Does the Left think Muslims have a Constitutional right....

[MAGOG89]

Got news for ya, not your call.

Sure it is. It's our call.

No, it isn't. The faith has to advance to where it really means nothing, like Christianity, from the inside not the outside. You can't kill an idea, no matter how many people you slaughter.

We can keep them the hell out of this country. They can stay in the Middle East for 500 years while their religion matures.

And that was said of your faith as well, assuming you are still Catholic which is hard to imagine.

The only faith I've ever seen from you is Me, Myself, and I.

I couldn't care less what was said of my faith. I'm not threatened by Catholics who want to impose their doctrines on me. I am threatened by Muslims who want to impose Sharia.

Meh....

I dont think Jihad, Sharia will be spreading into United States.

This is the second most armed country per capita and it is majority, Christians and secular.

In this nation, a jihadi muslim will be quickly made a dead muslim.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It's threatened by Muslim terror.

It's hardly just the Muslims little infant.

Muslims are responsible for 99% of the terror in this world, retard.

Prove it.

Islam Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time

You're proving anything here. You're posting a link to a less than credible site that is claiming a certain number of deadly terror attacks have been carried out. How many terror attacks have been carried out world wide?

Country Reports on Terrorism 2011 National Counterterrorism Center Annex of Statistical Information

According to this - looking at just one year, 2011, the biggest perpetrators were Sunni extremists accounting for 56% of all attacks. Secular, political, and anarchist groups were the next largest category. If 2011 is typical, we aren't even close to 99% and it's primarily Sunni extremists.

There's way too much politics in determining what is and isn't a Muslim terrorist attack. Look at our illustrious Magic Negro president who deemed the Fort Hood shooting a "workplace violence" incident. Yeah, the guy was a Muslim shouting "Allua Akbar!" as he was slaughtering U.S. soldiers.

So you people have a truth problem....you don't like looking at it.

But if we consider terrorist attacks as all having an ideology to promote, and we start separating them by ideology, then it becomes clear that nearly all of them are motivated by Islam. For every abortion doctor killed by a Christian, a thousand people are killed in the name of Islam...and we're not just talking about what happens in Western nations. Until you people are willing to accept reality as it is, you'll never see that terrorism is not an equal opportunity issue.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Sure it is. It's our call.

No, it isn't. The faith has to advance to where it really means nothing, like Christianity, from the inside not the outside. You can't kill an idea, no matter how many people you slaughter.

We can keep them the hell out of this country. They can stay in the Middle East for 500 years while their religion matures.

And that was said of your faith as well, assuming you are still Catholic which is hard to imagine.

The only faith I've ever seen from you is Me, Myself, and I.

I couldn't care less what was said of my faith. I'm not threatened by Catholics who want to impose their doctrines on me. I am threatened by Muslims who want to impose Sharia.

Meh....

I dont think Jihad, Sharia will be spreading into United States.

This is the second most armed country per capita and it is majority, Christians and secular.

In this nation, a jihadi muslim will be quickly made a dead muslim.

That's not going to save us. Israel is also very well armed and suffers many terrorist attacks.

Better than killing Muslims, how about we don't let them here to begin with?

That's a "pro life" position I can really get behind. Nobody gets hurt.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

And the point is, we can have any bias we want. Civil rights do not apply to foreigners wanting to come into this country. We understood this during the great immigration of the early 20th century, taking in only those people who would benefit this country. And the people we selected helped us win a world war and build our national infrastructure. This is the point of utilizing intelligent prejudice in our immigration policy.

We've never discrimminated against religion in immigration, in fact, our country is based upon a central tenant - freedom of religion. To discriminate on religion alone - not criminal record, not anything else is bigotry and instead of taking a progressive path, our nation would be taking a regressive path. It's not "intelligent prejudice" given that America's Muslim community has been varied, hard working and American.

That will change the minute Muslims make up a sufficient percentage of the population.

If you believe the rightwing anti-Muslim playbook.

The evidence was posted in this forum.

Yes. And it was straight out of The Right Wing Playbook on Anti-Muslim Extremism People For the American Way

oh, you cited a hard core Leftist site.

Very compelling!

 

[Coyote]

Its not racist because your bias is theological, ANYONE can become a Muslim, its not dependent on race, and for the most part "moderate Islam" is just a left-wing mythology.

And the point is, we can have any bias we want. Civil rights do not apply to foreigners wanting to come into this country. We understood this during the great immigration of the early 20th century, taking in only those people who would benefit this country. And the people we selected helped us win a world war and build our national infrastructure. This is the point of utilizing intelligent prejudice in our immigration policy.

