Another reason we should HELP the rest of the world…

[Utah]

Maybe, just maybe, helping will help solve our problems a lot quicker (and cheaper) than walls. But, what do people with facts know, right? 

[PorterRockwell]

Listen whippersnapper the good lord will provide us anything and everything we need. This many people is all part of intelligent design 

[Utahute72]

I fail to see how that is an argument for unfettered immigration. It seems to support no immigration, or limited movement across borders since issues will be self correcting.

[Newbomb Turk]

I don’t see where the original poster or the video said anything about unfettered immigration. I believe the OP was just saying we shouldn’t waste any resources on walls.

[Utah]

This. And, by building walls, we take away opportunitites for us to go out and build trust and help people improve themselves by skipping steps in economic growth because of what we can show them. 

[zeous]

Except that you can’t force “help” on people.  You can’t force people to get smarter or work harder or even care about improving themselves.

If you dangle incentives for the easy route, like welfare and social services to anyone who can overstay a tourist visa, then you get the exact opposite of “helping” people in their own homes.  Remove the incentives to those with the drive to improve their lot by moving, and incentivize remaining and improving there, IF that is what they wish to do.

[Utah]

Huh? Who said anything about forcing or welfare?

Stay on topic man. How many people are in impoverished countries? We can’t teach them all. Let’s start with the ones that WANT to learn. 

Come on now. 

[zeous]

Who do you think you are?  God?  Who says those people WANT your help?  Warn the rest of us when you decide to take a break and step down off your pedastal for a while, so we can look out above.

[Jumpmasterute]

Utah. As a conservative I like your intent and your video would seem to make sense until you see the real numbers that are involved. Don’t forget that your plan would cut your personal wealth to a quarter of what it is now. I watched your video, now watch mine.

[Utah]

Hole-Yee Cow. Straw man much batman? You didn’t watch the video at all, did you? 

The Video said to GO OUT TO THE COUNTRIES and help them get better in THEIR OWN HOMES. 

My video and yours said THE SAME THING. 

And, my video, again, which you clearly did not watch, talks about how when we GO OUT INTO THOSE COUNTRIES AND EDUCATE THEM, they have less kids. Which then SOLVES THE PROBLEM. 

Go back and actually watch the video. 

My video and your video SAID THE SAME THING. 

If we go into impovershed countries and educate them (and go into our poverty stricken neighborhoods and educate them as well, another strike against private schools and the voucher system) they will have less kids. They will have more education, which will open up opportunities for them to unionize, increase their wages and benefits, and create a better environment. 

A rising tide lifts all boats. 

What do republicans say? BUILD A WALL. KEEP THEM OUT. TARRIFFS. 

It makes no sense when you actually take a step back, erase the R and D and look at what they are actually saying. 

[zeous]

Who says our way of life is the best thing for everyone on the planet?  A lot of those people are probably a lot happier than a lot of people here.  So why presume they need our help in the first place?

[Utah]

Sigh. Yeah, our life of cell phones and food and a roof is terrible. I can see why a refugee or starving family wouldn’t want that. 

Smfh. 

[zeous]

Have you ever lived in or spent significant time in the 3rd world?

[Utahute72]

Unless you need those walls to protect yourself from the bad guys. Just because there is limited population it doesn’t mean you are safe from bad actors. That’s the problem with the discussion, as with most issues, both sides make their argument, but fail to acknowledge the other sides’.

I’m sure that 90% of the refugees are people trying to escape a bad situation, but how do you eliminate the other portion that either intend to do direct harm (terrorism, etc.) or refuse to abide by the laws of the country they are entering (see increase in crime in European countries with large scale immigrant populations).

[Utah]

I’d do what the US was doing before Agent Orange took office. I’d do extensive background checks, have the FBI, Homeland Security, CIA, etc check up on each and every one. I’d then bring in women and children and the elderly and other at risk groups (LGBT, etc). 

