Burgold

The immigration thread: American Melting Pot or Get off my Lawn

Recommended Posts

I see a lot of blaming the GOP and Christians.

 

But I just read this:

http://themoderatevoice.com/210742/the-republican-hate-and-fear/

 

Which references a Bloomberg poll that found:

28% - Accept Refugees

53% - Do not accept Refugees

11% - Accept Christian Refugees

8% - Not sure

 

That's not a GOP or Christian issue, it's a general public issue.

 

People here constantly talk about how the GOP base is shrinking, myself included. Well, then whose representing this 72% of people that cannot agree to let them come here? That's a huge number.

 

Edit: and this only accept christians thing, that's 11% of the country. Which, honestly, doesn't line up with how much it's referenced. I would have expected that number to be much higher, all things considered (which should not be mistaken for excusing the idea)

Edited by tshile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to belong to any one group to be afraid, and you certainly can't be insulated these days from those wishing to make you afraid. Fear is an agenda, and it's definitely being pushed.

 

~Bang

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a lot of blaming the GOP and Christians.

 

But I just read this:

http://themoderatevoice.com/210742/the-republican-hate-and-fear/

 

Which references a Bloomberg poll that found:

28% - Accept Refugees

53% - Do not accept Refugees

11% - Accept Christian Refugees

8% - Not sure

 

That's not a GOP or Christian issue, it's a general public issue.

Maybe, I didn't see if the poll did a further break down of its results by party. So, it could be that 28% is evenly split among religious groups and parties or it may be heavily tilted. We don't know.

 

I skimmed the article really quickly so if I missed the break down I apologize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you are right.   I really do.  

 

It may not decide the presidency, but xenophobic hysteria could have a major impact in House and Senate races.

I think political campaigns don't shape the outcome of elections nearly as much as the pundit class accepts. The information revolution and the ascendancy of big data has much more profoundly revolutionized electioneering than pundits realize. I think you can correctly project the outcome of elections based on what you project the demographic make up of the electorate will be, and that campaigning/electioneering is actually about driving or depressing turnout to shape the electorate. The broad electoral strategies that are going to drive the demographic party alignment in this election have been in play for two to three decades, no candidate is likely to change these dynamics in this cycle.

The trick is, of course, correctly projecting the demographics of the electorate. It does get shaped, pretty dramatically, by energy and apathy.

This is a pretty good article on the demographics of the electorate: https://newrepublic.com/article/117520/how-democrats-can-avoid-going-down-2014-midterm-election

Basically it purports that there are two types of voter: reliable voters and unreliable voters. Reliable voters vote every two years and are the most partisan voters. Unreliable voters are swing voters, they've traditionally swung not only between parties, but also in and out of the electorate. The Democratic base is heavily populated by unreliable voters: racial minorities, unmarried women, and young people. The Republican base consists overwhelmingly of reliable voters: older people, white people, homeowners.

I think this demographic shaping started in 1994 with the cultural revolution, where the GoP scooped up the evangelical vote. Also, aging has done it's work. As the article points out, your elderly reliable voter used to vote Democrat. Now they are a Reagan voter.

But I think Karl Rove's strategy to abandon pursuit of the swing voter in 2006 is what set a rightward track for the GoP and the result is that now the unreliable vote (aka swing vote) is more heavily partisan in favor of Democrats than any other time in my lifetime at least. Swing voters aren't real swing votes any more in other words. They're Democrats and the challenge for Democrats is not winning their minds, but getting them out to vote on election day.

The changes in the nature of the electorate based on the participation and absence of the swing vote has been extremely dramatic in the past five elections. In 2008 and 2012, voter turnout was 62% and 58% respectively. In 2006 and 2010, voter turnout was 40 and 41% respectively. And in 2014, turnout was a paltry 36%, which is the lowest number since WWII.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/11/10/voter-turnout-in-2014-was-the-lowest-since-wwii/

