Trump 'to sign orders restricting refugees from Muslim nations'

Gradually, yes they are. And I'm sure that, in time, British Muslims will be able to fully integrate and become more progressive. I don't doubt that. But immigrants directly from the Middle East have grown up in an environment that doesn't support our values. Why bother using our resources to make them more progressive, when we can have immigrants from Western nations that hold these values already?

(And yes, the Christian-right in America is a big concern for me. As an atheist, I dislike all religion; however the average American is going to find it far easier to integrate than the average immigrant from the ME).

I'm not in favour of outright bans. I want immigration from these areas to be massively reduced, so that we only take people who have unique skills and attributes (perhaps a brilliant business idea, or a leading scientist). Anyone with replaceable skills should be sourced from the West and East Asia.

Yes, guns need to be outlawed in America. I'm very much in favour of a gun ban. However, even if the threat posed by immigration is less, it doesn't mean we shouldn't address it (and it's FAR easier to address than gun rights in this instance anyway, due to the American constitution requiring 75% of states to be in favour of the gun ban to actually ratify it).

And every other minority religion and sect in the ME but I'm asking you,what is it that you want expect me to do?! It's like saying every Jew should hate the German people for what happened to their ancestors.

So tell men what the future close do you want you want to feel? To say? There are Christians in the Middle East who despise Muslims and vice Versa but I don't want to live in a world where we are fearful of each other,let god judge every individual and rightly so.

Saying something should be allowed because it's in the constitution is a circular argument. 'x should be allowed because x is allowed'.

I find the idea that a country should be bound by something written hundreds of yeara ago to be bizarre. I much prefer the British constitution which is allowed to gradually develop and change over time.

I am simply asking you not to lecture us about how we should take millions of Muslim refugees into the West. (A West that your family fled to, from them, in an irony you seem not to grasp).

We don't want what happened to your people to happen to us. (And indeed is STILL happening in the middle east where Christians are being persecuted and killed).

Why would we willingly import sectarian strife (more than we already have?)

Sometimes the wrong things are done for the right reasons.


.

General policies have to be lawful though.

Due to the terms of the US Constitution and America's history of both racial discrimination and religious discrimination (Quakers, Catholics, Jews and Mormons) there are very strong protections against discrimination and against pseudo-objective justifications for discrimination.

There are some very high hurdles here and Trump appears to lack the subtlety to surmount them.

I don't see why we can't have immigrants from the ME and Western nations. We've been doing it for decades with very little problems. If the people from ME are going to eventually assimilate in terms of social values and thereby cause a reduction in social and religious conservatism, what exactly is the problem?

Sure, but the point was that we don't (and shouldn't) deny entry to merely because they hold conservative views on social issues. As long as they're law-adiding and contribute economically, who cares if they don't like homosexuals? Obviously, we should discourage homophobic attitudes but it's not really a relevant factor when it comes to the British or American immigration policy.

I want immigration in general to be reduced, but not to such an extent.

You're missing the point. Toddler shooting cases are extremely rare, rarer still are Islamist terrorist attacks. When you consider the fact that more terrorist attacks are committed by those born and raised here as opposed to immigrants and refugees, it becomes clear that the policy is a useless exercise in security theatre at the cost of denying people the opportunity to immigrate and improve their lives. It's an irrational fear and a poor basis for policy decisions.

I will lecture you however i like,it's a free country,ya kalb

Your people were defeated and subjugated by Islam. Your male ancestors were murdered, your female ancestors turned into sex slaves, all had to pay the hated Jizya to avoid complete extermination.

I can't STOP you lecturing us, but I can ask, why should we listen to you? What can you teach us other than what not to do?

Oh,it's funny that you've yet be to answer my question on Saudi Arabia? Or are they okay,as long as our interests are being protected. You also didn't mention anything about the arming of terrorists by the west... interesting

The only thing you seem to have an interest in is talking about my ancestors

I haven't answered your questions because they are irrelevant.

We should not take your (unasked for) advice and accept millions of Muslim refugees/migrants. We don't want our countries to become hellholes, like Lebanon.

This just shows how people dodn't actually listen to what Trump says. The money is going to come from remittences sent back to Mexico, and (something else I forget).


Weell, yeah. I doubt the people who assaulted kids and women in swimming pools had links to extremists, they're just acting in the way their culture allowed.

