Trumps proposal for Temp Muslim Ban

YOU ALREADY TRIED THIS NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY

Don't try to say "Well, we aren't talking about all Muslims, just people from Syria/just people who got here recently".

We've already clarified our terminology:

Anyways, I advise you to re-read to this post: http://www.sythe.org/15502688-post37.html

You haven't addressed any of your contradictions or provably false premises.

So anyways, I am going to repeat this question for yet another time (which you have claimed this question is a straw man, red herring, and moving the goal posts in order to avoid answering it, but it is literally just a question, it isn't an argument so it CAN'T be a fallacy, it's a fucking question, so quit making yourself look ignorant).

Who is paying for their food and housing, if no one is being forced?

The burden of proof that the government has the money to pay for it falls on you if you make that claim. You haven't provided proof that the government has the money to pay for it, since they have -$20 Trillion (and $180 trillion in liabilities).

 

Temporarily banning a religion just seems silly to me, regardless of why it's being done. Do we just ask "Hey, are you muslim?", or is a persons faith listed somewhere in documents? There are a number of arabs, although small, which are in fact not muslim, some being Jewish and others Christians. Obviously judging off looks alone is a no no, and I'm sure those with the intent to harm can easily lie about their faith.

Can someone give me a detailed plan on how this would be done if available?

 

Like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality of sexes, people of different sexualities (albeit recently), protection of property rights, freedom from involuntary servitude, due process before the law.

Does Islam allow for any of those values?

Free Speech - It is a criminal offence to insult Mohammad/Islam (e.g. the Texas Free Speech event shooting and Charlie Hebdo shootings). Also, you are not allowed to talk to any of Mohammad's wives, but I don't think anyone will be doing that now.

Freedom of Religion - Mohammad commanded that anyone who converts from Islam will be put to death. Polytheists are put to death.

Equality of Sexes - Mohammad commanded women can be beaten by their husbands, sexual conduct outside marriage is punishable by death, even if she was raped.

Sexuality - Mohammad commanded homosexuals be put to death, of which there are regular executions for in the Middle East today.

Protection of Property Rights/Involuntary Servitude - Mohammad commanded Muslims to fight and subjugate everyone under Islamic law, and extract a tax from Jews and Christians.

Due Process - Islamic law is the highest law, since it has been commanded by Allah himself through the prophet. Courts cannot contradict Islamic law.

 

Not withstanding ideological differences on how much welfare is too much, but how can you say that America has 'hardly any welfare'? Your answer aside, if America takes x number of immigrants, I would say that the majority of the resources spent to accommodate them would be from government spending, not private spending. That's welfare to me. Now you might say that this is only temporary until they get on their feet, but as far as I know this is not what happened in Sweden, the foreign born in Sweden, mostly Muslims, are highly welfare dependent.

Maybe the Swedish culture doesn't have the same culture in place, or policies in place to promote that these migrants work. I'm not sure. But it is clearly no understatement, that a lot of them do leech off the welfare state, and I see no reason why they wouldn't try to do the same in America. All they need to do is say that the government isn't helping me find work because I'm Muslim or w/e, and everyone would go mysteriously quiet. Identity politics (if that's what it's called in America) is ridiculous. I would predict that if there was a massive influx of these Middle-Eastern immigrants into America, and no mechanisms were in place to help them assimilate, that they will just leech off the welfare state in America, even if America 'hardly' has one. Time will tell.

As for America being able to assimilate immigrants better. Perhaps. However, If the immigrants of the past came into America under different conditions, then I don't think we can rely on past evidence in this situation, simply because the situations are different. A lot of these immigrants (middle-eastern) are not simply just trying to find a better life, they are trying to find a better life in a specific country, the countries most willing to subsidize them. Natural as this may be, the problem is that too many of them want to impose Sharia law on the very countries that allow them to enter. You cannot assimilate someone that wants to overthrow the legal system. Sure, not all immigrants are entirely incompatible, but then you would need a screening system, and it would have to be effective (lest you allow the 'bad' ones in as they lied, and deny the 'good' ones because they told the truth or something of that nature).

