Political Roundtable Part IX

[dckingsfan]

So, back on topic. Should potential immigrants coming to the United States accept our Common Law? Is it a bargained for exchange for becoming a citizen.

Or do we feel that the new citizens should be allowed to have their own cultures and laws?

This is a nonsense question. Immigrants SHOULD be allowed to have their own culture. THAT'S THE POINT OF AMERICA. Don't you get it?

I assume you threw in the "laws" question to confuse the issue. Of course the law of the country applies when you're a citizen. How dumb do you think we are?

What we're talking about is whether immigrants have to abandon their culture at the border. The answer is no. DUH! Can't believe you're even asking this.

Dckingsfan didn't include laws to confuse the issue, it's the crux of the issue. If you throw people of entirely different cultures together, and you let them keep their original culture with no value judgements, it will be extremely difficult to construct a system of laws that will suit the purposes of all cultures simultaneously. The end result will be lawlessness as various ethnic groups choose to ignore certain laws.

So if you are interested in having a country, the starting point is the law. What laws should we agree on? Those provide the boundaries for what types of cultures we should permit in. Cultures that do not fit the boundaries of those laws should be restricted from entering, or we should insist that they modify their culture to fit the existing laws.

We are seeing this in Europe already with "no go zones" in Brussels and parts of Britain. Muslim enclaves are insisting on ruling their community via Sharia Law and are forbidding the police from entering to enforce the law of the government.

Take it easy on Zonk - he is easily confused on the subject. Of course, now that politics are starting to lean heavily right in Europe, he might start to take notice.

[Zonkerbl]

So, back on topic. Should potential immigrants coming to the United States accept our Common Law? Is it a bargained for exchange for becoming a citizen.

Or do we feel that the new citizens should be allowed to have their own cultures and laws?

This is a nonsense question. Immigrants SHOULD be allowed to have their own culture. THAT'S THE POINT OF AMERICA. Don't you get it?

I assume you threw in the "laws" question to confuse the issue. Of course the law of the country applies when you're a citizen. How dumb do you think we are?

What we're talking about is whether immigrants have to abandon their culture at the border. The answer is no. DUH! Can't believe you're even asking this.

Dckingsfan didn't include laws to confuse the issue, it's the crux of the issue. If you throw people of entirely different cultures together, and you let them keep their original culture with no value judgements, it will be extremely difficult to construct a system of laws that will suit the purposes of all cultures simultaneously. The end result will be lawlessness as various ethnic groups choose to ignore certain laws.

So if you are interested in having a country, the starting point is the law. What laws should we agree on? Those provide the boundaries for what types of cultures we should permit in. Cultures that do not fit the boundaries of those laws should be restricted from entering, or we should insist that they modify their culture to fit the existing laws.

We are seeing this in Europe already with "no go zones" in Brussels and parts of Britain. Muslim enclaves are insisting on ruling their community via Sharia Law and are forbidding the police from entering to enforce the law of the government.

That's nonsense. What you describe in your first paragraph is how the United States has functioned, rather well I might say, over its entire existence. A bunch of people with different cultures who are allowed to keep their original culture. Except where the culture advocates stoning or murdering people, WHICH APPLIES JUST AS MUCH TO CHRISTIANITY as any other culture. We all make sacrifices when we come to America.

[Zonkerbl]

This is a nonsense question. Immigrants SHOULD be allowed to have their own culture. THAT'S THE POINT OF AMERICA. Don't you get it?

I assume you threw in the "laws" question to confuse the issue. Of course the law of the country applies when you're a citizen. How dumb do you think we are?

What we're talking about is whether immigrants have to abandon their culture at the border. The answer is no. DUH! Can't believe you're even asking this.

Dckingsfan didn't include laws to confuse the issue, it's the crux of the issue. If you throw people of entirely different cultures together, and you let them keep their original culture with no value judgements, it will be extremely difficult to construct a system of laws that will suit the purposes of all cultures simultaneously. The end result will be lawlessness as various ethnic groups choose to ignore certain laws.

So if you are interested in having a country, the starting point is the law. What laws should we agree on? Those provide the boundaries for what types of cultures we should permit in. Cultures that do not fit the boundaries of those laws should be restricted from entering, or we should insist that they modify their culture to fit the existing laws.