So clearly Democrats haven't really figured out how to get unreliable voters to turn out for mid terms yet. But we're coming up on a presidential election with no incumbent where the stakes are going to be high and Democrats can conservatively expect 20-30 million more of their voters to show up. I bet it'll be more than that. And the demographics of the country are changing rapidly on top of solidifying party polarization. A couple of days ago DogOfWar linked an interesting article by a Democrat political operative where he outlined the pretty stunning demographic changes that have happened in just the last couple of years. I'm having a hard time remembering the exact numbers, but I think I remember that he projected that core Democratic demos are going to make up 65% of the electorate this time as opposed to like 51% in 2012. :o. If 70 to 80% of seculars, unmarried women, and minorities vote Democrat and they make up 65% of the electorate, then you're talking about a double digit point loss by the GoP candidate. My instinct is that 65% number is optimistic. But if he's only even half right? You're talking about a huge victory for the Democrat anyway.

I think the Democrats are likely to take back the Senate too based on the seats that are up for grabs this time. A lot of Republicans that got elected in the 2010 mid terms, and several in purple states.

The House? I don't know about. I'm not sure that changes without significant amounts of redistricting in 2020. A good rule of thumb is that overwhelmingly White districts will go Republican and ones that aren't overwhelmingly White will go Democrat. But even this dynamic can and will change eventually. Maybe in 2020, when we get a new census and new redistricting. That's a presidential election unlike in 2010 :). But if not then, eventually Millennials will age into reliable voters, and they are the most liberal generation, maybe ever. The GoP brand is so utterly toxic with Millennials that I'm not sure if they can realistically make inroads and change minds over the next 30 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think political campaigns don't shape the outcome of elections nearly as much as the pundit class accepts. The information revolution and the ascendancy of big data has much more profoundly revolutionized electioneering than pundits realize. I think you can correctly project the outcome of elections based on what you project the demographic make up of the electorate will be, and that campaigning/electioneering is actually about driving or depressing turnout to shape the electorate. The broad electoral strategies that are going to drive the demographic party alignment in this election have been in play for two to three decades, no candidate is likely to change these dynamics in this cycle.

The trick is, of course, correctly projecting the demographics of the electorate. It does get shaped, pretty dramatically, by energy and apathy.

This is a pretty good article on the demographics of the electorate: https://newrepublic.com/article/117520/how-democrats-can-avoid-going-down-2014-midterm-election

Basically it purports that there are two types of voter: reliable voters and unreliable voters. Reliable voters vote every two years and are the most partisan voters. Unreliable voters are swing voters, they've traditionally swung not only between parties, but also in and out of the electorate. The Democratic base is heavily populated by unreliable voters: racial minorities, unmarried women, and young people. The Republican base consists overwhelmingly of reliable voters: older people, white people, homeowners.

I think this demographic shaping started in 1994 with the cultural revolution, where the GoP scooped up the evangelical vote. Also, aging has done it's work. As the article points out, your elderly reliable voter used to vote Democrat. Now they are a Reagan voter.

But I think Karl Rove's strategy to abandon pursuit of the swing voter in 2006 is what set a rightward track for the GoP and the result is that now the unreliable vote (aka swing vote) is more heavily partisan in favor of Democrats than any other time in my lifetime at least. Swing voters aren't real swing votes any more in other words. They're Democrats and the challenge for Democrats is not winning their minds, but getting them out to vote on election day.

The changes in the nature of the electorate based on the participation and absence of the swing vote has been extremely dramatic in the past five elections. In 2008 and 2012, voter turnout was 62% and 58% respectively. In 2006 and 2010, voter turnout was 40 and 41% respectively. And in 2014, turnout was a paltry 36%, which is the lowest number since WWII.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/11/10/voter-turnout-in-2014-was-the-lowest-since-wwii/

So clearly Democrats haven't really figured out how to get unreliable voters to turn out for mid terms yet. But we're coming up on a presidential election with no incumbent where the stakes are going to be high and Democrats can conservatively expect 20-30 million more of their voters to show up. I bet it'll be more than that. And the demographics of the country are changing rapidly on top of solidifying party polarization. A couple of days ago DogOfWar linked an interesting article by a Democrat political operative where he outlined the pretty stunning demographic changes that have happened in just the last couple of years. I'm having a hard time remembering the exact numbers, but I think I remember that he projected that core Democratic demos are going to make up 65% of the electorate this time as opposed to like 51% in 2012. :o. If 70 to 80% of seculars, unmarried women, and minorities vote Democrat and they make up 65% of the electorate, then you're talking about a double digit point loss by the GoP candidate. My instinct is that 65% number is optimistic. But if he's only even half right? You're talking about a huge victory for the Democrat anyway.

