The same people who bash Trump for wanting a wall and expelling Muslims, give 40 billion dollars to Israel, a regime that built a wall and expels Muslims. Hypocrisy
The hypocrisy is disgusting. Also our leaders can give Israel 40 billion while telling residents of flint Michigan to basically fuck off. Let's see, we could help our own citizens not get lead poisoning after we lied to them about how bad it was or we could give Israel 40 billion to help them commit more genocide against Palestinians. Yep Israel really needs our help guys, give them what ever they want
It's because too many of our politicians are beholden completely to jews and Israeli interests. Israel has to come first, that's the only way they will be able to get their campaign dollars to run for re-election.
Taking AIPAC money as a politician is like selling your soul to the devil. You are basically fucking over your own constituents in order to be completely loyal to a foreign nation.
Politicians don't care about people drinking sewage in Flint because the people of Flint aren't lining their pockets with cash like AIPAC does.
Jews and Israel are responsible for pretty much all of our problems in the United States. We have so many homeless and hungry veterans and US Citizens who don't get any assistance, while money that could go to help them instead goes to Israel.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the UN or someone like that just labeled Israel a nation that harbors terrorism yet we still give them billions every year. It's a shame what Zionism and greed has done to the west.
They did not give them $40 billion to do as they wish. The money only touches there banks for the short term. Then it comes right back to the USA and we sell them tanks and fighter jets for that money. It's a way to make the USA look good by aiding other countries (Jews in the USA love to think they are helping their brothers and sisters out especially). In reality some senator from some State is essentially giving tax dollars to the people that helped get him/her elected.
Why would we give them 40 billion dollars just so they can buy military equipment from us? With that flawed logic it makes more sense just to give them free weapons and other military supplies. Why arn't you concerned that the U.S. is yet again openly giving a nation of genocidal terrorists military aid that will be used to kill more innocent people? I don't give a fuck about shitty senators giving their sugar daddy Israel money for helping them get elected. It isn't fucking right and should not be rationalized as ok under any circumstances. Democracy fails because of people like you who lack critical thinking and reasoning skills.
Israel is a subsidiary, a brand-name logo to disguise US corporate imperialism. Israel is a neo-colonial outpost of the American Empire, operating as the US did when first establishing itself as a country on the North American continent — killing and kicking out the indigenous peoples, stealing their land and resources, and profiting from the takeover. Israel is an outpost of US banking and other corporations, and it serves as a land-based aircraft carrier for thinly-disguised US imperial expansion.
Interesting take on the two. "Neo-colonial outpost" sounds like some cool future sci-fi novel.
The next war should be with the zionist banking elite and those responsible for israel in the first place. They are the enemies of freedom both culturally and economically. They are the hypocrites behind multiculturalism and the complete eradication of European values and society.
So much this. The problem (one of the many, rather) is that they control media and the flow of information to such a dramatic extent already, that it's going to take a miracle for people to wake up.
Trump told the man: "Israel is a very, very important ally of the United States and we are going to protect them 100% -- 100%. It's our true friend over there."
Trump is actually fairly constitutional on alot of issues. Marijuana, abortion gay marriage etc. Also somewhat libertarian. Yesi know he can come off authoritarian sometimes but its really only in terms of security.
That's a recurring theme with most Never Trumpers. They have only have heard the MSM narrative, and apparently believed it despite like 96% of Americans no longer trusting the MSM according to most polls.
It's true Trump is pro-Israel. But he is also more pro-America than any candidate we have had run since Ross Perot. It's his toughness on immigration, and trade that makes him so hated by the establishment. For once it would reverse the wealth transfer to elites/big corporations back to the working class.
That's a recurring theme with most Never Trumpers.
I can't tell if you meant it in this way but I never said I was a "Never Trumper". The person had asked what one dislikes about Trump and I just said a couple things I personally dislike. I even said I can't choose Hillary.
Yes really i encourage you to read his website policies and listen to his America First foreign policy speech. He talks about non interventionism and better trade deals. Plus he talks about not buying into "the false song of globalism".
Ummmm... They still kill people. Their technique may be different sometimes. Christians and Jews blow people up all the time. I am not aware of Christians and Jews beheading people.
I said most issues and Trump was talking about banning them until a proper vetting processis put in place. And when he originally came out with the idea, it was somewhat reactionary to an attack but he understands that you have to ban immigration from nations specifically instead of trying to ban just muslims.
Plus his stances on other issues are usually reserved to the states, like they should be under the constitution.
Fair enough. It should seem very unconstitutional and un-American to ban groups of people, in my opinion. I say that even about groups I disagree with.
Well thats a fair belief, but there is historical context. President Jimmy Carter halted immigration from Iranians back in the late 70s. Just recently actually, if you havent heard Venezuela is going through turmoil because their socialist government ran out of money, and people are starving causing mayhem. President Obama halted immigration from Venezuela.
So there is proper reasoning for this, by the way the constitution really doesnt say anything about this specifically, but the president does have legal authority to do this. And i dont believe the states really challenged the feds on it at all.
So are you pro open border? Are you for amnesty of illegal inmigrants?
Also, why is it unconstitutional for a president to restrict immigration from one area pf the world or a few countries? Immigration has always been limited.
Trump said he wants to ban immigration of Muslims. Key difference. There is a huge difference between being for open borders, supporting some sort of immigration system with restrictions, and banning an entire population of people from all over the world based on their religion because of the actions of a small minority of those who practice the same religion. I don't know about unconstitutional but it certainly does not align very well with the fact that there is supposed to be free practice of religion in the United States.
And as i said before, his initial idea for a ban of muslims came in the wake of the attacks; and had he been the president, if any immigration wouldve stopped, it wouldve been stopped from specific nations, like he understands as he said in one of his recent speeches.
Furthermore, on average, according to many different intelligence communities, anywhere from 15 to 25 percent of the islamic community is radicalized and or extemeists. If you take 15 to 25 percent of 1.2 billion muslims in the entire world its any where from 300 to 400 million muslims that have radicalized ideology and or are extremists. Not too mention when muslims in western countries are polled about homosexuality being illegal or if suicide bombings are acceptable, usually about 50 percent agree and the younger generations actually tend to be even more radicalized.
Also this doesnt restrict people from practicing their religion, its just a vetting process to know who is coming in. But on another point i would like to ask you specifically is, Do you agree in sharia courts?
So you haven't given a single reason why a general ban on all Muslim immigration, which he initially supported, is legitimate. Or why a ban on people from “areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies", as he now proposes, is legitimate when Muslims are, by far, the largest group of victims of Islamic terrorism. Plus, this is an incredibly broad statement that is typical of what Trump says about any issue - it's impossible to know what he actually supports.
As for support of Sharia courts? I fully support them as alternatives functioning alongside government judiciary systems in Muslim majority countries provided they do not infringe upon the basic human rights as defined by the UN. Hell, I'd even say that they shouldn't be outlawed even for small communities in non Muslim majority nations as long as there is strict regulation over the actions of the court (in this case, I would not at all support it as an alternative to traditional judiciary systems). Before you go in on how just such a system would be, that is a problem inherent in any type of judiciary system. It is also important to avoid ethnocentrism when you make judgments about Muslim majority nations. Most do not have significant Islam related issues even with Sharia courts in place.
Ok. First of all, banning immigration from any area or group isnt necessarily unconstitutional, primarily because there isnt anything in the constitution about it. So realistically this is a states rights decision, however i dont believe the states ever really challenged the feds on this particular issue. And as i said before, Trump recently came out with a speech describing the policy of limiting immigration from certain areas and not by restricting them by religion because its impossible to vet them that way.
Again you have to understand, in the past this has been done. Carter in the 70s with Iranians, Obama just this past year restricting immigration from Venezuela. So this is a legitmate policy, even if muslims are moreso victims of terrorism.
Of course they are, most of the places that radicalized terrorism comes from are usually islamic regions. Thats why Trump wants to restrict immigration from these regions, and this is the part people never remember Trump said, until we know what tge hell is going on. Meaning until we get a better vetting process so we know who everyone is that we bring in or allow in here. And that brings us to another issue which is the wall, but i digress on that.
First of all, i can agree with you that all systems can be unjust, almost inherently, however sharia courts are theocratic institutions; although in the UK not legally binding, in places like Saudi Arabia, they have sharia law, which is super extreme. They stone women to death, public beheadings, genital mutilation, honor killings, throw gays off of roofs. In total i believe there are 10 middle eastern countries that have sharia law.
But lets go back to your idea of restricting sharia courts so that they abide by UN human rights laws and things like that. Being how sharia law is an extreme part of islamic ideology, i find that restricting their religion so that it is forced to abide with our laws is far worse then restricting how many of them emigrate here. Realistically is not what you are saying unconstitutional? By not allowing muslims that want sharia courts to fully practice their religion, is that not unconstitutional? This is because it is an extreme ideology, and isnt compatible with western culture or law.
