Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Trump 'to sign orders restricting refugees from Muslim nations' Watch

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Answe the question then...should we be afraid of Muslims?in the U.K. And abroad

    Muslims,Christians and Jews have always lived peacefully for many centuries in the ME and then came the rise of salafist promoted by the KSA
    So tell me,what do you want me to do about it? Declare my hate for Arabs who are Muslims? For killing my ancestors?
    What about the war between the Muslims and Christians in 1860?

    What about the initial bloody conquest and subjection of Maronite Christian Lebanon by Muslim armies??

    Do you even know your own history?

    It is great that you are able to forgive what happened to your people at the hands of Muslims, but that doesn't mean that we want it to happen to us.

    And the fewer Muslims there are in the west, the less danger of that there is.

    Trump is being far sighted in making it difficult for Muslim refugees to immigrate, (as has Japan which has taken none); Merkel has been insane.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    What about the war between the Muslims and Christians in 1860?

    What about the initial bloody conquest and subjection of Maronite Christian Lebanon by Muslim armies??

    Do you even know your own history?

    It is great that you are able to forgive what happened to your people at the hands of Muslims, but that doesn't mean that we want it to happen to us.

    And the fewer Muslims there are in the west, the less danger of that there is.

    Trump is being far sighted in making it difficult for Muslim refugees to immigrate, (as has Japan which has taken none); Merkel has been insane.
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JRKinder)
    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?
    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?

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

    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).
    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.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    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.
    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.


    .
    • Offline

      18
      (Original post by Bornblue)
      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.
      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... :facepalm2:
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by astutehirstute)
      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.


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

      First of all,you don't know the reasons why my family came to the west,so stfu,I don't need your assumptions.

      Christians,Shias,yazidis etc. I would have been long dead by now if every muslim I knew was a murderer.

      Then stop ducking interfering in the Middle East and arming terrorists in the new name of democracy because it always backfires. Just look at the comments trump has made recently about taking iraq's oil..and stop getting cozy in bed with the Saudis,its funny how they weren't on the list,what do you have to say about that? They are the number one promoter of Wahhabism and salafism,shouldn't we fearing them the most? Anyway,we should stop getting the involved in the Middle East,killings innocents there and making people refugees,maybe then they wouldn't come knocking on our doors begging for help.
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by nulli tertius)
      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.
      Interestingly, I have raised the point of constitutionality in a previous thread (pre-election). You're right of course, the first amendment (I think?) protects freedom of religion, so the implementation of such a policy will likely be challenged in the Supreme Court. The President does have a lot of influence over immigration policy though, so he likely will be able to implement it (via executive order, if Congress blocks formal legislation), but how long it will last for before being declared unconstitutional, that I don't know.
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
      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.
      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.
      Offline

      11
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by queen-bee)
      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?
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by astutehirstute)
      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
      Offline

      11
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by queen-bee)
      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.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Trevor for president
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by astutehirstute)
      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.
      Saudi arabis irrelevant? Isn't that the main source of extremist ideologies,so how can they be irrelevant? How can funding terrorists in Syria be irrelevant??!! Lol you've got to be kidding me. Isn't this all what Syria is about right now. Christ! Just WOW

      I'll say what I like,accept it or don't.
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by MildredMalone)
      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.
      There is a difference between not opening up your country to any immigration and opening the doors wide. Germany let in millions of people with no plan on how to integrate and no idea of how bad things could get. It was made worse by the media trying to cover it up.

      What those people did was terrible and there -should- have been a public outcry about it. And the police -should- have reacted much more strongly than they did.

      But I don't think this is the answer.
      • Community Assistant
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Hydeman)
      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.
      That wasn't my point. I know the right to gun is entrenched and that a president and congress can't simply reverse it. I never said otherwise. My point was that they SHOULD be able to, not that they actually have the power to. Try reading my post properly.

      My argument was about the notion of 'government taking people's rights away'.

      I find it bizarre that any 'rights' are so entrenched and not subject to political debates, especially one as controversial and divisive as gun ownership.

      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... :facepalm2:
      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.
      • Offline

        18
        (Original post by Bornblue)
        Try reading my post properly.
        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.

        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.
        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.

        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.
        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.)
        Offline

        18
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by JRKinder)
        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?
        Why should we bother sending foreign aid when we can spend it on domestic issues? Not everything has to produce immediate economic benefits. It's hardly a tremendous waste. From a progressive perspective, surely it's worth spreading liberal values to people who otherwise would not be exposed to them. From an international relations perspective, surely outright bans on immigrants is more likely cause an increase in hostility.

        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?
        We already do that.

        The current system largely hasn't caused too many problems, but that doesn't mean it's immune from improvement
        I agree with that. It could certainly be improved, but not in the way you're proposing.

        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).
        Who said Merkel's policy is perfect? It seems like you're presenting a false dichotomy.

        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!
        Again figures like these are kind of meaningless without comparisons with other groups. In any case, I think those are fairly low percentages and not a cause of concern - we're not going to see Britain under sharia law. As you're worried about sexism and domestic violence, wouldn't it be better to reduce its prevalence in a group of people by assimilating them?

        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.
        But that is a private belief as well. The rights of our citizens are not threatened; there's absolutely no way that British Muslims, let alone a few thousand immigrants, can threaten the Same Sex Couples Act.

        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).
        It's not for me to give reasons to not discriminate to such an extent when a) the security threat is negligible and b) it would most likely increase hostility and worsen relations.

        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.
        Seems like you're using the M&Ms analogy. Not sure why you're bringing up Merkel again. I'm not against screening processes. BUT it does not follow from that we ought to outright prevent immigration (or only allow entry for ultra-exceptional cases) from those countries.

        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.
        Statistically, black immigrants are more likely to commit crimes than other groups. Should we ban black people too?

        It's not a game of statistics. It's irrational paranoia.

        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.
        I'm not comparing absolute figures, but I agree we need to do more here.

        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's no threat to society as such. It's a massive overreaction. Trump knows this, hence he didn't include Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc in the list.

        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.
        Sure, but until that happens we have no real reason to completely stop low-skilled immigrants provided they satisfy the appropriate and reasonable criteria.
        Offline

        19
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
        British Muslims are becoming more progressive.
        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/your...r-parents.html
        • Community Assistant
        Offline

        15
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Hydeman)
        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.)
        I think you have my views on the EU mistaken.

        I voted remain but have since absolutely maintained that the result of the referendum should be upheld. I have not called for a second refendsum and think people who have are being sore losers. I deplore the nasty bullying of the leave camp and how they characterise anyone who disagrees with them as traitors but nonetheless we must leave.

        I would prefer an arrangement that sees us stay in the single market but that is looking less likely. Nonetheless we voted leave and something resembling Brexit must take place.

        I have also maintained that referenda are a bad idea and Parliament alone should decide these matters. I do think that a simple Parliamentary majority is sufficient to leave the EU or rejoin it in the future. Same with the ECHR.


        I know amendments to the US Constitution are possible but the threshold is far too high imo.

        The ONLY thing imo which should be absolutely beyond politicians are things like the independence and existence of the Judiciary as well as Parliament itself.
        Offline

        18
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Good bloke)
        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/your...r-parents.html
        I've seen this before. It's interesting, but I still think the overall trend is progressive. I suspect the conservatism is a temporary reaction facilitated by exposure to Salafi educational content from Saudi Arabia.
       
       
       
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • Poll
      Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
      Useful resources
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

      Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

      Quick reply
      Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.