You absolutely call me stupid for not having the same view as you. In your mind you have the "right views". That impenetrable viewpoint is not something that ought to be encouraged.
As for whether a freeze on Muslim immigration is bigoted, it depends entirely on the reasoning and not just the effects. I have made the case for this not being a xenophobic desire (ie IF very real and practical vetting procedures are fixed and people can get identified, then this would not hold up immigration on these grounds) and that the danger expressed is an ACTUAL danger, HAS been qualified and quantified, NEEDS upgrading, that there is NO OTHER way of EFFECTIVELY dealing with the issue, and that this says nothing terrible of Muslims as a whole but rather it is a national Security and Border Protection problem in their midst.
Proof of what I say actually comes from YOU funny enough. When it is put to you that there IS an actual problem and that the vetting problems are proved not to be able to be able to identify the people that they are letting in AND that the intelligence services of the country KNOW for a fact that the refugees coming in will be infused with ISIS and other radicalised Muslim Extremists..... (and all of this is known) what do YOU say with the question "If the refugee Muslims cannot be identified and the Muslim radical Extremists cannot be identified and vetted in that group coming in AND we do not know the numbers or intent of those radical Muslim Extremists, apart from "Just let them in" What ELSE do you propose?"
If you are stupid and ideologically blinded enough to say both Nothing OR degrees of there is no real danger OR But you cannot, not let them in because their welfare is more important that the well-being of the citizens who will be potentially taking on whatever threat is slipped in, with that intake, then you lose.
Your position in any one of the above cases is immoral and impractical and illogical.
The counter to your position is practical, logical and NOT bigoted.
A bigoted position would be "We do not like this brown skinned people. They can't make America Great Again. All Muslims are bad. Let's ban them on a whim." That is not what is happening and only an idiot would fine difficulties distinguishing an ACTUAL bigoted position from a position that is not. THAT is precisely where you are failing.
Its because you are stupid.
As I keep mentioning. We get boatpeople coming to Australia all the time and we ban them from the mainland and put them in detention centres until we work out who they are, where they are from and what threat they represent. Now our Prime Minister has said IF you sneak in without coming through the normal channels you have no pathway to citizenship. You will be deported.
National Security and Border Protection. Has not stopped us allowing immigrants to make Australia their home but they cannot sneak in without us knowing who they are or where they are coming from.
It is not black and white.
We've been through this before but I'll say it again: Supporting a bigot's bigoted ideas makes you a bigot, too. Banning Muslims at the border is bigoted because it assigns blame to a group without any proof whatsoever.
Me, I find your government's immigrant policy to be deplorable, but that's neither here nor there. This thread is about Islam.
See that is where you are wrong. So wrong.
It isn't about Islam? I could have sworn it says so in the topic heading.
Don't even try to pretend to be confused.
Firstly: Banning Muslims at the border (or was it only from that part of the world or only immigrants?
Trump started with everyone, then limited himself somewhat, and now tries to bury the evidence
Not true. He speaks elliptically and in hyperbole and so it is often hard to pin him down. He ACTUALLY started with Muslim immigrants, Then it was Muslims at the borders and then people from that area of the world. Now you KNOW this. Because you constantly tried to reframe a position I agreed in principle with, with one I had not vouched an opinion of. So you actually know categorically he DID NOT start with everyone and pretending this is bullshit and you know it to be bullshit but you say it anyhow. Which leads us to the question, "Why?"
I sometimes lose track of what you think I am or am not defending) does not assign blame to a group without any proof whatsoever. That is dishonest and you know it to be so.
So defend it. Explain it to the class. I've asked you to do so before but hope springs eternal.
You are a loser and a liar. I will prove that I have already shown this over and over and you have ignored it over and over and now pretend that you didn't see it in the first place and were waiting for it? You are such a loser, Odeon.
You are repeating a lie and for who's purpose i have no idea.
Where is the lie?
