Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Immigration

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Immigration

    Germany is loving their Foreign policy now.... I hope the US isn't next

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4L1HfiIOgBk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ad2bssrzH8w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

  • #2
    Clashes as France starts destroying 'Jungle' migrant camp

    Comment


    • #3
      Hungarian PM vows to resist EU's 'misguided' migrant policy | Reuters

      Everyone in Europe slowly realizing that they were giving away their countries. Sweden originally said they'd take "everyone"... then having mass deportation of 10s of thousands. France has a crisis, Greece has a crisis, Italy... well, I have a friend looking to sell his Tuscan villa for 10 cents on the dollar that he paid for it because he can't guarantee security anymore.

      The bottom line is that these people DO NOT ASSIMILATE into the country's culture. The United States has had the same problem with Somali refugees, etc. over the years. At some point, you have to start worrying about yourself and your country and not trying to save everybody.

      Comment


      • #4
        Visit London, see the Queen, see Big Ben, visit the Tower of London... and Check out the muslim patrols. Brits are starting to protest the immigration laws now

        <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rcsG-u2GtZE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

        Comment


        • #5
          Merkel refuses to abandon refugee policy despite election setbacks | World news | The Guardian

          I mean...

          Comment


          • #6
            Looks like Merkel is negotiating with Erdogan to be the EU's bouncer:

            LONDON — More and more, it seems that the European Union wants President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey to replace Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi as the guardian of European shores against the flow of migrants from the Middle East and North Africa.

            It was Colonel Qaddafi, the former Libyan strongman, who, before Europe and the United States helped to overthrow him, had an agreement with Italy to keep migrants from its shores. In 2010, visiting Silvio Berlusconi, then the Italian prime minister, Colonel Qaddafi demanded 5 billion euros, then about $6.6 billion, a year to continue to stem the tide. Otherwise, he said, Europe would become “another Africa” as a result of the “advance of millions of immigrants.”

            “Tomorrow,” he added, “Europe might no longer be European and even black, as there are millions who want to come in.”

            Colonel Qaddafi got his money.

            Now it is the European Union, prodded by a beleaguered Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and overwhelmed by 1.3 million asylum seekers last year, that is desperate to deter as many migrants as possible.

            Their instrument of necessity is Mr. Erdogan, who, like Colonel Qaddafi before him, has a price, and knows how to bargain. As Marta Dassu, the former Italian deputy foreign minister and senior director for Europe for the Aspen Institute, put it: “Erdogan keeps locking and unlocking the door as it pleases him.”

            Already, the European Union has promised Mr. Erdogan €3 billion. This week, in a sweeping deal still to be confirmed by European leaders, the bloc promised him at least twice as much, along with the prospect of visa-free travel for Turks and an acceleration of Turkey’s application to join the union — a process begun nearly 30 years ago, in 1987.

            In return, Turkey has agreed to take back every illegal migrant reaching the shores of Europe. That would have an immediate impact on the 2,000 a day now reaching Greece, but it is also meant to discourage others contemplating the trip. Turkey will keep the migrants while they are screened, adding to the more than 2.5 million already in Turkish camps, and return those who don’t qualify to their country of origin. For every Syrian migrant returned to Turkey, Europe must accept a Syrian migrant now in Turkey who qualifies as a refugee.

            But there is another kind of price to be paid by the European Union, reminiscent of the deal done with Colonel Qaddafi. The main cost is to European values.

            Even as European leaders met, the Turkish government seized the popular newspaper Zaman, which has been fiercely critical of Mr. Erdogan’s rule, and replaced its journalists with pro-regime hacks. Turkey has also continued to crack down on the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which Ankara regards as a terrorist organization, under the pretext of fighting President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

            Since his re-election last year, according to Human Rights Watch, Mr. Erdogan “has demonstrated a growing intolerance of political opposition, public protest, and critical media. Government interference with the courts and prosecutors has undermined judicial independence and the rule of law.”

            European officials argue that they had to act tough and create serious disincentives for migrants to ease the enormous pressure on Greece and the countries along the Balkan route.

            Unless they acted, they say, the Schengen agreement on freedom of movement within most of the bloc, now effectively suspended, would collapse, with significant economic costs.

            But it was Ms. Merkel, needing a deal to reduce political pressure on her from an unceasing flow of migrants, who orchestrated the arrangement. The agreement has been criticized by various rights groups and by some countries, including Hungary, and may yet fall apart at another European Union summit meeting next week.

            Stefano Stefanini, a political consultant in Brussels and former Italian diplomat, said the European Union “had to get tough” on the migrant issue, for the sake of self-preservation. “It’s a deal with the devil,” he said, but, given the other serious problems affecting the bloc — including slow economic growth, the possibility of a British exit, Greece’s continuing economic weakness, Ukraine, the Libyan chaos and terrorism generally — “something serious had to be done, and quickly.”

            Comment


            • #7
              <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/42jpuXJPk0w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

              Comment


              • #8
                And this issue is so simple.

                For years, first Britain meddled in the affairs of all middle eastern nations, (and for that matter around the globe,) perpetrated barbaric acts under policy that bordered on what today would be considered genocide, and was assisted by all its European Imperial allies.

                Not to be outdone, when the US eclipsed Europe on the world stage, they took creating war, poverty, and strife to a new level.

                It is important to note I am not saying all these countries perpetrated all the indignities themselves, or even intended them, but their short-sighted policies led to them.

                So, now that these whole regions of the world are in flame and ashes (figuratively) and cannot form self-governing groups that can stand, those that want their families to survive flee. And among those, some of the worst of the European and American haters hide themselves.

                And then without having made anything they have done right, over several centuries of abuse and degradation, they have decided to open their borders, and some, usually the most racist, who would be blind to the excesses their own people perpetrated to set up this mess, are appalled by the situation!

                NO SHIT! Until someone deals with the root cause in an honest, consistent, and effective manner, with a long-term goal, things will never change! We will have constant war.

                Maybe not like in past on clearly defined battlefields, but war no less.

