Check out my thread. It's the best. You won't believe how good it is. All the others are fake. Total lie. It has more replies than the shoutbox.

The viruses are pouring in through our borders! Our borders are like Swiss Cheese people, we have to build a firewall!

In fact that's exactly true. That's why we all left PF... >:O

It had no borders!!

What's with all this welcoming refugees nonsense. Send them all back, they'll only create problems and undermine our civilisation. — unenlightened

We must build a big firewall!

We must build a big firewall! — jorndoe

And PF will have to pay for it - most important! (Y)

I had just turned 20 when I joined the original PF and now I'm nearly 27 :-O

Part of larger initiatives, that may have some historical ... precedents:

I thought there was something in the constitution about not having an established religion. Anyway, we should obviously be doing the same here. Priority for orthodox physicalists.

And an end to the aborting of threads too. I'm sick and tired of grabbing people by the idea only to have them murder their unwanted ops.

Let me just be a bit dramatic for a moment. :)

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS. — Animal Farm by George Orwell

The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. — 1984 by George Orwell

To die hating them, that was freedom. — 1984 by George Orwell

On a lighter (and funnier) note:

"INAUGURATION DAY" — A Bad Lip Reading of Donald Trump's Inauguration (4m:26s youtube)

The US can choose who can immigrate to the country by virtually any criteria it wants. The constitution legally applies to US citizens, not to those who are not. The US doesn't have to let in a soul if it doesn't want to, and this wouldn't conflict with the constitution at all. And all countries practice selective immigration. We need more engineers? Then we'll privilege them over and against people of other professions. Simply put, there is no right to immigrate and no wrong committed by refusing to let some people immigrate. In the present case, the argument can be made that Christians and other non-Muslim minorities in the Middle East are the most in danger and in need of assistance, so I see nothing wrong with privileging them as refugees over and against others from the region.

Some sort of vetting is necessary in any event, since the US cannot be expected to take in all the refugees in the world indefinitely. Resources are finite and would be better employed trying to solve the problems that are causing the refugee crisis to begin with. One of them is the lack of a strong military presence on the ground, which was completely taken away by Obama against the advice of the military. The transition to democracy takes time, but Obama never gave it time to develop in Iraq. We have had large, now arguably superfluous, military forces in Germany and Japan for more than half a century, which originally helped their transition to peaceful democracies after WWII. Yet we completely pulled out of Iraq in its infancy and left them to the dogs of ISIS who seized on the military vacuum.

I heard that God is starting to use the phrase, "so help me Trump" whenever He has to take a Divine Dump.

The US can choose who can immigrate to the country by virtually any criteria it chooses — Thorongil

Agreed. This is part of the "sovereignty" deal. Sovereign nations not only can, but have a responsibility to control their borders. If they don't want short or left-handed people, they don't have to admit them.

I thought there was something in the constitution about not having an established religion. — unenlightened

There is--the establishment clause. The Government can not "establish" a religion like the Church of England or Islam. (This was added to protect religion from the state, not just the other way around.)

In the present case, the argument can be made that Christians and other non-Muslim minorities in the Middle East are the most in danger and in need of assistance — Thorongil

The current Islamic persecution of Christians is closely connected to the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, the Shiite / Sunni civil war after the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, and ISIS and Al Qaeda in the middle east and elsewhere, like Nigeria. The percentage of Christians still living in the middle east has fallen from 10% (1900) to about 3% today. Israel and Lebanon are the only two middle east countries where Christians are free to practice their religion.

Yazidis and Zoroastrians also experience continuing oppression under Islam.

Some sort of vetting is necessary in any event, since the US cannot be expected to take in all the refugees in the world indefinitely. — Thorongil

And nobody else can either. There are scores of millions of refugees from all sources, not just the million or so that made it to Europe recently.

Refugee advocates have a vested interest in refugee settlement. Groups like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services are responsible for a lot of the settlement activity, for which they are paid under contract with the State Department. Aside from contracts, advocates are highly focused on whatever their particular issue is.

