe and they become a political force to be reckoned with in the various European nations.

I'm betting that it will - but by then it'll be too darn late to matter.

Welcome to the real world - its a whole lot different from the cuda, shuda world of many socialists and liberals.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
December 6, 2004, 04:35 PM
A few Muslims are causing rather more trouble now.

My impression is that you're underestimating the extent of popular support for the rejectionist/jihadist school of thought amongst Muslims living in Europe.

The situiation is depicted in the European press as one where many of the Mosques are controlled by radical Imams, who have the support of a sizeable percentage of the Muslim population.

Even if it is only 10% support, and that's a very conservative number, that still constitutes millions of potential supporters of terrorism.

c_yeager
December 7, 2004, 01:57 AM
I wonder if that attitude will change when the muslim population reaches critical mass in Europe and they become a political force to be reckoned with in the various European nations.

Since the Holocaust has already been mentioned I think it bears mentioning that this was one argument used to support it. Not a road I like to see people going down again. We deal with problems when and if they become problems and we deal with them in an equitable and at least marginally moral manner, this is what makes America different from countries like Iraq.

And since you mention that we should be solving this "problem" NOW I would like to know exactly what your solution is. Or have you thought that far ahead?

Art Eatman
December 7, 2004, 08:19 AM
c_yeager, there's a big difference between the 1930s and now: The Jews of Europe weren't activists about much of anything political, and were--as a group--very peaceful.

Today, the Islamics in Europe not only are becoming ever more politically vocal about such things as Sharia, some members of that group are active terrorists.

Art

Dbl0Kevin
December 7, 2004, 08:37 AM
Ya know political correctness is going to be the downfall of civilized nations I have determined. I can't believe people are actually comparing current day Islamic Fundamentalists to Jews or the Irish. Why can't we call a spade a spade anymore? Everyone is so afraid to tell it like it is that it won't be long before something goes really really wrong. You think these radicals aren't watching this and LOVING every minute of it?? If I was one of them I'd be laughin my butt off at how easy it is to manipulate these PC countries and gain my objective over time.

Those of you saying it's only ONE muslim act, how many of you would say that the KKK or the Aryan Nation are really a bunch of good people with only a few bad apples that commit crimes?

c_yeager
December 7, 2004, 08:39 AM
c_yeager, there's a big difference between the 1930s and now: The Jews of Europe weren't activists about much of anything political, and were--as a group--very peaceful.

Yes, and look where it got them. Maybe the Muslims in Europe would rather NOT have the opportunity to line up for the "showers".

Art Eatman
December 7, 2004, 08:56 AM
I'd bet that if there wasn't an effort on the part of some Islamics to get Sharia instituted in the parts of the country where they live, the hostility would be less or none. This is occurring in Canada as well as England and in some other European countries. If Islamics weren't becoming so well known to have a notable percentage of terrorists among them, the hostility would be less or none. Certainly no "official government" hostility. There will always be the basic human distrust--to some degree--of "otherness"; that's hardwired into our biology.

Art

HankB
December 7, 2004, 09:12 AM
I'd bet that if there wasn't an effort on the part of some Islamics to get Sharia instituted in the parts of the country where they live, the hostility would be less or none. I think Art hit the nail on the head. Here in this country, much is made of the intolerance for Mormons 150 years ago in . . . oh, heck, was it Nauvoo? . . . whatever. IIRC what touched this off was the practice of allowing Mormons to be tried in ecclesiastic courts, rather than regular courts. There was a river nearby, and it turns out the river pirates learned that it paid to be a Mormon, if in name only, as Mormon courts were more lenient. This didn't set well with local non-Mormons, so trouble ensued. (Disclaimer: I know a few Mormons today, and they're fine people. Not looking to get into a religious debate here - just pointing out that when a group tries to set itself apart with "special" rules, or "special" treatment, it provokes anger.)

Werewolf
December 7, 2004, 10:32 AM
And since you mention that we should be solving this "problem" NOW I would like to know exactly what your solution is. Or have you thought that far ahead?The USA is a secular nation. Islam and secularism don't get along well. As the muslim population in the USA grows the freedoms we enjoy now will work to their benefit and against ours. Eventually they will have enough political clout to change our laws and culture. That might take a 100 years or 200 years but it will happen. The PC crowd may think that's a perfectly acceptable scenario but I for one don't want my descendants growing up in a nation where muslim culture rules the roost.

The solution is simple. Just don't let 'em in.

