Multiculturalism will fail: Tarek Fatah

[Bill Mattocks]

Wow.

Wow. You really don't like facts when they conflict with your ideology, do you? You always just run away, exclaiming "you didn't answer my question."

I show you a solution, you give patently incorrect historical information to support a rebuttal. I then go to show historical fact showing that what I said would work,, that the information you stat was false, and you just whine about how I'm not answering the question

Your not looking for an answer, because you are tied to the idea that there isn't one.

The only answer you have provided is this one...

The answer is to control the flow of immigration into the country, including naturalization. There is no need to limit the rights of any citizen in order to do so.

I said fine, now explain what to do about the people already here, or the people born here, or the people who change their minds about this country after they get through your gauntlet. You did not answer. Instead you went on at length about how in the future, if we limit immigration now, things will be different.

Great, good. I disagree with you, but again, let's play. Assuming that things will be different in the future if we limit immigration now, what precisely do you intend to do about the non-assimilating America-haters who are here now? That was what the author in the original post was discussing, wasn't he? People who are here (in Canada or for me, in the USA) now, today?

Still no answer.

It's not a question of me not wanting to see your answer. It's a question of you not answering the question. You just give a side-step and go on a tear about how things will be different once immigration is shut down. First, I don't agree, but second, it didn't answer the question. Don't know how I can make it more clear than that.

 

[K-man]

So what you're saying is that the author of the article is incorrect. OK, but again, not the question I asked. The author identified lack of assimilation (among other things) as a problem affecting our (Canada in his case, USA in mine) security. If he is correct, what is the solution?

Not really. What I mean is, if you and I decided for any reason we needed a change of scenary and moved to some place in Mongolia tomorrow. We wouldn't know the language or the customs and we would certainly spend a lot of our time together as we got to know our new surroundings. Eventually we would pick up a bit of the language, make a few friends and fit into the community. Even if we never got to feel really comfortable, our children growing up there would fit in very quickly, assuming they had our encouragement. Now we accept our new surroundings, fit into the community as best we can and help out where we can. We may not have assimilated totally but the community would accept our efforts. Our kids on the other hand would just be 'funny looking' Mongols.

Back to reality and we have people arriving on our doorstep with deep religious conviction, in many instances determined not to be part of Australian society, keeping their children isolated in Islamic schools and now pushing for their own Sharia law, not accepting the constitution of the country there are living in. This group is only a small percentage of the migrant population but it is a big enough group to be of concern.

I'm assuming this or these are your questions.

We in the USA allow people who are here legally to live wherever they please. Am I to understand that the solution is for the government to dictate where legal immigrants may live?

We have freedom of religion here. Am I to understand that we are supposed to outlaw the preaching of "Islamic values" in the USA? Please someone explain to me under what Constitutional theory this can be done legally.

We have freedom of speech and freedom of conscience here as well. Am I to understand that we must outlaw 'hatred of America'? So it will be illegal to speak ill of the USA or to live in this country and hate it?

All I am asking is this - if the things that the author mentioned are true, what is the solution? He said that there was a problem with allowing certain groups to live together. So we change the laws to not allow certain groups to live together? He said they preach "Islamic values." So we do away with freedom of religion? He said they practice hatred of the country they live in. So we require what, loyalty oaths or outlaw hate speech or outlaw the feelings a person harbors in their own minds?

Someone explain to me what it is we're supposed to do here. Assuming the argument is true, that is.

As to the answers ... I'm clever, but not that clever! :asian:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Wow. You really don't like facts when they conflict with your ideology, do you?

By the way, what *is* my ideology, if you don't mind? I'd love to know what you think my ideology is.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Back to reality and we have people arriving on our doorstep with deep religious conviction, in many instances determined not to be part of Australian society, keeping their children isolated in Islamic schools and now pushing for their own Sharia law, not accepting the constitution of the country there are living in. This group is only a small percentage of the migrant population but it is a big enough group to be of concern.

Concern. Yes, I get that. And the solution is?

I'm assuming this or these are your questions.

