Race, culture and assimilation

[Benton]

(06-14-2016, 11:30 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: If I shit in the corner of my house, it might take a while until I make it completely unlivable.
What do you think would happen if I invited more people to stay and do the same ?

When you meet people, is your first question: "do you shit in the corner?"

Do you assume everyone you invite to your house shits in the corner?

Before you worry about other people and where they shit, shouldn't you worry about your own corner and why you're shitting in it? Maybe some of the people you could've invite in are great at teaching you how to not shit in the corner.

[Rotobeast]

(06-14-2016, 02:03 PM)Benton Wrote: When you meet people, is your first question: "do you shit in the corner?"

Do you assume everyone you invite to your house shits in the corner?

Before you worry about other people and where they shit, shouldn't you worry about your own corner and why you're shitting in it? Maybe some of the people you could've invite in are great at teaching you how to not shit in the corner.

Not bad.
But seriously.....
You do believe we need to screen people, right ?

[Griever]

(06-14-2016, 02:20 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Not bad.
But seriously.....
You do believe we need to screen people, right ?

i hold to, if we allow the refugees in, tell them they can, as long as they dont **** up. they get in trouble and get arrested, its back to wherever it was that they came from, and someone else will come in their spot

[*bfine32*]

(06-14-2016, 01:27 PM)Benton Wrote: My logic is to not exclude a majority based on a minority.

That's a cool logic; however, that is not what you said.

You said "How can we not let in what already is here."

I have zero idea what that has to do with the logic you posted above.

[masterpanthera_t]

(06-14-2016, 02:20 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Not bad.
But seriously.....
You do believe we need to screen people, right ?

I believe we've had this discussion (i.e. you and me directly) Roto, but I think it's worth stating my opinion here again.  Without a doubt we need to screen people.  I'm also not one to say that we should take any and all Muslims, or any and all Christians or anybody else.  I believe a thorough check of one's background is something that our country is fully capable of and needs to put to good use.  I wouldn't even mind certain restrictions on concrete reasons, but where I take exception is a broad brush painting of any group of people, whether Christian, Muslim, this, that , whatever, without having a nuanced discussion.  I'm skeptical of the restrictions that we've placed historically on groups coming here (maybe not always, but atleast enough to know that it happens) on spurious reasons.  This is my general view on immigration.  As far as refugees are concerned I think we've had a chat on one of the threads where I don't necessarily want to take refugees in and provide them a pathway for citizenship, but possibly take them in as a humanitarian gesture, but send them back once their country has been sufficiently situated.  

I wouldn't propose banning all Christian immigration simply because there are certain bad "Christian" actors in some parts of the world.  Similarly I'm not for broad bans of all Muslims (as Trump has proposed) based on a small fraction of bad "Muslim" actors in the world.  This kind of thinking can go on, and be applied to practically every religion or non-religious group.  This is where I would hope that we as a country have a nuanced discussion on our immigration policy and specify concrete rationales for what would be "productive" immigration (some are obvious, like bringing in professionals in high intelligence careers) and what would be "reductive" (some obvious, like actors with malicious intentions towards our country or government).  This discussion would naturally require a through analysis of different parts of the world, their strengths (if any), their weaknesses etc. and how and why we have a basis for any policies we institute going forward.  I would no more want an English hooligan or an Irish (possibly former) separatist, anymore than I would want some brainwashed fool who has pledged allegiance to ISIS or jihad or whatever flavor of political manipulation that has befallen the region of this potential wannabe immigrant.  After saying all this, I realize (as Belsnickel once noted), that in the knee-jerk reactionary world that we live in, there is likely not much interest in nuance.  

TL;DR;  We need a nuanced discussion on policy and not broad brush statements which distort/skew the reality.

[Benton]

(06-14-2016, 02:20 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Not bad.
But seriously.....
You do believe we need to screen people, right ?

100%

Anyone who wants to come here should be checked out thoroughly. No violent criminals, no one definitively supporting anti-American groups, no one who maintains citizenship in their "home" country for more than six months, no one who hasn't lived here for at least three years, no one who cannot pass a basic language test (either written or oral). That's about it. 