                I mean no duh. This isn't rocket science. And yes, what is going on is particularly stupid insanity!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Oh my.

                  ISIS suspect reveals plans to open up route from Syria to U.S. through Mexico

                  One of the American men accused in Minnesota of trying to join the Islamic State group wanted to open up routes from the U.S. to Syria through Mexico, prosecutors said.

                  Gules Ali Omar told the ISIS members about the route so that it could be used to send members to America to carry out terrorist attacks, prosecutors alleged in a document filed this week...
                  Completely abandoning enforcement of immigration law has costs? Who knew? I thought it just helped us elect a new people by importing millions of poor government dependent Democratic voters!

                  What does the ratio of ISIS members to new Democrats need to be for the Democrats to abandon this policy? 1:2?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I don't know what the solution is for these people fleeing from ISIS, but I know I don't want them here. I find it humorous that people called for better screening of these immigrants and Obama laughed that off.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ulukinatme View Post
                      I don't know what the solution is for these people fleeing from ISIS, but I know I don't want them here. I find it humorous that people called for better screening of these immigrants and Obama laughed that off.
                      4 Things To Know About The Vetting Process For Syrian Refugees

                      Their first point of a refugee's contact is with the U.N. High Commission for Refugees. The UNHCR refers people to countries based on whether they have any family members there and where resettlement makes the most sense, say U.S. officials. If that's the U.S., then refugees are vetted by the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, and the Departments of State, Defense and Homeland Security. Fingerprints are taken, biographical information is collected. They are then each individually interviewed by U.S. officials trained to verify that they're bona fide refugees. Refugees from Syria are then subject to additional screening that looks at where they came from and what caused them to flee their home, stories that are checked out. All of this occurs before a refugee is allowed to set foot in the country.

                      2. It's a lengthy process.

                      As you might imagine, all of the vetting, from interviews to fingerprinting, takes a while. On average, officials say it's 18 to 24 months before a refugee is approved for admission to the U.S.

                      The U.S. has admitted some 1,800 Syrian refugees in the past two years, and President Obama wants to allow 10,000 more. The administration says half of those who have been admitted are children and about a quarter of them are adults over 60. Officials say 2 percent are single males of combat age.
                      How do Syrian refugees get into the U.S.? Explaining the process

                      Potential refugees first apply for refugee status through the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), the international body in charge of protecting and assisting refugees.
                      The UNHCR essentially decides who merits refugee status based on the parameters laid out in the 1951 Refugee Convention, which states that a refugee is someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country."

                      After the UNHCR refers a refugee applicant to the United States, the application is processed by a federally funded Resettlement Support Center, which gathers information about the candidate to prepare for an intensive screening process, which includes an interview, a medical evaluation and an interagency security screening process aimed at ensuring the refugee does not pose a threat to the United States.
                      The average processing time for refugee applications is 18 to 24 months, but Syrian applications can take significantly longer because of security concerns and difficulties in verifying their information.

                      Several federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Department, the National Counterterrorism Center and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are involved in the process, which Deputy State Department Spokesman Mark Toner recently called, "the most stringent security process for anyone entering the United States."

                      The applicant is interviewed by a DHS officer with training in this screening process as well as specialized training for Syrian and Iraqi refugee cases.
                      And refugees from Syria actually go through another layer of screening, called the Syria Enhanced Review process.
                      "With the Syrian program, we've benefited from our years of experience in vetting Iraqi refugee applicants," a senior administration official recently told reporters. "And so the partnerships we have today and the security checks we have today really are more robust because of the experience that we've had since the beginning of large-scale Iraqi processing in 2007."
                      Another senior administration official noted that the refugee screening process is constantly refined.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                        Hungarian PM vows to resist EU's 'misguided' migrant policy | Reuters

                        Everyone in Europe slowly realizing that they were giving away their countries. Sweden originally said they'd take "everyone"... then having mass deportation of 10s of thousands. France has a crisis, Greece has a crisis, Italy... well, I have a friend looking to sell his Tuscan villa for 10 cents on the dollar that he paid for it because he can't guarantee security anymore.

                        The bottom line is that these people DO NOT ASSIMILATE into the country's culture. The United States has had the same problem with Somali refugees, etc. over the years. At some point, you have to start worrying about yourself and your country and not trying to save everybody.
                        So cold...so racist...so callous...SO RIGHT!
                        One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Pierre Manent recently published an article in First Things titled "Repurposing Europe":

                          For the Frenchmen who lived through World War II, the defining event of their lives was quintessentially political. It was the great refusal, embodied by General Charles de Gaulle, to accept the defeat of June 1940. With that refusal came a determined commitment to reestablish national sovereignty. This was more than a matter of overthrowing German occupation. As de Gaulle recognized, it required Frenchmen to recover the spiritual independence of France, to recommit themselves to the project of building a unique and identifiable nation.

                          For the next generation, the events of May 1968 were their decisive experience. Both its partisans and critics agree that after May ’68 we became a society that undoes its bonds. France was no longer seen as a distinctive nation that strives for unity and independence. Collective rules, both political and social, were delegitimized. The citizen of action was succeeded by the individual of enjoyment. This movement appeared to be very political, even revolutionary, with its various groups competing to be the most radical ideologically. In reality, political differences were leveled in a flood of slogans, and the scene was prepared for the great withdrawal of loyalty from the community, a withdrawal that would take place over the years to follow.

                          One might be tempted to see in these years a mere inflection of France’s political regime, and a softening of its traits without a change in its essential features—just the Fifth Republic reaching its cruising speed. After the stress that accompanied the assertive leadership of General de Gaulle, some relaxation was deserved, and was moreover very pleasant. This interpretation is plausible and reassuring, but wrong.

                          After ’68, relaxation became the law of the land. Every constraint appeared to be useless and arbitrary, whether in civic or in private life. Now, as each letting go justifies and calls forth the next, successive governments tout themselves, no longer because of the guidance and the energy they give to common life, but because of the “new rights” they grant to individuals and groups. Underlying the ostentatious solicitude for the wishes of society and the desires of individuals, there is a growing incapacity to propose goals for common action. Here is the cause of the growing distance between the French and their political class. Faced with a number of threats, people sense the need to gather themselves for common action. They want to recover something of the Gaullist strain toward national solidarity. But the political class remains locked in the May ’68 mentality and is incapable of putting forward a vision of France as a nation. Instead, they present themselves: their expertise, their earnestness, their celebrity.