That isn't what I've said. You claimed that the elected legislature and president can ban guns like anything else - I'm saying that's false in the case of America, which is the country you were discussing with joecphillips. An individual right to gun ownership has been ruled by the judiciary to be granted by the constitution, so it can't be revoked by a simple act of Congress. I'm disputing your comment about what is the case, not making a statement on what the case should be.

You've also missed my nod to the EU referendum as an example of constitutional change enacted by simple majority, which you opposed. As ever, you read only what you imagine I've written, not what I've actually written...

Try reading my post properly.

You never mentioned the EU in your post and surprisingly I don't read all your posts on here. I have no idea what you said about the EU nor its relevance here.

My point was that the notion of any rights being entrenched and out of the reach of political debate is absurd, even for things like torture. Everything should be subject to debate and change.

Forgive me for not being able to break the post into sections, I'm on my phone anyway:

You're missing the point. Why should we bother wasting time for them to integrate (potentially taking years, decades), investing resources in things such as English language lessons, when we can instead get someone who fits in perfectly and incurs no additional costs or risks?

There are only a limited number of people we can take, so why not priorities those who have exactly the same skills and experience, but fit in with our society better?

The current system largely hasn't caused too many problems, but that doesn't mean it's immune from improvement

and, especially now more than ever (with east-west tensions quite high), there's a strong case for reform. You can see just how well Merkel's refugee policy has worked out, for example (for those reading this who don't realise, that's sarcasm).

That's just one of many issues though. The survey that I posted a page or two back showed that 39% of British Muslims think wives should always obey their husbands and 23% think sharia law should be implemented in the UK!

I dread to think what the figure for the average ME country is like. I couldn't care less whether they privately disagree with homosexuality, but the fact that they also think it should be illegal means that the rights of our citizens are threatened.

Just to put it simply, why should we take immigrants from these countries, when we can take immigrants from elsewhere who don't have these issues? Please, just give me one good reason why it's beneficial to take ME immigrants over Western/East Asian ones, barring exceptional circumstances (which I've already allowed for anyway).

Terrorist attacks are rare, but when they do happen they tend to affect a large number of people. If even one innocent citizen is killed or assaulted in a terrorist attack by an immigrant, that could have been preventable, then the government have clearly failed by permitting them entry. Look at Germany for example, all of these would have been preventable if Merkel had implemented a proper screening process.

Obviously, terrorist attacks could be committed by citizens of the countries that I have listed as favourable, but my point being it's a game of statistics. Western immigrants are less likely to be a danger, so statistically they're safer to take in. There is simply no good reason to take an average ME immigrant over them.

As for citizens of the country that we are in, there are far more natives than immigrants so obviously natives are going to commit more terrorist attacks (larger population size). Either way, we need to do more to make sure people don't become radicalised at home.

In terms of "denying people the opportunity to immigrate and improve their lives", this isn't really a concern if it threatens the safety of our own society.

There are other ways to help, and letting in a few thousand isn't going to make much difference in denting the overall figure of hundreds of millions of people who have little wealth. Instead, encouraging their own societies to reform and improve human rights and reduce economic corruption would solve far more problems than allowing them to immigrate here.

British Muslims are becoming more progressive.

Perhaps you could write them properly. I wasn't the only one to pull you up on this - the way you phrased it gave no indication that you were talking about how things should be rather than how they are.



I didn't mention it explicitly. That's why I called it a nod. I said, 'don't tell me you're now in favour of enacting constitutional change by simple majority/plurality.' In my mind that's a clear reference to your position on the referendum result and what has happened since.

The relevance is obvious - both the Second Amendment and EU membership are constitutional matters. Your argument against the former is more or less the same argument put by the winning side in the referendum: 'democracy, bruh.' I've seen you object to that, which is why it's curious you've suddenly come out in favour of constitutional matters being treated the same way as any other policy.



Of course it's absurd, but that's irrelevant because it's not true. Gun laws are the subject of one of the major national debates in America. Nor are they unchangeable given there is an established process to amend the constitution. (Though an easier and less scrupulous alternative is to have a long-term goal of stacking the supreme court with justices who will overturn District of Columbia v. Heller, which authoritatively established the individual right to firearm ownership to which so many people object.)

One might expect that to be the case but, worryingly, the opposite appears to be true the younger generation is doing the opposite of what is happening among westerners, with the young being more conservative than their parents.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/yourview/1540929/Why-are-young-British-Muslims-more-radical-than-their-parents.html

I think you have my views on the EU mistaken.

facilitated by exposure to Salafi educational content from Saudi Arabia.