The Muslim Ban Has Begun!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ElectricFetus, Jan 26, 2017.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,291
    There is a potential solution that would satisfy most sides of the debate. However because Trump is so anti United Nations and self grandiose, he has not the ability to call on one of their most fundamental tenants.

    Simply put, if all immigrants regardless of status or religion ( refugee, asylum seeking, standard legal etc) were to pledge loyalty to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular Article 18 then the problem of cultural, religious assimilation etc lessens hugely.

    Article 18 simply states:

    "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
    this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

    Persons of Traditional Orthodox Islamic values would not be able to agree to this fundamental right and would be barred entry. Islamic extremist can not agree to this fundamental right.

    Of course some one could always pretend to agree.. but is this not the case generally any how.?

    Perhaps over time the idea will work it's way through the USA public, governance and change to the positive would occur.

    Applied world wide and the problem of cultural disharmony lessens tremendously ( re: refugees and asylum seekers)
    The UN could hardly get upset about it's own Article being enforced now could they?

    The first person to sign it would need to be Trump and I honestly don't think he could do it...
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,291
    Refugee from Syria regardless of religion:
    "If I solemnly agree with article 18 of the UDHR and will defend and protect it's intent, will you let me in?"
    Trump knocking on the door:
    "If I solemnly agree with article 18 of the UDHR and will defend and protect it's intent, will you let me be President of the USA?"
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,543
    Thanks for the history lesson

    I was unaware of that

    Here in Australia we had the same, but to a much lesser degree, feelings towards new arrivals

    Sadly though with the rise of idiots caution has become more of a necessity
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,291
    Michael 345,
    What say you to post #41 especially in an Australian context?
     
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,543
    Australia has a catchy slogan

    Be alert but not alarmed

    Living in Darwin only 1,700km flight distance I go Bali twice a year

    After the Sari Club bombing which killed 88 Australians and even more others (I had finished my week holiday on the Wednesday prior to the Saturday bombing) I returned after about 6 weeks

    It never occurred to me to cease going and I have continued to return twice a year since

    I certainly am not paranoid and have not changed my life style not crippled
     
  9. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,543
    Can you cut and paste please because my post are via a small smartphone which for some reason does not have post numbered
    Thanks
     
  10. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,543
    Tricky

    Does the refugee have to ask all of the population of America via a election process or just one border guard?
     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,291
    go back one further post
     
  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,543
    I read through the link and did not see anything there which should concern the people you referenced

    Perhaps they have concerns for some reason but they should contact the department which deals with their visas and check for clarification
     
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,543
    Unworkable

    First refugee goes through and makes the pledge

    The rest follow chanting 'Me to Me to'

    I would love to go to a bank who only asked me to promise to pay back the million dollar loan without checking my capabilities to do so
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2017
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,291
    I dunno, an orthodox or radical Muslim takes his beliefs pretty seriously. To pledge to the contrary in public is worse than blasphemy. If they simply acted as you suggest then they are not a real threat either. Add further vetting and allegence to rule of law and the vexation currently being experienced over Muslim migration is diminished.
    Only modern, liberal Muslim's can be considered as compatable for nations that aspire to the intent of article 18 and would have no problem agreeing
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2017
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,749
    I agree it is always wise to exercise caution. But we are cautious of the wrong things nowadays.

    In the past 10 years there have been 36 terrorist attacks in the US, killing 126 people. Almost none of those deaths would have been stopped by keeping immigrants from middle eastern Muslim nations out. You probably haven't heard of most of these, because the perpetrators have names like Robert Dear, Eric Frein, James Lee, Joe Stack and Wade Page. One attack - the 2015 San Bernadino attack - might have been mitigated because the wife of perpetrator Rizwan Farook (Tashfeen Malik) might have been kept out by such restrictions, but Rizwan, being born in the US, would not have been hindered.

    So out of those 126 people killed, you could make an argument that by keeping out all Middle Eastern Muslims - even people's wives - you might have prevented 14 deaths. But if you are just keeping out refugees from those countries? None would have been prevented.

    In the past 10 years there have been ~110,000 murders in the US due to gun violence. There is no doubt that universal background checks would reduce that number. But any attempt to do THAT is met with horror and dismay.

    So why do we concentrate on something that won't solve any problems, and ignore the solutions that will work? Because it is easier to make people afraid of outsiders, and politicians stroke that fear to garner support and votes.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,748
    But you are required to allow some things, even though such restraint involves risk. All freedoms and liberties enjoyed by any American come with considerable risks for everyone else, which you are forbidden to mitigate by undue restriction.

    Cowardice poorly defends freedom and liberty.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,291
    I just had a convo with an Australian Muslim and discussed just this subject. According to him orthodox/traditional Muslim's would not even attempt to migrate to a country that obliged them to agree to article 18
     
  18. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,543
    Like your optimism
     
  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,543
    Think the idea of keeping undesirables out is to prevent additional problems

    Obviously such measures would have no effect on internal problems

    Gun laws are a result of collective stupidity and ain't no pill to cure that
     
  20. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,543
    I am guessing you are referring to laws which if passed put your person at risk

    I am also guessing there would be very few of those

    All freedoms and liberties enjoyed by any American come with considerable risks for everyone else, which you are forbidden to mitigate by undue restriction.

    Can you please post an example? Thanks

    Cowardice poorly defends freedom and liberty

    Agreed but putting your own life at risk to help another in dangerous situations

    Makes no sense to go to the aid of someone being taken out by a rip if you can't swim

    If you mean going to war and putting yourself in harm's way no-one joins the forces, gets a rifle and sent to the front line next day. You at least get some training to mitigate the risk
     
  21. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Well there simply no assurance there visa will be re-instated, and no matter if it is re-instated they can't leave the country or else they can't enter again, and considering the nature of it the ban would require Iran to grovel before trump to get it lifted in 90 days, it is most likely a permanent ban.

    https://www.propublica.org/article/...ock-legal-residents-from-returning-to-america

    Let me show you my gun collection.
     
  22. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,543
    I am guessing radical idiots would have no trouble lying their face off so the requirement to pledge has the effect of keeping out good guys
     
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,291
    this makes no sense.... why would it keep out the good guys?
     

Share This Page