THIS is your lie and I will show it to be so by the end of this reply
Banning Muslims at the border is bigoted because it assigns blame to a group without any proof whatsoever.
The group being targeted is the Radical Muslim Extremists.
The group being targeted by Trump started as every single Muslim entering the US. This is what you supported then. Have you changed your mind?
Did I change my mind from a position that I never took and that I had corrected you from the outset that I never have?
[Check the date]A couple of things you have still to understand (hence "misguided"):
Trump wants to stop ALL Muslims from entering, not just immigrants. Not sure how you got this so wrong but you did. Trump knows this is not a practical suggestion but it was never his point. He knows that tapping into the current Islamophobia will keep him in the news. And, just as importantly, there's always going to be people who don't know better and will believe him.
Me disagreeing with you and Trump on your bigotry does not equal an open borders policy. But you know this, don't you? You simply decided a little lie would be good for your argument.
I suspect stopping Muslims at the borders is against a number of treaties signed by the US. It could well be unconstitutional, too, and I've seen arguments to this effect by lawyers.
....and you went with lie.
I am going to ask you a serious question. "Are you an idiot?" Don't be too quick in answering. let me make a quick case
Trump wants to stop ALL Muslims from entering, not just immigrants. Not sure how you got this so wrong but you did.
As I have mentioned this in several posts that this IS a position of his "to ban all Muslims" and is on his website as you pointed out HOWEVER (pay attention this time) his initial position before the reclarification (that he gave in speeches) was that he wished to place a freeze on Muslim Immigrants. I agreed in principle with the initial position. I have not vouched an opinion for this new position (as a result of him reclarifying an older position) but you seem to want me to agree or disavow it.
This is NOT "getting it wrong" is it? Only an idiot would suggest that, right?
As mentioned If person X makes position A and person Y agrees with person X on position A, that in itself is COMPLETELY separate to if Person X then reclarifies or alters position A to come up to a new position B.
Given this, does person Y need to agree with position B? Can they if they wish?
Too hard?
You seem incapable of seeing that agreeing with one position that a person takes is NOT IN ANY WAY rubberstamping everything they say forever and ever, based in the fact they agree with them on a or even several positions.
Some may say that is lazy thinking or even intellectual dishonesty. I call that being an idiot? What would you call that?
Trump knows this is not a practical suggestion but it was never his point. He knows that tapping into the current Islamophobia will keep him in the news. And, just as importantly, there's always going to be people who don't know better and will believe him.
Suggesting motive is one thing. We all do it and we can second guess people. Depending on our intellectual rigour and instinct we may have a good strike rate of getting it right.
You are not suggesting, you are trying to make a fact based assertion. When exactly did you last chat with Donald Trump? You have made a few assertions here. Can you please tell me if not having a conversion with Donald, did you speak to his aides? Did you perhaps have mindreading equipment?
No? Just throwing out big assertions as fact based claims based on bullshit and expecting me to just nod my head? Do you think THAT is idiotic?
Me disagreeing with you and Trump on your bigotry does not equal an open borders policy.
I am not bigoted and you have not made a case for that. Best you can say at present without trying to lie or pad your assertions with bullshit is to say that I agreed with what Donald trump said about Muslim immigration. I think that in cases where a threat does seem to be present in ANY group, nation, religion or whatever then there HAS to be an upgrade to the security to check this.
Now we can disagree as to the degree of threat or how good the current security is all day. but I have good reason to think that the last few years has given rise to a lot more attacks on European soil by Muslim radical extremists and this has aligned with the relaxed border policies. I also know that 900 active cases with the FBI of US based Islamic extremist issues, and apparent difficulties cross-referencing incoming migrants due to them fleeing a nation under conflict and with poor infrastructure and records access. I also know that the Orlando shooter was checked out twice with the FBI and no apparent action taken against him. They dropped the ball in my belief.
