Debate Now Trump's Immigration Proposal

[Unkotare]

USA should stop immigration......

Not going to happen. Move on.

 

[Unkotare]

...may not be so outlandish after all. Despite the hysterical rantings of the PC crowd, we are currently at the mercy of untold numbers of Muslim terrorists who wish to enter our country. Since we currently have no effective screening procedures in place to prevent this, a moratorium on allowing further infiltration is not only logically justified, but a practical necessity.

But isn't this unconstitutional religious discrimination, you ask? No, it is not if it only applies to non-U.S. citizens. We have a perfect right and obligation to screen and delay or deny entry into the United Sates any persons who pose a potential threat to our security.

Some have suggested a geographic, rather than religious, moratorium on entry visas, but that transparent attempt to appease Muslim sensibilities would be seen as a ruse, as well as being ineffective. For example, a French-born Muslim terrorist (sound familiar?) would not be affected by such a scheme.

As often said, all Muslims are not terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim. It should also be noted that a basic tenet of that religion is conversion by force and execution of apostates. Until we can determine whether someone has truly rejected these principles, shouldn't we err on the side of protecting our citizens?

First, one has to understand the Trump method of campaigning. Every time the media attention wanes a bit or starts shifting to somebody else, he says something totally outrageous, however much it creates controversy, to shift the attention back on himself. He has received hundreds more hours of attention than anybody else gets using this tactic, both in face time for himself, and in discussions about him.

I call this the Coulter method. If anybody can get past their prejudices about Ann and look at it all objectively, every time she has a new book coming out, she makes a point to say something outrageous. She immediately rockets to the center of attention on message boards, Twitter, news feeds and talk shows, etc. and her book immediately rockets onto the best seller's list.

But strip the political correctness outrage off of both of them, and there is a lot of common sense in what they are saying.

The only mistake Trump made--and it may have been intentional to get the media coverage as described--was in saying "all Muslims" instead of "Muslims from countries harboring terrorists."

The latter is really difficult for anybody to argue with.

Trump is being reserved in saying the whole truth. I am saying all colored people are daughters of the devil and should be annihilated from this planet. They belong only in one place - the fires of hell.

Dear TheGreatKing
Of your statement on race, two things might be proven scientifically to explain some of this discrimination by color:
1. If we were to study the ill effects of witchcraft sorcery voodoo and other dark magic practices manipulating dark occult energy, this can be shown to correlate with disruptive and destructive violence, addictions, genocide and other generational abuses. The experts who practice spiritual healing are all in agreement this negative energy in curses is carried by generations and has to be spiritually renounced and removed before ppl can heal and be reconciled with positive life giving energy that unites humanity and restores peaceful equal relations and normal health.

So TheGreatKing you can show it is the curses carried by the tribes in Africa and the Native American tribes that stir the hatred behind genocide wars and slavery that send ppl through hell. And this also applies to European tribes and lineage cursed with witchcraft and other unnatural dark practices that affect future generations.

These patterns could be proven by science by mapping the statistics and showing the effect of healing after these root causes are removed by forgiveness therapies that break the generational cycles of abuse addiction and ill will passed down like a sickness.
Correlation can be proved, but causation remains faith based and can be agreed upon even if not proven.

2. Another point that can be proven about Caucasian race vs colored:
Look up the bone marrow donation policies and why they designate four minority groups of African Latino Asian and Native American. Unlike Caucasian donors and recipients who have 9/10 chances of finding matches due to HLA compatibility with each other, people of the other racial groups do not have as compatible HLA factors and only have 1/10 chances. That is why the registry seeks to match donors by ethnicity in order to increase chances of finding a match. And biracial ppl have so little chance it is by luck they find one at all.

So the Caucasian ppl have an advantage in survival here while minorities are in the opposite position. If you want to argue against mixing races, this can be used to argue it is better for survival to keep the races pure.

(I have one anthropologist friend who argues it is better to mix the races and evolve to a higher level where the best traits of all of them survive.)

Whatever you believe TheGreatKing you have the right to that but not to impose on ppl who disagree and have equally protected beliefs.

The best approach I recommend for you is to support tax breaks to encourage and reward ppl in investing in economic and educational development so all countries can have freedom and oppotunity as in America. That way nobody has to depend on coming here to have equal freedom security and justice, but it is established voluntarily and not by force of religion or politics. People naturally organize by like beliefs and culture. So encourage all people to invest in developing campus facilities in all countries to manage education jobs and services, and people from all countries and cultures can benefit equally while helping their own communities.

