Just because they are illegal, doesn't mean people won't have them.

now that people are aware of the technology....they'll be making them in their garage. Looks like a very simple item to make.

Don't know why your twitter links disassociate Schumer from the program. Some broader reading of various opinions have different views, such as:http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...llent-program/

didn't know they had an Anti-immigration agenda.

They have a Pro-Increased Security and Improved Vetting agenda.

Maybe they have an Anti-ILLEGAL-Immigration agenda. Maybe that's where you are getting confused.

but never knew they had an Anti-Immigration agenda.

I am OK with it within reason. I don't like the Irish or Italian Gang underground in Boston / NYC but did not have a problem with Irish or Italians (or Germans, or Poles, or French - well, the French are different ; ) ) . I support LEGAL immigration. I support immigration from predominantly Muslim countries, but I do expect them to buy in to the American idea and assimilate. I also expect a higher level of vetting, same as I would expect with IRA folks coming over in the 80s or Russian mob types in the 90s.

There - immigration - WITHIN THE LAW - with vetting of potential problem / ideology / and those that choose not to assimilate.

Thank you for the instruction on how to think

Ding Ding Ding

My "Party" is the one that respects the law, supports legal immigration, embraces Freedom, and respects the Constitution.

Sometimes that is Reps and on a rare occasion it is Dems.

Seems you dont know your Party very well

No john Both partys only act like their the only ones who respects the law, supports legal immigration, embraces Freedom, and respects the Constitution. you forgot they sleep wrapped in an American flag and are the only True American Patriots
. its all a sales pitch .. and Blind allegiances are the true enemy of America and its demise

So on what basis do you vote? NYT articles? Salon recommendations? League of women voters most qualified candidates? Gut feeling? NBC, CBS. ABC, CNN, reports? Flip a coin? Hairstyle/skin color/ethnicity? who can give you the most goodies? Slickest, smoothest, most articulate speaker? Or something more substantial . . . in your opinion?

You are loosely, partially, correct Wayne. Politicians in general - both parties - pay lip service to the laws they like while trying to gain personally from it (cough Term Limits)

The Dems are ACTIVELY promoting and encouraging illegal immigration. They are in all instances willingly promoting immigration of people that are NOT HERE LEGALLY. In some cases they are looking to offer illegal immigrants the right to vote.

At least most Reps only want to block Illegal Immigration - yes I am fairly confident some would block all - but that isn't me. But many will allow some path for some to stay.

Equal protection under the law - it doesn't always work that way but it is what we should strive for.

As for your "Blind Allegiance" you do understand I am not longer a Dem, right? Sometimes vote Dem, sometimes Rep, but party wise I am unaffiliated.

Interesting conversation from another ex-Muslim with Molyneux. Stefan is not as annoying as he usually is and it's a worthwhile talk. It is not at all inflammatory as the cover picture suggests, and covers a lot more than No Go Zones:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQC_Fi7X5g4

I don't really know what people really want when they want someone to assimilate. Signs in Pennsylvania were in both English and German until WW1 when the Kaiser became the enemy. The Amish for 200 plus years have isolated themselves from American culture. Amish won't join the military. Never heard anyone complain about Amish, Mennonites, or brethrens wearing head coverings. Mormans similarly are culturally isolated. There are still pockets of Russian speaking communities with women in long headscarves and dresses in Alaska.I believe many people talk about assimilation because they fear Islam and associate it with terrorism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, it's not a guarantee that no one will ever have them. But it makes it harder, which means it's possible that lives can be saved. It means that some people won't have them, that might have them if they were legal.

When seat belt laws were passed, the critics said "just because it's illegal to not wear a seat belt, doesn't mean that some people won't still choose not to wear them". And they are 100% right...despite the law, some people don't wear seat belts. But some obey the law, and people are alive because of it. Seat belt laws don't reduce auto fatalities to zero, but that doesn't mean they don't have a positive impact.

It's not the same thing, but it's close, don't you think?