So I have my reasoning for suspecting that there is a heightened risk and poor methods of vetting potential risks. Therefore I believe this cannot be addressed by carrying on business as normal. IF there is a way to hold this process and tightened up and better rework the vetting methods (and Hell maybe directing some resources to clearing up the 900 cases before another Orlando gunman gets away from them), then it makes sense this ought to be pursued.
That is not bigoted. Only an idiot would think so.
As to whether this idea could work out in a practical way rather than being a good theory, I don't know and would be interested how this could be done. I see a lot of problems in the practicalities and possible implementation, including belief of Islam being exactly that. Denouncing you are a Muslim to come in for example would seem to sidestep this freeze.
I agree in principle with the idea and happy to look at other ideas as to solving the problem, but not at all interested in saying it is not a problem. For all your talk of falling furniture death, I think that would be little concern to Parisians after the Paris attacks for example. IF some radical Islamic extremist attack happens in Sweden do I have your permission to make some off-hand remark about at least they weren't squashed by a bookcase? No?
So being that I am not bigoted the statement ....
Me disagreeing with you and Trump on your bigotry does not equal an open borders policy.
.... makes no sense. I do not agree with what you effectively have said you are disagreeing with and so how could I agree to something I inherently disagree with being equivalent or comparable to something else? No, it would be idiotic to expect I would give such an assertion any credibility. You may wish to take a run up and try again.
But you know this, don't you? You simply decided a little lie would be good for your argument.
Speaking about what one does not know, you make the accusation of me lying.
The fact that my suggestion that America can minimise attacks on its citizens by tightening its borders and freezing Muslim immigration until such time that it can improve its vetting systems and clear up its 900 active US based cases of Islamic extremism, you call bigoted.
You suggested rather than further addressing the threat that the threat was less great than falling furniture and that there was no issue in Sweden despite your open border policies and despite the fact that I mentioned the heightened female rape (and yes your rebuke still showed at more than double that of US and UK - which again is higher than Australian rates) and the pool crisis both of which made international news (in fact now your music festivals the last few years running have been targeted [30 this last one just gone] by groups of foreign men in groups of 10 isolating and sexually assaulting teenage girls - sound familiar - Cologne) you waved it off as of no real concern.
So at this stage, we can agree or disagree but you are demonstrating by your response an acceptance of the status quo in Sweden in respect to immigration and the movement of people and you back this by pounding on about treaties. So you honestly think that it somehow seems like me lying about you agreeing with the open border policies of Sweden (especially as I contrasted them against the border policies of Australia). No you only would think this if you were an idiot. I don't know that you honestly do, maybe you are just lying again.
I suspect stopping Muslims at the borders is against a number of treaties signed by the US. It could well be unconstitutional, too, and I've seen arguments to this effect by lawyers.
Title 8 US codes 1182
Its constitutional.
They have made various arguments against our detention Centres. Not buying it.
So now far from ME being misguided or "needing to understand".... "are you an idiot?"
If not that is fine, how did you get EVERYTHING so very wrong.
Odeon could you be more dishonest? No that is not a rhetorical question.
They are the targets in this and as they are unable to be extricated or identified from the larger Muslim refugee community the whole community is similarly barred as a containment process. THAT is national Security and Border Protection in play. But further is we DO have proof and only an idiot would say we don't. I have show said proof from both CIA and FBI sources that the refugee community is infiltrated with ISIS and other radicalised groups attempting a jihadist hijrah. That is proven by these sources. You simply keep repeating failed talking points
No, you haven't, and neither has Trump. I assume it's why he no longer mentions it. I don't know why you want to embarrass yourself, though.
Haven't i? Again
CHECK THE DATE That's the thing, though. If there is a case to be made for the vetting system being subpar, that case has not been made. Not by Trump, not by the FBI, and certainly not by you. Banning Muslims is a populistic gut reaction without any kind of backing up, and that is because there is no case.
I repeat: there is no case.
Or perhaps the vetting is considered by some to be subpar because they failed to realise that the unborn son of a Muslim immigrant would grow up to become a terrorist?
