LuckyR wrote: ↑June 10th, 2018, 12:53 am
Golly, what’s your solution for all the non-harmless (by your reckoning) Muslims who are... ALREADY HERE!!!!! I am just freaking out thinking of the risk. Just so you know that’s about 3.4 million and will be the second largest religion in the US around 2040.
Muslims represent only a small fraction of the total population of the US, and hile they remain a small minority, they have no chance of securing any kind of genuine political power in America. If ever, (God forbid !) in the hypothetical future, US immigration policy was, however, changed in a way that made it easier, generally speaking, for Muslims to immigrate to the US on a permanent basis, as the total number of Muslims in the US increased there would, of course, be a corresponding ( and proportionate) increase in their overall political strength, and
this is when you would start to see real trouble begin in terms of domestic social strife/ civil unrest. For instance, the frequency of violent terrorist attacks against non-muslim targets in the US, would escalate and communities would in consequence,become ever more bitterly divided and unstable as more and more insular Muslim enclaves established themselves in American towns and cities.
You realise, BTW, that if ever the day should come when the population of the USA was: 51% Muslim and 49% non-Muslim, then you and and family would have only have one option, i.e. covert to Islam or die. It would good-bye "Land of the Free", good-bye to democracy, and good-bye to all of your cherished Human Rights, LuckyR. How would YOU ( a proponent of classic, "bleeding heart" philosophical liberalism) like that ? You could, of course organise protests against the new theocratic order, but if you did you (and your rebellious collaborators) would either be arrested and executed without trial or imprisoned and tortured indefinitely (if you were lucky).
As for those Muslim immigrants who are currently residing in the US; because they are, in fact,
implacably hostile to all of America's fundamental, core values, namely: democracy; respect for equal, universal Human Rights as conceptualised and enshrined in the UNUDHR, respect for the fundamental principle of the "rule of law" (as this notion is currently defined and understood in America); respect for the Constitutional First Amendment Rights of their fellow (non-muslim) citizens; any feeling of moral obligation to demonstrate a
(sincere) mutual respect for their fellow (non-Muslim) Americans, and so on. There is, in short, every good reason to regard them as holding beliefs and attitudes that are wholly inappropriate and incompatible with the fundamental values and civilised standards of conduct and discourse that currently obtain in mainstream American society. Right?
In short, because they are contemptuous of basic American values, they are necessarily lacking the kind of "good character" that any politician would surely agree MUST be possed in order justify their ongoing permission to remain as permanent residents in American socity. As the British government's Home Office would put it, they are manifestly "undesirable" ( inherently and irremediably antisocial) elements and ought be deported to their country of origin immediately.
LuckyR wrote: ↑June 10th, 2018, 12:53 am
BTW by your logic all terrorists have to do to slip by your “blockade” is fake converting to Christianity, so much for the Wall...
Yes, Muslim are officially permitted ,by virtue of certain Islamic doctrines, such as ("Kitman and Taqiya") to lie and dissimulate -; to practice frank trickery, deception and duplicity - in any circumstance where it is deemed necessary in order to serve the greater purpose of the Islamic cause, which is ultimately always, to put it bluntly,
jihad. The Muslim pilots, for ex, who brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11 ,lied and deceived their way through US airport security checks before flying off to murder thousands of innocent US citizens on that dreadful day. So, I agree with you that if a ban on Muslim immigration were implemented in the US, the relevant authorities
would face a formidable administrative challenge wrt to identifying who, among all of those applying to immigrate into the US, was, or was not, a
bone fide Muslim ( i.e. an Islamist). The real Muslims would simply lie, of course, if the US immigration process demanded applicants to formally declare their religion.
LuckyR wrote: ↑June 10th, 2018, 12:53 am
As to your convenient description of the CATO institute, “liberal” is currently a term that has little to no meaning online
I agree. The term" Liberal" has been bandied about so often and in so many different contexts, it has lost any precise singular meaning. So let me clarify how I have interpreted the term. When I describe the CATO institute as a" Liberal" think -tank. I am using the term "Liberal" in the sense that , say, P.J. O'Rourke, the US humorist used it. I am using him as an example because I am pretty sure you are familiar with PJ's general schtick (?) For P.J., a "Liberal" in America is a person who supports the operation a free market ( laissez-faire) capitalist economy; one that is ideally supervised by a "small", minimally-interventionist, government. Thus, most American Republicans are "Liberals" in the sense I have just defined the term. The CATO institute is a (moderately, but unmistakably) right - of -centre, "Liberalist" organization in that it has a robust faith in the inherent wisdom and self-regulating prudency of the laissez-faire and consequently favours the principle of small government. Personally, I think the term "neo-liberal" is probably a better descriptor in 2018 for the kind of economic rationalist/market fundamentalist political policies that CATO supports. In any case, I do not find their view that America should adopt the policy of loosening its current border controls in order to encourage
more ( effectively unregulated !) foreign immigration into the US, to be very prudent one. Their theory is that this would ultimately strengthen the American economy ,and that the free market, would, by the very nature of its implicit
modus operandi automatically regulate the volume and composition of foreign immigration into the US "wisely", that is, in a way that it precluded the possible development of any potentially dangerous political destabilisation. I totally disagree. (As I mentioned in my previous post the theory neo-liberal, market fundamentalism was proven false in September of 2008 when it triggered the GFC and thereafter years of desperate misery and suffering for countless millions of Americans ( in fact the US today has
still not totally recovered from this disaster ! So I do not share CATOs faith in the capacity of the market to safely regulate US immigration)
Regards
Dachshund