CDZ Why does the USA need more Muslim immigrants?

[Muhammed]

Democrats on this board seem to constantly advocate the importation of Muslim immigrants or criticize those who oppose importing more immigrants.

In this thread I want them to explain why we need more of them.

 

[Kosh]

I say all the far left drones that wants these refugees take them into their homes and be responsible for them..

 

[ScienceRocks]

I don't like radical religious freaks. They're almost all anti-science and very backwards.

 

[Kosh]

I don't like radical religious freaks. They're almost all anti-science and very backwards.

Oh the irony of that post form a far left drone voting for Hilary!

 

[Tehon]

 

[320 Years of History]

Democrats on this board seem to constantly advocate the importation of Muslim immigrants or criticize those who oppose importing more immigrants.

In this thread I want them to explain why we need more of them.

Let me be clear. I'm neither a Democrat nor Republican.

I think you have either (1) overlooked an important subtlety or (2) misunderstood what you've heard/read, or (3) simply have deplorable communication skills. I'm being kind by presenting those three possibilities. I'm well aware of the other interpretive potentialities accruing from your opening paragraph's comments; however, only a depraved bigot would actually intend them.

Red:

• I have yet to see any Democrats "advocate [for] the importation of Muslim immigrants." What I have seen is Democrats and Republicans alike decry the idea that there be a theological litmus test applied to whom may immigrate to or visit the U.S. That is not even remotely the same thing as saying we need more or fewer immigrants of any status.

Blue:

• Furthermore, I have not seen anyone but you describe human immigration using language that by definition is that of goods import, thereby connoting that Muslims (or anyone) are chattel, property to be imported or exported willfully and as befits the needs of a demanding marketplace. Immigrants, humans, are not imported and exported. They choose willfully to emigrate from one place and immigrate to the U.S. or another country.
  
  My remark here is not a matter of political correctness. It's a matter of accurately knowing the denotative and connotative meanings of a simple word -- import -- knowing how to read a dictionary, and aptly choosing one's words so that both the connotation and denotation accurately represent one's thoughts. The parenthetically noted "as merchandise" one finds in the definition of "import" is one means dictionary editors use to provide the connotation of an entry.

Green:

• The U.S. neither needs nor does not need more immigrants of any given religious denomination.

 

[Muhammed]

I don't like radical religious freaks. They're almost all anti-science and very backwards.

Pot, meet Kettle.

 

[Muhammed]

Democrats on this board seem to constantly advocate the importation of Muslim immigrants or criticize those who oppose importing more immigrants.

In this thread I want them to explain why we need more of them.

Let me be clear. I'm neither a Democrat nor

• I have yet to see any Democrats "advocate [for] the importation of Muslim immigrants.

Just because you haven't seen it does not mean it isn't happening.

Obama and Clinton are both Democrats. And the Democrats on this board consistently parrot their rhetoric.

 

[2aguy]

Democrats on this board seem to constantly advocate the importation of Muslim immigrants or criticize those who oppose importing more immigrants.

In this thread I want them to explain why we need more of them.

Democrats need more votes.....that's all.....

 

[OldLady]

Democrats on this board seem to constantly advocate the importation of Muslim immigrants or criticize those who oppose importing more immigrants.

In this thread I want them to explain why we need more of them.

320 pretty much covers the basics. I don't know if everyone arguing against Muslim immigration is a Democrat--I would hope there are still humanitarian Republicans out there, as well. It's not about wanting more Muslims in the US, it's about not wanting to shut out people from a war torn, devastated country who need somewhere safe to raise their families. Most Americans have no clue what it would be like to be in a Syrian refugee's shoes, and we should be profoundly grateful for it. Our government is very careful who they let in. We are not making the same mistakes as Europe and we do not have their problems. Yes, I know Hillary wants to bring in 6 times as many next year, but that is still a minuscule number compared to what Europe has absorbed.
We are being led to disaster? How will shutting out Muslims prevent that disaster? You think it will eliminate the bad guys and prevent all attacks from happening here? You know that flies in the face of facts, right? That the majority of the ISIS inspired attacks in the US have been homegrown radicals, US citizens. That we have not yet experienced disaster with the Muslims living in this country. Even in Europe, many of the ISIS terrorists have been born in France, Belgium, or other countries not directly related to terrorism.
ISIS is a nightmare. We all agree on that. They get me very angry and I want to go blow something up every time they pull their sh*t, but slamming the door (or attempting to slam the door) on them is not the answer. Slamming the door is what, imo, would show fear and weakness.

 

[2aguy]

Democrats on this board seem to constantly advocate the importation of Muslim immigrants or criticize those who oppose importing more immigrants.

In this thread I want them to explain why we need more of them.

