Political Roundtable Part VIII

[Zonkerbl]

Donald Trump. SMH.

I'm assuming you are referring to his call to stop all immigration from Muslim countries.

It's worth noting that he is calling for a temporary stop until our immigration system can be re-evaluated. Is that not a rational course of action given that there have now been multiple terrorist attacks on American soil perpetrated by Muslim immigrants? And there have been dozens more that have been thwarted by law enforcement. And we have seen a pattern in Europe of terrorist activity perpetrated by Muslim immigrants or their next of kin.

Why is it such an awful thing to re-evaluate our immigration policy? The mere mention of it brings forth Hitler comparisons. It doesn't make any sense. Our immigration policy has undergone several major changes throughout our history. At times, it had a preferential treatment for Europeans. At times, it restricted almost everyone to give us time to assimilate. Starting in 1964, it was changed again to give preferential treatment to "chain migration". Now that we have plenty of data on how that has worked, what's wrong with assessing the results and deciding as a nation if we want that policy to continue. And if so, what tweaks are needed?

What has been the track record of immigrants in America? Does it vary by region where the immigration came from? How are they doing economically? How are the second and third generation immigrants doing? How are they assimilating? How are they performing in schools? What is their violent crime rate? How has it changed our culture? What cultural changes can be expected in the future as their percentage of the population increases? Are additional immigrants even needed based on our current economic conditions?

Why can't these questions be asked?

I think what we should do is impose a ban on having children if you own a gun. I think a gun owner is much more likely to produce a child with homicidal tendencies.

Being racist only gives you an approximately accurate approach. When you treat the disease at the source the results are much more reliable.

[nate33]

As usual. Nobody can refute my position logically, so they descend into insults or mockery. My questions remain:

What has been the track record of immigrants in America? Does it vary by region where the immigration came from? How are they doing economically? How are the second and third generation immigrants doing? How are they assimilating? How are they performing in schools? What is their violent crime rate? How has it changed our culture? What cultural changes can be expected in the future as their percentage of the population increases? Are additional immigrants even needed based on our current economic conditions?

Why can't these questions be asked?

[DCZards]

Jim - The cause is men and women having sex (and babies) out out of wedlock and the effect is a breakdown in the social order. It has nothing to do with poverty. It has everything to do with morality and the lack of education. Somehow certain members of society and the media have deceived our young people into thinking that it's ok to produce babies out of wedlock. In the past such behavior would have been stigmatized, but not anymore. Progressives are so much smarter than the many generations that preceded them. No need for moral standards anymore. As I mentioned on this thread two years ago, I moved most of my after tax assets overseas knowing that an immoral populace would beget a failed economy and nation. It's sad. Maybe you can start or contribute to a movement that will re-stigmatize immoral behavior. Otherwise, there is no hope.

Sorry, Popper. You (nor I) get to decide what's moral or immoral. There are many, many people who believe that having sex and babies out of wedlock is not "immoral." Deciding what's "moral or immoral" is more often than not a very subjective and personal thing.

For example, I've always believed that it's immoral not to ensure that every man, woman and child in America had accessible and affordable healthcare. You may not consider that immoral.

[DCZards]

dub post

[popper]

Jim - The cause is men and women having sex (and babies) out out of wedlock and the effect is a breakdown in the social order. It has nothing to do with poverty. It has everything to do with morality and the lack of education. Somehow certain members of society and the media have deceived our young people into thinking that it's ok to produce babies out of wedlock. In the past such behavior would have been stigmatized, but not anymore. Progressives are so much smarter than the many generations that preceded them. No need for moral standards anymore. As I mentioned on this thread two years ago, I moved most of my after tax assets overseas knowing that an immoral populace would beget a failed economy and nation. It's sad. Maybe you can start or contribute to a movement that will re-stigmatize immoral behavior. Otherwise, there is no hope.

Sorry, Popper. You (nor I) get to decide what's moral or immoral. There are many, many people who believe that having sex and babies out of wedlock is not "immoral." Deciding what's "moral or immoral" is more often than not a very subjective and personal thing.