We've never discrimminated against religion in immigration, in fact, our country is based upon a central tenant - freedom of religion. To discriminate on religion alone - not criminal record, not anything else is bigotry and instead of taking a progressive path, our nation would be taking a regressive path. It's not "intelligent prejudice" given that America's Muslim community has been varied, hard working and American.

Civil rights don't apply to foreigners wanting to immigrate to this country. The OP was written with people like you in mind.

BTW, where have you been lately.

Missed ya!

Ah...but I wasn't referring to civil rights - I was referring to immigration policy. I agree we can have any bias we want - that doesn't of course make it right (look back at some of the cruel and draconian anti-immigration laws we had against different groups, like the Chinese). To discrimminate against religion alone is bigotry.

And hi back at you sweetie!

So is it never right to discriminate based on ethnic culture, especially when that culture has proven destructive in their own nations?

You seem to be applying a principle that should have NOTHING to do with immigration. We shouldn't choose who comes here by political correctness, but by an impassioned evaluation of what benefit they'll bring to this country....like we did with the Russians, Italians, Irish, and Polish immigrants.

And in that impassioned evaluation, we should take into account what's going on in Western countries where Muslims are attaining numerical significance and ask, "Do we want that in OUR country?"

It's a valid question to be asking.

The Russians, Italians, Irish, Polish, East Europeans came during immigrant waves that occurred prior to any real limits on immigration. The first laws prohibiting immigration were the Chinese Exclusion laws in the 1870's based not on "an imapssioned evaluation" but pure racism. The Irish, Italians, East Europeans immigrates were poor, desperate, impoverished and despised. They were considered dirty, diseased, subhuman, drunkard criminals (Irish), overly fertile, untrustworthy (Italians), bred children like litters of puppies (Catholics)..etc etc in fact you get the picture of how immigration was viewed then. And it's not much different than now (with Mexicans for example). There were no real quotes or restrictions beyond disease. We are a nation of many immigrant groups and all of them have managed to make a sucess of themselves: Irish, Russian, Italian, Palestinian, Lebonese, Polish, Cuban, Haitian....

If someone is willing to work hard, does not have a violent criminal record - then I don't care what their religion or ethnic background is - our success stories are not PHD's coming over here, they are the dirt poor people who worked hard and valued education and sent their children on to become PHD's. That's how I view it. Quotas? Sure, I can accept that - but not based on ethnicity or religion.

 

[bripat9643]

It's threatened by Muslim terror.

It's hardly just the Muslims little infant.

Muslims are responsible for 99% of the terror in this world, retard.

Prove it.

Islam Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time

You're proving anything here. You're posting a link to a less than credible site that is claiming a certain number of deadly terror attacks have been carried out. How many terror attacks have been carried out world wide?

Country Reports on Terrorism 2011 National Counterterrorism Center Annex of Statistical Information

According to this - looking at just one year, 2011, the biggest perpetrators were Sunni extremists accounting for 56% of all attacks. Secular, political, and anarchist groups were the next largest category. If 2011 is typical, we aren't even close to 99% and it's primarily Sunni extremists.

I noticed you cut out a significant portion of the paragraph without indicating anything was missing.

Sunni extremists accounted for the greatest number of terrorist attacks and fatalities for the third consecutive year. More than 5,700 incidents were attributed to Sunni extremists, accounting for nearly 56 percent of all attacks and about 70 percent of all fatalities. Among this perpetrator group, al-Qa‘ida (AQ) and its affiliates were responsible for at least 688 attacks that resulted in almost 2,000 deaths, while the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan conducted over 800 attacks that resulted in nearly 1, 900 deaths. Secular, political, and anarchist groups were the next largest category of perpetrators, conducting 2,283 attacks with 1,926 fatalities, a drop of 5 percent and 9 percent, respectively, from 2010.​

OK, so Muslims are only responsible for 70% of the terror killings in the world

What a relief!

 

[Coyote]

No, it isn't. The faith has to advance to where it really means nothing, like Christianity, from the inside not the outside. You can't kill an idea, no matter how many people you slaughter.

We can keep them the hell out of this country. They can stay in the Middle East for 500 years while their religion matures.

And that was said of your faith as well, assuming you are still Catholic which is hard to imagine.

The only faith I've ever seen from you is Me, Myself, and I.

I couldn't care less what was said of my faith. I'm not threatened by Catholics who want to impose their doctrines on me. I am threatened by Muslims who want to impose Sharia.

Meh....

I dont think Jihad, Sharia will be spreading into United States.

This is the second most armed country per capita and it is majority, Christians and secular.

In this nation, a jihadi muslim will be quickly made a dead muslim.

That's not going to save us. Israel is also very well armed and suffers many terrorist attacks.

