Political Roundtable Part VIII

[FAH1223]

Gun control and Muslim Immigration control are two different things.

We have no proof that gun control would affect those numbers because gun control doesn't make guns magically disappear. The evidence we have to date so far in America indicates that jurisdictions that enact gun control result in increasing violent crime.

Muslim immigration control would have stopped 9-11 and San Bernadino. It would have worked. I'm not saying the benefits of Muslim immigration control are worth the cost, just that there are actual benefits.

You can do that and stop Muslim terrorist attacks or Muslim mass shootings but...

There's still an issue in this country of domestic terrorism and those people aren't Muslim.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Wait. Are you saying that there is a contingent of Muslims who are angry right now, but not sufficiently angry to perpetrate a terrorist attack; but if we change our immigration policy, these unstable Muslims will go "Full Terrorist" and attacks will ensue?

I guess we need Trump more than ever.

Really nate? That's what you think I'm saying?

It really is what you are saying though. How else would our immigration policy provoke more domestic terrorism?

Nope, not even close. Maybe try re-reading what I wrote in that previous post as if the words and thoughts are connected to each other.

[nate33]

Gun control and Muslim Immigration control are two different things.

We have no proof that gun control would affect those numbers because gun control doesn't make guns magically disappear. The evidence we have to date so far in America indicates that jurisdictions that enact gun control result in increasing violent crime.

Muslim immigration control would have stopped 9-11 and San Bernadino. It would have worked. I'm not saying the benefits of Muslim immigration control are worth the cost, just that there are actual benefits.

You can do that and stop Muslim terrorist attacks or Muslim mass shootings but...

There's still an issue in this country of domestic terrorism and those people aren't Muslim.

That is true. If you have a proposal for going after them that doesn't violate their constitutional rights. I'm all ears. I'd love to get those whack jobs off the streets.

The point about Trump's plan is it stops the problem before they become American citizens and we run into constitutional problems. Yes, there are a lot of peaceful Muslims who would get screwed out of an opportunity to experience the American Dream, but I'd rather them suffer the disadvantage and not our people.

[TheSecretWeapon]

[

Now the obvious downside of Trump's plan is that it significantly taints our image as a nation that advocates for religious liberty and corrupts one of the primary ideals behind our founding. Nobody wants that. But the question you have to ask yourself is, how many terrorism deaths per year do you think we ought to endure in order to maintain that ideal? Seriously, state a number. Is it 10? 100? 1000? If you are unwilling to state a number, then you have no standing in criticizing Trump's proposal. (This isn't aimed at you, CCJ. It's a question for everyone.)

More Americans are dying because of gun violence than anything Muslims are doing. I mean, just the week before the CA shooting, there was one in CO where a bunch of people were killed and injured. The reasons may be different but the results were the same.

We have 10,000+ people dying because of all types of violence in this country.

There's obviously a terrorist threat but the U.S. has been able to thwart mass attacks of a 9/11 scale for the last 14 years.

Gun control and Muslim Immigration control are two different things.

We have no proof that gun control would affect those numbers because gun control doesn't make guns magically disappear. The evidence we have to date so far in America indicates that jurisdictions that enact gun control result in increasing violent crime.

Muslim immigration control would have stopped 9-11 and San Bernadino. It would have worked. I'm not saying the benefits of Muslim immigration control are worth the cost, just that there are actual benefits.

Yes, because terrorists are known for their trustworthiness and truth-telling in every situation.

Ban "Muslims" and terrorists who are Muslim (and determined to carry out an attack in the US) will say they're not Muslim or find another way across the border. Determine traits that can reliably predict who's a terrorist and screen for those. And, no, "Muslim" is not one of those traits because it's wrong 99+% of the time.

[nate33]

Really nate? That's what you think I'm saying?

It really is what you are saying though. How else would our immigration policy provoke more domestic terrorism?

Nope, not even close. Maybe try re-reading what I wrote in that previous post as if the words and thoughts are connected to each other.

First, I want you to know that I edited my post to rephrase my question in a much less snarky way (in response to your initially more snarky comment that you also rephrased) but you had already started your reply.

I still appear to be misunderstanding you.

You stated: "Discriminating against Muslims won't prevent a terrorist attack. My guess: it would probably increase the number of attacks because it feeds the narrative terrorist leaders are using to recruit."

