Originally Posted by Ele
While you're here, whadda ya reckon about the travel ban Hawkes?
I didn't see this when it was posted and didn't have a chance to reply until now due to my schedule. I don't have anything to say that hasn't been said by Oracle already. I believe that it's absolutely useless and only serves to piss law-abiding people off.
Originally Posted by Parrot
In all reality, his views on immigration I feel are more than justified. Our vetting process at the moment is pretty fucking terrible, which is why the travel ban was first put into place. America needs time to fix the horrid process, and make it safer for our OWN people, before we begin dealing with other people.
While I believe that it's important to take care of your own country's citizens before taking on the problems of other people, the way that Trump and his administration are going about trying to solve those problems, both foreign and domestic is all wrong. A travel ban and adding even more security measures for immigrants and refugees on top of what Oracle already outlined above will not add security and only creates more work for the people that would have to carry them out.
Originally Posted by Parrot
Being here legally is perfectly fine in my books. It's the Illegal ones that are the issues. Some people come here, don't register, and are like ghosts. Their children go to public education, and since undocumented illegal aliens don't pay taxes, a larger sum of money is now required from everyone else to pay for these children.
A fairly common counterpoint to this is that these illegal immigrants tend to take very difficult but also low-paying jobs, thus saving the business money. However since that money is considered part of its profits, that money is taxed. Theoretically there is a tipping point where having enough underpaid employees increases profits enough that the tax taken from profits is more than legal employees would be taxed individually from their incomes. I have not seen enough research on this topic to determine whether it would be worth it for a business, and I personally believe that underpaying illegal immigrants is akin to slavery.
Originally Posted by Parrot
Lastly, if you don't live in America, your opinions are pretty much null and void unless you have a steady knowledge of our politics and infrastructure, outside of all media of course.
That is an extremely narrow minded view of how discussions work and is very disrespectful to those who wish to actually talk about issues instead of insulting their opponents. I would much rather value the opinion of a Dutch guy who has a degree in political science than the opinion of Amos the Tennessee hick who gets all his news from his uncle Crazy Earl. I realize those are extremes, but based on my experiences, in general, people outside of the US are more informed and involved than US citizens, which is disappointing.
Originally Posted by Flow
That is only an avoidable situation if ALL refugees are taken, which is a worse problem. Taking out a large number of the non radicalized members of a population leaves a higher ratio of radicals, leading to more conversion.
It's not a question of overwhelming one side or the other with numbers, it's a question of wanting to help people in a bad situation get out of that bad situation. Even if it was about numbers, it still wouldn't matter. If a potential refugee gets denied simply because they live in a certain country, don't you think they're going to get mad at the denier? If they were neutral to the conflict before, that might push them to fight against the US, or at the very least become more open to listening to the arguments from the rebels.
Originally Posted by Flow
Originally Posted by OracleWhen, if ever, will we allow immigration from these countries? What stops these radicalized individuals from getting citizenship in another country then applying for a tourism visa in these less scrutinized countries?
Why is it infeasible to stop immigration from countries with known terrorist connections until those terrorist groups are no longer a threat? Nothing will or ever has been able to stop them from coming through other countries, one hole in the wall doesn't mean you tear the whole thing down.
you quoted exactly why it's infeasible. If someone is really determined to get somewhere, they will find a way, legally, "legally," or illegally. You don't patch a hole in a boat with a piece of paper and some glue. I don't know what the best option is, but I do know it's not this.
Originally Posted by Flow
Again, if there are enough non-radicals in a country, they can help better their country rather than abandoning it to the terrorists.
Just because they aren't radicalized doesn't mean that they're on our side, or even against who we're fighting.
Originally Posted by Flow
Of course there should be support in place for second generation immigrants, that doesn't mean we should make more of them.
You do know that second-generation immigrant is referring to the grandchild of the actual immigrant? Which means it takes a MINIMUM of 28 years to make one. A lot can happen in that time, including proper guidance on culture differences and acceptance of the values of the country they are residing in.
Originally Posted by Flow
When 0.5% of the population commits almost half of the terrorist acts in a country, it's probably not random coincidence.
This is the only thing I agree on. While it's possible it's just random chance, the evidence against that possibility is very strong. However, it is not right to deny everyone of a certain culture or region simply because a few bad people wanted to cause some mayhem.