Oh - by the way - you can take your politicly correct and condescending attitude and... well you know what you can do with it! :cuss:

auschip
December 7, 2004, 10:58 AM
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

*Except those from Mexico, and anyone who is a Muslim. We don't allow them. Now that we are limiting people in by Religion, how do we determine what someone believes. What about Americans already here who convert? Do we ship them out?

Dbl0Kevin
December 7, 2004, 11:14 AM
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Funny how I don't see anything in there about giving me your terrorists, islamofascists or those that wish to change the country to a muslim theocracy. :rolleyes:

auschip
December 7, 2004, 11:20 AM
I think that falls under the "Wretched Refuse" portion. However, I notice the second portion of 'how you screen these people out' was ignored.

"Excuse me, are you a terrorist or Islamo-fascist?
Why Yes, Yes I am.
Sorry we can't allow you in.
Did I say Yes? I meant no."

Makes as much sense as gun control laws. The people who would follow the laws aren't the ones you would be worried about anyway.

Don Gwinn
December 7, 2004, 11:32 AM
Sindawe, it may be just me, but it sounds like you think Doc and the others are saying that the Holocaust never happened, and you want them to support that. They're only saying that a political party made that claim, and if you find that so impossible to believe, you're not paying attention.

Dbl0Kevin
December 7, 2004, 11:32 AM
I notice the second portion of 'how you screen these people out' was ignored.

It's fairly simple actually, it's called a background check. They are done on most government jobs and if you want to come to this country you should have to submit to one. If you have connections to a Fundamentalist Mosque or Imam......sorry you don't get in. You have ties to a Islamofascist group or organization.....adios see ya later. You have ever professed beliefs that you want to change the US to a muslim theocracy....sorry no go you don't get in.

Immigration to this country is not a right it is a privilege. There should be a number of hoops to jump through in order to enter this country and Muslims from countries with terrorist sympathies should be checked extra thoroughly. Alas I'm sure the libs will cry "profiling" and we would neeeeeever be allowed to do something that made so much sense.

auschip
December 7, 2004, 11:48 AM
And who do you check with? They won't have a credit history. You can't look at a tax return to see if they gave money to the local Jihadist. Personal references? How do you check someones references if nobody in their village owns a phone?

Dbl0Kevin
December 7, 2004, 11:52 AM
And who do you check with? They won't have a credit history. You can't look at a tax return to see if they gave money to the local Jihadist. Personal references? How do you check someones references if nobody in their village owns a phone?

It may not be perfect, but that's why there are intel officers and analysts that work for the government. If you read the 9/11 report you would know that had the intelligence been looked at the great majority if not ALL of the hijackers could have been identified as having terrorist or radical islamic connections.

I suppose you would continue to rather do nothing and stick our heads in the sand?

DRZinn
December 7, 2004, 12:05 PM
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
That's a poem. It's inscribed on a statue. It is not, nor was it ever, an official government policy or a law.

(And it was written by a Frenchman anyway.) :neener:

But seriously. I think our security trumps any lofty principle of letting people in. No-one has a right to come here.

And who do you check with? They won't have a credit history. You can't look at a tax return to see if they gave money to the local Jihadist. Personal references? How do you check someones references if nobody in their village owns a phone?
If we cannot satisfy ourselves that an individual should be let into this country, whether because something shady does come up or because we can't be sure that nothing shady would come up, we shouldn't let them in. Again, they don't have a right to come here. Ever.

Sindawe
December 7, 2004, 12:32 PM
Sindawe, it may be just me, but it sounds like you think Doc and the others are saying that the Holocaust never happened, and you want them to support that. They're only saying that a political party made that claim, and if you find that so impossible to believe, you're not paying attention.

The fault lies in your court, not mine. :D

I know what they are saying. They claim that the Vlamms Blok party of Belgium states that the extermination campaign waged by the National Socialist Party of Germany against Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other so called enemies of the state never happened. I never disputed that A political party can make those claims. I dispute that Vlamms Blok made that statement and have it as part of their party platform, and so far I've seen naught to support the contention that they did indeed say that.

Being the kindly soul that I am, this morning I've done DocZinn's research for him and found this:

Raes, 67, committed the cardinal sin of any far right party: he said what he really thought in public on the Holocaust. In an interview on Dutch TV he cast doubt on the scale and the extent of the Holocaust to a degree which now leaves him open to prosecution for historical revisionism.