We are seeing this in Europe already with "no go zones" in Brussels and parts of Britain. Muslim enclaves are insisting on ruling their community via Sharia Law and are forbidding the police from entering to enforce the law of the government.

Take it easy on Zonk - he is easily confused on the subject. Of course, now that politics are starting to lean heavily right in Europe, he might start to take notice.

Nice, you can't come up with a counterargument so you insult me. Classy.

[nate33]

This is a nonsense question. Immigrants SHOULD be allowed to have their own culture. THAT'S THE POINT OF AMERICA. Don't you get it?

I assume you threw in the "laws" question to confuse the issue. Of course the law of the country applies when you're a citizen. How dumb do you think we are?

What we're talking about is whether immigrants have to abandon their culture at the border. The answer is no. DUH! Can't believe you're even asking this.

Dckingsfan didn't include laws to confuse the issue, it's the crux of the issue. If you throw people of entirely different cultures together, and you let them keep their original culture with no value judgements, it will be extremely difficult to construct a system of laws that will suit the purposes of all cultures simultaneously. The end result will be lawlessness as various ethnic groups choose to ignore certain laws.

So if you are interested in having a country, the starting point is the law. What laws should we agree on? Those provide the boundaries for what types of cultures we should permit in. Cultures that do not fit the boundaries of those laws should be restricted from entering, or we should insist that they modify their culture to fit the existing laws.

We are seeing this in Europe already with "no go zones" in Brussels and parts of Britain. Muslim enclaves are insisting on ruling their community via Sharia Law and are forbidding the police from entering to enforce the law of the government.

That's nonsense. What you describe in your first paragraph is how the United States has functioned, rather well I might say, over its entire existence.

Because all immigrant groups from the founding through 1970 or so had shared the same basic Western culture as America. Starting in the last 30 years of the 20th century, we began admitting significant numbers of non-Westerners. We are now seeing large enough sub-populations of non-Westerners within the U.S. that this will become an issue.

[Zonkerbl]

Dckingsfan didn't include laws to confuse the issue, it's the crux of the issue. If you throw people of entirely different cultures together, and you let them keep their original culture with no value judgements, it will be extremely difficult to construct a system of laws that will suit the purposes of all cultures simultaneously. The end result will be lawlessness as various ethnic groups choose to ignore certain laws.

So if you are interested in having a country, the starting point is the law. What laws should we agree on? Those provide the boundaries for what types of cultures we should permit in. Cultures that do not fit the boundaries of those laws should be restricted from entering, or we should insist that they modify their culture to fit the existing laws.

We are seeing this in Europe already with "no go zones" in Brussels and parts of Britain. Muslim enclaves are insisting on ruling their community via Sharia Law and are forbidding the police from entering to enforce the law of the government.

That's nonsense. What you describe in your first paragraph is how the United States has functioned, rather well I might say, over its entire existence.

Because all immigrant groups from the founding through 1970 or so had shared the same basic Western culture as America. Starting in the last 30 years of the 20th century, we began admitting significant numbers of non-Westerners. We are now seeing large enough sub-populations of non-Westerners within the U.S. that this will become an issue.

Not true, a huge percentage of this country's population immigrated from Asia.

And people have been immigrating here from the Middle East since the beginning also. Nothing has changed.

We even accepted immigrants from the Soviet Union. However, because the USSR was actively hostile towards us and wanted to spy on us all the time, we had very rigorous protocols in place for accepting Soviet immigrants. I've never said you can't do the same with immigrants from countries that are actively hostile to the US, like, say, North Korea, Iran, or Afghanistan when it was run by the Taliban. And DHS keeps tabs on people already who immigrate from international terrorism prone countries. Or they do now. DHS didn't exist before 9/11. We have MUCH more rigorous immigration procedures now.

I mean I'm agreeing with you. You don't have to accept everybody. I guess you're saying we should use "being a Muslim" as a criteria to attract additional scrutiny during the immigration process. I think that already happens. I think it's also constitutionally permissible to just automatically disqualify all immigrants who put down "Islam" as their religion but I think what that will do is screen out everybody EXCEPT the terrorists who will of course lie.

