Open Borders, Relaxed Immigration Laws and its Consequences

Okay, you can call this Muslim a nut, you can call this Web site “whatever”-wing. This only means that you live in an comfortable zone where you prefer to act as an ostrich as you sink your head in the sand thinking you can’t be seen, whereas condemning those who are beginning to feel uncomfortable while all these things happen in their neighborhoods. Oh, you can also be one of those who “surrenders” by saying: “Why don’t these Americans move to another area?” Or, you can take this seriously as it is coming to an area near your!

Recently someone said in a comment in another post that they doubt that foreigners who come here will demand their cultures to be implemented (as a visitor who comes to your house and demands that you do things as he does in his own home). Well, read this. Call me paranoid, but a pair annoyed is worse than a paranoid… but I hope to annoy you so we do become a pair annoyed. BTW, this is also happening in Oklahoma.

Michigan Muslims demanding their own Sharia Law patrols

 

You Might Also Like

14 Replies to “Open Borders, Relaxed Immigration Laws and its Consequences”

  1. “Or, you can take this seriously as it is coming to an area near your!”…
    Or, having been in college in the 60’s, seeing Black Power, and Malcolm X, I say so what? The world didn’t come to an end.
    The only problems I can see back then are paranoid white guys, and crazy people like Charles Manson who wanted to start a race war. Nothing new under the sun. In honor of St. Patrick’s Day, those Irish better be watched closely (circa 1860).
    Knowing we have different views, I will not post anymore on this. Hopefully, you don’t need to reply to me. We both had our say!
    :-). I’ll even leave you a happy face.

    1. I can’t help myself…the next thing you know, the Irish will be having us drinking green beer, eating corned beef and cabbage, and maybe electing a Catholic president!

  2. This story has NOTHING to do with immigrants. You are simply stereotyping this man Mr Hassan, based on his religion and perhaps his name, as an immigrant. He could be a Native American or from a family which immigrated to the USA centuries ago, who has exerted his constitutional right to change his religion, and his name.

    Anyway, whether he is a native born American citizen or a recent immigrant, he has the right of freedom of speech, to call for sharia law, if that is an accurate interpretation of his remarks. But there is no danger of his proposal being implemented, because it is clearly unconstitutional – and there is no real danger of Muslims ever becoming a sufficient majority in the USA to amend the Constitution. On the other hand, if he wants action against public parks being abused as brothels, and against pornography in the children’s sections of public libraries, then probably most Americans would agree with him. Indeed if that call had been made by a Tea Party candidate, no doubt you would have applauded it.

  3. The paradigm for non-assimilation began when misguided conservatives insisted on making In God We Trust the official motto of the United States during the Cold War. While E Pluribus Unum had been the unofficial motto of the country since the early days of the Republic, the infinitely more relevant Latin phrase was unfortunately never officially enshrined into law.

    Essentially, making In God We Trust the motto of the United States constituted an invitation for immigrants to bring their own god with them since the specific deity is not specified in the motto. Truth be told, however, if the deity had been specifically stated, the law would have been most likely found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause contained in the First Amendment.

    Speaking of The Constitution, another thing that conservatives have never gotten into their silly little heads is that The Constitution of the United States as penned in 1787 is a secular document. The proof thereof is the last sentence in Article VI. It says quite specifically that “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” In other words, despite conservative attempts to rewrite history, The Constitution was a radical – even liberal – document for its day.

    Nor, for what it’s worth are Muslims the first immigrants to eschew the perils of Americanization. Hispanics beat them to it a generation ago! In the minds of many Hispanics, they are simply here to reclaim that greedy Gringos stole from their ancestors!

    The paranoia to which Gary refers above and that I mentioned in different thread constitutes what I label the Vagina Vote being cast by white women of child bearing age. Simply put, large numbers of white women are opting to not have children. Despite the rhetoric, Ann Coulter as more in common with Gloria Steinem than either woman would likely be willing to admit.

    The locus of white paranoia is centered around some members of the geezer generation (of which I happen to be an AARP and Medicare card carrying member). Those of our generation grew up at a time about 17 out of every 20 Americans were white. It was also a time when the United States controlled something like 2/3 to 3/4 of the world’s wealth. Virtually everyone with any power in the country was a white male. Now, the world has changed around them and some older Americans can’t quite figure out why it happened on their watch! It would not even be too much of a stretch to say that some are in outright denial.

    Meanwhile, merely outlawing abortion will not be sufficient to stem the brown tide engulfing white America. Given the way the ill-faded war on drugs has turned out, even more amusing would be watching attempts to prohibited any outlawed contraceptives! Once out, these genies are not so easily stuffed back into the bottles from whence they came.

    1. “The locus of white paranoia is centered around some members of the geezer generation (of which I happen to be an AARP and Medicare card carrying member)”…
      My old church was mostly made up of old geezers. I’m one too. But most of them were anti-government, fundamentalists. I cannot understand their mental processes. All are on social security (govt provided), many go to a senior center located at the church which provides a cool zone, free lunches, and various programs (mostly funded through govt grants). Some are living in low cost apartments next to the church (where their rents are subsidized by HUD). Yet they complain about the government and love the Tea Party. And of course, hate Islamic immigrants. I do not understand old people. I think it comes from taking the OT too seriously. They are now the chosen people, and everyone else is on the outside looking in. And the government that is paying their bills is the evil Satan. I’d say it’s loss of brain cells, but my new church is not that way.