I'm struggling to understand the mechanism whereby the restriction of Muslim immigrants would increase the number of Muslim terrorist attacks here. If no new jihadists are coming over, the terrorist attack must be coming from an existing jihadist already here - a jihadist who wasn't willing to commit an act of terrorism initially, but changes his mind because of Trump's plan. Am I missing something?

[nate33]

Ban "Muslims" and terrorists who are Muslim (and determined to carry out an attack in the US) will say they're not Muslim or find another way across the border. Determine traits that can reliably predict who's a terrorist and screen for those. And, no, "Muslim" is not one of those traits because it's wrong 99+% of the time.

Okay. I see what you are saying now. I suppose that's a plausible scenario, but one that would be much more difficult for a terrorist to perpetrate. They would first have to impersonate a non-Muslim resident of a country that is not a hotbed of terrorism (because presumably Trump's plan would be very skeptical of Syrians and Iraqi's who claim to be Christian or Jewish). That's not that easy of a thing to do because our immigration officials make an effort to try and identify and track the identity of the immigrant through paperwork.

[TGW]

Nate--how would you go about determining just who is and who isn't muslim? I mean, aside from self-identification or clothing, I'd say it's pretty damn impossible to do it.

If we're going to physical features, well, good luck. These people are all muslims:



Going by region, you'd have to disallow pretty much anyone from Northern Africa, the Middle East, India, and Eastern Europe from entering the country:



So i'm just curious as to how you would stop muslims from entering the country without freezing immigration altogether.

[nate33]

Nate--how would you go about determining just who is and who isn't muslim? I mean, aside from self-identification or clothing, I'd say it's pretty damn impossible to do it.

If we're going to physical features, well, good luck. These people are all muslims:



Going by region, you'd have to disallow pretty much anyone from Northern Africa, the Middle East, India, and Eastern Europe from entering the country:



So i'm just curious as to how you would stop muslims from entering the country without freezing immigration altogether.

Okay. Now we are getting somewhere. We are discussing the logistics of Trump's plan rather than just accusing him of racism and ignoring any possible merits.

To tell you the truth, I haven't thought too deeply on the specifics, I'm reacting to these latest developments just like anybody else, and I've been focused mostly on the ideological argument.

My first consideration is that I wouldn't so much aim to ban Muslims, but rather I would, by default, ban all people from Muslim dominated nations with a significant jihadist presence. That would mean most of the Middle East, North Africa, and Turkey, but perhaps not Indonesia which appears to practice I much less aggressive version of Islam.

I might be open to special exemptions from these countries if individuals could prove that they're not Muslim, but I'm not exactly sure what would constitute proof.

[pcbothwel]

Nate,

Bill O'Reilly basically said the same thing last night. You can't stop 'Muslims' from entering the country, but you can stop people from Syria, Yemen, Iran, and Iraq from getting visas for the time being. I dont see that as outlandish at all.

[nuposse04]

So guilty until proven innocent? Wow. If that is the mindset people are adopting then I really do fear for the future of the country.

Still have yet to see the murder rate committed by muslim immigrants from said countries compared to national norms. It'd better be substantially higher to validate this sort of nonsense. And there are murder rates far higher in non muslim countries we accept immigrants from... why not stop acting like this "policy" has any logical merit because it wreaks of hypocrisy. It is bias, that is all. You don't want murderers coming in? Fine. Ban em. All. Across the board, any country with a higher murder rate then the US can't come in.

The "muslim world" does need massive reform, I won't argue it doesn't. Islam is probably still in its "dark age" and whether or not it can come out of it I'm not sure (especially since Muslims like to argue one of the things that validates the Quran is that it hasn't changed since its conception, which is probably a bad thing IMO if you actually read some of the weird ish in it). Mainly education IMO will help the Islamic world reach any sort of success, but we only embolden the hateful agenda with this sort of speculation (not us specifically, but Trump trolling ass). You want real reform? Stop aligning ourselves with Saudi Arabia and take them on for allowing their absurd Imams spreading theological interpretations of hate.

[dobrojim]

Yes it does. Nobody is saying there isn't a tradeoff.