So thats why having a proper immigration vetting process and limiting the amount of people from these countries is a good idea. If you have large masses of people from these countries coming in, they dont tend to assimilate into western culture. Thats why the UK even has 83 sharia courts. Thats why Brexit was successful. Open borders and hardly any immigration restrictions cause ghettos to form in these countries, which make it impossible for assimilation to happen.
I can understand what you are saying about immigration. But the problem is, neither Carter nor Obama's bans were/are total bans that did not include exceptions. Trump has never even suggested this which is the problem.
Of course Saudi Arabia's is especially terrible. But Sharia law is most definitely not an extremist point of view. It is simply a part of Islam... And sometimes, as I think we all know, there is extremism in Islam and one way this manifests itself is as an extremist Sharia court.
As for unconstitutional in the United States, I think that it depends on how it is instituted by a mosque or Muslim community. It most definitely cannot be part of the judiciary process because of the separation of church and state. It also cannot violate the constitution and the many laws it has related to individual liberties and rights. It all boils down to how well or how poorly a religion is able to coexist with the dominant culture of a country.
First of all, Trump has clarified that a ban will be in place until we create a better vetting system so its not an out right ban forever by all means, to go along with this, Trump believes the best thing for these people are safe zones within their own countries. And not to mention that Trump isnt president yet, and had he been president he wouldve taken a far more legal route than what Obama has done in the past in regards to executive action. Also something to remember about Carters plan, he deported like 500 students, and this was on a basis of allegiance to the shiite leadership. Trump isnt calling for deportation of legal muslim immigrants who are already here, he is simply suggesting a halt on immigration from these places until a better vetting system is created.
As for sharia law being in more than 10 countries, i know that. I said there are 10 MIDDLE EASTERN countries with sharia law. And as for sharia law not being a extremist point of view, its just a part of Islam you said. But that is the whole point. Compared to western culture, sharia law is extreme, and if most of those who practice it could institute it to the full effect, they probably would.
And at the same time, if these people sue the government for not allowing them to freely practice their religion, what then? More than likely the only reason that most sharia courts in the UK have not been radicalized is because the muslim population is still a minority. This is why having a strong immigration program is good policy because we know that Islam in general is not compatible with western culture. You see it in places in Europe where migrants from these radicalized areas dont assimilate into the culture as i was ralking about in my last comment.
Christians can make the argument that if they rape a woman, she should become their wife based on religious texts. It's laughable to imagine them successfully suing the government because they don't allow this. While this is an extreme example, the separation of church and state as well as laws that may deem punishments doled out in Sharia courts would heavily restrict Sharia law. However, there is nothing restricting Muslims from utilizing Sharia courts in a legal way.
As for immigration reform, please give me an example of terrorism in the US perpetrated by a Middle Eastern born Muslim since 9/11. Once you realize that is impossible, then tell me what is so ineffective about current policies that justify banning one of the most threatened group of refugees in the world (Muslims in and around areas of ISIS control) right now from having a legal option to seek refuge in the US. Policies like this, well-intentioned or not, play right into the hands of fundamental Islamism by providing a "clear" (I don't believe this to be so but it can certainly appear this way) example of Islamaphobia which can, in turn, be used as Islamist recruitment material. Regardless of how morally reprehensible this is, we can't continue living in a dreamland where actions taken by the US can never have future implications or blowback. I think the current situation right now should be a lesson on that.
I agree that it would be laughable for a civil case to actually rule in their favor. However, just because sharia courts implement forms of sharia law legally, for example certain marriage issues, we must at the same time understand that that doesnt mean a majority of muslims would not want more extreme forms put in place. As a matter of fact fairly high percentages of certain muslim communities agree with extreme forms of sharia law in place of secular law. This just shows that yes some of the people can assimilate into our culture, mainly when they are small in numbers, but most of them agree with their own religion, which is not compatible.
As for your question for a foreign born muslim terrorist. Tashfeen Malik. She was the wife in the San Bernardino Shooting. She was born in Pakistan and is actually one of the main reasons her husband, a US born muslim, was radicalized. Also the Tsarnaev brothers as well, although they werent necessarily from the middle east. But thats why limiting immigration from areas known to be terror hotbeds is a smart thing to do.
But let me just reiterate this about Trumps policies. He has come out in a speech within the last month that calls for halting inmigration from certain regions that are known terror hotspots, until we can create a better vetting system. Not an outright permanent ban, not a call for deportations of legal muslims already in the US, just a halt of immigration from these areas until we can vet these people more efficiently.
For example, if i remember correctly, one of the suspects in the Brussels airport bombing was a migrant from Syria. He was actually in a documentary that was about refugee migration into Europe before the attack. Because ISIS has claimed that they exploit the migrant crisis so they can infiltrate western countries.
And about policies having blowback, i understand that. Thats primarily why we are in a geopolitical mess. But i think saying that not halting inmigration from terror hotspots and that we dont need to rethink our immigration policies and try to develop better methods is living in a dreamland. Also why does the US need to be a leading role in this migrant crisis? We are one of the largest suppliers of funds and aid and not too mention, there are other countries, much closer than the US that are of muslim majority that should be bearing some responsibility.
So the main thing to address here is why it's a responsibility of the US.
The US is the most powerful nation in the world and a big reason for that is the exploitation of the Middle East (and other regions). But the problems in the Middle East are clearly a result of near-sighted foreign policy, something that has become common knowledge based on how frequently this was discussed in both the GOP and Democratic Primary Debates.
So what does this mean? It's that the US not only created this mess but has gained power and influence by creating this mess. It's that the actions of the US more than any other country can be capitalized on to foster anti-Western attitudes. Halting all Middle Eastern immigration to the US is a lovely idea in a vacuum, where the only result is that we reduce the risk of allowing Islamists in. But that is not the only result... Islamists will undoubtedly use it to radicalize people and we also put more pressure on allies in Europe because, let's be real, especially what is going on in Syria is a super complicated issue that is essentially a proxy war involving ISIS along with the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia and friends, Iran, Iraq, etc. The potential benefits of banning Middle Eastern immigration absolutely pale in comparison to the potential issues it creates by driving a wedge between us and our allies AND giving our enemies more leverage.
The problem is not that Trump's proposed policy is even inherently Islamaphobic. It's that it's a display of a blatant lack of foresight and understanding of the most basic issues and players in this conflict. I don't pretend to know much but I know plenty to realize how dumb it is to support this policy proposed by Trump. And, let me make it clear that when I say this that I am not at all comparing any of this to the policies of any other current or future person who may be invested with similar power that he may end up with as president.
Ok so we can get past the foreign policy issue as I understand that the US is a primary factor in the destabilization of the region, and as to the feeling that because we are a primary cause, we should feel obligated to help. We have helped generously when it comes to both financial aid and migration.
But to hinder the american citizen that has also been affected by this destabilization, as far as family members lost and a huge amount of debt, it doesnt make sense. The cost of bringing in more migrants increases every year, just look at Europe for example. They had an open border policy and Angela Merkel and the EU advocated for more and more migrants to be brought in. Most of them are on welfare and or public housing assistance, not to mention the impact on local schools. And then you have the culture war, which you see in cases in Sweden and others, where because of the ghettoization, and the public financing which doesnt allow for assimilation, some of these muslims then commit horrendous sexual crimes, because they believe its ok. THIS is why Brexit was successful, nevermind all the other bullshit economic regulations.
So what is your solution? Halt the migration until you can develop a better system to vet these people, like Trump has advocated for; or do you just continue bringing them in, all the while knowing that ISIS and other extremists, ultimately the groups that were created upon the very destabilization we have caused, infiltrates the migrant groups and exploits loose immigration laws. Like weve seen in the Brussels attack.
And furthermore, about ISIS using this as propaganda, we can say the same things about open homosexuality in movies and television, we can say the same thing about scantily clad women in bikinis. It doesnt make sense to me that if there is an army of jihadis out there that hate our culture and want the world to live under sharia law, that we would just let them come in unvetted, as we have been doing. Rather than take some logical steps to prevent extremists from coming in.
The thing is, the US immigration system has been both highly effective and restrictive. What does a change do? It draws attention. It draws attention to a proposed policy that targets Muslims. This is also not simply having a culture that has some clashes with Middle Eastern Muslim culture (as is media depicting homosexuality, gender equality, and alcohol consumption) but it is targeting Middle Eastern Muslims. The fact that it targets said group is not disputable. And, as I said before, the negatives far outweigh the positives. Immigrants from the Middle East simply have not done anything to suggest that such a change in policy would actually provide significant additional protection to the American people.
