Turn on thread page Beta
Trump 'to sign orders restricting refugees from Muslim nations' watch
- 26-01-2017 19:46
(Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
- 26-01-2017 20:15
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.
We already do that.
I agree with that. It could certainly be improved, but not in the way you're proposing.
Who said Merkel's policy is perfect? It seems like you're presenting a false dichotomy.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not comparing absolute figures, but I agree we need to do more here.
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.
Sure, but until that happens we have no real reason to completely stop low-skilled immigrants provided they satisfy the appropriate and reasonable criteria.
Several groups do of course need excluding from the policy, mainly innovators, businessmen, those who deliver goods internationally, academics and students, nothing that would be too damaging economically or academically. For other groups, I see little need to draft in large numbers of immigrants from these countries unless they cannot be sourced from elsewhere. In real terms, this may not affect a huge number of people (I haven't checked any statistics for the raw numbers), but in principle it's the most logical thing to do. I'm not in favour of a complete ban, just reducing the numbers to mainly key sectors.
The reason I keep referring to Merkel's policy is because it shows what a disaster unchecked immigration can be. It was completely foolish to allow anyone who claims to be a refugee into the country, and the German people have suffered for it. German girls were told by the government to cover up so as not to 'offend' refugees. Let's not even talk about the various terror attacks, or the rapes in Cologne. But overall it highlights a regressive attitude towards women that is apparently held amongst many in the population, which is not a desirable thing for us to import into our country. Yes, refugees (and economic migrants) are obviously not perfectly reflective of the average immigrant coming into the country, but it's an indication of the general cultural/religious attitudes in that part of the world.
I agree, for statistical analysis the same survey should be distributed amongst all groups in the general public. If I were to make a hypothesis on the issue though, I'd say such attitudes would likely be highest among Muslims, perhaps rivalled by conservative Catholics (I'm hardly a fan of these people either). If ever such a survey is undertaken though, I'd be eager to see if my hypothesis is proved correct. Either way, the figures are hardly meaningless because they indicate that over 50% have values that are generally hostile to our own. Sure, we should invest in integrating those who are already here, but that isn't a case to bring in even more people.
And no - obviously - I never suggested that Britain is going to be put under sharia law, that suggestion is absurd. But it's an indication that a not-insignificant proportion of Muslims (again, likely to be higher among ME Muslims than British Muslims) are hostile to the core values of our society. There won't really be an electoral impact in parliament if the population remains low, but in local elections? It's plausible in places like Bradford. No, the Same Sex Couples Act is not under threat, I agree, but in general everyday relations with other citizens, it could create problems (evidence in Switzerland recently of refusing to shake the hands of women, etc. It's not a major concern, but isn't necessarily beneficial for social solidarity). Immigrants from elsewhere are just simply preferable in most circumstances.
But they don't commit crimes simply because they're black, it's usually due to having grown up in poor socio-economic circumstances. A lot of the problems caused by Muslim immigrants are due to their actual beliefs, it's not an accurate comparison.
And in your previous post you simply said "more", which is why I mentioned absolute figures. If you meant proportionally, then idk what the figures are (would be interesting to see actually).
Do you think he wouldn't have included Saudi Arabia if America didn't have oil interests there? Or Pakistan if America didn't want them to do more against the Taliban?
If the low-skilled migrants can't be sourced from elsewhere, and go through a thorough screening process, then sure. Like I said above, I'm not in favour of a complete ban. I'm in favour of reducing the overall numbers (excluding a few sectors or special cases), with a focus on replaceable jobs. If no one else will fill the job, then that's fine, but priority should go to Europe, the Anglosphere and East Asia.
- 26-01-2017 20:17
- 26-01-2017 20:39
India actively fights against terrorism. I was going to link some articles but there are quite a few so you can search up how India defends it self from Pakistan, and the various Islamic terrorist attacks.
There are a significant amount of Muslims in India, 14.2% but this is very little when compared to a Muslim country; Pakistan - 95-98%, Saudi Arabia 90 - 95%, Iran - 99.4%.
The people coming in from India to the US are normally well educated individuals who go on to work for large companies. This is the reason why Indians are the richest ethnic minority in the entire United States- Loads of articles on this, here's just a quick google search http://blogs.voanews.com/all-about-a...he-most-money/.
Personally, I live in the United Kingdom, the Muslims here are quite nice and very integrated but there is still some Muslims that I would say get brainwashed and go into terrorism. So I do actually kinda agree with President Trump's idea as terrorists could be coming in.
TL: DR - India is not a Muslim country.Last edited by peeked; 26-01-2017 at 20:49.
- 26-01-2017 20:41
- 26-01-2017 20:42
- 26-01-2017 20:58
- 26-01-2017 21:31
- 26-01-2017 21:57
Think I should just leave this here,
9/11 Hijacker terorrists -
Sep 11 Terrorists were: 15 Saudis 2 UAE 1 Egypt 1 Lebanon
Trump restricts visa from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen
(Original post by Muwahid-)
- 26-01-2017 22:55
The necessary step is to remove US troops from the various different Muslim countries.