Considering a ban is bigoted as fuck. It's an incredibly stupid and bigoted idea, designed to win votes rather than fight terrorism.
You repeat there is no case as much as you like but there is and I have already told you why there IS a case for ALL I have said.
Here is it broken down for you.
- The vetting system is shit. It is sub par. It has a hard time in vetting illegal immigrants. Many do not have the databases to check or the identification to present.
- ISIS are absolutely infiltrating refugee communities.
- The vetting system is even dropping the ball and letting in refugees with deadly and dangerous transmissible diseases
- So how many cases of Islamic Extremism cases does the FBI have in America? 900 active cases and climbing
- When they HAVE identified the threat how do they do?
Okay so these were my claims and the ones that you say there is no case for right? It really does not take much looking around to back each of those things and I only picked these articles because they were the ones that came to me the quickest. There are many others and of course many links and and sources quoted in them that I could have looked at.
The vetting system is shit. It is sub par. It has a hard time in vetting illegal immigrants. Many do not have the databases to check or the identification to present.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/11/19/the-limitations-of-refugee-screening/?utm_term=.e6027eca711b
“Senior Obama officials have warned of challenges in screening refugees from Syria,” reports The Post (Jerry Markon). An excerpt:
Several high-level administration officials have warned in recent months just how challenging [screening Syrian refugees] can be. While they say U.S. security measures are much better than in the past, vetting Syrian refugees poses a quandary: How do you screen people from a war-torn country that has few criminal and terrorist databases to check? …
FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/
FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said.
Although Comey said the process has since “improved dramatically,” Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. “If we don’t know much about somebody, there won’t be anything in our data,” he said. “I can’t sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that there’s no risk associated with this.”
http://immigrationreform.com/2015/10/14/fbi-director-admits-there-are-certain-gaps-in-screening-process-for-syrian-refugees/
The Obama administration has announced its intent to admit at least 10,000 Syrians as refugees in the coming year. It is likely that the number could be much higher. Leaving aside the growing evidence that many of those fleeing Syria are economic migrants, not legitimate refugees, the plan to resettle Syrians in the U.S. poses significant security risks.
Testifying before the Senate Homeland Security Committee last week, FBI Director James Comey conceded identifying and screening out potential terrorists is problematic. “My concern there is that there are certain gaps I don’t want to talk about publicly in the data available to us,” he said. Comey’s concerns were echoed by Nicholas Rasmussen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center. “The intelligence picture we’ve had of this conflict zone isn’t what we’d like it to be… you can only review against what you have,” Rasmussen told the committee.
‘What we have’ and what we are likely to find out isn’t much, considering the complete collapse of civil society in Syria. Similar security concerns are being raised by German intelligence officials, where Syrians are being admitted in much larger numbers.
And even when we’ve had more to go on, our record of screening out security threats from that part of the world has been less than stellar. Comey admitted that we admitted Iraqis who had known ties to terrorist organizations, despite the fact that we had a strong military presence in Iraq at the time. He also conceded that “dozens” of refugees already in the U.S. are targets for ISIS recruitment.
“Certain gaps” might be more accurately characterized as ‘gaping holes’ that will pose dangerous security risks if the administration’s plans are carried out.
ISIS are absolutely infiltrating refugee communities.
http://www.independentsentinel.com/isis-threatens-to-flood-europe-and-elsewhere-as-libyan-refugees/
Quilliam Foundation reports that ISIS/ISIL/IS plans to use Libya as a gateway to Europe, sending fighters masked as refugees.
They are urging fighters to flood into Libya from Syria and Iraq to then head for Italy and elsewhere.
Quilliam, the British anti-extremist think tank translated and analyzed a document written by an Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) propagandist who uses the alias Abu Arhim al-Libim.
http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/publications/free/libya-the-strategic-gateway-for-the-is.pdf
The vetting system is even dropping the ball and letting in refugees with deadly and dangerous transmissible diseases
https://www.google.com.au/?ion=1&espv=2#q=breitbart+tuberculosis+refugee
Aticle after article of the screening process even failing here. Refugees with transmissible disease are being let in to the country. Tuberculosis is globally one of the most infectious and deadly diseases surpassing HIV.