As far as your comment on Americas immigration, we have total over 11 million undocumented immigrants, and over the course of obamas presidency weve brought in, if i remember correctly, about 1 million syrian refugees. Not to mention that alot of the times an illegal immigrant will commit a crime in the states, either be slapped on the wrist and let go or deported and only to show up again and commit the same crime 3 or 4 times. So our immigration and border security has been fairly lax for the past few years.
This is a link to a site that documents islamic terror attacks. Most of which occur in terror regions, like Iraq and Syria.
And the thing about these policies, of course they are going to target muslims. Im not going to dispute that.These countries are areas with a very high muslim populations, and the goal is to keep Islamic extremists from exploiting the refugee crisis or our insecure borders. Islamic extremism is a form of Islam. Muslims believe in Islam. But we want a more efficient system to determine who the refugees are or what their full intentions are.
And its not necessarily about immigrants that came here before, even though there are examples, its about keeping the people who want to spread the idea of extremism off of our streets. The san bernardino shooters were islamic terrorists, the wife happened to be from Pakistan and is a big reason her husband was radicalized. The Tsarnaevs were islamic terrorists. The fort hood shooter Nidal Hassan was an islamic extremist. Omar Mateen, the shooter of the Orlando nightclub, was an islamic extremist. Although born and raised in the US, Omar associated his birthright to Afghanistan. So we know that extremist ideology runs rampant in these regions, and to let anyone come in without trying to determine who they are, where they are from, if they have a criminal record etc etc. Is not a realistic solution.
It depends on what you mean by "open border". For years, we have had seasonal workers come to the US for the harvest. They make money, then go home. Our food prices are lower because they do work that most Americans will not do. Both sides benefit, so what is the problem?
As for amnesty for illegal immigrants, it depends on what they are contributing. I know some Americans that I feel do not deserve to be in America for one reason or another. They were just lucky to be born here. They did not have to earn it.
I am a humanist, so that should explain my answers.
Also, I am aware that American foreign policy has made it difficult to impossible for people to make a decent living in their own country. There is a reason that certain countries are perpetually third world countries. It is not because the people are stupid. It is because it benefits corporate America to keep these countries down.
As for your last question, it is unconstitutional to discriminate against a protected class. This is law school 101, and every politician should know this. When a politician suggests something that is blatantly unconstitutional, then every citizen should be concerned. What will you do when the group you belong to is banned? Don't you want people like me to stand up for you, even though I am not neccessarily a member of the group being banned?
I am not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim, but I will speak up for them if someone tries to ban them.
Will you speak up for me when the group I am in is banned?
Have you read the poem "First they came..." By Pastor Martin Niemoller? It is on Wikipedia.
I did not downvote you, by the way. I do not downvote people who disagree with me, especially if the conversation is intelligent.
Ok as for work visas, this is fine. This is an example of having a limitation on immigration, and a decent one at that. Allowing unfortunate to come and work here and see the benefit of our system so they may want to assimilate into our culture, however one thing i dont understand is the whole "they pick our fruit so its cheap" argument. How is it cheaper and why dont americans want to do these jobs? Is it because migrants are paid less than minimum wage to pick fruit? If so that doesnt seem right, especially when an american citizen could do the same job. Especially when we have a high unemployment rate, young american kids could pick fruit.
As for amnesty, if there are people who are hard working and deserve to be here, why dont they go through the legal immigration process instead of skipping the line and making it harder for people who try to come here legally.
As for the question of banning muslims, Trumps initial idea was in the wake of terrorist attack and he has now come out with an official statement that calls for limiting immigration from certain nations and not necessarily groups of people as he understands it would be impossible to prove someone a muslim. This idea is not without merit as President Carter limited immigration from Iran and Obama just recently stopped immigration from Venezuela. And furthermore, Trump didnt originally call for an outright ban, he wanted to halt immigration until there was a better vetting process for people who come here from middle eastern countries, most of them being muslim.
Finally, i would just like to say that Trump and his supporters, well atleast 95 percent, agree with immigration. Legal immigration. We just dont want people to come here unvetted, not knowing who they are, what diseases they may have or what qualifications and skills they may or may not have to contribute to our society. Its a sign of disrespect to our ancestors who may have come here legally through ellis island, waiting just to pass inspections and certain tests and requirements so they could become legal citizens.
What about without work visas? I mean, what if a worker comes to the US illegally for the harvest season, then goes home when it is done. Would you allow this, or no?
My understanding is that most Americans will not do farm work because it is very difficult and dirty, and low paying by American standards.
It is a good point about pay, but I think the migrant workers make more than they would if they stayed at home. This has to be true to make it worth it. These people are not dumb.
I suppose it is important to distinguish between "banning Muslims" and "banning people from Iran". People from Iran are not a protected class under the US Constitution. Muslims are. Perhaps Trump should choose his words more carefully. Why don't we just ban terrorists? Why ban the good people and the bad? We can just ban the bad people, right?
As for your take on immigration, don't forget that the original Europeans came here and stole the land from the Natives.
Another point that is interesting to consider is that a lot of illegal immigrants come to the US to escape the violence in their home country. This violence is caused by the US government. Examples include Central America. Should we just ship these people back to die? Perhaps we can stop causing the violence in these countries.
Honduras is a great example. El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala are others. Zelaya was the democratically elected President of Honduras, but was overthrown in 2009 in a US supported coup. His crime was that he was making life better for the people of Honduras, but this is not allowed because it negatively affects US corporate business interests-there is less of a profit for American companies. I think we can agree that if Zelaya can make life better for the people of Honduras, then they are less likely to want to illegally immigrate to the US. Do you agree?
Does the US cause its own illegal immigration problem?
As for the question of work visas, no. The point is, if someone doesnt go through some proper legal channel, then they are illegal, and have no right to be here. Either they come through on refugee status, work visas or some naturalization process or else its not fair to the citizens or the other inmigrants who are patiently going through the legal process. If so, what would be the point in having any border or immigration laws or standards at all?
And as far as americans not doing that kind of work because its dirty and because of the pay is a simple exaggeration. Most of the reason why these are low paying jobs is because deals like NAFTA allow companies to hire visa workers and migrant workers(and illegals) at a lower salary, which fucks the american worker.
As for Trumps policy, let me reiterate this. In the past month, Trump did a speech that called for halting immigration from known terror regions, because you cant legitemately vet someone by religion, he understands that. So this is something similar to what Carter did, however one thing Carter did that no one talks about is that he actually deported about 500 people. Trump isnt calling for a complete permanent ban on all muslims, and hes not even going as far as deporting legal muslim immigrants already here, he simply wants to halt immigration from known terror hotbeds until we can develop a more efficient vetting system.
As for your point about the Europeans stealing land from the Natives. What Europeans? Are you talking about the English? The French? The Spanish? And what Natives are you talking about? Are you talking about the Navajo or the Hopi? The Cherokee or the Blackfoot? All the "Natives" were many different groups that killed and pillaged and conquested each others land far before any Europeans came, as a matter of fact, alot of the time Europeans were very diplomatic with native tribes. Making deals and treaties, and exchanging goods. The problem was disease that tge Europeans brought over with them. That killed many tribesmen.
And as for your whole point on Central America and everything, to solely blame the US government for all the violence every other country faces is a little hyperbolic. Not that the US doesnt make horrible foreign policy decisions, but every country has their own problems and their own forms of corruption without US involvement.
As for Honduras, they have no gun rights if i remember correctly, so that has something to do with it most likely but honestly it sounds like you are speaking very general. You havent given any specifics on how Zelaya was making life better for Hondurans or how US business interests caused so much violence in the country. Not to mention, are there any corrupt Hondurans to blame for this? Any collusion? Or did the fat cat corporatists have a gun to their heads the whole time?
And to answer your final question in short, no. What i mean is that anyone who comes here can come through a multitude of legal channels whether its work or tourist visas or by refugee(most central americans wont qualify for refugee status) or migrant status. Illegal immigrants cause illegal immigration problems. Does the US government need to change some policies? Sure. But bringing in masses of people and hurting the american taxpayer isnt a realistic solution to any distress we may have caused somewhere else on the earth, if that was the case, we would bring in half the world.
Using the words 'Trump' and 'libertarian' in the same context seems a bit of a stretch to me. Also, it's impossible to be objectively 'constitutional' on any issue, let alone issues like abortion and marijuana where the constitution says virtually nothing about them. If you look at issues that explicitly relate to the Bill of Rights, you'll find that Trump has essentially no regard for the First, Fourth, Fifth, or Tenth amendments.
I never said Trump was a constitutional scholar or some intellectual genius when it came to policy, but alot of his positions swing towards states rights, things like marijuana legalization, abortion, gay marriage others.
Then again, no candidate running is strictly constitutional at all. Trump is actually the most when it comes to policy. Johnson is bearing farther and farther left everyday, Clinton is clinton, and Stein is just too far left on far too many issues.
Trump is strong on Trade, immigration and foreign policy. So out of all the other main candidates, to me Trump is the best option. I encourage you to watch Trumps foreign policy speech entitled America First. It reminds me of something Ron Paul or Rand Paul would come up with.