Well, that was a big pile of 'crazy.'

 

[emilynghiem]

...may not be so outlandish after all. Despite the hysterical rantings of the PC crowd, we are currently at the mercy of untold numbers of Muslim terrorists who wish to enter our country. Since we currently have no effective screening procedures in place to prevent this, a moratorium on allowing further infiltration is not only logically justified, but a practical necessity.

But isn't this unconstitutional religious discrimination, you ask? No, it is not if it only applies to non-U.S. citizens. We have a perfect right and obligation to screen and delay or deny entry into the United Sates any persons who pose a potential threat to our security.

Some have suggested a geographic, rather than religious, moratorium on entry visas, but that transparent attempt to appease Muslim sensibilities would be seen as a ruse, as well as being ineffective. For example, a French-born Muslim terrorist (sound familiar?) would not be affected by such a scheme.

As often said, all Muslims are not terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim. It should also be noted that a basic tenet of that religion is conversion by force and execution of apostates. Until we can determine whether someone has truly rejected these principles, shouldn't we err on the side of protecting our citizens?

First, one has to understand the Trump method of campaigning. Every time the media attention wanes a bit or starts shifting to somebody else, he says something totally outrageous, however much it creates controversy, to shift the attention back on himself. He has received hundreds more hours of attention than anybody else gets using this tactic, both in face time for himself, and in discussions about him.

I call this the Coulter method. If anybody can get past their prejudices about Ann and look at it all objectively, every time she has a new book coming out, she makes a point to say something outrageous. She immediately rockets to the center of attention on message boards, Twitter, news feeds and talk shows, etc. and her book immediately rockets onto the best seller's list.

But strip the political correctness outrage off of both of them, and there is a lot of common sense in what they are saying.

The only mistake Trump made--and it may have been intentional to get the media coverage as described--was in saying "all Muslims" instead of "Muslims from countries harboring terrorists."

The latter is really difficult for anybody to argue with.

Trump is being reserved in saying the whole truth. I am saying all colored people are daughters of the devil and should be annihilated from this planet. They belong only in one place - the fires of hell.

Dear TheGreatKing
Of your statement on race, two things might be proven scientifically to explain some of this discrimination by color:
1. If we were to study the ill effects of witchcraft sorcery voodoo and other dark magic practices manipulating dark occult energy, this can be shown to correlate with disruptive and destructive violence, addictions, genocide and other generational abuses. The experts who practice spiritual healing are all in agreement this negative energy in curses is carried by generations and has to be spiritually renounced and removed before ppl can heal and be reconciled with positive life giving energy that unites humanity and restores peaceful equal relations and normal health.

So TheGreatKing you can show it is the curses carried by the tribes in Africa and the Native American tribes that stir the hatred behind genocide wars and slavery that send ppl through hell. And this also applies to European tribes and lineage cursed with witchcraft and other unnatural dark practices that affect future generations.

These patterns could be proven by science by mapping the statistics and showing the effect of healing after these root causes are removed by forgiveness therapies that break the generational cycles of abuse addiction and ill will passed down like a sickness.
Correlation can be proved, but causation remains faith based and can be agreed upon even if not proven.

2. Another point that can be proven about Caucasian race vs colored:
Look up the bone marrow donation policies and why they designate four minority groups of African Latino Asian and Native American. Unlike Caucasian donors and recipients who have 9/10 chances of finding matches due to HLA compatibility with each other, people of the other racial groups do not have as compatible HLA factors and only have 1/10 chances. That is why the registry seeks to match donors by ethnicity in order to increase chances of finding a match. And biracial ppl have so little chance it is by luck they find one at all.

So the Caucasian ppl have an advantage in survival here while minorities are in the opposite position. If you want to argue against mixing races, this can be used to argue it is better for survival to keep the races pure.

(I have one anthropologist friend who argues it is better to mix the races and evolve to a higher level where the best traits of all of them survive.)

Whatever you believe TheGreatKing you have the right to that but not to impose on ppl who disagree and have equally protected beliefs.

The best approach I recommend for you is to support tax breaks to encourage and reward ppl in investing in economic and educational development so all countries can have freedom and oppotunity as in America. That way nobody has to depend on coming here to have equal freedom security and justice, but it is established voluntarily and not by force of religion or politics. People naturally organize by like beliefs and culture. So encourage all people to invest in developing campus facilities in all countries to manage education jobs and services, and people from all countries and cultures can benefit equally while helping their own communities.

Well, that was a big pile of 'crazy.'

That msg is for TGK who posted the belief that all tribes of colored ppl are destined for hell.

