Terrorists Strike at Jews on Dubai to Tel Aviv Flight

@sh76 said
It doesn't work because they're not really doing it.

If you put in safeguards to ensure that only people whose record indicates that they share our values on freedom may not be foolproof, but it would work the vast majority of the time.

Between social media and public records, you can tell an awful lot about someone in today's day and age. Of course, as part of the immigra ...[text shortened]... ou temporarily give up your right to privacy so that you can be examined by immigration authorities.

So, if there are procedures in place to do checks prior to immigration clearance, and it is not being done, then the system has failed. Immigrants are entering the western countries and causing havoc. Poland is the only country doing the smart thing and keeping those animals out.

@sh76 said
Multicultural is not the same thing as no culture.

A common denominator is that most of us believe in democracy and freedom of speech, religion, and expression. We believe in limited government and that government should not force religion on people. Obviously, there are nuances, but that common denominator is pretty broadly agreed to.

Allowing in immigrants who firmly bel ...[text shortened]... a capital crime, or discriminating based on religion or lack thereof, is bound to lead to problems.

So, "we" believe in freedom of speech, religion and expression except for immigrants.

"We" believe in limited government but not one so limited it that doesn't exclude people based on their philosophical, religious and/or ideological beliefs.

Some "nuances".

A person's beliefs are his own business, not that of the State. You don't believe in basic principles of limited government unless you accept that.

@no1marauder said
So, "we" believe in freedom of speech, religion and expression except for immigrants.

"We" believe in limited government but not one so limited it that doesn't exclude people based on their philosophical, religious and/or ideological beliefs.

Some "nuances".

A person's beliefs are his own business, not that of the State. You don't believe in basic principles of limited government unless you accept that.

There is no "right" to immigrate to the United States. While I'm not in favor of punishing anyone for their opinions or expressions (no matter how reprehensible), it is absolutely fair game to use people's opinions or expressions to make a determination as to whether they're a good fit to be allowed into the United States.

That's not government overreach. That's commonsense protection of our core values.

@Rajk999 said
So, if there are procedures in place to do checks prior to immigration clearance, and it is not being done, then the system has failed. Immigrants are entering the western countries and causing havoc. Poland is the only country doing the smart thing and keeping those animals out.

I have no proof of this, but I would guess that legal immigrants who come through on our immigration laws generally make good Americans.

It's the illegal immigrants who get almost no screening that have the greater potential to be dangerous.

@no1marauder said
So, "we" believe in freedom of speech, religion and expression except for immigrants.

"We" believe in limited government but not one so limited it that doesn't exclude people based on their philosophical, religious and/or ideological beliefs.

Some "nuances".

A person's beliefs are his own business, not that of the State. You don't believe in basic principles of limited government unless you accept that.

Let me turn the question to you:

You're an immigration officer. A guy comes in, sits down across from you, as a LPR applicant.

He has no criminal record and has signficant economic skills. But he says in the interview "I believe in deposing the government of the United States and replacing it with a theocracy that punishes prurient displays, homosexuality, rock music and blasphemy, all by death. I have no intention of breaking the law, but I will advocate for these goals as strongly as I can."

As a USCIS officer, do you approve his application?

@sh76 said
Let me turn the question to you:

You're an immigration officer. A guy comes in, sits down across from you, as a LPR applicant.

He has no criminal record and has signficant economic skills. But he says in the interview "I believe in deposing the government of the United States and replacing it with a theocracy that punishes prurient displays, homosexuality, rock music and b ...[text shortened]... vocate for these goals as strongly as I can."

As a USCIS officer, do you approve his application?

Unequivocally "yes".

It's not mine or the State's business what he believes.

@sh76 said
There is no "right" to immigrate to the United States. While I'm not in favor of punishing anyone for their opinions or expressions (no matter how reprehensible), it is absolutely fair game to use people's opinions or expressions to make a determination as to whether they're a good fit to be allowed into the United States.

That's not government overreach. That's commonsense protection of our core values.

"Our core values" don't need such "protection" which, in fact, is antithetical to them.

@no1marauder said
Unequivocally "yes".

It's not mine or the State's business what he believes.

Its only an extremist Muslim, like you, will encourage such an animal into the USA. I can bet the moderate Muslims will be happy to kick the fool out.

@sh76 said
I have no proof of this, but I would guess that legal immigrants who come through on our immigration laws generally make good Americans.

It's the illegal immigrants who get almost no screening that have the greater potential to be dangerous.

The thing with Muslims is that you have no idea when they will become extremists jihadists or murderers or rapists. You have no idea.

It is no coincidence that Poland has very little of the rampant crime in the rest of EU who encouraged Islamic immigration.

@no1marauder said
Unequivocally "yes".

It's not mine or the State's business what he believes.

Well, then you're being consistent.

I disagree.

I don't think we need to be welcoming in people who are dedicated to the destruction of our way of life.

@sh76 said
Well, then you're being consistent.

I disagree.

I don't think we need to be welcoming in people who are dedicated to the destruction of our way of life.

There are Christian Fundamentalists with similar ideas.

Before this SCOTUS decided that women didn't have a fundamental right to bodily sovereignty over reproduction because all-male legislatures and electorates in the 1860s didn't believe they did, abortion was considered a basic right in the US. Would you have refused to admit a conservative Christian who said that this was contrary to God's law and he would do anything (peacefully) to ensure his religious views became the law of the land?

I can find certain beliefs abhorrent without insisting that the State repress them.

@Rajk999 said
Its only an extremist Muslim, like you, will encourage such an animal into the USA. I can bet the moderate Muslims will be happy to kick the fool out.

There are "moderate Muslims"? You've said the Quran commands them to kill all non-believers, take over the world, rape, etc etc. etc. Did you get it wrong?

@no1marauder said
There are "moderate Muslims"? You've said the Quran commands them to kill all non-believers, take over the world, rape, etc etc. etc. Did you get it wrong?

Yes there are moderates. Some of them are smart enough to ignore the stupid Quran and that pedophile Mohammed. But, I dont know who they are. It is not enough to say that a man does not promote or support extremists and therefore his is a moderate. You have no clue if a man is moderate because that man can turn on a dime and become extremist.

@no1marauder said
There are Christian Fundamentalists with similar ideas.

Before this SCOTUS decided that women didn't have a fundamental right to bodily sovereignty over reproduction because all-male legislatures and electorates in the 1860s didn't believe they did, abortion was considered a basic right in the US. Would you have refused to admit a conservative Christian who said that ...[text shortened]... of the land?

I can find certain beliefs abhorrent without insisting that the State repress them.

You are mistaken. This is not about suppressing abhorent beliefs.

This is about a particular belief which requires the Muslim to conquer the host country.

@Rajk999 said
You are mistaken. This is not about suppressing abhorent beliefs.

This is about a particular belief which requires the Muslim to conquer the host country.

That's a belief that you believe Muslims hold, not one they actually do.

Anyway, I'm really not interested in discussing the subject with you since you almost exclusively spew hate filled, irrational bile. You are incapable of reasoned debate.