5 ms·

> "If you want to fight militant Islam, the first thing to do is to limit immigration from those countries and spread the immigrants out to force assimilation."

> "If you want to fight militant Islam, the first thing to do is to limit immigration from those countries and spread the immigrants out to force assimilation." It would work, but is not very different from banning all white people in order to shut down the KKK. The proportion of Arabs to radical Islamic fundamentalists is so small that it really, really wouldn't make sense. That's a lot of baby for very little bath water. I'm not sure if your comment is meant to be hand-waving theorizing-out-loud or if you're actually serious - if you're serious, I'd hold your post up as one of the reasons why people despise America so much. You paint with a broad brush, advocate irrational fear-based decision making not supported by your own numbers, and demonstrate a tremendous amount of racial and cultural ignorance (desert nomads? seriously?) [edit] I've noticed that all of the posts here pointing out the racism in w1ntermute's post are getting downvoted. Normally I don't point out downvotes, but this in particular seems especially cowardly. Would the responsible party please get out from under that rock and explain why you feel the need to, without justification, silence everyone who has expressed this?

w1ntermute 14y ago
> It would work, but is not very different from banning all white people in order to shut down the KKK. There's a big difference in that those white people are already in America, and getting rid of them would be impossible. Note that I'm talking about implementing stricter immigration policies going forward, not getting rid of people who are already here. > The proportion of Arabs to radical Islamic fundamentalists is so small that it really, really wouldn't make sense. That's a lot of baby for very little bath water. To be honest, this whole Muslim immigration issue is more applicable to Europe than it is to America. America has (fortunately) maintained much stricter immigration policies than much of Europe, and the latter has consequently suffered from large swathes of Arab/Muslim immigrants failing to properly integrate into mainstream society. I'd say America has done quite well in comparison when it comes to assimilating Arab immigrants (although it has failed quite miserably so far when it comes to Hispanic and African Americans).
- potatolicious 14y ago
  > "(although it has failed quite miserably so far when it comes to Hispanic and African Americans)." I wouldn't exactly describe African Americans as immigrants per se... It seems to imply a level of volunteerism that simply wasn't there. Anyways, that's a nitpick. > "Note that I'm talking about implementing stricter immigration policies going forward, not getting rid of people who are already here." Right, but how do you know there aren't any bad apples in the people who are already here? Also bear in mind that of all Muslim terrorists who have committed an act of terrorism on American soil, many were visitors to the US, not immigrants. Do you believe we should also restrict Muslim visitation of the USA? How many more extremists do you think we will create within the existing Muslim population if we essentially had a big "Muslims go home" sign at every border checkpoint? What would it to do in terms of our desire to assimilate these immigrants? Your idea is fun to think about, but IMO it's not realistic. There are too many moving pieces for "no more Muslims in the US" to be a realistic policy choice. Not to mention the costs would be rather high. Go to any of the top US schools and look at both the grad student and professor rosters, count the people of Middle Eastern decent or of Muslim faith. These are all huge wins for American society - both in talent addition and talent denial to rival regimes. Do you really want all of these people to, say, go work for the Chinese? Or Iran? US hegemony is ensured in large (and put large in big screaming rainbow marquee letters) part by talent acquisition. We took much of Europe's best scientific talent after WW2, and we continued mopping up all the smartest and most talented people from all over the globe - Japan, China, India, the whole Eastern Bloc, and beyond. The US's lead over everyone else is economic and technological - leaving a whole swathe of educated immigrants on the table seems to go very firmly against this model. Slamming the door shut on immigration would be like starving yourself so you don't have to poop - it would work, but why?
  - simonh 14y ago
    Our current government here in the UK is doing this at the moment. They even revoked a university's license to accept foreign students on a technicality. We make a fortune out of foreign students and with our demographics need them far more than the US, but according to the Daily Mail reading grey brigade if we packed them all off home, all our troubles would be over. Because simplistic, sweeping, poorly thought out solutions to deep rooted cultural and economic issues always work out so well.
guylhem 14y ago
Sometimes it's not about racism but being practical - here, slowing down the progress of a dangerous ideology. Take a parallel with communism and the Rosenberg execution. Many declared that as just plain barbary, antisemitism, etc. "Between the trial and the executions there were widespread protests and claims of antisemitism; the charges of antisemitism were widely believed abroad" (wikipedia) But they were spies, and they gave secrets to help an enemy build atomic weapons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg Was this racism? Sometimes big problems require hash actions. It might look like a bad move morally, but tactically it might be justifiable. Example in hand - Quebec in Canada is selecting its own french speaking immigrants. After noticing on studies that immigrants from a specific part of the world were much more likely to be jobless or receiving public help, they discussed reducing the ratio of immigrants from this part of the world. The part of the world was north-Africa. Is this racist? (while they keep welcoming immigrants from the rest of the world and north-Africa - but just adding a ratio)