I think the Democrats are likely to take back the Senate too based on the seats that are up for grabs this time. A lot of Republicans that got elected in the 2010 mid terms, and several in purple states.

The House? I don't know about. I'm not sure that changes without significant amounts of redistricting in 2020. A good rule of thumb is that overwhelmingly White districts will go Republican and ones that aren't overwhelmingly White will go Democrat. But even this dynamic can and will change eventually. Maybe in 2020, when we get a new census and new redistricting. That's a presidential election unlike in 2010 :). But if not then, eventually Millennials will age into reliable voters, and they are the most liberal generation, maybe ever. The GoP brand is so utterly toxic with Millennials that I'm not sure if they can realistically make inroads and change minds over the next 30 years.

If you are in your twenties and aren't a democrat you have no heart. If you are in your sixties and aren't a republican you have no brain.

That old joke has been funny and accurate for half a century. The mistake democrats make is assuming that people currently in their twenties will remain the Doe eyed optimists forever and that the GOP won't change stances on certain hot button issues.

Statistically speaking, if the 2016 is closer to the 2004 election than the 2008 election in terms of turnout and demographic, Hillary will lose to whatever person wins the GOP nod. That fact is further displayed by current state by state polling where Hillary loses to everyone including Trump. Even in easy Obama states like Michigan and Minnesota.

The events in Paris and the debate over refugees don't hurt the GOP at all. They help them tremendously. And I personally HATE the GOP response to it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to belong to any one group to be afraid, and you certainly can't be insulated these days from those wishing to make you afraid. Fear is an agenda, and it's definitely being pushed.

 

~Bang

 

 

Maybe, I didn't see if the poll did a further break down of its results by party. So, it could be that 28% is evenly split among religious groups and parties or it may be heavily tilted. We don't know.

 

I skimmed the article really quickly so if I missed the break down I apologize.

 

No need to apologize Burgold :)

 

I wasn't trying to say it was evenly split, I'm sure it's not even though I don't know the numbers.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx

 

26% of people identify as Republican, 30% Democrats, and 43% Independent.

 

I'm sure that hardly all of those 43% have a voting record that actually reflects they are independent, so let's just work loosely within those numbers.

 

72% of the american people chose an option other than: Yes, accept Syrian Refugees. My point was that the issue is a little past the standard GOP boogeyman. We're talking about an overwhelming majority being against this idea that many here are calling a fundamental part of America. But what we're seeing is blame being relentlessly focused on the GOP and Christians, even though we've had a few self-identifying Christians said accepting refugees aligns with tenets of their faith.

 

That was all I was saying.

 

(I hardly identify as Christian and really am not pleased with today's GOP and voted Democrat two of the last 3 times i went to the polls... so it's not like I have a personal link to the people being 'called out' here...)

Edited by tshile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course, the President and his supporters are WRONG that ISIS isn't using Syrian refugee crisis to get terrorists into countries:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/attackers-used-refugee-crisis-slip-france-pm-200055808.html

 

Paris (AFP) - Some of the suspects in the Paris attacks took advantage of Europe's migrant crisis to "slip in" unnoticed, the French premier said Thursday, warning the EU needed to "take responsibility" over border controls.

 

Manuel Valls said the EU's cherished passport-free Schengen zone would be in danger if the bloc did not improve border controls, after it emerged the ringleader of the Paris attacks had managed to enter Europe unnoticed.

 

It was confirmed on Thursday that Abdelhamid Abaaoud, a Belgian of Moroccan origin linked to a series of extremist plots in Europe over the past two years, had died in a police raid on an apartment in northern Paris on Wednesday.<rest at link>

 

The only opposition I've heard to slowing down and properly vetting these refugees is that the US is 'racist' and 'islamophobic',

 

There is no good, rational reason to make sure there aren't terrorists getting with the refugees.  Of course, Obama and his supporters happy to show more venom towards peaceful US citizens than the killers of innocent people all around the globe.  No debate, just name calling (like most of this thread).

