So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[sol]

if the last sentence, and maybe the last two sentences, in point #1 had been omitted, the overall post would have been stronger.

Maybe!  I still don't think that "you should be ashamed" is a personal attack.  It's a personal expression of how he thinks that poster should feel, not a criticism of that poster's character.  Also allowable:  "you should feel sad" and "that must feel great!"

Particularly in the context of the rest of that post, in which Glen was pointing out that astvilla's attempt to defend family separation (by blaming the families) was a particularly immoral argument, I think it's a legitimate criticism.  It IS a shameful argument, regardless of the person who made it.

[MDM]

Maybe!  I still don't think that "you should be ashamed" is a personal attack.

It's a debatable point - meaning that one can make reasonable arguments either way. 

If person A says or does something, and as a consequence person B says to person A, "you should be ashamed", I think many person As would take that as a personal attack, even if person B didn't mean it that way.  Perhaps because many person Bs would mean it as a personal attack.

[anisotropy]

I have an idea of what illegal immigrants are like since we've hired them before. If we want to complain about illegals, we have to accept we'll be doing work Americans don't want or are too lazy to do (meatpacking, food processing, mowing lawns, construction, etc). To me, their modern day slaves being exploited by employers going unpunished. Americans can't have their cake and eat it. If we want illegals doing menial work, at least a program to give work visas, track, document them, to protect worker rights but no path to citizenship as that's not their goal and they lack the skills to succeed in America (largely, there are always exceptions). They just want to send remittances. Once Trump threatened, only then they wanted citizenship, but not out of patriotism but pragmatism. When you hear Mexicans chant "bin Laden at US Soccer games, it's hard to think of them as a people on our side. One woman openly admitted how they exploit children to gain sympathy (separation was bad move yes but never saw such irresponsible parents). But that goes towards immigration issue as a whole and integrating immigrants, not just accepting them. Many factors out of our control(like technology) contribute to the divide. Illegals are not all net benefit. Many need to be deported but those deemed necessary should have some permit to work.

I agree with elements of this, especially the part I emphasized. It's all fine and dandy to appear virtuous in public and advocate accepting immigrants/refugees, but without properly integrating the immigrants, the political climate in host nations will become increasingly reactionary (re: Sweden, Germany, Italy, Turkey, etc), making it a fertile ground for opportunists.

Aside from economic benefits, having immigrants definitely produce cultural benefits in the long run. The British cuisine in the 70s was absolutely dismal, but today it's a beacon of modern culinary achievement. Yet integrating these immigrants is a long term and thorny issue. Problem areas within London, Paris (long term immigration) and the "vulnerable areas", Utsatt områdein in Sweden (recent immigration) demonstrate many potential problems.

Personally, I hold the "extreme" view that the core traditional/local social values/beliefs of new immigrants should be dismantled and rebuilt with the host nations' values, so that the immigrants might one day fully integrate with the existing population (think how the military trains new recruits psychologically).

Regarding exploiting illegal immigrants, they were... convenient; able, even eager, to perform tasks few Americans would want to do (ie, 12hr unskilled labour and field work in mountainous terrain for sub $10/hr), and yes they sent the money home.  I admire their sacrifices.

I understand many of the humanitarian arguments regarding immigrants and refugees, yet few, if any, of the humanitarian solutions seek to address the root causes. If we really want to help these poor, unfortunate souls, we ought to "push out" instead of sitting passively and waiting for the waves to pass. And what's this pushing out strategy? Something akin to The Marshall Plan, not for rapid recovery this time, but for stabilization.

The circumstances are much different now, the western governments (usa really) no longer enjoy the political and economic monopoly they once wielded, but I have reasons to believe the extremely wealthy individuals might get onboard and make major donations for this cause, not because of altruism alone obviously. Heck, I would even donate 20%-30% of my own net asset if it were to happen.

[nereo]

I'll just focus on the immigration matter here...

I detest both the rhetoric and the policies of this administration towards immigration, but if we are talking about actions instead of words, what I object to most of all is this administration's approach to legal immigration. Here the WH is curbing the people who should legally be allowed to come and remain here on almost all fronts, from denying asylum, preventing citizenship, separating families, blocking permits and numerous other measures.

regarding the comment that an 'extreme' view is that ' core traditional/local social values/beliefs of new immigrants should be dismantled and rebuilt with the host nations' values, so that the immigrants might one day fully integrate with the existing population' - yes I do find that view extreme, but even more to the point I find it incredibly short-sighted.   The 'host nations' values in the broadest sense are basically never at odds with people wishing to live here (e.g. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).  Instead I believe what was meant was local customs and traditions. However customs are rarely static, and the cultures of various regions within the US are the result of a continuous shift of people and cultures. Pick any region and trace back over the last fe centuries - things once considered strange of foreign are now common-place. To use my current region of New England as an example, we've seen the religious puritans influenced by capitolistic dutch, then irish, followed by the mainland Italians, then the southern Sicilians, then waves of former slaves and children of slaves, then people from central America and currently the largest influx is from eastern Asia.  Which wave, exactly, should we say is "American" and after-which all future immigrants should adopt their culture to?  Even more to the point, IMO its a fallacy that immigrants forceable change their host country.  Rather, within a generation almost all immigrants adopt most of their host country's customs anyhow - and the host country takes whatever customs they like from the immigrants (often in the form of food and fashion). 

just my 2¢...

[anisotropy]

I too detest the rhetoric and many of this admin's policies toward immigration, and I also believe the foundation of American greatness is in its cultural inclusiveness.

Perhaps I was not clear about new comers' core beliefs. Local customs and traditions are often extensions of people's core values/beliefs, unfortunately some of these customs are not compatible with the western (our?) values today:

Some place (family) honor above life, some emphasis obedience over liberty, still some value duty over the pursuit of happiness.

It's true Customs rarely stay static and these traditions might change in the future, but that's beside the point of discussion here. At the present time, some immigrants' long held traditions/beliefs are not compatible with the host nations' existing set of customs and this needs to be resolved in a manner that is satisfactory to the citizens of the host nations to hopefully stop the political climate in becoming increasingly reactionary.

An analogy, I think, would be incorporating the "good" bits of alternative medicine into mainstream medicine. For example, traditional Chinese medicine has its models/theories rooted in the balance of yin and yang, and the harmony of the five elements, with imaginary organs. To a modern medical professional, this is obviously all rubbish and akin to some ancient voodoo magic. Yet that doesn't mean all the herbal remedies Chinese medicine had discovered over the centuries are also rubbish by default, some of these herbs would surely pass the scrutiny of modern science. Indeed, one ancient discovery eventually led to a treatment for malaria and won a Nobel prize recently.

Abolish/Disregard the models and theories that are incompatible with modern medicine, but look for bits of herbal medicine that could yield new drugs. What I propose is something similar, strip away customs and traditions that oppose our current values, including the ones you mentioned, but keep the "good" ones.

For what its worth, most of the ethnic groups you had mentioned voluntarily went through the exact process over long periods of time, but in a much simpler time, where technologies were more primitive (regarding media and weapons). Time, today, is a luxury we may not have.

It's hard to pinpoint what we like from a foreign culture, but it's much easier to definitively point out what we don't like, specifically, the practices and beliefs that are contradictory to our modern societies, hence my belief this should be the first step in integrating new comers.

[nereo]

@ anisotropy - I appreciate having a measured discussion, even (and perhaps especially) when I might not fully agree with the other person.

Could you clarify what you are talking abotu when you mention 'practices and beliefs that are contraditory to our modern societies' and 'some immigrants' long held believes are not compatible' ?
Perhaps it is because I am almost continuously surrounded by immigrants and foreigners in my line of work, but I've found it very hard to come up with any examples of beliefs of people who strive to be here that I consider incompatible to our values and laws.

You did mention 'honor above life'  and 'obedience of liberty' - the former I'm guessing is a stab at so-called honor killings (or maybe the practice of allowing female infants to die?) . In any case, = our system of laws already codifies such behavior? All immigrants are bound by laws, so tell me how this is not a red herring or unjustified fear.

cheers
~n~

[anisotropy]

No Problem, but it will unfortunately be brief.

I think the biggest clashes of values are happening in Europe, not America (not yet at least), which I will therefore focus on. Many refugees' views regarding women are rather hmm ridiculous. Several European nations have begun making refugees take sex-ed courses with focus on consent.

The misconception (with religious roots) about being charged interest when taking out a loan (which led to anti-Semitism) is also hmmm ridiculous, even though they treat it as a "facilitation/service fee" which functions identically as interest. This might appear to be a minor point but is actually quite serious as it encourages shadow banking and concentration of power among some immigrant groups.

