Are you a well-"educated" modern person?

[calitennis127]

Twisted wrote:
Apparently the San Bernardino shooter has been linked to ISIS. I must say the government seemed to drop the ball here. The guy goes to Saudi Arabia and comes back with a mail-order bride and then buys enough weapons and ammunition for a small army and it all goes undetected. Pretty scary thought And also to revisit a recent thought…are you sure we want thousands of nameless Syrian refugees in this country?

Do you really want us to turn our backs on thousands of blameless people fleeing persecution and fear for their lives? Aren’t we founded on being a haven for the dispossessed, and for those “yearning to breathe free?”

No, one little message at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty is not what the U.S. was founded on. The U.S. has actually had periods of zero or little immigration, such as the period from 1924 to 1965. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution or in the documents of the ratifying conventions which mandates taking in 3 million new people every year, regardless of where they are from.

In the Notes on the State of Virginia, actually, Jefferson wrote about his concerns over allowing certain Europeans into the U.S. because they would be politically subversive and undermine the American form of government. He was talking about European monarchists mostly. One can only imagine how hard he would have laughed at the notion that Islam can be assimilated into a Western republic modeled on ancient Rome.

 

 

[calitennis127]

 I recall sitting down and watching the BBC news at 9 in the mid 80s with a respected scientist trying to give a justification for why the West Indies team was genetically predisposed to be superior at cricket. I have read books about Jack Johnson being denied a shot at the world championship for years because “negroes are weaker than whites and besides were yellow”. Every age people come up with supposed scientific facts that support the superiority of one race or people over another, each time it’s refuted.

No, biological inequality is a scientific fact. There have been countless studies, for example, which show that blacks are on average vastly more athletic than whites or members of other races. No one has ever refuted these studies. They have simply repressed them, ignored them, or kept silent about them.

 

[britbox]

britbox wrote:
The peoples of the world are not born equal friend… or maybe you can explain in what capacity? Even if you remove circumstances… you still have genetics. Otherwise everyone is coming out of the womb with the same physical characteristics, same IQ, same genetics. This simply is not the case and has no foundation. My point about refugees is that you don’t need to travel thousands of miles to get refuge. Then a refugee becomes an economic migrant. If I was a refugee I’d do the same, but it is what it is. The only point I agree with is that the Syrian mess is largely of the west’s making.

For a start you have to define what “equal” means in this context, and for my tastes the proof would need to be empirical. When you start straying into talking about genetics I get uncomfortable. I recall sitting down and watching the BBC news at 9 in the mid 80s with a respected scientist trying to give a justification for why the West Indies team was genetically predisposed to be superior at cricket. I have read books about Jack Johnson being denied a shot at the world championship for years because “negroes are weaker than whites and besides were yellow”. Every age people come up with supposed scientific facts that support the superiority of one race or people over another, each time it’s refuted. I’ll assume your comment is not related to the issue of race or country, but on individuals. Then yes, obviously some people are more intelligent than others, stronger than others etc. But Syrian refugees are no less disposed towards intelligence, or strength or goodness than anyone else. At least there is no evidence I have seen that says so. As for the refugee crisis… this is on a scale that we haven’t seen for a generation. We all have to do our bit. If we don’t like it then we need to stop our governments from creating situations that cause these crises in the first place. As for where the refugees go, it makes no sense for them to be directed just to the middle east where resources are scarcer. We all have to do our bit. And creating situations that could potentially destabilise other countries in the middle east which aren’t exactly super stable doesn’t make much sense to me

I was actually asking you for the definition of equal because I don't understand your logic. Science tells us each person is unique... So how could everybody be equal.

Genetics doesn't need to be about race... you know children inherit things from parents... that could range from a pre-disposition to disease (i.e. breast cancer) through to intelligence or physical stature.

I don't think anybody is born equal... quite the opposite... we're all born unequal but it's how you play the cards you were dealt that counts.

Anyway, that's even without taking circumstances into account. Try telling a Syrian refugee that he was born equal to some guy born into western suburbia. I'd suggest there are a few inequalities there mate.

