I like those. Funny and ironic, my favorite.
But, of course, if the Syrian refugees ARE just like the pilgrims, they really don't stand a chance to commit genocide on the existing population of North Americans.
True, but still....we don't really need them.
We need not to be dumbasses that exclude them due to paranoid BS and political gamesmanship.Sounds good.
Instead, we can exclude them because we already have a continental refugee problem, and they won't add a single thing to society except more social problems.
That has consistently been the stance of many existing residents of the US, when we have, historically, admitted persons of a new immigrant group. Yet, here we are, a vibrant society of almost all immigrants. Are we struggling with social problems due to taking in refugees, historically? I don't see it.Historically, immigration caused widespread social problems in US cities. The aftereffects of those problems are still with us today - e.g. white flight, extreme suburbanization, gentrification, loss of social cohesion, etc. All these these are related, actually.
I like those. Funny and ironic, my favorite.
But, of course, if the Syrian refugees ARE just like the pilgrims, they really don't stand a chance to commit genocide on the existing population of North Americans.
True, but still....we don't really need them.
We need not to be dumbasses that exclude them due to paranoid BS and political gamesmanship.Sounds good.
Instead, we can exclude them because we already have a continental refugee problem, and they won't add a single thing to society except more social problems.
That has consistently been the stance of many existing residents of the US, when we have, historically, admitted persons of a new immigrant group. Yet, here we are, a vibrant society of almost all immigrants. Are we struggling with social problems due to taking in refugees, historically? I don't see it.Historically, immigration caused widespread social problems in US cities. The aftereffects of those problems are still with us today - e.g. white flight, extreme suburbanization, gentrification, loss of social cohesion, etc. All these these are related, actually.
White flight? You mean from black people? Technically, most of their ancestors were not refugees or immigrants, but rather, involuntarily imported cargo. Yeah, we probably shouldn't bring in people against their will and force them to do whatever we want.
White flight? You mean from black people? Technically, most of their ancestors were not refugees or immigrants, but rather, involuntarily imported cargo.
The ultimate cause of white flight was the great migration of blacks from the South - which was encouraged by the industrial expansion of the North that had been started by massive immigration.
Yeah, we probably shouldn't bring in people against their will and force them to do whatever we want.
Its undeniable that slavery and the way we handled it turned out to be horrible.
The ultimate cause of white flight was the great migration of blacks from the South - which was encouraged by the industrial expansion of the North that had been started by massive immigration.
I'm confused. Earlier you said "Historically, immigration caused widespread social problems in US cities." Now, above you say that massive immigration started the industrial expansion of the North which encouraged black migration from the South, which caused white flight. How dare those darned immigrants causing the industrial expansion of the North! Or maybe we just shouldn't have been so open to MASSIVE immigration. But then no intense industrial expansion, and no expansion of the pockets of profiteering industrialists. Hmm.. a conundrum. How about we try no MASSIVE profit-based allowance of immigrations within short time periods? We still get our capitalism, immigrants have time to assimilate, and there is less social upheaval, just all of it over a longer period of time.
And back to the current topic of this thread, how about we only allow 10,000 Syrian refugees in for now, and see how it goes? Darn Obama, why didn't he think of that? Oh wait, I guess he did.
The ultimate cause of white flight was the great migration of blacks from the South - which was encouraged by the industrial expansion of the North that had been started by massive immigration.
I'm confused. Earlier you said "Historically, immigration caused widespread social problems in US cities." Now, above you say that massive immigration started the industrial expansion of the North which encouraged black migration from the South, which caused white flight. How dare those darned immigrants causing the industrial expansion of the North! Or maybe we just shouldn't have been so open to MASSIVE immigration. But then no intense industrial expansion, and no expansion of the pockets of profiteering industrialists. Absolutely correct.
As I said above, it's all connected.
I might agree to allow Muslims in if they agree to publicly renounce all aspects of Islam that would support terrorism in any way and be required to repeat it on a regular basis. It would not guarantee that most Muslims wouldn't lie, but it would be a start. Let them prove that they do not accept the inhumane parts of the Koran. Let them say, "I piss on those parts of the Koran that support terrorism." Maybe it would reduce the percentage if terrorists and terrorist sympathizers to a level we can handle. I can't imagine anyone refusing to make such a renunciation. If they don't accept it, they can stay out. There are probably a lot of Syrians waiting to get into the US who would make that statement. Why shouldn't they get priority? What's wrong with this suggestion?
I assume you have scientific support from sociology, psychology and historians that such a strategy would help in mitigating radicalising Islam? Or is your posting just caused by some gland of yours?
You are confusing my posts with yours, which are obviously caused by some gland.
Hey, you are the one who says we have no free will, not me! :-)
I never said the strategy would help in mitigating Islam. I offered it as a symbolic measure. Naturally you missed that, as you miss so many things. It must be those overactive glands of yours.
So let me try to understand you:
- You propose to actually introduce a symbolic measure
- which does not mitigate problems with the Islam
- which according to every reasonable person would help radicalise some more Muslims.
Yeah, seems a very rational and good idea!