Hate Speech or Common Sense?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, Dec 23, 2006.

  1. The question remains, is it objectionable for a country to design its immigration policy to preserve the culture that founded and built it? Is it a good idea to embrace multiculturalism by encouraging immigration by those from radically different cultures, or should immigration policy favor those who will assimilate easily?

    Is it racist to restrict immigration from countries with violent crime rates many times our own, eg Latin America and Africa, or by the poor and uneducated?
    #11     Dec 26, 2006
  2. It is to our country's advantage to select the brightest, the most industrious, those with the best potential for good behavior, and allow them to immigrate here.

    I don't think we should allow certain people from certain countries who have declared war on our country into the US. I'm sure there are plenty that will disagree.
    #12     Dec 26, 2006
  3. The question shouldn't be framed with reference to 'culture' at all. Radically different cultures will produce individuals that are ideally suited for citizenship in the West, and we should be actively trying to get them here, as FTF said. Western cultures will produce radicals capable of blowing up innocent civilians.

    I think that in 50 years the PC ideal of color blind immigration policies will be seen as an anachronism. Although the Bush government went too far in subverting civil liberties in certain cases, the terrorist attacks provided Western governments with all they need to ethically practice selective immigration. Absolutely screen prospective immigrants and reject any who have even a sniff of a problem.

    The thing that pisses me off is the idea that immigrants think they can take advantage of all we have to offer, and then sue the government because they can't live their lives in the same way they did back home. In Canada last year the Muslims petitioned the government for the right to take care of their own problems internally by invoking Sharia law. This is a total absurdity.
    #13     Dec 26, 2006
  4. We've all heard the radical left mantra about the "slippery slope" of civil liberties protection. Well, there's another side to that slope and we're sliding down it at warp speed. You know the one called, in an effort to be all things to all people we end up fucking everyone. That slope!
    Unchecked immigration will bring this country down further and faster than any terrorist attack. A nuke going off right now in any U.S. city would not have the negative, long term impact of current immigration problems. This issue needs to be job #1 and subject #1 during the 08 campaign. Instead we'll get lip service followed by some limp wristed legislation that will not only fail to solve the problem, it will exacerbate it.
    #14     Dec 26, 2006
  5. man


    "... I fear that in the next century will we have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America ..."

    i fear that in the next century there will be many more christian
    hypocrites that have not understood that the united states of
    america is designed by the will to live jointly and let the majority
    decide which way to go.

    the point is that people do not fear muslims but muslim extremists.
    and they are unable to distinguish between the two. sun tzu:
    if you do not know yourself and do not know your enemy, you
    will lose.

    i heard this interview of this makaka senator, defending himself.
    the subtext of his message was: "if i had known that it makes me
    lose voters, i would not have done it". thank you. there go the
    values people stand for. he speaks out very openly what my
    main concern is. he does not have a value unless the one wanting
    the vote. thank you very much sir. you are unqualified for a
    leading position. no, that is wrong. "cheer"leader is just fine.

    there is a lot more hypocricy within the reps than there is among
    the dems. and there is a lot less creativity and intelligence as well.
    #15     Dec 27, 2006
  6. Once again, you miss the point entirely.

    Of course people want to keep out violent extremists, no matter what their religion. The question is whether or not we want to follow the lead of europe and find ourselves with large, angry populations of people who have nothing in common with our culture or traditions and who refuse to assimilate but instead demand to live the way they did in their former homes. People who think it is acceptable to riot if someone dares criticize some aspect of their religion. People who have no tolerance or respect for anyone different from them and whose religion mandates repression against women, homosexuals and nonbelievers.

    It is not an answer to say that only radicals act that way. What we see is that once a critical mass is reached, they feel it is safe to go on the offensive. The "moderates" are intimidated into silence, if indeed they disagree at all.
    #16     Dec 27, 2006
  7. Thanks for the refreshing post. :)
    #17     Dec 27, 2006
  8. Once critical mass happens the Liberal way of life ends. That's something liberals should be afraid of, but they seem to think that they can restructure and overhaul Islam. You can't change the basis nor details of someone's religion.

    .....Since the Islamic Jihad usually enters a much more aggressive and physical phase once the Muslim population reaches 10 – 20% of the total in any given area, this does not bode well for the future......
    #18     Dec 27, 2006
  9. Cultures radically different from each other, or cultures radically different from western culture? I hope you didn't mean the latter, but somehow I think you did.

    So what criteria should be applied in screening?

    You've said that radically different cultures (radically different from the west is what I inferred) can produce individuals ideally suited for citizenship in the west. If their cultures are radically different, though, then presumably such individuals would be required to discard their former cultures and adopt the particular culture of the western country they are moving to. Should one criterion, perhaps the most important, therefore be the likelihood of such occurring? It would seem so.

    How to determine this likelihood then? Any ideas you might want to offer?

    If history is a guide, the only immigrants who have, en masse, discarded their former cultural peculiarities and adopted those of their new western homes have been...guess. Given such history, and given that you wish to screen candidates for signs of 'trouble' ('likelihood of incompatibility'?), caution would be warranted when screening anyone not belonging to any of the groups alluded to in the previous sentence. That would seem to rule out the mass immigration of individuals from groups other than these. (Surely "radically different" cultures do not produce "ideal" candidates for immigration to the west by the million, right?)

    I wonder what liberal principle you, as a liberal, would apply in calling this absurd. 'Tolerance'? No, that doesn't seem to fit. 'Multiculturalism'? Hmm, no; these immigrants' behavior seems to be a logical outgrowth of having embraced multiculturalism. 'Diversity'? Nope. 'Human rights'? Can't see how.

    Quite a bind. If such developments can't be checked on liberal grounds, then perhaps liberalism itself is the problem.
    #19     Jan 5, 2007
  10. I remember when Italy had no identity. So they decided to follow Hitler.

    Boy was that stupid! Italy hasn't been the same since...
    #20     Jan 5, 2007