The Immigration Conundrum

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Advanced Search Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

amother

Dodgerblue

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 10:52 am

marina wrote:

Quote:

What if you let those 100 people in, and one actually was a terrorist. The terrorist goes on and stages an attack. You've let in 99 people and saved their lives, but the terrorist killed 100 people in the attack. Was it worth it?

What if the terrorist killed 200 people?

What if some of the people killed were your friends or family? Still worth it?

First, this entire discussion is not a data-driven one.

What if I choose to drive to work and get into a fatal car accident? Hey, I could have chosen to live within walking distance, but opted to live further out instead. The chances of you dying in a car accident because you chose to live within driving distance instead of walking distance is ASTRONOMICALLY higher than of anyone you know getting killed in a terror attack perpetrated by refugees.

Yet, we all drive to work. That risk is worth it for us. Which brings me to my next point.

Second, not only is this discussion statistically flawed, it also disregards moral imperatives.

Sometimes we have no choice but to drive, as dangerous as driving is. Ambulance drivers, firefighters. Well technically we have a choice, but saving lives or helping people is so important to us that we disregard the risk. Like when I drive my friend to the hospital for her surgery, we could all crash and die. But I do it anyway.

During WWII so many people actually hid Jews in their homes. They risked their very lives and those of their children because in many situations hiding Jews was punishable by death. I cannot understand that level of self sacrifice. It is completely beyond me.

But it's also completely beyond me the level of selfishness one must have to agitate against allowing war refugees safe harbor - not in your home - just in your country.

How can you stand idly by? How can you look yourself in the mirror and say, "well yes there was a 1 in 3.5 million chance that I would be killed by a refugee and so I refused to save any refugees, condemning them all to death and suffering," but I wanted some pizza so I drove to the pizza store even though the chance of me dying in a car accident was 1 in 45K?

How do you sleep at night?

To me there is no difference between choosing to drive someone to the hospital, knowing we could all die in an accident or choosing to allow refugees into our country, knowing one of them may blow someone else up. It's not a real choice, if you want to sleep at night.

(And if the actor is the piece bothering you, please change the analogy to caring for a mentally unwell relative, like a child with a serious illness. Always a chance they will murder you in the middle of the night, but you care for them anyway, unless the risk becomes too high. If the risk is 1 in 3.5 million, it's not too high.)

First of all, not everyone drives to work. Not everyone drives, not everyone even has a license to drive so those people are not eligible to drive unless they get their license or drive illegally. And not everyone can afford a car so they may have been able to get their license but they can't use it because they don't have the money to buy or lease a car.

Second, driving is not a right, it is a privilege. In order to obtain this privilege, you have to follow certain laws. you have to get your permit, practice driving, and take a road test if you want to get your license. Not everyone passes their road test so they have to try again (and again and again and again for some people). Having a license comes with responsibilities of following the laws and you can get ticketed and/or have your license suspended or revoked if you do not follow the laws. So if you abuse your privilege of having a license then it will be taken from you sometimes without any prior notice as seen fit by authorities.

Yes, we could all die in a car crash but we put the necessary precautions in place to at least try to prevent it. Car companies have crash tests to see how they can make their cars safer, they put in airbags in your car, you have to wear your seat belt, put your children in a car seat until a certain age, you cant drink and drive, you can't use your cell phone while driving, etc.

Knowing that these laws are enforced helps me sleep at night. It doesn't mean that nothing bad will ever happen because, well, this is life, things always happen. But that doesn't mean that we cant take measures to protect ourselves from harm to the best of our ability.

Trump is trying to get to a place where we can enforce certain safety procedures to ensure that refugees will not harm us if they come to America. He is not trying to hurt anyone but he does have to look out for his "family" and ensure that they are safe from people who want to harm them. Coming to America is a privilege that should not be taken lightly and if you don't want to follow the laws and want to "drive without a license" and put people at risk then there is no reason to allow you to come here.

Thank you Trump for trying to protect us from harm in the same way Moms Against Drunk Driving tries to protect people from drunk drivers. We appreciate it!