320 pretty much covers the basics. I don't know if everyone arguing against Muslim immigration is a Democrat--I would hope there are still humanitarian Republicans out there, as well. It's not about wanting more Muslims in the US, it's about not wanting to shut out people from a war torn, devastated country who need somewhere safe to raise their families. Most Americans have no clue what it would be like to be in a Syrian refugee's shoes, and we should be profoundly grateful for it. Our government is very careful who they let in. We are not making the same mistakes as Europe and we do not have their problems. Yes, I know Hillary wants to bring in 6 times as many next year, but that is still a minuscule number compared to what Europe has absorbed.
We are being led to disaster? How will shutting out Muslims prevent that disaster? You think it will eliminate the bad guys and prevent all attacks from happening here? You know that flies in the face of facts, right? That the majority of the ISIS inspired attacks in the US have been homegrown radicals, US citizens. That we have not yet experienced disaster with the Muslims living in this country. Even in Europe, many of the ISIS terrorists have been born in France, Belgium, or other countries not directly related to terrorism.
ISIS is a nightmare. We all agree on that. They get me very angry and I want to go blow something up every time they pull their sh*t, but slamming the door (or attempting to slam the door) on them is not the answer. Slamming the door is what, imo, would show fear and weakness.

No...it isn't anything that you say.......it would be easier and more cost effective to keep them closer to the countries where they live....we could give them money and support to help them there....but then they couldn't vote in our elections to get more democrats elected.......

You ignore the support these terrorists recieve by living in muslim enclaves in the host countries....these communities shelter them and hide them and allow them to operate easily.........the no go zones in Britain, and France have been hiding all kinds of crimes against the citizens of those countries....

They should be helped...but in muslim countries that have their values, since their values are alien to ours.

 

[Muhammed]

Democrats on this board seem to constantly advocate the importation of Muslim immigrants or criticize those who oppose importing more immigrants.

In this thread I want them to explain why we need more of them.

• Furthermore, I have not seen anyone but you describe human immigration using language that by definition is that of goods import, thereby connoting that Muslims (or anyone) are chattel, property to be imported or exported willfully and as befits the needs of a demanding marketplace. Immigrants, humans, are not imported and exported. They choose willfully to emigrate from one place and immigrate to the U.S. or another country.
  
  My remark here is not a matter of political correctness. It's a matter of accurately knowing the denotative and connotative meanings of a simple word -- import -- knowing how to read a dictionary, and aptly choosing one's words so that both the connotation and denotation accurately represent one's thoughts. The parenthetically noted "as merchandise" one finds in the definition of "import" is one means dictionary editors use to provide the connotation of an entry.

import

verb (used with object)
1.
to bring in (merchandise, commodities, workers, etc.) from a foreign country for use, sale, processing, reexport, or services.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[320 Years of History]

Just because you haven't seen it does not mean it isn't happening.

Obama and Clinton are both Democrats. And the Democrats on this board consistently parrot their rhetoric.

Red:
Fine. Show me some instance where a known Democrat has written expressly of importing Muslims to the U.S.

 

[320 Years of History]

Democrats on this board seem to constantly advocate the importation of Muslim immigrants or criticize those who oppose importing more immigrants.

In this thread I want them to explain why we need more of them.

• Furthermore, I have not seen anyone but you describe human immigration using language that by definition is that of goods import, thereby connoting that Muslims (or anyone) are chattel, property to be imported or exported willfully and as befits the needs of a demanding marketplace. Immigrants, humans, are not imported and exported. They choose willfully to emigrate from one place and immigrate to the U.S. or another country.
  
  My remark here is not a matter of political correctness. It's a matter of accurately knowing the denotative and connotative meanings of a simple word -- import -- knowing how to read a dictionary, and aptly choosing one's words so that both the connotation and denotation accurately represent one's thoughts. The parenthetically noted "as merchandise" one finds in the definition of "import" is one means dictionary editors use to provide the connotation of an entry.

import

verb (used with object)
1.
to bring in (merchandise, commodities, workers, etc.) from a foreign country for use, sale, processing, reexport, or services.

Source please.

 

[Jackson]

Democrats on this board seem to constantly advocate the importation of Muslim immigrants or criticize those who oppose importing more immigrants.

In this thread I want them to explain why we need more of them.