There are many others, which also had religious roots. A fundamental Christian who believes he could sell his daughter into slavery today in the States is indeed bound by laws, and the same definitely apply to an immigrant that practices another religion. But we have to remember, this immigrant did not grow up in the same environment, in fact, they often grew up in areas that placed laws that were well, "divine".

Many divine laws are fundamentally not compatible with our ways of living. Growing up in a country where these laws are practiced results a similar scenario to how the abused are more likely to grow up and become abusers themselves, a vicious cycle. And it's mostly these practices and beliefs that need to be not only actively striped away; instead of having them find out it was not legal after the fact, a standardized lecture should be delivered to the new comers that specifically point out which ones need to be abandoned, a re-education process upon arrival if you will.

Now, back when I was working I was fortunate in meeting/working with large numbers of educated (in some way westernized) professionals from the mid-east. I've had zero issue with them, yet many refugees in the EU today are not westernized, and I have seen a stark contrast.
 
I understand as far as America is concerned, when the term illegals or immigrants are used, people automatically think of our southern neighbor(s), but they do not adhere to any divine law, and are not on the same level as the refugees from the mid-east, which makes the situation in Europe right now much more dire and intense. May I inquire your clients' primary places of origin (in terms of %)?

ps. my engagement is usually pretty measured unless some totally awesome radical dude start spewing bs with little reason. :) going back to the grill.

[MrDelane]

The separation of church and state is something that the United States has battled internally since its inception.  I assume we'll continue to do so into the future.  I'm not sure how immigrants with various religious viewpoints changes that equation in any way.  Theoretically, in our best moments, religion is one thing and our laws are another.

Personally, when it comes to the effects of religious influence in this country (which seems to be what @anisotropy is getting at) , I'm a bit more concerned about the groups attempting to pass laws inspired by their beliefs that the rest of us are expected to live under.  Immigrants are the least of my concerns on that front.

[Zamboni]

This presidency cannot end soon enough . . . the level of corruption and political influence of Russia in both the Executive and Legislative branches is insane. If the Judicial branch gets contaminated enough, then our goose is cooked, and it is happening faster than I could have ever imagined.

Also, election security must be prioritized. I can't believe the GOP is blocking this.

Putin will become supreme commander of the world at the rate we are going.

[DavidAnnArbor]

Illegal immigration: I'm not in complete agreement with his rhetoric but he's the only one on this issue that liberals and conservatives find common ground. Immigration is a social bargain. When you immigrate, you're expected to adopt the country's values, swear an oath, and be a contributing, productive member of society. Illegals don't do any of these. This is the key reason why they will never flourish in America. Looking at foreign educated immigrants they do quite well (Silicon Valley, etc). But illegals do not or cannot. They have middle school education, no skills, no willingness to improve their mind. That's why after Tibbetts murder, guy still needed a translator. 8 years, still can't speak English. How can he and millions of illegals ever expect to flourish in America and move up to a middle class life? They simply can't.

This is such baloney.
My grandparents came to this country with little skills and not much English, but succeeded despite those shortcomings.
Now I'm reminded of the time I lived in a vegetarian coop and our household included an illegal Mexican immigrant who just wanted to make money (washing dishes at a restaurant) and be left alone, he was very private. I befriended him a little bit, he would send back money to his mother in Mexico. He had a strong desire to study math and one time I walked with him to the math library at the University of Michigan. I encouraged him to sit and read the math books, but he was afraid to enter the library. He seemed to have a panic attack about being allowed to enter the building. It was sad, and showcased the evils of driving these illegal immigrants into hiding such that they can't be more open and integrated into our society.  In fact, if we stopped hounding illegal immigrants, maybe they could more easily integrate into our culture, maybe it's the other way around. We're not letting them integrate.

You take one incident of murder and then you paint a broad brush over a whole swath of people, dehumanizing them.

[former player]

No Problem, but it will unfortunately be brief.

I think the biggest clashes of values are happening in Europe, not America (not yet at least), which I will therefore focus on. Many refugees' views regarding women are rather hmm ridiculous. Several European nations have begun making refugees take sex-ed courses with focus on consent.

The misconception (with religious roots) about being charged interest when taking out a loan (which led to anti-Semitism) is also hmmm ridiculous, even though they treat it as a "facilitation/service fee" which functions identically as interest. This might appear to be a minor point but is actually quite serious as it encourages shadow banking and concentration of power among some immigrant groups.

There are many others, which also had religious roots. A fundamental Christian who believes he could sell his daughter into slavery today in the States is indeed bound by laws, and the same definitely apply to an immigrant that practices another religion. But we have to remember, this immigrant did not grow up in the same environment, in fact, they often grew up in areas that placed laws that were well, "divine".

Many divine laws are fundamentally not compatible with our ways of living. Growing up in a country where these laws are practiced results a similar scenario to how the abused are more likely to grow up and become abusers themselves, a vicious cycle. And it's mostly these practices and beliefs that need to be not only actively striped away; instead of having them find out it was not legal after the fact, a standardized lecture should be delivered to the new comers that specifically point out which ones need to be abandoned, a re-education process upon arrival if you will.

Now, back when I was working I was fortunate in meeting/working with large numbers of educated (in some way westernized) professionals from the mid-east. I've had zero issue with them, yet many refugees in the EU today are not westernized, and I have seen a stark contrast.
 
I understand as far as America is concerned, when the term illegals or immigrants are used, people automatically think of our southern neighbor(s), but they do not adhere to any divine law, and are not on the same level as the refugees from the mid-east, which makes the situation in Europe right now much more dire and intense. May I inquire your clients' primary places of origin (in terms of %)?

ps. my engagement is usually pretty measured unless some totally awesome radical dude start spewing bs with little reason. :) going back to the grill.

Provided that a country works to integrate immigrants, rather than treating them as "other" and beyond the pale, the points mentioned are usually very short term.  The children and grandchildren of these immigrants, provided that they are educated in integrated public schools and not separated off into private religious schools or single culture public schools, will have almost completely have adopted the language and social conventions of the country they live in - as Nereo sets out, this is the pattern of centuries.


Problems occur when immigrants are treated, by government and society, in a way which segregates them into ghettos.

[nereo]

No Problem, but it will unfortunately be brief.

I think the biggest clashes of values are happening in Europe, not America (not yet at least), which I will therefore focus on. Many refugees' views regarding women are rather hmm ridiculous. Several European nations have begun making refugees take sex-ed courses with focus on consent.

The misconception (with religious roots) about being charged interest when taking out a loan (which led to anti-Semitism) is also hmmm ridiculous, even though they treat it as a "facilitation/service fee" which functions identically as interest. This might appear to be a minor point but is actually quite serious as it encourages shadow banking and concentration of power among some immigrant groups.

There are many others, which also had religious roots. A fundamental Christian who believes he could sell his daughter into slavery today in the States is indeed bound by laws, and the same definitely apply to an immigrant that practices another religion. But we have to remember, this immigrant did not grow up in the same environment, in fact, they often grew up in areas that placed laws that were well, "divine".

Many divine laws are fundamentally not compatible with our ways of living. Growing up in a country where these laws are practiced results a similar scenario to how the abused are more likely to grow up and become abusers themselves, a vicious cycle. And it's mostly these practices and beliefs that need to be not only actively striped away; instead of having them find out it was not legal after the fact, a standardized lecture should be delivered to the new comers that specifically point out which ones need to be abandoned, a re-education process upon arrival if you will.

Now, back when I was working I was fortunate in meeting/working with large numbers of educated (in some way westernized) professionals from the mid-east. I've had zero issue with them, yet many refugees in the EU today are not westernized, and I have seen a stark contrast.
 
I understand as far as America is concerned, when the term illegals or immigrants are used, people automatically think of our southern neighbor(s), but they do not adhere to any divine law, and are not on the same level as the refugees from the mid-east, which makes the situation in Europe right now much more dire and intense. May I inquire your clients' primary places of origin (in terms of %)?

ps. my engagement is usually pretty measured unless some totally awesome radical dude start spewing bs with little reason. :) going back to the grill.

A few things I'll touch on in response.  First, I think it's disasterously incorrect to say that people who come to the US from 'our southern border' do not adhere to any 'divine law' while those from the mid-east do. Immigrants from central and south America are overwhelmingly Catholic, and have far stronger fealty to the Pope than most Catholics in the US. In contrast, most who come here from the mid-east are trying to escape civil unrest and religious law - to be sure many are Muslim, but the ones moving to the US are on average very moderate and modern with their views.