Asked by the presenter if he doubted whether the gas chambers had really existed on a grand scale, Raes replied: "Yes I dare to doubt that. I think that what we've been given to believe on certain points has been very exaggerated.

"The persecution and the deportation of the Jews did take place in a systematic way. But whether it was planned that everyone was going to die - well that's another question."

When asked if he was willing to accept that 6.5m Jews had been murdered by the Nazis during the second world war he was equally sceptical. "Of course it does seem that a lot of serious things did take place; with the Jews, with the gypsies and also with homosexuals. But to come up with an exact figure - well that's a completely different question."

He then went on to enrage Belgium's large Jewish community by casting doubt on the authenticity of Anne Frank's diaries, the Jewish schoolgirl who hid from the Nazis in wartime Amsterdam
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,449278,00.html

Having doubts about the scope of something is not the same as denying the existence of that something. I note that Vlamms Blok immediately acted to distance themselves from this fellow.

auschip
December 7, 2004, 01:31 PM
That's a poem. It's inscribed on a statue. It is not, nor was it ever, an official government policy or a law.

(And it was written by a Frenchman anyway.)

But seriously. I think our security trumps any lofty principle of letting people in. No-one has a right to come here.

Yep it is a poem, but not by a Frenchman (or any man for that fact). Emma Lazarus is the poet(ess?), but was American.

It is simply my belief that doing a background check on every person applying to come to the US (to visit or stay) is impossible without creating a beauracracy much larger then anything we have seen thus far. Additionally, it was suggested that we not let ANY people who are Muslim in the country. My response is how can you tell what religion a person is by looking at them, and what do we do about people who convert? Again I would fall back on my analogy, that people who are going to committ attrocities against us don't care if they are here illegaly or not.

Dbl0Kevin
December 7, 2004, 01:46 PM
It is simply my belief that doing a background check on every person applying to come to the US (to visit or stay) is impossible without creating a beauracracy much larger then anything we have seen thus far. Additionally, it was suggested that we not let ANY people who are Muslim in the country. My response is how can you tell what religion a person is by looking at them, and what do we do about people who convert? Again I would fall back on my analogy, that people who are going to committ attrocities against us don't care if they are here illegaly or not.

Every one of the 9/11 hijackers entered this country legally.

How do you tell who are Muslim??? Gee maybe if they come from a MUSLIM COUNTRY!! If you come from or were born in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, UAE, Sudan, ETC. you have to PROVE that you deserve to come here. If it creates a large beauracracy so the heck what?? Do you think that our safety as a nation is not as important as slimming down the government to the bone? Geez all you give are excuses and excuses. Well guess what excuses are like a-holes....everybody's got one and they all stink. And that just don't cut it.

c_yeager
December 7, 2004, 02:20 PM
Purely out of curiosity where did YOUR ancestors originally come from? Go back far enough and we are all the children of immigrants and a whole ton of us come from countries that were at one time or another unfriendly with the US. Did it ever occur to you that the people coming here from Iran, Sudan, etc were coming here because they DON'T LIKE how things are being run in those countries?

auschip
December 7, 2004, 02:27 PM
Every one of the 9/11 hijackers entered this country legally.

Then how many of them would your new system have kept out? Interestingly enough, I pulled the following information from the 9/11 report.

One risk is that responses may be ineffective or produce no further information. Four of the 9/11 attackers were pulled into secondary border inspection, but then admitted. More than half of the 19 hijackers were flagged by the Federal Aviation Administration's profiling system when they arrived for their flights, but the consequence was that bags, not people, were checked. Competing risks include "false positives," or the danger that rules may be applied with insufficient training or judgment. Overreactions can impose high costs too-on individuals, our economy, and our beliefs about justice.

Looks like even though we did pull them aside for additional scrutiny. It didn't help.

Geez all you give are excuses and excuses. Well guess what excuses are like a-holes....everybody's got one and they all stink. And that just don't cut it.

An excuse for what exactly? I see people complaining about the .GOV infringing on their rights, and see phrases and quotes from Ben Franklin bandied about with little thought to how they apply to the situation, but when someone suggests that inalienable rights apply to people attempting to move to or visit the US it all goes away?

Dbl0Kevin
December 7, 2004, 02:36 PM
Looks like even though we did pull them aside for additional scrutiny. It didn't help.

That's the whole point. They were pulled aside for additional scrutiny yet admitted anyway. Anyone who raises a red flag does not get into the country. Simple as that.

An excuse for what exactly?

An excuse for doing nothing.

auschip
December 7, 2004, 02:41 PM
An excuse for doing nothing.

