What do you Think About Extreme Vetting?
Trump is considering sending 2,500 ISIS fighters back to the EU, and this is causing leaders of the respective European Union countries to balk at the idea. What should we do with these fighters, terrorists, or what have you, and which nation-state should house, feed, and clothe them? Should the United States send terrorist EU citizens back in such a way that allows the various countries to arrest them on sight? If so, will this cause the EU to become more selective in their future immigration policies?
"..you're always gonna have somebody around, well right now we have captured over 10,000 – we have 2,500 ISIS fighters that we want Europe to take, because they were going back into Europe, into France, into Germany, into various places." — Donald Trump
Our planet is a very diverse place, and in some corners of the world—societies raise people as violent theocrats. Unfortunately, violent theocrats do not always settle well into democratic societies. That said, why should a country allow an individual to migrate if there is a considerable risk the person will possess a sense of righteous indignation, and therefore, lash out at the host country with acts of terrorism?
Ideally, we’d like to live in a way where everyone gets along, and in that case, we wouldn’t need borders or militaries or any of that nonsense. However, we live in an imperfect world, and we will need to deal with these issues as they arise. The minimization of problems is the most desirable outcome. I don’t have all the answers, and I suspect that you don’t either, so, what say you on the matter, sound off in the comments!
yeah, we have run out of colonies like US and Australia to send all the unwanted people. I wouldnt be surprised if someone builds a floating island with enough resources to live but not enough to build ships. It's already a crime to be a refuge. pretty soon it will be illegal to speak out against the government
Regarding the ISIS fighters in particular, I think of it like gut bacteria. We have lots of bacteria in our stomachs. Some of it is good, some of it not so good. If the bad gut bacteria overpopulate, it threatens not only the entire digestive system but also the host too. Therefore, we avoid canned goods with bulges in them as it’s a sure sign of botulism. Avoiding the canned good is a subconscious or automatic process whereby you vet your food. It’s not that your racist against that can of grapefruit, it’s just that you know if you buy it and put it in your house, then whoever eats of it will either die, or they’ll end up getting sick.
i like your analogy.. but only to a point. fear of botulism overrides common sense. for instance, i will buy a can thats a little dinged but obviously new. maybe nothing wrong with the food at all, other than human mangling. but the fear wastes so much perfectly good product because the superficial package is dented.
its the same kind of "dont buy used" mentality that leads us to mass producing to meet the manufactured supply and demand, which leads us to issues of pollution, resource depletion etc. this thought process doesnt do our culture any favors, it just leads to throw away mentality instead of dealing with where that leads us down the road. a lack of consideration for environment and people.
we see all of the "bad" people under one microscope, and dont look at the grey areas of how they might be doing good, a balancing of power. trump is over protectionist, to the extent that he is labeling all mexicans as probable druggies and criminals, instead of looking at the reality of their socio-political reality. i dont agree with isis violence and distorted mentality, yet i question how the government labels 10k bad. what are the criteria? coming from a racist president, yes i do question that.
before you label all the bacteria in your gut as bad, maybe you should ask - what behavior do you have that allowed them to proliferate?
Danke! In some cases, a dinged or dented can be okay to eat from, but usually, a bulging can, on the other hand, is a sign of a spoiled product. If a dent or ding is substantial enough to where it breaks the seal, that too might cause the product to spoil. Regarding the "don't buy used" mentality, Obama's cash for clunkers program was infuriating to me. A condition of the program was to destroy the engine of the used car by pouring liquid glass into it's running engine. It was such a terrible waste of many perfectly good automobiles.
I don't know how they make the determinations about who is a terrorist either. If it were up to me, the U.S. wouldn’t be in the middle east at all. Operation Shock and Awe, and the continued military occupations or invasions to follow gave plenty of people an excuse to resort to violence. I think according to the military regardless of what bombs fell on whose heads; if there is physical resistance to the occupation, they consider it an act of terrorism. Regardless if you call these people terrorists or fighters, it should be common sense to return to sender, and in this case, it’s their respective nation of origin in the EU.