Other than that, I don't care what country you come from, how you prefer go to the bathroom, what religion you are, what your profession was. And the reason I don't care is because I believe that people come here — instead of another country — because they want to be a part of the diverse culture. And wanting that change means the weird ass minorities every culture has will learn some things are not acceptable, like pooping in public showers*. If they really wanted to continue that culture, they could do that in a variety of countries around the world that are more accepting of it. Such as marrying your cousin. About half the states here would void the marriage. The other half of the states should. But that's a problem we need to work out in those states, irrelevant to the immigration argument.


*Although, as a guy who worked in a truck stop in high school/college, I can attest that a minority of our population (which was predominately white middle age men) hadn't learned that as of 20 years ago.

[*bfine32*]

(06-14-2016, 01:55 PM)Rotobeast Wrote:

Sooooo.... degenerates...

That chart is racist

[*bfine32*]

(06-14-2016, 02:20 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Not bad.
But seriously.....
You do believe we need to screen people, right ?

I think a big issue with this is: How do you screen someone from a place like Syria; call the Syrian government?

[StLucieBengal]

(06-14-2016, 01:27 PM)Benton Wrote: My logic is to not exclude a majority based on a minority.

I live in Kentucky. In Kentucky first cousin marriages are not recognized. In Colorado, Alaska, Alabama, Connecticut, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, NC, RI, SC, Vermont, Virginia and Tennessee, it's legal. By your logic Kentucky should not accept anyone from those states. I'm not sure what state you live in, but I know we have posters from NC and Florida. I'm saddened to learn you think they're cousin marrying undesirables. For the most part, they seem like nice posters. Even the ones from Florida.

I have a hard time judging a group of people by the actions of a few.

You are not judging a group.  You are not letting in people who believe it's ok to marry children, poop in public, oppress women, etc 

The broader topic is restricted immigration with a point system to value what each immigrant brings to the table.   These issues listed above are just immediate reasons to deny.  

[Rotobeast]

(06-14-2016, 02:41 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: I believe we've had this discussion (i.e. you and me directly) Roto, but I think it's worth stating my opinion here again.  Without a doubt we need to screen people.  I'm also not one to say that we should take any and all Muslims, or any and all Christians or anybody else.  I believe a thorough check of one's background is something that our country is fully capable of and needs to put to good use.  I wouldn't even mind certain restrictions on concrete reasons, but where I take exception is a broad brush painting of any group of people, whether Christian, Muslim, this, that , whatever, without having a nuanced discussion.  I'm skeptical of the restrictions that we've placed historically on groups coming here (maybe not always, but atleast enough to know that it happens) on spurious reasons.  This is my general view on immigration.  As far as refugees are concerned I think we've had a chat on one of the threads where I don't necessarily want to take refugees in and provide them a pathway for citizenship, but possibly take them in as a humanitarian gesture, but send them back once their country has been sufficiently situated.  

I wouldn't propose banning all Christian immigration simply because there are certain bad "Christian" actors in some parts of the world.  Similarly I'm not for broad bans of all Muslims (as Trump has proposed) based on a small fraction of bad "Muslim" actors in the world.  This kind of thinking can go on, and be applied to practically every religion or non-religious group.  This is where I would hope that we as a country have a nuanced discussion on our immigration policy and specify concrete rationales for what would be "productive" immigration (some are obvious, like bringing in professionals in high intelligence careers) and what would be "reductive" (some obvious, like actors with malicious intentions towards our country or government).  This discussion would naturally require a through analysis of different parts of the world, their strengths (if any), their weaknesses etc. and how and why we have a basis for any policies we institute going forward.  I would no more want an English hooligan or an Irish (possibly former) separatist, anymore than I would want some brainwashed fool who has pledged allegiance to ISIS or jihad or whatever flavor of political manipulation that has befallen the region of this potential wannabe immigrant.  After saying all this, I realize (as Belsnickel once noted), that in the knee-jerk reactionary world that we live in, there is likely not much interest in nuance.  

TL;DR;  We need a nuanced discussion on policy and not broad brush statements which distort/skew the reality.

I believe we are in agreement, for the most part.

(06-14-2016, 02:42 PM)Benton Wrote: 100%

Anyone who wants to come here should be checked out thoroughly. No violent criminals, no one definitively supporting anti-American groups, no one who maintains citizenship in their "home" country for more than six months, no one who hasn't lived here for at least three years, no one who cannot pass a basic language test (either written or oral). That's about it. 

