Political Roundtable Part XIII

[dckingsfan]

BTW sfam - you might understand that I am a supporter of immigration. But the arguments that you presented are really a "let's not change what isn't working for us" argument. It was also one of the key drivers of Trump's election.

If the Ds are to succeed, they need to come up with a coherent strategy in immigration and one that conforms to the rule of law. Otherwise, they are just part of the problem.

[sfam]

I can't continue now with the rest. But I will. I'm pretty sure that what we'll find is a particular problem w/ what you imagine Muslim culture to be & to mean -- what you imagine inaccurately & based on (I speculate) little or no contact with Muslims -- rather than anything that flows from the 2 paragraphs I've just looked at, in which you meant to (but failed to) create a rational foundation for that problem.

This part cannot be stressed enough, and often its hard to find a substitute in its absence. Contact with those different from ourselves allows for empathy. Long term, sustained contact breeds deep seated tolerance. This is what we've seen on our multicultural coasts.

Be it online or otherwise, it really is striking the number of people who never attempt to get to know those they most often vilify. It is now more possible than ever to have ongoing contact with those we disagree with. There are some amazing virtual exchange programs. But also, there are actual Muslims living across the US. They might even be open to talking.

[sfam]

BTW sfam - you might understand that I am a supporter of immigration. But the arguments that you presented are really a "let's not change what isn't working for us" argument. It was also one of the key drivers of Trump's election.

If the Ds are to succeed, they need to come up with a coherent strategy in immigration and one that conforms to the rule of law. Otherwise, they are just part of the problem.

I get that, and agree that immigration is totally screwed up on a range of dimensions. How could it be otherwise, as it hasn't been touched from a policy standpoint for generations?

Again, there are answers out there, but as Nate mentions, there are political implications to those answers. Hence the stalemate, and now the decision to try to remove those who would vote against the Republicans.

Don't think for a second that the Republicans' deep seated respect for the rule of law would exist if they know the majority of immigrants would vote republican. They'd switch as fast as they did to seeing Russia as our greatest ally! They'd throw away the rule of law stuff as fast as they did their family values stance in leaders.

[tontoz]

I can't continue now with the rest. But I will. I'm pretty sure that what we'll find is a particular problem w/ what you imagine Muslim culture to be & to mean -- what you imagine inaccurately & based on (I speculate) little or no contact with Muslims -- rather than anything that flows from the 2 paragraphs I've just looked at, in which you meant to (but failed to) create a rational foundation for that problem.

This part cannot be stressed enough, and often its hard to find a substitute in its absence. Contact with those different from ourselves allows for empathy. Long term, sustained contact breeds deep seated tolerance. This is what we've seen on our multicultural coasts.

Be it online or otherwise, it really is striking the number of people who never attempt to get to know those they most often vilify. It is now more possible than ever to have ongoing contact with those we disagree with. There are some amazing virtual exchange programs. But also, there are actual Muslims living across the US. They might even be open to talking.

There are only roughly 3 million Muslims in the US. There are over 25 million of them in Saudi Arabia alone. Has it occurred to you that Muslims here aren't very representative of Muslims in the Middle East? Or maybe that Muslims here have learned not to share their true beliefs with members of other religions?

[sfam]

In new Gallup polling, more than 3 in 10 Republicans have a favorable view of Putin — almost three times the percentage who said the same in 2015. Twice as many independents have a favorable opinion of Putin as did two years ago.

This brutal dictator's stock is rising with Republicans - why exactly? Because Putin helped them take the White House, maybe?

[gtn130]

I can't continue now with the rest. But I will. I'm pretty sure that what we'll find is a particular problem w/ what you imagine Muslim culture to be & to mean -- what you imagine inaccurately & based on (I speculate) little or no contact with Muslims -- rather than anything that flows from the 2 paragraphs I've just looked at, in which you meant to (but failed to) create a rational foundation for that problem.

This part cannot be stressed enough, and often its hard to find a substitute in its absence. Contact with those different from ourselves allows for empathy. Long term, sustained contact breeds deep seated tolerance. This is what we've seen on our multicultural coasts.

Be it online or otherwise, it really is striking the number of people who never attempt to get to know those they most often vilify. It is now more possible than ever to have ongoing contact with those we disagree with. There are some amazing virtual exchange programs. But also, there are actual Muslims living across the US. They might even be open to talking.