Then there's this misinformed belief that practicing Muslims are somehow incompatible within a country founded on secular democracy. Yet our country has been home to devout Puritans, Mormans, Amish and Orthodox Jews.  Each has views one could interpret as contrary to our laws and ideals of freedom and equality for all. But as I indicated in my earlier response, all people residing in the US are bound to uphold the same laws.  That's the difference. When people take the oath of citizenship they vow to "...support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America." Saying people who come here willing to accept such terms are somehow incompatible strikes me as false. And study after study have shown that immigrants are less likely to break laws than their native-born counterparts.


Oh,and response to your question, they are not my clients, but my colleagues.  Currently our department is composed of people who are US born (6),then from India (2), the UK (3), Mexico (2), Spain (2), Iran (2), Greece, Italy (3), Sweden, Tunisia, China (2), Croatia, Germany, France, and Chile. 
I work in an international department of higher education - our gatherings always have the feel of a mini-UN.  Yes, the people I interact with are all educated and tend to be from middle-class backgrounds, which presents its own biases.

[GuitarStv]

No Problem, but it will unfortunately be brief.

I think the biggest clashes of values are happening in Europe, not America (not yet at least), which I will therefore focus on. Many refugees' views regarding women are rather hmm ridiculous. Several European nations have begun making refugees take sex-ed courses with focus on consent.

The misconception (with religious roots) about being charged interest when taking out a loan (which led to anti-Semitism) is also hmmm ridiculous, even though they treat it as a "facilitation/service fee" which functions identically as interest. This might appear to be a minor point but is actually quite serious as it encourages shadow banking and concentration of power among some immigrant groups.

There are many others, which also had religious roots. A fundamental Christian who believes he could sell his daughter into slavery today in the States is indeed bound by laws, and the same definitely apply to an immigrant that practices another religion. But we have to remember, this immigrant did not grow up in the same environment, in fact, they often grew up in areas that placed laws that were well, "divine".

Many divine laws are fundamentally not compatible with our ways of living. Growing up in a country where these laws are practiced results a similar scenario to how the abused are more likely to grow up and become abusers themselves, a vicious cycle. And it's mostly these practices and beliefs that need to be not only actively striped away; instead of having them find out it was not legal after the fact, a standardized lecture should be delivered to the new comers that specifically point out which ones need to be abandoned, a re-education process upon arrival if you will.

Now, back when I was working I was fortunate in meeting/working with large numbers of educated (in some way westernized) professionals from the mid-east. I've had zero issue with them, yet many refugees in the EU today are not westernized, and I have seen a stark contrast.
 
I understand as far as America is concerned, when the term illegals or immigrants are used, people automatically think of our southern neighbor(s), but they do not adhere to any divine law, and are not on the same level as the refugees from the mid-east, which makes the situation in Europe right now much more dire and intense. May I inquire your clients' primary places of origin (in terms of %)?

ps. my engagement is usually pretty measured unless some totally awesome radical dude start spewing bs with little reason. :) going back to the grill.

So, the thrust of your concern is that immigrants are controlled by religion and this impacts how they will behave?

I present to you the current state of the nation as related to the stranglehold that Christianity has on most aspects of life:
Abortion limits in various states solely based upon religious fervor, anti-gay rights movements and violence, religious based anti-gay brainwashing centers, government recognition/celebration of Christian holidays, teaching of anti-science religious based "facts" in school (as related to evolution or climate science for example), withholding sex education from children for religious reasons, the impossibility of a president who does not profess himself Christian to be elected, religious based laws related to bigamy, religious based tendency to blame a woman who is sexually assaulted (which has helped to form current sex assault law), etc.  Heck, Christians even changed the pledge of allegiance in the 50's to say 'Under God'.  Your money says 'In God We Trust", which is also the official motto of the country.

Maybe I'm reading your post wrong . . . but it seems really weird to me that the concern regarding religious influence doesn't apply to the overt religious control of government that Christianity has in the United States.  By ignoring these problems entirely, you seem to be implying that only non-Christian religions are a problem . . . and your fear would seem to be grounded in a mere dislike of change from the overwhelmingly Christian based norms that you're used to - not the stated fear of religious control and problems caused by religion.

[DavidAnnArbor]

Companies Say Trump Is Hurting Business by Limiting Legal Immigration

https://nyti.ms/2MMX7UI

"The Trump administration is using the country’s vast and nearly opaque immigration bureaucracy to constrict the flow of foreign workers into the United States by throwing up new roadblocks to limit legal arrivals.
The government is denying more work visas, asking applicants to provide additional information and delaying approvals more frequently than just a year earlier. Hospitals, hotels, technology companies and other businesses say they are now struggling to fill jobs with the foreign workers they need.
With foreign hires missing, the employees who remain are being forced to pick up the slack. Seasonal industries like hotels and landscaping are having to turn down customers or provide fewer services. Corporate executives worry about the long-term impact of losing talented engineers and programmers to countries like Canada that are laying out the welcome mat for skilled foreigners.
At Northwell Health’s pathology lab on Long Island, a new doctor’s cubicle stands empty, her computer and microscope untouched. Other residents started on July 1, but she is stuck in India’s Punjab State, held up by unexplained delays in her visa."

This just hurts the stock market

[Glenstache]

@GuitarStv
As a side note, many of the insertions of God into pledges and mottos came about during the cold war as a way to link patriotism to religion and fight the atheist communists. Before 1956, the (unofficial) motto was e plurbus Unum.  Out of many, one. I like the old one better. I also think it is ridiculous to pledge to the flag and not the constitution.

Edited for typos.

[nereo]

@GuitarStv
As a side note, many of the insertions of God into pledges and mottos came about during the cold war as a way to link patriotism to religion and fight the atheist communists. Before 1956, the (unofficial) motto was a plurbus Unum.  Out if many, one. I like the old one better. I also think it is ridiculous to pledge to the flag and not the constitution.

Good points and an important historical perspective.  This administration has used the flag repeatedly as a wedge issue - first making a big deal about the DNC not having flags on their dais, then re-framing the kneeling protests in the NFL as individuals being disrespectful to the flag. Before being president he flew an oversize flag outside his resort and relished the legal challenge which resulted from his muni violation.  As a candidate he resurrected a long-sleeping issue of whether burning the flag should be illegal, suggesting perpetrators lose their citizenship or spend a year in jail. Broadly speaking his position is that anyone who doesn't show absolute and continuous fealty to the US Flag is unpatriotic and undeserving to live in this country.

Given that all flags are symbolic, I agree with you Glenstache - a pledge to our laws and constitution is a much more direct and (IMO) patriotic gesture than to a colorful rectangle that can serve many different functions.

[Glenstache]

I should add that the flag I can be representative of the ideals of our county, and the placeholder/shorthand that the flag takes for a deeply held love of country should not be dismissed out of hand. Things like the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima (recognizing it was staged) have real power for a reason. My objection to the politicization of the flag for strictly nationalistic purposes is not that the flag is given undue value, it is that the scope of what the flag represents is narrowed, and almost always used to make a group of US citizens an “other” group.

This applies not only to the Stars and Stripes, but also to other flags as well. The stars and bars (aka, confederate flag) is a good example in the US. This flag is a representative of a pivotal cultural, economic, and social moment in the South. Many died fighting for their (new) country and is symbolic of very real loss and sacrifice. However, if only one meaning of a flag is taken, then the meaning is fundamentally distorted. The confederate flag is primarily a symbol of a nation formed to preserve slavery; the historical record on this is unambiguous from the writings of Jefferson Davis on down, so not worth debating. People who fly the confederate flag next to the Stars and Stripes are ignoring the part of the history that is effectively treason via secession. There has been substantial effort put out to change the meaning of the confederate flag. Are there people who genuinely believe that the confederate flag is a symbol of southern heritage and take pride in their region and honestly ignore the slavery bits? Of course. But that doesn’t change that they are wrong... and most importantly that they are also being manipulated though symbols into believing in an alternate reality. Similarly, taking the US Stars and Stripes to only mean patriotism through fealty and that protesting violations of constitutional protections is somehow unpatriotic is also manipulation through symbology. Remember, South Carolina did not start flying the confederate flag at the Capitol until 1962, almost a century after the civil war was over. This wasn’t an, “oops, did we forget to put the flag up?” The revival of the confederate flag is pretty strongly tied to the timing of the civil rights movement and resistance to social change in the south. It was politically convenient to recast the flag as about the north (aka the Feds forcing the states to live up to the Constitution on 1960s context) as being about state’s rights and proud/virtuous southern heritage. Nobody is flying the Confederate constitution (well, I’m sure some racist asshole somewhere is pretty stoked on it).

Sadly, it is usually easier to make propaganda work than to fight it. 

Immigrants being naturalized, politicians taking office, and soldiers enlisting (plus a bit of chain of command) swear an oath to uphold the constitution, not to pledge allegiance to the flag.

