Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Maxperson]

I didn't say that it would entirely fix the problem. In fact, I specifically said that other things should probably be done as well, which you seem to be agreeing with. You also seem to be agreeing with me that a current infusion of cash would only help.

Sure, but not at the expense of compounding the disaster by adding millions of more people to the problem. Something other than new people needs to be done.

First of all, that's an assumption. Let's look at actual fact.

It's an assumption in the same way assuming that the Earth isn't going to be destroyed by an asteroid tomorrow is an assumption. It's a very, very safe one.

The fact is that they will need several things that are provided by local businesses (food, housing, utilities, etc). Increased business generally results in hiring more staff to handle the increase, or in capital expansions which requires someone somewhere to do work for money (whether it's construction or the building of equipment for use in a trade or business).

Um, they're already here spending money. Making them legal isn't suddenly going cause them to double themselves by fission and get more jobs. No new money is going to be added to business.

Also pertinent is that legal, non-refugee immigrants are also not working when they come here. Most of the people who have come to the U.S. have done so with the hope but not the actual promise of a job, and were therefore unemployed the moment they hit our shores. Those people found jobs. That's what immigrants do: they go to a foreign land, find a job, and make a new home in the country they immigrated to.

Maybe other countries. Here in America a great many create anchor babies and get welfare for them.

As far as welfare, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either we are talking about a tax revenue effect that extends beyond social security and medicare fund payments, in which case several other things that you already dismissed are relevant, or we are not and welfare payments are irrelevant.

You're going to have to explain that one better. It didn't make any sense to me.

 

[Maxperson]

Thinking that stopping refugees from entering the country is an effective anti-terrorism tactic is empirically wrong. By that logic, we should simply seal our borders and let no one enter.

Right, because there's no middle ground. Security is not an all or nothing thing.

Furthermore, considering that none of the 9/11 bombers were Syrian, keeping Syrians refugees from entering the USA based on what Saudis, Lebanese, Egyptians and 2 guys from the UAE did sounds like pure islamophobia.

Called you on the first Strawman so you doubled down with a second one? Where the 9/11 bombers came from or how they got here is irrelevant. The only relevance is that there were less than a dozen. Fewer than the number that has already been caught as refugees.

During The Troubles, there were @10,000 bombings. We didn't ban all Irish or Catholics from entry.

In 1946, radical zionists bombed the King David hotel, killing @91 people and injuring another 40+. We didn't bar Jews from entering the USA.

A single Norwegian- Anders Behring Breivik- with an ANFO van bomb and some guns- killed 77 and injured over 300. Norwegians are still allowed to enter this country.

Maybe, just maaaaaaaaybe, that's because none of those were trying to bomb AMERICA. Unlike Muslim extremists.

Two white Christians- Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols- detonated an ammonium nitate truck bomb, killing 168 and injuring 680. There was no call to exile Christian caucasians or stop from entering the USA.

And I'm not suggesting that we evict all Muslims, either.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Maybe, just maaaaaaaaybe, that's because none of those were trying to bomb AMERICA. Unlike Muslim extremists.

While the IRA didn't conduct any known terrorist acts within our borders, they did use us as a base of operations and received a LOT of financial support here, much to the chagrin of the English. (You know, our allies?)

There have been at least 18 terrorist acts attributed to Zionist extremists in the USA.

While I know of no Norwegian terrorists in the USA, Breivik self-identified as a national socialist, aka a Nazi or Neo-nazi. In the USA, followers of that particular right-wing philosophy account for more terrorist attacks on US soil than Islamofascists. The 9/11 attacks represent a spike in Islamic terror; it is an aberration, not the trend. Before and after that attack, right-wing white supremacists and anti-government malcontents are responsible for more deaths.

Soooo...yeah, they DO damage America, either by direct attacks on American citizens/targets or by attacking our allies.

 

[Maxperson]

There have been at least 18 terrorist acts attributed to Zionist extremists in the USA.

I only went through two pages of anti-semitic junk and conspiracy theories when I googles Zionist attacks in the USA. Not one even semi-reputable source had anything at all. Are you including 9/11 in those 18?

While the IRA didn't conduct any known terrorist acts within our borders, they did use us as a base of operations and received a LOT of financial support here, much to the chagrin of the English. (You know, our allies?)

That's not an attack on our soil.

