Half of Americans want to ban all Muslims from the US, poll shows

No and not necessary.

Unless you wanna blanket ban religious people. That would make sense.

 

I don't disagree with it because it doesn't share my world view. I disagree with the "Syrian sunnis have been subject to ethnic cleansing at the hands of the alawite minority" because it is misleading. I am American but currently in Lebanon. I know what happens in Syria. I have even been there on several occasions.

nevertheless I generally do agree with your first 4 points.

but regarding your 4th, i want to say that some sunni actually support bashar (not many). the Syrian gov isn't anti sunni, it is anti isis. you can actually come across a pro bashar sunni.

edit: if they had to say it, would have been more appropriate to use "isis has been subject to ethnic cleansing at hands"

Syrian gov goal isn't to intentionally clear out sunni areas, it is to clear out isis areas. to Syria gov, being sunni shouldn't be an issue, as long as one is not with isis. bashar al assad is member of baath party. baath believe in secularism. even though bashar is alawite, he is Syrian first, alawite second. his wife is sunni if that means anything.

 

Actually given the numbers of immigrants (legal and otherwise) I'm not opposed to a stoppage or pause of new immigration regardless of religion. I would have an exception for people with skills we need or those who are being severely persecuted. That would give these people time to assimilate some, time to get through the backlog and most importantly time for us to come up with a good sensible policy on this. Otherwise I don't have the time or inclination to go into a long-winded answer.

 

''For most cultures a decision is the end of a discussion, for the Dutch it is only the beginning.'' - some french guy Greg Shapiro claims to know.



so I'm just going to wait till you have made a decision, then we can begin the discussion.

 

I guess, I just figure since it's a forum, it's better to put it out there, and those that DO want to discuss it "properly" can? Even if you can't have a proper discussion with Ragic on the topic, it'd be more interesting to have that conversation with me than the one we're having currently?

I suppose I also would rather indirectly encourage Ragic to post meaningful questions and such rather than promoting exchanging of trollish BS, though it may be a lost cause on certain topics.

Just how I feel on the subject.

It's less about proving your the "better person" so much as having the opportunity to have a discussion with others branch off as a result (while also being the "better person" for whatever that matters, if anything).

At the very least, why sink to his level? If you don't think he's worth talking to, just ignore him?

-------------------------

Is that legal immigration, illegal immigration or both (and does it change between charts)? One of the things I've seen in terms of overall narratives on the subject (not saying anyone here, but media in general) is the push to not distinguish between legal and illegal aliens (not that kind of alien).

Part of why I ask is because it seems likely they don't have full documentation of the illegal side, which may fiddle with the numbers.

Anyway,

I do believe that is part of the idea behind having "a wall." To put additional barriers in the way of illegal immigration. I, of course, still think it's stupid for a number of reasons, but I can understand the (IMO flawed) reasoning.

Still, there has been a major halt of even attempting to enforce the laws concerning illegal immigration within the US. That to me is a bigger problem. While I'm totally up for reviewing and modifying (including making some things easier for prospective immigrants) the disregard for even enforcing the law is a problem on it's face, regardless of whether or not there is a concern for terrorists or specific (ostensibly hostile) parties seeking entry (which I think is greatly overblown).

That said it does bring up another issue. In the case of refugees that entered illegally, you can't just return them, as that would potentially constitute refoulement (which is considered a violation of human rights by the UN, and the US is at least a signatory of relevant conventions, though I didn't check for ratification yet). Though the aforementioned lack of documentation and information on them means you can't necessarily confirm their status as refugees in the first place. It muddies up the whole thing and makes it much more difficult. Encouraging the practice by openly stating the refusal to enforce such laws worsens that problem.

 

yes, but ISIS atrocities far outweigh the atrocities of Syrian gov. Syrian gov didn't draw first blood. ISIS had already massacred several villages before the war even started.

 

when did which war start?

 

latest I heard from trump on this is to have immigration bans for areas with high levels of terrorist activity. i.e. the middle east.

 

war that was officially recognized in 2011. known in the west as Syrian Civil War.

 

so 3 years before ISIS declared itself they had already massacred?

 

names of stuffs affects perceptions.

 

it wont happen, its just talk. Muslims may face discrimination because of modern terrorism but they wont be deported in this country. most of the illegals will probably be fine too.

 

What is it thay you do that requires you to be round that side of the globe?

 

All the effort to ban muzzy immigration should be put towards identifying those trying to create home grown terrorism.

Any Muslim immigrant whose going to decide to go jihadi has long been here anyway or is the child of immigrants who is now a disillusioned entitled twit like half the American youth. You can't go after knobs because they are play dough in the hands of terrorist-makers.

Find the terrorist-makers.