Islam is not a nationality or ethnicity. And it is not merely a religion. As well as being a religion, it is a political ideology. It is an ideology as expansionist as Communism. It is more authoritarian than Communism and can be as cruel as Nazism, with the exception that you are allowed to convert or suffer economic slavery or death. So-called "moderate" Muslims know how unaccepting of others it becomes when it is the law of the land, when it comprises the majority population. So, in countries where they are minorities, especially in the U.S., some are attempting to convince their leaders to reform. At this point that is more of a wish than an accomplishment. They do succeed in quietly establishing a sort of tacit moderate practice of the tenets of their ideology, and are friendly, wonderful, normal people. The problem is when they become a majority, their religious leaders impose the true, unreformed nature of Islam. And the larger Muslim conclaves being established in Europe do, as the video above points out, become no-go zones, even for police, so assimilation is totally and intentionally avoided, and a more fundamentalist Islam is practiced.

So Muslim immigration is not equivalent to various ethnic, non-Islamic, immigration. When you have an influx of a large number of Muslims all at once, it not only makes assimilation difficult over the shorter term, it is more akin to inviting an ideology that is inimical to Western values and to U.S. legal norms. The comparison would be more like inviting potential Communists or Nazis, rather than Buddhists, or Daoists, or Jews, or Christians, or atheists.

I wish the video above didn't have that ridiculous cover picture. It really is an interesting rational discussion. It is not dogmatic or extreme. It should be watched as an aid to understanding a little bit more than most folks are informed about.

You mean "Unenrolled"?

Seems you like to make assumptions about what flavor kool aid people drink.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

kool aid is cool aid flavor only convinces people its not kool aid

ummmm...no....banning something is not close to the same thing as fining someone for not wearing something...it's practically the opposite....do I have to explain further?

Why do you think they fear this group and accept the others. Ask the Japanese how accepting we were after they bombed Pearl Harbor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's easy. It's because the general public is not thoughtful or discerning enough to differentiate between extremist minority and the other 1.6 billion people who practice the associated religion.

Man oh man...

I agree, banning possession isn't the same as forcing you to do something...

But I'll say two things..

(1) those two things are similar in this regard...people who opposed seat belt laws, and people who always oppose gun regulation, often use this kind of an argument..."the law won't guarantee that there will be zero deaths going forward". That is a very, very common argument, and it's completely absurd. No law is perfect. Laws against murder, don't prevent 100% of murders, but it would be asinine to use that as an excuse to do away with anti-murder laws. But if the law does some good, and is constitutional, it may be worth enacting. Saving some lives isn't as good as saving all lives, but it's better than nothing.

(2) we currently ban the possession of all kinds of things...that in and of itself, isn't a totalitarian concept. I don't want George Soros to have a nuke just because he can afford one.

The Amish don't mutilate their women's genitalia, they don't beat their girls who want to learn how to read.

Not complete, total assimilation, but some assimilation. You make a very interesting point regarding the Amish, but they aren't dedicated to killing as many non-Amish as they possibly can.

Kudos to you if you are one of the thoughtful ones. I hope terrorists such as the one in NYC are discerning enough to recognize you as such and will spare your life. Obviously the 8 folks murdered were unable to let the alleged murderer see their good side.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right, but why don't we ban "Christian" white guys because of Dylann Roof or Jeremy Christian or James Jackson or Robert Lewis Dear or Eric Frein or Frazier Miller etc.

Because there is no large, organized coalition of millions of Christians (in other countries who want to immigrate here), who support the notion of killing everyone who isn't like them. There aren't millions of Christians worldwide, who have declared a jihad on everyone else.

It's a good question...in my opinion, there's a reasonable answer.

I am not too sure there is a ban, have you heard about the vetting process?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Zimmy asked a great question about assimilation. Another reason why this is often associated with Muslims, and not a big deal with the Amish 9who aren't overly assimilated into modern western culture), is that the Amish aren't a threat to become a significant enough portion of our population to tilt our national identity in their direction.