Then there is Measles...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/31/az-health-officials-confirm-11-cases-of-measles-stemming-from-immigrant-detention-facility/
So how many cases of Islamic Extremism cases does the FBI have in America? 900 active cases and climbing
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/23/fbi-comey-isil-domestic-probes/74455460/
WASHINGTON — FBI Director James Comey said Friday that federal authorities have an estimated 900 active investigations pending against suspected Islamic State-inspired operatives and other home-grown violent extremists across the country.
When they HAVE identified the threat how do they do?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-street-journal/fbi-twice-cleared-omar-mateen-of-radical-leanings/news-story/ee3e3dbd998013ce2e7e88c2d3676e9e
Once they have the threat identified how effective are they at containing, monitoring and dealing with the threat even when it is on home soil? No? How good are they then do you think of identification and dealing with the threats when they are coming in from overseas.
So Odeon, being as only a lying, head-in-the-sand fool would say something as dishonest as:
That's the thing, though. If there is a case to be made for the vetting system being subpar, that case has not been made. Not by Trump, not by the FBI, and certainly not by you. Banning Muslims is a populistic gut reaction without any kind of backing up, and that is because there is no case.
I repeat: there is no case.
Why did you just say it?
Yes that is right, because there IS a case.
Now with that out the way let's look at precisely what acknowledging this will need to look at:
1) ALL Muslims are NOT bad radicalised Islamic Extremists. In fact any of the decent Muslims wishing to flee the violence and extremism of said Muslim countrymen and find that those same countrymen's actions are temporarily closing the door to THEIR immigration, have my sympathies. Hopefully these people will appreciate one the freeze was over that they will be coming through without those same ratbags and there efforts to flee them and the extremism and violence associated with them will be successful, as it may not have been had the freeze and vetting improvements had not been made.
2) The concept of placing a freeze on Muslim immigration whilst reasonable in principle can be effectively implemented in practice (I have certainly reservations as to how one even confirms a persons religious beliefs - if someone said to me I could not immigrate to somewhere I wanted to desperately because they only let in people who believed in a religion, I would suddenly become very pious and Christian, until I had got through the process.)
3) It does prevent immigration elsewhere in the meantime.
4) It also does not say anything about the specifics. What steps would be implemented to improve the vetting system. If we agree they must be improved, what signifies the improvements, to what amount and in which ways will you be able to address the obvious problems that exist now? If there are gaps as admitted to, how are they going to be filled? It doesn't say the idea of fixing the problem is bad but you need something better to be able to put it in place. I would like those specifics.
These practicalities and considerations are all worth considering.
Now what you will see in that first point is that Muslim immigrants would suffer because of the actions of a few (if we are saying that not immigrating to US SPECIFICALLY and in exclusion to any other country is suffering) but that this is accepting the position that they are not all bad and that the efforts would be made to improve things so they CAN be immigrated and without their extremist countrymen following them over.
On a slight tangent. It reminds me of the early 1900's in America with Italian and Sicilian immigrants and refugees immigrating. Their poverty and shared customs meant they generally moved into poor communities next to one another. Unfortunately many of the worst Mafiosi and Black Hand elements moved in with them and started to exploit them in those communities and then gain strength to branch out from there.
I think IF bad elements can be kept out then it gives Muslim immigrants a better chance to embrace their host country and not be preyed upon by the worst elements of that which they fled.
So yes Odeon. I certainly HAVE backed myself and NO it is not, nor was it EVER bigoted. That was just a petty unwarranted insult you cast my way. Therefore calling you a r
You may as well put me back on the mod as my position has NOT changed on iota. You keep calling me a bigot I WILL keep calling you a r
Secondly: Because an end process disfavours someone in a way, is NOT evidence of bigotry. Nor is arriving at the same conclusion as a bigot may arrive at for entirely different reasons.