[anisotropy]

Then there's this misinformed belief that practicing Muslims are somehow incompatible within a country founded on secular democracy.

Comparing south American Catholics to Muslims following the Sharia is not a good comparison. I think most people can tell they are very different, same with comparing the Sharia with Christians today in America. The level of influence religions (any religion) has on the western govt is dwarfed by how things are on the other side of the world, where the refugees come from. The Christian religions today have mostly been declawed with a few tooth left standing, the same cant be said about well... the other one.
 
I actually think the misinformed belief happens to be that practicing sharia laws is compatible with secular democracy. There are many types of practicing Muslims, and most of them (especially the westernized ones) are perfectly good people.

The danger arises when refugees who lived under Sharia their whole lives (and are devout to its divine power) bring such beliefs into the host nations without being taught otherwise. Under normal circumstances, the existing laws "should" uphold the separation of church and state, that doesn't seem to work all the time historically regarding this specific religion. Secular democracy does not seem to work in all cases; religion is a tricky thing, do the practitioners follow the rule of man or the rule of divine*? Where the refugees come from, sharia laws tend to prevail.

Back in the 90s Turkey banned Refah with the help of its military (ironically, the current president was a member as well) on the ground that sharia are not compatible with democracy. This case eventually went to the EU court of human rights and the Court's final ruling was this:

Decision of the Court

The Court considered that, when campaigning for changes in legislation or to the legal or constitutional structures of the State, political parties continued to enjoy the protection of the provisions of the Convention and of Article 11 in particular provided they complied with two conditions: (1) the means used to those ends had to be lawful and democratic from all standpoints and (2) the proposed changes had to be compatible with fundamental democratic principles. It necessarily followed that political parties whose leaders incited others to use violence and/or supported political aims that were inconsistent with one or more rules of democracy or sought the destruction of democracy and the suppression of the rights and freedoms it recognised could not rely on the Convention to protect them from sanctions imposed as a result.

The Court held that the sanctions imposed on the applicants could reasonably be considered to meet a pressing social need for the protection of democratic society, since, on the pretext of giving a different meaning to the principle of secularism, the leaders of the Refah Partisi had declared their intention to establish a plurality of legal systems based on differences in religious belief, to institute Islamic law (the Sharia), a system of law that was in marked contrast to the values embodied in the Convention. They had also left in doubt their position regarding recourse to force in order to come to power and, more particularly, to retain power.

The Court considered that even if States’ margin of appreciation was narrow in the area of the dissolution of political parties, since pluralism of ideas and parties was an inherent element of democracy, the State concerned could reasonably prevent the implementation of such a political programme, which was incompatible with Convention norms, before it was given effect through specific acts that might jeopardise civil peace and the country’s democratic regime.

Before anyone calls me xenophobic, I want to be clear I am only against practices and values, such as the Sharia, that are antithetic to our foundational values. There are plenty of other great things about the mid-east culture. Happy labour day.

[Glenstache]

Thanks for the interesting quote @anisotropy. I think there is a balance to be found between "hey, here are the laws and rules here" and "you must conform to our culture". The path to the middle is through being welcoming. But that is far afield of the current political climate in which the administration appears to just be attempting with great fervor to exclude brown people. Stephen Miller is influencing Trump's immigration policy. Stephen Miller is documented to have spent some quality time with Richard Spencer and co. While at Duke. I'm pretty sure the Richard Spencer accounted in Charlottesville chanting "we will not be replaced" we're not talking about Irish immigrants.

[nereo]

Before anyone calls me xenophobic, I want to be clear I am only against practices and values, such as the Sharia, that are antithetic to our foundational values. There are plenty of other great things about the mid-east culture. Happy labour day.

I'm having trouble following your thought here, @anisotropy - are you against extremist Muslims who actively practice Sharia law, or are you against immigrants from the Middle East in general?  If its the former, our existing immigration policy already prohibits individuals who hold views which are considered incompatible with the Constitution.

If you are instead arguing that anyone who has lived in a state governed by divine (rather than secular) law is inherently unable to integrate into our western-style democracy, I don't think the data backs this up. The majority of these people come here because they don't want to live under religious rule, and even those from predominantly Muslim countries are less likely to commit crimes than native born counterparts. This refutes your argument that they are somehow 'incompatible'.

I also can't agree with you that extremest Christians are somehow less dangerous (you used the word 'de-fanged') than extremist from other religions. Look no further than the bombings of clinics that provide abortions or christian sects that devolve into cults and often, tragically, death. it's easy to write these off and say 'these are not representative' but neither are those practicing bastardized versions of Islam. After decades of anti-semitic policies (some of which continue today) Jews are now accepted into our society, though the jewish state of Israel is based on what you call 'divine law' and tied into mortal violence since its inception.   Judaism, Christianity and Islam all share the same foundation, with Christianity falling between the two.  Somehow we are making Muslims out as 'incompatible with our views' due to the worst members among them, yet we conveniently ignore those same extremest in other related religions.

[partgypsy]

There is def something going on weird with the way since Trump was elected, and especially since May, how immigration laws are being implemented or enforced. Someone I know who was born in Mexico but moved here when she was 12. She looks american, speaks fluent English, went to school and works here, her sisters are American, owns a house. She changed positions and applied for a job at a university a couple months ago. They hired her and she worked for a week. She was then told that them trying to get her a visa was too problematic, and that "all visas are under a microscope". This has never happened to her before. The strangest thing is, they then filled the position with a ANOTHER legal immigrant, but this time from a European country, and apparently no problem. it seems like legal immigrants are now being targeted in this country, depending on which country they immigrated from.

[GuitarStv]

I actually think the misinformed belief happens to be that practicing sharia laws is compatible with secular democracy. There are many types of practicing Muslims, and most of them (especially the westernized ones) are perfectly good people.

If you're going to argue that people who take a fundamentalist approach with their religion are a serious problem . . . I'm in total agreement.  But the part where you lose me is where you're appearing to be OK with Christian fundamentalists but have a problem with Muslim fundamentalists.

Fundamentalist Christianity is also completely incompatible with secular democracy.  They believe in the inerrency of the bible, and literal interpretation of biblical accounts.

Murder - Leviticus 20:13, Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:27, Deuteronomy 17:12, Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 20:10, Leviticus 21:9, Deuteronomy 13:7-12, Deuteronomy 17:2-5, Deuteronomy 18:20-22,
Rape - Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Sex Slaves - Exodus 21:7-11
General Slavery - Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 21:20-21, Luke 12:47
etc.

Absolutely none of that shit is compatible with secular democracy.

The danger arises when refugees who lived under Sharia their whole lives (and are devout to its divine power) bring such beliefs into the host nations without being taught otherwise. Under normal circumstances, the existing laws "should" uphold the separation of church and state, that doesn't seem to work all the time historically regarding this specific religion. Secular democracy does not seem to work in all cases; religion is a tricky thing, do the practitioners follow the rule of man or the rule of divine*? Where the refugees come from, sharia laws tend to prevail.

How is this a greater threat than the fundamentalist Christian . . . who has already brought his errant beliefs into the host nation and has actively ignored everyone who has taught him otherwise?  Do these Christians follow the rule of man, or the divine?  In the homes that these Christian fundamentalists come from, biblical law supersedes the law of the land.

Either you have faith that the separation of church and state will be upheld by the current laws of the land (despite the multiple times that historically Christians have overreached through the US government in the past), or you should be equally concerned about the folks already in the country.

Before anyone calls me xenophobic, I want to be clear I am only against practices and values, such as the Sharia, that are antithetic to our foundational values. There are plenty of other great things about the mid-east culture. Happy labour day.

The idea you're talking about isn't xenophobic when taken on it's own.  The fact that you have singled out one zealous splinter group of a religion while ignoring an equally historically dangerous one that is also antithetic to the foundational values of the United States does appear rather bigoted though.

[Glenstache]

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli seems relevant here:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

[partgypsy]

To become a citizen, you have to agree to the constitution and uphold it. If you do not agree to that, than you do not become a citizen. Certainly, a Muslim who becomes a citizen of the US but still practices sharia law, will run afoul of the law here pretty shortly. And you are correct that sharia law is incompatible with the US constitution, and separation of church and state.

I would argue Just as are Fundamentalist Christians, who are trying to restrict abortion legality and access based on their radical interpretation of the Bible. I also consider them extremist because if you examine historically their interpretation is not a mainstream one or one that either the Judaic and early Christian churches held. It is pretty clear that while abortion or death of a fetus was considered a sin, it was NOT considered murder or anything close to that. While they would choose to focus on abortion on the other many many sins listed in the Bible, is more likely due to their fundamentalist views of women, in that they are not equal to men and should not have autonomy over their own bodies.