There are only roughly 3 million Muslims in the US. There are over 25 million of them in Saudi Arabia alone. Has it occurred to you that Muslims here aren't very representative of Muslims in the Middle East? Or maybe that Muslims here have learned not to share their true beliefs with members of other religions?

my man tontoz just out here askin' questions

[sfam]

I can't continue now with the rest. But I will. I'm pretty sure that what we'll find is a particular problem w/ what you imagine Muslim culture to be & to mean -- what you imagine inaccurately & based on (I speculate) little or no contact with Muslims -- rather than anything that flows from the 2 paragraphs I've just looked at, in which you meant to (but failed to) create a rational foundation for that problem.

This part cannot be stressed enough, and often its hard to find a substitute in its absence. Contact with those different from ourselves allows for empathy. Long term, sustained contact breeds deep seated tolerance. This is what we've seen on our multicultural coasts.

Be it online or otherwise, it really is striking the number of people who never attempt to get to know those they most often vilify. It is now more possible than ever to have ongoing contact with those we disagree with. There are some amazing virtual exchange programs. But also, there are actual Muslims living across the US. They might even be open to talking.

There are only roughly 3 million Muslims in the US. There are over 25 million of them in Saudi Arabia alone. Has it occurred to you that Muslims here aren't very representative of Muslims in the Middle East? Or maybe that Muslims here have learned not to share their true beliefs with members of other religions?

I honestly have no idea what you are asking. Could you restate please?

I'm hearing you asking me whether I think Muslims in Saudi Arabia think differently than those in the US. If that is the question, the answer is an obvious "Of course". What's the implication you're getting at? That those trying to come to the US have already self-selected themselves as supporting our values? If so, I agree.

EDIT if this is a manchurian candidate type question about Muslims living here, I would again go back to actually talking to them, befriending them, etc.

[gtn130]

In new Gallup polling, more than 3 in 10 Republicans have a favorable view of Putin — almost three times the percentage who said the same in 2015. Twice as many independents have a favorable opinion of Putin as did two years ago.

This brutal dictator's stock is rising with Republicans - why exactly? Because Putin helped them take the White House, maybe?

They should poll republicans on how they feel about dictatorship in general. I bet that's rising too.

[tontoz]

This part cannot be stressed enough, and often its hard to find a substitute in its absence. Contact with those different from ourselves allows for empathy. Long term, sustained contact breeds deep seated tolerance. This is what we've seen on our multicultural coasts.

Be it online or otherwise, it really is striking the number of people who never attempt to get to know those they most often vilify. It is now more possible than ever to have ongoing contact with those we disagree with. There are some amazing virtual exchange programs. But also, there are actual Muslims living across the US. They might even be open to talking.

There are only roughly 3 million Muslims in the US. There are over 25 million of them in Saudi Arabia alone. Has it occurred to you that Muslims here aren't very representative of Muslims in the Middle East? Or maybe that Muslims here have learned not to share their true beliefs with members of other religions?

I honestly have no idea what you are asking. Could you restate please?

I'm hearing you asking me whether I think Muslims in Saudi Arabia think differently than those in the US. If that is the question, the answer is an obvious "Of course". What's the implication you're getting at? That those trying to come to the US have already self-selected themselves as supporting our values? If so, I agree.

I made myself very clear.

LOL @ "self selecting" themselves as supporting our values. The 911 terrorists "self selected" themselves to come here and get flight training.

Muslims across the globe treat women as second class citizens, advocate war with non-believers and arrange marriages with 12 year old girls. We have plenty of reasons to restrict their immigration.

[payitforward]

I can't continue now with the rest. But I will. I'm pretty sure that what we'll find is a particular problem w/ what you imagine Muslim culture to be & to mean -- what you imagine inaccurately & based on (I speculate) little or no contact with Muslims -- rather than anything that flows from the 2 paragraphs I've just looked at, in which you meant to (but failed to) create a rational foundation for that problem.

This part cannot be stressed enough, and often its hard to find a substitute in its absence. Contact with those different from ourselves allows for empathy. Long term, sustained contact breeds deep seated tolerance. This is what we've seen on our multicultural coasts.

Be it online or otherwise, it really is striking the number of people who never attempt to get to know those they most often vilify. It is now more possible than ever to have ongoing contact with those we disagree with. There are some amazing virtual exchange programs. But also, there are actual Muslims living across the US. They might even be open to talking.