I don't think Trump labels all Mexicans as druggies and criminals. He highlights druggies and criminals when talking about border security because this element is particularly destabilizing to America's well-being. Trump just wants people to follow the rules, and come in through the legal route so that America can selectively weed out troublesome people from gaining entry. I've seen no evidence that he's a racist either. Perhaps, you have fallen victim to fake news or one of the many new and fake definitions of racism that colleges are brainwashing students with nowadays?
huh, never heard of this clunkers thing, but agee. also agree on getting out of any country that doesnt invite us, and even some that do. RTS, sure.
trump has repeatedly been derogatory about people, whether it be mexicans, women, handicapped, middle easterners, or anyone he doesnt happen to like at the moment. i would almost prefer him to be racist because the alternative is that he is a) trying to divert attention froim something he doesnt want focused on, b) trying to instigate hatred and nationalistic stupidity in the moronic masses who agree with him and look no further into the why. he has the ability to use speech writers so he doesnt say what he says offensively. i have heard many live broadcasts of him speaking, and even if its out of context, theres no way to condone his words.
so no, not all of this is "fake news". if he wants everyone to follow the rules, then why was he indicted for so many crimes himself? why does he skirt around releasing tax records? its not all "trumped up." there are too many instances of shady business for every single instance to be fake. just the fact alone that he thinks its ok to "grab a womans pussy" goes beyond decorum. his public image is harmful to international relations. i will agree with you on a lot of things, but on my opinion of this man, not a chance. om not a naive college student. if you make a vast negative stereotype or generalization about a race, that is racist.
The violence of the theocrats is an expected reaction to the West exporting democracy and humanist drivel around the world. Before the world can address the issue of human migration, it must deal with the issue of idealogy and cultural invasion. If all sociocultural matrices curtailed the export of their ideological bent, then the world would function with less conflict. As is currently, the West attempts to force its humanist religion on the Islamic world, the communists in China obtrude their philosophy unto the world using economic blackmail, Islam attempts to carve out a fiefdom in the middle of Europe, etc. If censorship of ideology detrimental to continuation of a sociocultural identity can not even be established, how can any polity even contemplate expulsion of incompatible people?
Control the free flow of information and cultural exchange and the problem of mass migration will end. If the humanist drivel had not subverted the existing sociocultural matrix of the Middle East, then the current sociopolitical collapse of many Islamic nations would not have been possible. Furthermore, the West continues its humanist religious proselytisation via covert operations (the "color" revolutions around the world) ensuring continued human mass migration from collapsing of sociocultural matrices. The current social destabilisation in Hong Kong by Western intelligence operatives, albeit with connivance of anti-Xi factions within the CCP, demonstrates continues Western/humanist war against the rest of the human race. The Islamic "terrorism" is but a defensive reaction against continued cultural assault by humanists in the West.
What a load of crap. It wasn't humanism or democracy that has left the ME shattered. It was terrorism; bombs, and tanks. That's not humanism. It's terrorism, and seems to be the only form of government you support.
How did Egypt descend into chaos? How did Libya transform from functioning nation-state into a chaotic warzone? How did Syria shatter into fragmented fiefdoms? The Western poison of humanism and toxic "pop" culture destabilised the once prosperous societies into the current mess in the Middle East. Funded by the humanist "charity" fronts, these color revolutions destabilised and destroyed functioning nation-states by using social malcontents as their instrument of terror. For "freedom," "democracy," "human rights," and other humanist drivel, decades of civil war is an acceptable cost for your humanist religious fanatics.
Rather than using obvert mililtary force, as the US employed in the second Iraq war, the West now prefers to utilise infectious ideas, spread by NGOs and "humanitarian" charities, to destabilise societies, cultures, and civilisations. Humanism is nothing more than rebellion against established social order, in a dream to found some fantasy utopia. Contrary to your humanist religious belief system, many human societies, past and present, function efficiently and prosperously without the need for your "freedom," democracy, and "rights" drivel. In fact, most human beings would rather not be subject to the Terror of the French Revolution, the blood orgies of the French commune, or the necessity of genocidal wars against the "natives" in order that they may enjoy some additional previleges. Only those vicious enough to believe that their own convenience outweighs the potential misery of millions would deploy legions of humanist missionaries to undermine functioning societies.
The rhetoric of propagandists is not actually able to be reconciled with their actions. Humanist claims are made, and terrorism is actually what is effected. This is not a reflection on humanism, but on the quality of overlords. They are shit quality today, and not less so in the West. Historically, the vampiric overlords have proved to parasitize society as rampantly as possible, and this is vastly facilitated with modern propaganda techniques.
Fortunately, we will soon have thought reading tech to counter lying propagandists with, and the utility of propaganda will fall off a cliff. Fakebook has claimed to be able to directly translate thoughts, and soon lying politicians will no longer be able to lie their way to power.