And it's fine to argue that the impact on our liberty exceeds the benefits of more security. But is there a number of deaths that would make you change your mind? I'm assuming we're not at that number yet, but what would that number be?

the point of the quote is that there isn't a number high enough.

Really?

Did you bash Jimmy Carter when he banned Iranians?

Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

I don't remember this but I probably would have disagreed with this. I suspect he did it for
political rather than practical reasons.

[fishercob]

If we just jailed all the Muslims -- or better yet, killed them -- we'd prevent them from committing more terrorist attacks. I'd feel badly about letting a few bad apples ruin it for everyone, but hey, we have to protect ourselves.

I'm Jewish. After some reflection, I've decided that the actions of Bugsy Siegel, Bernie Madoff, Meyer Lansky, Baruch Goldstein, and Son of Sam make it such that I and other Jews can't be trusted. So I'm gong to talk to everyone and figure out whether we shold build new camps here in the States or all go for a one big road trip back to Germany.

Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, the guy that shot up Planned Parenthood in Denver, the Colmbine killers, Dylan Roof. I mean, those guys were bad, but they don't represent Real America.

[nate33]

So guilty until proven innocent? Wow. If that is the mindset people are adopting then I really do fear for the future of the country.

Still have yet to see the murder rate committed by muslim immigrants from said countries compared to national norms. It'd better be substantially higher to validate this sort of nonsense. And there are murder rates far higher in non muslim countries we accept immigrants from... why not stop acting like this "policy" has any logical merit because it wreaks of hypocrisy. It is bias, that is all. You don't want murderers coming in? Fine. Ban em. All. Across the board, any country with a higher murder rate then the US can't come in.

The "muslim world" does need massive reform, I won't argue it doesn't. Islam is probably still in its "dark age" and whether or not it can come out of it I'm not sure (especially since Muslims like to argue one of the things that validates the Quran is that it hasn't changed since its conception, which is probably a bad thing IMO if you actually read some of the weird ish in it). Mainly education IMO will help the Islamic world reach any sort of success, but we only embolden the hateful agenda with this sort of speculation (not us specifically, but Trump trolling ass). You want real reform? Stop aligning ourselves with Saudi Arabia and take them on for allowing their absurd Imams spreading theological interpretations of hate.

I don't disagree with much of this. I say 50 years of unchanged immigration policy is enough, and it's time to adapt to the realities of a new world.

We seem to have a default stance of letting anybody in unless there's a compelling reason otherwise. I'd reverse it. Let nobody in unless there is a compelling reason otherwise. You prove to me why we should let you in; not me having to explain why I am excluding you. This is not radical. It's what most countries do. It's what we did from 1920 to 1964. It's what Australia does today. It's what Mexico does. It's what Japan does. It's pretty much what nearly every country has done throughout human history.

The only disagreement I have is that I'm unphased by the "guilty until proven innocent" remark. Yes. As far as I'm concerned, you are guilty until proven innocent. You are not a citizen. You don't have our rights yet. We have every right to exclude you from our borders for whatever reason want. There is NOTHING WRONG with this stance. I don't know how we reached the point where what I'm saying is so repugnant.

[nate33]

If we just jailed all the Muslims -- or better yet, killed them -- we'd prevent them from committing for terrorist attacks. I'd feel badly about letting a few bad apples ruin it for everyone, but hey, we have to protect ourselves.

I'm Jewish. After some reflection, I've decided that the actions of Bugsy Siegel, Bernie Madoff, Meyer Lansky, Baruch Goldstein, and Son of Sam make it such that I and other Jews can't be trusted. So I'm gong to talk to everyone and figure out whether we shold build new camps here in the States or all go for a one big road trip back to Germany.

Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, the guy that shot up Planned Parenthood in Denver, the Colmbine killers, Dylan Roof. I mean, those guys were bad, but they don't represent Real America.

Again, another false premise. Nobody is talking about existing U.S. Citizens. They have constitutional rights. They have the presumption of innocence.

I don't see Israel granting a lot of Muslims citizenship. Apparently, border control is a policy that is appropriate for some, just not for the United States.

[nuposse04]

I don't disagree with much of this. I say 50 years of unchanged immigration policy is enough, and it's time to adapt to the realities of a new world.