There are only roughly 3 million Muslims in the US. There are over 25 million of them in Saudi Arabia alone. Has it occurred to you that Muslims here aren't very representative of Muslims in the Middle East? Or maybe that Muslims here have learned not to share their true beliefs with members of other religions?

Oh tontoz... So, even experience doesn't mean anything?

Maybe it's just that you don't follow this thread? SFAM has made it clear that he's spent a good amount of time in Islamic countries, & linked to material about those times. I don't have as extensive experience as he seems to, but I've got a significant amount. Trust me, it's worth something.

If I remember right, you (like me) are Jewish. Anti-Islamic prejudice (if I'm reading you right -- feel free to correct me if I'm not) on the part of Jews is one of my least favorite phenomena. Above all because there were a thousand or more years when Christians were killing Jews right & left while Islam protected us. By far the best time & place for Jews in European history was on the Iberian peninsula when it was under Islamic control. I'm sure you know the name Maimonides. What language did he write in? (Arabic) etc. etc. etc.

[sfam]

Trump is averaging 4 false or misleading claims per day according to the WaPo fact checker.

133 in 30 days is astounding.

We're only a month in to his administration and nobody believes a world this guy says, outside of older, white Protestant men living in the US.

When a crisis happens, instead of the required action, we will see questioning. Not just in the US, but worldwide.

[tontoz]

This part cannot be stressed enough, and often its hard to find a substitute in its absence. Contact with those different from ourselves allows for empathy. Long term, sustained contact breeds deep seated tolerance. This is what we've seen on our multicultural coasts.

Be it online or otherwise, it really is striking the number of people who never attempt to get to know those they most often vilify. It is now more possible than ever to have ongoing contact with those we disagree with. There are some amazing virtual exchange programs. But also, there are actual Muslims living across the US. They might even be open to talking.

There are only roughly 3 million Muslims in the US. There are over 25 million of them in Saudi Arabia alone. Has it occurred to you that Muslims here aren't very representative of Muslims in the Middle East? Or maybe that Muslims here have learned not to share their true beliefs with members of other religions?

Oh tontoz... So, even experience doesn't mean anything?

Maybe it's just that you don't follow this thread? SFAM has made it clear that he's spent a good amount of time in Islamic countries, & linked to material about those times. I don't have as extensive experience as he seems to, but I've got a significant amount. Trust me, it's worth something.

If I remember right, you (like me) are Jewish. Anti-Islamic prejudice (if I'm reading you right -- feel free to correct me if I'm not) on the part of Jews is one of my least favorite phenomena. Above all because there were a thousand or more years when Christians were killing Jews right & left while Islam protected us. By far the best time & place for Jews in European history was on the Iberian peninsula when it was under Islamic control. I'm sure you know the name Maimonides. What language did he write in? (Arabic) etc. etc. etc.

I am not Jewish but it sure seems like Muslims detest Jews now.

I have a feeling that Armenians might not share your views about Muslim tolerance.

I know sfam has spent time in other countries and I find it comical that he just assumes that Muslims who decide to immigrate here either already share our values or will suddenly change their values after moving here. The more likely scenario is that they want to come here for financial/security reasons and will bring their crazy af values with them.

[sfam]

There are only roughly 3 million Muslims in the US. There are over 25 million of them in Saudi Arabia alone. Has it occurred to you that Muslims here aren't very representative of Muslims in the Middle East? Or maybe that Muslims here have learned not to share their true beliefs with members of other religions?

I honestly have no idea what you are asking. Could you restate please?

I'm hearing you asking me whether I think Muslims in Saudi Arabia think differently than those in the US. If that is the question, the answer is an obvious "Of course". What's the implication you're getting at? That those trying to come to the US have already self-selected themselves as supporting our values? If so, I agree.

I made myself very clear.

LOL @ "self selecting" themselves as supporting our values. The 911 terrorists "self selected" themselves to come here and get flight training.

Muslims across the globe treat women as second class citizens, advocate war with non-believers and arrange marriages with 12 year old girls. We have plenty of reasons to restrict their immigration.

That paragraph is not winning an award for clarity.

Yet again we have the "1.6 billion people across the world speaking different languages, coming from different cultures are all the same." They all are wannabe terrorists who if just given the chance through poor immigration procedures, want to blow up the US, and are forced to spend their time treating their women badly until given the opportunity.

Whatever. I've answered that point a number of times already.