So because I don't agree with YOU then I must not want to do anything? Sound logic.

Incidentally, another person who was recently flagged and you would deny entry into the US was a certain Senator from MA. :neener: (BTW no jokes about how we would be better off without him ;) )

DRZinn
December 7, 2004, 04:20 PM
but when someone suggests that inalienable rights apply to people attempting to move to or visit the US it all goes away?No, their rights do not go away, but their rights also do not include a right to enter this country.

One more time: THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO COME HERE.

If we get even a little suspicious, they can stay home. And that certain senator is a US citizen. Totally different story.

DRZinn
December 7, 2004, 04:21 PM
Yep it is a poem, but not by a Frenchman (or any man for that fact) I had to try to be funny.... :o

Dbl0Kevin
December 7, 2004, 09:30 PM
So because I don't agree with YOU then I must not want to do anything? Sound logic.

I'm waiting with baited breath your plan to keep terrorists out of the country.

auschip
December 7, 2004, 09:40 PM
Not my job. I supply the gov equipment, I don't tell em how to use it. I do think that banning all Muslims (as one person suggested) is a bad idea.

Thanks for playing though! :neener:

Dbl0Kevin
December 7, 2004, 09:47 PM
Yeah that's about what I figured. :neener:

auschip
December 7, 2004, 10:03 PM
Yeah that's about what I figured.

So enlighten the populace. Other then alienating all our allies, and creating a new bloated government agency tasked with doing an impossible job in which they are supposed to do a background check on people who have no background, what would you do? :evil:

Yeah, that's what I thought. :D

Glock Glockler
December 7, 2004, 10:27 PM
auschip,

Your non-solution is unacceptable.

If we were to simply put our heads in the sand and let anyone in we would be destroyed. If I was on the other side I'd use your non-willingness to act against you and simply swamp you with "peaceful immigrants" who would terrorize the American population by blowing up everthing from buildings and bridges to cars. Pretty soon Americans would be scarred to come out of their houses to go to work. Watch the American economy fade then kiss goodbye to our ability to field an army overseas, cant do that without money now can we? Then watch 50 million "peaceful Chinese", who just happen to have been in the PLA, immigrate here, and we shouldnt try to prevent them 'because it would be futile and just create a giant govt bureaucracy, and we desperately need immigrants for our economy to do those low jobs Americans wont do'.

Kiss goodbye to your country

auschip
December 8, 2004, 09:11 AM
Your non-solution is unacceptable.

Let me be abundantly clear here. To say I am against action is patently incorrect. I pointed this out previously. I am however against bad plans that do nothing but make everyone feel good.

Do you honestly believe terrorists won't come to this country because of possible being screened? It's akin to making guns illegal so criminals won't kill people with them, i.e. factually wrong. Our .GOV has admitted that only 4 of the 9-11 terrorists were looked at secondarily, and slightly more then half had any record at all.

Show me a solution that has the possibility of working and I will support it, but don't expect me to support a bad program because of your xenophobia.

Glock Glockler
December 8, 2004, 10:54 AM
because of your xenophobia

Please refrain from making classless ad hominum attacks :fire: , we take the High Road here. I did not attack you personally, only your opinion, and I expect that you show reciprocity.

I would very much like to know where you get the idea that I am a Xenophobe because I dont advocate immigration without restrictions. Screening people and deporting those who are here illegally is not an accurate comparison to gun control because with gun control there is nothing more than a law preventing that person from obtaining a gun while with screening a person that individual must physically come into the country, which is something that the govt can exercise control over. If an unscreened person comes off a plane and you think he's dangerous you simply dont allow him through customs and ship him back to where ever he came from.

If you don't like these ideas, that's fine, you claim that you dont advocate inaction, so please share with us a better way of solving this problem. I'm sure we would all appreciate your showing us a better way that we have overlooked.

Dbl0Kevin
December 8, 2004, 11:06 AM
If you don't like these ideas, that's fine, you claim that you dont advocate inaction, so please share with us a better way of solving this problem. I'm sure we would all appreciate your showing us a better way that we have overlooked.

He can't because he has none. I already called him to task on that. He'd rather sit back and try to find flaws or excuses why we can't implement any of our plans.

As a great warrior once said "ANY plan is better than no plan at all."

auschip
December 8, 2004, 12:43 PM
First, Glock Glockler my apologies if you took my use of xenophobic negatively. I based that on your idea that we would be flooded by 50M Chinese immigrants who were part of the Chinese Army.