 

[Federberg]

Equal under the law, under God. It's an aspirational concept. One of the foundation stones of Western civilisation. And the thesis which guides our laws. I was rather surprised when genetics were brought into it. By the way I don't believe myself inferior to a crown prince or the child of a billionaire, just because they are more wealthy and have greater opportunities than I do. If you are talking about opportunities then I don't disagree. Having better opportunities is nurture not nature. Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes.

 

[britbox]

In that context, I'd agree with you.

 

[DarthFed]

Twisted wrote:
They’re nameless because they almost certainly won’t have to produce a passport or any other form of identification to get in here. And while 99% are probably decent, innocent people there would almost certainly be some ISIS members posing as refugees. it is a different world that we live in today. Our country is also founded on bearing arms without any restriction but this was before assault rifles made it easy to kill dozens of people in seconds. Slavery used to be just fine here too. There are such things as Amendments after all. The reality is we no longer live in the same world, if we made a habit of accepting every immigrant here no questions asked there will be tons of terrorist attacks. So to Syrian refugees as heartless as it sounds…hell no I don’t want them anywhere near me.

Our country is not founded on bearing arms without restrictions. It’s founded on democracy, religious freedom (the Pilgrims, remember?) a separation of Church and State, and the notion that we are idealistic enough to believe that we can create a better, freer society. I agree that we have to be cautious, and that the world has changed, but we also have to be generous. That small percentage, (you say 1%) of refugees that might be moles is nothing compared to the wackos that already live here and are armed to the teeth. You should be mindful of who and what you’re afraid of. When you say “hell no I don’t want them anywhere near me,” you’re talking about people who are mostly, by your estimation, innocent, and fleeing persecution. More than likely, your own people came to the US with the same goals and ideals, as mine did, as refugees seeking a better life in the US. It’s not right to slam the door behind ourselves. We have to count on the FBI and the CIA to vet the majority of these people. And we should also change some of our gun laws to protect us from crazies and domestic terrorists, too. The avenues to a safer society are many. But becoming a closed-minded and racist people is surely not who we want to be. We can’t just fear people because they’re Muslim.

I agree with most of this but there is still one problem here.  People will hide behind the Constitution/American ideals for one policy and then do their best to ignore it when it suits them.  A right to bear arms is part of the Constitution just as the idea that America should do everything to take any and all immigrants.

So what we get now is the nuts on the right talking about the 2nd Amendment all day or throwing out the ultimate apples and oranges comparison of gun crimes in the worst ghettos of the country (which have strict gun controls) to more affluent parts of the country that do not have as strict of gun controls.  These same people, who are often called bigoted by the nuts on the left, do not want the refugees in this country and want very strict controls on immigration in general.  And then the people on the left simply want these refugees and any other immigrants allowed here with no questions asked.  So both political groups are touting one American ideal and thumbing its nose at the other.

And you also present a major apples and oranges comparison regarding European immigrants 100 years ago vs. what this situation currently is.  The fact of the matter is that there is a large number of Muslims in this world that hate the West and their main goal is to cause as much damage as possible.  With these numerous and large terrorist organizations it is not possible to track everyone.  And do I need to remind you our government just badly dropped the ball in San Bernardino where a guy went to Saudi Arabia and took home a mail-order terrorist bride and easily collected the major artillery used in the attacks?  Does it truly make sense to let in thousands of people that might just be dedicated ISIS members who want to kill as many U.S. citizens as possible?  That's a little different from the European immigrants from yesteryear no?  Isn't it the government's job to protect its citizens as best as possible?

For my money the liberals are right about the gun control and the republicans are right about the immigration.  And the common theme is...thinking with your head instead of your heart.

 

[Federberg]

Federberg wrote:
I recall sitting down and watching the BBC news at 9 in the mid 80s with a respected scientist trying to give a justification for why the West Indies team was genetically predisposed to be superior at cricket. I have read books about Jack Johnson being denied a shot at the world championship for years because “negroes are weaker than whites and besides were yellow”. Every age people come up with supposed scientific facts that support the superiority of one race or people over another, each time it’s refuted.