I thought Trump was anti-Establishment, as well as wanting to distance us from the Zionist regime, but lately some of his statements make me very doubtful that he'll try to diminish the Zionist strangle hold on our country. My only hope left is either Bernie or Jill Stein (more so Jill Stein because she's openly said she supports both BDS as well as opposes any West Bank Settlements). Bernie doesn't seem to be support BDS, but he's said that he opposes the Zionist regime's under handed tactics against the Palestinian people.
Trump told the man: "Israel is a very, very important ally of the United States and we are going to protect them 100% -- 100%. It's our true friend over there."
Though I do come from Macedonia and I don't have any family records past the late 19th and beginning of the 20th century, I feel as though there should be more in countries like the UK and Germany.
So the Democrats don't actively oppose this as much as they should, but Israel funding is heavily tied to our military investments and the evangelical voting block. The Republican party is the one largely responsible for our support of Israel, but the Democrats definitely don't oppose it as much as they should.
They are a big player in world events and have a lobby group that is bigger than the entire us lobby. They were able to save 140 billion dollars during Germanies nationalism, yet were unable to save the 6 million people killed from disease and concentration killing system. Their elites that got the state and who's family still rules, cared more about the money than their own people, and now are doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to them. The medical companies that profited off the nazi experimentation now are owned by Jewish business men. It's a hot topic here because a lot of Israeli are wealthy and conspire with other elites to profit at the people's expense. I'm all for Israel existing, but not for their regime. No government should be religious before they are humanitarian. Separate religion from power and old wars from biblical days will end. Protecting their religion should be second to protecting their people. Also, they have a rotating door with big business, global banking Israel/ USA politics.
So you are saying they have a extremely influential lobby group that basically "convinces" people to give them money and the existing regime (looking at rothschild) wants the money?
You're for letting an obviously corrupt system systematically commit genocide and an invasion. You just sit there like, they deserve it. You're the sick fuck :)
Pretend? We know they kept them in jails or concentration camps. We know disease usually kills off large groups that are confined closely and lack proper sanitation and supplementation. It was real. It's just hard to imagine being able to save billions in assets and money and paintings, but not be able to save the people. Fishy for sure
Isn't Israel our biggest ally in the middle east? Islamic terrorism seems to be a hot topic and thus we need an ally in the middle east to help us combat that. I know that's not what you're hinting but I'm just playing devil's advocate.
It's all tied together. Trump will just be another scapegoat for the real elites. Or Hilary, it don't matter. To be one sided in this day is not a good idea I feel. Don't choose sides.
I think that their ignorance fuels the hypocrisy in this case.
I wonder how many of these people actually know that the US is giving Israel $40b this year or, hell, even that Israel has built a wall and expelled Muslims.
The same Communist Zionist Jews that force Europe to take in more Muslim Immigrants. The same one's that's forcing America to take more immigrants. The same one's that are forcing insane progressive liberalism. The same one's eroding our rights and trying to remove our gun's.
Well immigration is apparently good for Western countries. Not so much Israel. Muslims have also become more of a protected class than Homosexuals or Women in the past year.
And as i said before, his initial idea for a ban of muslims came in the wake of the attacks; and had he been the president, if any immigration wouldve stopped, it wouldve been stopped from specific nations, like he understands as he said in one of his recent speeches.
Furthermore, on average, according to many different intelligence communities, anywhere from 15 to 25 percent of the islamic community is radicalized and or extemeists. If you take 15 to 25 percent of 1.2 billion muslims in the entire world its any where from 300 to 400 million muslims that have radicalized ideology and or are extremists. Not too mention when muslims in western countries are polled about homosexuality being illegal or if suicide bombings are acceptable, usually about 50 percent agree and the younger generations actually tend to be even more radicalized.
Also this doesnt restrict people from practicing their religion, its just a vetting process to know who is coming in. But on another point i would like to ask you specifically is, Do you agree in sharia courts?
121 comments
54 The_gray_ghost 2016-07-02
The hypocrisy is disgusting. Also our leaders can give Israel 40 billion while telling residents of flint Michigan to basically fuck off. Let's see, we could help our own citizens not get lead poisoning after we lied to them about how bad it was or we could give Israel 40 billion to help them commit more genocide against Palestinians. Yep Israel really needs our help guys, give them what ever they want
15 RedditAdminsSuck_88 2016-07-02
It's because too many of our politicians are beholden completely to jews and Israeli interests. Israel has to come first, that's the only way they will be able to get their campaign dollars to run for re-election.
Taking AIPAC money as a politician is like selling your soul to the devil. You are basically fucking over your own constituents in order to be completely loyal to a foreign nation.
Politicians don't care about people drinking sewage in Flint because the people of Flint aren't lining their pockets with cash like AIPAC does.
Jews and Israel are responsible for pretty much all of our problems in the United States. We have so many homeless and hungry veterans and US Citizens who don't get any assistance, while money that could go to help them instead goes to Israel.
4 The_gray_ghost 2016-07-02
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the UN or someone like that just labeled Israel a nation that harbors terrorism yet we still give them billions every year. It's a shame what Zionism and greed has done to the west.
1 Stormy_knight 2016-07-02
Well they are the Synagogue of Satan. I mean there is only one religion that uses synagogues. And the 6-pointed star of Remphan.
1 PlumRugofDoom 2016-07-02
Elaborate? This sort of esoteric occultism is fascinating.
1 showmeurboobsplznthx 2016-07-02
https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/demystifying-us-and-israeli-power-by-susan-cain-and-mark-mason/
1 pby1000 2016-07-02
I am glad you said this. It really needs to be said.
1 Luggage-12345 2016-07-02
They did not give them $40 billion to do as they wish. The money only touches there banks for the short term. Then it comes right back to the USA and we sell them tanks and fighter jets for that money. It's a way to make the USA look good by aiding other countries (Jews in the USA love to think they are helping their brothers and sisters out especially). In reality some senator from some State is essentially giving tax dollars to the people that helped get him/her elected.
2 platinum_peter 2016-07-02
Money to help Flint would be spent on products and services in the USA, as well.
2 The_gray_ghost 2016-07-02
Why would we give them 40 billion dollars just so they can buy military equipment from us? With that flawed logic it makes more sense just to give them free weapons and other military supplies. Why arn't you concerned that the U.S. is yet again openly giving a nation of genocidal terrorists military aid that will be used to kill more innocent people? I don't give a fuck about shitty senators giving their sugar daddy Israel money for helping them get elected. It isn't fucking right and should not be rationalized as ok under any circumstances. Democracy fails because of people like you who lack critical thinking and reasoning skills.
2 showmeurboobsplznthx 2016-07-02
It's actually very true. The money goes to Raytheon, Northrup Grumman, Rafael, IMI, ISIS (Israeli secret intelligence services), Boeing, space x, applied sciences, Howell, kbr, halliburtin, IBM, Intel.... it's how corporations steal American tax money.
1 Luggage-12345 2016-07-02
Not rationalizing, I was educating the ignorant on this post that think the money is really going to Israel. You missed the point completely.
0 showmeurboobsplznthx 2016-07-02
They are loading them up with cache of weapons so if global war breaks out, we already have supplies there and only need to shuffle man power there.
1 Luggage-12345 2016-07-02
I could believe that.
0 Homer_Simpson_Doh 2016-07-02
This. They don't spend a dime on weapons.
3 Luggage-12345 2016-07-02
Sorry dude but Boeing and the other members of the military industrial complex are laughing at your ignorance for that comment.
2 jahmakinmecrazy 2016-07-02
They take the tax money from citizens, give to "allies" who spend it on tanks, moving money ultimately from unjust taxes to the military providers
1 Luggage-12345 2016-07-02
Perficty put my paragraph above into one simple sentence. Thank you!
2 showmeurboobsplznthx 2016-07-02
https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/demystifying-us-and-israeli-power-by-susan-cain-and-mark-mason/
1 Homer_Simpson_Doh 2016-07-02
Interesting take on the two. "Neo-colonial outpost" sounds like some cool future sci-fi novel.
1 showmeurboobsplznthx 2016-07-02
https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/demystifying-us-and-israeli-power-by-susan-cain-and-mark-mason/
1 showmeurboobsplznthx 2016-07-02
https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/demystifying-us-and-israeli-power-by-susan-cain-and-mark-mason/
15 Offal 2016-07-02
I bash em both. But that's just me.
1 showmeurboobsplznthx 2016-07-02
https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/demystifying-us-and-israeli-power-by-susan-cain-and-mark-mason/
11 kayjaylayray 2016-07-02
The next war should be with the zionist banking elite and those responsible for israel in the first place. They are the enemies of freedom both culturally and economically. They are the hypocrites behind multiculturalism and the complete eradication of European values and society.