If that doesn't matter to you it's not for you Unkotare. Thank God, because it is a very deep difficult topic and process to explain and would fill up the internet. Maybe you are right, it is better not to go there at all. It opens up too many cans of worms. Of where intertribal and interacial genocide comes from and what it takes to heal it. If TGK doesn't want to be responsible for the solutions then why bring up the problem. Either resolve it or quit complaining. I spelled out how far and deep this goes. If you can't handle it, don't go there. Just look away and let other ppl deal with that level of spiritual and political reality.

So far drifter is the only person I found who researched and understood what I was saying. We'll see if TGK can handle it or brush it off as crazy talk.

 

[Unkotare]

....

Trump is being reserved in saying the whole truth. I am saying all colored people are daughters of the devil and should be annihilated from this planet. They belong only in one place - the fires of hell.

Well, now the Batshit Crazy Party has been heard from. They are expected to do very well with the Napoleons and people who talk to space aliens through transmitters in their toenails.

 

[Unkotare]

..... it is a very deep difficult topic ......

No it's not. It's just stupid and crazy. Keep that shit on the conspiracy forum where it belongs.

 

[emilynghiem]

...may not be so outlandish after all. Despite the hysterical rantings of the PC crowd, we are currently at the mercy of untold numbers of Muslim terrorists who wish to enter our country. Since we currently have no effective screening procedures in place to prevent this, a moratorium on allowing further infiltration is not only logically justified, but a practical necessity.

But isn't this unconstitutional religious discrimination, you ask? No, it is not if it only applies to non-U.S. citizens. We have a perfect right and obligation to screen and delay or deny entry into the United Sates any persons who pose a potential threat to our security.

Some have suggested a geographic, rather than religious, moratorium on entry visas, but that transparent attempt to appease Muslim sensibilities would be seen as a ruse, as well as being ineffective. For example, a French-born Muslim terrorist (sound familiar?) would not be affected by such a scheme.

As often said, all Muslims are not terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim. It should also be noted that a basic tenet of that religion is conversion by force and execution of apostates. Until we can determine whether someone has truly rejected these principles, shouldn't we err on the side of protecting our citizens?

Dear jwoodie why not require all sponsoring organizations to accept legal and financial responsibility for adopting immigrants.

All sponsors would be required to sign agreements enforcing Constitutional laws and protections, so that any violation by their members becomes their responsibility, and they would also lose citizenship and ability to reside and operate in America if their organization is abused to enable members to violate rights of others.

That way not only is the govt responsible for screening but also the sponsoring employers or organizations. Only the reputable law abiding ppl would get sponsorship not anyone posing a risk that no one agrees to underwrite.

The applicants can be enrolled through a school program similar to colleges, where the campus that sponsors them accepts full legal and financial responsibility as a cosigner.

If all collective organizations have to sign agreements for licensing operations that require enforcing constitutional rights and protections, then this would police all religious and political groups, not just targeting one group like Muslims.

 

[Holos]

"Until we can determine whether someone has truly rejected these principles, shouldn't we err on the side of protecting our citizens?"

You have not posed any principles for discussion, but only conceptual aggregates flexible in their constituents and briskly unsubscribed by your eager inquiry. As you mentioned yourself, the groups in question are religious and not governmental, requiring comprehension preceding the knowledge of any Nation-State Constitution.

If we aptly choose to consider the entire history of human kind in our assessment of the political situation posed, then it is chronologically concise to focus primarily on religion, and not even in politics or politicians. Since religion is so much more rustic than advanced multi-million population civilization, it requires for its comprehension that individuals, by their very own nature, concede themselves a generous amount of time spent with no other human, but only with themselves and whatever else they perceive in their experience, and therefore learn what religion, as recognition and communication with surroundings, signifies when it develops into more complex forms of organization, spanning entire leagues, miles, kilometers, coasts.

The answer to your question of course is no, we should not err, but we cannot really discuss it the way you have posed the question, since the possibility of risk and plunder is embedded in it. That is, even if "choosing protection because of an error" actually provided progress and development, energy, attention, time, leisure, all the country's resources, would have to be continually restricted because the "error" would have not been properly converted to adequate codes and conducts, but would continually return to the rejecting party with increasing pressure, simply because they initially prodded. Then we are not talking about human nature alone anymore, and about natural laws, which is why this topic, presented as it has been, is primarily about religion and not about politics.

 

[candycorn]

The truth should be told and should be enforced. And we have the power to blow away all the lies of the devil.

And another reason to not support Trump…

Perfect!