[sol]

The Christian religions today have mostly been declawed with a few tooth left standing

Yes, there are almost NONE of them left in the world, especially not in any positions of power like the Vice President of the United States. 

Declawed my ass.  Mike Pence is a raving fundamentalist bigot and has never tried to hide it.  He tried to get the US government to fund conversion therapy for gay people.  He signed a bill in Indiana to allow targeted discrimination of LGBT people on the grounds of "religious freedom" which in this case means enforcing his extremist religious doctrine on American citizens.  He thinks evolution is a hoax and supports teaching the bible in public schools.  He opposed gender integration in the military on religious grounds.  He tried to pass abstinence-only sex ed in Indiana and said condoms don't work.  He said his god would never allow climate change to alter the planet, so it must be a liberal hoax.  He literally fought against the tobacco company settlement by saying that cigarettes aren't bad for you because god made tobacco. 

Mike Pence has used his religious beliefs to fundamentally undermine every positive step this country has taken in the past 20 years, and now he's about to be the President of the United States.  We are absolutely under siege from religious extremists like him, and not a single one of them is a Muslim.  You think Sharia law is bad?  Sure it's bad, but none of those people are currently living in the White House.  If you're genuinely concerned about religious extremists subverting the Constitution to impose their particular faith on the majority, it's the Christians you need to be worrying about. 

[nereo]

The Christian religions today have mostly been declawed with a few tooth left standing

Yes, there are almost NONE of them left in the world, especially not in any positions of power like the Vice President of the United States. 

Declawed my ass.  Mike Pence is a raving fundamentalist bigot and has never tried to hide it.  He tried to get the US government to fund conversion therapy for gay people.  He signed a bill in Indiana to allow targeted discrimination of LGBT people on the grounds of "religious freedom" which in this case means enforcing his extremist religious doctrine on American citizens.  He thinks evolution is a hoax and supports teaching the bible in public schools.  He opposed gender integration in the military on religious grounds.  He tried to pass abstinence-only sex ed in Indiana and said condoms don't work.  He said his god would never allow climate change to alter the planet, so it must be a liberal hoax.  He literally fought against the tobacco company settlement by saying that cigarettes aren't bad for you because god made tobacco. 

Mike Pence has used his religious beliefs to fundamentally undermine every positive step this country has taken in the past 20 years, and now he's about to be the President of the United States.  We are absolutely under siege from religious extremists like him, and not a single one of them is a Muslim.  You think Sharia law is bad?  Sure it's bad, but none of those people are currently living in the White House.  If you're genuinely concerned about religious extremists subverting the Constitution to impose their particular faith on the majority, it's the Christians you need to be worrying about.

Having spent the majority of the last decade outside the US and returning only recently, I have been struck by how much of our society in the US is ruled by religious extremists, and how conservative and religious we are compared to most other developed nations. Sol - you rightly pointed out the positions of our own VP, and there are number of members of congress who share similar views. We also live in a country where many school systems allow parents to skip even the most important vaccinations on religious grounds, yet keep their children in publicly funded schools and interacting with everyone else.  We had a candidate for US senate who had been censured for putting up a statue of the 10 commandments in the lobby of a court of law, and prominent groups throughout the nation push for christian prayer in public school.  These social battles have become so commonplace that its easy to forget that these are rather extreme religious positions being fostered on a supposedly secular democracy.

[wenchsenior]

Approx 70% of people in the U.S. identify as Christian.  Approximately 0.9% identify as Muslim.

It's much harder to find stats on who identifies as fundamentalist or belief that politics should be based on 'god's law' or 'the bible/koran, etc', but I've seen figures as high as >50% of U.S. adults agreeing with some form of that shit.

I certainly don't want immigrants who follow sharia law, but I personally don't want to share a country with ANY fundamentalist people of any faith. However, that's the trade-off of living in a free society.  Practically speaking, the issue of concern is the cross pollination of fundie religions and politics.  In that regard, Muslims are not even a blip on the radar.  It's the Christians that are of primary concern in the U.S., by dint of their sheer massive numbers and domination of religious identity and politics/positions of power. 

[sol]

These social battles have become so commonplace that its easy to forget that these are rather extreme religious positions being fostered on a supposedly secular democracy.

And despite the protestations of people like Michelle Bachmann, there are no Muslims in the US arguing for teaching the Koran in public schools, much less Muslim elected politicians in positions of power making such ridiculously unamerican arguments.  Only the Christians are that invasively forward.

[anisotropy]

I think the discussion is being nudged away from my original point: regarding immigrants/refugees, who are for the most part decidedly not Christian. We can have a separate discussion regarding fundamental Christians if you want, although I am not sure if we would have any differences as I am firmly on the secular side.

* I singled out this particular group because its relevant to our discussion regarding the clashes of values between newcomers and host nations. In fact, it's one of the primary fighting points over in Europe where refugees are concerned. Other religions (fundamental Christians for example) are not relevant in this specific case.

Regarding groups of immigrants/refugees who hold beliefs that are largely incompatible with our values, this discussion is not new. Way back in 2011 some scholars with incredible foresight had been warning about the clashes of values (regarding gender, secular views, and democracy) to come, but the mainstream thoughts were that "our existing immigrant policies and laws should be enough to prohibit individuals who hold such views". As for the constitution, well... that didn't work so well in Turkey. These folks grew up in a vastly different environment, we cant blindly "hope" what works on us would also work on them (it didn't, secular democracy does not seem to work with this group historically).

Fast forward to 2015, the mainstream hope (hey here are our laws) turned out to be way too optimistic, and several European nations have begun making refugees take sex-ed courses with focus on consent. Sadly some things just need to be experienced to be understood. Oops. Our way of living (largely rule of laws) is very different from how these immigrants/refugees were brought up.

In case it's not clear, I have mostly been talking about the problem on the side of the world and not in America, but when the wave finally reaches NA en masse, well, we need to have learned the mistakes (being way too optimistic) of the EU nations and be fully prepared to engage in the re-education process.

It will take a long time to integrate the new comers, but this first step of re-education must be delivered, so that we are all on the same page. Some EU nations learned this the hard way, don't waste the lesson. As former player said, integration is the hard part, and I completely agree, it's going to be tough for both parties, so why make it harder for everyone?

The path of middle, for me, is to welcome those in need, but to be very clear that some of their beliefs and traditions have no place, in their new (and our) home.

[nereo]

I think the discussion is being nudged away from my original point: regarding immigrants/refugees, who are for the most part decidedly not Christian. We can have a separate discussion regarding fundamental Christians if you want, although I am not sure if we would have any differences as I am firmly on the secular side.

I don't think we are offtrack at all, because the overwhelming majority of immigrants self-identify as Christian, or Agonstic/Athiest. This is how it has always been since the founding of hte US and how it continues to be.  The best stats I could find show that fully 61% of legal immigrants to the US are christian (source).  What's even more damning to illegal immigrants is that these sway even more towards Christianity (and specifically Catholicism) - an estimated 83% of undocumented are Christian.

Even if you i want to stick to this conversation about the minority of immigrants who are devoutly religious and also not-Christian, I still do not see how they are incompatible with our way of life. I've known Muslim and Jainists and Buddhists whom I consider full-fledged, red-blooded Americans. I do not see how their faith isn't contrary to our ideals in any shape or form and more-so than southern Baptists or Orthodox Jews or Mormons or Catholics

[anisotropy]

I don't think we are offtrack at all, because the overwhelming majority of immigrants self-identify as Christian, or Agonstic/Athiest. This is how it has always been since the founding of hte US and how it continues to be. 

Right. I think this could be why we are talking past each other. As I said multiple times, I have been talking about the situation in Europe, where the refugees are predominately non-westernized.

The wave has not hit NA yet, but looking at how things turned out in EU over the years, and their actions now to fix certain oversights. I firmly believe the middle road, when the time comes, is to welcome those in need, but also be very clear to the new comers that some of their beliefs and traditions have no place, in their new (and our) home.

Edit:
Perhaps opening another can of worms and risking to hijack the thread, but do people consider having immigrants from more "alike" countries (Christian and Catholicism, largely westernized) will have the similar effects as having immigrants from less "alike" countries (Sharia Islam, mostly non-westernized, for example).

Just like you, I know many Muslims that are Americans and Canadians, who share our (yes "our", the two countries are close enough as far as foundational values are concerned) values wholeheartedly. Faith alone is not contrary to our ideals, this I agree, but when it's so ingrained in cultures, traditions and general upbringings, it can become a problem.