                          The gravity of this crisis has long been hidden by what we like to call the construction of Europe. The energies of our political class have been devoted to buttressing the authority of an enterprise that delegitimizes the nation and promises a new way of bringing humans together. As national political life becomes less and less satisfying, citizens and government officials look elsewhere. The people, unhappy with government, and the government, unhappy with the people, both turn their faces toward the promised land of Europe, a new, post-political way of being, in which each would finally be rid of the other.

                          These sweet hopes have become less and less plausible. Those who govern and those who are governed remain prisoners of each other. And both are prisoners of a European Union that is now just one more insoluble problem. Neither the institutions of Europe, nor the government of France, nor what is called civil society have enough strength or credibility to claim the attention or fix the hopes of citizens. As rich as we still are in material and intellectual resources, we are politically weak. Nothing seems to have the power to gather us toward the common action we all feel necessary. Faced with crises such as Greek default and the attacks of radical Islamists, we are capable only of offering technical fixes or hollow platitudes. Real political leadership of the kind that calls on our deepest loyalties and highest capacities is nowhere to be seen.

                          This political weakness has not escaped the attention of those who now attack us. To be sure, when men have at each other, they do not precisely calculate the power ratios, and it sometimes happens that the weaker attacks the stronger. Still, it would be a mistake to look at things this way. When some of our citizens take up arms against us so brazenly and implacably, this means that not only our state, our government, and our political body but we ourselves have lost the capacity to gather and direct our powers, to give our common life form and force.

                          What to do about our diminished collective capacity is the great political question of Europe. Whether in relation to European unification or to Islam, it is clear that we have nothing pertinent to say if we refrain from making claims about European identity. One way to outline essential characteristics of European political and spiritual life is to contrast them with certain fundamental features of Muslim life.

                          Running the risk of a somewhat rough stylization, we might say something like the following: Islam throughout its history has largely preserved the form, the impulse, and the consciousness of empire (traits that are found with renewed vigor today), while Western Christianity, though born in an imperial form, and very much subject to great missionary and conquering movements, found its relative stability in a very different arrangement. Islam was never able to abandon the imperial form that *Christianity could never assume in a lasting way. Christianity instead found its form in the nation, or in the plurality of nations once called “Christendom,” then “Europe.”

                          Today, because we hold the history of Europe at a distance, because we have emptied Europe of its old nations and its old religion, Islam’s entry into European life appears to elite opinion as a problem that does not arise. In our present way of thinking, “Europe” is an abstract social space where the sole principle of legitimacy now resides in human rights, understood as the unlimited rights of individual particularity. No really significant associations or communions remain; fundamentally, none truly exists. In a post-political world in which there exist only individuals and legal machinery to guarantee rights, human associations—that is, nations and churches—are no longer social realities. They are, according to ruling opinion, pretended realities that recalcitrant “reactionaries” invoke only to block newcomers. Treating old nations or the old religion as legitimate realities that must be accounted for in political judgments about the common good is now regarded as attacking Islam.

                          Because only the individual and the human race are legitimate, intermediate communities in which human beings actually live, such as nations and churches, have no legitimacy of their own and in fact bear the stigma of rupturing human unity. However, to be consistent, this delegitimation of communities should include or implicate the Islamic community. But this does not happen. European political elites speak of Islam and the Islamic community in a way they would never speak of Christianity and the church. In our public discourse, there are Muslims and there are Europeans. Why is it that only one form of living communal identity, the Muslim form, receives the unreserved recognition of ruling opinion?

                          The most decisive reason, I think, is the following. Those who decide what we have the right to say and do do not engage Islam as a social reality. It is not considered in itself. Instead, “Islam” becomes a test of our post-political resolve. It must be accepted without either reservation or question in order to verify that Europe is indeed empty of any national or religious substance that might get in the way of human universality. The refusal to treat Islam as a social or, more generally, a human reality therefore has nothing to do with Islam but instead with Europe’s self-image.

                          The fact that human rights might be less well guaranteed within a Muslim polity than in the old, *residually Christian nations does not imply any indulgence toward the latter; in fact the contrary is true. It is not a question of comparing the respective characters, including strengths and weaknesses, of human associations that have long histories and distinctive identities. Rather, “Islam” must be accepted so as to verify the absence of anything common—political or religious—in Europe. The unhindered presence of Islam thus takes on a paradoxical role. Its threat to a European future is actually its importance as supreme marker of our spiritual evisceration, which is taken as an achievement of human universality. Precisely because it has been the enemy of Christianity over the centuries, and because its moral practices are now the furthest from those of the Europe of human rights, a post-political European sees Islam’s unhindered presence as demonstrating the triumph of European ideals. We have become so universally human that we have no enemies.

                          A part of the public, though very detached from the old nations as well as from the old religion, looks at the Muslim community as a reality and worries about whether human rights, and in particular the rights of women, are respected within it. This opinion willingly and sincerely declares itself secular. This secularism that is critical of Islam expresses a cultural attachment to European history and life, an attachment that is sincere and even lively, but that does not perhaps allow itself to think clearly about the political and religious bases of European culture. It has a tendency to treat culture as a self-sufficient reality. For this very reason, it overestimates enormously the powers of secularism to sustain a particular identity, while underestimating Islam’s capacity of resistance and redoubled affirmation. This is because secularism treats religion mainly as a mere “culture.”

                          Therefore, in the two great sectors of politically correct opinion that seem opposites of each other—namely, the opinion that rejects even the slightest obstacle to the establishment of Islam, and the opinion that demands restrictions derived from the rule of secularity—we see an underlying commonality: Islam is not treated as a social and political reality. Europe is considered on one hand as empty of any common substance, and fortunately so, so that anyone and anything is allowed to find its place among us. On the other hand, Europe is seen as a “culture” worthy of being preserved and extended. The key point is that in both cases Islam exists only as a shadow cast by its relationship to Europe, or in a predefined role in the self-consciousness of the esteemed persons of Europe. What we say about Islam cannot be separated from what we maintain about Europe, about its politics and its religion.

