And yet millions of Muslims in America are literally not killing the non-believers in the country.
1 Like
Not so fast. Most Muslims are not out to harm us. However, it seems that every terrorist attack is by Muslims who are more radical then their brethren.
Ha…yeah but there are no conservatives running around blowing people up. So, that is a non argument. I think that we can all agree that there is a certain sect of Muslims who are at fault and should be kept out of the country.
Not necessarily. We could easily live by the words of the New Testament…okay not easily but we could come close. And no one gets harmed.
Following the parts of Christianity to the letter that make sense to follow to the letter is fine (ie senseless violence), just like the Quran. I agree wholeheartedly. Luckily 99% of the religious population agrees too.
I want all immigration to end so I have no problem banning Christians from immigrating either.
I have no reason to defend their faith
And millions of black people don’t commit violent crime. That doesn’t mean it’s not a problem. The difference here is you can easily abate Muslim terror
Well, I think thunderbolt hit it pretty well on the head as far as global statistics go. I do not consider 675,000 a break point. As written the limits are not too far out of whack–this brings up several items then:
- If the written rules are “in the ballpark” then where is the breakdown? There are a number of possibilities here but the biggest is illegal immigration in my opinion. As tbolt said, harder penalties on companies who encourage hiring illegals is a good step as is cracking down on the actual illegal immigration taking place. This is different from “omg brown people are bad” fear mongering.
- Should we re-tool the emphases on the breakdowns? Possibly yes. Again though, this isn’t something we should take subject to political grandstanding or fear factors.
- Should we revamp the Visa and citizenship process? again in my opinion yes.
Current priorities for sorting immigration priority according to the INA are: “Reunification of families (immediate families, as written currently), admitting immigrants with important skills that are valuable to the US economy, protecting refugees, and promoting diversity”. I think 1 and 2 are the most important and do not believe promoting diversity should be a primary concern for immigration policy frankly. This is NOT the same as actively trying to avoid diversity, or quota’ing immigrants for the express purpose of minimizing a nationality or race, or fearing a race. This would be more along the lines of my opinion on women in combat roles–if they can hack it take 'em, but don’t lower the PT requirements, marksmanship reqs, or any other standard for the sake of getting them in.
As far as refugees go I believe the USA has a responsibility to act along with her stature in the world–and the inscription on the base of Lady Liberty: “bring me your poor huddled masses longing to be free”. This is important for us morally, and if you believe that we are founded on Christian principles you must in some sense agree: “for I was naked and you clothed me…”. This is not at all the same as believing we should take in all the immigrants from all wars or conflicted areas. Nor is it the same as saying we should have no limits on said refugees (recall I already said I believe the most important areas are highly skilled valuable professionals/workers and reuniting immediate families). We have a duty to national security to screen said immigrants, and we have a duty to common sense not to be raving emotionally driven morons in regard to policy. We cannot save the world by taking in refugees and it is futile to try that route. As such, refugees remain a distant 3rd on the category list for me.
EDIT–to reinforce my point: none of these opinions require me to hate or fear brown people or Muslims, and none of them require me to vacate common sense (i.e.–let EVERYONE COME IN). The problem is that whenever this conversation comes up in the last couple years it has been rajraj talking about race. It leaves not a lot of room for civilized non-racists to talk about nuance, numbers, or reasons.
1 Like
Wait, now you’re moving the goal posts.
First in support of your claim that we shouldn’t let Muslims into the country, you said because their holy book expressly required them to kill non-believers, Muslims are ipso facto going to kill non-believers in America, and therefore they are people who want to hurt us.
Your argument was refuted by the fact that millions of Muslims living in America are not killing non-believers in America.
So, you concede that your original argument for banning Muslims isn’t supported by the facts, right?
I’m not arguing every Muslim is going to commit murder / terror, you’re just framing it as an absolute so you can refute something I didn’t say.
I didn’t say you were arguing that, learn to read. I knew what your point was - and your point is refuted by the fact that millions of American Muslims aren’t killing non-believers where they live. Agree?
A Muslim is statistically 5000 percent more likely than a non Muslim to commit terror in America.
Their holy book commands them to kill non believers and not insignificant portion of Muslims clearly take their holy book literal enough to greatly negatively effect American life.
I don’t particularly care if there are law abiding non-bomb loving Muslims, in reality all they do is provide cover fire for the ones who commit terror
As expected, a non-response. But then, logic ain’t your strong suit. So, while ego won’t let you concede, logic demands it, so moving on to the next step.
Above, we have your real problem with Muslims - you have to concede they aren’t killers or even predisposed to being killers, but by virtue of having the same religion as Muslim terrorists, they are complicit in the killing.
Right?
Well there you go waving around that fancy IQ again. It’s not like a golf score where the lowest wins, you know?
It isn’t any faith that we as Americans defends. It is their right to what ever faith one chooses that we defend.
3 Likes
I don’t know what this means.
Well then, junior, given your limitations, maybe you should stop obsessing over the purported lower IQs of inferior races and do something to improve your own.
Wtf does this have to do with anything?
I’m talking about who to let in via immigration not preventing Muslims who are already in the country from practicing
I never said there are inferior races.
In fact jews and Asians test better than whites in IQ and Africans test better on physical abilities.
There is no such thing as racial inferiority
Do you have any support for this stat? Specifically what “commit terror” is defined as?
It’s from the National Review online, you can Google it pretty easily - I don’t remember.
The article is from December 2015