As to the answers ... I'm clever, but not that clever! :asian:

If there is a problem and there is no solution, then either there is no problem, or the problem has no solution. In either case, I guess you have to deal with it and move on, eh?

Unless you want to tell me what it is you wish to do about these people who won't assimilate, want their own form of law, and 'concern' you. Either tell me what you want done about them, or...I guess nothing will be done.

I just want to know what the solution is - all these people who espy the problem seem not to be willing or able to say what it is that should be done...

Except for one, who says 'shut down immigration'. Yes, that fixes the people here now, doesn't it? Oh, no, I guess it doesn't. So all those people who 'concern' you and are here now just, um, keep concerning you. No end in sight.

 

[Empty Hands]

Yes, that fixes the people here now, doesn't it? Oh, no, I guess it doesn't. So all those people who 'concern' you and are here now just, um, keep concerning you. No end in sight.

Ironically, I have a solution.

Allow recent immigrants to live as they please. Do your best to combat any ignorant and hostile opinions of the natives. Make sure that every economic and social opportunity is available to the immigrants (really, to everyone). Do that, and you've removed any motivation for anything but a tiny minority to be angry at their new home.

If anyone thinks that won't work, I would advise the doubters to compare the social integration of Muslims in the US and Muslims in France. In the US, Muslims are allowed access to economic opportunity and social freedom, and despite our world role as the "Great Satan", the Muslims actually living here have pro-American attitudes and have fit into the social fabric of the nation. In France, Muslim immigrants are kept apart in segregated suburbs, considered "not French", not allowed access to anything much beyond menial work, and even their children are denied the chance at citizenship. What is the result? Mass disaffection and anger, and periodic riots and car burnings. Riots which, by the way, have nothing to do with radical Islam.

So which method is better?

 

[Empty Hands]

Poor form indeed, don't get me started.

It's the same douchecanoe leaving more or less the same neg reps in the same manner to a variety of people on the board. I get one in the same style with regularity, probably after they've repped enough others to be able to hit the same person again. Just got one from this thread in fact, with accusations of racism to boot!

Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Here's one that may be applicable to the thread "Multiculturalism will fail".

We cannot change anything unless we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses. - Carl Jung

 

[K-man]

Ironically, I have a solution.

Allow recent immigrants to live as they please. Do your best to combat any ignorant and hostile opinions of the natives. Make sure that every economic and social opportunity is available to the immigrants (really, to everyone). Do that, and you've removed any motivation for anything but a tiny minority to be angry at their new home.

If anyone thinks that won't work, I would advise the doubters to compare the social integration of Muslims in the US and Muslims in France. In the US, Muslims are allowed access to economic opportunity and social freedom, and despite our world role as the "Great Satan", the Muslims actually living here have pro-American attitudes and have fit into the social fabric of the nation. In France, Muslim immigrants are kept apart in segregated suburbs, considered "not French", not allowed access to anything much beyond menial work, and even their children are denied the chance at citizenship. What is the result? Mass disaffection and anger, and periodic riots and car burnings. Riots which, by the way, have nothing to do with radical Islam.

So which method is better?

Unfortunately a look at todays press release:

Secretary Janet Napolitano Before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, "Understanding the Homeland Threat Landscape – Considerations for the 112th Congress"

http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/testimony/testimony_1297263844607.shtm

Today, however, in addition to the direct threats we continue to face from al-Qaeda, we also face growing threats from other foreign-based terrorist groups that are inspired by al-Qaeda ideology but have few operational connections to the core al-Qaeda group. And, perhaps most crucially, we face a threat environment where violent extremism is not defined or contained by international borders. Today, we must address threats that are homegrown as well as those that originate abroad.