                          We must recover a view of the European experience that allows us to see Islam as an objective reality, instead of making it the reflection of our self-*misunderstanding. We need not claim to determine the truth of Islam. Like Christianity, it too has its uncertainties and its possibilities. Europeans, and especially the French, must come to terms with Islam and try, with its help, to bring about its entry into European life in a way that takes account of European realities and possibilities, not into the dream world of hundreds of millions of individuals united by the promise of ever-greater human rights.

                          While elite opinion in Europe tends to consider Europe as a “nothing,” a space empty of anything common, or at most as a “culture” that is neither religious nor national in character, far from all Europeans agree. After all, despite the efforts of an almost unanimous ruling class over more than half a century, Europeans still live mainly in their old nations, and the prospect of a leap into a post-national Europe, whatever meaning one attaches to that expression, has lost almost all plausibility.

                          To be sure, our relationship to the nation has changed along with the nation itself. This relationship is more and more defensive and less and less confident and hopeful. We have lost faith in the idea of self-government that animated European nations since they began to take shape in the high Middle Ages. Simultaneously—and perhaps this is not a coincidence—we have lost faith in Providence, in the benevolence and protection of the Most High; or, if these expressions appear too obsolete, we have lost faith in the primacy of the Good. Unlike the Americans, we no longer call on divine protection over our nations, even if we still pray for ourselves and for those close to us. How long has it been since the bishops of France prayed for France, except perhaps very rarely and timidly?

                          I know that this question might appear strange, and yet self-government and petition for the protection of the Most High are two operations of freedom that are inseparable. Every action, and especially civic or political action, is carried out in view of the common good. This common good, which depends on us, is nevertheless bigger than us, too big for us. We are tempted to appropriate it wholly for ourselves, seeing ourselves as the exclusive authors of this good. When we do so, the nation becomes an object of idolatry, an idol that, in the name of its incomparable particularity or its unequaled universality, demands human sacrifices.

                          We can also, doing what depends on us as best we can, decline to take exclusive responsibility for this good that is greater than us. Softening our pride a little, we can appeal to the Agent who is greater than any action and any human good. As vacillating and prone to fail as we are, it makes sense to put our common goods, so mysteriously substantial and durable, under the protection and the direction of Providence. To do so is a natural expression of the recognition that there are goods too great for us to be their exclusive authors. This natural movement of appeal to the Christian God for the special cares of the nation always carries a risk of paganization, to be sure. But for us as citizens, our part is not perfectly to imitate Divine impartiality. We address the Most High from the site of our action and for the common good of the city of which we are citizens. Moreover, *Europeans never excluded their neighbors, allies or enemies, from divine benevolence, until they were subjected to the modern regimes that explicitly rejected the God of the Bible.

                          It is precisely the crimes committed by such regimes in the twentieth century that now prevent Europeans from turning to Providence with confidence and faith. It can be argued that the destruction of Europe’s Jews has made it impossible to believe in a God who is friend to humanity and master of history. I have touched on this question in other contexts with a trembling hand. It bears down on Europe in more ways than one. The Judge seems to be under judgment. Where was He?

                          And yet, to renounce divine Providence because of the crime committed would only bring us back to the religion of Epicurus, which teaches that the gods are indifferent to men. Such a view preceded the Shoah by a long time. If we return to it, what would we have learned from the Shoah? We will be going back to the impotent and ill-intentioned gods of paganism, and with them to the aimless, purposeless life of men that encourages apathia and withdrawal from public affairs.

                          In order to act for the common good, we must have confidence in the possibility of the Good. Why forbid ourselves, out of conscience, this confidence? A great deal is at stake. If we do not succeed in turning once more with confidence toward the possibility of the Good—as we find it in the God of European history and in the nations that history produced—we will not recover the ability to govern ourselves.

                          Right now, we lack that ability. The idea of acting for the common good has lost its meaning for us. We do whatever it is we do not because it is useful, honest, or noble but because it is necessary, because we cannot do otherwise. In the name of a global marketplace, we have constructed a system of action that can best be described as an artificial providence. We tell ourselves that the only thing we can do, and the best that we can do, is to allow ourselves to be governed by the global marketplace. My, how we love this providence! How docile we are when its invisible hand comes down upon us! And how well the wise and powerful know how to interpret its dictates!

                          With appeal to the god of the marketplace, as well as to other gods that minister to the high god of utility, we have organized public life in ways that have less and less need of free will, less and less need for political communities. Today, we no longer want to act except as driven by necessity. We will not be able to reopen the domain of communal action if we do not set aside the prestige of this false providence. We need to recover the desire for and hope in a provident God if we are to restore the political order as the framework and the product of choice for the common good.

                          Here the Church must play a central role. Although Catholics seem to be pushed ever further toward the periphery of public life, even in our secularized present the Church is the spiritual domain at the center of the West. Her responsibility is proportional to this centrality, which in truth is inseparable from her identity. The universal Church alone is up to the task of holding together a European form of life that has the capacity to offer hospitality to Judaism, Islam, evangelical Protestantism, and the doctrine of human rights. And so, the Church in France—that is, French Catholics—have a special responsibility for the common good in which the other spiritual forces of my country participate. One suspects that these other forces are not necessarily aware of this special responsibility, nor disposed to recognize it. This is only fair. Those who feel responsible for the whole can bring others to accept this special role only if their own contribution to the common good is sufficiently convincing. French Catholics must perform their centrality.

                          It is my contention that France’s Muslims will find their place only if the French nation accepts them, not just as rights-bearing citizens, along with other bearers of the same rights, but as a distinctive community to which that nation, shaped by Christianity, grants a place. Our Muslim fellow citizens must obviously enjoy the rights of French citizens without any kind of discrimination, which is not always the case at present. They cannot, however, find a place in a vacuum. They find their place only within a nation that has the spiritual and intellectual resources to be generous without being complacent.