All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That’'s how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
you quoted exactly why it's infeasible. If someone is really determined to get somewhere, they will find a way, legally, "legally," or illegally. You don't patch a hole in a boat with a piece of paper and some glue. I don't know what the best option is, but I do know it's not this.
Just because there is a legal, difficult route doesn't mean we should open an easy route as well.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
It's not a question of overwhelming one side or the other with numbers, it's a question of wanting to help people in a bad situation get out of that bad situation. Even if it was about numbers, it still wouldn't matter. If a potential refugee gets denied simply because they live in a certain country, don't you think they're going to get mad at the denier? If they were neutral to the conflict before, that might push them to fight against the US, or at the very least become more open to listening to the arguments from the rebels.... ...Just because they aren't radicalized doesn't mean that they're on our side, or even against who we're fighting.
What stops them from realizing the source of their denial of refugee status and turning on them instead?
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
You do know that second-generation immigrant is referring to the grandchild of the actual immigrant? Which means it takes a MINIMUM of 28 years to make one. A lot can happen in that time, including proper guidance on culture differences and acceptance of the values of the country they are residing in.
"The term first-generation, as it pertains to a person's nationality or residency in a country, can imply two possible meanings, depending on context:
A native-born citizen or resident of a country whose parents are foreign born (such that the citizen's or resident's parents would be the "'zeroth generation", e.g., "first-generation" American,
A foreign born citizen or resident who has immigrated to a new country of residence, e.g., "first-generation" migrant.
This ambiguity is captured and corroborated in The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "generation":
...designating a member of the first (or second, etc.) generation of a family to do something or live somewhere; spec. designating a naturalized immigrant or a descendant of immigrant parents, esp. in the United States.... ...There is no universal consensus on which of these meanings is always intended... ...The term "second-generation" extends the concept of first-generation by one generation. As such, the term exhibits the same type of ambiguity as "first-generation," as well as additional ones."
I was referring to the children of immigrants.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
This is the only thing I agree on. While it's possible it's just random chance, the evidence against that possibility is very strong. However, it is not right to deny everyone of a certain culture or region simply because a few bad people wanted to cause some mayhem.
The alternative is letting them in, where they can form separate communities within the United States and refuse to integrate if they feel like it. See Sweden, France, and Germany.
Originally Posted by Flow
I pointed out the link between refugees and terrorism. Just because it doesn't fit into the narrow framework you set up purposely to deny any and all evidence to the contrary doesn't mean you're right.
Originally Posted by Ele
You can make an argument that it's the 2nd generation Islamic citizens that are doing harm, and there's definitely some truth in that, but that's a separate issue and beside the point that Oracle was talking about.
Your level of reading comprehension is problematic. I accepted the premise of your argument. What I denied was that your argument countered Oracle's claim that there haven't been any terrorist attacks causing death perpetrated by refugees.
---
Here's a question for you - How on earth does a temporary ban on Muslims refugees (which only angers the moderates) from those specific countries stop parts of the 2nd generation from becoming radicalised?
Imagine you were a Christian and now your government says 'These Christians are a problem' and the government bans them from immigrating. Be honest, do you think this will make Christians living in your country happy or not happy? Not happy, clearly. Now, extend this one step further. Are people who are content and happy more or less likely to become radicalised than people who aren't? The answer is obvious.
The ban does not engender peaceful relations. It angers the moderates in the country, the exact voices that we need to be winning over and propping up as the legitimate form of Islam.
Originally Posted by Flow
Again, if there are enough non-radicals in a country, they can help better their country rather than abandoning it to the terrorists
You understand the need to win over the moderates, but fail to recognise that banning their relatives from joining them in the USA does not achieve this. You make friends by being friendly - The 'muslim' ban is not friendly.
Additionally, the ban doesn't just stop legal immigration by radicals, it stops legal immigration by moderates - And in far greater numbers. It stops a lot more potential allies from entering the country, than it does stop radicals.
I don't think you've thought this through at all.
Last edited by Ele; Mar 11, 2017 at 04:39 AM.
Originally Posted by Ele
Here's a question for you - How on earth does a temporary ban on Muslims refugees (which only angers the moderates) from those specific countries stop parts of the 2nd generation from becoming radicalised?