Since 2009, more than two dozen Americans have been arrested on terrorism-related charges. More broadly, a report last month from the New York State Intelligence Center, the fusion center for the State of New York, examining 32 major terrorism cases in the United States related to al-Qaeda-like ideology since 9/11, shows that 50 of the 88 individuals involved in those plots were U.S. citizens at the time of their arrests, and among those citizens, a clear majority of were natural-born.2

The problem is everywhere. It is not allieviated by the steps you outlined above because it is not "Muslems" that are the problem. It is your tiny minority which form a radical core of militants who will not respond to any form of concilation because what they want, they want on their terms. If you read the report above it is only 50 people out of 350 million who have been identified. Even if you said this is only 1% of troublemakers it is still only about 5,000 potential terrorists. Tiny minority or not, there is potential for enormous disruption to our way of life. :asian:

 

[SensibleManiac]

This precisely describes the FLDS splinter sects of the Mormon church. We haven't banned them from the country yet, nor have they caused the country to go up in flames.

Until some numbers start showing up, we have no idea how big a problem this even is, or even if it is a problem. There are plenty of standard whitebread Americans who could be described as having similar views or even a hatred of America, and again we haven't banned them from the country yet. No one has shown that the Muslims are any different.

Also, freedom is freedom. You can't promise freedom on the one hand and then restrict acceptable thought and lifestyles on the other. At least not without showing yourself as a massive freedom hating hypocrite.

As for the splinter sects of the Mormons, have they bombed buildings or flown planes into them?
The only "whitebread" Americans as you put it that I can think of are the Unabomber and Tim Mcveigh who are jailed and executed, I think that can constitute "banning" them from the country.

Remember we said hatred, now I agree that it doesn'T neccesarily mean they will act on that hatred but what does it say about a country that does nothing to prevent this from developing in their country.
I'm not exactly sure how this is to be done but I think something positive needs to be done.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

The only answer you have provided is this one...


I said fine, now explain what to do about the people already here, or the people born here, or the people who change their minds about this country after they get through your gauntlet. You did not answer. Instead you went on at length about how in the future, if we limit immigration now, things will be different.

Great, good. I disagree with you, but again, let's play. Assuming that things will be different in the future if we limit immigration now, what precisely do you intend to do about the non-assimilating America-haters who are here now? That was what the author in the original post was discussing, wasn't he? People who are here (in Canada or for me, in the USA) now, today?

Still no answer.

It's not a question of me not wanting to see your answer. It's a question of you not answering the question. You just give a side-step and go on a tear about how things will be different once immigration is shut down. First, I don't agree, but second, it didn't answer the question. Don't know how I can make it more clear than that.

As I said, though I will say it more bluntly. They will eventually (within a generation) die out and those that assimilate will not. If most people assimilate after the first generation, and we no longer import, or limit the importation of, immigrants, then there is less of a liklihood that they will congregate in ethnic conclaves which are entirely self-supporting, and are more likely to be way-stations for integration.

Is that clear enough for you now?

 

[Ken Morgan]

Curious, unless shown by deed, is not punishing "hate" simply the punishment of a thought crime?

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Ironically, I have a solution.

Allow recent immigrants to live as they please. Do your best to combat any ignorant and hostile opinions of the natives. Make sure that every economic and social opportunity is available to the immigrants (really, to everyone). Do that, and you've removed any motivation for anything but a tiny minority to be angry at their new home.

If anyone thinks that won't work, I would advise the doubters to compare the social integration of Muslims in the US and Muslims in France. In the US, Muslims are allowed access to economic opportunity and social freedom, and despite our world role as the "Great Satan", the Muslims actually living here have pro-American attitudes and have fit into the social fabric of the nation. In France, Muslim immigrants are kept apart in segregated suburbs, considered "not French", not allowed access to anything much beyond menial work, and even their children are denied the chance at citizenship. What is the result? Mass disaffection and anger, and periodic riots and car burnings. Riots which, by the way, have nothing to do with radical Islam.

So which method is better?

I think this is very true.

As I noted before, one of the reasons people sequester themselves into these enclaves is that the society has given them no other choice. Chinatowns in the U.S. are perfect examples.

I still think, however, that when people no longer have the need to associate with the "natives" of the host country, you will still have a build-up of larger and larger enclaves which will bring animosity on both sides.

 

[Big Don]

Here's one that may be applicable to the thread "Multiculturalism will fail".