                          To find their place in a France alive to its Christian center, Muslims must want to participate actively in the life of a political body that does not and will not belong to the umma; they must therefore accept a degree of separation from the umma. For the nation to accept them as Muslims without reducing their religious mark to a private particularity with no relevance to the political body, it is necessary that they accept this particular nation, the French nation, as the site of their civic activity and, more generally, of their education. A certain “communitarianism” is inevitable. Muslims will inevitably form a visible and distinct community. This will lead to difficulties, on one side or the other. But this is desirable to the degree that it prevents the ideological lie of the new secularism, which obligates us to pretend to be nothing but citizen-individuals who are permitted common action only for the sake of “humanity.”

                          The French Republic in which all citizens have equal rights is not an abstraction. It is a nation of a Christian mark in which Jews play an eminent role. It is in this Republic that Muslims may enjoy their rights, and it is in this nation that they must find their place. The more the nation is able to conserve its historical form, the more the Republic will be able to guarantee the equality of rights. Only a French people capable of political action in pursuit of the common good can offer a place for Islam within the body politic.

                          Exactly the opposite is happening, however. Islam has sprung up in a Europe that has dismantled its ancient parapets, or has let them crumble. No longer daring to be at home in their own countries, Europeans seek repose in moving toward a post-*national future, a movement that nothing can control or slow down. No border must be allowed to obstruct the free movement of capital, of goods, of services, of people, just as no law must circumscribe the unlimited right of individual particularity. A life without law in a world without borders—this has been the horizon of Europeans for at least a generation.

                          The history of Europe, as I have emphasized, is animated by a very different notion, one elaborated by ancient Israel, reconfigured by Christianity, and then lost when the arc of European history was broken in the great wars of the twentieth century. This notion, without which the history of Europe is unintelligible, has become unintelligible to contemporary *Europeans. I am speaking, of course, of the Covenant, the confidence that the Highest Good oversees and perfects the common good of our nations. This is not a simple rational notion, to be sure, but it is not exactly a religious dogma. It is a certain way of understanding human action in the world, of understanding at once the greatness of what we can accomplish and its precariousness. God is here the one who gives victory, but who also chastises lack of measure. He confers on actions an excess of good that makes them truly good, allowing us to venture collective ambitions that exceed a sober assessment of our powers. And he prevents the bad from taking the evil they bear to the limit, thereby saving us from despair in our times of collective trial.

                          It is up to Christians to renew the meaning and the credibility of the political community ennobled by the Covenant. We will not do this by inviting Islam to join a vague fraternity of the children of Abraham. We will renew the meaning and credibility of the Covenant only by renewing the meaning and credibility of the distinctively European association that bore the Covenant until only recently—that is, the nation. Now that the Jewish people have taken the form of a nation in Israel, the nations of Christian Europe cannot break with the national form without fatally wounding the legitimacy of Israel. So long as the walls of the Arab-Muslim world are crumbling and Muslims seem to have more and more difficulty producing a political form from their own resources, to admit them into, or rather to abandon them in, a Europe without either political form or gathered collective action for the sake of the common good would be to take away their best chance for a civic life. It does not suffice to bring men together to declare or even to guarantee their rights. They need a form of common life. In France, a nation of the Christian mark is the only form that can bring us all together.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Undocumented Immigrants' State & Local Tax Contributions

                            Public debates over federal immigration reform often suffer from insufficient and inaccurate information about the tax contributions of undocumented immigrants particularly at the state level. The truth is that undocumented immigrants living in the United States pay billions of dollars each year in state and local taxes. Further, these tax contributions would increase significantly if all undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States were granted a pathway to citizenship as part of a comprehensive immigration reform.
                            Immigration Reform Would Net States More Tax Revenue
                            Last edited by Legacy; 07-18-2016, 12:40 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Interesting except the author does not indicate in the article you linked to the cost of services consumed which I conservatively calculated at approximately $100B. So for the extra $2.1B in additional tax revenue for making these individuals legal total taxes paid would be approximately $14B. $14B against $100B in services. Strictly from a financial point of view they are getting a pretty good deal. US citizens, not so much.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by MJ12666 View Post
                                Interesting except the author does not indicate in the article you linked to the cost of services consumed which I conservatively calculated at approximately $100B. So for the extra $2.1B in additional tax revenue for making these individuals legal total taxes paid would be approximately $14B. $14B against $100B in services. Strictly from a financial point of view they are getting a pretty good deal. US citizens, not so much.
                                Are you saying U.S. citizens get less services and, subsequently, that their tax to services ratio is higher? I would think that US citizens pay more indirectly as taxes increase without providing paths to citizenship.

                                I imagine one would factor in long-term productivity as the children of illegals go to college, increasing our GDP and tax basis.

                                Here's more for stats:

                                The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)


                                United States Taxpayers (2013)
                                The full report is available in pdf format.

                                Executive Summary
                                This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level. The study also estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy. Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers.

                                Key Findings
                                -- Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.

                                -- The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality

                                --Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.

                                --At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.

                                --Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury.
                                What do you think?
                                Last edited by Legacy; 07-18-2016, 04:00 PM.

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Afghan refugee

                                  <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Man with ax said to have attacked people on German train shot dead by police, official says <a href="https://t.co/5HwW9NCf0U">https://t.co/5HwW9NCf0U</a> <a href="https://t.co/2kKJkfoCDh">pic.twitter.com/2kKJkfoCDh</a></p>&mdash; CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) <a href="https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/755161020658769920">July 18, 2016</a></blockquote>
                                  <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Two million: Germany records largest influx of immigrants in 2015 | News | DW.COM | 21.03.2016

                                    Net immigration increased by 49 percent in 2015 and for the first time most of the arrivals were not from Europe.
                                    The yellow mustard pants are hideous and have to go.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by Legacy View Post
                                      What do you think?
                                      I think I wouldn't trust anything from FAIR even if you paid me.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                                        Two million: Germany records largest influx of immigrants in 2015 | News | DW.COM | 21.03.2016

                                        Net immigration increased by 49 percent in 2015 and for the first time most of the arrivals were not from Europe.
                                        Well that makes sense considering this is the largest refugee crisis since World War II, no?