No, biological inequality is a scientific fact. There have been countless studies, for example, which show that blacks are on average vastly more athletic than whites or members of other races. No one has ever refuted these studies. They have simply repressed them, ignored them, or kept silent about them.

you've said this before, but as usual you don't post a link to any academic papers from real scientists who's work is largely supported by the scientific community at large.

 

[DarthFed]

Well said Moxie. And furthermore slavery was never “fine”. It was even written into the declaration of independence.. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But the contradiction of slavery was avoided by the founders. Your first President freed his slaves for goodness sakes. In what way is the world so different today that it should be acceptable to take a backward step? That makes no sense at all. I continue to hope that America returns to what it always aspired to be… the land of the free and the hope of the brave. Shutting your borders to people who wouldn’t have even been refugees but for your own failed policy is as yellow as yellow can be I’m afraid. It is up to your security and intelligence apparatus to ensure that legitimate people get through, and it should be up to sensible domestic policy – not letting people who are barred from flying be able to buy automatic rifles with ease is a good start – to further reduce the risk of domestic terrorism

Ever heard of the Three-Fifths Compromise?  All men were born with the same rights...unless they were born black in the South (not that blacks in the North were treated great either mind you).  Slavery was fine for almost 90 years after the Constitution was written.  And women couldn't vote for over 140 years after the Constitution was written.  Due to changes in the world and/or growth as a civilization these were a couple changes that thankfully were made to the supposedly infallible Constitution.  Closing off the borders of course does not qualify as a change of "growth" as on the surface it seems heartless and is just so "un-American."

That, similar to much stricter gun control, would be a change based on the changing world.  When the 2nd amendment went into effect there were no assault rifles or other easily accessible weapons that could kill dozens of people in seconds.  Back then we were talking muskets, not AK-47's.  Also back then people didn't have to interact with others as much because they were all farmers.  It was less likely that people were going to go nuts and if they did they simply did not have the ability to succeed so easily.

Similarly, we can't compare this refugee situation to European immigrants 100 years ago.  I'm guessing a large % of the same people who are quick to welcome in all the refugees no questions asked would also be opposed to the government putting GPS's on all of them.  And that's the only way it would almost make sense to do this.  I've already said it on this thread many times before but one of, if not the most important objective of a government is to keep its citizens safe.  If people don't see the security risk this refugee situation poses then I think the argument is pointless.

 

[calitennis127]

It’s funny, I was discussing this very scenario with some friends. And while there is a huge risk that some of the refugees could be IS agents, the idea that you close your borders to refugees is appalling to me. Refugees welcome… apart from Muslims? No thank you. That’s not who I hope we are. We need to ensure that our intelligence agencies stay on top of this for sure. But to deny those in genuine need? I can just imagine during World War 2 some people saying, “no we can’t let these Jewish refugees in, because some of them might be undercover Nazis”. It makes me nauseuous to even contemplate something like that…

What should make you nauseous, Federberg, is that you are comparing two radically different situations. Jews fleeing Germany in the 1930s were a completely different caliber of immigrant than we are talking about in the current crisis. German and other European Jews were likely to successfully and quickly assimilate into American society, and they were not part of a religion that had spawned dozens of terrorist groups at that time, nor were they from a region rife with multiple strands of Jewish militancy. There were no analogues to Jewish al-Nusra, al-Qaeda, and ISIS-style groups inside Germany.

The current immigrants from Syria and Turkey are largely illiterate and very poor, which makes them far more likely to be a drain on social services and add to the already prevalent challenge of "marginalization" of Islamic communities in the West. They also provide an ideal sea for militant jihadists to swim among and hide in, as demonstrated by the 1 of the 8 Paris attackers who carried a Syrian passport through Greece. Furthermore, most of the current refugees are not on the brink of dying at the hands of a First World genocidal regime next week.

Like I said, it is intellectually lazy and simply illogical to compare each and every situation to the Nazis and World War II.