By giving us enough time to deal with the root of terrorism rather than the problems happening in our own countries. Bringing in more refugees puts more strain on whatever programs are in place to help them resettle and removes the need for them to integrate as well.
Originally Posted by Ele
Imagine you were a Christian and now your government says 'These Christians are a problem' and the government bans them from immigrating. Be honest, do you think this will make Christians living in your country happy or not happy? Not happy, clearly. Now, extend this one step further. Are people who are content and happy more or less likely to become radicalised than people who aren't? The answer is obvious.
All you need to do is make the people understand the reason they can't come to the US. Anyone choosing to be angry at a country that doesn't want its citizens killed is already in a terrorist mindset. I wouldn't be angry if there were a group of my people murdering people and was banned from a country as a result. That's a perfectly reasonable reaction, self preservation comes before aiding others.
Originally Posted by Ele
The ban does not engender peaceful relations. It angers the moderates in the country, the exact voices that we need to be winning over and propping up as the legitimate form of Islam.
You understand the need to win over the moderates, but fail to recognise that banning their relatives from joining them in the USA does not achieve this. You make friends by being friendly - The 'muslim' ban is not friendly.
Additionally, the ban doesn't just stop legal immigration by radicals, it stops legal immigration by moderates - And in far greater numbers. It stops a lot more potential allies from entering the country, than it does stop radicals.
I don't think you've thought this through at all.
What does importing moderates do for the US? Absolutely nothing that any other immigrant from any other country would. You're assuming that people are so ignorant as to not understand the cause of the ban while also somehow knowing about it.
Originally Posted by Flow
By giving us enough time to deal with the root of terrorism rather than the problems happening in our own countries. Bringing in more refugees puts more strain on whatever programs are in place to help them resettle and removes the need for them to integrate as well.
Twofold response. First, clarify what you believe to be the root of terrorism. Because domestic terrorism is still a thing, so if the root of terrorism is not a "problem happening in our own countries" then domestic terrorism should not exist. Terrorism is not imported from any specific group of people, country, or ideology.
And you don't exactly sound like you understand what it's like as an immigrant. People who immigrate will naturally congregate together with similar groups as a way to support each other, but that doesn't mean they become isolated from the rest of society. The need to integrate does not diminish because of a larger population of immigrants. Interaction is still required with the rest of society. If anything, a larger immigrant population can actually make integration easier because it provides a social structure for new immigrants to rely on. A new immigrant who has a community they can turn to for assistance is an immigrant that is more likely to become well adjusted.
Originally Posted by Flow
All you need to do is make the people understand the reason they can't come to the US. Anyone choosing to be angry at a country that doesn't want its citizens killed is already in a terrorist mindset. I wouldn't be angry if there were a group of my people murdering people and was banned from a country as a result. That's a perfectly reasonable reaction, self preservation comes before aiding others.
OK, now let me explain as to why that reason rings hollow. My country has been torn apart because of another country coming in, declaring war against our country, destroying my country's infrastructure, killing thousands of my fellow countrymen, imposing martial law while they occupied the country, then left rapidly, thus destabilizing the region and allowing more dangerous groups to fill in the power vacuum they created, causing this same country to return and conduct war again, killing thousands more civilians in the name of bringing "peace" to the region. Yet this very country demonizes us by associating us with the very group who oppresses us, despite supposedly trying to rid us of them. This country furthermore refuses to take responsibility for the destruction they have brought upon the region, and seeks to punish us further by not letting us escape the hell hole they have created.
So now plant yourself in these shoes. When you see your family and friends die, and the country who brought it all upon them now refuses you because of "self-preservation", I would be livid. The hypocrisy of it alone is maddening.
"Anyone choosing to be angry at a country that doesn't want it's citizens killed is already in a terrorist mindset." If you truly agree with that statement, then you're as much a terrorist as the next suicide bomber. Radical Islam is not a country, yet you will punish countries for being the war zone where radical Islam terrorizes the citizenry.
Originally Posted by Flow
What does importing moderates do for the US? Absolutely nothing that any other immigrant from any other country would. You're assuming that people are so ignorant as to not understand the cause of the ban while also somehow knowing about it.
And you're assuming that everybody will just accept the reasons behind the ban. As I've mentioned above, it's easy to say that the reasons should be understood in the safety of a stable country. Those reasons don't hold any water for the family fleeing a war zone.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