Then, I’d do what every god fearing family in this country does: Brainwash them in the American way. Show them that the reason that we have iPhones, XBoxes, cable tv, etc is because God loves us so much. 

Then, let them choose what way of life they want: A good, Christian, successful life, or the short life of a terrorist. I’d bet the % that choose the path you think they will, and then actually get to the point where they can do something about their choice….I’d bet that would be less than 1% of the people that get brought over go on to commit acts of terrorism (actually, I’m right. It turns out terrorists murders account for 0.3% of all murders in the US). 

I’ll take those chances. 

[Utah]

My wife just made a great point to me:

I’m more afraid of the moron with 50 guns, no real traning on those guns, his out of control kids, and the fact that he stands up in Church talking about “protecting the homeland” than some immigrant woman with three kids under the age of 10. 

[Utah]

p.s. I FULLY support 2nd ammendment rights. I’m a gun owner. And I’m terrified of guns. Guns are real and guns are permanent. My kids own BB Guns. We talk about gun safety all the time. Ammo and Guns are locked up in seperate safes, with multiple access points. 

 

[AZswayze]

Then, let them choose what way of life they want: A good, Christian, successful life, or the short life of a terrorist.

So, these are our only options? I suppose I’m a terrorist. I think I know what you’re getting at, but I find it pretty off-putting when people assume being a Christian is superior to adhering to a different set of religious beliefs, or to none at all.

[AZswayze]

I’d then bring in women and children and the elderly and other at risk groups (LGBT, etc).

You made this statement the other day, and I still don’t fully understand your position. So, we leave behind the families where a husband/father is still present? How is that humane?

[UtahFanSir]

A demographic study was done in France in very recent years–this is not fear mongering–it showed that 25% of Muslim immigrants presently living in France did not believe in the French Constitution or the democratic principals held by the nation as a whole.

That is what scares me about what is going on in Europe. I’ve seen it firsthand too. This is more than just Chinatown or Little Italy, which we have in the US.

Someone who was done research will know, but I wonder how many Muslims coming to the West, the US specifically, are interested in becoming what I call ‘Americans’ in the fullest sense of the idea as I understand it. That is, America is our home now, yes we respect and honor our ancestral traditions, yet by and large we have adopted and want to live the American Dream, to use a phrase. That includes adopting the tenants of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. That means, religious freedom for everyone, free speech, etc.

Maybe I am not articulating this correctly. But what I don’t want is for America to be the target for the next Sharia state. Come to America to become an American.

 

[Ultimate Ute]

Yep.

——-

Our country has no cultural norms, America is disintegrating.

[AZswayze]

In some Muslim countries over 90% of the population believes Sharia Law should be the official law of the land. Even in more liberal areas, outside of the West, it’s still well over 50%. That means that a lot of these people who are fleeing terrible conditions in their homeland are likely bringing a horribly oppressive ideology along with them. I’m not sure exactly how to combat this, outside of educating the masses, which is far from foolproof.

Immigration is what made America what it is, but assimilation is key. Again, I’m not sure how you ensure this moving forward. Beating people over the head with christianity and western values, as Utah said, is not a viable solution. This is a complex issue, and I’m afraid we’re once again allowing the extremists on both sides dictate the conversation.

[UtahFanSir]

“Beating people over the head with Christianity and western values…is not a viable solution.”

The US Constitution was quite specific about separation of church and state. Technically, America is NOT a Christian country.

The 1st amendment to the Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The two parts, known as the “establishment clause” and the “free exercise clause” respectively, form the basis for the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the “separation of church and state” doctrine. Three central concepts derived from the 1st Amendment became America’s doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one’s will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In summary, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion – financial or physical – must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.

The core idea embodied in the 1st amendment at the time was in sharp contrast to practice in Europe.

