Empty Hands
Senior Master
lol@ douchecanoe I've used the term douchenozzle, never heard of douchecanoe! hehe
R. Lee Ermey and Geico Insurance Company have also taught me my new favorite, "jackwagon."
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
lol@ douchecanoe I've used the term douchenozzle, never heard of douchecanoe! hehe
John Wayne
I thought I was a liberal but, if I agree with Sarkozy <washes out mouth>, does that make me Right Wing too? Maybe America's NBF is on to something!Now the french join our merry little discussion:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110210/wl_afp/francepoliticsimmigrationsociety_20110210231042
"If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France," the right-wing president said.
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.
Once again, you're not listening.
Those that are here will die out. You are making the assumption that in order to solve the problem, one must do so immediately, ie., enact a law that makes them comply with a particular cultural attribute now. If they die out, there are still here for the purposes of the discussion. However, it is unnecessary in order to solve the problem.
But, if you really wanted to solve the problem immediately without violating the Constitution, its easy. The Supreme Court has stated that Congress and local government can enact laws in order to influence people's behavior. For instance, Federal Transportation funds being tied to the reduction of the legal limit for driving under the influence of alcohol. So enact such laws. They will be forced to comply or suffer the consequences.
Problem solved, solution served.
Unnecessary because they will immediately stop, er, not assimilating, and stop doing all the dastardly things the author of the original piece accused them of, or because you don't care if they choose not to assimilate, since according to you, they'll be the last generation that so refuses?
Pass *what* laws? You didn't state what laws you'd have passed. Restrict religion? Restrict public speech? What 'local laws' do you think would 'force them to comply'?
You say "enact such laws" without saying what they are.
And you still haven't said what you think my ideology is. You said I was fitting my argument to my ideology. I'd like to know what you think my ideology is.
It depends. We use tax law to entice businesses and people to move to new areas. We provide loans and grants to do the same. There's all kinds of things the U.S. government can do to entice people to break out from their communities. As EH said, allow them the opportunities and encouragement for expanding their horizons and they are likely to do so.
In particular from Iran's 'conservative' paper:I thought that this from the BBC might be relevant to the debate:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12415597
"Presently, more than two million Muslims reside in Britain under harsh conditions, on the pretext of terrorism they are deprived of many of the rights."
When Sofia Allam left the Muslim faith for Christianity, the response from her family was one of persecution and threats. Alasdair Palmer explores the dangers facing Islam's apostates
Sofia Allam simply could not believe it. Her kind, loving father was sitting in front of her threatening to kill her. He said she had brought shame and humiliation on him, that she was now "worse than the muck on their shoes" and she deserved to die.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571970/Muslim-apostates-threatened-over-Christianity.html
In particular from Iran's 'conservative' paper:
And Christians in Iran (are there any left?) have what rights? :erg:
Interesting concept. Just the same, I would predict difficulty if the stated goal was to break up ethnic communities on the grounds that they're breeding grounds for behavior we don't want - ie, terrorism. I suspect the ACLU would be all over that like white on rice.
Any such law would have to be so carefully crafted to avoid targeting one group that I doubt it could be actually done. But I'll admit, it wasn't something I had thought of. Give you credit for that.