I think what we need to do is let the DHS do their jobs. Denying people immigration rights because of their religion is anti-American and ineffectual anyway.

[nate33]

Because all immigrant groups from the founding through 1970 or so had shared the same basic Western culture as America. Starting in the last 30 years of the 20th century, we began admitting significant numbers of non-Westerners. We are now seeing large enough sub-populations of non-Westerners within the U.S. that this will become an issue.

Not true, a huge percentage of this country's population immigrated from Asia.

And people have been immigrating here from the Middle East since the beginning also. Nothing has changed.

It is absolutely true.


In 1960, we had 4% Latino and less than 1% Middle East/Asian

We even accepted immigrants from the Soviet Union. However, because the USSR was actively hostile towards us and wanted to spy on us all the time, we had very rigorous protocols in place for accepting Soviet immigrants. I've never said you can't do the same with immigrants from countries that are actively hostile to the US, like, say, North Korea, Iran, or Afghanistan when it was run by the Taliban. And DHS keeps tabs on people already who immigrate from international terrorism prone countries. Or they do now. DHS didn't exist before 9/11. We have MUCH more rigorous immigration procedures now.

I mean I'm agreeing with you. You don't have to accept everybody. I guess you're saying we should use "being a Muslim" as a criteria to attract additional scrutiny during the immigration process. I think that already happens. I think it's also constitutionally permissible to just automatically disqualify all immigrants who put down "Islam" as their religion but I think what that will do is screen out everybody EXCEPT the terrorists who will of course lie.

I think what we need to do is let the DHS do their jobs. Denying people immigration rights because of their religion is anti-American and ineffectual anyway.

I agree with everything but the last sentence. The DHS can't do their job because the paperwork from Middle Eastern countries can't be trusted. And the "ineffectual" part is also false. Japan doesn't have a terrorism problem.

But we've beat this to death in past conversations. At least you are now acknowledging that Muslims deserve extra scrutiny. I'm really not confident that it happens though. How in the world can those 600,000 "Syrian" refugees be properly scrutinized when there is no reliable paperwork?

[Zonkerbl]

That graph looks the same it always did, except back in 1950 we were concerned about the Irish. Did you know the KKK was anti-Irish? [Edit: Ok, according to wikipedia the big wave of Irish immigration ended in the 1900s]

And I never said I disagreed with increased scrutiny for Muslims.

You don't want to let in Muslim immigrants at all. I think that's ineffectual and anti-American.

You don't want to let in any Syrian refugees. We have a well established refugee processing system that has worked well enough that zero refugees have turned out to be terrorists or spies or whatever in the past (ok - two: http://www.alternet.org/immigration/745000-refugees-admitted-post-911-only-two-were-charged-terrorism-related-crimes). That system works despite the lack of documentation typical of all refugees.

600,000 refugees is a lot to process, almost equal to the total number of refugees processed since 9/11. We probably can't accept that many. The latest number Obama has proposed is 10,000, according to google. The maximum number of refugees we process a year is about 70,000.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/world/middleeast/obama-directs-administration-to-accept-10000-syrian-refugees.html?_r=0

[CobraCommander]

I would think that party would leave the righteous behavior to the hard political left & right

Actually, isn't that what the Rs and Ds have become, the parties of the righteous?

Yes- but it is impossible for both of them to be righteous regarding the same issues. Someone has to be wrong if the other one takes the opposing position and they claim their position is righteous

Actually - not (and this is a very quick summary, but you will get the drift). Take SS. The Ds have refused to look at funding (well Reid anyway), are talking about expanding it further (Bernie) (quickening its demise). And at the same time Rs took a stance about privatizing.

Both are complete knuckleheads on the subject.

Your logic is, if there is an issue with two opinions, one must be right. But I think upon examination, you will agree that is fallacious logic.

I apologize if I didn't explain well- my point is this: If you take a position of righteousness and you claim that the other side is wrong; you are by default calling the opposing point unrighteous. it's the same argument that some religious groups use to justify murder. The facts are righteousness appears (IMO) to be an opinion, perspective and vantage point. For example there are people that think the death penalty is unrighteous and should be banned - but if you killed one of their loved ones - this same person would advocate revenge murder of the killer (without a trial). Righteous appears to be the opinion of someone arrogant enough to believe they should be the final judge on what the masses should do.