 

 

 

[Moxie]

Moxie wrote:
<blockquote>
Twisted wrote:
They’re nameless because they almost certainly won’t have to produce a passport or any other form of identification to get in here. And while 99% are probably decent, innocent people there would almost certainly be some ISIS members posing as refugees. it is a different world that we live in today. Our country is also founded on bearing arms without any restriction but this was before assault rifles made it easy to kill dozens of people in seconds. Slavery used to be just fine here too. There are such things as Amendments after all. The reality is we no longer live in the same world, if we made a habit of accepting every immigrant here no questions asked there will be tons of terrorist attacks. So to Syrian refugees as heartless as it sounds…hell no I don’t want them anywhere near me.

Our country is not founded on bearing arms without restrictions. It’s founded on democracy, religious freedom (the Pilgrims, remember?) a separation of Church and State, and the notion that we are idealistic enough to believe that we can create a better, freer society. I agree that we have to be cautious, and that the world has changed, but we also have to be generous. That small percentage, (you say 1%) of refugees that might be moles is nothing compared to the wackos that already live here and are armed to the teeth. You should be mindful of who and what you’re afraid of. When you say “hell no I don’t want them anywhere near me,” you’re talking about people who are mostly, by your estimation, innocent, and fleeing persecution. More than likely, your own people came to the US with the same goals and ideals, as mine did, as refugees seeking a better life in the US. It’s not right to slam the door behind ourselves. We have to count on the FBI and the CIA to vet the majority of these people. And we should also change some of our gun laws to protect us from crazies and domestic terrorists, too. The avenues to a safer society are many. But becoming a closed-minded and racist people is surely not who we want to be. We can’t just fear people because they’re Muslim.</blockquote>
I agree with most of this but there is still one problem here. People will hide behind the Constitution/American ideals for one policy and then do their best to ignore it when it suits them. A right to bear arms is part of the Constitution just as the idea that America should do everything to take any and all immigrants.

So what we get now is the nuts on the right talking about the 2nd Amendment all day or throwing out the ultimate apples and oranges comparison of gun crimes in the worst ghettos of the country (which have strict gun controls) to more affluent parts of the country that do not have as strict of gun controls.

 I don't understand how you think that the worst ghettos have strict gun controls, and the affluent communities don't.  The gun control legislation is state-by-state, not regulated by communities. 

These same people, who are often called bigoted by the nuts on the left, do not want the refugees in this country and want very strict controls on immigration in general. And then the people on the left simply want these refugees and any other immigrants allowed here with no questions asked. So both political groups are touting one American ideal and thumbing its nose at the other. And you also present a major apples and oranges comparison regarding European immigrants 100 years ago vs. what this situation currently is. The fact of the matter is that there is a large number of Muslims in this world that hate the West and their main goal is to cause as much damage as possible. With these numerous and large terrorist organizations it is not possible to track everyone. And do I need to remind you our government just badly dropped the ball in San Bernardino where a guy went to Saudi Arabia and took home a mail-order terrorist bride and easily collected the major artillery used in the attacks? Does it truly make sense to let in thousands of people that might just be dedicated ISIS members who want to kill as many U.S. citizens as possible? That’s a little different from the European immigrants from yesteryear no? Isn’t it the government’s job to protect its citizens as best as possible? For my money the liberals are right about the gun control and the republicans are right about the immigration. And the common theme is…thinking with your head instead of your heart.

 As to the rest of your point, I don't think anyone on the left is willing to admit refugees or any otherwise immigrants into this country with "no questions asked."  Have you ever had a friend that tried to get into the US, even on a tourist visa?  We're a pretty tough country to get into.  I expect that our Homeland Security and State Dept. will make some valiant efforts.  There are a large amount of Muslims in the world, that is true.  1.6 billion.  I don't think anything even vaguely resembling a majority of them harbor ill-will against the rest of the world or the West.  When we talk about radical Islam, we are really talking about Wahhabism, and, in many ways, Saudi Arabia.  Except that we can't condemn the Saudis, because we're totally in bed with them, and their oil.  I get your point about the liberals in the US being too open to immigrants (though I think you don't understand that we would have caveats, too,) and that the right is too intransigent on gun control issues.  That seriously has to change.