Fox

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 10:55 am

One of the characteristics of difficult moral dilemmas is that they generally don't let you sleep well at night. If an action doesn't have contradictory costs and benefits, it hardly counts as a moral question.

I am not necessarily concerned about terrorist attacks carried out by immigrants/refugees. Rather, there are a whole slew of issues that have to be thoughtfully considered:

* European countries have had mixed success in convincing immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa to accept certain societal norms. As Jews, we may have nuanced views on issues such as LGBT visibility and women's rights, but we recognize at some level that we benefit from a live-and-let-live mentality. I am concerned that Islam rejects that mentality at a fundamental level.

* Terror attacks, as many have pointed out, are not often the work of immigrants/refugees. However, the people who carry out terrorist attacks are very frequently influenced by immigrant speakers and leaders who explicitly call for jihad and violence. These individuals, many of whom are already here, are extremely dangerous when loosed upon a struggling immigrant community.

* Accepting large numbers of immigrants encourages further intransigance and destabilization within their home countries.

* Allowing easy penetration of borders sends a number of messages, none of them good. It shows potential jihadis that they need only play our emotions in order to come to America. It shows innocent people that this is no big deal and that handling paperwork, etc., is no big deal. I'm struck by the hard line so many Imamothers take regarding preparing for employment and general self-sufficiency -- yet seem to think it's perfectly normal to let immigration issues linger for years and decades. Obviously, some situations are complex, but, no, I don't want people being more on top of their car insurance and they are on their immigration/citizenship status.

* European experience has been that a huge percentage of immigrants are not literate in their own languages and many don't have basic elementary school math skills. This means that we are not just taking in immigrants, but that we are importing a significant education problem -- one that we've been unable to solve for our own citizens successfully.

None of this adds up to a zero-sum game; I don't know any reasonable person who believes that no immigrants/refugees should be admitted, nor do I know of any reasonable person who believes that any and all immigrants/refugees should be admitted. Emotion should obviously play a role, but it shouldn't blind us to some of the hard choices and difficulties that the current situation poses.

SixOfWands

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 10:57 am

Squishy wrote:

It is not just the risk of death in a terrorist attack. It is all the disgusting behavior of terrorists attacking the children and women for zex. What of the article the poster brought up of one single day in Germany when 1200 women were attacked? Do we really want this kind of rampaging in our country?

We have 3200 car deaths a day in the US. If we extrapolate Germany's population to the US population that would bring the 1200 women attacked to 4800 proportionately - a much greater danger than dying in a car accident. In our country we flip out over one attack. How can we invite this in? Driving is a necessity and part of our society. We need it and are willing to accept the risk.

I don't want DD near men who can't respect boundaries. I don't want refugees unless they are vetted.

I don't think its ever been established that all of the incidents in Germany -- or even a majority of them -- were caused by Muslim immigrants, although that was certainly the accusation. But I'm willing to assume, arguendo, that they were, because its not really relevant.

There's a lot between "let 'em all in" and "keep out everyone, even with a visa." (The Order has now apparently been clarified to permit entry of green card holders.)

This article describes the vetting process for Syrian refugees, pre-Trump:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wh.....cess/

Was that system perfect? By no means. But the Executive Order has caused widespread issues (Israel has asked for clarification of what that means for Israeli citizens born in any of those countries), with no clear benefit.

MagentaYenta

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 11:17 am

Right now our president is openly violating the constitution that he swore to uphold ten days ago.

With Republicans holding both the house and the senate, it would be relatively easy to pass an immigration reform bill that was clearly thought out and well defined. Passing a bill would have allowed the various depts, Customs, Homeland Security, State and Defense to truly coordinate any exclusionary efforts.

Instead we got a cloudly EO, that was ill defined and a president that ignores the highest court in the land.

33055

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 11:30 am

MagentaYenta wrote:

I am sorry. I must have missed where the Supreme Court ruled on his executive order.

wondergirl

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 11:31 am

MagentaYenta wrote:

The president is allowed to sign an EO as needed without intervention from congress or judicial branches. That is what we have been told for the last 8 years over and over again every time Obama signed an EO. But I guess if Trump does it then its unconstitutional. Right. Do you have any sources that confirm that Trumps is violating the constitution?