While I know of no Norwegian terrorists in the USA, Breivik self-identified as a national socialist, aka a Nazi or Neo-nazi. In the USA, followers of that particular right-wing philosophy account for more terrorist attacks on US soil than Islamofascists. The 9/11 attacks represent a spike in Islamic terror; it is an aberration, not the trend. Before and after that attack, right-wing white supremacists and anti-government malcontents are responsible for more deaths.

Ahhhh. You're one of those who label every attack by one group on another as a "terrorist" attack. Hate attacks are not terrorist attacks. Islamic extremists not only attack for hate reasons, but also to sow as much terror as they can through their targets. That's the difference that many people don't seem to get. Hate =/= terror.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Ohhhh, Maxperson...

1) the JDL (Jewish Defense League) is classified as a terrorist group by the FBI and SPL. They have at least 18 attacks attributed to them in US soil- no, 9/11 is not one of them. Jewish Armed Resistance and Jewish Action Movement have several American terror attacks to their name, including a firebombing at JFK airport.

2) the IRA attacks were not on our soil, but we gave them aid & comfort. A safe harbor of operations. And at least one American- Kenneth Salveson- was killed as a result.

3) White supremacist/Neonazi/KKK attacks on Jews, blacks and others definitely meet even your definition of terrorism. There is a reason. Lynching, church bombings/arsons/shootings, arsons of neighborhoods (the Vienna, Il arson of "N****rtown", as white residents called it), synagogue shootings, deaths by dragging (like James Byrd, Jr.)- those tactics are as much about sowing fear as killing those they hate.

 

[Umbran]

They can take more, especially if we're helping support them with money.

You may not be aware, but dealing with refugees has two basic stages. The first is immediate, and generally encompasses setting them up in tent cities, with at best the basics of life - food, sanitation, and the like. The second is resettlement into someplace they can actually make a life. You cannot throw short-term money at the second to have it succeed, as it is the process of them having a real life, getting a job, and so on, integrated into the nation around them. The UN is in the business of helping spread these folks around, because you cannot dump them all into the local economies, which are already disrupted by the problems that created the refugees, and not create even more problems.

It's not my job or responsibility to judge where they decide to live.

Except that's what you're doing by saying they can't live here in the US.

It's a desert. Besides, they really aren't fleeing the drought. They are fleeing Assad and Isis.

Only some of it is a desert. Much of Syria is historically a Mediterranean climate.

From 2006 to 2011, Syria suffered a major drought - a killing 85% of the livestock kind of drought. A million or so farmers lost their lands. Asad's regime, which was used to handing out benefits along political lines, was not capable of managing the issues as these folks crowded into the cities looking to get by. This led to unrest, which Assad dealt with in even worse fashion, which led to civil war, ISIS getting a foothold, and so on.

At this point, Syria is on track to lose another 50% of its agricultural productivity in the next 35 years. This, on top of the infrastructure they've lost in years of war, and the country simply will not be able to handle the same number of people for some time to come - those refugees need to go somewhere else, as Syria can't support them.

The real data is that we've caught more of them coming in as refugees than are required for an attack that can take down sky scrapers.

None of the 12 arrested were brought up on domestic terrorism charges - three were arrested for trying to assist actions intended to take place in the Middle East. The reasons the others were arrested (not convicted, just arrested) has not otherwise been specified. None of them were Syrian. And those are *all* of them since 9/11, out of 750,000+ refugees we've taken in over that time. That's 0.0016% or so.

Meanwhile, in that time, there have been on average 337 home grown terrorist attacks in the US each year. This in a population of about 100 million adult men. That's 0.0033%

Which means that refugees are *less* likely to be terrorists than our male citizens. A male US citizen is *TWICE AS LIKELY* to be a terrorist! Statistically, the refugees are safer than your neighbors.

That we've caught a dozen of them proves that.

See above about "proof". When you crunch the numbers, the refugees prove to be less problematic than our own citizens.

Bringing this group to the U.S. solves nothing.

Nobody said it was in and of itself a solution - except in the sense that it gives tens of thousands of people a life when they had none to speak of. Whether or not it solves any major world problem, it is still the right thing to do.

However, it is *part* of a solution to a very complex problem. In the process, it can generate large amounts of goodwill in the moderate Muslim community (which we really, really want to have).

 

[El Mahdi]

Ahhhh. You're one of those who label every attack by one group on another as a "terrorist" attack. Hate attacks are not terrorist attacks. Islamic extremists not only attack for hate reasons, but also to sow as much terror as they can through their targets. That's the difference that many people don't seem to get. Hate =/= terror.