 

[jwoodie]

"Until we can determine whether someone has truly rejected these principles, shouldn't we err on the side of protecting our citizens?"

You have not posed any principles for discussion, but only conceptual aggregates flexible in their constituents and briskly unsubscribed by your eager inquiry.

Put down your thesaurus and reread my post:

As often said, all Muslims are not terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim. It should also be noted that a basic tenet of that religion is conversion by force and execution of apostates. Until we can determine whether someone has truly rejected these principles, shouldn't we err on the side of protecting our citizens?

 

[Foxfyre]

Dear jwoodie why not require all sponsoring organizations to accept legal and financial responsibility for adopting immigrants. . . .

NOTE: This excerpt from Emily's post is snipped from her much longer comments in her Post #26.

Back in the 1960's, the U.S. was accepting thousands of refugees from Castro's Cuba. There was the same concern then as now that Castro would dump the worst of the worst Cuba had to offer on us among those refugees.

So everyone entering the country had to merit a green card by having a sponsor--somebody who would agree to furnish the head of household with a job, make sure folks had a decent place to live, and some way to learn English within a reasonable time. Our church took in a family--father, mother, and two middle school age kids. We provided transportation from Miami, inexpensive housing, furniture, some starter household necessities were donated and the father was given a job as custodian of the church until such time as he acquired enough English to qualify for a better job. (He was a well educated and highly competent individual.). The mother also learned quickly and found employment. The kids were smart, quick, and fluent in English within the year and doing well in school. (We provided a tutor/translator for them for the first few months of school.) All were given training in citizenship etc. in preparation for naturalization as citizens when they came up in the queue.

It was a win win proposition for all. The USA gained wonderful new citizens and it didn't cost the taxpayer a dime except to process the papers for the family to be here legally. And had our adopted family been one of the bad ones and committed serious crime, I believe the church would have been liable. Thus we vetted the family before we accepted them.

So there is the solution. Make the policy similar to Canada's for new immigrants. The person has to have a sponsor that will ensure the family will have a job providing a living wage and will otherwise not be a burden on social services or the person needs to have financial resources to support himself/herself.

And in addition, make the sponsor liable for any crimes committed by the sponsored during the course of the sponsorship.

Those who can't find a sponsor or meet strict vetting requirements won't receive either a green card or a travel visa.

 

[Jully Rowe Davis]

Foxfyre I like your thoughts and the post.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[emilynghiem]

...may not be so outlandish after all. Despite the hysterical rantings of the PC crowd, we are currently at the mercy of untold numbers of Muslim terrorists who wish to enter our country. Since we currently have no effective screening procedures in place to prevent this, a moratorium on allowing further infiltration is not only logically justified, but a practical necessity.

But isn't this unconstitutional religious discrimination, you ask? No, it is not if it only applies to non-U.S. citizens. We have a perfect right and obligation to screen and delay or deny entry into the United Sates any persons who pose a potential threat to our security.

Some have suggested a geographic, rather than religious, moratorium on entry visas, but that transparent attempt to appease Muslim sensibilities would be seen as a ruse, as well as being ineffective. For example, a French-born Muslim terrorist (sound familiar?) would not be affected by such a scheme.

As often said, all Muslims are not terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim. It should also be noted that a basic tenet of that religion is conversion by force and execution of apostates. Until we can determine whether someone has truly rejected these principles, shouldn't we err on the side of protecting our citizens?

Dear jwoodie
About protecting citizens from criminal intent and terrorism:
in order NOT to discriminate by targeting only immigrants or naturalized citizens, and NOT targeting only Muslims or people from certain countries

WHY NOT require ALL citizens and residents, whether born here or not, to pass citizenship tests and pledge to respect civil and Constitutional laws, due process, and law enforcement procedures?

This would screen out criminally ill or abusive people REGARDLESS of source. Those in need of counseling, therapy or other "accommodations for disability" could then get that help in order to exercise and access equal rights as a citizen; clearly some people would need a supervised sponsor if they are lacking in some areas that put them at risk of imposing on or endangering the public (such as someone with a dangerous drug addiction or abusive disorder requiring medical treatment for both personal and public health and safety).

Wouldn't that do the most to protect the public?

Having states set up a public health and safety standard, similar to applying for a driver's license, but this would be for a citizen's license upon turning legal age at 18. And people would sign up under agreements per that state's laws to be financially responsible for the cost of any infractions or treatment to get help; and/or require a sponsor or legal guardian similar to a learner's permit if they are otherwise at risk of imposing on the rights and freedoms of others.