Fox

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 11:32 am

So far this has been a useful, civil, and thought-provoking discussion. I'd suggest we carry on in that vein rather than become fixated on President Trump's role in this. Immigration concerns existed before he became President, and they will no doubt exist when he's gone. While the EO was obviously the catalyst for this conversation, we are doing ourselves a disservice if we dumb it down to a pro-Trump/anti-Trump debate.

Raisin

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 11:42 am

Quote:

Terror attacks, as many have pointed out, are not often the work of immigrants/refugees. However, the people who carry out terrorist attacks are very frequently influenced by immigrant speakers and leaders who explicitly call for jihad and violence. These individuals, many of whom are already here, are extremely dangerous when loosed upon a struggling immigrant community.

These radical imams don't just randomly happen to immigrate. They are financed by Saudi Arabia. (and a couple of other rich arab countries) Saudi money pays for mosques and training of imams.

Now fighting against that would be an intelligent way to prevent terrorist attacks. But we wouldn't want to upset them, would we.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/......html

http://www.jpost.com/Internati.....sques

MagentaYenta

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 11:45 am

Today jihadists are thanking our president for his recruitment efforts.

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-Ea.....80001

Hatemywig

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 11:47 am

FranticFrummie wrote:

DD really wants to go visit her BFF, who lives in Sweden, on the outskirts of Malmo. I'd love her to go and travel, see her friend, and experience Swedish culture, but I'd be lying if I said I felt comfortable with it.

DD has waist length blonde hair, and so does her friend. Blondes are favorite targets with immigrants who want to show what they think of Western women.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06.....tion/
http://www.breitbart.com/londo.....almo/
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.....-rape
The last thing I want, is to end up seeing her on FaceBook.
http://www.infowars.com/sweden.....live/

Interestingly, when I did a Google search for sources, I set it for "News", so I would filter out all of the blog chatter. I tried to find non biased sources, but everything I found was from conservative or independent sources. Liberal sites seem to hardly be covering this at all!

My fear is that America will become the next Sweden, based on the common values of inclusion, tolerance, diversity, open borders - and looking the other way when facts don't fit the agenda.

Here is some information about Jewish life in Malmo:

https://crownheights.info/chab.....eden/

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com......html

http://www.collive.com/show_news.rtx?id=37985

ora_43

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 11:49 am

moonstone wrote:

Excuse me, you honestly don't care if 1 in 100 immigrants are terrorists? I'm speechless.

I can't think of what I wrote that could have been read that way. Confused

Quote:

Frankly, I couldn't care less if the 1% of immigrants who are terrorists results in a net gain in the terrorist /non-terrorist ratio. What difference does that make??? When one of that 1% blows himself up in a shopping mall, do you think the victims' families will find any consolation in that statistic?

The difference is basically in comparative risks. Sort of like what marina said.

If, in theory, immigrants were *more* likely to become soldiers or policemen and *less* likely to be terrorists than non-immigrants, the net effect would be that people would be safer. I don't think the families of people killed in any one attack would feel better because of that, but the families of the people who weren't killed in the attacks that didn't happen because immigrant policemen and soldiers managed to prevent them, OTOH...

(eta: when I say "in theory" I don't just mean, like, as a distant fantasy. Arabic-speaking (and Urdu-speaking, etc) immigrants are fairly important in the "war on terror.")

MagentaYenta

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 11:53 am

wondergirl wrote:

Trumps signing of an EO was not unconstitutional, his disregard of the courts ruling vis a vis the ban is.

As I said in my previous post, the Republicans control both houses, there was nothing to keep them from revising immigration statues to reflect current concerns regarding refugees and terrorism. There are no impediments. I understand the tactics used by President Obama with regards to EOs were due to the continual stalemates in DC. There is no question that the Dems had control until 2011, after that we saw Republicans publicly vowing to stop any efforts of the Democratic party and our sitting president.

Right now the situation is one of a constitutional crisis.A sitting president is refusing to follow the constitution and submit to checks and balances. That is not how our democracy has been defined.