You have tons of people in Texas advocating secession. These aren't Muslims, nor do they seem to advocating American values. Timothy McVeigh was not Muslim. Should we ban all white protestant men living in the US? And on the women point, the US is FAR from clean on gender-based violence. There are many here, perhaps millions in the US who treat "their women" far far worse than millions of Muslim men - one happens to be President.

[dckingsfan]

BTW sfam - you might understand that I am a supporter of immigration. But the arguments that you presented are really a "let's not change what isn't working for us" argument. It was also one of the key drivers of Trump's election.

If the Ds are to succeed, they need to come up with a coherent strategy in immigration and one that conforms to the rule of law. Otherwise, they are just part of the problem.

I get that, and agree that immigration is totally screwed up on a range of dimensions. How could it be otherwise, as it hasn't been touched from a policy standpoint for generations?

Again, there are answers out there, but as Nate mentions, there are political implications to those answers. Hence the stalemate, and now the decision to try to remove those who would vote against the Republicans.

Don't think for a second that the Republicans' deep seated respect for the rule of law would exist if they know the majority of immigrants would vote republican. They'd switch as fast as they did to seeing Russia as our greatest ally! They'd throw away the rule of law stuff as fast as they did their family values stance in leaders.

Such violent agreement on this - basically they are moving to a no new immigration policy - it will create many more problems than it will fix. Sadly, neither side has anything close to a solid immigration policy.

[nate33]

There's quite a wide range of concepts in these paragraphs, many premises (whether right or wrong) & conclusions (ditto) that it will be a somewhat complex to discuss. But, I do want to, & in some detail, because I accept, very happily, nate's statement that these are some of his "honest questions," not an attempt to "troll anyone." & I have no difficulty agreeing with him that they should be "thought through."

I'm especially happy that nate has given us something to discuss -- as opposed to ugly imagery and/or sensationalist claims (either pro or anti DT) which lead rather to reactions than reasoned assessments. Thank you.

But I can't possibly engage with the whole of this post in one response. Hence, I'd like to start with the first 2 paragraphs which raise the problem of "culture clash" & make a claim about what is required by way of cultural continuity to support a functional democracy. I'll go on to the other paragraphs, at what rate I can't say right now, but they are equally worth engaging.

To discuss these ideas, I'll need to ask nate a few questions about what he means in the first para. These are exclusively to arrive at clarity; they're not challenges. Any kind of dispute is the utter opposite of what I'm looking for here. I'm hoping you'll respond, nate.

Here is the first two para, in which I've done a little eliding w/, I trust, no harm to the intended meaning

"...Terrorism is not the reason that I oppose mass Muslim immigration (for Europe or here). The reason to oppose it is the culture clash. When you bring huge a population of people with a radically different cultural system, these types of riots and conflict are inevitable."

When you talk about "mass... immigration," what kind of numbers are you thinking of? I.e. what do you have in mind in the phrase a "huge population", nate?

Am I correct that you see this concern as applying not only to Muslim immigration but to immigration by any "population of people with a radically different cultural system," & that, leaving aside economic objections to (or desires for) some kinds of immigration, this is pretty much the most important concern in assessing an immigration issue of this kind?

Correct. Leaving aside economic objections. I have concerns with radically different cultures immigrating, and that concern increases dramatically if you have huge numbers of a radically different culture. Small numbers don't matter so much because the immigrants really have no choice but to assimilate. But large groups can form their own enclaves where they can resist assimilation and ultimately reinforce their differences with the dominant culture.

Finally, "these types of riots and conflict" -- the context was the picture from Sweden. Is this what you mean? You also go on, in paragraphs I'll get to later, to present some other scenarios of cultural conflict. I guess my main question about this has 2 parts: does "conflict" always/often/usually have to lead to "riots?" & must all "riots" (using the term broadly here to mean non-civil confrontation of groups) be unresolvable -- i.e. be end states?

I would say that history answers the question for us. There are no long-standing multicultural societies. Sooner or later, multicultural societies end via war, genocide, secession, or a refugee crisis of some sort. The costs of administering a multicultural society grow too large as the state is forced to intervene more often to maintain a common set of laws and standards that are objectionable to a larger and larger group of minorities. There's a reason why Sweden was full of exclusively Swedes until recently, as Japan was full of exclusively Japanese and Russia was full of Russians. There's a reason why there is widespread chaos and crime in places like Africa and Brazil. Africa's ethnic and cultural boundaries were rearranged due to colonization, and they're still trying to regain an equilibrium. Likewise, Brazil is dealing with the culture clash of white settlers, Amerindian natives and Africans, all of whom have different ideas of how their society should be organized. Brazil has the highest crime rates in the world.