Better than killing Muslims, how about we don't let them here to begin with?

That's a "pro life" position I can really get behind. Nobody gets hurt.

Israel is not comparable - it's in a war and most of it's attacks are a result of the unresolved conflict.

 

[Coyote]

It's hardly just the Muslims little infant.

Muslims are responsible for 99% of the terror in this world, retard.

Prove it.

Islam Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time

You're proving anything here. You're posting a link to a less than credible site that is claiming a certain number of deadly terror attacks have been carried out. How many terror attacks have been carried out world wide?

Country Reports on Terrorism 2011 National Counterterrorism Center Annex of Statistical Information

According to this - looking at just one year, 2011, the biggest perpetrators were Sunni extremists accounting for 56% of all attacks. Secular, political, and anarchist groups were the next largest category. If 2011 is typical, we aren't even close to 99% and it's primarily Sunni extremists.

I noticed you cut out a significant portion of the paragraph without indicating anything was missing.

Sunni extremists accounted for the greatest number of terrorist attacks and fatalities for the third consecutive year. More than 5,700 incidents were attributed to Sunni extremists, accounting for nearly 56 percent of all attacks and about 70 percent of all fatalities. Among this perpetrator group, al-Qa‘ida (AQ) and its affiliates were responsible for at least 688 attacks that resulted in almost 2,000 deaths, while the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan conducted over 800 attacks that resulted in nearly 1, 900 deaths. Secular, political, and anarchist groups were the next largest category of perpetrators, conducting 2,283 attacks with 1,926 fatalities, a drop of 5 percent and 9 percent, respectively, from 2010.​

OK, so Muslims are only responsible for 70% of the terror killings in the world

What a relief!

Earlier in this thread you made a distinction to another poster that you were talking about incidents, not fatalities - so now you are moving the goal posts?

That isn't how many people were killed. It's how many attacks there were. Many of them involve multiple deaths.

The number of Saddam's soldiers who died is irrelevant to this discussion.

56% of terrorist incidents. Not 99% as you claim.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

We can keep them the hell out of this country. They can stay in the Middle East for 500 years while their religion matures.

And that was said of your faith as well, assuming you are still Catholic which is hard to imagine.

The only faith I've ever seen from you is Me, Myself, and I.

I couldn't care less what was said of my faith. I'm not threatened by Catholics who want to impose their doctrines on me. I am threatened by Muslims who want to impose Sharia.

Meh....

I dont think Jihad, Sharia will be spreading into United States.

This is the second most armed country per capita and it is majority, Christians and secular.

In this nation, a jihadi muslim will be quickly made a dead muslim.

That's not going to save us. Israel is also very well armed and suffers many terrorist attacks.

Better than killing Muslims, how about we don't let them here to begin with?

That's a "pro life" position I can really get behind. Nobody gets hurt.

Israel is not comparable - it's in a war and most of it's attacks are a result of the unresolved conflict.

Yes it is comparable. Terrorist attacks and war are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Its not racist because your bias is theological, ANYONE can become a Muslim, its not dependent on race, and for the most part "moderate Islam" is just a left-wing mythology.

And the point is, we can have any bias we want. Civil rights do not apply to foreigners wanting to come into this country. We understood this during the great immigration of the early 20th century, taking in only those people who would benefit this country. And the people we selected helped us win a world war and build our national infrastructure. This is the point of utilizing intelligent prejudice in our immigration policy.

We've never discrimminated against religion in immigration, in fact, our country is based upon a central tenant - freedom of religion. To discriminate on religion alone - not criminal record, not anything else is bigotry and instead of taking a progressive path, our nation would be taking a regressive path. It's not "intelligent prejudice" given that America's Muslim community has been varied, hard working and American.

Civil rights don't apply to foreigners wanting to immigrate to this country. The OP was written with people like you in mind.

BTW, where have you been lately.

Missed ya!

Ah...but I wasn't referring to civil rights - I was referring to immigration policy. I agree we can have any bias we want - that doesn't of course make it right (look back at some of the cruel and draconian anti-immigration laws we had against different groups, like the Chinese). To discrimminate against religion alone is bigotry.

And hi back at you sweetie!

Not when that religion is a blood thirsty cult. It's no more bigoted than discriminating against Nazis.

what's the matter, the women you chase prefer dark meat?

 

[bripat9643]

It wasn't wrong then, and it's not wrong now.

Countries have a right to control their borders. Any claim to the contrary is shear idiocy.

Yes the do, and we don't, but you don't want to control the border in this case, you want to keep the Muslims out, and have all who are here go somewhere else.

Huh? I have no plans to have any citizen of the United States leave the country. All others can get the hell out.