 

 

[Moxie]

Federberg wrote:
It’s funny, I was discussing this very scenario with some friends. And while there is a huge risk that some of the refugees could be IS agents, the idea that you close your borders to refugees is appalling to me. Refugees welcome… apart from Muslims? No thank you. That’s not who I hope we are. We need to ensure that our intelligence agencies stay on top of this for sure. But to deny those in genuine need? I can just imagine during World War 2 some people saying, “no we can’t let these Jewish refugees in, because some of them might be undercover Nazis”. It makes me nauseuous to even contemplate something like that…

What should make you nauseous, Federberg, is that you are comparing two radically different situations. Jews fleeing Germany in the 1930s were a completely different caliber of immigrant than we are talking about in the current crisis. German and other European Jews were likely to successfully and quickly assimilate into American society, and they were not part of a religion that had spawned dozens of terrorist groups at that time, nor were they from a region rife with multiple strands of Jewish militancy. There were no analogues to Jewish al-Nusra, al-Qaeda, and ISIS-style groups inside Germany. The current immigrants from Syria and Turkey are largely illiterate and very poor, which makes them far more likely to be a drain on social services and add to the already prevalent challenge of “marginalization” of Islamic communities in the West. They also provide an ideal sea for militant jihadists to swim among and hide in, as demonstrated by the 1 of the 8 Paris attackers who carried a Syrian passport through Greece. Furthermore, most of the current refugees are not on the brink of dying at the hands of a First World genocidal regime next week. Like I said, it is intellectually lazy and simply illogical to compare each and every situation to the Nazis and World War II.

I think you should make yourself nauseous, to talk about a "caliber of immigrant."  The Jews fleeing Nazi Germany were far from all intellectuals or some hoi polloi.  A great number came from the ghettos, were largely uneducated and very poor.  And we turned a lot of them away.  And so, realistically some of them died in the gas chambers.  Not all Muslims fleeing persecution are Wahhabists, or anything like radicals.  They are people who are persecuted in their own country, and they just want to live somewhere that they can raise their kids and live normal lives.  That's not really hard to understand or believe.  The notion that they are all people that we should fear is what strains credulity.

 

[Billie]

Didn't want to quote the whole thing twisted, I just want to address this part of your post:

"And do I need to remind you our government just badly dropped the ball in San Bernardino where a guy went to Saudi Arabia and took home a mail-order terrorist bride and easily collected the major artillery used in the attacks?  Does it truly make sense to let in thousands of people that might just be dedicated ISIS members who want to kill as many U.S. citizens as possible? "

I think that Saudi Arabia is considered a friendly country to the USA, if I am not mistaken.   So it doesn't make sense not to allow Americans to bring wives from "friendly" countries, does it?

There wouldn't have been so many refuges in the first place if the west actually fought against the terrorists and bombed them instead of legal army who is trying to protect its own people.

 

[Federberg]

I'm not sure how friendly a country Saudi Arabia is. Certainly $40 oil and the Shale revolutions is changing perceptions. Thank goodness!

 

[calitennis127]

I think you should make yourself nauseous, to talk about a “caliber of immigrant.” The Jews fleeing Nazi Germany were far from all intellectuals or some hoi polloi. A great number came from the ghettos, were largely uneducated and very poor. And we turned a lot of them away. And so, realistically some of them died in the gas chambers. Not all Muslims fleeing persecution are Wahhabists, or anything like radicals. They are people who are persecuted in their own country, and they just want to live somewhere that they can raise their kids and live normal lives. That’s not really hard to understand or believe. The notion that they are all people that we should fear is what strains credulity.

Judaism in the early 20th century was not afflicted by dozens of terrorist organizations throughout the world among its ranks. It was not responsible for producing anti-Western terrorist radicals educated in the West such as Anwar al-Awlaki (who studied for a Ph.D. at George Washington before going to Yemen to fight the jihad) or the recent San Bernardino shooter. When you are allowing masses of people in from Syria, you are allowing the opportunity for fighters from al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, and ISIS to all hide among the crowd. These people are not stupid and they will gladly take advantage of the opportunity Obama, Merckel, etc. are giving them.