Ok, those are my questions. Preliminarily, I'd say that "culture clash" is, as nate says, likely to be a part of what happens when very different cultures engage deeply with one another. The more deeply they engage, the deeper the clash. We see this in lots of contexts less demanding than those of immigration, & we've seen it repeatedly in times of immigration. Or just when very different cultures cohabit an area w/o immigration being required. It's undeniable.

But, I feel comfortable in saying that overall the contacts & even conflicts of very different cultures, even by way of immigration, have been extremely productive in history. I'd be happy to produce any number of examples, but I bet most people here can come up w/ lots of them on their own. It is a certain fact that there would be no United States without them.

An obvious case is the mass immigration of the Irish. The view that there's was a radically different culture was considered an absolute fact (I'd say that at the time Protestants saw Catholicism as further from their own religion than Christians today see Islam as being). The view that they were a violent culture ditto. & there were riots galore -- with lots of violence, murder, etc.

I'd disagree with this characterization. Protestantism didn't even exist until the 1400's. The same forces of Catholic Christianity that shaped the English over a thousand years also shaped the Irish. The English didn't break from Catholicism until the mid 1500's. Both Catholicism and Protestantism share many of the foundational cultural beliefs common throughout Christianity - including a guilt-based morality system and elements of a separation of a Church and State. Both cultures were also shaped heavily by Greco-Roman tradition. They were a heck of lot more similar than Christians and Muslims today.

There's also the not insignificant issue that Irish visibly looked like Americans. A 2nd generation Irishman without an accent could pass for a 10th generation English colonist, making assimilation that much easier.

I doubt you think the Irish shouldn't have been allowed in, nate. Especially since it would be easy to document much the same kind of stuff as other waves of ethnic immigration followed. Which brings me to the 2d of your paragraphs I want to address today:

A prerequisite of democracy is that most of the people already have very similar values, goals, and a vision for society. You want most people to agree about things without the coercion of the state. If you don't have this condition, then you will inevitably have conflict once the minority groups grows sufficiently in size to have an expectation of enforcing their own cultural norms rather than the norms of the majority culture."

1. I think the first sentence is plainly incorrect. Most people who've thought/written about politics, from Aristotle forward, conclude that the reason we have any government is because individuals' "values, goals and... vision(s)" are in conflict by nature -- that w/o government they lead to "the war of all against all" (as Hobbes puts it). And that people not only don't share a "vision for society", but that don't have any such vision! Above all, this POV is at the foundation of conservatism as we understand it. You find it in Burke -- hell you find it everywhere in conservative literature.

I think you are conflating two things. I agree that we all have selfish individual interests that conflict with society at large, and we need government to keep us in line. Without theft laws, shoplifting would be so rampant that nobody could run a store. But that's different from sharing similar goals, and vision for society. I used my child marriage example as an extreme case, but one that's at least easy to follow. It's a whole lot easier to form age of consent laws when society at large already has a general agreement of what the age of consent should be.

But the issue comes up in other, less obvious ways. For example, there's a reason why socialism can function fairly well in Norway, but it utterly fails in Venezuela. For socialism to work, most of the public has to "buy in". (And for the sake of this argument, let's not get too into the weeds on defining socialism. Basically, I'm referring to a very generous social safety net at taxpayer expense.) The people with surplus income, which is being taxed and redistributed away, at least need to trust that those receiving benefits are not abusing the system. It requires the "receivers" to feel some level of guilt for receiving, and the "givers" need to believe that the "receivers" actually do feel that guilt and don't want to continue to be a "receiver". And that level of trust requires a culture of high outgroup preferences. Clannish cultures don't have those outgroup preferences. They focus their efforts at what's good for the family and extended family, and feel much less empathy for outgroups beyond their family circle. For whatever reason, Northern Europeans have developed a mix of cultural/individual traits that result in high outgroup preferences which permits Socialism to function relatively smoothly with society still remaining substantially free of government coercion.

When socialism is tried elsewhere, deficits quickly balloon as the "givers" find ways to stop giving and economic collapse follows (see Latin America or Greece). Either that, or an authoritarian government is necessary to keep it going (see China or Cuba). You can write the laws as carefully as you want, but socialism won't work in Argentina, or Turkey, or Zimbabwe. Heck, it's not even working so well in America if our budget deficits are any indication.