Keeping Muslims out is controlling the border, numskull.

So you're okay with Muslim American citizens.

Baby steps ....

Not really, but the Constitution doesn't allow us to deport citizens. It does allow us to prevent Muslims from immigrating here.

Oh but we do deport people, once we remove their citizenship that is, like the fine fellow:


NY Judge Orders Ex-Nazi Deported
V I E N N A, Aug. 15
By Sue Masterman


Austria is preparing to receive yet another relic of its Nazi past.

A New York immigration court ordered self-confessed ex-Nazi Michael Gruber, 84, deported. Gruber, of New City, NY, has admitted to his role as a Waffen SS guard in Oranienburg, Germany.

Gruber denies that he served in the SS Death’s Head Guard Battalion at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp there.

But the Nazi regime’s obsession with control, carefully documenting every move of every person in Hitler’s Third Reich, indicated otherwise.

Immigration Judge Robert Weisel said captured Nazi documents found by the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations — which hunts Nazis — proved the court’s satisfaction that Gruner served at the Sachsenhausen death camp from January 1943 to September 1944
NY Judge Orders Ex-Nazi Deported - ABC News

So you have one example, and that person is guilty of horrendous crimes and of filing false information on his visa application.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

And the point is, we can have any bias we want. Civil rights do not apply to foreigners wanting to come into this country. We understood this during the great immigration of the early 20th century, taking in only those people who would benefit this country. And the people we selected helped us win a world war and build our national infrastructure. This is the point of utilizing intelligent prejudice in our immigration policy.

We've never discrimminated against religion in immigration, in fact, our country is based upon a central tenant - freedom of religion. To discriminate on religion alone - not criminal record, not anything else is bigotry and instead of taking a progressive path, our nation would be taking a regressive path. It's not "intelligent prejudice" given that America's Muslim community has been varied, hard working and American.

Civil rights don't apply to foreigners wanting to immigrate to this country. The OP was written with people like you in mind.

BTW, where have you been lately.

Missed ya!

Ah...but I wasn't referring to civil rights - I was referring to immigration policy. I agree we can have any bias we want - that doesn't of course make it right (look back at some of the cruel and draconian anti-immigration laws we had against different groups, like the Chinese). To discrimminate against religion alone is bigotry.

And hi back at you sweetie!

So is it never right to discriminate based on ethnic culture, especially when that culture has proven destructive in their own nations?

You seem to be applying a principle that should have NOTHING to do with immigration. We shouldn't choose who comes here by political correctness, but by an impassioned evaluation of what benefit they'll bring to this country....like we did with the Russians, Italians, Irish, and Polish immigrants.

And in that impassioned evaluation, we should take into account what's going on in Western countries where Muslims are attaining numerical significance and ask, "Do we want that in OUR country?"

It's a valid question to be asking.

The Russians, Italians, Irish, Polish, East Europeans came during immigrant waves that occurred prior to any real limits on immigration. The first laws prohibiting immigration were the Chinese Exclusion laws in the 1870's based not on "an imapssioned evaluation" but pure racism. The Irish, Italians, East Europeans immigrates were poor, desperate, impoverished and despised. They were considered dirty, diseased, subhuman, drunkard criminals (Irish), overly fertile, untrustworthy (Italians), bred children like litters of puppies (Catholics)..etc etc in fact you get the picture of how immigration was viewed then. And it's not much different than now (with Mexicans for example). There were no real quotes or restrictions beyond disease. We are a nation of many immigrant groups and all of them have managed to make a sucess of themselves: Irish, Russian, Italian, Palestinian, Lebonese, Polish, Cuban, Haitian....

If someone is willing to work hard, does not have a violent criminal record - then I don't care what their religion or ethnic background is - our success stories are not PHD's coming over here, they are the dirt poor people who worked hard and valued education and sent their children on to become PHD's. That's how I view it. Quotas? Sure, I can accept that - but not based on ethnicity or religion.

Those people were allowed into this country legally, not like the Wetbacks who are jumping our border. Stop with the asymmetrical comparisons already.

And the Chinese were allowed as guest workers to build our railroads. When they applied for citizenship we said no. This is the point. It's up to us to decide.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Muslims are responsible for 99% of the terror in this world, retard.

Prove it.

Islam Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time

You're proving anything here. You're posting a link to a less than credible site that is claiming a certain number of deadly terror attacks have been carried out. How many terror attacks have been carried out world wide?

Country Reports on Terrorism 2011 National Counterterrorism Center Annex of Statistical Information

According to this - looking at just one year, 2011, the biggest perpetrators were Sunni extremists accounting for 56% of all attacks. Secular, political, and anarchist groups were the next largest category. If 2011 is typical, we aren't even close to 99% and it's primarily Sunni extremists.