An example. Building the great Trump wall. He may want to do so simply to have the biggest construct in America. The fact that it happens to disadvantage people wanting to sneak into the country illegally is not necessarily him being bigoted. In this instance it would be him simply pandering to his ego.
I'm sure that's why he said this:
There is reason for it and I have explained that later in the reply
When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
Yes, I'm sure he proposed the wall for some other reason.
Absolutely there were many reasons cited. He was during the campaign cycle trying to feel out the base a little to see where the support was. He cited that walling off the the Southern border area was:
* Symbolic (a country without borders is not a country and establishing a border wall is symbolic of securing the country's sovereignty )
* Illegally immigrants were taking away jobs from possible underclass in America who could otherwise work in those jobs
* Billion of dollars were being sent home by illegal immigrants to Mexico.
* Rapists, murders and drug dealers were coming across into America illegally.
So yes there were many positions and only an idiot would imply there wasn't. Why did you?
Another example: This is found in and around the border areas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_tree
Do you want me to show the corpses of the people who were deserted because they were slowing them down or the beheading and massacres of cartel gang members around the border areas? No? We good?
We're not, no. We haven't been for months. Do pay attention.
Please continue, though. Embarrass yourself.
You seem to revel in your inability to critically reason. That is embarrassment enough, but I do not feel it for myself.
As seem later in this reply, you seem to have missed completely what I was saying and I had to painfully spell it out again, and so the irony and hypocrisy of you saying "Do pay attention" is palpable.
So looks like there are different reasons to build a wall and these reasons are NOT bigoted. I could say that people who do not wish to prevent this through are immoral. In this sense it could be viewed that the build of the wall without even taking into account anyone else's reasons for wanting it, has virtue.
Looks like the reasons are bigoted, actually. How would you explain away what he says about Mexicans?
Mainly Hyperbole and speaking elliptically. I have already shown the issue he has with Mexicans and exactly which Mexicans he meant. He got more Mexican support than Romney or McCain did. The reason is that they, like I, and like many more millions who voted understood it was not ALL Mexicans that he had an issue with.
Fuck, I know you don't get it and you will not get it regardless. Confirmation Bias is well entrenched and you have no fucking clue.
The Mexicans he was referencing and doesn't like is NOT a Boogeyman. They DO exist. They are the ones that rape (as seen with images above. That is all at the border. Rape Trees everywhere and plenty of corpses of immigrants who were too slow or too frail or injured to cross quickly and were left behind to die. The are also beheadings and dismemberment of opposing cartel members, all of which I have spared the forum. These people are Mexican and a huge issue and coming across the border. The Murderers, drug dealers, and rapists. Horrible things to call people and ALL true.
He also said some were also good people I presume. Accurate disclaimer. Some (illegal immigrants being preyed upon) MAY be good people. I mean they are leaving Mexico to start a new life and breaking the law crossing into US. So either they are decent people just wanting best for their family, even though they are breaking the law in order to do so, OR they are people trying to escape bad things done in Mexico and to disappear into US and happily break the law in order to do so. So Some are good people he presumes.
Nothing he said had ANY bearing on Mexicans who were in US legally.
SO
Looks like the reasons are bigoted, actually. How would you explain away what he says about Mexicans?
Looks to me well and truly explained. Maybe when you said "Mexicans" you mean Illegal Immigrants who are Mexican and coming over the border illegally? Maybe. Who really knows what the fuck you mean?
You are trapped into black and white. A dearth of intellectual investigation. You lack the inability to see beyond you preconceived ideological narrative. Ironically, you are the first to imply others are seeing things only in black and white and are unable to see things from other angles or are unable to admit when they are wrong.
I think you mean "ability". Not that you'd know.
That is about the only point you scored here. The only sound premise. "Al you made a typo. It now means something other than what you meant. Aren't I clever to pick it up?"
The answer, of course, is to say Yes I did and no you aren't"
