Mass killing in Orlando gay nightclub

[OttoVonBismarck]

Vis-a-vis comparing Jamaica to say, a Muslim country. The fact is we've had years of significant Muslim immigration into Europe. There was a famous poll last year in which over 50% of British Muslims believed the laws of Britain should be changed to make homosexuality illegal. Much of Britain's Muslim population has been there for years, and many are second and sometimes third generation.

On the other hand, gay marriage is largely unaccepted in Mexico and much of Latin America. However, Hispanic immigrants in the United States, after being significant opponents of gay marriage in the early 2000s, actually majority support gay marriage now.

The reason being they over time adopt the social values of the country to which they have emgirated. Muslims do not do that.

The simple fact is--if you are not willing to accept our liberal Western values, you should not be allowed to move into this country, period. We to this day have laws on the books prohibiting people who were members of the Nazi party from moving here (albeit we of course made exceptions for guys like von Braun, and the language on immigration forms is pretty silly these days since anyone who was a practicing Nazi is now ancient, but it was there.) That's because we were taking a stand that we didn't want people like that in our country, because their values were incompatible with ours.

Islam is no different.

[Valmy]

On the other hand, gay marriage is largely unaccepted in Mexico and much of Latin America.

Huh. I thought most states in Mexico did recognize Gay marriage.

[Grinning_Colossus]

Maybe Congress will sense the urgency and vote this week to ban people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns. Right? *crickets*

Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?

Yeah, it would probably be held to be removing a constitutional right without due process.

[celedhring]

Yeah, I think the issue was that people on the list haven't been convicted of anything yet. But yanks can probably correct me on that. I always find it funny that they can bar you from boarding a plane but not from buying a gun but heh, America.

[The Minsky Moment]

If you ignore the tragedy, it is actually quite ironic how this attack has left almost every political side wrong footed - I guess only classic liberals have no problem responding to it properly.

If you think that way though why not respond like a classical liberal?
As opposed of praising the response of Trump who is about as far from a classical liberal as you can get.

[Malthus]

Vis-a-vis comparing Jamaica to say, a Muslim country. The fact is we've had years of significant Muslim immigration into Europe. There was a famous poll last year in which over 50% of British Muslims believed the laws of Britain should be changed to make homosexuality illegal. Much of Britain's Muslim population has been there for years, and many are second and sometimes third generation.

On the other hand, gay marriage is largely unaccepted in Mexico and much of Latin America. However, Hispanic immigrants in the United States, after being significant opponents of gay marriage in the early 2000s, actually majority support gay marriage now.

The reason being they over time adopt the social values of the country to which they have emgirated. Muslims do not do that.

The simple fact is--if you are not willing to accept our liberal Western values, you should not be allowed to move into this country, period. We to this day have laws on the books prohibiting people who were members of the Nazi party from moving here (albeit we of course made exceptions for guys like von Braun, and the language on immigration forms is pretty silly these days since anyone who was a practicing Nazi is now ancient, but it was there.) That's because we were taking a stand that we didn't want people like that in our country, because their values were incompatible with ours.

Islam is no different.

You mention Hispanic immigrants to the US, and compare them with Muslim immigrants to the UK. Isn't the better comparison with Muslim immigrants to the US?

Actual polls concerning Muslims in America:

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/chapter-4-social-and-political-attitudes/

The poll numbers are telling. Muslims "score" almost exactly the same as Protestants generally on the question "homosexuality should be accepted by society": 45% of Muslims agree in 2014 (up from 38% in 2007 - so much for "unchanging Muslim attitudes"). Compare with Protestants generally: 48% in 2014, up from 38% in 2007. They do better than several other categories (Jehovah's Witnesses in 2014: 16%; Mormon: 36%  Evangelical Christian: 36%).

Similar results from the question about same-sex marriage, though in that  case Muslims do better: 42% of Muslims favour it, as opposed to 39% of Protestants generally.

I'm afraid your position is not fact based.

[Grinning_Colossus]

Yeah, I think the issue was that people on the list haven't been convicted of anything yet. But yanks can probably correct me on that. I always find it funny that they can't bar you from boarding a plane but not from buying a gun but heh, America.

The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, chose not to include air travel in the Bill of Rights.

[The Minsky Moment]

Trump calls shooter "an Afghan", blames American Muslims for failing to "turn in the people who they know are bad", warns against "tremendous flow" of Syrian refugees, suggests President Obama sympathetic to Islamic terrorists

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-speeches.html

"They're trying to take over our children and convince them how wonderful ISIS is and how wonderful Islam is. And we don't know what's happening."

So Trump says several things that are *factually* lies, and your response is "I think he is right".