Edited by btfoom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no good, rational reason to make sure there aren't terrorists getting with the refugees.  Of course, Obama and his supporters happy to show more venom towards peaceful US citizens than the killers of innocent people all around the globe.  No debate, just name calling (like most of this thread).

I don't think anyone, including the President, is suggesting we shouldn't take extensive steps to make sure terrorists don't infiltrate with the refugees. In fact, the process includes interviews with the FBI, DNA samples, a lengthy application process and other background checks.

Edited by Stadium-Armory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just when you want to think the worst of people in this country, this Texas Mom and her little kid do something so right. We could all learn a lesson from this kid and his Mom.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/year-boy-donates-money-piggy-bank-mosque-vandalized/story?id=35291105

 

ht_mosque_01_lb_151118_31x13_1600.jpg

 

GOOD SAMARITAN UPDATE: "Dear Jack...You had saved $20 in your piggybank for an Apple iPad...But then a local Islamic mosque was vandalized...So you donated your $20 to this local Texas mosque instead...Because of your amazing generosity & kind heart...Please enjoy this Apple iPad with our sincere thanks...Love...The American Muslim Community"

 

LINK:  http://imgur.com/gallery/eOBGb

 

D3DrCRr.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The only opposition I've heard to slowing down and properly vetting these refugees is that the US is 'racist' and 'islamophobic',

 

The US already has a slowed down and proper system in place to vet these refugees. Anyone suggesting this procedure to move forward is clueless to how the system works. Other clueless people include those who think the refugee entrance system in the US is comparable to what's going on in Europe.

 

But it's more fun to pretend and make up fictional arguments so carry on.

Edited by No Excuses
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no good, rational reason to make sure there aren't terrorists getting with the refugees.  Of course, Obama and his supporters happy to show more venom towards peaceful US citizens than the killers of innocent people all around the globe.  No debate, just name calling (like most of this thread).

 

First debate question to btfoom: Would you please tell everyone what the current refugee system entails for Syrians trying to get into the United States, including how long the process is, and please let everyone know how you think it might be made more robust?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First debate question to btfoom: Would you please tell everyone what the current refugee system entails for Syrians trying to get into the United States, including how long the process is, and please let everyone know how you think it might be made more robust?

 

How much accurate info is in OUR databases on Syrians and how much accurate info are we receiving from the Syrian govt are we receiving about the refugees?

 

 

Give Assad a hug for me will ya?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2015/11/cnn-elise-labott-suspended-refugee-tweet-216089

CNN reporter suspended after tweet on refugees

 

CNN global affairs correspondent Elise Labott has been suspended for two weeks, a source at CNN confirmed to POLITICO.

 

Earlier on Thursday Labott had tweeted about the House voting on a bill that would make it harder for Syrian refugees to enter the United States.

 

"House passes bill that could limit Syrian refugees. Statue of Liberty bows head in anguish," she wrote, linking to a CNN article on the vote.

 

Several critics, including the Washington Post's Erik Wemple, said the tweet showed bias.

 

Some media watchers questioned the punishment (though others pointed out that with the Thanksgiving holiday next week Labott likely had time off anyway). Last year CNN

 

anchor Carol Costello joked on air that audio of a brawl involving Bristol Palin was "the best minute and a half of audio we've ever come across."

 

Costello later apologized for the remarks but was not taken off the air.

UPDATE: 11:30p.m.:
Labott apologized in a follow up tweet:

 

"Everyone, It was wrong of me to editorialize. My tweet was inappropriate and disrespectful. I sincerely apologize," she wrote.

I don't understand why she would be punished for adding her opinion on twitter.

Reporters do that all the time.  (as evidenced by dozens of reporters on twitter bashing CNN all day long for suspending her )

Edited by visionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/260778-senate-dems-vow-to-block-refugee-bill

Senate Dems vow to block refugee bill

 

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) says a House bill suspending the resettlement of Syrian refugees, slated for action Thursday, will not make it to President Obama’s desk.