[nereo]

I don't think we are offtrack at all, because the overwhelming majority of immigrants self-identify as Christian, or Agonstic/Athiest. This is how it has always been since the founding of hte US and how it continues to be. 

Right. I think this could be why we are talking past each other. As I said multiple times, I have been talking about the situation in Europe, where the refugees are predominately non-westernized.

The wave has not hit NA yet, but looking at how things turned out in EU over the years, and their actions now to fix certain oversights. I firmly believe the middle road, when the time comes, is to welcome those in need, but also be very clear to the new comers that some of their beliefs and traditions have no place, in their new (and our) home.

Ok - so that we can keep this conversation constructive, what "situation in Europe" are you referring to.  Being specific would certainly help. 

Absolutely having over 5 millions Syrian refugees is a problem, but I'd argue its entire due to their sheer numbers and amount of aid needed, coupled with the relative small economies taking them in, and has comparatively little to do with their religion or the 'divine law' they were raised under.

For a discussion point, consider Canada - a largely Christian nation with a population of 32MM and a GDP of 1.5T who took in about 25,000 Syrians last year and who's integration has been going very well. To be at a similar level, the US could be taking in a quarter of a million Syrians annually.  Instead we somehow trailed Canada during Obama's last term and this year we are on track to let in just a few hundred.  In a country with 325 million.  So I'm deeply skeptical that we simply can't integrate these people without it throwing us all into Chaos.

[anisotropy]

Ok - so that we can keep this conversation constructive, what "situation in Europe" are you referring to.  Being specific would certainly help. 

.... The (all consuming) European Migrant Crisis? I've been talking about it for like 4 posts now.

If you believe it's mostly a numbers issue and not a cultural issue, then we are in a very bad spot because the math is not in our favor.

Assuming things worked perfectly in Canada (I don't know if it did, but lets say it did, which would make it a special model case for future planning), the population ratio alone(host/new) then needs to be on the order of 1280 to 1. Then we need to consider the massive area of Canada for resettlement, and the resources (only financial here, $384MM) involved to take in and settle 25000 refugees, to say nothing about training and integrating. How then, can we (EU and NA) hope to take in all the refugees in need?

Indeed, I would argue how it worked out in Canada was a special case (good PR, but at great expense of Liberal's political capital, the Cons. are making a strong comeback in polls), not at all representative of how these kind of things usually turn out. It would be more beneficial and constructive if we work with what we have and treat it as mostly a cultural issue.

[wenchsenior]

I don't think we are offtrack at all, because the overwhelming majority of immigrants self-identify as Christian, or Agonstic/Athiest. This is how it has always been since the founding of hte US and how it continues to be. 

Right. I think this could be why we are talking past each other. As I said multiple times, I have been talking about the situation in Europe, where the refugees are predominately non-westernized.

The wave has not hit NA yet, but looking at how things turned out in EU over the years, and their actions now to fix certain oversights. I firmly believe the middle road, when the time comes, is to welcome those in need, but also be very clear to the new comers that some of their beliefs and traditions have no place, in their new (and our) home.

Edit:
Perhaps opening another can of worms and risking to hijack the thread, but do people consider having immigrants from more "alike" countries (Christian and Catholicism, largely westernized) will have the similar effects as having immigrants from less "alike" countries (Sharia Islam, mostly non-westernized, for example).

Just like you, I know many Muslims that are Americans and Canadians, who share our (yes "our", the two countries are close enough as far as foundational values are concerned) values wholeheartedly. Faith alone is not contrary to our ideals, this I agree, but when it's so ingrained in cultures, traditions and general upbringings, it can become a problem.

So why did you bring this up in a thread about Trump's presidency? 

[anisotropy]

Because I agreed with elements of another poster's view?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/so-let's-speculate-about-the-future-of-a-full-trump-presidency/msg2124127/#msg2124127

It's important that everything to be viewed purely on its own merit.  It's all fine and dandy to appear virtuous in public and advocate accepting immigrants/refugees, but without properly integrating the immigrants, the political climate in host nations will become increasingly reactionary (re: Sweden, Germany, Italy, Turkey, etc), making it a fertile ground for opportunists, or, the likes of Trump.

[RetiredAt63]

Assuming things worked perfectly in Canada (I don't know if it did, but lets say it did, which would make it a special model case for future planning), the population ratio alone(host/new) then needs to be on the order of 1280 to 1. Then we need to consider the massive area of Canada for resettlement, and the resources (only financial here, $384MM) involved to take in and settle 25000 refugees, to say nothing about training and integrating. How then, can we (EU and NA) hope to take in all the refugees in need?

Any Canadians reading this must be killing themselves laughing.   Yes we are a big country geographically, but like Australia a lot of it is only marginally inhabitable.  Most of us are within 200 miles of the American border  (and not the border with Alaska).  Most of our immigrants and refugees settle in cities, big cities.  Toronto is 1/2 non-native born.

The difference is a will to welcome immigrants/refugees, a recognition that except for First Nations people (who got here earlier than the rest of us) we are all immigrants or the descendants of immigrants, and that culturally we see ourselves as a mosaic instead of a melting pot.  We are also quite picky about immigrants, and usually refugees have UN approval (or something similar, I know there is a vetting process).

[Malloy]

I don't think we are offtrack at all, because the overwhelming majority of immigrants self-identify as Christian, or Agonstic/Athiest. This is how it has always been since the founding of hte US and how it continues to be. 

Right. I think this could be why we are talking past each other. As I said multiple times, I have been talking about the situation in Europe, where the refugees are predominately non-westernized.

The wave has not hit NA yet, but looking at how things turned out in EU over the years, and their actions now to fix certain oversights. I firmly believe the middle road, when the time comes, is to welcome those in need, but also be very clear to the new comers that some of their beliefs and traditions have no place, in their new (and our) home.

Edit:
Perhaps opening another can of worms and risking to hijack the thread, but do people consider having immigrants from more "alike" countries (Christian and Catholicism, largely westernized) will have the similar effects as having immigrants from less "alike" countries (Sharia Islam, mostly non-westernized, for example).

Just like you, I know many Muslims that are Americans and Canadians, who share our (yes "our", the two countries are close enough as far as foundational values are concerned) values wholeheartedly. Faith alone is not contrary to our ideals, this I agree, but when it's so ingrained in cultures, traditions and general upbringings, it can become a problem.

So why did you bring this up in a thread about Trump's presidency?

Because ginning up fear of Scary Muslim Refugees invading the Mall of America and Sharia No-Go Zones at the local Appleby's is a heavy lift, even for the Fox News-addled among us.  Most rational people realize that there are scarcely any Muslim immigrants in the US.  You have to cross the pond to begin to build the key argument (and it is key for this line of thinking): Some people just aren't cut out to be Americans.  And we can't make this determination on a case-by-case basis, which would be fair.  No, this argument requires that we paint entire cultures as suspicious and deficient.  Just not...compatible.  Not worthy of immigration.  Not, ahem "alike" like immigrants from Western countries. 

The problem with this is we see assimilation all around us.  It's kind of our competitive advantage as Americans.  We are damn good at turning the children of immigrants into pie-baking, truck-driving, intermarrying, educated and successful star-spangled Americans.  No matter where they are from.  Oh-and by the way-Muslim immigrants in the US are, on average, very well assimilated.  Don't take my word for it, take it from those pinko commies at the Cato Institute:

https://www.cato.org/blog/muslim-immigration-integration-united-states-western-europe

Now, they happen to agree with you that European Muslims are very socially conservative and not all that well integrated.  They hate abortion and gays (hey-has anyone ever made the argument that Mike Pence has failed to assimilate to the US?), and they aren't as financially successful. But who cares?  European countries don't have a patch on us when it comes to immigrant assimilation.  We're Americans, and we are just better at this shit than Europeans are.  Also, the immigrants in Europe from the Middle East are largely the conservative and religious working class without a college education, the sort of people who, in the US, make up Donald Trump's base.  Guess what?  Your average disability-dependent no college Fox news watcher wouldn't be a desirable immigrant to other countries either. They also have retrograde religious ideas. But, again, that's not who is coming to the US from the Middle East.

I don't know why conservatives are so freaked out about a problem that we don't have and that we aren't likely to have.  Except that it does remind people that Muslims exist, which sends dopamine to the xenophobia lobe in the brains of certain voters.  So maybe that's why Fox news is motivated about imaginary No-Go Sharia zones in the U.K.



 

[anisotropy]

No, this argument requires that we paint entire cultures as suspicious and deficient.  Just not...compatible.  Not worthy of immigration.  Not, ahem "alike" like immigrants from Western countries. 