Also technically we are all descended from immigrants, so I don't take that point at all. The point isn't who we descendant from, but rather the values and culture that has been instilled into us. Some values and cultures are far more capable of assimilating than others. Some Islamic values are capable of assimilation, whereas others are utterly incapable of assimilation. You let too many people that are incapable of assimilating, and you will have a problem is my ultimate point. Actions have consequences, and people need to own the good consequences and bad consequences. Ultimately, I would say that if you let the wrong people into America, or any country, you are going to suffer negative consequences. That point surely should almost be stupidly obvious, but most people are too afraid to make the link that a lot of the Muslims coming here are the wrong people. Exercising care with who you let into your country is no different from exercising care with who you let into your house.

I'm sorry for the huge block paragraphs, but my final point about a lot of people saying the Muslims I know are nice. Be careful of a sampling bias. A muslim growing up in Australia, would internalize a lot of Australian values as well as Islamic values, but purely religious Islamic values, and more individualistically since they won't just be exposed to Islamic people, but a wider variety of people. These people would more than likely be more tolerant. And so what you are being exposed to are already assimilated people. This is far different from muslims growing up in an Islamic country, indoctrinated by islamic values. The values of these countries are very different from our own, and often not compatible. Combined with America, and generally the West's PC arena, letting the wrong people in will push the country into destruction. Let us observe Sweden and Germany shall we?

 

Ultimately, I think, at the end of the day, if the world collectively spent more to help the less fortunate (by western standards; the homeless & those in 3rd world countries) than they did on war, which creates a lot of these problems, it would be a better place.

At the end of the day most of us will live in complete harmony and peace. There is selective groups who all claim to be religious (ISIS, zionists, there are a few christian terrorist groups too) which make them think their life is more important than the rest of us. These people should be crushed.

Unfortunately for us all this is not the case & most wars have a political or ideological agenda, they are not for the safety of any us. If the powers that be wanted to keep us safe they would not be at war. Self-defence in war is justified, but the wars going on today are all one sided, where self defence was never the reason for our countries going to war.

 

I have answered that question and you know it since you reference my answer. I'm just going to assume you are trolling.

The United States is not known for welfare. It is known for having the least well fare of any industrialized nation and has accepted more immigrants than any other country in the world. We have 11 million undocumented immigrants that are barred from many government services and programs and yet only recently has this number been dropping.


We are also a massive nation compared to any of the European nations. The EU refuses to share the burden of the refugees which is not a problem in the US since we will just send them wherever we want and states can try to stop the federal government but they have no legal standing to do so. We resettled hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese during and after the Vietnam War and here are some quotes about the program:

Our program does not give handouts. That is not the American way. We give you the opportunity you need to have a successful life and not a lot more.

I really have no idea what welfare state you are referring to in America. A quick Google search showed me that we seem to have 1.6 million homeless people that were able to make use of a shelter or government sponsored housing of some sort with an estimated total homelessness population of 3.5 million. Our food stamp program it seems (after a Google search) will only give you food stamps for three months unless you meet one of the numerous exceptions:

I believe food stamps are administered on a per state basis with federal funds and some federal rules but I'm not exactly sure. We have unemployment insurance for a limited amount of time but that only applies if you have worked for a certain amount of time and lost your job at no fault of your own. If they can prove that you got fired for cause then you do not get anything.

So I don't see how anyone could leech off of America because there really isn't anything to leech off of. The people that go to Sweden to live off of benefits are not the same people who want to come to America to live the dream of pulling yourself up and living a better life. America has a great advantage in being able to choose refugees since they do not have easy access to America.

I think America's immigrant past certainly matters a huge amount since it defines our entire country. Our stance of "Jus soli", granting citizenship to anyone who is born here no matter what, transforms our nationality. It breaks down the barriers that nearly all European countries have about nationality. If you are born here you are an American. Full stop. No exceptions. The culture that brought the first settlers here, a want for freedom and economic success, essentially, is still central to our way of life and our politics and our laws.

I also strongly dispute the notion that Islam is incompatible with our values. We already have over 3 million Muslims in the US nearly all of whom are integrated just fine. I would also like to point out that Christians in the US try to enforce their version of Sharia law on us literally all the time. I would argue that Christians in the US are less able to accept living in a secular state than the Muslims in the US. Do not forget that only 50 or 60 years ago the US was plagued with home grown Christian terrorists. I only ever hear of Muslim extremists being openly extremist in European countries. In the US if someone was openly advocating sharia law they would have their house burned down. We are a very strange mix of accepting and integrating new cultures and shutting down anything that we deem un american.

 

That's an astronomically high number that is most certainly bullshit. You do realize the Muslim community accounts for nearly 1/4 of the worlds population. 20% would be roughly 320,000,000.

