President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Same values as western people, wtf that even meansI don't have the same values as you and I'm a ''western people''.What does it mean
You might not share identical values to me but we are closer than either of us are with people from a country where 99% of baby girls get infibulated, just as an example.Or any country that is explicitly theocratic and the majority agrees with the
The problem is you keep shifting from '' there is no us '' to '' our tribe '' when it's convenient.
Pick a side and stick to it.
The problem is you keep shifting from '' there is no us '' to '' our tribe '' when it's convenient.
Pick a side and stick to it.
I'll try to clarify this yet again for you.
I would love to live in a society where there is no us. With complete open borders but no welfare *at all* and no path to citizenship unless you are much better than the median (income wise).
That's not the society we have though.
Given the current legal model and societal organization there is, i have to find solutions within constraints, that are the "less wrong" 2nd order set of solutions that come closer to what i want to achieve (a society that is as libertarian as i can get with existing constraints).
The current model is putting immigrants and their offsprings on a path to citizenship even if they are low quality human beings. The current model is also shoveling a ton of money sequestered from taxpayers to help those people.
SO, given that model, we have to filter as hard as we can (something that we are still legally allowed to do) for entrants. To reduce the probability newcomers and their offspring will vote against what we like, and to save as much taxpayers money as possible by not taking in future welfare parasites.
People are tribal so i have to frame arguments on tribalism.
Ok, pipe down there champ, this is where we part ways. I wasn't signing up to implementing a rule for religion only to then call politics I dislike "religion", nor for apportioning collective responsibility. You can take that **** back to North Korea, the place best compatible with your values.
I was asking if you agreed that violent collectivism (not in my sense, in the normal sense) was a bannable attitude as well.
Like someone celebrating a violent revolution that installed a communist regime as a positive thing.
I would be quite surprised if you were in favour of banning an indian because he was fervently religious but not if he had been part of a marxist militia for example.
I was asking if you agreed that violent collectivism (not in my sense, in the normal sense) was a bannable attitude as well.Like someone celebrating a violent revolution that installed a communist regime as a positive thing.I would be quite surprised if you were in favour of banning an indian because he was fervently religious but not if he had been part of a marxist militia fo
I don't know to what extent I'd be comfortable going all thought police. It's a slippery slope. I was already not really all in on the religion thing, probably for that reason. Before you know it, we're banning people for reading horoscopes or having the wrong favourite colour.
Speaking of domestic enemies of western civilization, and immigration as an explicit tool to erode our countries
he Episcopal Church is ending its long-standing collaboration with the federal government on refugee resettlement programs due to its objections to resettling white Afrikaners from South Africa.
A May 12 letter from presiding Anglican Bishop Sean W. Rowe says that the federal government informed the Episcopal Migration Ministries (EMM) that under its grant agreement, it would be expected to assist in resettling white Afrikaners. The church decided not to comply, reports RNS.
“In light of our church’s steadfast commitment to racial justice and reconciliation and our historic ties with the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, we are not able to take this step,” Rowe wrote. “Accordingly, we have determined that, by the end of the federal fiscal year, we will conclude our refugee resettlement grant agreements with the US federal government.”
The decision, Rowe says, comes after reflection on the denomination’s core values and its legacy of standing with the Anglican Church of Southern Africa.
Rowe said the Episcopal Church could not in good conscience accept the terms of the resettlement grant, given the context now that Trump had moved to classify white Afrikaners as eligible.
He added that while EMM will “wind down all federally funded services by the end of the federal fiscal year in September,” the church will continue to serve immigrants and refugees through other channels, such as ongoing support for those already resettled.
/
I don't know to what extent I'd be comfortable going all thought police. It's a slippery slope. I was already not really all in on the religion thing, probably for that reason.
It's not thought police, because it's about filtering new entrants, not policing thoughts of your citizens.
IF you agree in general terms that unfiltered immigration is bad, then we have to set some filters. And filtering against heinous political or religious beliefs seems quite straightforward among other filters.
It's not thought police, because it's about filtering new entrants, not policing thoughts of your citizens.
IF you agree in general terms that unfiltered immigration is bad, then we have to set some filters. And filtering against heinous political or religious beliefs seems quite straightforward among other filters.
I'm pretty comfortable filtering anyone belonging to hate or terror groups. As far as I know, communists are neither of those. If you want them filtered, you'll have to get them on that list first.
As for "sympathisers", I mean, it's an open question. Do we filter anyone showing Nazi sympathies on Twitter? Seems that we don't, we just let him buy it.
I'm very comfortable saying that stoning people for adultery, homosexuality or blasphemy, stoning people in general, honour killings, forcing women to cover up their faces in public, etc. etc. are all "values incompatible with western society". To what extent immigrants import these values with them might be open for debate, but the fact that they are incompatible with Western
It can be a thin line between unfairly judging individuals and fairly assessing ideology / groups, and it is made very difficult to deal with it properly because the debate is typically very immature.
My two cents is that liberal views, as in the belief in human rights and constitutional democracy, is dying world-wide. Extremism and autocracy is winning the political struggle in an increasing number of countries, and in a lot of established democracies the support for such values are also waning.
I find it unwise to be naive to the illiberal views, regardless if they come from politics, ideology or religion. People can look, dress, talk, eat, pray, worship and in whichever way they want want as far as I care, I don't care. However, I expect efforts to be made to ensure that respect for the core values of a democratic society is part of the path to citizenship.