We cannot change anything unless we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses. - Carl Jung

People murder others, that is routinely and correctly condemned, who does that oppress, murderers? The purpose of condemning something is not liberation.

 

[SensibleManiac]

Curious, unless shown by deed, is not punishing "hate" simply the punishment of a thought crime?

Not exactly, planning a murder is against the law, you might not have taken action yet but that doesn't mean you are operating within the law by planning something illegal.
Making threats is similar in that you haven't carried out the threat but are stating your intention.
What can make hate illegal is when it involves the promotion of hate to where it potentially cultivates actions that are illegal.

So hate speech is that which promotes hate.

This is based on Canadian law, I'm not sure how it works in the States.

As for freedom of thought, like all rights, yours should end where anothers begin.

So you can think whatever you want until you start making those thoughts public AND they promote a danger or crime against another person or persons.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Ironically, I have a solution.

Allow recent immigrants to live as they please. Do your best to combat any ignorant and hostile opinions of the natives. Make sure that every economic and social opportunity is available to the immigrants (really, to everyone). Do that, and you've removed any motivation for anything but a tiny minority to be angry at their new home.

If anyone thinks that won't work, I would advise the doubters to compare the social integration of Muslims in the US and Muslims in France. In the US, Muslims are allowed access to economic opportunity and social freedom, and despite our world role as the "Great Satan", the Muslims actually living here have pro-American attitudes and have fit into the social fabric of the nation. In France, Muslim immigrants are kept apart in segregated suburbs, considered "not French", not allowed access to anything much beyond menial work, and even their children are denied the chance at citizenship. What is the result? Mass disaffection and anger, and periodic riots and car burnings. Riots which, by the way, have nothing to do with radical Islam.

So which method is better?

I like a more commercial approach, but I think we're in basic agreement. Not only welcome them; immerse them. Sell them pepsi and blue jeans and MTV.

"American Culture," such as it is, is seductive because it satisfies the desires and fans the desire for more.

When people are plugged into the endless commercial treadmill of work, spend, consume, they haven't got time to foment. I know I haven't. Want to win their hearts and minds? Give them cable TV and the Internet and a credit card.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As I said, though I will say it more bluntly. They will eventually (within a generation) die out and those that assimilate will not. If most people assimilate after the first generation, and we no longer import, or limit the importation of, immigrants, then there is less of a liklihood that they will congregate in ethnic conclaves which are entirely self-supporting, and are more likely to be way-stations for integration.

Is that clear enough for you now?

Sure, and I agree with that 'let the old guard die out' approach, except that I don't think your way will do that. However, more to the point, you agree that you have no solution for those here now. Got it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As I said, though I will say it more bluntly. They will eventually (within a generation) die out and those that assimilate will not. If most people assimilate after the first generation, and we no longer import, or limit the importation of, immigrants, then there is less of a liklihood that they will congregate in ethnic conclaves which are entirely self-supporting, and are more likely to be way-stations for integration.

Is that clear enough for you now?

By the way, I'd still like to know what my ideology is, according to you. You said I had one, I'd like to know what it is.

 

[Xue Sheng]

People murder others, that is routinely and correctly condemned, who does that oppress, murderers? The purpose of condemning something is not liberation.

Oh yeah...well if that's the way your gonna be all I have to say is this

I see your W and Obama and raise you a DUKE... compared to the Duke....thier both POSERS

I feel better now...I've been wanting to do that since you added that poster

 

[Big Don]

Oh yeah...well if that's the way your gonna be all I have to say is this

I see your W and Obama and raise you a DUKE... compared to the Duke....thier both POSERS

I feel better now...I've been wanting to do that since you added that poster

I can't hit the broad side of a barn with a six-shooter, I can twirl it though, it looks pretty.

John Wayne

 

[Blade96]

It's the same douchecanoe leaving more or less the same neg reps in the same manner to a variety of people on the board. I get one in the same style with regularity, probably after they've repped enough others to be able to hit the same person again. Just got one from this thread in fact, with accusations of racism to boot!

Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

lol@ douchecanoe I've used the term douchenozzle, never heard of douchecanoe! hehe