I noticed you cut out a significant portion of the paragraph without indicating anything was missing.

Sunni extremists accounted for the greatest number of terrorist attacks and fatalities for the third consecutive year. More than 5,700 incidents were attributed to Sunni extremists, accounting for nearly 56 percent of all attacks and about 70 percent of all fatalities. Among this perpetrator group, al-Qa‘ida (AQ) and its affiliates were responsible for at least 688 attacks that resulted in almost 2,000 deaths, while the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan conducted over 800 attacks that resulted in nearly 1, 900 deaths. Secular, political, and anarchist groups were the next largest category of perpetrators, conducting 2,283 attacks with 1,926 fatalities, a drop of 5 percent and 9 percent, respectively, from 2010.​

OK, so Muslims are only responsible for 70% of the terror killings in the world

What a relief!

Earlier in this thread you made a distinction to another poster that you were talking about incidents, not fatalities - so now you are moving the goal posts?

That isn't how many people were killed. It's how many attacks there were. Many of them involve multiple deaths.

The number of Saddam's soldiers who died is irrelevant to this discussion.

56% of terrorist incidents. Not 99% as you claim.

I already addressed that, which you ignored because you can't refute it. It isn't 56%. In fact, now that the IRA is no longer in business, Islamic terror is so close to representing 100% of terrorist attacks, all others combined are statistically insignificant.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We've never discrimminated against religion in immigration, in fact, our country is based upon a central tenant - freedom of religion. To discriminate on religion alone - not criminal record, not anything else is bigotry and instead of taking a progressive path, our nation would be taking a regressive path. It's not "intelligent prejudice" given that America's Muslim community has been varied, hard working and American.

Civil rights don't apply to foreigners wanting to immigrate to this country. The OP was written with people like you in mind.

BTW, where have you been lately.

Missed ya!

Ah...but I wasn't referring to civil rights - I was referring to immigration policy. I agree we can have any bias we want - that doesn't of course make it right (look back at some of the cruel and draconian anti-immigration laws we had against different groups, like the Chinese). To discrimminate against religion alone is bigotry.

And hi back at you sweetie!

So is it never right to discriminate based on ethnic culture, especially when that culture has proven destructive in their own nations?

You seem to be applying a principle that should have NOTHING to do with immigration. We shouldn't choose who comes here by political correctness, but by an impassioned evaluation of what benefit they'll bring to this country....like we did with the Russians, Italians, Irish, and Polish immigrants.

And in that impassioned evaluation, we should take into account what's going on in Western countries where Muslims are attaining numerical significance and ask, "Do we want that in OUR country?"

It's a valid question to be asking.

The Russians, Italians, Irish, Polish, East Europeans came during immigrant waves that occurred prior to any real limits on immigration. The first laws prohibiting immigration were the Chinese Exclusion laws in the 1870's based not on "an imapssioned evaluation" but pure racism. The Irish, Italians, East Europeans immigrates were poor, desperate, impoverished and despised. They were considered dirty, diseased, subhuman, drunkard criminals (Irish), overly fertile, untrustworthy (Italians), bred children like litters of puppies (Catholics)..etc etc in fact you get the picture of how immigration was viewed then. And it's not much different than now (with Mexicans for example). There were no real quotes or restrictions beyond disease. We are a nation of many immigrant groups and all of them have managed to make a sucess of themselves: Irish, Russian, Italian, Palestinian, Lebonese, Polish, Cuban, Haitian....

If someone is willing to work hard, does not have a violent criminal record - then I don't care what their religion or ethnic background is - our success stories are not PHD's coming over here, they are the dirt poor people who worked hard and valued education and sent their children on to become PHD's. That's how I view it. Quotas? Sure, I can accept that - but not based on ethnicity or religion.

Those people were allowed into this country legally, not like the Wetbacks who are jumping our border. Stop with the asymmetrical comparisons already.

And the Chinese were allowed as guest workers to build our railroads. When they applied for citizenship we said no. This is the point. It's up to us to decide.

and if people like you don't stfu, we'll ask more of them to come here

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yes the do, and we don't, but you don't want to control the border in this case, you want to keep the Muslims out, and have all who are here go somewhere else.

Huh? I have no plans to have any citizen of the United States leave the country. All others can get the hell out.

Keeping Muslims out is controlling the border, numskull.

So you're okay with Muslim American citizens.

Baby steps ....

Not really, but the Constitution doesn't allow us to deport citizens. It does allow us to prevent Muslims from immigrating here.

