exchemist
Veteran Member
So you think the State should evaluate people’s ideas before deciding if they can immigrate?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Europe's multiculturalist (authoritarians?), trying to make mass immigration mandatory?
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
When Rome came into barbarian Europe, this was a high culture displacing a lesser culture. There was net advance for the lower cultures, with the higher culture in charge and showing new ways. Modern Immigration is lower cultures coming to a higher cultures, now without being invited. People do not run away from a higher culture to live in a lower culture. The USA had invited 1 million people each year based on their ability to assimilate. Illegal immigrants are uninvited guests, who will get stuck in a bind and form pockets of second and third world for a local water down grade of citizens. What is the Left Thinking?
How about I force you to accept a half dozen homeless into your home, or I will call you a xenophobe if you refuse? You will go from a stable home, to who knows what, unless you spend lots of time and resources trying to maintain the higher road against the down slope inertia. It is easier to do drugs and steal from the host or Big Brother.
What should happen is only those who want immigration; high on the horse, have to provide 100% of the resources. If you want immigration raise you hand and we will dock your pay. Now the boneheads and crooks in charge steal from everyone, to satisfy a desire of a few. You should have the option, to option out.
Biden forced over a $1/2 Trillion extra expenses on US citizens; strain on schools and logistics. Not everyone wanted this. I would force Democrats too pay the entire tab since, this the was their bone head idea. Maybe what Trump can do when elected is send all the illegals in Republican states to Democrat run states, so the Democrats have to put their money where their mouth was. The Democrats party will implode under the expenses of their boneheads ideas. This may be useful.
The Democrats had sanctuary cites; we care so much, who, after getting a few immigrants, now complain about too many immigrants. They were fine when this was impose only on Conservative border states like Texas and Arizona. They can pretend to care as long as they were buffered. Now the party is divided. The above idea can break the DNC.
Poland is right to opt out, unless the boneheads in charge agree to pay the full tab. If not, the bonehead leasers should be forced to take the immigrants they welcomes, into their own mansions, since they talked the talked and can afford it. Democracy is about choice and not the current fascist edicts.
Last edited:
Well the US has been doing that for decades. There are well documented criteria that immigrants must meet.
So, for example, you must agree to uphold the Constitution. If you're an Islamist, you must either change your mind or lie to be allowed to immigrate into the US. If you're caught lying, you can be deported.
exchemist
Veteran Member
That is not a scrutiny of ideas, just a promise to abide by the laws of the country you are entering. Certainly the State ought to be able to deny entry to people with a history of supporting terrorism, or of committing acts that would be a crime in the country they are immigrating to. I believe most already do that. But trying to check people's ideas or "values" is close to impossible, not to mention being arbitrary, creepily Orwellian and easy to defeat by the simple expedient of lying. In any case the US is already riddled with native people who are misogynist, racist and tribal, and those that point it out are stigmatised as "woke" by about half the country, so it's hard to make out that such ideas are not permitted.
But in any case, how can the State tell whether someone is an "Islamist"?
The people immigrating from the Middle East to Europe are immigrating to get away from Islamist rule. Why would you blame them for the ideologies they're running away from? If you want more people to accept Western values, keeping them out like they're lepers is not wise. Embracing them and granting them freedom is the liberal, ie Western, way.
Nine Eleven took place because of this excessive leftist, open-borders ideology...that allowed those people to live in the US without any previous investigation on their past and their activities.
Most of them, yes.
But a significant number do it to islamize Europe. They don't even lie about it, they say it openly.
Poll after poll shows that a large percentage of Muslim immigrants want to bring Sharia with them.
So when considering whether to grant an immigrant passage, we should just ask them if they're willing to completely abandon Sharia. If later they're caught lying, they should be deported.
Muslims have competing ideas about sharia law. They're not all the same. So no, that standard is silly and unnecessary. Many law-abiding Muslims live in Western countries right now with no issues.
Go outside.
What the Left won't understand is that they don't do it out of wickedness. The total opposite: they do it out of love.
Because in their fundamentalist mind they think Europe is rotten by sin and immorality: they want to islamize us, so they want to save our souls.
Because they see all these half-naked, promiscuous women...all these LGBTs...etc...
and they believe they have a mission from God.
So what? It's a separate religious court system, for members of a particular faith community. Afaik these courts are in conjunction with the regular justice courts, not supplanting them.
"Sharia means Islamic law based on age-old concepts. Since the early Islamic states of the eighth and ninth centuries, Sharia always existed alongside other normative systems."
Application of Sharia by country - Wikipedia
As per usual, you have no clue what you're talking about.
How those people managed to get box cutters on board...is beyond me.
I mean...were they privileged?
That has nothing to do with what you initially said, but hey, facts have never stopped you before.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Go outside and meet some muslims. There are millions of law-abiding muslims in Britain who have no interest at all in trying to set up Sharia law in opposition to UK law. This is a crypto-racist bogeyman, to a large degree.
Sharia law exists as a religious observance among muslim in the UK, but is mostly concerned with religious matters and obviously has no legal standing. (Judaism also has a system of religious law, but nobody gets het up about that.) There can be problems relating to what UK law would consider unfair treatment of women in some circumstances, e.g. divorce etc, but these instances are far from being anything close to grounds for trying to ban muslims from entering the country. Time to stop swivelling the eyeballs.
None of this is to say that muslim fundamentalism is not an issue - it certainly is. But we all need to distinguish fundamentalist zealots from the average Bradford bus driver. We need to keep a sense of proportion and do our best to keep our muslim citizens fully integrated into secular society.
I was just outside, it's quite stormy out there.
Yes, I understand that ideas about Sharia vary. But they are all fundamentally theocratic and anti-secular.
So again - with jazz hands - if immigrants are asked to abandon Sharia and they are otherwise qualified, then no problem. But you're acting as if countries haven't had strict immigration standards for decades.
Go outside
So you're pushing anecdotal evidence? hmmm.
Look, it's simple, an immigrant is either willing to live by the law of the land or they're not. It has been the case for decades that we do not knowingly let criminals immigrate. If you want to undermine your host country's laws, you're not welcome.
One thing to notice though is that as it stands a "secular Muslim" is living a lie, and they're asking us to look the other way. As I've said many times, Muslims who want to live in secular society need to create a new sect or reform the faith. It is fundamentally dishonest to ask others to believe you're a "secular Muslim".
so what? why allow things to get worse in 2024?So what? It's a separate religious court system, for members of a particular faith community. Afaik these courts are in conjunction with the regular justice courts, not supplanting them.
"Sharia means Islamic law based on age-old concepts. Since the early Islamic states of the eighth and ninth centuries, Sharia always existed alongside other normative systems."
Application of Sharia by country - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
exchemist
Veteran Member
Nobody but you has mentioned “secular muslims”, so this seems to be a distraction to be ignored.
If you contend that no muslim can live in a secular society, then you are simply speaking from ignorance. What do you suppose my archetypal Bradford bus driver does?
You remind me of those English anti-Catholics of the last century that imagined Catholics were all secret agents of the Pope, trying to undermine British sovereignty.