9 peanutwrath66 2016-07-02
So much this. The problem (one of the many, rather) is that they control media and the flow of information to such a dramatic extent already, that it's going to take a miracle for people to wake up.
4 pby1000 2016-07-02
Agreed. I know I am having a good night when I go to post a comment, but it has already been posted. Less typing for me...
1 ronintetsuro 2016-07-02
Whoever declared that war would be declaring war on America. Since America is the military arm of that regime.
1 showmeurboobsplznthx 2016-07-02
https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/demystifying-us-and-israeli-power-by-susan-cain-and-mark-mason/
8 peanutwrath66 2016-07-02
The US is completely owned by Israel. It's freaking insane to see to what extent.
2 showmeurboobsplznthx 2016-07-02
https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/demystifying-us-and-israeli-power-by-susan-cain-and-mark-mason/
7 thedrumsofwar 2016-07-02
We give Israel 3.1 billion a year. Not 40 billion
2 showmeurboobsplznthx 2016-07-02
http://m.democracynow.org/headlines/2016/4/29/44965
4 thedrumsofwar 2016-07-02
This is over 10 years meaning there is 4 billion a year
2 HS_00 2016-07-02
Damn pesky facts....
2 NuclearSun1 2016-07-02
"military funding package to Israel that could top $40 billion over 10 years."
4 DrHenryPym 2016-07-02
Can't argue with that logic.
4 dks42 2016-07-02
As if Trump wouldn't support Israel. He loves rich people that put poor people behind walls, and would like to
leaddevelop business with them.6 [deleted] 2016-07-02
Trump just defended Israel recently.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/30/politics/donald-trump-israel-hijab/
0 dks42 2016-07-02
Oh the irony.
1 DrHenryPym 2016-07-02
What irony? He's doing the same thing as the country he is supporting.
2 peanutwrath66 2016-07-02
You have to look at Trumps stance on Israel in relation to Hillary Clintons. The latter is basically already an Israel-controlled robot.
1 ronintetsuro 2016-07-02
Trump says we have to protect Israel 100% because they are a very important ally in the region. Just like Clinton.
4 godlameroso 2016-07-02
But Hamas sends deadly rockets that completely level Israeli settlements.
3 Apocalypse_Gladiator 2016-07-02
Doesn't level much. At all.
2 godlameroso 2016-07-02
Look at the . In my last post to see the extent my sarcasm.
2 Apocalypse_Gladiator 2016-07-02
I saw it but didn't realize it was sarcasm. My bad!
1 showmeurboobsplznthx 2016-07-02
https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/demystifying-us-and-israeli-power-by-susan-cain-and-mark-mason/
2 cristi1990an 2016-07-02
True. Stop giving money to Israel and never elect Trump.
-1 DocHopper-- 2016-07-02
What don't you like about Trump besides the fact that he isn't politically-correct?
3 [deleted] 2016-07-02
Not the guy you were talking to but; I don't like how broadly he generalizes groups (Mexicans, Muslims). I don't like that he's for waterboarding.
That said I do not trust Hillary and it scares me that these are the options that people will mainly vote for.
-3 MediaMasquerade 2016-07-02
Trump is actually fairly constitutional on alot of issues. Marijuana, abortion gay marriage etc. Also somewhat libertarian. Yesi know he can come off authoritarian sometimes but its really only in terms of security.
1 [deleted] 2016-07-02
I see. Well I'm not very informed about him. Go figure that what I do know are the negatives since that's what the MSM highlights.
2 jav253 2016-07-02
That's a recurring theme with most Never Trumpers. They have only have heard the MSM narrative, and apparently believed it despite like 96% of Americans no longer trusting the MSM according to most polls.
It's true Trump is pro-Israel. But he is also more pro-America than any candidate we have had run since Ross Perot. It's his toughness on immigration, and trade that makes him so hated by the establishment. For once it would reverse the wealth transfer to elites/big corporations back to the working class.
0 [deleted] 2016-07-02
I can't tell if you meant it in this way but I never said I was a "Never Trumper". The person had asked what one dislikes about Trump and I just said a couple things I personally dislike. I even said I can't choose Hillary.
-1 MediaMasquerade 2016-07-02
Yes really i encourage you to read his website policies and listen to his America First foreign policy speech. He talks about non interventionism and better trade deals. Plus he talks about not buying into "the false song of globalism".
1 pby1000 2016-07-02
Banning a group based on religion is not even close to being Constitutional. Why not ban Christians and Jews, too?
1 CRITACLYSM 2016-07-02
Because they aren't blowing people up and chopping off their heads
1 pby1000 2016-07-02
Ummmm... They still kill people. Their technique may be different sometimes. Christians and Jews blow people up all the time. I am not aware of Christians and Jews beheading people.
0 MediaMasquerade 2016-07-02
I said most issues and Trump was talking about banning them until a proper vetting processis put in place. And when he originally came out with the idea, it was somewhat reactionary to an attack but he understands that you have to ban immigration from nations specifically instead of trying to ban just muslims.
Plus his stances on other issues are usually reserved to the states, like they should be under the constitution.
2 pby1000 2016-07-02
Fair enough. It should seem very unconstitutional and un-American to ban groups of people, in my opinion. I say that even about groups I disagree with.
0 MediaMasquerade 2016-07-02
Well thats a fair belief, but there is historical context. President Jimmy Carter halted immigration from Iranians back in the late 70s. Just recently actually, if you havent heard Venezuela is going through turmoil because their socialist government ran out of money, and people are starving causing mayhem. President Obama halted immigration from Venezuela.
So there is proper reasoning for this, by the way the constitution really doesnt say anything about this specifically, but the president does have legal authority to do this. And i dont believe the states really challenged the feds on it at all.
1 pby1000 2016-07-02
Right. It appears to be more Constitutional if the ban is not based on a protected class.
2 MediaMasquerade 2016-07-02
So are you pro open border? Are you for amnesty of illegal inmigrants?
Also, why is it unconstitutional for a president to restrict immigration from one area pf the world or a few countries? Immigration has always been limited.
2 SouthrnComfort 2016-07-02
Trump said he wants to ban immigration of Muslims. Key difference. There is a huge difference between being for open borders, supporting some sort of immigration system with restrictions, and banning an entire population of people from all over the world based on their religion because of the actions of a small minority of those who practice the same religion. I don't know about unconstitutional but it certainly does not align very well with the fact that there is supposed to be free practice of religion in the United States.
1 MediaMasquerade 2016-07-02
And as i said before, his initial idea for a ban of muslims came in the wake of the attacks; and had he been the president, if any immigration wouldve stopped, it wouldve been stopped from specific nations, like he understands as he said in one of his recent speeches.
Furthermore, on average, according to many different intelligence communities, anywhere from 15 to 25 percent of the islamic community is radicalized and or extemeists. If you take 15 to 25 percent of 1.2 billion muslims in the entire world its any where from 300 to 400 million muslims that have radicalized ideology and or are extremists. Not too mention when muslims in western countries are polled about homosexuality being illegal or if suicide bombings are acceptable, usually about 50 percent agree and the younger generations actually tend to be even more radicalized.
Also this doesnt restrict people from practicing their religion, its just a vetting process to know who is coming in. But on another point i would like to ask you specifically is, Do you agree in sharia courts?
1 SouthrnComfort 2016-07-02
So you haven't given a single reason why a general ban on all Muslim immigration, which he initially supported, is legitimate. Or why a ban on people from “areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies", as he now proposes, is legitimate when Muslims are, by far, the largest group of victims of Islamic terrorism. Plus, this is an incredibly broad statement that is typical of what Trump says about any issue - it's impossible to know what he actually supports.
As for support of Sharia courts? I fully support them as alternatives functioning alongside government judiciary systems in Muslim majority countries provided they do not infringe upon the basic human rights as defined by the UN. Hell, I'd even say that they shouldn't be outlawed even for small communities in non Muslim majority nations as long as there is strict regulation over the actions of the court (in this case, I would not at all support it as an alternative to traditional judiciary systems). Before you go in on how just such a system would be, that is a problem inherent in any type of judiciary system. It is also important to avoid ethnocentrism when you make judgments about Muslim majority nations. Most do not have significant Islam related issues even with Sharia courts in place.
1 MediaMasquerade 2016-07-02
Ok. First of all, banning immigration from any area or group isnt necessarily unconstitutional, primarily because there isnt anything in the constitution about it. So realistically this is a states rights decision, however i dont believe the states ever really challenged the feds on this particular issue. And as i said before, Trump recently came out with a speech describing the policy of limiting immigration from certain areas and not by restricting them by religion because its impossible to vet them that way.
Again you have to understand, in the past this has been done. Carter in the 70s with Iranians, Obama just this past year restricting immigration from Venezuela. So this is a legitmate policy, even if muslims are moreso victims of terrorism.