In another thread, you said:
I don't believe in turning a blind eye to Jihadists and other terrorists here yet I do not advocate throwing out the Bill of rights in doing so.

But then advocate doing the same for people who want to immigrate or even visit our country.

Becuase I have been asked, I did a bit more research last night. The 9/11 Commitee recomends using our current system augmented with crossreferencing manifest names against previous intelligence. This sounds reasonable and would not add a new .gov agency in which we would need to house people for an indefinate period of time while we attempt to do a complete background check. How does that sound?

DRZinn
December 8, 2004, 12:54 PM
But then advocate doing the same for people who want to immigrate or even visit our country.

Again: THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO COME HERE. The burden of proof is on them to prove that we should allow them in, whether as tourists or immigrants. If that creates a problem for them, too bad.

iapetus
December 8, 2004, 01:07 PM
Art Eatman
c_yeager, there's a big difference between the 1930s and now: The Jews of Europe weren't activists about much of anything political, and were--as a group--very peaceful.

Today, the Islamics in Europe not only are becoming ever more politically vocal about such things as Sharia, some members of that group are active terrorists.

Maybe comparison with the Jews isn't so relevant (except as an example of what can happen when a particular religious/ethnic group is demonised and targeted by the state).

But what you said about Muslims could also be said about the Irish in Britain/ Northern Ireland for several decades until recently. Politically vocal, and some active terrorists, who got wide spread support from not just "the community", but also some religious leaders.

True, Al Quieda and co. are far more vicious the IRA and the like.
True, Islam is a religion (ie a chosen set of beliefs) rather than a race or nationality.

But it still does not follow that all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist supporters, or that all Muslims should be expelled.

Besides, if the US was to istitute a "No Muslim" policy, how would that square with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

Art Eatman
December 8, 2004, 08:45 PM
I'm not calling for expelling any group. I was trying to differentiate between perceived justifications about prejudice: I've never seen any rational reason for the hatred of Jews, outside of an almost statistically insignificant number of misbehavers. Certainly the actions of a relatively few Islamics do indeed stir up passions against the group as a whole--whether justified or not is not really material to the argument.

The key word is "perceived". :)

Art

iapetus
December 9, 2004, 01:53 PM
Art Eatman I'm not calling for expelling any group.

Sorry, that was a badly designed post on my part.

I was replying to something you said, and commenting on points made by several people throughout the thread. I didn't mean to imply you were calling for their expulsion.

Stand_Watie
December 9, 2004, 08:51 PM
Besides, if the US was to istitute a "No Muslim" policy, how would that square with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

An interesting question, particularly as that clause of the First Amendment imposes a restriction on the actions of Congress rather than particularly guaranteeing a right.

Personally, while I certainly do not support disallowing persons entry based soley upon their religion, I don't think the protections of the BOR should be extended to applicants for entry to this country (Much of them aren't anyway, try to assert your 4th amendment privacy rights in customs and see how it flies :D )

I don't think reasons for prohibiting entry, or deporting immigrants already here should be arbitrary, but as an example, I'd have no problem whatsoever with refusing entry to, or deporting non-citizens who espouse their hatred for America or the ideals espoused of our Constitution.

c_yeager
December 10, 2004, 03:22 AM
I don't think the protections of the BOR should be extended to applicants for entry to this country

It is rather hard for us to claim that the second ammendment is a natural (i.e. "God Given") right if we decide that our BOR only applies to citizens. If we are to consider our rights to be "human rights" then they apply to all humans, period.

RealGun
December 10, 2004, 05:48 AM
If it was not acceptable to inject ones religious beliefs into government and politics, it wouldn't matter whether one was Christian or Muslim or whatever. To say that Muslims should not be admitted to the US is tantamount to saying that the US is a Christian country. That would not be true in regard to the government. The only thing that would be protected would be the culture, not the government.

As long as there is a firm resolve to separate religion and government, everything "works". When there is an opening for gaining power, people die.

Stand_Watie
December 10, 2004, 10:03 AM
It is rather hard for us to claim that the second ammendment is a natural (i.e. "God Given") right if we decide that our BOR only applies to citizens. If we are to consider our rights to be "human rights" then they apply to all humans, period.

In the perfect hypothetical world perhaps the BOR should be universal, but I don't believe in cutting the throat of our own national security in that pursuit.

I believe in freedom of association too, but have no problem with disallowing those with ties to terrorists from entering the country, or deporting them if already here.