The recent San Bernardino couple fit the mold perfectly of what we are talking about. On the one hand, Mr. Farooq had grown up in America and was supposedly an assimilated "Muslim-American". He had earned a college degree. He had a well-paying job for someone in his 20s. Yet secretly he detested everyone around him who was not a Muslim - including you Moxie and Federberg, both credulous sapheads aiding and abetting the jihad. His wife had a passport and was just seemingly an innocent Muslim wanting a better life in the United States, just like that 1 Paris shooter who carried a Syrian passport right through Greece.

The issue is not whether some individual Syrians are nice people. The purpose of the U.S. government is to protect the American people and serve its national interest. Making decisions for millions is a matter of taking the long view and thinking about long-term ramifications. In this case, allowing massive numbers of Muslim refugees into the West will only intensify social tensions and provide even more of a cesspool of radicalism in the West. It will also add to the unpleasantness of heightened security and more steps toward police state measures in the Western world. Large Muslim populations in the West mean more tensions and more of a police state.

Many Muslims - such as those of the Hamas-supporting Council on American-Relations - secretly believe that the West's goose is cooked and that it is ripe to be conquered because of the weakness, self-hatred, and cowardice of the current Western world, not to mention the ignorance of so many Westerners about Islam. They know they can get away with anything and say anything because no matter what, people such as you will insist - with absolutely no supporting evidence - that Islam is a "religion of peace" in dealing with non-Muslims.

Oh, those oppressive wicked Hindus in India, perhaps it is their imperialism and bigotry which caused Lashkar-e-Taiba to pull off those peaceful attacks on Mumbai in 2008.

 

 

 

 

[Federberg]

Federberg wrote:
Well said Moxie. And furthermore slavery was never “fine”. It was even written into the declaration of independence.. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But the contradiction of slavery was avoided by the founders. Your first President freed his slaves for goodness sakes. In what way is the world so different today that it should be acceptable to take a backward step? That makes no sense at all. I continue to hope that America returns to what it always aspired to be… the land of the free and the hope of the brave. Shutting your borders to people who wouldn’t have even been refugees but for your own failed policy is as yellow as yellow can be I’m afraid. It is up to your security and intelligence apparatus to ensure that legitimate people get through, and it should be up to sensible domestic policy – not letting people who are barred from flying be able to buy automatic rifles with ease is a good start – to further reduce the risk of domestic terrorism

Ever heard of the Three-Fifths Compromise? All men were born with the same rights…unless they were born black in the South (not that blacks in the North were treated great either mind you). Slavery was fine for almost 90 years after the Constitution was written. And women couldn’t vote for over 140 years after the Constitution was written. Due to changes in the world and/or growth as a civilization these were a couple changes that thankfully were made to the supposedly infallible Constitution. Closing off the borders of course does not qualify as a change of “growth” as on the surface it seems heartless and is just so “un-American.” That, similar to much stricter gun control, would be a change based on the changing world. When the 2nd amendment went into effect there were no assault rifles or other easily accessible weapons that could kill dozens of people in seconds. Back then we were talking muskets, not AK-47’s. Also back then people didn’t have to interact with others as much because they were all farmers. It was less likely that people were going to go nuts and if they did they simply did not have the ability to succeed so easily. Similarly, we can’t compare this refugee situation to European immigrants 100 years ago. I’m guessing a large % of the same people who are quick to welcome in all the refugees no questions asked would also be opposed to the government putting GPS’s on all of them. And that’s the only way it would almost make sense to do this. I’ve already said it on this thread many times before but one of, if not the most important objective of a government is to keep its citizens safe. If people don’t see the security risk this refugee situation poses then I think the argument is pointless.

You're American I assume, and my natural instinct would be to defer to your knowledge of your own history. But slavery was never fine. The issue was side-stepped, but it sat uncomfortably with many of the founders. I might be wrong but both Washington and Adams freed their slaves. The glaring irony is that Jefferson who's words on 'self evident truths' was the contradiction. But never-the-less, slavery was never fine. I do agree with your observation (I forget where) about the right and left picking and chosing which parts of the constitution to defend. That's politics!

