Why did Schumer cry for the banned muslims

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 -> In the News

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

SixOfWands

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 3:38 pm

FranticFrummie wrote:

Sorry. The Jewish claim to the land is over 3,000 years old. Islam has only been around for 700 years. Please check your history books and Chumash, and get back to me after you get your facts straight.

And the Constitution forbids religious tests for entry into the US, although you seem to want one. You rewrite history, they rewrite history. But you only seem to want it one way.

Laiya

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 3:52 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

And the Constitution forbids religious tests for entry into the US, although you seem to want one. You rewrite history, they rewrite history. But you only seem to want it one way.

It doesn't.

The constitution bars religious tests for holding office; this has nothing to do with immigration law.

Last edited by Laiya on Tue, Jan 31 2017, 3:59 pm; edited 1 time in total

allthingsblue

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 3:55 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

And the Constitution forbids religious tests for entry into the US, although you seem to want one. You rewrite history, they rewrite history. But you only seem to want it one way.

How did she rewrite history?

ora_43

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 3:55 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Well, that's what the US said back in the 30s and 40s to a lot of our ancestors.

And that's what the Muslims are saying to you, in Israel. Get back where you belong.

I guess you agree with them.

Do you seriously not see a difference between those two things? You don't think that, say, "Iraqi jihadists should stay in Iraq" is slightly more reasonable than "Iraq should be disbanded, and its citizens forcibly relocated to wherever I see fit"?

FranticFrummie

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 4:04 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

And the Constitution forbids religious tests for entry into the US, although you seem to want one. You rewrite history, they rewrite history. But you only seem to want it one way.

Please show me where I said that. Not just in this thread. Anywhere in the history of my Imamother postings is fair game. Heck, search my FB history too, if you want.

I'll be waiting for my apology, if you're a big enough person to offer one.

SixOfWands

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 4:36 pm

FranticFrummie wrote:

You said the "jihadists" should remain in their own countries:

Quote:

That's why they should stay in their own countries.

But Trump isn't screening for "jihadists." He's banning all people from certain countries. So "jihadist" clearly equals Muslims to you. You want to ban them.

But correct me if I'm wrong. Do you agree with the following: "refugees from all Muslim countries should be allowed to come to the US, subject to reasonable immigration limits of the nature imposed on all other nations, and subject to reasonable background investigations." I'll leave it to you to define "reasonable."

If you agree with that, agree that Muslim immigration is fine, then I did misinterpret you.

But if you don't agree, then you do want a Muslim ban. You just don't want to admit it.

SixOfWands

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 4:41 pm

ora_43 wrote:

"Iraqi jihadists should stay in Iraq" is very different from "people trying to escape Iraqi jihadists should stay in Iraq," or "all Iraqis must be jihadists, who cares."

And you have to recognize that "I don't want them in my country, they're taking over and changing its very nature" is exactly what the Palestinians say of Israel. They're wrong. But you have to recognize when you use the same words and arguments that they do.

FranticFrummie

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 4:46 pm

I am going to use small words and short sentences. I hope you can follow this.

Not all Muslims are jihadists.

All jihadists are Muslims.

Jihadists should not be allowed into the US, EVER.

Non Jihadist, peaceful Muslims should be allowed in.

Peaceful Muslims will be determined by "reasonable" measures.

If you want to debate "reasonable", then we can do that after you apologize. If you don't know how, I will give you a template:

Dear FF,

I apologize for my lack of reading comprehension, and for making assumptions based on my misunderstanding of your statements. I fully retract all aspersions that I have thrown on your character and motivation. From now on, I will attempt to discuss things civilly, based on facts, and not on knee jerk emotions. Et cetera... fill in the rest as needed.

SixOfWands

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 4:46 pm

Laiya wrote:

It doesn't.

The constitution bars religious tests for holding office; this has nothing to do with immigration law.

The Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I would certainly argue that prohibits the introduction of a religious test for immigrants.

Let's hope it doesn't have to be litigated.

SixOfWands

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 4:48 pm

FranticFrummie wrote:

So you disagree with the current ban. Good to know.

I certainly apologize. I thought that you stated you supported a ban on ALL people from certain Muslim countries.

FranticFrummie

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 5:08 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

So you disagree with the current ban. Good to know.