33055

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 12:04 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

You mentioned Trump ignored the highest court in the land. When?

wondergirl

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 12:14 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

The ruling was vague and did not identify who is or isn't covered so there was lots of confusion about it. As far as I know, they did release everyone in the end so there is nothing unconstitutional going on. That said, there is a provision in the EO that Trump signed that empowered and enabled Homeland Security along with the secretary of state to admit refugees on a case by case basis after careful vetting.

Quote:

(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

ACLU filed a lawsuit for two people who were detained, both of whom were released before the judge ruled on the case so it seems like the ACLU and everyone else failed to read the EO before taking actions against it. People need to relax and stop listening to the distortions of the media before things really get out of control. Give Trump a chance to implement his policies before you attack him on the basis of media distortions.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01.....gees/

SixOfWands

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 12:31 pm

Wondergirl -- source?

We know that United States Customs and Border Protection instructed airlines to stop passengers from the banned countries from boarding flights and to remove any who had already done so. So people were blocked from coming to the US.

According to CNN, in Philadelphia, a Syrian family of six who had a visa through a family connection in the US was placed on a return flight to Doha, Qatar, and Department of Homeland Security officials said others who were in the air would be detained upon arrival and put back on a plane to their home country. Another 5 people were forced to return to Yemen from LAX after being pressured to waive their rights. That reportedly happened quite a bit. I'm sure there were others.

The Trump Administration has refused to abide by judicial orders blocking parts of the Executive Order. The order of a trial-level court is enforceable. You don't get to ignore it until it gets to the Supremes.

Just today, an Iranian-born BBC journalist was detained for hours, and required to provide the password to his phone so his political views could be investigated.

As to others, can I have a source for the contention that 1/100 immigrants from the listed countries is a terrorist? I thought that was a hypothetical number posed by the OP. I've certainly not seen anything like that cited anywhere.

FranticFrummie

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 12:41 pm

Marina, you completely missed my point. This was a discussion based on philosophy, NOT on statistics. My 13yo can easily visualize a pie chart with 100 slices, so that's the number I picked. In no way did I mean that the ratio was literally one out of 100.

Do try to follow the plot please, and not derail the conversation by nit picking on tiny details. Choose any number and statistic that makes you happy. The questions involved still need answers.

And how do I sleep at night? With one ear open for Red Alert sirens. Wondering if that was thunder, a construction truck, or a rocket landing nearby.

How do you sleep?

FranticFrummie

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 12:44 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

As to others, can I have a source for the contention that 1/100 immigrants from the listed countries is a terrorist? I thought that was a hypothetical number posed by the OP. I've certainly not seen anything like that cited anywhere.

Please read my response to Marina, above.

wondergirl

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 12:48 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

I cited the source in my comment but will cite it again for your benefit-- http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01.....gees/

All these "reports" are nothing but reports. After Trump won the election, there were lots of reports that Muslims and other liberals were getting harassed. These stories turned out to be false so pardon me for being cynical about "reports" that people are being mistreated because of the EO that Trump signed. That is especially since he did give Homeland Security and Secretary of State the power to admit refugees on a case by case basis so I have no doubt that they followed his orders to the letter and that it was all done in accordance to the constitution.

The judge may not have read the EO because her ruling failed to take this provision into account. Seems like everyone jumped the gun to quickly which has to stop so that we can get some peace in America.

amother

Sienna

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 12:52 pm

tichellady wrote:

I'm with Marina on this. Feel sick to my stomach about this and am not sure what to do. I'm also surprised that no one has mentioned (unless I missed it) that this is affecting tons of people who are not muslims, that most of the terrorists in the world are not Muslim, that the terrorists who attacked the US are not from these countries, and that this affects many people who helped the US army in Iraq and were promised safe passage to the US so they wouldn't be killed for their actions in Iraq. It seems like fear is our most important value.

Not a value, necessarily, but perhaps a motivator?

https://braindecoder.com/post/.....82492

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p.....2984/

MagentaYenta

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 12:53 pm

Squishy wrote:

You mentioned Trump ignored the highest court in the land. When?

Please quote me where I said that in my post.

Page 3 of 6

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next