Of course they are, most of the places that radicalized terrorism comes from are usually islamic regions. Thats why Trump wants to restrict immigration from these regions, and this is the part people never remember Trump said, until we know what tge hell is going on. Meaning until we get a better vetting process so we know who everyone is that we bring in or allow in here. And that brings us to another issue which is the wall, but i digress on that.
As for sharia courts here is a link for you.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3682/uk-sharia-courts
First of all, i can agree with you that all systems can be unjust, almost inherently, however sharia courts are theocratic institutions; although in the UK not legally binding, in places like Saudi Arabia, they have sharia law, which is super extreme. They stone women to death, public beheadings, genital mutilation, honor killings, throw gays off of roofs. In total i believe there are 10 middle eastern countries that have sharia law.
But lets go back to your idea of restricting sharia courts so that they abide by UN human rights laws and things like that. Being how sharia law is an extreme part of islamic ideology, i find that restricting their religion so that it is forced to abide with our laws is far worse then restricting how many of them emigrate here. Realistically is not what you are saying unconstitutional? By not allowing muslims that want sharia courts to fully practice their religion, is that not unconstitutional? This is because it is an extreme ideology, and isnt compatible with western culture or law.
So thats why having a proper immigration vetting process and limiting the amount of people from these countries is a good idea. If you have large masses of people from these countries coming in, they dont tend to assimilate into western culture. Thats why the UK even has 83 sharia courts. Thats why Brexit was successful. Open borders and hardly any immigration restrictions cause ghettos to form in these countries, which make it impossible for assimilation to happen.
1 SouthrnComfort 2016-07-02
I can understand what you are saying about immigration. But the problem is, neither Carter nor Obama's bans were/are total bans that did not include exceptions. Trump has never even suggested this which is the problem.
As for Sharia law, far more than ten countries have some sort of Sharia law: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_country
Of course Saudi Arabia's is especially terrible. But Sharia law is most definitely not an extremist point of view. It is simply a part of Islam... And sometimes, as I think we all know, there is extremism in Islam and one way this manifests itself is as an extremist Sharia court.
As for unconstitutional in the United States, I think that it depends on how it is instituted by a mosque or Muslim community. It most definitely cannot be part of the judiciary process because of the separation of church and state. It also cannot violate the constitution and the many laws it has related to individual liberties and rights. It all boils down to how well or how poorly a religion is able to coexist with the dominant culture of a country.
1 MediaMasquerade 2016-07-02
First of all, Trump has clarified that a ban will be in place until we create a better vetting system so its not an out right ban forever by all means, to go along with this, Trump believes the best thing for these people are safe zones within their own countries. And not to mention that Trump isnt president yet, and had he been president he wouldve taken a far more legal route than what Obama has done in the past in regards to executive action. Also something to remember about Carters plan, he deported like 500 students, and this was on a basis of allegiance to the shiite leadership. Trump isnt calling for deportation of legal muslim immigrants who are already here, he is simply suggesting a halt on immigration from these places until a better vetting system is created.
As for sharia law being in more than 10 countries, i know that. I said there are 10 MIDDLE EASTERN countries with sharia law. And as for sharia law not being a extremist point of view, its just a part of Islam you said. But that is the whole point. Compared to western culture, sharia law is extreme, and if most of those who practice it could institute it to the full effect, they probably would.
And at the same time, if these people sue the government for not allowing them to freely practice their religion, what then? More than likely the only reason that most sharia courts in the UK have not been radicalized is because the muslim population is still a minority. This is why having a strong immigration program is good policy because we know that Islam in general is not compatible with western culture. You see it in places in Europe where migrants from these radicalized areas dont assimilate into the culture as i was ralking about in my last comment.
1 SouthrnComfort 2016-07-02
Christians can make the argument that if they rape a woman, she should become their wife based on religious texts. It's laughable to imagine them successfully suing the government because they don't allow this. While this is an extreme example, the separation of church and state as well as laws that may deem punishments doled out in Sharia courts would heavily restrict Sharia law. However, there is nothing restricting Muslims from utilizing Sharia courts in a legal way.
As for immigration reform, please give me an example of terrorism in the US perpetrated by a Middle Eastern born Muslim since 9/11. Once you realize that is impossible, then tell me what is so ineffective about current policies that justify banning one of the most threatened group of refugees in the world (Muslims in and around areas of ISIS control) right now from having a legal option to seek refuge in the US. Policies like this, well-intentioned or not, play right into the hands of fundamental Islamism by providing a "clear" (I don't believe this to be so but it can certainly appear this way) example of Islamaphobia which can, in turn, be used as Islamist recruitment material. Regardless of how morally reprehensible this is, we can't continue living in a dreamland where actions taken by the US can never have future implications or blowback. I think the current situation right now should be a lesson on that.
1 MediaMasquerade 2016-07-02
I agree that it would be laughable for a civil case to actually rule in their favor. However, just because sharia courts implement forms of sharia law legally, for example certain marriage issues, we must at the same time understand that that doesnt mean a majority of muslims would not want more extreme forms put in place. As a matter of fact fairly high percentages of certain muslim communities agree with extreme forms of sharia law in place of secular law. This just shows that yes some of the people can assimilate into our culture, mainly when they are small in numbers, but most of them agree with their own religion, which is not compatible.
As for your question for a foreign born muslim terrorist. Tashfeen Malik. She was the wife in the San Bernardino Shooting. She was born in Pakistan and is actually one of the main reasons her husband, a US born muslim, was radicalized. Also the Tsarnaev brothers as well, although they werent necessarily from the middle east. But thats why limiting immigration from areas known to be terror hotbeds is a smart thing to do.
But let me just reiterate this about Trumps policies. He has come out in a speech within the last month that calls for halting inmigration from certain regions that are known terror hotspots, until we can create a better vetting system. Not an outright permanent ban, not a call for deportations of legal muslims already in the US, just a halt of immigration from these areas until we can vet these people more efficiently.
For example, if i remember correctly, one of the suspects in the Brussels airport bombing was a migrant from Syria. He was actually in a documentary that was about refugee migration into Europe before the attack. Because ISIS has claimed that they exploit the migrant crisis so they can infiltrate western countries.
And about policies having blowback, i understand that. Thats primarily why we are in a geopolitical mess. But i think saying that not halting inmigration from terror hotspots and that we dont need to rethink our immigration policies and try to develop better methods is living in a dreamland. Also why does the US need to be a leading role in this migrant crisis? We are one of the largest suppliers of funds and aid and not too mention, there are other countries, much closer than the US that are of muslim majority that should be bearing some responsibility.
1 SouthrnComfort 2016-07-02
So the main thing to address here is why it's a responsibility of the US.
The US is the most powerful nation in the world and a big reason for that is the exploitation of the Middle East (and other regions). But the problems in the Middle East are clearly a result of near-sighted foreign policy, something that has become common knowledge based on how frequently this was discussed in both the GOP and Democratic Primary Debates.
So what does this mean? It's that the US not only created this mess but has gained power and influence by creating this mess. It's that the actions of the US more than any other country can be capitalized on to foster anti-Western attitudes. Halting all Middle Eastern immigration to the US is a lovely idea in a vacuum, where the only result is that we reduce the risk of allowing Islamists in. But that is not the only result... Islamists will undoubtedly use it to radicalize people and we also put more pressure on allies in Europe because, let's be real, especially what is going on in Syria is a super complicated issue that is essentially a proxy war involving ISIS along with the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia and friends, Iran, Iraq, etc. The potential benefits of banning Middle Eastern immigration absolutely pale in comparison to the potential issues it creates by driving a wedge between us and our allies AND giving our enemies more leverage.
The problem is not that Trump's proposed policy is even inherently Islamaphobic. It's that it's a display of a blatant lack of foresight and understanding of the most basic issues and players in this conflict. I don't pretend to know much but I know plenty to realize how dumb it is to support this policy proposed by Trump. And, let me make it clear that when I say this that I am not at all comparing any of this to the policies of any other current or future person who may be invested with similar power that he may end up with as president.
1 MediaMasquerade 2016-07-02
Ok so we can get past the foreign policy issue as I understand that the US is a primary factor in the destabilization of the region, and as to the feeling that because we are a primary cause, we should feel obligated to help. We have helped generously when it comes to both financial aid and migration.
But to hinder the american citizen that has also been affected by this destabilization, as far as family members lost and a huge amount of debt, it doesnt make sense. The cost of bringing in more migrants increases every year, just look at Europe for example. They had an open border policy and Angela Merkel and the EU advocated for more and more migrants to be brought in. Most of them are on welfare and or public housing assistance, not to mention the impact on local schools. And then you have the culture war, which you see in cases in Sweden and others, where because of the ghettoization, and the public financing which doesnt allow for assimilation, some of these muslims then commit horrendous sexual crimes, because they believe its ok. THIS is why Brexit was successful, nevermind all the other bullshit economic regulations.