Oh but we do deport people, once we remove their citizenship that is, like the fine fellow:


NY Judge Orders Ex-Nazi Deported
V I E N N A, Aug. 15
By Sue Masterman


Austria is preparing to receive yet another relic of its Nazi past.

A New York immigration court ordered self-confessed ex-Nazi Michael Gruber, 84, deported. Gruber, of New City, NY, has admitted to his role as a Waffen SS guard in Oranienburg, Germany.

Gruber denies that he served in the SS Death’s Head Guard Battalion at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp there.

But the Nazi regime’s obsession with control, carefully documenting every move of every person in Hitler’s Third Reich, indicated otherwise.

Immigration Judge Robert Weisel said captured Nazi documents found by the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations — which hunts Nazis — proved the court’s satisfaction that Gruner served at the Sachsenhausen death camp from January 1943 to September 1944
NY Judge Orders Ex-Nazi Deported - ABC News

So you have one example, and that person is guilty of horrendous crimes and of filing false information on his visa application.

There are many examples. I took the very first one just to inform you that we can and do deport American citizens.

 

[bripat9643]

And the point is, we can have any bias we want. Civil rights do not apply to foreigners wanting to come into this country. We understood this during the great immigration of the early 20th century, taking in only those people who would benefit this country. And the people we selected helped us win a world war and build our national infrastructure. This is the point of utilizing intelligent prejudice in our immigration policy.

We've never discrimminated against religion in immigration, in fact, our country is based upon a central tenant - freedom of religion. To discriminate on religion alone - not criminal record, not anything else is bigotry and instead of taking a progressive path, our nation would be taking a regressive path. It's not "intelligent prejudice" given that America's Muslim community has been varied, hard working and American.

Civil rights don't apply to foreigners wanting to immigrate to this country. The OP was written with people like you in mind.

BTW, where have you been lately.

Missed ya!

Ah...but I wasn't referring to civil rights - I was referring to immigration policy. I agree we can have any bias we want - that doesn't of course make it right (look back at some of the cruel and draconian anti-immigration laws we had against different groups, like the Chinese). To discrimminate against religion alone is bigotry.

And hi back at you sweetie!

So is it never right to discriminate based on ethnic culture, especially when that culture has proven destructive in their own nations?

You seem to be applying a principle that should have NOTHING to do with immigration. We shouldn't choose who comes here by political correctness, but by an impassioned evaluation of what benefit they'll bring to this country....like we did with the Russians, Italians, Irish, and Polish immigrants.

And in that impassioned evaluation, we should take into account what's going on in Western countries where Muslims are attaining numerical significance and ask, "Do we want that in OUR country?"

It's a valid question to be asking.

The Russians, Italians, Irish, Polish, East Europeans came during immigrant waves that occurred prior to any real limits on immigration. The first laws prohibiting immigration were the Chinese Exclusion laws in the 1870's based not on "an imapssioned evaluation" but pure racism. The Irish, Italians, East Europeans immigrates were poor, desperate, impoverished and despised. They were considered dirty, diseased, subhuman, drunkard criminals (Irish), overly fertile, untrustworthy (Italians), bred children like litters of puppies (Catholics)..etc etc in fact you get the picture of how immigration was viewed then. And it's not much different than now (with Mexicans for example). There were no real quotes or restrictions beyond disease. We are a nation of many immigrant groups and all of them have managed to make a sucess of themselves: Irish, Russian, Italian, Palestinian, Lebonese, Polish, Cuban, Haitian....

If someone is willing to work hard, does not have a violent criminal record - then I don't care what their religion or ethnic background is - our success stories are not PHD's coming over here, they are the dirt poor people who worked hard and valued education and sent their children on to become PHD's. That's how I view it. Quotas? Sure, I can accept that - but not based on ethnicity or religion.

I don't care how hard they work or if they succeed, if they try to impose their Sharia crap here. The immigrants who came here previously all had an affect on the culture of this country, some for the better and some for the worse. Muslims will affect it only for the worse. Islam is a bloodthirsty cult with no redeeming social value. I don't see how this country gains by importing people who want to propagate this disease.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Civil rights don't apply to foreigners wanting to immigrate to this country. The OP was written with people like you in mind.

BTW, where have you been lately.

Missed ya!

Ah...but I wasn't referring to civil rights - I was referring to immigration policy. I agree we can have any bias we want - that doesn't of course make it right (look back at some of the cruel and draconian anti-immigration laws we had against different groups, like the Chinese). To discrimminate against religion alone is bigotry.

And hi back at you sweetie!

So is it never right to discriminate based on ethnic culture, especially when that culture has proven destructive in their own nations?