That is fine, sometimes logical and ethical reform is needed. Like I for one, do find the idea of anchor babies to be....unjust. Especially since my family immigrate the legal way and we waited our due time.

We seem to have a default stance of letting anybody in unless there's a compelling reason otherwise. I'd reverse it. Let nobody in unless there is a compelling reason otherwise.

Since your entire argument seems to be one predicated on "logic" i'd say the first two that come to mind for me are: Is that said immigrant a skilled worker? If Yes, cool, do thorough background checks and let them in. 2nd, on a more macroscopic level. Genetic diversity and genetic mixing is good for any large population. Homogenization of populations with redundant genes is how you increase the chances of defects from manifesting and said individuals being a costly burden on society. Some people might like the idea of a white, blonde hair and blue eyed society but it doesn't make sense as a species in the long run.

You prove to me why we should let you in; not me having to explain why I am excluding you. This is not radical. It's what most countries do. It's what we did from 1920 to 1964. It's what Australia does today. It's what Mexico does. It's what Japan does. It's pretty much what nearly every country has done throughout human history.

Understandable to a degree. I still think a humanitarian component for refugees "occasionally" is fine, although I'm not sure I'd want to put them on a path to citizenship, rather how do we stabilize their home country and afford them the opportunity to go back home. But again, I also believe the genetic mixing* of humankind is a good thing in the very long run, and we certainly don't meet that end by employing xenophobia.

The only disagreement I have is that I'm unphased by the "guilty until proven innocent" remark. Yes. As far as I'm concerned, you are guilty until proven innocent. You are not a citizen. You don't have our rights yet. We have every right to exclude you from our borders for whatever reason want. There is NOTHING WRONG with this stance. I don't know how we reached the point where what I'm saying is so repugnant.

Citizen has nothing to do with IMO. I am a decent human being before I am a decent US Citizen. I am not treating someone from another country with a lower standard of humanity just because his passport is different then mine. It is your PREROGATIVE to act in such a manner, but that just speaks to your standard of humanity, and your belief that possibly some birth right ascribes you that arrogance.

[fishercob]

If we just jailed all the Muslims -- or better yet, killed them -- we'd prevent them from committing for terrorist attacks. I'd feel badly about letting a few bad apples ruin it for everyone, but hey, we have to protect ourselves.

I'm Jewish. After some reflection, I've decided that the actions of Bugsy Siegel, Bernie Madoff, Meyer Lansky, Baruch Goldstein, and Son of Sam make it such that I and other Jews can't be trusted. So I'm gong to talk to everyone and figure out whether we shold build new camps here in the States or all go for a one big road trip back to Germany.

Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, the guy that shot up Planned Parenthood in Denver, the Colmbine killers, Dylan Roof. I mean, those guys were bad, but they don't represent Real America.

Again, another false premise. Nobody is talking about existing U.S. Citizens. They have constitutional rights. They have the presumption of innocence.

I don't see Israel granting a lot of Muslims citizenship. Apparently, border control is a policy that is appropriate for some, just not for the United States.

Israel, sadly, has turned into an apartheid state, and it has made Israel a much less safe and secure place. Israeli is a theocracy, and it shouldn't be.

Border control in the US makes sense and it's important. But we can't have a serious conversation with liars and fear-mongers like Trump (which is what started this particular discussion). He's making it harder to have a serious, grown-up discussion and to come up with a reasonable solution.

[nate33]

The only disagreement I have is that I'm unphased by the "guilty until proven innocent" remark. Yes. As far as I'm concerned, you are guilty until proven innocent. You are not a citizen. You don't have our rights yet. We have every right to exclude you from our borders for whatever reason want. There is NOTHING WRONG with this stance. I don't know how we reached the point where what I'm saying is so repugnant.

Citizen has nothing to do with IMO. I am a decent human being before I am a decent US Citizen. I am not treating someone from another country with a lower standard of humanity just because his passport is different then mine. It is your PREROGATIVE to act in such a manner, but that just speaks to your standard of humanity, and your belief that possibly some birth right ascribes you that arrogance.

A country's first duty is to protect it's citizenry. A default assumption that any non-citizen is a potential threat to a citizen is a reasonable starting point. We lock our doors when we leave the house. We lock our cars when we park in an unknown neighborhood. Aren't we assuming that the people we don't know are potentially bad people and must therefore be excluded from our property?