      1. Research “Fox Geezer Syndrome” on the web. It might explain a lot.

        Depending on how one looks at these things, either the genius or lunacy of Roger Ailes was to reset America’s clock. Instead of relegating the right-wing crazies to just past midnight wee hours of the morning – when no one in their right mind was listening to AM radio – Faux News put them on prime time television!

        Another way to think about this is to remember when today’s geezers were yesterday’s hippies. Not much has changed. They didn’t like the government back then; they don’t like it now. The Tea Party amounts to little more than the new protest movement. Even the uniform of the day hasn’t changed all that much – except silly dangling tea bags have replaced wild tie-die t-shirts. Bill O’Reilly and Bob Beckel have supplanted Al Haber and Tom Hayden as cheerleaders. Obama has superseded Johnson as the target of their wrath; and the beat goes on.

  4. ” Indeed if that call had been made by a Tea Party candidate, no doubt you would have applauded it.”
    Wrong again! Contrary to the left that proclaims that we can’t legislate morality whereas imposing their version of morality on us via the Courts, and, mind you, against the will of the people, I am totally against anyone raising a banner promoting theocracy even if along with theocracy many benefits will be gained.
    My point here, and I don’t know why this fundamentalist desire to take everything to the purely and strict political side, is the fact that this example is not the only example; in Oklahoma there is the same issue and in a few other states. Peter Kirk, don’t tell any of those Muslim clerics in England that the Muslims will not be the majority anywhere because they may not like it very much… they believe they will. For them it is Allah’s will and command! They have their own form of “Great Commission” and it is NOT by persuasion and revelation…

    1. So, Milton, are you really such a such a doctrinaire libertarian that you would oppose all kinds of restrictions on offering pornography to children and on nudity and fornication in public parks? Of course I agree that such restrictions are not going to change anyone’s hearts, but they do protect our children.

      As for Muslims becoming a majority, of course they can dream. But at least in America they will have to out-breed a much larger number of conservative Christians who believe they have a divine mandate to multiply and take dominion – and who will be spurred on to even more childbearing if they feel threatened by the growth of Islam.

    2. Both the Prohibition of alcohol and the more recently flummoxed war on drugs are but two examples of the failure of laws to impose a common morality. Slapping the label BANNED IN BOSTON was once a surefire way to create a best selling book. Despite over half a century of racial desegregation and integration, racism is still rampant in the country. So is sexism. LGBT and gay marriage is just the latest round in the right battle.

      Meanwhile, there are some morals that most people can agree on. Most folks agree that going around killing, raping, and stealing are really bad ideas. The idea of incest usually falls into the same category things to avoid. Things like adultery, speeding, and cheating on taxes become more iffy propositions.

      When it comes to legislating morality, there are two things worth remembering: 1) It is virtually impossible to outlaw what large numbers of people do. 2) The further legislation strays from common mores, the more difficult those laws become to enforce. Were these not true, the former Soviet regime could have easily snuffed out religion during their reign of terror in Russia.

    3. The speed of light is/was the physicists’ equivalent of the now infamously wrong four-minute-mile limitation in track. Than, that points out the principal difference between science and superstition. All it takes is one exception to an accepted fact to send scientists back to the drawing boards. Meanwhile, all it takes is one exception in a zillion cases to prove superstition to be a repeatable phenomenon.

  5. “So, Milton, are you really such a such a doctrinaire libertarian that you would oppose all kinds of restrictions on offering pornography to children and on nudity and fornication in public parks? Of course I agree that such restrictions are not going to change anyone’s hearts, but they do protect our children.”

    Peter Kirk, NO, to the question, I do not oppose, and yes for the statement of what you agree.
    In a side note, you really assume things about the other guy’s beliefs or positions, don’t you?
    Mind you, I have joined groups in the “morality” and “safety issue”, but I depart from them when it comes to Theocracy that you consider to be a dream, but a dream often leads one to turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy and this fringe people, although minority, will cause a lot of harm, even with the use of a “box cutter”, to fulfill their own dream. That’s my point!

    Anytime I see terms such as “tea party”, “libertarian” or related terms I think about a red-herring… I’d rather discuss the issues on their merits and not what groups represent them, even when they coincide with my positions.

    1. MIlton, I am not assuming anything. I am just asking questions. You seemed to be saying that you would oppose “action against public parks being abused as brothels, and against pornography in the children’s sections of public libraries”, whether proposed by a Muslim or the Tea Party. Thanks for the partial clarification. And I accept that bringing in labels like “Tea Party” and “libertarian” does not help. But I am still unsure what your position would be on the proposed action, and whether your initial rejection of it was affected by the religion of the proposer, or by his presumed support for a broader theocracy.

  6. Peter, my interpretation is based not only in the article but in first hand experience (which is mostly where I base my opinions). However lofty this Muslim citizen was doing, Sharia Law is the ultimate motivation. I am sure you know the consequences of imposing Sharia Law in a Western culture, especially the USA.

    Let me clarify once again: I support Muslims and/or anyone else seeking to impose a certain degree of morality in public places and parks. God can and often will impose His will through anyone including but not limited to Muslims.
    I will not join them in the pursuit of a theocracy, though, and I tend not to support Christians attempts on theocracy either. We can impose morality and safety in a community using morals and safety rules from all cultures

    I hope this is satisfactory.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.