You seem to be applying a principle that should have NOTHING to do with immigration. We shouldn't choose who comes here by political correctness, but by an impassioned evaluation of what benefit they'll bring to this country....like we did with the Russians, Italians, Irish, and Polish immigrants.

And in that impassioned evaluation, we should take into account what's going on in Western countries where Muslims are attaining numerical significance and ask, "Do we want that in OUR country?"

It's a valid question to be asking.

The Russians, Italians, Irish, Polish, East Europeans came during immigrant waves that occurred prior to any real limits on immigration. The first laws prohibiting immigration were the Chinese Exclusion laws in the 1870's based not on "an imapssioned evaluation" but pure racism. The Irish, Italians, East Europeans immigrates were poor, desperate, impoverished and despised. They were considered dirty, diseased, subhuman, drunkard criminals (Irish), overly fertile, untrustworthy (Italians), bred children like litters of puppies (Catholics)..etc etc in fact you get the picture of how immigration was viewed then. And it's not much different than now (with Mexicans for example). There were no real quotes or restrictions beyond disease. We are a nation of many immigrant groups and all of them have managed to make a sucess of themselves: Irish, Russian, Italian, Palestinian, Lebonese, Polish, Cuban, Haitian....

If someone is willing to work hard, does not have a violent criminal record - then I don't care what their religion or ethnic background is - our success stories are not PHD's coming over here, they are the dirt poor people who worked hard and valued education and sent their children on to become PHD's. That's how I view it. Quotas? Sure, I can accept that - but not based on ethnicity or religion.

Those people were allowed into this country legally, not like the Wetbacks who are jumping our border. Stop with the asymmetrical comparisons already.

And the Chinese were allowed as guest workers to build our railroads. When they applied for citizenship we said no. This is the point. It's up to us to decide.

and if people like you don't stfu, we'll ask more of them to come here

Trying to shut me up with threats?

Sounds like you got a little terrorist in you too.

 

[Coyote]

We've never discrimminated against religion in immigration, in fact, our country is based upon a central tenant - freedom of religion. To discriminate on religion alone - not criminal record, not anything else is bigotry and instead of taking a progressive path, our nation would be taking a regressive path. It's not "intelligent prejudice" given that America's Muslim community has been varied, hard working and American.

Civil rights don't apply to foreigners wanting to immigrate to this country. The OP was written with people like you in mind.

BTW, where have you been lately.

Missed ya!

Ah...but I wasn't referring to civil rights - I was referring to immigration policy. I agree we can have any bias we want - that doesn't of course make it right (look back at some of the cruel and draconian anti-immigration laws we had against different groups, like the Chinese). To discrimminate against religion alone is bigotry.

And hi back at you sweetie!

So is it never right to discriminate based on ethnic culture, especially when that culture has proven destructive in their own nations?

You seem to be applying a principle that should have NOTHING to do with immigration. We shouldn't choose who comes here by political correctness, but by an impassioned evaluation of what benefit they'll bring to this country....like we did with the Russians, Italians, Irish, and Polish immigrants.

And in that impassioned evaluation, we should take into account what's going on in Western countries where Muslims are attaining numerical significance and ask, "Do we want that in OUR country?"

It's a valid question to be asking.

The Russians, Italians, Irish, Polish, East Europeans came during immigrant waves that occurred prior to any real limits on immigration. The first laws prohibiting immigration were the Chinese Exclusion laws in the 1870's based not on "an imapssioned evaluation" but pure racism. The Irish, Italians, East Europeans immigrates were poor, desperate, impoverished and despised. They were considered dirty, diseased, subhuman, drunkard criminals (Irish), overly fertile, untrustworthy (Italians), bred children like litters of puppies (Catholics)..etc etc in fact you get the picture of how immigration was viewed then. And it's not much different than now (with Mexicans for example). There were no real quotes or restrictions beyond disease. We are a nation of many immigrant groups and all of them have managed to make a sucess of themselves: Irish, Russian, Italian, Palestinian, Lebonese, Polish, Cuban, Haitian....

If someone is willing to work hard, does not have a violent criminal record - then I don't care what their religion or ethnic background is - our success stories are not PHD's coming over here, they are the dirt poor people who worked hard and valued education and sent their children on to become PHD's. That's how I view it. Quotas? Sure, I can accept that - but not based on ethnicity or religion.

I don't care how hard they work or if they succeed, if they try to impose their Sharia crap here. The immigrants who came here previously all had an affect on the culture of this country, some for the better and some for the worse. Muslims will affect it only for the worse. Islam is a bloodthirsty cult with no redeeming social value. I don't see how this country gains by importing people who want to propagate this disease.

Muslims HAVE immigrated here and have been here for centuries. Your words are the same as those directed at the Irish, Italian, Polish etc.