I am going to cut you off right here, it's not some straw man I drew up that paint the entire culture as deficient. The EUHR itself arrived at the conclusion, Sharia laws are not compatible with democracy. I have been very clear through out, I aim to remove beliefs and traditions that are antithetic to our views, not the people, never the people in need. I am not even arguing against the religion, rather, only parts of it that are not compatible with democracy. If you can't understand that, I have no choice but to question your reading comprehension skills and/or your integrity.

The problem has not arrived at our doorsteps, true. A German would have said the same thing back in 2011. Foresight is important. You are absolutely free to believe things will be magically different when the time comes, because "We're Americans, we are just better at this shit." Good Luck with that.

ps. I feel I should add on my area of Canada comment. It came out wrong. I know about how Canadians are distributed, 90% lives within 3hrs of the border, in a few big cities. What I meant was, perhaps we should take the distances of cities into account, so that the new comers are not congregated in a relatively small geographical area (day trip by car for example).

[Malloy]

No, this argument requires that we paint entire cultures as suspicious and deficient.  Just not...compatible.  Not worthy of immigration.  Not, ahem "alike" like immigrants from Western countries. 

I am going to cut you off right here, it's not some straw man I drew up that paint the entire culture as deficient. The EUHR itself arrived at the conclusion, Sharia laws are not compatible with democracy. I have been very clear through out, I aim to remove beliefs and traditions that are antithetic to our views, not the people, never the people in need. I am not even arguing against the religion, rather, only parts of it that are not compatible with democracy. If you can't understand that, I have no choice but to question your reading comprehension skills and/or your integrity.

The problem has not arrived at our doorsteps, true. A German would have said the same thing back in 2011. Foresight is important. You are absolutely free to believe things will be magically different when the time comes, because "We're Americans, we are just better at this shit." Good Luck with that.

OK-feel free to let me know when you think the Muslim hordes are here to institute Sharia law, and I'll be the first to sign up for the De-Sharification Centers.  We let in, what, 25,000 Syrian refugees under Obama?  Do you think that meets the threshold?  In the meantime, I'll enjoy the increase in delicious halal meals.

Attacks on my reading comprehension still don't answer what series of events you think are going to lead to these problems in the US.  But you can feel free to read that linked Cato institute report if you want to lessen the feeling of dread you have.  It's actually pretty interesting. I don't always agree with them, but they pretty much nailed down why we are better at this shit.  It's not magic. It's our culture, our economy, our history, and our immigration laws.  And, as I mentioned, it's the fact that our Muslim immigrants tend not to be uneducated religious types.  Who could have thought those two traits together could be such a problem? 

[anisotropy]

I'll enjoy the increase in delicious halal meals.

Attacks on my reading comprehension still don't answer what series of events you think are going to lead to these problems in the US.  But you can feel free to read that linked Cato institute report if you want to lessen the feeling of dread you have.  It's actually pretty interesting. I don't always agree with them, but they pretty much nailed down why we are better at this shit.  It's not magic. It's our culture, our economy, our history, and our immigration laws.  And, as I mentioned, it's the fact that our Muslim immigrants tend not to be uneducated religious types.  Who could have thought those two traits together could be such a problem?

Love it too, whats your fav? Lamb or Chicken? With Aleppo chili?

Again, like I said, I was talking about the problems Europe is facing. Muslim Immigrants are indeed highly educated, I think I was also quite clear I was talking about the non-westernized refugees growing up in a very different environment.

Immigration Laws, unfortunately matter not as much in the end when you have millions of refugees waiting to come in. It is inhumane to reject the ones in need, yet unfair to citizens to let too many in. It's a delicate balance, I think most people can understand.

Many European nations were optimistic back in 2011 that their existing laws and their culture would be enough integrate the new comers well, but that (hey here are our laws) turned out to be way too optimistic, and several European nations have begun making refugees take sex-ed courses with focus on consent. Sadly some things just need to be experienced to be understood.

EU nations learned this the hard way, don't waste the valuable lesson.

[RetiredAt63]

Many European nations were optimistic back in 2011 that their existing laws and their culture would be enough integrate the new comers well, but that (hey here are our laws) turned out to be way too optimistic, and several European nations have begun making refugees take sex-ed courses with focus on consent. Sadly some things just need to be experienced to be understood.

Well then  they will be better educated than the masses of American and Canadian men who think no=maybe and maybe=yes.

[anisotropy]

Many European nations were optimistic back in 2011 that their existing laws and their culture would be enough integrate the new comers well, but that (hey here are our laws) turned out to be way too optimistic, and several European nations have begun making refugees take sex-ed courses with focus on consent. Sadly some things just need to be experienced to be understood.

Well then  they will be better educated than the masses of American and Canadian men who think no=maybe and maybe=yes.

So you agree it would be a good idea to implement some re-education process upon entry then?

[astvilla]

So many here don't like him. I don't like his character but I accept it and try to be an optimist.

So you've heard his rhetoric and you've decided you're okay with that.  So you're okay with a man who says nazi's are good people, Russia is okay, cheating on your many wives is okay, paying for porn stars/Playboy models for having sex with you while married is okay, lying daily is okay...

Sadly, it is acceptable and even encouraged, by many.

Whoa okay you need to chill down.

People lie all the time. Yes he's got no external references or sense of humor but I care about issues and actions.

Lot of people cheat on their partners, many leaders of many countries, even our own (Clinton, Kennedy, both DEMOCRATS) did. And worse than Trump, they did it on government, tax-payer property (which annoyed others more than the act itself). Al Franken, Petraeus, need I go on? You almost sound like Nazi police yourself..jeez.

I don't think Nazis are okay, but it's not only Nazis that voted for him. In fact, data shows most people who voted for him are not Nazis.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is not okay, but remember, we interfered in their elections and countless other countries too. We'd be hypocrites to call Russia out for getting a taste of our own medicine.

Most people I know who voted Trump are pretty friendly nice people. Maybe you should leave your bubble and start meeting Republican voters, not listen to what news says who the voters are. And most people just voted on party lines, regardless of the candidate. Don't try to claim to know everything about an anonymous stranger on the Internet. I'm a registered Democrat who voted Obama and would've voted him a 3rd term if allowed the choice.

I'd say Dems accepted Bill Clinton's behavior too. People accepted George Bush's behavior. I'd rather have Trump than Bush. Between 6500 Americans dead, 50000 wounded, and trillions of our tax dollars wasted plus worst financial crisis since Great Depression versus personal proclivities of one person...I'd make that trade every single time, any rational person would. And how things are under Trump right now, I'd pick Trump over Bush. Of course, Trump's full term or terms hasn't borne out yet so he could still have major screw-ups. And I credit the economy more to Obama than Trump.

I wouldn't encourage that behavior but I don't think Presidents historically have ever been as strong a moral compass compared to your community, your parents, or your own personal values from colleagues, family, religion, etc. So I'm not sure how much a President's personal matters affects one's morals. Hillary lied but you didn't care about how that. She didn't leave Bill even though he cheated because she used him for his last name and her own ambition. I'm not going through a scorecard and keeping a tally on the sins leaders commit and deciding who to vote for based on only how well-behaved they are and pretend I'm God passing down judgment on others. I care about the issues and what they intend to do. For some, Trump was an outsider and no history, people thought he'd change once in, obviously in many ways he didn't so people will switch if there's an alternative, which doesn't look like it in 2020...

If you look at 2016, Obama and Trump had the same message. Political outsiders (a main reason Obama ran in 2008, cause if he served in Senate too long, people wouldn't consider him outsider anymore), and their own versions of populism and energy. Hillary was the opponent in both cases, so why the surprise? She corrupted the nomination process by stonewalling Bernie and caused her own defeat. She just was never a strong candidate and I wished the Democrats had someone better I could vote for.

[nereo]

I'll enjoy the increase in delicious halal meals.

Attacks on my reading comprehension still don't answer what series of events you think are going to lead to these problems in the US.  But you can feel free to read that linked Cato institute report if you want to lessen the feeling of dread you have.  It's actually pretty interesting. I don't always agree with them, but they pretty much nailed down why we are better at this shit.  It's not magic. It's our culture, our economy, our history, and our immigration laws.  And, as I mentioned, it's the fact that our Muslim immigrants tend not to be uneducated religious types.  Who could have thought those two traits together could be such a problem?

Love it too, whats your fav? Lamb or Chicken? With Aleppo chili?

Again, like I said, I was talking about the problems Europe is facing. Muslim Immigrants are indeed highly educated, I think I was also quite clear I was talking about the non-westernized refugees growing up in a very different environment.

Immigration Laws, unfortunately matter not as much in the end when you have millions of refugees waiting to come in. It is inhumane to reject the ones in need, yet unfair to citizens to let too many in. It's a delicate balance, I think most people can understand.