Thats why I don't support a ban. I'm not a fan of the religion (then again I don't care for any of them!), I can't really call many of them friends.. but who cares I've never had any of them knock on my door and push that shit on me like one of those awful white people! Its just not fair to ostracize a quarter of the world because a very minute group of assholes. That said I'm all for a very thorough screening of refugees, and honestly a more aggressive stance on daesh.

 

so I read Less than 20% of Muslims support ISIS in the first post.

I stopped reading after that. Don't think that number is in the slightest way acceptable. If I knew that 1 out of 5 would potentially be a dangerous person and I could exactly say which particular group of people this rate applies to, then I'd say it's a fair decision to ban that whole group unless the rate decreases to 0%-5%.

 

This all is a bit long, but so perhaps reading the summary (last paragraph) first may help; essentially the beginning is comparing the Vietnamese refugees with the present refugees, and the latter part is showing why not all Muslims are equal so your 3m argument fails. But first I would like to clarify my view.

I think that if there is a war of some sort, conflict, and x citizens in the area are fleeing the area for their lives, then allowing them into x country is fine (mind you, if they pick and choose which country they want to go to, that would be quite suspicious). However, in allowing them into x country, there have to (a) be measures in place, and an expectation exist that they assimilate (particularly the young), and (b) that they work not freeload off the government. This seems to be what you are saying, and I would agree with that broadly speaking. The problem I have is that where you have faith in the ability of these conditions to be met by America, I have no such faith. I don't think that the majority of refugees coming here would accept any country, they want the best, they pick and choose (which begs the question as to whether they are actually fleeing countries for their lives, or for their pockets). Subsequently then, as a result of them being more akin to economic migrants, I do not think that they will assimilate well, and think that they will freeload more often than not. For not assimilating, this is in part due to their religion/culture, incompatible Islamic values. For freeloading, this would be due to the PC culture of America, anyone that dare criticize them will have their soul martyred in the court of twitter. This is quite different to the circumstances in Vietnam mind you so I don't accept that analogy. Anyway, onto my more broader responses.

First, the size of America's welfare state / the Vietnamese refugees:

America spends about a trillion dollars on social welfare. It may not be known for spending a trillion dollars, sure, but that doesn't detract from the fact that it spends about 2/3 of Australia's GDP on social welfare. Of course not all that trillion dollars is spent on food stamps, that is spread across over many categories. Nevertheless, what do you think will happen when say 100k refugees arrive in America? Perhaps their arrival may be staggered. But, they are going to be put in housing? They are going to need food. They are going to need education. They are going to need medical facilities. They are going to need jobs, although most of them would probably be unskilled and unemployable for the foreseeable future. Now the employability part is the most important. How long do you think it will take for them to become employable? The Vietnamese came here under entirely different circumstances. An article, and excerpts:

Note: 130k highly-skilled and well-educated undertook 6 months of education and cultural training for assimilation. That seems quite reasonable, but would America do that again, or follow a path similar to that of Germany?

Note: Important for assimilation, scattering them. America can certainly do this, no problems there.

Note: Perhaps more relevant now, being generally unemployable. The way those Vietnamese overcame this was by 'entrepreneurial spirit'. We must note two things however. Notwithstanding the fact that regulation has increased since the 70s, we live in the digital age, and the ability to understand English is I would think far more important to finding a job than it was 40 years ago. The digital age has made a lot of manual labour and menial tasks more efficient with the use of technology, and being able to use that technology is a skill, and being able to learn how to use that technology presupposes English. The present day conditions make it far more difficult for uneducated refugees to seek gainful employment, whether by entrepreneurship or as labour. The Vietnamese were also incredibly anti-communistic which may or may not have fuelled their drive to provide for themselves.

I will stop their to tie all this up. Essentially we have different circumstances. First, jobs now a day, I would say, demand a higher level of English and skills to do; there just aren't as many menial jobs now that don't at least presuppose basic computer literacy. These factors will generally make it harder for any large group of refugees now to find gainful employment. Without gainful employment, you either let private charity do the work in providing these refugees with resources (which is fine if the refugees are genuine and struggling [if they're rebellious and lazy you'll find no money being given]), or you'll have government required to continue spending money unless you wish to document the effects of starvation on a large scale. Whether the spending be private or government basis, this is a large opportunity cost, etc, and considering America's poverty statistics (as far as I'm aware) have gone up(?) recently, and given what I would personally think to be a rather uncertain economic period ahead for the world (China's growth is partly-artificial which has ramifications, Oil prices have fallen dramatically which affect the revenues of many nations [Such as Russia], the EU is shitting itself not just with the 'refugee crisis', and as far as I'm aware the US economy is just stale (incredibly low interest rates [scared of raising them and promoting large scale defaults are we?]))

