06-14-2016, 03:05 PM
(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 racistIKR ?
(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 ?