Have we decided that economic migrants and refugees are a force of nature which are no more controllable than the weather? What are India and Burma going to do when Bangladesh finally floods later in this century? Burma almost certainly will be unable to help a lot; India hasn't solved it's own envirommemtal problems, let alone taking on an influx of 30 million rising-ocean refugees.

And nobody else can either. — Bitter Crank

True, which is why they need to be spread around. At the moment, the Arab states and Turkey have not done their fair share of taking in refugees.

Have we decided that economic migrants and refugees are a force of nature which are no more controllable than the weather? — Bitter Crank

It would appear so. A crusader during one of the Albigensian massacres once allegedly said: "Kill them all; God will sort them out." The modern, uncompromising refugee advocate merely replaces the word "kill" with "accept," while retaining the same unwarranted, absurd faith in a just and happy outcome.

In the present case, the argument can be made that Christians and other non-Muslim minorities in the Middle East are the most in danger and in need of assistance, so I see nothing wrong with privileging them as refugees over and against others from the region. — Thorongil

From memory, something like 8/10 ISIS victims have been Muslims. More?
There's been refugees fleeing the onslaught with small children, walking the highways of Europe. Children that ought be learning how to read and write and add numbers, in a stable environment, instead.
I'm sure there's a ... non-zero chance of a terrorist hiding among them ... apparently to the bad luck of the remaining majority.
Might as well admit that discrimination is being implemented, based on the likes of (ir)religious affiliation, culture, or whatever.

Christians are especially vulnerable in the region, as are other non-Muslim minorities. This claim doesn't have solely to do with ISIS and nor is it meant to downplay the violence done to Muslims.

Might as well admit that discrimination is being implemented, based on the likes of (ir)religious affiliation, culture, or whatever. — jorndoe

Yes, that's exactly what it is, and there's nothing wrong with it, as I have already shown. The only way for it to be wrong would be if all religions and cultures were equal, whereby one isn't any better or worse than another, in which case choosing between them for immigration purposes would be arbitrary and irrational. But they are not equal and so it is not irrational to discriminate.

So you're 28. :P — TimeLine

Are you a mathematician? :-O

A crusader during one of the Albigensian massacres once allegedly said: "Kill them all; God will sort them out." The modern, uncompromising refugee advocate merely replaces the word "kill" with "accept," while retaining the same unwarranted, absurd faith in a just and happy outcome. — Thorongil

There are a plethora of reasons for the refugee crises, the historical, access to weapons, foreign factious interference and your uneducated generalisations is painful to read. If anything, the violence is far more profitable for the US but security and economics associated with war should never outweigh the life of a human being. 5000 people who drowned in 2016 in their attempt to find somewhere safe would not have taken that risk if their concerns for their own safety were not serious. Focusing on the root causes is the sustainable option for implementing change.

I work with refugees and I have heard stories directly from young girls telling me that they witnessed someone getting beheaded publicly or that they were raped or that they witnessed a family member die. They deeply appreciate the opportunity being here and much more than the privileged who spend their time and money on the fleeting completely oblivious to the world at large.

How on earth you managed to connect a refugee advocate to something like kill them all; God will sort them out is just unfathomable to me.

Quietism for the win! — Question

Shhh... not so loud.

I'm thinking of a certain type of advocate: the unthinking kind. So don't be so hasty in your defamations. You'll notice I didn't say "refugee advocate," but "uncompromising refugee advocate," the unpacking of which would deflate your charge.

There be dragons. — jamalrob

Dragons with victim mentalities

I'm thinking of a certain type of advocate: the unthinking kind. So don't be so hasty in your defamations. You'll notice I didn't say "refugee advocate," but "uncompromising refugee advocate," the unpacking of which would deflate your charge. — Thorongil

An ‘unthinking advocate’ are the kinds that are uncompromising apologists defending that moron and the conservatives as a whole by justifying the most inane, discriminatory policy by utilising the tactic of blaming advocates for their dedication to human rights.

Projection, much?

No.

Welcome dc. Good to see another former PF reg row ashore. (Y)

And a bit late, but welcome too @TimeLine.