                                        Comment


                                        • #21
                                          Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                                          Two million: Germany records largest influx of immigrants in 2015 | News | DW.COM | 21.03.2016

                                          Net immigration increased by 49 percent in 2015 and for the first time most of the arrivals were not from Europe.
                                          I feel terrible for Germany, they are going to lose their countries identity

                                          Comment


                                          • #22
                                            Originally posted by calvegas04 View Post
                                            I feel terrible for Germany, they are going to lose their countries identity
                                            At what point do you feel terrible for the millions who lost their homes, friends/relatives, etc to war?

                                            I swear sometimes I read posts here and think maybe the terrorists really have won.

                                            Comment


                                            • #23
                                              Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                                              At what point do you feel terrible for the millions who lost their homes, friends/relatives, etc to war?

                                              I swear sometimes I read posts here and think maybe the terrorists really have won.
                                              It would be different if they weren't bringing a destructive culture and crime all over Europe

                                              Comment


                                              • #24
                                                Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                                                Well that makes sense considering this is the largest refugee crisis since World War II, no?
                                                1. Yes, it makes sense that a ton of people are leaving the Middle East for Europe. But Germany (nor any other country) had no obligation to take in anyone and they took in enough "migrants" to fill up the city of Houston.

                                                2. Safety and security: the stories linked above in this thread aren't fake. They are real. Do you have any sympathy for victims of these crimes, or are we going to pretend migrants are all innocent women and children?

                                                3. Calvegas has a point, and it isn't insensitive, racist, etc. to say that Germany's population could undergo a HUGE shift. Syrian refugees aren't storming Berlin and staging a coup, but what if the majority of them support Sharia? The consequences will stem from the changing demographics.

                                                4. Europe's birthrates have been in decline for decades, but couple that with mass migration from the Middle East and all of a sudden people might be reconsidering those vacations/ study abroad trips to the UK, France, Germany, etc.
                                                The yellow mustard pants are hideous and have to go.

                                                Comment


                                                • #25
                                                  Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                                                  At what point do you feel terrible for the millions who lost their homes, friends/relatives, etc to war?

                                                  I swear sometimes I read posts here and think maybe the terrorists really have won.
                                                  Sucks for the good ones. But I'm not sure they are worth the trouble anymore.

                                                  Originally posted by calvegas04 View Post
                                                  It would be different if they weren't bringing a destructive culture and crime all over Europe
                                                  Girlfriend is visiting with her dad. They were about ten minutes away. Sad deal.
                                                  Based Mullet Kid owns

                                                  Comment


                                                  • #26
                                                    Posting for people's thought...

                                                    Subject: McCarran-Walter Act of 1952


                                                    Trump not too far off!!



                                                    This Should be of Interest,

                                                    Very interesting Bit of Legislative History:
                                                    McCarran-Walter Act of 1952

                                                    Donald Trump was recently severely criticized for suggesting that the U.S.
                                                    should limit or temporarily suspend the immigration of certain ethnic
                                                    groups, nationalities, and even people of certain religions (Muslims). The
                                                    criticisms condemned such a suggestion as, among other things, being
                                                    "Un-American," dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous and racist. Congressmen
                                                    and Senators swore that they would never allow such legislation, and Obama
                                                    called such a prohibition on immigration unconstitutional .


                                                    As Gomer Pyle would say, "Surprise, Surprise!!!" It seems that the
                                                    selective immigration ban is already law and has been applied on several
                                                    occasions. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, a.k.a., the
                                                    McCarran-Walter Act allows for the "Suspension of entry or imposition of
                                                    restrictions by the president". Whenever the president finds that the entry
                                                    of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be
                                                    detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by
                                                    proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the
                                                    entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non immigrants
                                                    or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be
                                                    appropriate."

                                                    Note that McCarran and Walter were Democrats and this act was utilized by
                                                    Jimmy Carter, no less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States .
                                                    but he actually did more. He made all Iranian students already here check
                                                    in, and then he deported a bunch. Seven thousand were found in violation of
                                                    their visas, 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States in 1979.
                                                    You won't hear a word about this from the liberal media, propaganda machine.

                                                    It is of note that the act requires that an applicant for immigration "must
                                                    be of good moral character" and "attached to the principles of the
                                                    Constitution."

                                                    Since the Quran forbids Muslims to swear allegiance to the U.S.
                                                    Constitution, technically, all Muslims should be refused immigration.

                                                    Authenticated at:

                                                    http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmi...nd_nationality
                                                    _act.html

                                                    Comment


                                                    • #27
                                                      Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                                                      At what point do you feel terrible for the millions who lost their homes, friends/relatives, etc to war?

                                                      I swear sometimes I read posts here and think maybe the terrorists really have won.
                                                      Once you are no longer in immediate danger, you are no longer a refugee. You are a migrant. Almost everyone on Earth would enjoy a better life in they came to a European country or to America. Does everyone therefore have the right to do so? And how are we supposed to distinguish between the deserving and undeserving?

                                                      Comment


                                                      • #28
                                                        Originally posted by NDgradstudent View Post
                                                        Once you are no longer in immediate danger, you are no longer a refugee. You are a migrant. Almost everyone on Earth would enjoy a better life in they came to a European country or to America. Does everyone therefore have the right to do so? And how are we supposed to distinguish between the deserving and undeserving?
                                                        Maybe when we fuck up their country? At what point do we bear responsibility for ISIS and the people who are trying to escape them?

                                                        Comment


                                                        • #29
                                                          Originally posted by pkt77242 View Post
                                                          Maybe when we fuck up their country? At what point do we bear responsibility for ISIS and the people who are trying to escape them?
                                                          I agree. We shouldn't try to fix their countries.