Many European nations were optimistic back in 2011 that their existing laws and their culture would be enough integrate the new comers well, but that (hey here are our laws) turned out to be way too optimistic, and several European nations have begun making refugees take sex-ed courses with focus on consent. Sadly some things just need to be experienced to be understood.

EU nations learned this the hard way, don't waste the valuable lesson.

You seem to not understand some very basic tenants of US Immigration policy.  For starters, all refugees are immigrants (whereas not all immigrants are refugees). 
Also, as multiple people here have already tried to point out, all immigrants to the US are beholden to our laws, and undergo vetting - those that hold Sharia law (or any other code) above our own Constutition are simply not allowed in.  This is not a Trump position or an Obama position, but has been part of our immigration policy going on 50 years.  Oh, and before that - anyone who could get here could live here, and much of our population was formed on refugees.
Ultimately though what perplexes me is the confoundation of people who are Muslim, people are have lived under Sharia law but are trying to escape (‘refugees’) and people who subscribe to Sharia law.  Accociating all Muslims with Sharia law is grouping the many with the few, and saying people who live under suc a system (and are actively trying to escape) are somehow ‘uncompatible’ with our society ignores the scores of people who do exactly this every year - not just from countries under Sharia law but also those who have come from monarchies, communist governments, tyrants and warlords.  Again, history has shown that even here people integrate very well.

[anisotropy]

I think I will reply you once last time on this issue. The European nations also thought the same way in the beginning, about how their laws would work prohibiting undesired behaviors, no matter the new comers upbringings and backgrounds.

Unfortunately they were wrong, and are now taking new steps (actively educating them about acceptable behaviors) to ensure everyone starts on the same page. We should all learn from this, I am merely proposing we do the same, when our time comes.

I understand there is a vetting process in NA and I have no quarrel with that. I have said many many times, my original point was regarding the European situation, not America, please note this key difference. Is it really that hard to tell, 10+ posts in, we are talking about two different host "nations" and two situations?

I don't mean people are not compatible solely because they live under a system, in fact, I have stressed this multiple times, it is not about the people. I most definitely did not associate all muslims with sharia laws, I am not sure how you got that impression and I find it offensive. What I said was, some beliefs, customs, and traditions are not compatible. Leave them at the door, welcome to your new home.

 I have been very clear through out, I aim to remove beliefs and traditions that are antithetic to our views, not the people, never the people in need. I am not even arguing against the religion, rather, only parts of it that are not compatible with democracy. If you can't understand that, I have no choice but to question your reading comprehension skills and/or your integrity.

[astvilla]

Unfortunately, a lot of Muslims are unfairly portrayed due to how the media reports them. Fox but even liberal outlets, give outsize attention to incidents involving Muslims. People think violence when they hear Muslim. Not true but if people saw constant fighting, civil strife, suicide bombings, crimes by Muslim in Europe, terror attacks, bombings in Bali and ISIS in Phillippines, Mumbai, Iran building nukes and exporting violence to their neighbors, Pakistan profiting off US aid for "not helping" in Afghanistan, and you're constantly bombarded with this, well, I can understand why people think that way of Muslims even though I'm not in real agreement with it. 

Personally, I think 1 reason Bush invaded Iraq to start a large conflict against Islam so that the US military can use them as training practice for war since no one cares if brown or black people die, sharpen their warfighting skills, support the defense industry (present in many constituent states), gain, maintain experience (that China doesn't have). I heard Bush justified the war internally because if democracy could be established in Iraq, then secular democracy would sweep into Iran/Saudi Arabia and pacify the whole region and reduce regional rivalries and tensions (obviously didn't work) as everyone would be love and peace.

I think we mistake democracy as a panacea for all problems. Obviously it's not. China is thriving without it. ROK, JPN, Taiwan, Singapore, Vietnam essentially had authoritarian governments until they reached a level of development where democracy could take place for some and remain stable. Democracy works for us but might not for everyone. Maybe let them figure it out rather than us thrust it on them. This appears to be Trump's sentiment of non-interference in other people's governments.

So some say Muslims aren't compatible with democracy, in part, because no Muslim majority nation has a "healthy" democracy with freedom of religion an ensured right. Malaysia does cane their LGBTQ and Indonesia is turning more fundamentalist. ISIS militants fought in the Phillippines. Muslims don't share many liberal values with liberals regarding marriage, abortion, homosexuality, marijuana. Muslims can have democracy, but it wouldn't be a democracy I think any of us could live in as their rules are more restrictive nor would they be as tolerating or welcoming, which angers a lot of Trump voters. But none of that means Muslims can't integrate into America

Regarding EU, Merkel mistakenly thought EU could be like America. But America's common identity is in part due to not being bound by bloodlines or genetics (Obama just said this at McCain's funeral). EU countries have strong cultures, cuisines, languages and rich histories (millennia compared to our 250 years). EU is mistaken to think we're the same. Also EU never had a Civil Rights movement like US had in the 60s, they didn't have the same growing pains. If you go to European football matches, Europeans can be pretty racist, more so than Americans. I don't recall in the US, racist incidents being commonly reported in NBA/NFL compared to soccer matches where fans get banned for racism (Spain especially has big problem with racism).

Also EU isn't historically accepting immigrants. They are historically sending immigrants to the US. EU is a homeland for people. America isn't a "homeland" so EU is different than America in how they see others.

[anisotropy]

I think we mistake democracy as a panacea for all problems. Obviously it's not. China is thriving without it. ROK, JPN, Taiwan, Singapore, Vietnam essentially had authoritarian governments until they reached a level of development where democracy could take place for some and remain stable. Democracy works for us but might not for everyone. Maybe let them figure it out rather than us thrust it on them. This appears to be Trump's sentiment of non-interference in other people's governments.

So some say Muslims aren't compatible with democracy, in part, because no Muslim majority nation has a "healthy" democracy with freedom of religion an ensured right. Malaysia does cane their LGBTQ and Indonesia is turning more fundamentalist. ISIS militants fought in the Phillippines. Muslims don't share many liberal values with liberals regarding marriage, abortion, homosexuality, marijuana. Muslims can have democracy, but it wouldn't be a democracy I think any of us could live in as their rules are more restrictive nor would they be as tolerating or welcoming, which angers a lot of Trump voters. But none of that means Muslims can't integrate into America

Regarding EU, Merkel mistakenly thought EU could be like America. But America's common identity is in part due to not being bound by bloodlines or genetics (Obama just said this at McCain's funeral). EU countries have strong cultures, cuisines, languages and rich histories (millennia compared to our 250 years). EU is mistaken to think we're the same. Also EU never had a Civil Rights movement like US had in the 60s, they didn't have the same growing pains. If you go to European football matches, Europeans can be pretty racist, more so than Americans. I don't recall in the US, racist incidents being commonly reported in NBA/NFL compared to soccer matches where fans get banned for racism (Spain especially has big problem with racism).

Also EU isn't historically accepting immigrants. They are historically sending immigrants to the US. EU is a homeland for people. America isn't a "homeland" so EU is different than America in how they see others.

Again, I find myself agreeing with elements with your view:  Democracy works for us but might not for everyone (begs the question, why? is it cultural?). And your comparison of US vs EU.

However, I would like point out, the EUHR Court did not find Muslims to be incompatible with democracy , rather they found the Sharia laws to be incompatible with democracy. To me, they are not the same things. In fact, Muslim nations can be democratic as you mentioned, and I have no doubt most citizens from these nations would integrate just fine (and they have, my neighbors for example) in America and in EU.

[runbikerun]

Let's not beat around the bush: the discussion of certain immigrants' religious beliefs being incompatible with Western democracy is, at its root, functionally identical to the arguments made by Oswald Mosley. Read it as a commentary on Jewish immigrants and see how it looks.

[former player]

Let's not beat around the bush: the discussion of certain immigrants' religious beliefs being incompatible with Western democracy is, at its root, functionally identical to the arguments made by Oswald Mosley. Read it as a commentary on Jewish immigrants and see how it looks.

That comparison used to work well.  Unfortunately anti-Semitism seems not to be as taboo as in the recent past.

[nereo]

However, I would like point out, the EUHR Court did not find Muslims to be incompatible with democracy , rather they found the Sharia laws to be incompatible with democracy. To me, they are not the same things. In fact, Muslim nations can be democratic as you mentioned, and I have no doubt most citizens from these nations would integrate just fine (and they have, my neighbors for example) in America and in EU.

I agree that they are most decidedly NOT the same thing, and Muslims can and do live and thrive in democracies.  Indonesia is one example..

It's no different from Christianity - to follow the scriptures literally and devoutly is incompatible with democracy, and yet its self evident that Christians can create and exist under a democracy.