Reid said at a press conference that Democrats will block the legislation that requires the secretary of Homeland Security to affirm to Congress that every refugee being admitted is not a security threat.

Senate Democrats are pushing alternative legislation, to be unveiled after Thanksgiving, that would tighten up security gaps in the visa waiver program.

 

House Republican leaders expect the bill to receive yes votes from as many as 50 Democrats in the lower chamber.

They warned Democrats will pay the price politically next year if they block it.

“We’ll crucify them,” said a senior House GOP aide.

Edited by visionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a Republican 'brand?'

Huh. The rest of the World just looks on the GOP as a party dead on its feet full of incompetent, agenda driven buffoons completely out of touch with the rest of society/ reality followed by (Fox news driven) people that (apologies in advance to any Republicans on these here boards. I love you all dearly. Honestly. :P) disturbingly walk among us. :ph34r:.

But that's for another thread.

Hail.

Huh, the more sane amongst us here view both parties as such and love to watch the "enlightened" argue over who is less disgusting. Edited by Major Harris
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Facebook feed is almost unbearable right now.  I'm ashamed this country is even having such a heated debate about this.  Not only is accepting refugees morally right, but the rhetoric used in the argument to keep refugees out has no basis in FACT.  The ignorance regarding the refugee process and the number of people buying into baseless bull**** is scary.

 

 

How are they not properly vetted? We've accepted over 2,000 Syrian refugees over the last 3 years. We accepted 70,000 refugees just last year. No Excuses posted a chart showing the amount of arrests of refugees for domestic terror since 9/11. Spoiler: ZERO have been arrested.

Actually, that graph is incorrect.  There have been refugees who've come to the US and been charged with terrorism-related activities.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322649/The-enemy-Nearly-SEVENTY-arrested-America-ISIS-plots-include-refugees-given-safe-haven-turned-terror.html

If they want to be correct, the graph should be labeled "Syrian refugees"

 

That doesn't change my stance on the refugees: we should accept them.  I just get annoyed when I see stats manipulated like that.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course, the President and his supporters are WRONG that ISIS isn't using Syrian refugee crisis to get terrorists into countries:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/attackers-used-refugee-crisis-slip-france-pm-200055808.html

 

The only opposition I've heard to slowing down and properly vetting these refugees is that the US is 'racist' and 'islamophobic',

 

This is an extremely weak argument:  European borders and border policies are very different from the US policy.

 

Further, It takes 1-2 years for refugees to go through the vetting process as is.  How much slower should the process be made to ensure refugees are "more thoroughly vetted?"  What additional measures do you want to put into place to "ensure" America is not infiltrated by ISIS operatives posing as Syrian refugees?  I have yet to hear reasonable answers to these questions.  Based on the absence of reasonable answers, really, the only conclusion one can make is that this opposition is rooted in xenophobia.  

Edited by Special K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/jeb-bush-trump-muslims-216099

Jeb Bush: Trump's idea to register Muslims 'just wrong'

 

Jeb Bush slammed prescriptions for combating Islamic terrorist threats like closing mosques and registering Muslims as "just wrong" on Friday, a week after Islamic State terrorists killed at least 129 people and injured hundreds more in a series of coordinated attacks across Paris.

 

"It’s not a question of toughness. It’s manipulating people's angst and their fears. That’s not strength. That’s weakness," Bush said in an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box." "And look, campaigns are important for sure. We’re electing a president but there are things that are important as it relates to the values that we have as a country that make us special and unique and we should not and we will never abandon them in the pursuit of this fight. We don't have to. We can protect our freedoms here."Bush's comments come after his GOP rival Donald Trump told Yahoo News he would not rule out creating a registry for Muslims in the United States.

 

“We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully," he said. Later in the day, he told NBC News that he "would certainly implement" a database system.

 

"There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases," he said. "We should have a lot of systems."

Asked to clarify the difference between that idea and what the Nazis did to register Jews in Germany, Trump told an NBC reporter “You tell me.”

Trump has said repeatedly this week that he would also take a look at closing some mosques in an effort to fight the threat of terrorism.

 

"Nobody wants to shut down religious institutions or anything, but you know, you understand it," Trump told Sean Hannity on his television program Tuesday night. "A lot of people understand it. We’re going to have no choice."

