Immigration policies have had a long tradition of "discriminating" based on needed SKILLS, EDUCATION levels, CRIMINAL background, HEALTH factors, and a host of other things.
Nice try. No cigar...
Terrorist attacks in Paris.
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Immigration policies have had a long tradition of "discriminating" based on needed SKILLS, EDUCATION levels, CRIMINAL background, HEALTH factors, and a host of other things.
Nice try. No cigar...
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Good grief.
Because NONE of those are in the Constitution. The Constitution prohibits us from excluding immigrants based on religion.
Do you even remember how this country was founded? It was founded by immigration from religious persecution, for religious freedom. Your position here goes directly against the Constitution and the founding principles of our country.
You are making clear that I always suspected you believed: the Constitution only matters if you are white, male, conservative and a gun owner. For everyone else, it's a healthy sod off.
Because NONE of those are in the Constitution. The Constitution prohibits us from excluding immigrants based on religion.
Do you even remember how this country was founded? It was founded by immigration from religious persecution, for religious freedom. Your position here goes directly against the Constitution and the founding principles of our country.
You are making clear that I always suspected you believed: the Constitution only matters if you are white, male, conservative and a gun owner. For everyone else, it's a healthy sod off.
I was referring to the fact France has been letting Muslims f-l-o-w into the country. Presently, Muslims stand at something like 7.5 percent of the French population...meaning France has one of, if not THEE largest Muslim populations in Western Europe.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Most of whom are Algerian or North African, which France has a unique history with and which you seem entirely ignorant of since it is the primary driver of the large percentage of the French population that is Muslim.
I can't answer you Larry because I can't see a way that Muslims could be excluded in a manner that would permit the host country to retain it's humanity. Isn't that what we are 'fighting' for? Our sense of fairness and humanity?
To me, what you ask is a contradiction of our own beliefs..
To me, what you ask is a contradiction of our own beliefs..
For Pete
From David Cameron today:
Mr Cameron said that the "disease of Islamist extremist violence is a challenge we have to face".
He insisted it was "very important that we carry on with our lives" when pressed on whether he would be happy to take his children to the England France football friendly on Tuesday.
"Our freedom depends on showing resolve and carrying on with our way of life, which is exactly what we ought to do."
He's spelt it out here but should be wary of over egging the pudding.
From David Cameron today:
Mr Cameron said that the "disease of Islamist extremist violence is a challenge we have to face".
He insisted it was "very important that we carry on with our lives" when pressed on whether he would be happy to take his children to the England France football friendly on Tuesday.
"Our freedom depends on showing resolve and carrying on with our way of life, which is exactly what we ought to do."
He's spelt it out here but should be wary of over egging the pudding.
Why is it that some people need to attack forum members instead of just stating the facts or thoughts? We are not at war with one another.
From purely an outside USA perspective Al, that's exactly what the perception seems to be....
The Constitution "prohibits" a lot of things. I doubt one of them is refusing entry those whose religion commands them to kill anyone who doesn't believe as they do. At that point you're looking at a national security reason to refuse entry.
It's all in how one chooses to 'i-n-t-e-r-p-r-e-t' the constitution, innit. After all, that's how the CLEAR DISCRIMINATION that permeates "Affirmative Action" was found to be "constitutional", wasn't it.
Howard Jones
Supporter
Larry, We don't NEED France. We need US! If it takes France to force US (Obama) to live up to our NATO obligations then fine. Whatever it takes. By the way I think they did in gulf war 1 and 2 didn't they?
How about trying to see the LOGIC behind excluding them instead? How about focusing on the health and well-being of the host county's "humanity" (AKA, citizens) and the security of the country instead?
All agreed Larry. A balanced response has to be found, and in the meantime:
Paris attacks: US states halt taking Syrian refugees - BBC News
Paris attacks: US states halt taking Syrian refugees - BBC News
There's no QUESTION we know how m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of Muslims have chosen to interpret both...is there.
^^^And none too soon.^^^
Bringing Syrian "refugees" into the U.S. is YET ANOTHER of Obama's "p.c." based policies I screamed against from the get-go...right here too, as I recall. I said it was STUPID then, I STILL say it's stupid NOW...and it IS. The obvious security risk is undeniable.
Edit: I gotta go take 'the boss' out to breakfast...carry on...
Last edited:
Larry, you have steadfastly defended the right of individuals to bear arms as stated in our constitution. Would you deny that right to Muslims in our country? If so, to me that's just blatant religious discrimination and not defensible in our country.
As for the right of individuals to bear arms...there are a WHOLE LOT of Muslims in Europe, Africa and the orient who do have their own weapons...the recent event in France certainly shows how that can go awry :idea:
C'mon, buddy...you certainly can't have your breakfast and eat it, too...
Cheers!!
Doug
As for the right of individuals to bear arms...there are a WHOLE LOT of Muslims in Europe, Africa and the orient who do have their own weapons...the recent event in France certainly shows how that can go awry :idea:
C'mon, buddy...you certainly can't have your breakfast and eat it, too...
Cheers!!
Doug
...and, further...since you are such a strict constitutionalist, you most assuredly know that when the founding fathers amended the constitution it was to ensure that the Brittish could not seize the very weapons that we Americans needed to ensure our ability to fight against tyranny...remember that at that time our " militia" was made up of citizens as we did not have a governmental militia. Fast forward to today...how do you expect Muslims to defend their religious beliefs if they are deprived of the very same instruments our founding fathers used to defend theirs?
What you propose is religious discrimination...clearly.
Now... I WOULD support some sort of immigrant "quarantine" period, based on affiliation with extremists, if they want to enter our country...to give our government the time necessary to ensure that they are not a threat to security...but not based on religion. Our founding fathers would surely be aghast should you suggest such criterion!!!
Doug
What you propose is religious discrimination...clearly.
Now... I WOULD support some sort of immigrant "quarantine" period, based on affiliation with extremists, if they want to enter our country...to give our government the time necessary to ensure that they are not a threat to security...but not based on religion. Our founding fathers would surely be aghast should you suggest such criterion!!!
Doug
Last edited:
Guys'n'gals...the bottom line for me is that the Jihadists are hell bent on world domination based on religious beliefs with which I simply disagree...but since their aspirations ARE worldwide, it is my belief that the only effective response must BE world-wide to be legitimate and effective.
I agree with what HC said recently...we are not at war with Islam, we are at war with Jihadists.
How can we help that happen?
Doug
I agree with what HC said recently...we are not at war with Islam, we are at war with Jihadists.
How can we help that happen?
Doug
Similar threads