 

[bripat9643]

Muslims are responsible for 99% of the terror in this world, retard.

Prove it.

Islam Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time

You're proving anything here. You're posting a link to a less than credible site that is claiming a certain number of deadly terror attacks have been carried out. How many terror attacks have been carried out world wide?

Country Reports on Terrorism 2011 National Counterterrorism Center Annex of Statistical Information

According to this - looking at just one year, 2011, the biggest perpetrators were Sunni extremists accounting for 56% of all attacks. Secular, political, and anarchist groups were the next largest category. If 2011 is typical, we aren't even close to 99% and it's primarily Sunni extremists.

I noticed you cut out a significant portion of the paragraph without indicating anything was missing.

Sunni extremists accounted for the greatest number of terrorist attacks and fatalities for the third consecutive year. More than 5,700 incidents were attributed to Sunni extremists, accounting for nearly 56 percent of all attacks and about 70 percent of all fatalities. Among this perpetrator group, al-Qa‘ida (AQ) and its affiliates were responsible for at least 688 attacks that resulted in almost 2,000 deaths, while the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan conducted over 800 attacks that resulted in nearly 1, 900 deaths. Secular, political, and anarchist groups were the next largest category of perpetrators, conducting 2,283 attacks with 1,926 fatalities, a drop of 5 percent and 9 percent, respectively, from 2010.​

OK, so Muslims are only responsible for 70% of the terror killings in the world

What a relief!

Earlier in this thread you made a distinction to another poster that you were talking about incidents, not fatalities - so now you are moving the goal posts?

That isn't how many people were killed. It's how many attacks there were. Many of them involve multiple deaths.

The number of Saddam's soldiers who died is irrelevant to this discussion.

56% of terrorist incidents. Not 99% as you claim.

70% of the people killed. I am so sorry if my off-the-cuff figure wasn't 100% accurate.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We've never discrimminated against religion in immigration, in fact, our country is based upon a central tenant - freedom of religion. To discriminate on religion alone - not criminal record, not anything else is bigotry and instead of taking a progressive path, our nation would be taking a regressive path. It's not "intelligent prejudice" given that America's Muslim community has been varied, hard working and American.

Civil rights don't apply to foreigners wanting to immigrate to this country. The OP was written with people like you in mind.

BTW, where have you been lately.

Missed ya!

Ah...but I wasn't referring to civil rights - I was referring to immigration policy. I agree we can have any bias we want - that doesn't of course make it right (look back at some of the cruel and draconian anti-immigration laws we had against different groups, like the Chinese). To discrimminate against religion alone is bigotry.

And hi back at you sweetie!

So is it never right to discriminate based on ethnic culture, especially when that culture has proven destructive in their own nations?

You seem to be applying a principle that should have NOTHING to do with immigration. We shouldn't choose who comes here by political correctness, but by an impassioned evaluation of what benefit they'll bring to this country....like we did with the Russians, Italians, Irish, and Polish immigrants.

And in that impassioned evaluation, we should take into account what's going on in Western countries where Muslims are attaining numerical significance and ask, "Do we want that in OUR country?"

It's a valid question to be asking.

The Russians, Italians, Irish, Polish, East Europeans came during immigrant waves that occurred prior to any real limits on immigration. The first laws prohibiting immigration were the Chinese Exclusion laws in the 1870's based not on "an imapssioned evaluation" but pure racism. The Irish, Italians, East Europeans immigrates were poor, desperate, impoverished and despised. They were considered dirty, diseased, subhuman, drunkard criminals (Irish), overly fertile, untrustworthy (Italians), bred children like litters of puppies (Catholics)..etc etc in fact you get the picture of how immigration was viewed then. And it's not much different than now (with Mexicans for example). There were no real quotes or restrictions beyond disease. We are a nation of many immigrant groups and all of them have managed to make a sucess of themselves: Irish, Russian, Italian, Palestinian, Lebonese, Polish, Cuban, Haitian....

If someone is willing to work hard, does not have a violent criminal record - then I don't care what their religion or ethnic background is - our success stories are not PHD's coming over here, they are the dirt poor people who worked hard and valued education and sent their children on to become PHD's. That's how I view it. Quotas? Sure, I can accept that - but not based on ethnicity or religion.

I don't care how hard they work or if they succeed, if they try to impose their Sharia crap here. The immigrants who came here previously all had an affect on the culture of this country, some for the better and some for the worse. Muslims will affect it only for the worse. Islam is a bloodthirsty cult with no redeeming social value. I don't see how this country gains by importing people who want to propagate this disease.

It's a shame you don't know Islam, but then again, your don't know Christianity or much of anything else either.