[nuposse04]

The only disagreement I have is that I'm unphased by the "guilty until proven innocent" remark. Yes. As far as I'm concerned, you are guilty until proven innocent. You are not a citizen. You don't have our rights yet. We have every right to exclude you from our borders for whatever reason want. There is NOTHING WRONG with this stance. I don't know how we reached the point where what I'm saying is so repugnant.

Citizen has nothing to do with IMO. I am a decent human being before I am a decent US Citizen. I am not treating someone from another country with a lower standard of humanity just because his passport is different then mine. It is your PREROGATIVE to act in such a manner, but that just speaks to your standard of humanity, and your belief that possibly some birth right ascribes you that arrogance.

A country's first duty is to protect it's citizenry. A default assumption that any non-citizen is a potential threat to a citizen is a reasonable starting point. We lock our doors when we leave the house. We lock our cars when we park in an unknown neighborhood. Aren't we assuming that the people we don't know are potentially bad people and must therefore be excluded from our property?

Your first sentence implies I care more about my citizenship then my humanity. It may sound like hippie talk, but I am citizen of earth before I am a citizen of the US. I wouldn't put the betterment of the US before the betterment of the human race. Such a way of thinking is too.... well, errummm... Selfish. I'm not so ready to forsake altruism just yet until all options are exhausted.

Your default assumption is also peculiar. We have still yet to establish how often immigrants that do not hold US citizen status murder US citizens. If it was already said in the thread I missed it. But there are potential risks everywhere, whether or not we should minimize them ought to be based on understanding the data... and WHY the data exists. The animosity the muslim world has for the west is multifactorial. Whether is be resentment for colonialism of the past, bastardization of sovereign lines or propping up regimes their electorates didn't want... simply telling them to "stay out" isn't going to wash our hands of our part in this ****. What you want is the easy way out, that I don't believe makes the world any better a place.

Ironically enough, I do lock my car yet I still have been victim of grand theft auto before

[nate33]

Citizen has nothing to do with IMO. I am a decent human being before I am a decent US Citizen. I am not treating someone from another country with a lower standard of humanity just because his passport is different then mine. It is your PREROGATIVE to act in such a manner, but that just speaks to your standard of humanity, and your belief that possibly some birth right ascribes you that arrogance.

A country's first duty is to protect it's citizenry. A default assumption that any non-citizen is a potential threat to a citizen is a reasonable starting point. We lock our doors when we leave the house. We lock our cars when we park in an unknown neighborhood. Aren't we assuming that the people we don't know are potentially bad people and must therefore be excluded from our property?

Your first sentence implies I care more about my citizenship then my humanity. It may sound like hippie talk, but I am citizen of earth before I am a citizen of the US. I wouldn't put the betterment of the US before the betterment of the human race. Such a way of thinking is too.... well, errummm... Selfish. I'm not so ready to forsake altruism just yet until all options are exhausted.

Your default assumption is also peculiar. We have still yet to establish how often immigrants that do not hold US citizen status murder US citizens. If it was already said in the thread I missed it. But there are potential risks everywhere, whether or not we should minimize them ought to be based on understanding the data... and WHY the data exists. The animosity the muslim world has for the west is multifactorial. Whether is be resentment for colonialism of the past, bastardization of sovereign lines or propping up regimes their electorates didn't want... simply telling them to "stay out" isn't going to wash our hands of our part in this ****. What you want is the easy way out, that I don't believe makes the world any better a place.

Ironically enough, I do lock my car yet I still have been victim of grand theft auto before

But, if you are running a nation, you can't put your desire to be altruistic above your duty to protect your people. It's one thing to let strangers into your house, it's another thing altogether to run around and open up all of your neighbors' doors so that strangers can walk in their houses too.

[nuposse04]

That is true but I believe the situation would be more analogous to seeing someone who is injured on my doorstep and just watching him bleed to death then risk the (how many muslims terrorists comprise the total population of muslims, less then 0.1% right?) probability he will assault me in my attempt to aide him/her.

Rather, try to take proper safe guards and expect said individual for danger, and try to help...then simply watching them die through window.

And lets not forget this said person is **** because of our meddling. To what degree....uncertain by I am not absolved completely in the matter.