                                                          Comment


                                                          • #30
                                                            Originally posted by NDgradstudent View Post
                                                            I agree. We shouldn't try to fix their countries.
                                                            I think that by making us responsible for the refugees for countries that we fuck around with, maybe it will make us pause before doing the fucking.


                                                            Sorry for the language.

                                                            Comment


                                                            • #31
                                                              Originally posted by pkt77242 View Post
                                                              I think that by making us responsible for the refugees for countries that we fuck around with, maybe it will make us pause before doing the fucking.


                                                              Sorry for the language.
                                                              Why is it that these refugees are mainly men while they are leaving the women and children behind to fight isis?

                                                              Comment


                                                              • #32
                                                                Originally posted by calvegas04 View Post
                                                                Why is it that these refugees are mainly men while they are leaving the women and children behind to fight isis?
                                                                No idea what this has to do with my post but:

                                                                I would guess that women (and children) are more likely to not survive the hardship and or end up as slaves/wifes for ISIS.

                                                                Also the numbers depend on what country you are talking about, Women make up about 1/2 of refugees in Jordan, Egypt, SA, Lebanon, etc.

                                                                In Europe it is about 60-65% men. In the US about half are children (makes sense).

                                                                Comment


                                                                • #33
                                                                  Originally posted by pkt77242 View Post
                                                                  No idea what this has to do with my post but:
                                                                  Well you want us to feel sympathy for these "refugees", but they are leaving their kids and wives behind so they can get over to Europe and have all that sweet sweet welfare. So I don't really feel any sympathy for them as they are using their civil war as a excuse to leave their already crappy country and go ruin Europe.
                                                                  Meet The Brave Women Fighting ISIS In Syria

                                                                  Comment


                                                                  • #34
                                                                    Originally posted by calvegas04 View Post
                                                                    Well you want us to feel sympathy for these "refugees", but they are leaving their kids and wives behind so they can get over to Europe and have all that sweet sweet welfare. So I don't really feel any sympathy for them as they are using their civil war as a excuse to leave their already crappy country and go ruin Europe.
                                                                    Meet The Brave Women Fighting ISIS In Syria
                                                                    You do realize that you are making assumptions about these people right? Why do you assume that these people are leaving their wife and kids behind? What if they don't have a wife or children? Honestly I think that you would find something wrong with them no matter what. You don't want them here and you will fit the narrative to your belief. That is fine but own it.

                                                                    ETA: Do you happen to feel the same way about the Cuban's that fled to the US instead of fighting Castro or any other people that fled death or enslavement instead of fighting?
                                                                    Last edited by pkt77242; 07-18-2016, 11:27 PM.

                                                                    Comment


                                                                    • #35
                                                                      Originally posted by pkt77242 View Post
                                                                      You do realize that you are making assumptions about these people right? Why do you assume that these people are leaving their wife and kids behind? What if they don't have a wife or children? Honestly I think that you would find something wrong with them no matter what. You don't want them here and you will fit the narrative to your belief. That is fine but own it.

                                                                      ETA: Do you happen to feel the same way about the Cuban's that fled to the US instead of fighting Castro or any other people that fled death or enslavement instead of fighting?
                                                                      Syrian women speak out against men who are fleeing the country Women in the World in Association with The New York Times WITW

                                                                      Comment


                                                                      • #36
                                                                        Originally posted by pkt77242 View Post
                                                                        ETA: Do you happen to feel the same way about the Cuban's that fled to the US instead of fighting Castro or any other people that fled death or enslavement instead of fighting?
                                                                        I would have if the Cubans came over and started raping girls in mass and if crime shot up like crazy

                                                                        Comment


                                                                        • #37
                                                                          To the link, that is anecdotal. Could it be true, sure (and wouldn't be horribly shocking though sad) but that story hardly shows a mass exodus of married men.

                                                                          As to the numbers/graphs. Yes it is more male than female but have you ever looked at why? Many of the males coming over are unaccompanied minors (predominately male, but under 18). Basically they are sending over their boys to carry on their family name. They send them over unaccompanied because they are pretty much guaranteed asylum as an unaccompanied minor. They aren't sending sending over 30-40 year old men, they are sending over 10-17 year old males. Are you really expecting these 10-17 year old boys to fight ISIS?

                                                                          Comment


                                                                          • #38
                                                                            Originally posted by calvegas04 View Post
                                                                            I would have if the Cubans came over and started raping girls in mass and if crime shot up like crazy
                                                                            What does that have to do with staying and fighting? Either people should stay and fight or you believe that they should leave the violence of their home country. The incidents in Europe have been horrible, but remember that you are talking about a couple of hundred people in relation to the millions that are there. It is a small percentage of refugees that commit crime. Here is an interesting article on it.

                                                                            The Origin of Refugee Crime Rumors - The Atlantic

                                                                            Was there a crime uptick with the additional refugees, sure, though it seems about in-line with any country that added that many people.

                                                                            Also, the article talks about the false rumors (many) and even real stories like Cologne get distorted. 12 men were linked with sexual crimes (horrific, but do you really want to judge millions of people off of 12 of them?), most were linked with robbing people (bad, but not shocking given the poverty of many of the asylum seekers).

                                                                            Comment


                                                                            • #39
                                                                              Syria Regional Refugee Response
                                                                              Last edited by Legacy; 07-19-2016, 03:22 AM.

                                                                              Comment


                                                                              • #40
                                                                                New Americans in New York (American Immigration Council)

                                                                                Immigrants, Latinos and Asians account for large and growing shares of the economy and the electorate in New York. Immigrants (the foreign-born) account for more than 1 in 5 New Yorkers—and more than half of them are U.S. citizens eligible to vote. “New Americans”—immigrants and the children of immigrants—account for 23.9% of all registered voters in the state. New York’s immigrants are responsible for $229 billion in economic output, while Latinos and Asians (both foreign-born and native-born) account for one quarter of New Yorkers and wield $165 billion in consumer purchasing power. At last count, the sales and receipts of businesses owned by Latinos and Asians totaled more than $68.7 billion and employed more than 310,000 people. Not only is New York one of the most ethnically diverse states in the nation, but it is also a historic gateway for immigrants from virtually every part of the world. Immigrants, Latinos, and Asians are a political and economic powerhouse in New York.