Other than that, I don't care what country you come from, how you prefer go to the bathroom, what religion you are, what your profession was. And the reason I don't care is because I believe that people come here — instead of another country — because they want to be a part of the diverse culture. And wanting that change means the weird ass minorities every culture has will learn some things are not acceptable, like pooping in public showers*. If they really wanted to continue that culture, they could do that in a variety of countries around the world that are more accepting of it. Such as marrying your cousin. About half the states here would void the marriage. The other half of the states should. But that's a problem we need to work out in those states, irrelevant to the immigration argument.


*Although, as a guy who worked in a truck stop in high school/college, I can attest that a minority of our population (which was predominately white middle age men) hadn't learned that as of 20 years ago.

The only issue I've had with your stance is that of taking in people that exhibit behavior we detest (child marriage).
The statement of "why not, these citizens do it ?" didn't set well.
I know what your point was and I'd like to deport those citizens, but cannot fathom bringing in more people who would do the same.
Those with child brides can god elsewhere, or stay at a refugee camp
that I do not mind kicking a bit of my taxes at.
 

(06-14-2016, 02:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That chart is racist

IKR ?

(06-14-2016, 02:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think a big issue with this is: How do you screen someone from a place like Syria; call the Syrian government?

We use Gitmo as buffer colony for observation ?

[Benton]

(06-14-2016, 02:57 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You are not judging a group.  You are not letting in people who believe it's ok to marry children, poop in public, oppress women, etc 

The broader topic is restricted immigration with a point system to value what each immigrant brings to the table.   These issues listed above are just immediate reasons to deny.  

If you want to discuss immigration, discuss immigration. If you want to discuss marrying minors, discuss marrying minors. One is not the other.

[Benton]

(06-14-2016, 03:05 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: The only issue I've had with your stance is that of taking in people that exhibit behavior we detest (child marriage).
 

Who is "we"? I'm against it, but citizens in Colorado, Alaska, Alabama, Connecticut, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, NC, RI, SC, Vermont, Virginia and Tennessee don't care if you marry your cousin. Residents of California and Massachusetts, have no limit; it's 15 in Mississippi, Missouri, Georgia, Idaho and Hawaii; and 16 in almost every other state with parental consent.

So I'm not sure why the sudden outrage over teens marrying adults, or the relation to immigration. I don't like it, I wouldn't recognize it as a marriage, but I'm not going to paint all immigrants as child-marriers.

I detest serial killers. Serial killers are normally males. Australia has men. Australia has serial killers. Ergo, all men from Australia are  serial killers, so we shouldn't allow anyone from there into the country.

Quote:The statement of "why not, these citizens do it ?" didn't set well.

I know what your point was and I'd like to deport those citizens, but cannot fathom bringing in more people who would do the same.
Those with child brides can god elsewhere, or stay at a refugee camp
that I do not mind kicking a bit of my taxes at.

Maybe we could send them to Mississippi, Missouri, Georgia, Idaho, California or Hawaii?

[masterpanthera_t]

(06-14-2016, 04:19 PM)Benton Wrote: Who is "we"? I'm against it, but citizens in Colorado, Alaska, Alabama, Connecticut, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, NC, RI, SC, Vermont, Virginia and Tennessee don't care if you marry your cousin. Residents of California and Massachusetts, have no limit; it's 15 in Mississippi, Missouri, Georgia, Idaho and Hawaii; and 16 in almost every other state with parental consent.

So I'm not sure why the sudden outrage over teens marrying adults, or the relation to immigration. I don't like it, I wouldn't recognize it as a marriage, but I'm not going to paint all immigrants as child-marriers.

I detest serial killers. Serial killers are normally males. Australia has men. Australia has serial killers. Ergo, all men from Australia are  serial killers, so we shouldn't allow anyone from there into the country.

More or less my stance on this as well.  This is where our laws should be used as a basis for who is allowed in and who isn't. 

[Benton]

(06-14-2016, 04:29 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: More or less my stance on this as well.  This is where our laws should be used as a basis for who is allowed in and who isn't. 