Edited by visionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Facebook feed is almost unbearable right now.  I'm ashamed this country is even having such a heated debate about this.  Not only is accepting refugees morally right, but the rhetoric used in the argument to keep refugees out has no basis in FACT.  The ignorance regarding the refugee process and the number of people buying into baseless bull**** is scary.

 

 

Actually, that graph is incorrect.  There have been refugees who've come to the US and been charged with terrorism-related activities.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322649/The-enemy-Nearly-SEVENTY-arrested-America-ISIS-plots-include-refugees-given-safe-haven-turned-terror.html

If they want to be correct, the graph should be labeled "Syrian refugees"

 

That doesn't change my stance on the refugees: we should accept them.  I just get annoyed when I see stats manipulated like that.  

The Rush Limbot infestation is worse than I suspected. Let my people go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much accurate info is in OUR databases on Syrians and how much accurate info are we receiving from the Syrian govt are we receiving about the refugees?

 

 

Give Assad a hug for me will ya?

 

Under that rationale, we should never let anyone in cause how much accurate info do we have about anyone.

Edited by Hersh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under that rationale, we should never let anyone in cause how much accurate info do we have about anyone.

 

Except that would ignore the fact that not every corner of the world is a breeding ground for terrorism.

 


The votes for the bill on refugees in the house

 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/h643

Edited by tshile
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's irony to this idea of concentration camps and keeping them isolated while they are vetted. In France, the insular communities where there is little opportunity for economic advancement and assimilation—THAT becomes the breeding ground for young, militant proto-extremists. Even in the US recent past, insular communities foster the growth of things like organized crime because that population is isolated from things like law enforcement and credit markets. 

 

The opposite of "Extremism" is "mainstreaming". People who don't want extremists should work to mainstream potential populations. Freedom, rule of law, equality are great things and natural rights—we believe in them, so it's in our best interest to share it ASAP. 

 

Invariably, scum will seep through as it does in our trouble spots like inner cities. Which by the way account for more homicides than the Paris attack in any given year. Again, the common thread is isolated communities with a lack of opportunity. You don't put them on welfare either—as a first generation immigrant us and all the people we know and have encountered never came here to NOT work. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that would ignore the fact that not every corner of the world is a breeding ground for terrorism.

 


The votes for the bill on refugees in the house

 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/h643

The flip side is that not every corner of the world is displacing millions of people who want to desperately escape said terrorist powers.

There's irony to this idea of concentration camps and keeping them isolated while they are vetted. In France, the insular communities where there is little opportunity for economic advancement and assimilation—THAT becomes the breeding ground for young, militant proto-extremists. Even in the US recent past, insular communities foster the growth of things like organized crime because that population is isolated from things like law enforcement and credit markets. 

 

The opposite of "Extremism" is "mainstreaming". People who don't want extremists should work to mainstream potential populations. Freedom, rule of law, equality are great things and natural rights—we believe in them, so it's in our best interest to share it ASAP. 

 

Invariably, scum will seep through as it does in our trouble spots like inner cities. Which by the way account for more homicides than the Paris attack in any given year. Again, the common thread is isolated communities with a lack of opportunity. You don't put them on welfare either—as a first generation immigrant us and all the people we know and have encountered never came here to NOT work. 

Right! This is exactly what a former Iraqi Sunni told me. That because we isolate them, they become more and more resentful and turn away. Most just want acceptance and to live in peace like everybody else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that would ignore the fact that not every corner of the world is a breeding ground for terrorism.

 


The votes for the bill on refugees in the house

 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/h643

You do realize that people from ALL OVER the world have pledged allegiance to ISIS and even traveled to Syria to fight with them?

 

Additionally, refugees from countries OUTSIDE the Middle East have been admitted to the United States and been charged with aiding ISIS.

 

Further, most of the terrorists who carried out the Paris attacks were French or Belgian citizens  Based on your rationale, Belgium and France could be considered "breeding grounds for terrorism" and we should not admit French or Belgians immigrants into this country.

 

So, how do you propose legally establishing which country is a "breeding ground for terrorism" and which is not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.