Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am aware of that but we need to halt Muslim immigration just until we have a better vetting system for them so that the bad ones aren't getting in.
Perhaps we are in agreement in a roundabout way. You seem to agree in theory, but acknowledge there is no easy practical solution to filter out potential terrorists. I took, don't have a solution either, but I'm not convinced filtering out all Muslims can be successful either, at least not for the ones we want to keep out.
Obviously you don't just ask them. A terrorist would lie about their religion.
Can you do it by country of origin? What about terrorists who had been radicalized outside of predominantly Muslim countries? Or what if they immigrate to a non-Muslim country before immigrating to the U.S.?
For terrorists who are determined to cause destruction, it seems like just a small hurdle. Do we actually gain anything from it? Does it actually hurt us? Would this actually cause more Muslims to hate the U.S. and breed more terrorists?
Potential immigrants are not yet "other Americans". And it certainly is the place of American citizens to impose whatever tests and requirements they choose on foreigners who seek to live in their country.
I like how you try to slip in a very loose use of "whatever" there. :roll eyes:
No. It's not your place to impose "whatever" on anyone. Nice try, though.
The demonization of Westerners who argue for immigration restriction is primarily done by other Westerners who seek to demonstrate superior status and social position by aligning themselves with the transnational cosmopolitan elite.
Yes, virtue signaling. I think it is about to run its course with events in Europe and the US and the rise of populism. The elites call it the far right, but it's really just populism and nationalism.
Well, yeah. The Founders of our nation were grounded in traditional English notions of liberty and rights. Of course they wanted to protect that culture. They fought a war to gain their independence and to guarantee those rights and liberty.
Nothing has changed, for some of us.
And the United States would have been an infinitely worse country if it had just become England Jr. Plus, they obviously didn't listen to Franklin, so they also allowed for that immigration. That's the culture that they wanted.
Countries like Mexico, China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Pakistan seem to do excellent job on protecting their cultures and making immigration extremely difficult.
But when Western country or first world countries do it, it becomes racist and get demonized. Why is that?
Are there lots of immigrants that actually want to go to those countries?
Cultures are fluid and have never been static throughout history. I have no problem limiting immigration when the time comes for it, but I am not sure what culture you are protecting in multicultural countries.
Perhaps we are in agreement in a roundabout way. You seem to agree in theory, but acknowledge there is no easy practical solution to filter out potential terrorists. I took, don't have a solution either, but I'm not convinced filtering out all Muslims can be successful either, at least not for the ones we want to keep out.
Obviously you don't just ask them. A terrorist would lie about their religion.
Can you do it by country of origin? What about terrorists who had been radicalized outside of predominantly Muslim countries? Or what if they immigrate to a non-Muslim country before immigrating to the U.S.?
For terrorists who are determined to cause destruction, it seems like just a small hurdle. Do we actually gain anything from it? Does it actually hurt us? Would this actually cause more Muslims to hate the U.S. and breed more terrorists?
Countries like Mexico, China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Pakistan seem to do excellent job on protecting their cultures and making immigration extremely difficult.
But when Western country or first world countries do it, it becomes racist and get demonized. Why is that?
Mexico is pretty chaotic, between one thing & another. Immigration to there is difficult because you need political or family connections to get around the legal barriers, & their economy is only doing somewhat better than the US, as I recall. The Mexican government takes assistance from the US to beef up its border to the south, but @ the same time there's a fair amount of economic activity around smuggling people, transporting them, feeding & housing, equipping them, etc. for the trip North. Culturally, Mexico is doing fine - they are a source of cultural goods, & export music, film, literature, plastic arts, etc.
China & Vietnam are disciplined, in the Communist style. Which means - in China - if you're caught adulterating food (causing deaths), skimming off cement & structural steel for buildings which subsequently collapse, & you're caught, you can expect to be executed.
Bangladesh & Pakistan used to be the same country - they were E. Pakistan & Pakistan, immediately after the partition of India in 1947. Then E. Pakistan had political difficulties in 1971, culminating in the independence of E. Pakistan. Recently (since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan), Pakistan has capitalized on its position athwart the land supply lines to Afghanistan, to pry transit fees from NATO & the US (& Saudis & UAE, & anybody else wanting to transship supplies or aid). Pakistan totters along, somehow. Bangladesh is typically called the poorest country in the World.
In Mexico, Bangladesh & Pakistan, it's hard to make a living. The majority of people live there under conditions that we would find appalling - & so Westerners are unlikely to even want to work there. Retiring or visiting as tourists, of course, are entirely different. Mexico is a great place to visit, if you take your money with you. The people knocking down doors to get to Mexico are typically trying to transit Mexico, & get to either the US or Canada. I'm not sure about Pakistan & Bangladesh - why people would be trying to enter there.
The US generates & exports lots of cultural goods too - we're hardly in danger of being swallowed up. Most of Europe, Japan & other advanced First World nations are in trouble, though - their birth rates are either @ or below replacement rate. @ the current rates, in a few decades, they'll hit a point of no return. & then they'll simply disappear.
We're the big guy on the block, which is probably sufficient reason for the World to toss rocks @ us. Do we need to defend our culture? Maybe, if we could decide what exactly constitutes our national culture. That definition has been ongoing for a long time, & I don't see a definitive answer being arrived @ anytime soon - it's a measure of a live culture that it morphs constantly. My opinion, we don't have to worry about our national culture until such time as we can easily define it in a few paragraphs. & by that time, it'll likely be too late to do anything about it.
Countries like Mexico, China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Pakistan seem to do excellent job on protecting their cultures and making immigration extremely difficult.
But when Western country or first world countries do it, it becomes racist and get demonized. Why is that?
America is not going to lose it's culture by immigrating some people. The culture itself is mostly a patchwork of traditions from other cultures, and it is international.
America was founded on the ideal of welcoming "the tired, hungry, and sick" from other nations. Stopping all immigration and becoming a purely isolationist nation goes against the values that America was founded on and it is submitting to fear.
As for illegal immigration, that needs to stop, but combatting it is an administrative nightmare and it is nearly impossible to secure 2,000 miles of land. A massive wall is ridiculous. Not only would they tunnel under, climb over, or just come by boat, but the upkeep on that is insanely expensive.
Big problem is Muslims are taught to take over the world and that includes killing everyone that is not a Muslim. Just does not fit in with the American way of life.
Countries like Mexico, China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Pakistan seem to do excellent job on protecting their cultures and making immigration extremely difficult.
But when Western country or first world countries do it, it becomes racist and get demonized. Why is that?
To an extent, it depends on how they do it and the messages (both direct and indirect) they send out while doing it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not sure how desirable those countries are