The phrase “separation of church and state” can be traced to a January 1, 1802 letter penned by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote,

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Religious faith of the Founding Fathers in no small way has generated conflict in the US. University trained research scholars generally argue that the majority of the Founders were religious rationalists or Unitarians. Pastors and other writers who identify themselves as Evangelicals claimed not only that most of the Founders held orthodox beliefs but also that some were born-again Christians. I struggle with that last one. But whatever their beliefs, the Founders came from similar religious backgrounds: most were Protestants. The largest number were raised in the three largest Christian traditions of colonial America, including Anglicanism (remember Henry VIII). That established, while the original colonies practiced Protestantism in one form or another, separation of church and state was a core fundamental founding principal in America.

So the central intent of the US Constitution is choice completely left to the minds and hands of citizens in any matter of faith or no faith. Like it or not, the US is not a Christian nation, while many Americans are Christians.

Islam is free to be a religion of choice to those who wish to practice it in secular America. Imposed Sharia law is not acceptable in this country. Restriction of freedom of speech (e.g., Salman Rushdie, who Islamist’s want to kill for blasphemy) is not acceptable in America. Ever.

If the freedom to worship whomever or whatever or not is considered a western value, then I return to the 1st amendment. I do believe most citizens in America embody Judeo-Christian or co-called Western values in the way we treat each other, with dignity and respect.

Interestingly, promoting the concept of a Judeo-Christian nation became a political program in the US in the 1940s, in response to the growth of anti-Semitism in America. The rise of Nazi anti-Semitism in the 1930s led concerned Protestants, Catholics, and Jews to take steps to increase understanding and tolerance. One of the fears many citizens now have is that anti-Semitism (neo-Nazis) is again on the rise in this country and we have seen folks suggest that Trump’s rhetoric promotes that. I don’t want to buy that in part because one of Trump’s daughters is a converted Jew. But back then the original work (precursors of the National Conference of Christians and Jews) created teams with a priest, a rabbi, and a minister, to run programs across the country, and fashion a more pluralistic America, no longer defined as a Christian land, but “one nurtured by three ennobling traditions: Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism.”

The phrase ‘Judeo-Christian’ then entered our lexicon as the standard liberal term for the idea that Western values rest on a religious consensus that included Jews. What occurred during WWII in Germany in regards to the Jews, created a seismic shift in attitudes among Christians toward Jews. Lest we forgot, Christ was born a Jew, and Christ died a Jew. Christianity is founded on the work of Jesus Christ, who came here to fulfill the Law, not replace the Law. That Law was embodied in Judaism. To me western values is about mutual respect for others rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, so long as that behavior does not impinge of the same rights of others.

Judaism and Islam stem from Old Testament Abraham. Christianity came out of Judaism, in case we want to forget.

My point, how does America deal with the rise of Islam? It must be from the tradition laid down in the US Constitution. As I stated, my largest concern is that some Muslims want ultimately to create a Sharia State in their adopted lands. Already this issue is creating conflict in some European countries. There is little evidence for a similar effort among Muslims currently living in the US. But the prospect bothers me.

So I agree, “beating people over the head with Christianity” is not a viable solution. But if by “western values” we mean respecting each other and our right to practice whatever faith or no faith and respecting individual free speech, as guaranteed by the US Constitution, then by all means, we insist on it. Folks who won’t or don’t want to accept those founding principals of America are not welcome.

 

[Minnesota Ute]

I feel like everyone is missing the point, there is a reason why he talked about the industrial revolution and didn’t talk about the New Deal or anything government related.  The point is that other countries need free markets and rule of law so that they can develop their own economies.  ONLY that will increase the rate of development and standard of living in those countries.  It’s the main reason immigrants want to come here, or many other countries in the west.  Much of the “aid” that we provide to impoverished countries just gets siphoned off by warlords and corrupt government officials.  And handouts aren’t all that effective anyway.  You want to watch an eye opening documentary, watch Poverty Inc on Netflix.

[Author]

Posts