If you look at European nations which have allowed a lot of Muslim immigration...Muslims are becoming a significant percentage of the overall population. Muslims have large families, and white Europeans do not. It only takes a few generational cycles, before you see a noticeable shift in national demographics. The Europeans didn't consider this. Many of them are regretting that they didn't factor that into their immigration policy.

I'm not worried that much of our country is going to look like Lancaster, PA where the Amish live. It scares the hell out of me, that we would take even a tiny step, in looking more like the Middle East. That's what is happening in Europe (to some degree), and they are scared sh*tless.

Gee, when you put it that way...

I think most people realize that the majority of Muslims are good people. But there are 2 billion muslims, and if 1% of them are jihadists, that's 20 million jihadists. I feel horrible for innocent, decent Muslims. Not so horrible, that I'm wiling to sacrifice innocent Americans on the altar of political correctness.

Zimmy, if I gave you a bowl of 100 skittles, and told you that 1 of them was poisoned, how many would you eat? How many would you let your loved ones eat? Answer - zero. People aren't candy, so it's not a perfect analogy, but it's not a meaningless analogy either.

Christian dogma based on its new testament Bible is not a threat to those who do not wish to be Christian. Christianity is not a political system. Christ specifically said to render unto Caesar (the government) what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Islamic dogma based on the Koran, which does not yet have a new testament, is absolutely inimical to Western culture in general, and specifically so to our constitutional system of government. Islam is not just a religion. It is a political system. There is no separation of power in Islam between mosque and state. There is no separate renderings to government and God. God and government are one and the same.

Those who are nominally Christian, but commit statutory murder, are apostates, not really Christian. Those who are nominally Muslim, and in the name of Allah kill those who are not Muslim and are part of anything that is contrary to Islam, are not, at this time, apostates. There has not yet been an official reformation of Islam which says to render unto Allah that which is Allah's and to the government that which is the government's. That would be a tautology. Allah is still, in Islam, the government.

If you believe that it is a good thing, a strengthening of diversity in our country, to invite immigrants here who have a political allegiance to an ideology that is contrary to our system of government and our Western values, then I would assume that you would be OK in importing Communists or Nazis or political fascists or any other anti-liberty authoritarians--for diversity.

You mean the Christian White Guys who are US citizens, or the Christian White Guys coming from Syria?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you get that off a fortune cookie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was well written Jim. I have faith in our constitution and our system (unwavering faith until the past 9 months). We would never have systems of government like those in middle east. As far as the cultural aspects, there are lots of them in all kinds of cultures that I disagree with, but I am pretty sure we should not make immigration decisions based on religion or culture.

In case you missed it a few posts before this, let me repeat:

Christian dogma based on its new testament Bible is not a threat to those who do not wish to be Christian. Christianity is not a political system. Christ specifically said to render unto Caesar (the government) what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Islamic dogma based on the Koran, which does not yet have a new testament, is absolutely inimical to Western culture in general, and specifically so to our constitutional system of government. Islam is not just a religion. It is a political system. There is no separation of power in Islam between mosque and state. There is no separate renderings to government and God. God and government are one and the same.

Those who are nominally Christian, but commit statutory murder, are apostates, not really Christian. Those who are nominally Muslim, and in the name of Allah kill those who are not Muslim and are part of anything that is contrary to Islam, are not, at this time, apostates. There has not yet been an official reformation of Islam which says to render unto Allah that which is Allah's and to the government that which is the government's. That would be a tautology. Allah is still, in Islam, the government.

If you believe that it is a good thing, a strengthening of diversity in our country, to invite immigrants here who have a political allegiance to an ideology that is contrary to our system of government and our Western values, then I would assume that you would be OK in importing Communists or Nazis or political fascists or any other anti-liberty authoritarians--for diversity.

You say "we should not make immigration decisions based on religion or culture." How about on the basis of political ideology?