 

[shawnbm]

I feel like thanking Moxie and Cali at the same time--and there's the rub.  We rounded up the Japanese in this nation during WWII and that is now roundly criticized looking back.  But it is always easier to look back.  The fact is that recent immigrants from a nation which bore you, educated you, fed you, helped instill values in you, etc. is going to be hard to turn your back on just because you are in another country where you hope to make a better living.  The Japanese emperor was not some tyrant over his people like many believe of Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini or the Khoumer Rouge.  Yet, there were those who emigrated to the USA from Japan in the 1930s and were placed in camps and watched over carefully during the war.  It was felt to be necessary since we were at war with Japan and the Japanese were fierce in their efforts and were unafraid to kill themselves if it meant inflicting harm on the enemy.

Now we have "Syrian" refugees, but we don't really know who all is in there, do we?  Our human intelligence on from where certain folks come is woefully inadequate and the fear of a Trojan horse scenario is not wild hyperbole--it is a stark reality, to be added to the "homegrown" jihadists that our intelligence community knows already exists and is growing in the USA and elsewhere.  This is nothing like Jewry in the 1930s in early 1940s in Central Europe--there is no comparison whatsoever.

We are not going to bar them from coming in, as there are truly sad and tragic stories involving some of these people.  Some of them will be here for purposes of mayhem and killing--saying anything different is to engage in fantasy.  Terrorist attacks will happen from some of these "refugees".  I can see extremely stringent vetting being necessary and then close surveillance once in the country.  Many should be turned away in all likelihood.  They should not be permitted to live wherever they wish until they become US citizens; they should be forced to live in designated areas since they have no US constitutional right to live wherever they wish.  Their families can visit them where they are.  They should be forbidden from applying for any kind of firearm until they become a citizen. If that sounds like a ghetto then so be it.  They have no right to be here and the ghettos of Poland and Germany and elsewhere were a different beast, for the Jews in those were already citizens of those nations whose rights were taken away by the Nazis.  These refugees can't play that card and should be living where the government says and they should be permitted to work therein and worship Allah in mosques.  That is a basic human right that cuts across national boundaries.  They have no right to be in the USA so they will have to make do.  The stakes are too high--if they don't like it, maybe Canada or Urugauy will take more of them.

 

[DarthFed]

Twisted wrote:
<blockquote>
Federberg wrote:
Well said Moxie. And furthermore slavery was never “fine”. It was even written into the declaration of independence.. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But the contradiction of slavery was avoided by the founders. Your first President freed his slaves for goodness sakes. In what way is the world so different today that it should be acceptable to take a backward step? That makes no sense at all. I continue to hope that America returns to what it always aspired to be… the land of the free and the hope of the brave. Shutting your borders to people who wouldn’t have even been refugees but for your own failed policy is as yellow as yellow can be I’m afraid. It is up to your security and intelligence apparatus to ensure that legitimate people get through, and it should be up to sensible domestic policy – not letting people who are barred from flying be able to buy automatic rifles with ease is a good start – to further reduce the risk of domestic terrorism