For example, I've always believed that it's immoral not to ensure that every man, woman and child in America had accessible and affordable healthcare. You may not consider that immoral.

You're exactly right DCZ and that's our problem. We have 300 million individual definitions on what is and what isn't moral. This is quite a different belief system compared to the national consensus during my early days in the U.S. My father insisted that none of his sons would lie, cheat, steal or mistreat women and if they did the belt would come out. Good luck with the new individual,self-defined approach to right and wrong. It doesn't work, it never has worked, and it never will work.

[DCZards]

It's worth noting that he is calling for a temporary stop until our immigration system can be re-evaluated. Is that not a rational course of action given that there have now been multiple terrorist attacks on American soil perpetrated by Muslim immigrants? And there have been dozens more that have been thwarted by law enforcement. And we have seen a pattern in Europe of terrorist activity perpetrated by Muslim immigrants or their next of kin.

Why is it such an awful thing to re-evaluate our immigration policy? The mere mention of it brings forth Hitler comparisons. It doesn't make any sense. Our immigration policy has undergone several major changes throughout our history. At times, it had a preferential treatment for Europeans. At times, it restricted almost everyone to give us time to assimilate. Starting in 1964, it was changed again to give preferential treatment to "chain migration". Now that we have plenty of data on how that has worked, what's wrong with assessing the results and deciding as a nation if we want that policy to continue. And if so, what tweaks are needed?

What has been the track record of immigrants in America? Does it vary by region where the immigration came from? How are they doing economically? How are the second and third generation immigrants doing? How are they assimilating? How are they performing in schools? What is their violent crime rate? How has it changed our culture? What cultural changes can be expected in the future as their percentage of the population increases? Are additional immigrants even needed based on our current economic conditions?

Why can't these questions be asked?

But isn't this more about our Constitution than immigration policy? Doesn't the Constitution explicitly speak against discrimination based on religion. What the madman Trump is opposing is a very slippery slope. Where do we draw the line on who and what we discriminate against?

I find your questions linking immigration to economics, assimilation, school performance, cultural changes, etc., almost as scary as what Trump is proposing. Sounds to me that you're only interested in admitting people who meet YOUR criteria as a "good immigrant."

Trump's xenophobic nonsense is creating a very hostile environment for the Muslims who already live in this country and I fear that innocent Americans who happen to be Muslims will be the victims, maybe even of some violent acts by some of the crazies amongst us.

[TheSecretWeapon]

As usual. Nobody can refute my position logically, so they descend into insults or mockery. My questions remain:

What has been the track record of immigrants in America? Does it vary by region where the immigration came from? How are they doing economically? How are the second and third generation immigrants doing? How are they assimilating? How are they performing in schools? What is their violent crime rate? How has it changed our culture? What cultural changes can be expected in the future as their percentage of the population increases? Are additional immigrants even needed based on our current economic conditions?

Why can't these questions be asked?

Leaving aside the issue that "we need to take a hard look at America's immigration policies" isn't what Trump said (what he called for was a temporary ban on ALL people of a certain religion)...

Asking questions about immigration is fine with me, but make them good questions or we're going to get bad answers. Looking at "region" is WAY too broad to get a meaningful answer. Better would be to look at the kind of traits and/or credentials of immigrants who do well in this country. Although, then we get into the issue of what does "doing well" mean?

So, I'm open to asking questions and thinking about the issues. I'm not very interested in a conversation that starts with "let's ban Muslims" (even temporarily).

EDIT to add: I think DCZards post is very well stated. Asking questions is okay, but how are we going to define who's a "good" immigrant and who's not? Can o'worms.

[dckingsfan]

Taking the devils advocate on this one DCZards. Why can't we have standards for immigration? Even if they are educational based or monetary based.

Some advocate only taking in immigrants with a secondary degree. Some say that the immigrants should have at least some minimal assets.