Well, while we're clarifying, let's go all the way: whether hate groups/crimes or terrorists - which I'd say is mostly a pedantic argument anyways, as the end result is the killing of innocent people in the name of *something* - let's be clear that the answer being pushed is to ban entire ethnic groups from entry into the United States.

No matter which way one tries to spin it, doing so is a reaction based on fear and not logic - by the way, a reaction which the terrorists want us to make - and just happens to be completely against the fundamental beliefs our country was based on. They have said, quite often, that our beliefs and system are flawed - that we're immoral and decadent. That when challenged, we'll drop our values as soon as they're inconvenient.

If we ban these refugees, strategically/tactically, that's doing what our enemy wants us to do. We will be letting them dictate our actions. Watch any football game to see how well that strategy works.

And what good is surviving against terrorism if we lose who we are in the process?

Do we really want to hand that victory to them so easily?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

None of the 12 arrested were brought up on domestic terrorism charges - three were arrested for trying to assist actions intended to take place in the Middle East.

Which puts them into the same category as the IRA members in the USA.

 

[MechaPilot]

Um, they're already here spending money. Making them legal isn't suddenly going cause them to double themselves by fission and get more jobs. No new money is going to be added to business.

Why are you using the idea that illegal immigrants are already here to object to legally allowing more refugees and other immigrants who are not already here to come here and earn and spend money here? The illegal immigrants in the U.S. are entirely irrelevant to that discussion.

However, let's talk illegal immigrants and legalization for a moment. Most illegal immigrants get paid "under-the-table," and in doing so get paid substantially less than a legal worker would be paid, and don't have any withholding from their pay. Legalization would allow them to get jobs for at least minimum wage, which is usually a step up from under-the-table pay rates, and it would see them paying into the social security and medicare funds through withholding.

Now, some illegal immigrants actually use false documents to get jobs, and some of them even pay their taxes every year. The ones who have false documents and who get paid with checks do have withholding. Legalizing them won't automatically lead to more withholding, but it might allow them to legally pursue higher paying jobs that they couldn't go after before because of background check concerns. Ultimately though, I don't have an issue with legalizing illegals who not criminals, who are gainfully employed, and especially not those who are so civic-minded that they file tax returns.

Maybe other countries. Here in America a great many create anchor babies and get welfare for them.

Legal immigrants (which is who I actually specified in the segment you responded to) don't create anchor-babies because they are here LEGALLY. They create additional legal citizens.

You're going to have to explain that one better. It didn't make any sense to me.

Sure, let me give a brief history of what happened for context:

The discussion was about refugees and legal immigration, and how increasing the numbers of taxpayers immediately increases the payments into the social security and medicare funds without creating an immediate demand for paying out of those funds.

Then you brought up welfare, which is paid out of different funds and is irrelevant to the social security discussion, but you did it anyway (presumably to try to confuse the issue).

That is when I brought up increases in tax revenues that would be created by increasing the population, and the potential tax revenues lost by policies that let companies like GE pay no tax at all, and the tax revenues lost by allowing companies to shelter profits overseas.

You then said those revenues didn't matter because they didn't feed the social security and medicare funds, despite the fact that you started that particular tangent in the discussion. You also said that illegals don't add enough to cover themselves.

Now, while I will admit that I missed the fact that you said "illegals," which I likely missed because illegal immigration had absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing at the time and was probably just a derailment attempt, I then reminded you that individual taxpayers don't cover their own social security and medicare costs, that the system was designed so that each generation pays for the previous one (I assume you already knew that's how it works). And I said that an inflow of cash into those funds certainly wouldn't hurt.

That's when you brought up immigrants being on welfare. And that's where your logic is circling back around to things that you have already said are irrelevant. Welfare does not come out of the social security fund. If GE and off-shore sheltering of income from taxation can be excluded as being irrelevant because those revenues don't pay into social security and medicare, then any expenses that don't get paid out of those same funds can be excluded for the same reason. Hence the "have your cake and eat it too" comment.

To put it more simply, you cannot say that revenues unrelated to a fund are irrelevant and then say that expenses that are also unrelated to the fund are relevant.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Re: "anchor-babies"

Up until September or so, I personally used that term to describe children of illegal immigrants born in the USA. I stopped.

The reason why I stopped is because, if nothing else, the term is wholly inaccurate and leads to false narratives. "Anchor-babies" anchor no one. Children's status as natural born US citizens is irrelevant in Immigration/Naturalization court deportation hearings: if their parents are to be deported, the kids must either be deported along with their parents, or the parents must find someone to care for them in the US until they can be reunited.