Of course, once you are a citizen, you're free to be as illiberal as you want as long as you're not hurting anyone. In that regard, our only recourse is to try to make people respect democratic values voluntarily. We can't enforce democracy in undemocratic ways. Or we can (and we often do), but it won't work.
interesting how the same people in this forum who were pro having as many refugees as possible even if uneducated and poor and with values incompatible with western society , start having problems when the refugees are higher income and education and with the same values as western people.
The bolded is a feature, not a bug, of the Left. (In my humble opinion, of course.)
I'm very comfortable saying that stoning people for adultery, homosexuality or blasphemy, stoning people in general, honour killings, forcing women to cover up their faces in public, etc. etc. are all "values incompatible with western society". To what extent immigrants import these values with them might be open for debate, but the fact that they are incompatible with Western
What's reason #92705?*
If I send you a self-addressed, stamped legal-size envelope, will you mail me the whole list? Thanks.
*92705 is my ZIP Code btw
You might not share identical values to me but we are closer than either of us are with people from a country where 99% of baby girls get infibulated, just as an example.Or any country that is explicitly theocratic and the majority agrees with the idea that the state should force a specific religion morality with the law.If 88% of a country population agrees with the Sharia bei
Some countries have to bring in immigrants due to aging populations and low fertility rates. Without immigration, Great Britain (for example) would cease to exist in about 80 years.
I don't know that I'd be using anyone's social media postings to decide anything related to immigration status, unless they are a public personality with some influence on others perhaps. But I'll admit it's not something to which I've given a huge amount of thought. For example, I guess is someone is openly calling for jihad on Twitter, that's probably not a person you want li
I'm not sure which would result in America's downfall quicker: letting Jihadists in the U.S. or folks like d2_e4 in the country.
Hobson's Choice for sure.
I'm not sure which would result in America's downfall quicker: letting Jihadists in the U.S. or folks like d2_e4 in the country.
Hobson's Choice for sure.
You honestly think if America swapped out every one of you for one of me it would be worse off? Lol.
It can be a thin line between unfairly judging individuals and fairly assessing ideology / groups, and it is made very difficult to deal with it properly because the debate is typically very immature. My two cents is that liberal views, as in the belief in human rights and constitutional democracy, is dying world-wide. Extremism and autocracy is winning the political struggle i
I agree liberal democracy is dying. The core values citizenship is a red herring imo as the it's rotting from within. It cannot survive (and maybe it shouldn't) so much polarisation and inequality.
Too many people are losing faith in it because it is failing. If we want liberal democracy to survive then we have to value it and make it work.
interesting how the same people in this forum who were pro having as many refugees as possible even if uneducated and poor and with values incompatible with western society , start having problems when the refugees are higher income and education and with the same values as western people.it's like the only purpose of being in favour of unlimited quantities of refugees was the
Yes I think the West should take in a many refugees as possible. Plenty of land in the US, Canada, France, Australia etc, but I don't want an influx of white supremacists. Why is that so surprising to you?
What's reason #92705?*
If I send you a self-addressed, stamped legal-size envelope, will you mail me the whole list? Thanks.
*92705 is my ZIP Code btw
You are reason number 92705. You are a prisoner of religion. You are a number, not a free man.
Some countries have to bring in immigrants due to aging populations and low fertility rates. Without immigration, Great Britain (for example) would cease to exist in about 80 years.
yes and if filtering made it so that not enough people can come, then it could be a problem.
But it doesn't look like the case, for now at least. There are tens of millions of people willing to come per year, and the UK (and Italy and the like) only need a few hundred thousands each.
Why take in the bottom of the barrell of humanity (uneducated highly religious tribalist low iq people) if you haven't tried, say, automatic citizenship for Chinese people with IQ over 100 first?
Like before allowing a single highly religious human being from whatever place, anyone with at least one hong kong ancestor that gets 110+ in an IQ test should be put in front of the line (*for automatic citizenship if he resides a few years).
Same from China, Vietnam, south korea, japan and so on. There are high iq, decent education, low/no religiosity places to pick from before you made the tragic tradeoff of taking in people with bad inheritable qualities.
And btw, just getting people in doesn't solve anything in the long term. If you take in future welfare parasites, even if they work today, that's just having a worse problem when they become old.
I hate to agree with Luciom, but given the option, non-religious immigrants definitely seems preferable to religious immigrants.
Yes I think the West should take in a many refugees as possible. Plenty of land in the US, Canada, France, Australia etc, but I don't want an influx of white supremacists. Why is that so surprising to you?
Plenty of land in France in which sense?
France has 4x the population density of Somalia. Higher population density than Kenya.
And btw in order to be a refugee you need a war in that country, or state persecution of a minority.
So it's expected that you will take whites from black majority countries, and not blacks. How else could a state persecution of that group justify the refugee status?
You are expected (if it's actual refugees and not invaders) to have NON MUSLIMS from muslim majority countries, NON BLACKS from black majority countries, and so on right?
yes and if filtering made it so that not enough people can come, then it could be a problem.But it doesn't look like the case, for now at least. There are tens of millions of people willing to come per year, and the UK (and Italy and the like) only need a few hundred thousands each.Why take in the bottom of the barrell of humanity (uneducated highly religious tribalist low iq p
I certainly see the necessity of filtering. But I don't think a high IQ should automatically put someone at the head of the line. And why Chinese people with a 100+ IQ? How about anyone from any country with a 100+ IQ?