                                                                                NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio Launches Nearly $8 Million Assistance Program For Immigrants
                                                                                Last edited by Legacy; 07-19-2016, 03:41 AM.

                                                                                Comment


                                                                                • #42
                                                                                  He has to give them money. His latest approval rating is 35% approve. Even a majority of Dems viewed him fair or poor. His best group is Black/Latino at 36%. The $8M will probably lift his rating to 37%. lol.

                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                  • #43
                                                                                    Originally posted by MJ12666 View Post
                                                                                    He has to give them money. His latest approval rating is 35% approve. Even a majority of Dems viewed him fair or poor. His best group is Black/Latino at 36%. The $8M will probably lift his rating to 37%. lol.

                                                                                    Not 47% ?

                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                    • #44
                                                                                      Originally posted by BGIF View Post
                                                                                      Not 47% ?
                                                                                      $8M only goes so far in NY. Very expensive.

                                                                                      Comment


                                                                                      • #45
                                                                                        Originally posted by pkt77242 View Post
                                                                                        What does that have to do with staying and fighting? Either people should stay and fight or you believe that they should leave the violence of their home country. The incidents in Europe have been horrible, but remember that you are talking about a couple of hundred people in relation to the millions that are there. It is a small percentage of refugees that commit crime. Here is an interesting article on it.

                                                                                        The Origin of Refugee Crime Rumors - The Atlantic

                                                                                        Was there a crime uptick with the additional refugees, sure, though it seems about in-line with any country that added that many people.

                                                                                        Also, the article talks about the false rumors (many) and even real stories like Cologne get distorted. 12 men were linked with sexual crimes (horrific, but do you really want to judge millions of people off of 12 of them?), most were linked with robbing people (bad, but not shocking given the poverty of many of the asylum seekers).
                                                                                        1 refugee crime is too many because we're talking about a group of people who are not wanted or needed in the West. They are guests of Western nations, not citizens entitled to be there. If even 1 refugee commits a crime it is a travesty because they really weren't needed in the first place.

                                                                                        Why should citizens of Western nations (who by and large do NOT want "refugees" in their country) have to put up a "crime uptick" that was "in-line" with other countries? America, and the rest of the West, has enough problems and criminals to deal with, without adding in millions more. Why are Western nations deemed to be the dumping grounds for the worlds problems? Why doesn't Saudi Arabia take in these "refugees?" Or Israel?
                                                                                        "It is so much easier to live placidly and complacently. Of course, to live placidly and complacently is not to live at all."-Jack London

                                                                                        Comment


                                                                                        • #46
                                                                                          Originally posted by pkt77242 View Post
                                                                                          I think that by making us responsible for the refugees for countries that we fuck around with, maybe it will make us pause before doing the fucking.


                                                                                          Sorry for the language.
                                                                                          Yeah well we shouldn't go meddling into the Middle East, but haven't enough Western women been raped and Western women been killed to prove your point? The joke has gone far enough at this point...
                                                                                          "It is so much easier to live placidly and complacently. Of course, to live placidly and complacently is not to live at all."-Jack London

                                                                                          Comment


                                                                                          • #47
                                                                                            Originally posted by ickythump1225 View Post
                                                                                            1 refugee crime is too many
                                                                                            I should have stopped reading here...

                                                                                            Originally posted by ickythump1225 View Post
                                                                                            because we're talking about a group of people who are not wanted or needed in the West. They are guests of Western nations, not citizens entitled to be there. If even 1 refugee commits a crime it is a travesty because they really weren't needed in the first place.
                                                                                            Uh huh. What is it about using the word entitled/entitlement to spearhead criticisms coming from the Right? It's like a god damn dog whistle over there.

                                                                                            Do you know what wasn't needed? The toppling of Saddam, or the sloppy occupation of Iraq that created terrorists by the thousands, or the arming of an incompetent Iraqi military, or the subverting of the Assad regime, etc that all allowed ISIS to go on this run and cause this refugee crisis in the first place. None of that was needed, but we felt entitled to do it anyway.

                                                                                            Originally posted by ickythump1225 View Post
                                                                                            Why should citizens of Western nations (who by and large do NOT want "refugees" in their country) have to put up a "crime uptick" that was "in-line" with other countries? America, and the rest of the West, has enough problems and criminals to deal with, without adding in millions more.
                                                                                            America has enough problems to deal with but somehow other countries' immigration policies are on that list.

                                                                                            Who said the West is adding millions of criminals?

                                                                                            Originally posted by ickythump1225 View Post
                                                                                            Why are Western nations deemed to be the dumping grounds for the worlds problems? Why doesn't Saudi Arabia take in these "refugees?" Or Israel?
                                                                                            You're aware that most of the refugees are still in the Middle East, right?

                                                                                            Comment


                                                                                            • #48
                                                                                              Originally posted by ickythump1225 View Post
                                                                                              Yeah well we shouldn't go meddling into the Middle East, but haven't enough Western women been raped and Western women been killed to prove your point? The joke has gone far enough at this point...
                                                                                              "Well okay we destroyed those countries but there have been isolated incidents of rape in the West so aren't we basically even?"

                                                                                              Comment


                                                                                              • #49
                                                                                                Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                                                                                                "Well okay we destroyed those countries but there have been isolated incidents of rape in the West so aren't we basically even?"
                                                                                                Im sure if 20,000 Syrians moved to Toledo OH, you would be saying WTF when they raise crime and change the culture of Toledo

                                                                                                Comment


                                                                                                • #50
                                                                                                  Originally posted by calvegas04 View Post
                                                                                                  Im sure if 20,000 Syrians moved to Toledo OH, you would be saying WTF when they raise crime and change the culture of Toledo
                                                                                                  IF they all become Buckeye fans it would definitely raise the gene pool of Buckeye Nation.

                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                  Adsense

                                                                                                  Collapse
                                                                                                  Working...
                                                                                                  X