Not just several things.  EVERY thing he said in that sentence is factually wrong.  It's almost impressive in a dysfunctional sort of way.

[OttoVonBismarck]

On the other hand, gay marriage is largely unaccepted in Mexico and much of Latin America.

Huh. I thought most states in Mexico did recognize Gay marriage.

Most recognize it but do not perform it, and that's a pretty recent trend. There was a Mexican Supreme Court ruling in 2015 requiring it nationwide but due to various complexities in the legal system actual implementation of that ruling will take years.

Mexico's trend of gay rights has historically been maybe one step behind the U.S. in terms of cultural acceptance, although due to a more streamlined political system they have at this point eclipsed us in some legislative areas. But back when the gay marriage debate started in 2000 and 2004, a few places in America performed them, but no places in Mexico did, and support for it among the majority-Catholic Mexican immigrant population wasn't high. That isn't the case in 2016--or in 2014 when this poll was conducted showing over 50% of Latinos supported gay marriage link.

[Valmy]

Yeah, I think the issue was that people on the list haven't been convicted of anything yet. But yanks can probably correct me on that. I always find it funny that they can bar you from boarding a plane but not from buying a gun but heh, America.

There is no right to fly a plane

I have to admit that would have been farsighted of 18th century politicians to enshrine.

[OttoVonBismarck]

You mention Hispanic immigrants to the US, and compare them with Muslim immigrants to the UK. Isn't the better comparison with Muslim immigrants to the US?

Actual polls concerning Muslims in America:

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/chapter-4-social-and-political-attitudes/

The poll numbers are telling. Muslims "score" almost exactly the same as Protestants generally on the question "homosexuality should be accepted by society": 45% of Muslims agree in 2014 (up from 38% in 2007 - so much for "unchanging Muslim attitudes"). Compare with Protestants generally: 48% in 2014, up from 38% in 2007. They do better than several other categories (Jehovah's Witnesses in 2014: 16%; Mormon: 36%  Evangelical Christian: 36%).

Similar results from the question about same-sex marriage, though in that  case Muslims do better: 42% of Muslims favour it, as opposed to 39% of Protestants generally.

I'm afraid your position is not fact based.

Except it is: link.

Polls concerning our actual Muslim population are irrelevant--because they ignore the history of Muslim immigration to the United States. Only about 26% of American Muslims are Arab, we have a large population of converted Muslims in the African American community (many started out as Nation members in the 50s/60s/70s when it was a major political movement, and most eventually converted to Sunni Islam if they didn't abandon the religion--as membership in the actual NoI is much lower now), and we also have a large portion of Muslims who are from India and other places where Islam tends to be practiced in a much less virulent way.

Britain's issue is a huge portion of its Muslims are from Pakistan, where we know Muslims can barely go a day without committing various atrocities, and all evidence suggests they take that behavior with them wherever they go. Only about 300,000 people of Pakistani heritage live in the United States.

So, since the Muslim populations of America and Britain (and Europe) are very different, your claims just aren't credible. All evidence we have from Britain suggests that Muslims are a serious problem in large numbers and fail to integrate appropriately.

[The Minsky Moment]

Maybe Congress will sense the urgency and vote this week to ban people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns. Right? *crickets*

Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?

Hard to say but I would guess probably.  Per the SCT it is an individual right.  My understanding is that a person can get on a terror watch list if someone from one of intel agency sticks you on it.  There isn't any real due process or review involved.  Which is OK for the purpose it's used for but not if it would be used as a basis to remove a constitutional right.  Harder question is whether the legislation could be crafted in way that a ban would be based on the watch list but with added procedural safeguards.  That might pass muster, especially with no Scalia.

[OttoVonBismarck]

FWIW then I'd be fine banning immigration from any Arab majority-country, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and letting in Muslims from Southeast Asia, India, and possibly parts of sub-Saharan Africa.

[Legbiter]

The simple fact is--if you are not willing to accept our liberal Western values, you should not be allowed to move into this country, period. We to this day have laws on the books prohibiting people who were members of the Nazi party from moving here (albeit we of course made exceptions for guys like von Braun, and the language on immigration forms is pretty silly these days since anyone who was a practicing Nazi is now ancient, but it was there.) That's because we were taking a stand that we didn't want people like that in our country, because their values were incompatible with ours.

Islam is no different.

Yes. You either enforce the border, install a police state or endure endemic terrorism because of Muslims acting on the precepts of their faith.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Immigration isn't a civil rights issue. We need to accept that there is nothing immoral or even wrong about not wanting Muslims in America. Islam isn't something innate, it's a belief system. The United States should be able to decide who gets in and who doesn't get in. Anything that gets in the way of that--including the Constitution, must be pushed out of the way.