I certainly apologize. I thought that you stated you supported a ban on ALL people from certain Muslim countries.

Weak apology, but accepted. I guess everyone has to start off small, and work their way up.

I support a ban on ALL jihadists from ALL countries. I think that for too long, the US has been too focused on singling out countries, and is overlooking the rest of the world. ISIS knows this, and will easily find a back door country that Americans tend to think of as a "safe ally". They can hop on the next plane, and *boom*.

What I am most in favor of, is profiling, the way the El Al security agents do it. They don't care what color you are, man, woman, or child. They read eye contact, body language, answers that don't quite fit, among other things. They don't focus on any particular country of origin. It's entirely on a case by case basis.

Of course, this means training people who have reasonable intelligence, and want to be paid more than a cashier at McDonald's. A lot of mall cops and wannabe cops will be out of work, replaced by professionals who will always be on their toes. If taxes went up to pay for that, I'd be all behind it.

On a completely unrelated note, a Muslim taxi driver short changed me today. I don't hate him. He's just a hard working shlub, he heard me speaking English, and took me for an easy mark. I was in a hurry, and didn't realize until it was too late and he was long gone. Whatever. It was only 15 shekels. He should use it in good health, and buy his kids some nosh. It's a kapparah.

At no time during the ride did it cross my mind to think "Oh my gosh, I'm in a car with a Muslim! I should have waited for a Jewish driver! I'd better be careful to count my change! I hope he doesn't kidnap me and slit my throat!"

What DID I think in the taxi? I told him how much I loved the music he was playing. It reminded me of when I was taking belly dancing classes. He turned up the music, and I thought to myself that I should really start dancing again, to get into better shape. Music

wondergirl

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 5:09 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

So you disagree with the current ban. Good to know.

I certainly apologize. I thought that you stated you supported a ban on ALL people from certain Muslim countries.

You realize that the "ban" is not an "anti-muslim" ban, yes? Muslims are citizens of many different countries around the world and are not banned from entering the U.S. Only people from 7 countries considered to be a threat to this country (as determined by Obama), are temporarily suspended from entering the country but there are exceptions to that as well. And they are free to travel to other countries, including Muslim countries, where they are not banned either. So how is FF disagreeing with the ban based on what she said in her comment?

Laiya

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 6:45 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

The bolded was the purpose of the temporary ban; those countries don't keep easily verifiable records, which makes it difficult to investigate their possible terrorist ties.

The pause, is to give the agencies an opportunity to create a better process for investigating backgrounds, as I understood it.

Fwiw, 57% of the country supports it: http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....avens

Laiya

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 7:01 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

The Constitution does not offer protection to people whose right to enter the country has not yet been determined.

Last edited by Laiya on Sun, Feb 05 2017, 12:36 am; edited 1 time in total

FranticFrummie

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 7:09 pm

Laiya wrote:

For the right amount of money, you can get a forged passport, birth certificate, and any other papers you want. You just have to know a guy who knows a guy, and have a couple hundred dollars in unmarked bills. https://www.google.co.il/webhp.....+sale

Counterfeit printing presses have already been found in Syria, and several other countries where immigrants gather. Desperate people have given their entire life savings to get fake documents, just to have them confiscated at the border crossings.

Some still manage to get through.
https://www.rt.com/news/337374.....taly/
http://www.sandiegouniontribun......html

Fox

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 7:49 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

I haven't heard a single reasonable person -- even in the right-wing Twittersphere -- argue that the U.S. shouldn't admit at least some immigrants/refugees from countries associated with Islamic terror or related actions.

The devil is in the details, and there are no policies that can (a) protect North Americans against potential violence; and (b) protect democratic values; and (c) avoid any negative repercussions on individuals.

For example, I was listening to NPR an hour ago as I was driving home from depositing a DD at ORD. They were profiling the effect of the ban on LGBT Iranians who were attempting to escape arrest, imprisonment, and possible execution.

But the story isn't as simple as Trump's executive order. Gay men fleeing Iran are dispropotionately affected because they are single and typically in their 20s or early 30s -- thus superficially matching the profile of jihadis or extremists. Canada and a number of other countries tightened up their immigration/refugee policies over a year ago to effectively exclude these men.