320 pretty much covers the basics. I don't know if everyone arguing against Muslim immigration is a Democrat--I would hope there are still humanitarian Republicans out there, as well. It's not about wanting more Muslims in the US, it's about not wanting to shut out people from a war torn, devastated country who need somewhere safe to raise their families. Most Americans have no clue what it would be like to be in a Syrian refugee's shoes, and we should be profoundly grateful for it. Our government is very careful who they let in. We are not making the same mistakes as Europe and we do not have their problems. Yes, I know Hillary wants to bring in 6 times as many next year, but that is still a minuscule number compared to what Europe has absorbed.
We are being led to disaster? How will shutting out Muslims prevent that disaster? You think it will eliminate the bad guys and prevent all attacks from happening here? You know that flies in the face of facts, right? That the majority of the ISIS inspired attacks in the US have been homegrown radicals, US citizens. That we have not yet experienced disaster with the Muslims living in this country. Even in Europe, many of the ISIS terrorists have been born in France, Belgium, or other countries not directly related to terrorism.
ISIS is a nightmare. We all agree on that. They get me very angry and I want to go blow something up every time they pull their sh*t, but slamming the door (or attempting to slam the door) on them is not the answer. Slamming the door is what, imo, would show fear and weakness.

You are very naive.

 

[Muhammed]

Democrats on this board seem to constantly advocate the importation of Muslim immigrants or criticize those who oppose importing more immigrants.

In this thread I want them to explain why we need more of them.

• Furthermore, I have not seen anyone but you describe human immigration using language that by definition is that of goods import, thereby connoting that Muslims (or anyone) are chattel, property to be imported or exported willfully and as befits the needs of a demanding marketplace. Immigrants, humans, are not imported and exported. They choose willfully to emigrate from one place and immigrate to the U.S. or another country.
  
  My remark here is not a matter of political correctness. It's a matter of accurately knowing the denotative and connotative meanings of a simple word -- import -- knowing how to read a dictionary, and aptly choosing one's words so that both the connotation and denotation accurately represent one's thoughts. The parenthetically noted "as merchandise" one finds in the definition of "import" is one means dictionary editors use to provide the connotation of an entry.

import

verb (used with object)
1.
to bring in (merchandise, commodities, workers, etc.) from a foreign country for use, sale, processing, reexport, or services.

Source please.

the definition of import

 

[OldLady]

Democrats on this board seem to constantly advocate the importation of Muslim immigrants or criticize those who oppose importing more immigrants.

In this thread I want them to explain why we need more of them.

320 pretty much covers the basics. I don't know if everyone arguing against Muslim immigration is a Democrat--I would hope there are still humanitarian Republicans out there, as well. It's not about wanting more Muslims in the US, it's about not wanting to shut out people from a war torn, devastated country who need somewhere safe to raise their families. Most Americans have no clue what it would be like to be in a Syrian refugee's shoes, and we should be profoundly grateful for it. Our government is very careful who they let in. We are not making the same mistakes as Europe and we do not have their problems. Yes, I know Hillary wants to bring in 6 times as many next year, but that is still a minuscule number compared to what Europe has absorbed.
We are being led to disaster? How will shutting out Muslims prevent that disaster? You think it will eliminate the bad guys and prevent all attacks from happening here? You know that flies in the face of facts, right? That the majority of the ISIS inspired attacks in the US have been homegrown radicals, US citizens. That we have not yet experienced disaster with the Muslims living in this country. Even in Europe, many of the ISIS terrorists have been born in France, Belgium, or other countries not directly related to terrorism.
ISIS is a nightmare. We all agree on that. They get me very angry and I want to go blow something up every time they pull their sh*t, but slamming the door (or attempting to slam the door) on them is not the answer. Slamming the door is what, imo, would show fear and weakness.

No...it isn't anything that you say.......it would be easier and more cost effective to keep them closer to the countries where they live....we could give them money and support to help them there....but then they couldn't vote in our elections to get more democrats elected.......

You ignore the support these terrorists recieve by living in muslim enclaves in the host countries....these communities shelter them and hide them and allow them to operate easily.........the no go zones in Britain, and France have been hiding all kinds of crimes against the citizens of those countries....

They should be helped...but in muslim countries that have their values, since their values are alien to ours.

Immigrants have to live here 5 years to begin the process of applying for naturalization. It costs approx. $700 and involves tests in English, US history and civics, plus an extensive application process. If you think they are so "alien" why would they want to do any of this in order to vote?
Keep them closer to where they live? Where? That's where they are, living in tent cities that are bursting at the seams; kids are growing up in those environments without education or any semblance of normalcy. See how they turn out. For some reason no one here wants to explain, the No Fly Zones that have been proposed seem to be a nonstarter. So again, where?
The rest of your post is about Europe, not here, and doesn't apply to this discussion, which is about Muslims immigrating to America.
So let's talk some more about how your ideas are so much more practical than mine.

 

[320 Years of History]

Democrats on this board seem to constantly advocate the importation of Muslim immigrants or criticize those who oppose importing more immigrants.

In this thread I want them to explain why we need more of them.