Daemon688
December 10, 2004, 10:31 AM
The one's talking about deportation of Muslims or the banning them from immigration reminds me of......

1. Red Scare in the 50's
2. Creation of Japanese internment camps in the US
3. Banning immigration from China/Japan.

Not all muslims are terrorists and lets not forget that AMERICAN CITIZENS have been caught fighting for the Taliban (John Walker Lind?). Also, don't forget homegrown terrorists. How do you propose to deal with them?

Just because someone has different beliefs does not justify in their deportation. This country was founded on the diversity of ideas. Stereotyping one group for being terrorists is like saying all black people are criminals.

Stand_Watie
December 10, 2004, 10:53 AM
Just because someone has different beliefs does not justify in their deportation. This country was founded on the diversity of ideas.

I think that should depend upon what their beliefs are. I certainly wouldn't advocate deporting them because they worship Allah or pray toward Mecca or exclusively eat Halal food. I would advocate deporting them (or more importantly, denying them entry to the country in the first place) if they say they wish to live in a society under Sharia law.

DRZinn
December 10, 2004, 12:10 PM
It is rather hard for us to claim that the second ammendment is a natural (i.e. "God Given") right if we decide that our BOR only applies to citizens. If we are to consider our rights to be "human rights" then they apply to all humans, period.
Ok, sure, I have no problem with letting everyone here carry weapons, speak freely, etc. But that STILL doesn't mean we have to let them come here in the first place if we decide, based on whatever criteria we choose, that they might be a threat to our security.

(I don't mean a class of people on any grounds, but I do mean as many individuals as we want to deny, on any grounds. And if many of them happen to have a common religion, too bad.)

c_yeager
December 11, 2004, 03:34 AM
In the perfect hypothetical world perhaps the BOR should be universal, but I don't believe in cutting the throat of our own national security in that pursuit.

Well now thats a dangerous road to go down, where does it end?

Its also a very strange idea to see expressed on a gun board. Just how "flexible" should our Bill of Rights be in the name of "national security"? How many rights are YOU willing to give up?

Personally I would willingly risk another 9/11 before I see this country turn into something that isnt WORTH defending.

Stand_Watie
December 11, 2004, 09:15 AM
Well now thats a dangerous road to go down, where does it end?

It doesn't go down any road at all, because the BOR is not universal.

Its also a very strange idea to see expressed on a gun board.

Not at all. Perhpas on an Anarcho-Libertarian board. Or on a board that espouses a one world government or no government at all.

Just how "flexible" should our Bill of Rights be in the name of "national security"? How many rights are YOU willing to give up?

It doesn't need to be any more flexible than it already is. None.

Personally I would willingly risk another 9/11 before I see this country turn into something that isnt WORTH defending.

Personally, I consider securing our borders defending our country. The next 9/11 might be 28,000 or 280,000 dead Americans instead of 2,800. The unrestricted rights of others to immigrate here aren't worth any of the three figures.

Dbl0Kevin
December 11, 2004, 09:16 AM
Gotta say I agree with Stand here........where exactly in the Bill or Rights is the right to "open immigration" enumerated? Is it hidden in that mostly unused 3rd Amendment there? :neener:

DRZinn
December 12, 2004, 12:08 AM
Careful, you're falling into the trap of assuming that what's in the BOR is all there is....

Glock Glockler
December 12, 2004, 12:34 AM
Ok, if you want to hold the Constitution as scripture where does it say that we must have complete and open immigration?

c_yeager
December 12, 2004, 01:01 AM
Gotta say I agree with Stand here........where exactly in the Bill or Rights is the right to "open immigration" enumerated? Is it hidden in that mostly unused 3rd Amendment there?

I didnt say a single word about open immigration. My statement was that the Bill of Rights extended to all people regardless of immigration status, ONCE THEY ARE IN THIS COUNTRY. That means that if someone is standing on American soil they count as humans, and that means they get "human rights".

Furthermore:
Careful, you're falling into the trap of assuming that what's in the BOR is all there is....
This too.

Dbl0Kevin
December 12, 2004, 01:04 PM
I didnt say a single word about open immigration. My statement was that the Bill of Rights extended to all people regardless of immigration status, ONCE THEY ARE IN THIS COUNTRY. That means that if someone is standing on American soil they count as humans, and that means they get "human rights".

That's my whole point. Don't LET them on American soil until they are fully cleared.

If you enjoyed reading about "Tolerant Eutopia?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!