2. The 2d sentence - "You want most people to agree about things without the coercion of the state" - is either anodyne (agree there's a God in heaven? It looks like rain tomorrow?) or utterly Utopian ('the property line is right there.' 'No, it's back there -- get the hell off my property!' 'Oh yeah?' 'Yeah.' -- next comes the noise of guns). Again, far from a prerequisite of democracy (of any government) agreement is the reason we have government (& the rule of law, & the power to enforce laws). It's the opposite of a prerequisite! The advantage of democracy is that there's some ability to constrain those with the most power (wealth, land, liegemen, money, etc.) from dictating the terms of those "agreements."

See above

3. Your 3d sentence ("minority groups... enforcing their own cultural norms rather than those of the majority culture") is what I'd call a picture in your mind. Historically, wouldn't you say we've had more problems from majority groups enforcing their preferences on minorities than the opposite? That's a rhetorical question, nate. The answer is yes. As well, I'd say we more often see minority cultures shedding their cultural differences over a few generations than growing more strident in enforcing them. Often, the cultural markers are reduced to symbolic stuff maintained with much less meaning than it had in the past.

We've had a minority culture of blacks in our country for 300 years. They've been freed for 150 years. Jim Crow has been eradicated for 50 years. But by any measure, we still have tremendous difficulty in assimilating the majority of blacks despite trillions of dollars being directed to the task. I'm not making a value judgement on who is responsible for this lack of assimilation, I'm just saying that it's obviously not an easy task. (I'll also say, as I've said in the past, that blacks are a special case where there is a much more compelling duty of society to try and help them integrate effectively, since their presence here in the first place was not voluntary.)

Respectfully, nate, these first two paragraphs seem distinctly in *conflict* with the truth. Not *riot*ously so, but *inevitably* so all the same.

I can't continue now with the rest. But I will. I'm pretty sure that what we'll find is a particular problem w/ what you imagine Muslim culture to be & to mean -- what you imagine inaccurately & based on (I speculate) little or no contact with Muslims -- rather than anything that flows from the 2 paragraphs I've just looked at, in which you meant to (but failed to) create a rational foundation for that problem.

I'll conclude with something personal: I just spent more than an hour on the above. Time I really didn't have for it (got a lot of projects!). I did it, because it matters to me what & how you think about these things. In fact, I'd say that's why I overreacted last week, because after 5 years on this Board what you & others here think about things has come to matter to me. You are "real", IOW. In a way Donald Trump isn't.

In fact, f*ck Donald Trump. Oh hell, f*k the Democrats too. In short, I'm not trying to change your mind, nate. I'm trying to reach your mind. Feel free to offer any reasoned response to what I've written above. I don't mind being wrong; the only way you learn is by being wrong. Lucky me I've been around so long & wrong so many times that I've learned a lot (above all I've learned & keep learning how easy it is to be wrong!).

When I turn to your next paragraphs, I'll talk about my exposure to Islamic culture, arranged marriage, etc. Like I say, man, for better or worse I've been around!

I appreciate the time you spent on this.

[gtn130]

BTW sfam - you might understand that I am a supporter of immigration. But the arguments that you presented are really a "let's not change what isn't working for us" argument. It was also one of the key drivers of Trump's election.

If the Ds are to succeed, they need to come up with a coherent strategy in immigration and one that conforms to the rule of law. Otherwise, they are just part of the problem.

I get that, and agree that immigration is totally screwed up on a range of dimensions. How could it be otherwise, as it hasn't been touched from a policy standpoint for generations?

Again, there are answers out there, but as Nate mentions, there are political implications to those answers. Hence the stalemate, and now the decision to try to remove those who would vote against the Republicans.

Don't think for a second that the Republicans' deep seated respect for the rule of law would exist if they know the majority of immigrants would vote republican. They'd switch as fast as they did to seeing Russia as our greatest ally! They'd throw away the rule of law stuff as fast as they did their family values stance in leaders.

Such violent agreement on this - basically they are moving to a no new immigration policy - it will create many more problems than it will fix. Sadly, neither side has anything close to a solid immigration policy.

Pretty sure Trump has a plan and it's called Xtreme vetting. Refugees have to drink Mountain Dew and do kickflips on their skateboards before they're allowed in

[nate33]

I've yet to hear a single valid reason to repeal Obamacare, and yet it's the Republicans' signature issue.