Ever heard of the Three-Fifths Compromise? All men were born with the same rights…unless they were born black in the South (not that blacks in the North were treated great either mind you). Slavery was fine for almost 90 years after the Constitution was written. And women couldn’t vote for over 140 years after the Constitution was written. Due to changes in the world and/or growth as a civilization these were a couple changes that thankfully were made to the supposedly infallible Constitution. Closing off the borders of course does not qualify as a change of “growth” as on the surface it seems heartless and is just so “un-American.” That, similar to much stricter gun control, would be a change based on the changing world. When the 2nd amendment went into effect there were no assault rifles or other easily accessible weapons that could kill dozens of people in seconds. Back then we were talking muskets, not AK-47’s. Also back then people didn’t have to interact with others as much because they were all farmers. It was less likely that people were going to go nuts and if they did they simply did not have the ability to succeed so easily. Similarly, we can’t compare this refugee situation to European immigrants 100 years ago. I’m guessing a large % of the same people who are quick to welcome in all the refugees no questions asked would also be opposed to the government putting GPS’s on all of them. And that’s the only way it would almost make sense to do this. I’ve already said it on this thread many times before but one of, if not the most important objective of a government is to keep its citizens safe. If people don’t see the security risk this refugee situation poses then I think the argument is pointless.</blockquote>
You’re American I assume, and my natural instinct would be to defer to your knowledge of your own history. But slavery was never fine. The issue was side-stepped, but it sat uncomfortably with many of the founders. I might be wrong but both Washington and Adams freed their slaves. The glaring irony is that Jefferson who’s words on ‘self evident truths’ was the contradiction. But never-the-less, slavery was never fine. I do agree with your observation (I forget where) about the right and left picking and chosing which parts of the constitution to defend. That’s politics!

Yes I am American.  Sure there were plenty of prominent politicians that were against slavery but there simply wasn't enough outrage for any serious action to end it.  I guess you can say it was begrudgingly accepted for over 80 years.

 

[calitennis127]

The Japanese emperor was not some tyrant over his people like many believe of Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini or the Khoumer Rouge.

It is an egregious historical error to place Mussolini in that group. It makes no sense whatsoever. Mussolini had numerous Jews in his government and was an early supporter of Zionism; in fact, one-tenth of Italian Jews were in the Fascist Party. He turned to an alliance with Hitler only after Hitler had Dolfuss killed and Mussolini thought he would be next if he wasn't doing what Hitler wanted.

The original Italian form of fascism had absolutely nothing to do with anti-Semitism or genocidal programs. Zilch.

 Now we have “Syrian” refugees, but we don’t really know who all is in there, do we?

Not only do we not know who they are, we already know that Western-born, Western-educated Muslims who speak fluent English often become jihadists and fool the authorities with their true allegiances, like the San Bernardino killer did. Our intelligence services have enough of a chore figuring out what Muslim citizens are up to - how are they going to perfectly "vet" Muslim immigrants from a war-torn, chaotic region?

Also, I am very amused by Moxie's and Federberg's stance on this. In other contexts, they claim to care so much about impoverished blacks in America. I guess they don't in this case. Maybe they can explain how it will help the cause of African-Americans in various devastated cities in the U.S. if hundreds of thousands of "Syrian" refugees flood their neighborhoods. I am sure that will help resolve the economic and social tensions in those areas.

 

 

[DarthFed]

Didn’t want to quote the whole thing twisted, I just want to address this part of your post: “And do I need to remind you our government just badly dropped the ball in San Bernardino where a guy went to Saudi Arabia and took home a mail-order terrorist bride and easily collected the major artillery used in the attacks? Does it truly make sense to let in thousands of people that might just be dedicated ISIS members who want to kill as many U.S. citizens as possible? ” I think that Saudi Arabia is considered a friendly country to the USA, if I am not mistaken. So it doesn’t make sense not to allow Americans to bring wives from “friendly” countries, does it? There wouldn’t have been so many refuges in the first place if the west actually fought against the terrorists and bombed them instead of legal army who is trying to protect its own people.

I'm not saying he shouldn't have been allowed to bring back a mail-order bride.  I'm just saying this should've maybe been a bit of a red flag.  I know profiling is a very sensitive subject but there is no doubt it is done in this country and probably many (maybe most?) others throughout the world.  And if we are going to profile people I'd say someone who goes to Saudi Arabia and comes back with a mail-order bride after a month is probably someone who should be profiled.

As Federberg said oil is the sole motivation for "friendly" relationships the West may have with the Saudis.  But we'd be kidding ourselves to think there aren't a fair share of radicals there.

 

[shawnbm]

In reply to Cali on Mussolini, I am not one who believes this.  That is why I said many believe him to be part of a group of tyrants in the 1935-1945 era.  I am well aware he was a different breed from hit let or Stalin, as was Franco (he irritated even Adolf with his orneriness).