So what is your solution? Halt the migration until you can develop a better system to vet these people, like Trump has advocated for; or do you just continue bringing them in, all the while knowing that ISIS and other extremists, ultimately the groups that were created upon the very destabilization we have caused, infiltrates the migrant groups and exploits loose immigration laws. Like weve seen in the Brussels attack.
And furthermore, about ISIS using this as propaganda, we can say the same things about open homosexuality in movies and television, we can say the same thing about scantily clad women in bikinis. It doesnt make sense to me that if there is an army of jihadis out there that hate our culture and want the world to live under sharia law, that we would just let them come in unvetted, as we have been doing. Rather than take some logical steps to prevent extremists from coming in.
1 SouthrnComfort 2016-07-02
The thing is, the US immigration system has been both highly effective and restrictive. What does a change do? It draws attention. It draws attention to a proposed policy that targets Muslims. This is also not simply having a culture that has some clashes with Middle Eastern Muslim culture (as is media depicting homosexuality, gender equality, and alcohol consumption) but it is targeting Middle Eastern Muslims. The fact that it targets said group is not disputable. And, as I said before, the negatives far outweigh the positives. Immigrants from the Middle East simply have not done anything to suggest that such a change in policy would actually provide significant additional protection to the American people.
1 MediaMasquerade 2016-07-02
As far as your comment on Americas immigration, we have total over 11 million undocumented immigrants, and over the course of obamas presidency weve brought in, if i remember correctly, about 1 million syrian refugees. Not to mention that alot of the times an illegal immigrant will commit a crime in the states, either be slapped on the wrist and let go or deported and only to show up again and commit the same crime 3 or 4 times. So our immigration and border security has been fairly lax for the past few years.
This is a link to a site that documents islamic terror attacks. Most of which occur in terror regions, like Iraq and Syria.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2015
And the thing about these policies, of course they are going to target muslims. Im not going to dispute that.These countries are areas with a very high muslim populations, and the goal is to keep Islamic extremists from exploiting the refugee crisis or our insecure borders. Islamic extremism is a form of Islam. Muslims believe in Islam. But we want a more efficient system to determine who the refugees are or what their full intentions are.
And its not necessarily about immigrants that came here before, even though there are examples, its about keeping the people who want to spread the idea of extremism off of our streets. The san bernardino shooters were islamic terrorists, the wife happened to be from Pakistan and is a big reason her husband was radicalized. The Tsarnaevs were islamic terrorists. The fort hood shooter Nidal Hassan was an islamic extremist. Omar Mateen, the shooter of the Orlando nightclub, was an islamic extremist. Although born and raised in the US, Omar associated his birthright to Afghanistan. So we know that extremist ideology runs rampant in these regions, and to let anyone come in without trying to determine who they are, where they are from, if they have a criminal record etc etc. Is not a realistic solution.
1 pby1000 2016-07-02
It depends on what you mean by "open border". For years, we have had seasonal workers come to the US for the harvest. They make money, then go home. Our food prices are lower because they do work that most Americans will not do. Both sides benefit, so what is the problem?
As for amnesty for illegal immigrants, it depends on what they are contributing. I know some Americans that I feel do not deserve to be in America for one reason or another. They were just lucky to be born here. They did not have to earn it.
I am a humanist, so that should explain my answers.
Also, I am aware that American foreign policy has made it difficult to impossible for people to make a decent living in their own country. There is a reason that certain countries are perpetually third world countries. It is not because the people are stupid. It is because it benefits corporate America to keep these countries down.
As for your last question, it is unconstitutional to discriminate against a protected class. This is law school 101, and every politician should know this. When a politician suggests something that is blatantly unconstitutional, then every citizen should be concerned. What will you do when the group you belong to is banned? Don't you want people like me to stand up for you, even though I am not neccessarily a member of the group being banned?
I am not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim, but I will speak up for them if someone tries to ban them.
Will you speak up for me when the group I am in is banned?
Have you read the poem "First they came..." By Pastor Martin Niemoller? It is on Wikipedia.
I did not downvote you, by the way. I do not downvote people who disagree with me, especially if the conversation is intelligent.
2 MediaMasquerade 2016-07-02
Ok as for work visas, this is fine. This is an example of having a limitation on immigration, and a decent one at that. Allowing unfortunate to come and work here and see the benefit of our system so they may want to assimilate into our culture, however one thing i dont understand is the whole "they pick our fruit so its cheap" argument. How is it cheaper and why dont americans want to do these jobs? Is it because migrants are paid less than minimum wage to pick fruit? If so that doesnt seem right, especially when an american citizen could do the same job. Especially when we have a high unemployment rate, young american kids could pick fruit.
As for amnesty, if there are people who are hard working and deserve to be here, why dont they go through the legal immigration process instead of skipping the line and making it harder for people who try to come here legally.
As for the question of banning muslims, Trumps initial idea was in the wake of terrorist attack and he has now come out with an official statement that calls for limiting immigration from certain nations and not necessarily groups of people as he understands it would be impossible to prove someone a muslim. This idea is not without merit as President Carter limited immigration from Iran and Obama just recently stopped immigration from Venezuela. And furthermore, Trump didnt originally call for an outright ban, he wanted to halt immigration until there was a better vetting process for people who come here from middle eastern countries, most of them being muslim.
Finally, i would just like to say that Trump and his supporters, well atleast 95 percent, agree with immigration. Legal immigration. We just dont want people to come here unvetted, not knowing who they are, what diseases they may have or what qualifications and skills they may or may not have to contribute to our society. Its a sign of disrespect to our ancestors who may have come here legally through ellis island, waiting just to pass inspections and certain tests and requirements so they could become legal citizens.
1 pby1000 2016-07-02
What about without work visas? I mean, what if a worker comes to the US illegally for the harvest season, then goes home when it is done. Would you allow this, or no?
My understanding is that most Americans will not do farm work because it is very difficult and dirty, and low paying by American standards.
It is a good point about pay, but I think the migrant workers make more than they would if they stayed at home. This has to be true to make it worth it. These people are not dumb.
I suppose it is important to distinguish between "banning Muslims" and "banning people from Iran". People from Iran are not a protected class under the US Constitution. Muslims are. Perhaps Trump should choose his words more carefully. Why don't we just ban terrorists? Why ban the good people and the bad? We can just ban the bad people, right?
As for your take on immigration, don't forget that the original Europeans came here and stole the land from the Natives.
Another point that is interesting to consider is that a lot of illegal immigrants come to the US to escape the violence in their home country. This violence is caused by the US government. Examples include Central America. Should we just ship these people back to die? Perhaps we can stop causing the violence in these countries.
Honduras is a great example. El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala are others. Zelaya was the democratically elected President of Honduras, but was overthrown in 2009 in a US supported coup. His crime was that he was making life better for the people of Honduras, but this is not allowed because it negatively affects US corporate business interests-there is less of a profit for American companies. I think we can agree that if Zelaya can make life better for the people of Honduras, then they are less likely to want to illegally immigrate to the US. Do you agree?
Does the US cause its own illegal immigration problem?
1 MediaMasquerade 2016-07-02
As for the question of work visas, no. The point is, if someone doesnt go through some proper legal channel, then they are illegal, and have no right to be here. Either they come through on refugee status, work visas or some naturalization process or else its not fair to the citizens or the other inmigrants who are patiently going through the legal process. If so, what would be the point in having any border or immigration laws or standards at all?
And as far as americans not doing that kind of work because its dirty and because of the pay is a simple exaggeration. Most of the reason why these are low paying jobs is because deals like NAFTA allow companies to hire visa workers and migrant workers(and illegals) at a lower salary, which fucks the american worker.
As for Trumps policy, let me reiterate this. In the past month, Trump did a speech that called for halting immigration from known terror regions, because you cant legitemately vet someone by religion, he understands that. So this is something similar to what Carter did, however one thing Carter did that no one talks about is that he actually deported about 500 people. Trump isnt calling for a complete permanent ban on all muslims, and hes not even going as far as deporting legal muslim immigrants already here, he simply wants to halt immigration from known terror hotbeds until we can develop a more efficient vetting system.
As for your point about the Europeans stealing land from the Natives. What Europeans? Are you talking about the English? The French? The Spanish? And what Natives are you talking about? Are you talking about the Navajo or the Hopi? The Cherokee or the Blackfoot? All the "Natives" were many different groups that killed and pillaged and conquested each others land far before any Europeans came, as a matter of fact, alot of the time Europeans were very diplomatic with native tribes. Making deals and treaties, and exchanging goods. The problem was disease that tge Europeans brought over with them. That killed many tribesmen.
And as for your whole point on Central America and everything, to solely blame the US government for all the violence every other country faces is a little hyperbolic. Not that the US doesnt make horrible foreign policy decisions, but every country has their own problems and their own forms of corruption without US involvement.