Either way--- When the time comes I will vote and.....vote often

[dckingsfan]

Yes- but it is impossible for both of them to be righteous regarding the same issues. Someone has to be wrong if the other one takes the opposing position and they claim their position is righteous

Actually - not (and this is a very quick summary, but you will get the drift). Take SS. The Ds have refused to look at funding (well Reid anyway), are talking about expanding it further (Bernie) (quickening its demise). And at the same time Rs took a stance about privatizing.

Both are complete knuckleheads on the subject.

Your logic is, if there is an issue with two opinions, one must be right. But I think upon examination, you will agree that is fallacious logic.

I apologize if I didn't explain well- my point is this: If you take a position of righteousness and you claim that the other side is wrong; you are by default calling the opposing point unrighteous. it's the same argument that some religious groups use to justify murder. The facts are righteousness appears (IMO) to be an opinion, perspective and vantage point. For example there are people that think the death penalty is unrighteous and should be banned - but if you killed one of their loved ones - this same person would advocate revenge murder of the killer (without a trial). Righteous appears to be the opinion of someone arrogant enough to believe they should be the final judge on what the masses should do.

Either way--- When the time comes I will vote and.....vote often

Ah, gotcha. Yep, I'll be out there voting too... just wish there was a better party to vote for

[CobraCommander]

Because all immigrant groups from the founding through 1970 or so had shared the same basic Western culture as America. Starting in the last 30 years of the 20th century, we began admitting significant numbers of non-Westerners. We are now seeing large enough sub-populations of non-Westerners within the U.S. that this will become an issue.

Not true, a huge percentage of this country's population immigrated from Asia.

And people have been immigrating here from the Middle East since the beginning also. Nothing has changed.

It is absolutely true.


In 1960, we had 4% Latino and less than 1% Middle East/Asian

We even accepted immigrants from the Soviet Union. However, because the USSR was actively hostile towards us and wanted to spy on us all the time, we had very rigorous protocols in place for accepting Soviet immigrants. I've never said you can't do the same with immigrants from countries that are actively hostile to the US, like, say, North Korea, Iran, or Afghanistan when it was run by the Taliban. And DHS keeps tabs on people already who immigrate from international terrorism prone countries. Or they do now. DHS didn't exist before 9/11. We have MUCH more rigorous immigration procedures now.

I mean I'm agreeing with you. You don't have to accept everybody. I guess you're saying we should use "being a Muslim" as a criteria to attract additional scrutiny during the immigration process. I think that already happens. I think it's also constitutionally permissible to just automatically disqualify all immigrants who put down "Islam" as their religion but I think what that will do is screen out everybody EXCEPT the terrorists who will of course lie.

I think what we need to do is let the DHS do their jobs. Denying people immigration rights because of their religion is anti-American and ineffectual anyway.

I agree with everything but the last sentence. The DHS can't do their job because the paperwork from Middle Eastern countries can't be trusted. And the "ineffectual" part is also false. Japan doesn't have a terrorism problem.

But we've beat this to death in past conversations. At least you are now acknowledging that Muslims deserve extra scrutiny. I'm really not confident that it happens though. How in the world can those 600,000 "Syrian" refugees be properly scrutinized when there is no reliable paperwork?

Don't confuse the lower % of white people with a dwindling in white population. This chart and many like it simply highlight that the Hispanic and Asian growth in America will outpace the growth of whites while the population of America grows. If the Hispanics follow all other groups (blacks and Asians) they will minimize their impact on the political process by living together in groups. (The sneaky sneaky Electoral college)-

[pineappleheadindc]

.

Oh. My. God.

Bullet dodged. Steve Schmidt, one of John McCain's political advisors during his Presidential run, should be ex-communicated from politics for trying to put this woman one heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Jump ahead a few minutes past the long-winded introduction. Then, I dare you to listen to the entire Sarah Palin speech. In reply to this post, please tell me if you find one 30-second long period of coherence. Any 30-second long period of coherence at any point during the 20-minute speech. Post your answer in the form as follows: (ex: 5:15-5:45).

Good luck.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgjTUY-YRA4[/youtube]

[montestewart]

.