I hear you on the religious aspects. But possibly the (not so bright) Trump should have proposed banning immigrants from certain countries vs. certain religions.

Interested in hearing your opinion on this one. I do think that there is a cost/benefit analysis that should happen on immigration and that we should have a proactive policy - just not sure what it should be at this point.

[TGW]

DCZards--you are 100% right that what that lunatic Trump is calling for is against our very own constitution.

And secondly, it's butt-effin moronic to think that stopping Muslims from coming into the country would actually fix a problem. Guess what? Not all Muslims wear hijabs or long beards. Many muslim people are blond haired, blue-eyed, fair skinned people. My sister's roommate in college was Muslim from Morocco, and looked like a non-whorish Miley Cyrus. So to think that a potential terrorist couldn't just wear western clothing, shave, and claim that he's Christian is just being naive.

You're not solving a problem, you're just pissing more people off with rhetoric like that.

"What has been the track record of immigrants in America?"

Well, since the only non-immigrants here are Native Americans, maybe we should ask them?

[TGW]

Taking the devils advocate on this one DCZards. Why can't we have standards for immigration? Even if they are educational based or monetary based.

Some advocate only taking in immigrants with a secondary degree. Some say that the immigrants should have at least some minimal assets.

I hear you on the religious aspects. But possibly the (not so bright) Trump should have proposed banning immigrants from certain countries vs. certain religions.

Interested in hearing your opinion on this one. I do think that there is a cost/benefit analysis that should happen on immigration and that we should have a proactive policy - just not sure what it should be at this point.

The problem with conservatives is that they want things to be both ways.

You all clamor for the protection of businesses and corporations that provide jobs, but those are the same companies that force your favorite politician to keep the borders open. You really think Del Monte and Dole want Americans picking their products? You think the Olive Garden wants to pay an American to bus dishes?

[nate33]

But isn't this more about our Constitution than immigration policy? Doesn't the Constitution explicitly speak against discrimination based on religion. What the madman Trump is opposing is a very slippery slope. Where do we draw the line on who and what we discriminate against?

The Constitution doesn't apply to people who aren't yet citizens.

Indeed, the preservation of our Constitutional ideals is exactly the reason why we ought to spend more time on my immigration questions. If it is indeed true that Muslim immigrants represent a disproportionate threat for future terrorism on our soil, then the time to filter them out is before they become citizens. We do not have a government structure that is well suited for fighting terrorism from within. I don't want a future where the balance of freedom/security has to shift more to the security side of the scale. We live in too much of a police state already.

I find your questions linking immigration to economics, assimilation, school performance, cultural changes, etc., almost as scary as what Trump is proposing. Sounds to me that you're only interested in admitting people who meet YOUR criteria as a "good immigrant."

And this is what I don't understand. Can't we agree on at least some semblance of objective standards of what we want in immigrants? Don't we want immigrant groups who do well in school and prosper economically? Don't we want immigrants who rarely wind up in jail or committing crimes or on welfare? Don't we want immigrant groups who tend to agree with our constitution and our general cultural outlook on women's rights, gay rights, individual liberty, etc.? Do we want immigrant groups who actively disagree with those principles based on a deep-rooted, religious viewpoint?

[TheSecretWeapon]

Taking the devils advocate on this one DCZards. Why can't we have standards for immigration? Even if they are educational based or monetary based.

Some advocate only taking in immigrants with a secondary degree. Some say that the immigrants should have at least some minimal assets.

I hear you on the religious aspects. But possibly the (not so bright) Trump should have proposed banning immigrants from certain countries vs. certain religions.

Interested in hearing your opinion on this one. I do think that there is a cost/benefit analysis that should happen on immigration and that we should have a proactive policy - just not sure what it should be at this point.

These are questions I'd be willing to discuss/research. Well, not me personally doing the research... I can see potential value in an immigration policy that gives preference to people with education and/or financial resources. Excluding all people from a particular area or of a particular religion is a non-starter for me.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Well, since the only non-immigrants here are Native Americans, maybe we should ask them?