I don't think America can afford to take on more spending on these refugees, and I don't think those refugees will find employment anywhere near as easily as the Vietnamese refugees in part due to the times, and in part due to the conditions of the middle-eastern refugees arrival. Even ignoring the empirical evidence of Germany and Switzerland, if those refugees don't find employment, whether America is 'known' for its welfare or not, someone has to foot the bill for food and housing, and from a purely nationalistic perspective, I think most people would rather housing and food be spent on the homeless Americans than Abdul for North Africa.




Second, the integratability of Muslims: Your argument is essentially that because there are 3 million Muslims who have successfully integrated into America (demonstrated compatibility), that therefore there is no reason to think that the incoming Muslim refugees cannot also integrate into America (have compatible values). This argument only works if the word ‘Muslim’ is used the same in the two instances, otherwise the argument is liable to equivocation. That is what I charge it with. Quite simply, not all Muslims are equal. There are different types of Muslims, as with all large groups (there are different types of Christianity). Now, if the Muslims in America, that constitute that 3m are for the most part integrated and compatible, then that is no problem But if the Muslims incoming that are 100% not integrated, and potentially incompatible, then you are taking two separate groups of people and amalgamating them under one common feature, their religion. That cannot be done. The question then becomes how different are these incoming Muslims, and how will they integrate and will they be compatible. You’ve automatically assumed, I would think that they would be not much different from the Muslims in America, yet if we were to go back in time and apply that argument in Merkel’s position, you would find that they are not. As much as you might say that the policies of Germany and Sweden promoted freeloading and lawlessness by these immigrants, these are the same people you would have let into America! The only difference is that you would change the policies.

To bring this back more on Trumps position. I don’t think that shutting down Muslim immigration for a time to work out the correct immigration policy is particularly unwarranted. It is obviously extreme (why can’t you just say these people are a problem and we need to talk about how we are to cater to them without banning immigration entirely), but I don’t think that a temporary shutdown is that unwarranted. Would you rather the wrong policies that lead to a situation similar to that in Germany? No. However the taking in of large amounts of refugees is not a simple affair, and even for simple affairs, Parliament/Congress is, I would say, not known for its haste.


In summary then, the conditions being different between the Vietnamese immigrants and the now Middle-Eastern immigrants would make the probability of the necessity of continuing government (or private) expenditure relatively higher. Whether or not you classify America as a welfare country is irrelevant, there are mouths to feed, someone has to pay, private or government. That the present immigrants will be able to seek gainful employment the same way the Vietnamese immigrants is dubious given the times (but possible), unless of course they seek illegal work like some of the Mexican illegal immigrants (not sure how good a “X Company exploiting the poor refugees trying to make a living” headline would look though). Onto then the compatibility and 3m Muslims as evidence, this is simply equivocation, the same type of people that are responsible for Cologne and Switzerland are the same type of people to enter America, differences in action would thus be attributable not to the type of people, but the policies in place. Correct policies being the solution, demand time to think and craft. A temporary shutdown till that time occurs is an extreme proposal, but not entirely unwarranted.

 

They would be essentially taking up jobs that actual citizens otherwise could have occupied. They would be given special treatment employment wise. They should stay in their country.

 

What kind of bullshit do you watch lmao Where has he got his figures from? Did he put a poll out that every single person in these countries answered?

I don't think so, the poll was probably done on a MINORITY to represent the MAJORITY.

You wanna think like that? I'm muslim, so are most of my friends. We have the exact opposite views of the guy in this video. That's it, no muslims can be radical according to my research, because I'm going to use the minority to represent the majority.

 

That's literally what a poll is. Instead of asking every single person individually, a statistically significant sample size is collected instead.

So you and your friends accept and spread the objective fact that Mohammad was an evil murderer, and not a prophet?

 

Did you really just post a Ben Shapiro video in SFA? I'm out lmao.

 

Rekt.

Rekt.

Rekt.

Anyone have an actual comment on the situation that uses evidence or something? It seems like people don't get the concept about Mohammad killing infidels and conquering territory, and how this isn't a worldview peaceful people can coexist with.