Oh. My. God.

Bullet dodged. Steve Schmidt, one of John McCain's political advisors during his Presidential run, should be ex-communicated from politics for trying to put this woman one heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Jump ahead a few minutes past the long-winded introduction. Then, I dare you to listen to the entire Sarah Palin speech. In reply to this post, please tell me if you find one 30-second long period of coherence. Any 30-second long period of coherence at any point during the 20-minute speech. Post your answer in the form as follows: (ex: 5:15-5:45).

Good luck.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgjTUY-YRA4[/youtube]

Sorry teach, my dog ate my homework.

[TGW]

.

Oh. My. God.

Bullet dodged. Steve Schmidt, one of John McCain's political advisors during his Presidential run, should be ex-communicated from politics for trying to put this woman one heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Jump ahead a few minutes past the long-winded introduction. Then, I dare you to listen to the entire Sarah Palin speech. In reply to this post, please tell me if you find one 30-second long period of coherence. Any 30-second long period of coherence at any point during the 20-minute speech. Post your answer in the form as follows: (ex: 5:15-5:45).

Good luck.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgjTUY-YRA4[/youtube]

This is what the conservatives tried to sell back in 2008. No wonder the Republican Party is failing...they allow idiots to run for president and vice president.

[TGW]

Japan doesn't have a terrorism problem because they're not meddling in the Middle East. Has nothing to do with their policies on immigrants. Worst strawman argument ever.

[fishercob]

The GOP primary and what could go down at the convention are absolutely fascinating.

[dckingsfan]

Japan doesn't have a terrorism problem because they're not meddling in the Middle East. Has nothing to do with their policies on immigrants. Worst strawman argument ever.

And of course, their middle eastern population is near zero. But Ireland had a terrible terrorist problem - and they had a minuscule middle eastern population as well.

[dckingsfan]

The GOP primary and what could go down at the convention are absolutely fascinating.

It is - it will be must see TV if Trump doesn't get the necessary votes. Truly fascinating.

[nate33]

Japan doesn't have a terrorism problem because they're not meddling in the Middle East. Has nothing to do with their policies on immigrants. Worst strawman argument ever.

Okay. There's no terrorism in Poland.

[dckingsfan]

So if you are interested in having a country, the starting point is the law. What laws should we agree on? Those provide the boundaries for what types of cultures we should permit in. Cultures that do not fit the boundaries of those laws should be restricted from entering, or we should insist that they modify their culture to fit the existing laws.

We are seeing this in Europe already with "no go zones" in Brussels and parts of Britain. Muslim enclaves are insisting on ruling their community via Sharia Law and are forbidding the police from entering to enforce the law of the government.

Agreed with you point but I still think we need to accelerate not decelerate immigration - we may disagree there. I think we want to bring in more educated workers from abroad as they tend to create decent paying jobs locally.

I think that we want to have an admission policy vs. a numbers policy and the top three criteria would be

1) Allow for advanced degrees and specialties that we need
a) get an advanced degree in the US and you are offered a diploma & citizenship
b) have an advanced degree from abroad and you move up in line

2) Make sure that you have an equal mix of men & women
a) part of the issues in Europe trend from bringing in far more men than women

3) Assets are of value
a) if you have assets or own a company that you want to relocate to the US, you jump up in line

Try to bring in an equal mix of immigrants from as many regions as you can and make sure you question each applicant to make sure they are willing to comply with our rule of law. It needs to be stated and documented - with the notion of deportation if you violate that agreed for bargain. Some would say that this wouldn't apply once they are citizens... I wouldn't agree with that notion.

[dckingsfan]

Here is a proposal that almost no one will like.

Have restitution to black families in the form of education vouchers. Those education vouchers could be used by adults and children.

Many Rs would be opposed to any kind of restitution.

Many Ds would be opposed to any kind of voucher (vs. publicly controlled education spending). The status quo is that black families wouldn't be as shrewd in spending their vouchers as the system - I think that is absolute hogwash - when it is your money, you will figure it out.

Part of the education spending should be targeted at entrepreneurship. Blacks are much less likely to get a job interview if their name is "black leaning". If you are creating your own job you have a better (not as good) shot:
http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html