• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Tolerant Eutopia?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
I notice the second portion of 'how you screen these people out' was ignored.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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, 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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
Every one of the 9/11 hijackers entered this country legally.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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?
Click to expand...

An excuse for doing nothing.
 
An excuse for doing nothing.
Click to expand...

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

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 ;) )
 
but when someone suggests that inalienable rights apply to people attempting to move to or visit the US it all goes away?
Click to expand...
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.
 
So because I don't agree with YOU then I must not want to do anything? [sarcasm]Sound logic.[/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

I'm waiting with baited breath your plan to keep terrorists out of the country.
 
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:
 
Yeah that's about what I figured.
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
Your non-solution is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top