w1ntermute 14y ago

> It would work, but is not very different from banning all white people in order to shut down the KKK. There's a big difference in that those white people are already in America, and getting rid of them would be impossible. Note that I'm talking about implementing stricter immigration policies going forward, not getting rid of people who are already here. > The proportion of Arabs to radical Islamic fundamentalists is so small that it really, really wouldn't make sense. That's a lot of baby for very little bath water. To be honest, this whole Muslim immigration issue is more applicable to Europe than it is to America. America has (fortunately) maintained much stricter immigration policies than much of Europe, and the latter has consequently suffered from large swathes of Arab/Muslim immigrants failing to properly integrate into mainstream society. I'd say America has done quite well in comparison when it comes to assimilating Arab immigrants (although it has failed quite miserably so far when it comes to Hispanic and African Americans).

potatolicious 14y ago
> "(although it has failed quite miserably so far when it comes to Hispanic and African Americans)." I wouldn't exactly describe African Americans as immigrants per se... It seems to imply a level of volunteerism that simply wasn't there. Anyways, that's a nitpick. > "Note that I'm talking about implementing stricter immigration policies going forward, not getting rid of people who are already here." Right, but how do you know there aren't any bad apples in the people who are already here? Also bear in mind that of all Muslim terrorists who have committed an act of terrorism on American soil, many were visitors to the US, not immigrants. Do you believe we should also restrict Muslim visitation of the USA? How many more extremists do you think we will create within the existing Muslim population if we essentially had a big "Muslims go home" sign at every border checkpoint? What would it to do in terms of our desire to assimilate these immigrants? Your idea is fun to think about, but IMO it's not realistic. There are too many moving pieces for "no more Muslims in the US" to be a realistic policy choice. Not to mention the costs would be rather high. Go to any of the top US schools and look at both the grad student and professor rosters, count the people of Middle Eastern decent or of Muslim faith. These are all huge wins for American society - both in talent addition and talent denial to rival regimes. Do you really want all of these people to, say, go work for the Chinese? Or Iran? US hegemony is ensured in large (and put large in big screaming rainbow marquee letters) part by talent acquisition. We took much of Europe's best scientific talent after WW2, and we continued mopping up all the smartest and most talented people from all over the globe - Japan, China, India, the whole Eastern Bloc, and beyond. The US's lead over everyone else is economic and technological - leaving a whole swathe of educated immigrants on the table seems to go very firmly against this model. Slamming the door shut on immigration would be like starving yourself so you don't have to poop - it would work, but why?
- simonh 14y ago
  Our current government here in the UK is doing this at the moment. They even revoked a university's license to accept foreign students on a technicality. We make a fortune out of foreign students and with our demographics need them far more than the US, but according to the Daily Mail reading grey brigade if we packed them all off home, all our troubles would be over. Because simplistic, sweeping, poorly thought out solutions to deep rooted cultural and economic issues always work out so well.

guylhem 14y ago

Sometimes it's not about racism but being practical - here, slowing down the progress of a dangerous ideology. Take a parallel with communism and the Rosenberg execution. Many declared that as just plain barbary, antisemitism, etc. "Between the trial and the executions there were widespread protests and claims of antisemitism; the charges of antisemitism were widely believed abroad" (wikipedia) But they were spies, and they gave secrets to help an enemy build atomic weapons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg Was this racism? Sometimes big problems require hash actions. It might look like a bad move morally, but tactically it might be justifiable. Example in hand - Quebec in Canada is selecting its own french speaking immigrants. After noticing on studies that immigrants from a specific part of the world were much more likely to be jobless or receiving public help, they discussed reducing the ratio of immigrants from this part of the world. The part of the world was north-Africa. Is this racist? (while they keep welcoming immigrants from the rest of the world and north-Africa - but just adding a ratio)