Premiums have become unaffordable.

[tontoz]

That paragraph is not winning an award for clarity.

Yet again we have the "1.6 billion people across the world speaking different languages, coming from different cultures are all the same." They all are wannabe terrorists who if just given the chance through poor immigration procedures, want to blow up the US, and are forced to spend their time treating their women badly until given the opportunity.

Whatever. I've answered that point a number of times already.

You have tons of people in Texas advocating secession. These aren't Muslims, nor do they seem to advocating American values. Timothy McVeigh was not Muslim. Should we ban all white protestant men living in the US? And on the women point, the US is FAR from clean on gender-based violence. There are many here, perhaps millions in the US who treat "their women" far far worse than millions of Muslim men - one happens to be President.

Anecdotal stories about mistreatment of women here arent even remotely comparable to forcing women to cover themselves head to toe before going outside, forcing them to have a male family member escorting them before they can go out in public, arranging marriages with 12 year old girls, preventing women from going to school or issuing a fatwa that women shouldn't ride bikes.

That nonsense is just flat out crazy.

[nate33]

That paragraph is not winning an award for clarity.

Yet again we have the "1.6 billion people across the world speaking different languages, coming from different cultures are all the same." They all are wannabe terrorists who if just given the chance through poor immigration procedures, want to blow up the US, and are forced to spend their time treating their women badly until given the opportunity.

Whatever. I've answered that point a number of times already.

You have tons of people in Texas advocating secession. These aren't Muslims, nor do they seem to advocating American values. Timothy McVeigh was not Muslim. Should we ban all white protestant men living in the US? And on the women point, the US is FAR from clean on gender-based violence. There are many here, perhaps millions in the US who treat "their women" far far worse than millions of Muslim men - one happens to be President.

Anecdotal stories about mistreatment of women here arent even remotely comparable to forcing women to cover themselves head to toe before going outside, forcing them to have a male family member escorting them before they can go out in public, arranging marriages with 12 year old girls, preventing women from going to school or issuing a fatwa that women shouldn't ride bikes.

That nonsense is just flat out crazy.

Exactly.

We can all acknowledge that there are plenty of Muslims who would assimilate into America society nicely. By just selectively picking small numbers of highly educated Muslims we have done a pretty good job of screening in the past. Highly educated Muslims tend to be more secular, they tend to have a job lined up (which assists in assimilation) and they rapidly develop a stake in the system as they develop wealth here. Also, with small total numbers, they are forced to integrate rather than wallow in an ethnic enclave somewhere, building a resentment toward the majority culture.

What concerns me is that we may be headed down the road to Europe. We are admitting a lot more Muslims than we used to and we are no longer selecting just the well-educated ones who are filling a specific need. Large numbers of more religious Muslims, lacking in job prospects to aid in assimilation, are clearly a problem throughout Europe, and are likely to be a problem here. I'm sure the crime rates for Somalian refugees is much higher than it is for Iranian PhDs.

[dckingsfan]

I've yet to hear a single valid reason to repeal Obamacare, and yet it's the Republicans' signature issue.

Premiums have become unaffordable.

I would say there are some very good reasons to keep the ACA. And some very good reasons to replace it with something better. Unless the Rs can do better, they should leave it in place. But it wouldn't be that hard to do better.

Good:
1) Pre-existing conditions coverage
2) Health insurers must spend at least 85 percent of their premium dollars on health care
3) Adult children up to age 26 can now continue to get health insurance on their parent's policies
4) Lots more individuals are insured

Bad:
1) Individual mandate isn't working - it's still cheaper to pay the tax penalty - if it is ever collected.
2)It was poorly worded (and overly verbose) and has been very hard and costly to run. For example, they put in place a bizarre system of subsidies. They will continue to be unfair and unworkable moving forward. And the program is often not affordable without those same subsidies. And those same subsidies are continuing to drive up the costs of our overall entitle program spending which is crowding out other spending.
3) Many insurance companies lost lots of $$s. Yes, you care about this, see below.
4) Defining a basic health plan - that shouldn't be defined by the government. Some might not need everything in a plan.
5) Waivers - there shouldn't be waivers for businesses (and hence their labor unions).
6) Lack of competition - let the exchanges compete with plans from the states. For instance if some states want to make a defined (tax subsidy) contribution to each family - let them have at it... And remember, with major insurers withdrawing from many states (see above), millions have one company to choose from, which exacerbates affordability issues.