So what's the answer? How can we effectively distinguish an extremist who claims to be an Iranian Baha'I gay man versus someone who is really is an Iranian Baha'I gay man? Ask him to quote from the Abdu'l-Bahá while a CBP officer checks out his Grindr profile?

Perhaps I will be proven wrong, but my best guess is that Trump's executive order is more a rhetorical line in the sand rather than a firm, long-term policy. The administration is attempting to send a message to a number of different audiences that there's a new sheriff in town and that the U.S. will not be harangued or guilted into actions that are potentially detrimental to its citizens. The message is clearly successful with some audiences (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Dubai); we will see if it's successful with other audiences.

As for people not wanting the culture of their country altered, I actually have a lot of sympathy for this. The problem with the Palestinian cause, of course, is not simply that they want a uniquely Palestinian area (in other words, Jordan) but that they insist that (a) it must extend to the Mediterranean; and (b) there be no analogous Jewish area. Apparently Saudi Arabia has come to this conclusion as well, given the recent op-ed by Muhammad Aal Al-Sheikh.

The First Amendment of the Constitution is generally agreed to protect "freedom of association" -- the right of people to join or leave groups of their choosing. Of course, we can debate the legal and social limits of this right. Should a Christian bakery be forced to provide a cake for a gay wedding? Should Marc Jacobs be forced to concoct a dress for Melania? Are those situations different than an LGBT person simply walking in a purchasing a cake or Melania having her personal shopper pick up something off the rack at Barney's?

The fact is that none of these questions has easy answers. None of our previous Presidents had all the answers, and neither does our current President. And even when the answers seem obvious, they often have unintended consequences.

Fox

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 8:44 pm

Maya wrote:

I will not apologize for feeling a level of compassion for innocent women and little children who face the kinds of terrors and fears that neither you nor I, nor anyone on this board, can fathom or comprehend. The insensitivity and cruelty being exhibited by the frum women on this board, and the way some women are showing their true selves, is what's really startling to me. No one's asking you to take any concrete actions to bring in the refugees, but to feel a little sad about their circumstances is too much to ask? That's disgusting.

This is precisely the attitude that many of us reject. Not just us random chattering Imamothers, but the people on the ground who do the real work helping immigrants and refugees.

Here's the thing about the people who are really working to help those facing horrific circumstances of various types: they don't spend a lot of time feeling bad for the people and they tend not to talk about it unless they're trying to raise money.

I've listened to a number of interviews over the past few days with people who work aiding immigrants/refugees in various ways, and while they don't necessarily support the executive order, neither do they see it as a show-stopper.

I mentioned in a post above that I most recently listened to an NPR story on Iranian LGBT refugees. It included an interview with a representative of the IRQR (Iranian Railroad for Queer Refugees). He talked about the immediate effects of the executive order, but then he launched into a discussion of all kinds of previous immigration policies enacted in the U.S. and Canada that impacted the population he works with. The executive order was just the latest roadblock of many that his organization has faced.

Feeling bad about someone's circumstances is worthless unless you take some action. In fact, it's even worse than not caring -- it allows people to feel good about themselves for no reason whatsoever.

If you are concerned about immigrants, give your cleaning lady a raise or help her find a better job. Point her toward a good immigration lawyer if she's here illegally. Heck, learn how to greet to the Chinese fruit-and-vegetable guy or the Egyptian librarian in their native languages, if that's all you can muster.

Feeling a certain way doesn't give anyone the moral high ground. That's reserved for people who actually act in ways -- however small -- to ameliorate the problem that upsets them.

Laiya

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 9:05 pm

Fox wrote:

Feeling a certain way doesn't give anyone the moral high ground. That's reserved for people who actually act in ways -- however small -- to ameliorate the problem that upsets them.

Excellent point!

dietcokeaddict

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 10:04 pm

Well said as usual, Fox!

We often feel compassion just because that "absolves" us from taking any concrete action and relieves our guilt. How true!

youngishbear

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 11:33 pm

dietcokeaddict wrote:

Well said as usual, Fox!

We often feel compassion just because that "absolves" us from taking any concrete action and relieves our guilt. How true!

Yes, feeling is not good enough.

It's worse than doing something to help, but it's better than stopping others from helping.

Or to use Fox's quoted terminology, protesting a roadblock is better than supporting a roadblock.

Page 4 of 6

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next