IGX

I'm going to try to listen to that.

I like Sam Harris sometimes, but his podcast is like ear cancer to me.

*edited because auto-correct.

Re: Immigration Policy in Light of Manchester - I see no reason why governments can't consider the odds of the second generation morphing into terrorists when deciding to admit or reject prospective immigrants.

odin wrote:This specific cockstain was born and bred here, so not sure how you'd sort that through immigration curbs.

By not letting his Libyan parents in to begin with?

Crazy, I know.....

when I was growing up - when his parents moved here - our main terrorist threats had Irish accents. Not sure predicting second generation developments is a workable science. Or we could just exclude everyone including potential sons of glyndwr, Cornish separatists and nowty jocks who may want their own sovereignty.

I'm in favour of tough immigration controls and excluding illegals forcefully, but I don't expect it to make us much safer.

Accept fewer immigrants from areas of the world where terrorism is a big problem and is determined to be acceptable by a large percentage of the population. Those who are allowed entry need extra vetting regarding their acceptance of our pluralistic society.

The alternative is more of the same vastly expensive and intrusive security state and more collateral damage of innocents. Trump's first EO moratorium on immigration from several chaotic states was a flawed but well intentioned step. His second one was substantially improved.

But, "it's against our values". It's not against our values to be prudent while being welcoming.

I always come back to the same answer. It's against my values and I know I'm a horrible person for thinking it. But it always bubbles up from the reptilian part of my brain when these things happen.

johno wrote:Re: Immigration Policy in Light of Manchester - I see no reason why governments can't consider the odds of the second generation morphing into terrorists when deciding to admit or reject prospective immigrants.

p.j. o'rourke, from an interview on tbe reason website:

I'm a pro-immigrant guy. I will listen to anti-immigrant talk from a full-blooded American Indian and nobody else. They've got a beef.

dead man walking wrote:

johno wrote:Re: Immigration Policy in Light of Manchester - I see no reason why governments can't consider the odds of the second generation morphing into terrorists when deciding to admit or reject prospective immigrants.

p.j. o'rourke, from an interview on tbe reason website:

I'm a pro-immigrant guy. I will listen to anti-immigrant talk from a full-blooded American Indian and nobody else. They've got a beef.

I don't think acknowledging danger and exercising prudent policies on who gets into the country is anti-immigrant. America needs immigrants, lots of them, but all immigrants are not created equal. Otherwise, why not make it a 100% lottery system.

I love PJ but the Indian trope is bullshit, plenty of uber violent warfare by tribes resisting the immigration of other tribes - or the opposite via violent immigration - or just control of resources, or just because. (Algonquin vs. Iroquois or Arawak vs. Carib might be good examples)

dead man walking wrote:

johno wrote:Re: Immigration Policy in Light of Manchester - I see no reason why governments can't consider the odds of the second generation morphing into terrorists when deciding to admit or reject prospective immigrants.

p.j. o'rourke, from an interview on tbe reason website:

I'm a pro-immigrant guy. I will listen to anti-immigrant talk from a full-blooded American Indian and nobody else. They've got a beef.

Do you seriously believe that the US has no right/authority to control immigration? To decide a policy that is good for the country?

i was quoting p.j., a libertarian, from a publication you introduced me to.

i expect he's about half provocation, but shortly thereafter he adds:

At the core of libertarianism—as an attitude and as a way of thinking about politics—is the idea that people are assets. The liberal idea is that people are burdens. More sick people means more government expense. More poor people means more government expense. More any kind of people means more government expense. Whereas I think it means more growth, more vitality.

I'm mostly libertarian, but the libertarian open borders position would only work if the government was actually libertarian(i.e. No entitlements, no federal taxes, little to no federal regulations, etc). Otherwise humans always go where the free money is and the country will go broke, eventually turn totalitarian, etc.

Try moving to the pretty awesome country New Zealand. Good luck with that.

I'm mostly libertarian, but the libertarian open borders position would only work if the government was actually libertarian(i.e. No entitlements, no federal taxes, little to no federal regulations, etc). Otherwise humans always go where the free money is and the country will go broke, eventually turn totalitarian, etc.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C52TlPCVDio[/youtube]

when I was growing up - when his parents moved here - our main terrorist threats had Irish accents.

No offense to you or yours, but those Paddy's were treated far more harshly (wrong or right) than the current crop of jihadists. My ancestry is pure NI, first generation on my father's side, I had to hear these stories my whole life. The Birmingham Six, Indefinite detention without trial, the 7 day rule, Non-judicial killings, etc.

It's weird to see the Brits pussyfooting around. As someone I don't remember said on the radio, "Ya'll is some colonizing motherfuckers!"

DrDonkeyLove wrote:ISIL's Virtual Planners
Essentially one-on-one internet training and direction for lone wolf terrorists. Faacckk.

Wonder if they critique form