 

1 - so how can you accept the figures as facts when they aren't?

2 - do you have any documented proof he was a murderer? as far as the teachings I've been taught - there isn't anything about murdering non believers and forcing beliefs upon etc. I've been taught all religions should be free to practise what they like and in a muslim nation they should be protected to do so. Don't mix culture with religion, a lot of middle eastern cultures are backwards. Not the religion.

 

They are facts. What evidence would suggest otherwise?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad

There's thousands of years of documented proof of Islamic conquest, started of course by Mohammad himself. The Quran explicitly states many times that there is no freedom of religion. It's not really a religion if you will be killed or enslaved for not obeying its prophet.

 

I have no opinion at the moment about what trump is doing is good or bad.
Just to correct you OP, no Muslims support ISIS because It is actually against Islam's rules to do what they are doing. Islam states if Muslims kill other Muslims which is what ISIS do then they are not apart of the religion. Isis stated that the people they've killed are not Muslim because they did not pray, well in Islam you have to ask the Muslim 3 times to pray and if they do not then you put them into a jail cell and if they do not comply then you kill them. What Isis do is kill Muslims without complying with these rules. On top of the other stuff they do which goes against the fundamental rules of Islam which I will not go into detail right now but the information I have provided proves that Isis members are not Muslims.

 

Ok. I have free time at work so let's do this finally. I'm not going to cut your quote up into bits because that's annoying. I'll try and follow your flow but I doubt I'll succeed.

Firstly it seems that we agree with the moral imperative for us to help people fleeing war. While I agree with your two conditions (assimilate and not free load) that really isn't how it always works in practice. Let's talk about the basically three ways that refugees are handled currently. By far the most common way is to concentrate them into camps where all of their immediate needs are met. Generally in these camps they are not allowed to work nor are they allowed to leave. These are supposed to be temporary measures but that rarely works in the real world (see Palestine or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dadaab). Dadaab has over 300,000 people in it and has existed for more than 20 years. These camps force people to "free load" off of the government and are generally a really shitty place to be.

The second type is what is happening with Turkey and Europe at this point which is essentially losing control of borders and allowing anyone who makes it to your country stay without putting them in a refugee camp. Generally in Western countries concentrating refugees in camps is looked down upon because the conditions in those camps are generally awful and generally Westerns believe that people deserve to live in better conditions than that. So when Europe essentially loses control of its borders or decides to not enforce border protections they end up with masses of people that must be cared for in a way that is acceptable to our Western sensibilities. This really isn't sustainable because it encourages people to move en masse to those countries. The United States does this in some limited extends for Cuban refugees (they are basically guaranteed legal residency) and for children fleeing violence in Central America (these people are generally placed with family or in foster care and are not guaranteed legal residency and may be deported after a hearing). This works in America because the numbers are so much smaller than what is currently happening in Europe.

The third type is what we are really talking about and what the United States is currently doing for Syrian refugees and that Trump wants to end, taking in small numbers of specific, preapproved refugees from UN run refugee camps (the first type of how refugees are handled) that are expected to integrate into society and become legal full residents of their new country. This is EXACTLY what we did for Vietnamese refugees. Since we are taking specific people from camps we are able to pick the people that will most likely integrate well (educated, speak English, have families, etc). We are also taking in extremely small numbers (10,000) compared to what we did for Vietnam. Our current situation is an order of magnitude smaller which should make it an order of magnitude easier.

The United States needs immigration for our economy to continue to grow as without it our population would steadily drop and become older as Japan's economy has done. Our economy is also doing very well compared to the rest of the world and we need low skilled workers for jobs that Americans do not want to do (a ton of agriculture jobs for instance). Syrian's can fit into the same niche that many Spanish only speaking people currently do. So because of that I reject the idea that this small number of Syrians will not be able to find gainful employment. I also reject the idea that America can't afford it because the evidence you provide (Europe) is nonsensical because what America does is completely different than what is happening in Europe so you can not compare them.

My argument about Muslims already being here and being integrated successfully doesn't fall down because I group all Muslims together since it is not an argument in itself but a counterexample to the idea that we need to ban ALL Muslims because they are dangerous. I group them together because the argument that I am disproving does and I clearly disprove that idea with my counter example.

 

Coming from a Muslim background and both my parents being refugees father from Iraq and mother from Lebanon, living in the USA for 20+ years each, I understand why he would want this. Most genuine Muslims who truly practice their faith cannot be negotiated with. Point blank.