Agreed.

If you've got someone on the Irish equivalent of a sex offender registry, pass. If someone from Sudan registers his legal name as "Capt. Edward Teach" then maybe he's not the guy we should let in. If Ivan Milat somehow gets pardoned and wants to move to Wyoming, we don't have to let him. It's common sense stuff.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-14-2016, 03:52 PM)Benton Wrote: If you want to discuss immigration, discuss immigration. If you want to discuss marrying minors, discuss marrying minors. One is not the other.

It is when you say these are the types of things that should trigger and immediate rejection of an application.  

[StLucieBengal]

(06-14-2016, 04:19 PM)Benton Wrote: Who is "we"? I'm against it, but citizens in Colorado, Alaska, Alabama, Connecticut, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, NC, RI, SC, Vermont, Virginia and Tennessee don't care if you marry your cousin. Residents of California and Massachusetts, have no limit; it's 15 in Mississippi, Missouri, Georgia, Idaho and Hawaii; and 16 in almost every other state with parental consent.

So I'm not sure why the sudden outrage over teens marrying adults, or the relation to immigration. I don't like it, I wouldn't recognize it as a marriage, but I'm not going to paint all immigrants as child-marriers.

I detest serial killers. Serial killers are normally males. Australia has men. Australia has serial killers. Ergo, all men from Australia are  serial killers, so we shouldn't allow anyone from there into the country.



Maybe we could send them to Mississippi, Missouri, Georgia, Idaho, California or Hawaii?

Why do you think that just because a significant amount of them partake in degenerate behavior that we don't want any of them?   That's the whole point..  We restrict the immigration and then force a point system to see who makes the cut and who doesn't.   There is no need to add anyone who isn't bringing something positive to the table.    And that go for everywhere.   

You bringing up what us citizens are don't is irrelevant to this topic.  You are just trying too hard to justify your open borders let anyone and everyone in policy.    Europeans thought that too until they had their new neighbors pooping in public, sexually assaulting women, and raping children.    Would you like this in your neighborhood?  Something tells me you wouldn't be too happy if your new refugee neighbor began any of this behavior

[Rotobeast]

(06-14-2016, 04:19 PM)Benton Wrote: Who is "we"? I'm against it, but citizens in Colorado, Alaska, Alabama, Connecticut, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, NC, RI, SC, Vermont, Virginia and Tennessee don't care if you marry your cousin. Residents of California and Massachusetts, have no limit; it's 15 in Mississippi, Missouri, Georgia, Idaho and Hawaii; and 16 in almost every other state with parental consent.

So I'm not sure why the sudden outrage over teens marrying adults, or the relation to immigration. I don't like it, I wouldn't recognize it as a marriage, but I'm not going to paint all immigrants as child-marriers.

I detest serial killers. Serial killers are normally males. Australia has men. Australia has serial killers. Ergo, all men from Australia are  serial killers, so we shouldn't allow anyone from there into the country.



Maybe we could send them to Mississippi, Missouri, Georgia, Idaho, California or Hawaii?

Did I say "ban all Muslims" or something similar?
I don't recall doing such a thing.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-14-2016, 05:04 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Did I say "ban all Muslims" or something similar?
I don't recall doing such a thing.

No one has said that he is just pretending that we all have.... 

[GMDino]

(06-14-2016, 04:57 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Why do you think that just because a significant amount of them partake in degenerate behavior that we don't want any of them?   That's the whole point..  We restrict the immigration and then force a point system to see who makes the cut and who doesn't.   There is no need to add anyone who isn't bringing something positive to the table.    And that go for everywhere.   

You bringing up what us citizens are don't is irrelevant to this topic.  You are just trying too hard to justify your open borders let anyone and everyone in policy.    Europeans thought that too until they had their new neighbors pooping in public, sexually assaulting women, and raping children.    Would you like this in your neighborhood?  Something tells me you wouldn't be too happy if your new refugee neighbor began any of this behavior

He didn't say that either.

Hyperbole works both ways Lucy.

[Benton]

(06-14-2016, 05:04 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Did I say "ban all Muslims" or something similar?
I don't recall doing such a thing.

I don't recall saying you did.

That post only referred to Australians. You aren't against Australians, are you?