Wanted to give this sentence in particular a double +1. I guess that'd be a +2.

[nate33]

As usual. Nobody can refute my position logically, so they descend into insults or mockery. My questions remain:

What has been the track record of immigrants in America? Does it vary by region where the immigration came from? How are they doing economically? How are the second and third generation immigrants doing? How are they assimilating? How are they performing in schools? What is their violent crime rate? How has it changed our culture? What cultural changes can be expected in the future as their percentage of the population increases? Are additional immigrants even needed based on our current economic conditions?

Why can't these questions be asked?

Leaving aside the issue that "we need to take a hard look at America's immigration policies" isn't what Trump said (what he called for was a temporary ban on ALL people of a certain religion)...

Asking questions about immigration is fine with me, but make them good questions or we're going to get bad answers. Looking at "region" is WAY too broad to get a meaningful answer. Better would be to look at the kind of traits and/or credentials of immigrants who do well in this country. Although, then we get into the issue of what does "doing well" mean?

So, I'm open to asking questions and thinking about the issues. I'm not very interested in a conversation that starts with "let's ban Muslims" (even temporarily).

EDIT to add: I think DCZards post is very well stated. Asking questions is okay, but how are we going to define who's a "good" immigrant and who's not? Can o'worms.

I think people are intentionally distorting the intent of Trump's policy to score political points. Rand Paul suggested the same thing a week ago and nobody said squat.

Trump is saying we need to evaluate our immigration policy, and for the short term, since there is evidence of a coordinated terrorist movement among Middle Eastern Muslims from ISIS controlled areas, we ought to stop immigration from those countries while this evaluation takes place. I suppose he could have been less specific and simply proposed to stop immigration from ALL countries until this immigration evaluation takes place, but there doesn't seem to be any compelling need to slow down current immigration from regions like India and Korea.

[nate33]

Well, since the only non-immigrants here are Native Americans, maybe we should ask them?

Wanted to give this sentence in particular a double +1. I guess that'd be a +2.

It's an absurd, stupid argument. All civilizations have gained their "homeland" by conquering some previous civilization. To suddenly show moral outrage about Europeans conquering Native Americans is sophistry.

Our ancestors conquered the Native Americans, we didn't "immigrate" here. We now have a nation with a controlled and regulated policy on who we let in. We have every right to decide exactly who we want to let in, if anyone. If someone doesn't like it, they can choose to conquer us if they can, but their attempts at guilt tripping us will fall on deaf ears.

[DCZards]

Well, since the only non-immigrants here are Native Americans, maybe we should ask them?

I think Native Americans would actually agree with Nate in at least this one respect: be careful about opening your doors to people intent on killing you, taking your land and destroying your culture.

[TheSecretWeapon]

As usual. Nobody can refute my position logically, so they descend into insults or mockery. My questions remain:

What has been the track record of immigrants in America? Does it vary by region where the immigration came from? How are they doing economically? How are the second and third generation immigrants doing? How are they assimilating? How are they performing in schools? What is their violent crime rate? How has it changed our culture? What cultural changes can be expected in the future as their percentage of the population increases? Are additional immigrants even needed based on our current economic conditions?

Why can't these questions be asked?

Leaving aside the issue that "we need to take a hard look at America's immigration policies" isn't what Trump said (what he called for was a temporary ban on ALL people of a certain religion)...

Asking questions about immigration is fine with me, but make them good questions or we're going to get bad answers. Looking at "region" is WAY too broad to get a meaningful answer. Better would be to look at the kind of traits and/or credentials of immigrants who do well in this country. Although, then we get into the issue of what does "doing well" mean?

So, I'm open to asking questions and thinking about the issues. I'm not very interested in a conversation that starts with "let's ban Muslims" (even temporarily).

EDIT to add: I think DCZards post is very well stated. Asking questions is okay, but how are we going to define who's a "good" immigrant and who's not? Can o'worms.

I think people are intentionally distorting the intent of Trump's policy to score political points. Rand Paul suggested the same thing a week ago and nobody said squat.