And, overt military force is the whole point of propaganda. It's not either or, but how they work together. We're told we're paying the military to save babies from being torn out of incubators, but the truth is we're the ones swiping incubators as an act of war. The sooner such duplicity ends the sooner actual civilization will be possible, rather than the incessant parasitism that has characterized barbaric industrial society the last few centuries.
We don't need missionaries. We need profiteers that prevent parasitism from extracting their wealth. Since that is an economic motivation, it is a lowest common denominator that will ensure the broadest adoption of distributed production tech possible. That is real humanism, not the specious drivel of propagandists.
The right brand of humanism was not tried?
Terrorism is not humanism at all. Rhetoric is not action. You posture as unable to grasp the difference, but I am confident you are not as clueless as you pretend to be.
Right . . . true humanism was never enacted. Much like true communism, or true socialism, has never been tried. Stalin wasn't a communist; Hitler wasn't a socialist; and the Terror wasn't enforced by humanists. The reason for the ocean of ink used to propagate humanism is because ideas have no real world consequences.
If you've ever taken an IQ test, you'll be familiar with this format:
rhetoric is to action as humanism is to a) terrorism, b) propaganda, or c) both.
I agree that the US government has been waging a war on other cultures it sees as a threat. this is not only a war against religion and ideology, its a power struggle, and more for control of natural resources and financial control. personally i think we come across as greedy selfish bullies, so i can understand how other nations become defensive. maybe they feel violence is the only way they have left to fight against this. however i think the way thru this is with information. educate people about these realities. most kids are taught some nationalistic idealistic pap that instills fear and anger instead of understanding the issues between nations. I think with more people understanding at a local level, this is the only way to keep governments in check.
@soo.chong163, I agree with a lot of what you said. The part you mentioned which concerns me is: "If censorship of ideology detrimental to continuation of a sociocultural identity can not even be established, how can any polity even contemplate expulsion of incompatible people?" and "Control the free flow of information and cultural exchange and the problem of mass migration will end." With those statements, it seems you are in favor of censorship of information and the outlawing of religion. These are two things that I'm fundamentally against as an American, but as far as your comments about the West's meddlesome ways, I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, America's notion that it does what it does for the sake of democracy or the concern for another nation's people is a lie. The truth of the matter is that those two reasons are nothing more than a pretext for conquest and conquer.
What is freedom of religion? Religion is an organised set of belief system that governs and defines a society. Religion functions at a social level as a reference of principles that guides all legal and political institutions. As a deductive form of knowledge, religion and its tenets, are derived from a priori assumptions (ie god or gods) that can not be proven or disproven. Religions are mutually exclusive systems, since the primary assumption of these systems can not coexist with a differing set. How can a society function, when thousand different religions scream to set policies and regulations?
The practical effect of religious "freedom" is to marginalise religion from public sphere and, in essence, outlaw religion from the sociopolitical sphere. Religious freedom can only exist in atheist states, in which political decisions are formed without religious input. Thus, the incompatibility of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and all other religious systems with humanist democracy, in which the consensus of state actors become the supreme power, rather than the divine. Religion is already outlawed and censored from public consciousness in humanist secular democracies, other than as a personal fad or philosophical preference. Would formalising such arrangement in legal statutes be too much of a hassle for humanist democracies?
"Religions are mutually exclusive systems, since the primary assumption of these systems can not coexist with a differing set. How can a society function, when thousand different religions scream to set policies and regulations?"
In my country, we have the first amendment to the constitution which says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This phraseology guarantees freedom of, and freedom from religion depending on your perspective. As far as I'm concerned this makes the State more agnostic than it does atheist. However, we're talking about the State here and it's a fictional entity, so, if we ascribe human traits of belief or non-belief to it is an anthropomorphism. If we anthropomorphize the State, in essence, we are making the State a God are we not? And it might be a very jealous God if it "feels" the need to ban all religion. I think an argument can be made that agnosticism is neither belief nor disbelief. I think it's probably most accurate that fictional entities neither believe, nor disbelieve in anything. Whereas atheism is the (religion or) belief system that there is no God.
"Religion is already outlawed and censored from public consciousness in humanist secular democracies, other than as a personal fad or philosophical preference."
If we're talking about America, I don't think so. We have a lot of people from many different religions here. Just so long as they don't break the law or harm people while practicing their religion, it's perfectly fine.
"Would formalising such arrangement in legal statutes be too much of a hassle for humanist democracies?"
There are a lot of people who derive great spiritual benefit from their ability to freely worship. To curtail this in America would cause great upset among the masses. Also what your talking about is banning ideas and the legal right to speak about them. That's a very slippery slope to go down. Once you start, where does it end?