As for Honduras, they have no gun rights if i remember correctly, so that has something to do with it most likely but honestly it sounds like you are speaking very general. You havent given any specifics on how Zelaya was making life better for Hondurans or how US business interests caused so much violence in the country. Not to mention, are there any corrupt Hondurans to blame for this? Any collusion? Or did the fat cat corporatists have a gun to their heads the whole time?
And to answer your final question in short, no. What i mean is that anyone who comes here can come through a multitude of legal channels whether its work or tourist visas or by refugee(most central americans wont qualify for refugee status) or migrant status. Illegal immigrants cause illegal immigration problems. Does the US government need to change some policies? Sure. But bringing in masses of people and hurting the american taxpayer isnt a realistic solution to any distress we may have caused somewhere else on the earth, if that was the case, we would bring in half the world.
1 idiotsandsavages 2016-07-02
Using the words 'Trump' and 'libertarian' in the same context seems a bit of a stretch to me. Also, it's impossible to be objectively 'constitutional' on any issue, let alone issues like abortion and marijuana where the constitution says virtually nothing about them. If you look at issues that explicitly relate to the Bill of Rights, you'll find that Trump has essentially no regard for the First, Fourth, Fifth, or Tenth amendments.
1 MediaMasquerade 2016-07-02
What i mean by constitutional is he defers power to the states on most issues. Like its supposed to be according to the constitution.
1 [deleted] 2016-07-02
[deleted]
1 MediaMasquerade 2016-07-02
I never said Trump was a constitutional scholar or some intellectual genius when it came to policy, but alot of his positions swing towards states rights, things like marijuana legalization, abortion, gay marriage others.
Then again, no candidate running is strictly constitutional at all. Trump is actually the most when it comes to policy. Johnson is bearing farther and farther left everyday, Clinton is clinton, and Stein is just too far left on far too many issues.
Trump is strong on Trade, immigration and foreign policy. So out of all the other main candidates, to me Trump is the best option. I encourage you to watch Trumps foreign policy speech entitled America First. It reminds me of something Ron Paul or Rand Paul would come up with.
2 hawksaber 2016-07-02
I thought Trump was anti-Establishment, as well as wanting to distance us from the Zionist regime, but lately some of his statements make me very doubtful that he'll try to diminish the Zionist strangle hold on our country. My only hope left is either Bernie or Jill Stein (more so Jill Stein because she's openly said she supports both BDS as well as opposes any West Bank Settlements). Bernie doesn't seem to be support BDS, but he's said that he opposes the Zionist regime's under handed tactics against the Palestinian people.
2 [deleted] 2016-07-02
He supports Israel.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/30/politics/donald-trump-israel-hijab/
1 [deleted] 2016-07-02
[deleted]
1 CRITACLYSM 2016-07-02
Though I do come from Macedonia and I don't have any family records past the late 19th and beginning of the 20th century, I feel as though there should be more in countries like the UK and Germany.
Something's fucky.
2 antiward 2016-07-02
So the Democrats don't actively oppose this as much as they should, but Israel funding is heavily tied to our military investments and the evangelical voting block. The Republican party is the one largely responsible for our support of Israel, but the Democrats definitely don't oppose it as much as they should.
1 showmeurboobsplznthx 2016-07-02
https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/demystifying-us-and-israeli-power-by-susan-cain-and-mark-mason/
1 SoulofThesteppe 2016-07-02
Why do alot of things seem to come back to Israel?
0 showmeurboobsplznthx 2016-07-02
They are a big player in world events and have a lobby group that is bigger than the entire us lobby. They were able to save 140 billion dollars during Germanies nationalism, yet were unable to save the 6 million people killed from disease and concentration killing system. Their elites that got the state and who's family still rules, cared more about the money than their own people, and now are doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to them. The medical companies that profited off the nazi experimentation now are owned by Jewish business men. It's a hot topic here because a lot of Israeli are wealthy and conspire with other elites to profit at the people's expense. I'm all for Israel existing, but not for their regime. No government should be religious before they are humanitarian. Separate religion from power and old wars from biblical days will end. Protecting their religion should be second to protecting their people. Also, they have a rotating door with big business, global banking Israel/ USA politics.
1 SoulofThesteppe 2016-07-02
So you are saying they have a extremely influential lobby group that basically "convinces" people to give them money and the existing regime (looking at rothschild) wants the money?
0 [deleted] 2016-07-02
[removed]
1 Sabremesh 2016-07-02
Removed. Rule 4.
0 showmeurboobsplznthx 2016-07-02
You're for letting an obviously corrupt system systematically commit genocide and an invasion. You just sit there like, they deserve it. You're the sick fuck :)
0 [deleted] 2016-07-02
[removed]
1 showmeurboobsplznthx 2016-07-02
Where did I say that?
1 [deleted] 2016-07-02
[removed]
1 SovereignMan 2016-07-02
Rule 10. Removed.
1 SovereignMan 2016-07-02
Rule 10. No personal attacks. Removed. 1st warning.
0 brotherjustincrowe 2016-07-02
FTFY
1 showmeurboobsplznthx 2016-07-02
Pretend? We know they kept them in jails or concentration camps. We know disease usually kills off large groups that are confined closely and lack proper sanitation and supplementation. It was real. It's just hard to imagine being able to save billions in assets and money and paintings, but not be able to save the people. Fishy for sure
-5 [deleted] 2016-07-02
Isn't Israel our biggest ally in the middle east? Islamic terrorism seems to be a hot topic and thus we need an ally in the middle east to help us combat that. I know that's not what you're hinting but I'm just playing devil's advocate.
5 pby1000 2016-07-02
The Israelis are not our allies. The Israelis care about the Israelis. To think otherwise is very naive.
1 SoulofThesteppe 2016-07-02
no i mean, I don't come to this sub often, but it seemed Israel is a common theme.
1 [deleted] 2016-07-02
Gotcha. Well like I said they are an ally in an important region and also they heavily lobby our politicians.
1 bangdoode 2016-07-02
It's all tied together. Trump will just be another scapegoat for the real elites. Or Hilary, it don't matter. To be one sided in this day is not a good idea I feel. Don't choose sides.
1 [deleted] 2016-07-02
I think that their ignorance fuels the hypocrisy in this case.
I wonder how many of these people actually know that the US is giving Israel $40b this year or, hell, even that Israel has built a wall and expelled Muslims.
1 loztriforce 2016-07-02
Those aren't the same people that give Israel money. Come on
1 showmeurboobsplznthx 2016-07-02
Yea it is. Hillary Clinton is a very good person on that side. Bashes Trump's wall and plan to expel Muslims, while receiving money from AIPAC
1 HS_00 2016-07-02
The same people benefit from Israel's wall and America's lack thereof.
1 Apocalypse_Gladiator 2016-07-02
Palestinians mostly, but absolutely agree.
1 SouthrnComfort 2016-07-02
For most people not wielding a huge amount of power or influence, it's far more ignorance than hypocrisy.
1 DrSultanPhDD 2016-07-02
Nice argument, I'll add this to my arsenal.
1 showmeurboobsplznthx 2016-07-02
https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/demystifying-us-and-israeli-power-by-susan-cain-and-mark-mason/
0 sadmep 2016-07-02
Negative, I'm a counter-example that bashes both.
-1 Volgaar 2016-07-02
The same Communist Zionist Jews that force Europe to take in more Muslim Immigrants. The same one's that's forcing America to take more immigrants. The same one's that are forcing insane progressive liberalism. The same one's eroding our rights and trying to remove our gun's.
-1 noni2k 2016-07-02
Nope I support trump and Israel. Check Mate.
-3 jav253 2016-07-02
Well immigration is apparently good for Western countries. Not so much Israel. Muslims have also become more of a protected class than Homosexuals or Women in the past year.
-4 olican101 2016-07-02
I wasnt aware that USA were constantly getting bombed and invaded by Mexico... TIL...
1 MediaMasquerade 2016-07-02
And as i said before, his initial idea for a ban of muslims came in the wake of the attacks; and had he been the president, if any immigration wouldve stopped, it wouldve been stopped from specific nations, like he understands as he said in one of his recent speeches.
Furthermore, on average, according to many different intelligence communities, anywhere from 15 to 25 percent of the islamic community is radicalized and or extemeists. If you take 15 to 25 percent of 1.2 billion muslims in the entire world its any where from 300 to 400 million muslims that have radicalized ideology and or are extremists. Not too mention when muslims in western countries are polled about homosexuality being illegal or if suicide bombings are acceptable, usually about 50 percent agree and the younger generations actually tend to be even more radicalized.
Also this doesnt restrict people from practicing their religion, its just a vetting process to know who is coming in. But on another point i would like to ask you specifically is, Do you agree in sharia courts?
1 Luggage-12345 2016-07-02
I could believe that.