Trump is saying we need to evaluate our immigration policy, and for the short term, since there is evidence of a coordinated terrorist movement among Middle Eastern Muslims from ISIS controlled areas, we ought to stop immigration from those countries while this evaluation takes place. I suppose he could have been less specific and simply proposed to stop immigration from ALL countries until this immigration evaluation takes place, but there doesn't seem to be any compelling need to slow down current immigration from regions like India and Korea.

I don't see that in Trump's statement.

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump

I guess it can be read into "until we figure out what's going on" part. But, the statement is vague in the details, but very specific about the target. He doesn't say America needs to review its immigration policies -- which would be fine. I don't even think I'd do more than raise an eyebrow if he included a specific mention of Muslims and the specter of terrorists gaining easy access to the US. Honestly, if he even included a LINK to one of his policy papers indicating that this specific call was part of a larger review of immigration policy, I think I'd be okay with it. It bothers me to recognize that he and his staff are smart enough, skilled enough and savvy enough to know everything I just mentioned and still put this out as written.

[TGW]

Well, since the only non-immigrants here are Native Americans, maybe we should ask them?

Wanted to give this sentence in particular a double +1. I guess that'd be a +2.

It's an absurd, stupid argument. All civilizations have gained their "homeland" by conquering some previous civilization. To suddenly show moral outrage about Europeans conquering Native Americans is sophistry.

Our ancestors conquered the Native Americans, we didn't "immigrate" here. We now have a nation with a controlled and regulated policy on who we let in. We have every right to decide exactly who we want to let in, if anyone. If someone doesn't like it, they can choose to conquer us if they can, but their attempts at guilt tripping us will fall on deaf ears.

Fine then, Nate. Who do you consider as an immigrant then? Is it strictly non-U.S. born citizens? Are their children considered as immigrants? How about the children's children? Are you going to look at your O'Quinns. Hannitys, Bukowskis, or just non-European immigrants? Many important people, including the President, are children of immigrants, so where does your line stop?

[dckingsfan]

Taking the devils advocate on this one DCZards. Why can't we have standards for immigration? Even if they are educational based or monetary based.

Some advocate only taking in immigrants with a secondary degree. Some say that the immigrants should have at least some minimal assets.

I hear you on the religious aspects. But possibly the (not so bright) Trump should have proposed banning immigrants from certain countries vs. certain religions.

Interested in hearing your opinion on this one. I do think that there is a cost/benefit analysis that should happen on immigration and that we should have a proactive policy - just not sure what it should be at this point.

The problem with conservatives is that they want things to be both ways.

You all clamor for the protection of businesses and corporations that provide jobs, but those are the same companies that force your favorite politician to keep the borders open. You really think Del Monte and Dole want Americans picking their products? You think the Olive Garden wants to pay an American to bus dishes?

I think you have me confused with someone. I am a fiscal conservative but not a social conservative.

My previous posts have alluded to the problem you have outlined. The R farmers in CA don't like the lock on immigration as much as the restaurateurs.

I will let a conservative R respond to this post.

[dckingsfan]

Taking the devils advocate on this one DCZards. Why can't we have standards for immigration? Even if they are educational based or monetary based.

Some advocate only taking in immigrants with a secondary degree. Some say that the immigrants should have at least some minimal assets.

I hear you on the religious aspects. But possibly the (not so bright) Trump should have proposed banning immigrants from certain countries vs. certain religions.

Interested in hearing your opinion on this one. I do think that there is a cost/benefit analysis that should happen on immigration and that we should have a proactive policy - just not sure what it should be at this point.

These are questions I'd be willing to discuss/research. Well, not me personally doing the research... I can see potential value in an immigration policy that gives preference to people with education and/or financial resources. Excluding all people from a particular area or of a particular religion is a non-starter for me.

Well, right now we really don't have much of a policy that benefits the US. So, something would be better than nothing. You can see why Trump is having some success - because he is filling a void.