• Furthermore, I have not seen anyone but you describe human immigration using language that by definition is that of goods import, thereby connoting that Muslims (or anyone) are chattel, property to be imported or exported willfully and as befits the needs of a demanding marketplace. Immigrants, humans, are not imported and exported. They choose willfully to emigrate from one place and immigrate to the U.S. or another country.
  
  My remark here is not a matter of political correctness. It's a matter of accurately knowing the denotative and connotative meanings of a simple word -- import -- knowing how to read a dictionary, and aptly choosing one's words so that both the connotation and denotation accurately represent one's thoughts. The parenthetically noted "as merchandise" one finds in the definition of "import" is one means dictionary editors use to provide the connotation of an entry.

import

verb (used with object)
1.
to bring in (merchandise, commodities, workers, etc.) from a foreign country for use, sale, processing, reexport, or services.

Source please.

the definition of import

I consider the dictionary.com definition you've noted highly suspect. I do because (1) one will not find the reference to humans/workers being imported in other more credible sources and (2) the dictionary.com entry you've linked cites Collins and Random House as the sources for the defintion of "import," yet checking Collins, one does not see the same definition. Random House doesn't appear to have any online portal besides dictionary.com.

• Oxford Dictionary
• Google
• Merriam-Webster
• Cambridge Dictionary
• The Free Dictionary
• MacMillan Dictionary
• Collins Dictionary
• Random House Dictionary -- this is the only Random House online dictionary I could quickly find that isn't also dictionary.com.

FWIW, this is not the first time I've encountered "suspect" definitions on dictionary.com, which is I don't use it. I'm not of a mind to discredit it entirely, but when one dictionary indicates a connotation that includes humans and none of the rest does, I'm not inclined to accept the "one," especially not for a word as common as "import." Is "import slaves" an accurate use of "import?" Of course it is. Is "import workers" connotatively accurate? No. Indeed, one can only get away with that being obliquely accurate if one completely ignores the fact that the "workers imported" are humans. If one imports literal automatons, "import" is perfectly fine. But that isn't the context of your remarks.

 

[Pain&Progress]

Democrats on this board seem to constantly advocate the importation of Muslim immigrants or criticize those who oppose importing more immigrants.

In this thread I want them to explain why we need more of them.

320 pretty much covers the basics. I don't know if everyone arguing against Muslim immigration is a Democrat--I would hope there are still humanitarian Republicans out there, as well. It's not about wanting more Muslims in the US, it's about not wanting to shut out people from a war torn, devastated country who need somewhere safe to raise their families. Most Americans have no clue what it would be like to be in a Syrian refugee's shoes, and we should be profoundly grateful for it. Our government is very careful who they let in. We are not making the same mistakes as Europe and we do not have their problems. Yes, I know Hillary wants to bring in 6 times as many next year, but that is still a minuscule number compared to what Europe has absorbed.
We are being led to disaster? How will shutting out Muslims prevent that disaster? You think it will eliminate the bad guys and prevent all attacks from happening here? You know that flies in the face of facts, right? That the majority of the ISIS inspired attacks in the US have been homegrown radicals, US citizens. That we have not yet experienced disaster with the Muslims living in this country. Even in Europe, many of the ISIS terrorists have been born in France, Belgium, or other countries not directly related to terrorism.
ISIS is a nightmare. We all agree on that. They get me very angry and I want to go blow something up every time they pull their sh*t, but slamming the door (or attempting to slam the door) on them is not the answer. Slamming the door is what, imo, would show fear and weakness.

No...it isn't anything that you say.......it would be easier and more cost effective to keep them closer to the countries where they live....we could give them money and support to help them there....but then they couldn't vote in our elections to get more democrats elected.......

You ignore the support these terrorists recieve by living in muslim enclaves in the host countries....these communities shelter them and hide them and allow them to operate easily.........the no go zones in Britain, and France have been hiding all kinds of crimes against the citizens of those countries....

They should be helped...but in muslim countries that have their values, since their values are alien to ours.

Immigrants have to live here 5 years to begin the process of applying for naturalization. It costs approx. $700 and involves tests in English, US history and civics, plus an extensive application process. If you think they are so "alien" why would they want to do any of this in order to vote?
Keep them closer to where they live? Where? That's where they are, living in tent cities that are bursting at the seams; kids are growing up in those environments without education or any semblance of normalcy. See how they turn out. For some reason no one here wants to explain, the No Fly Zones that have been proposed seem to be a nonstarter. So again, where?
The rest of your post is about Europe, not here, and doesn't apply to this discussion, which is about Muslims immigrating to America.
So let's talk some more about how your ideas are so much more practical than mine.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Seems Denmark is rethinking the muzzie issue

Denmark to Consider Proposal Banning All Muslims From Entering the Country