In the paper "Why We Hate You" they write:
"We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices.
“Furthermore, just as your disbelief is the primary reason we hate you, your disbelief is the primary reason we fight you, as we have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam”
Presumably that is why they beheaded the Japanese journalist they captured, even though there isn't a single Japanese soldier in any Muslim country. He disbelieved.
- 26-01-2017 23:01
I watched every minute of the debates and thought she trounced him.
As a political junkie I am sure you did too. Didn't you think she wiped the floor with him, as you watched them?
She was articulate and fluent and on top of policy. He just blustered.
- 26-01-2017 23:07
What a lad trump is. Let's be honest we all know the Muslims are the main terrorists so why take the risk and let them in from troubled countries which have been internally destroyed because of their extremist Muslim values in them countries?
Donald Trump is just making new legislation in his country that is just common sense to the regular person in America and not just the elite and minority of the country.
If only we had someone like Donald to head our government and our country would finally be stepping back in the right direction. Literally. 😜
(Original post by queen-bee)
- 27-01-2017 00:38
WHY isn't Saudi Arabia on there?? Oh America still wants to protect its interests.
Anyway,look what they've done to places like Iraq,constant bombing said for 13 years and arming/funding terrorists in the ME,In then case of Syria and Libya ,in the name of democracy,least we can do is provide a safe place for the victims of their actions,innocent men,women and children caught up in all of this.
you seem to be chasing your tail on two conflicting arguments - blaming usa for militarily removing a dictator in iraq but also whinging that they didnt remove another dictator in syria. if you are trying to sit in an ivory tower of pretend morality - you need to try and be consistent. for what its worth - noone could rightly expect the usa to not maintain its own interests in internal action - trump is simply being blatant about that fact. unfortuantly regular muslims have been caught in the middle of a lot of crap - but this is much bigger and older than the usa - it si namely the islamic conflict of shia v sunni almost dating back almost to the end of mohammed, that has caused majority of suffering in the muslim world. usa is just sticking its oar into an already screwed up situation
- 27-01-2017 00:40
(Original post by Muwahid-)
- 27-01-2017 00:59
I'm saying that the US needs to think long and hard about why the Muslim world dislikes them
the main reasons are -
A USA supports israel and jews right to be self-determinate in the middle east - the idea which muslims have hated since mohammeds time
B USA in its dominance of the world culturally, militarily and economically - is proof in action that the islamic system is not the superior way to run a nation - which is anathema to what islamic doctrine dictates to muslims. This influence usa further stings when they flex their military muscles abroad into lands under islamic control , showing where motivations clash there is only one winner - unlike the times of mohammed where the muslims where militarily superior to their tribal neighbours.
C USA is founded upon christian & democratic ideals, as well as modernist and , comparatively, liberal thinking - so to a minor extent some muslims take issue with this mindset that is vastly different to their own
(Original post by Wōden)
- 27-01-2017 01:06
There are significant numbers of people in the countries cited that are utterly hostile towards the West. It makes perfect sense to halt immigration from these places and every Western nation should have done so years ago. Would you have allowed migrants from the Axis Powers during World War Two?
(Original post by queen-bee)
- 27-01-2017 01:07
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
this isnt true as you well know - the jews were defeated by mohammed and the arabs first and then persians and then the turks - while they were successfully subjigated yes there was 'peace' of sorts. at the expense of the jewish self determination. the reality was islamically inspired imperialsm met its match in european imperialism
(Original post by queen-bee)
So tell me,what do you want me to do about it? Declare my hate for Arabs who are Muslims? For killing my ancestors?
and yet they 1200 or so years of muslim armies raping and pillaging through the lands your ancestors called home and removing their far older culture for the imposition of arabic culture , is of no bother to you. i cant really establish if this widespread trait is due to lack of education or generational indoctrination and brainwashing
- 27-01-2017 01:09
(Original post by ThatOldGuy)
- 27-01-2017 04:07
Trump is actually advocating 'Extreme vetting' of people from these countries.
In practical terms, that means no refugees as they are all-but-impossible to vet.
He's also signing an executive order to implement his wall. I'm hoping he gets as much pushback on these things as Obama did on his executive orders implementing universal health care. I don't hate Trump - I think a few of his nominations have been inspired(Mad Dog and DeVos to be exact). But he's a statist through and through representing a group of people who are ostensibly individualists.
I am extremely uneasy with the way he's centralizing power and the ease with which he's doing it. I don't think he's the problem, though - I think the guy -after- Trump is going to be the scary guy.
(Original post by oldercon1953)
- 27-01-2017 06:23
Centralizing power?? How has he managed to do this and could you me why you think he's a statist when just the opposite would seem to be the case.
Obama did it and it was wrong. Trump did it and it's wrong.
"Just the opposite would seem to be the case" is definitely not correct.