Should we deport immigrants who support terrorism?

[Wild Bill]

No.

Ah yes, situational ethics.

My guy is always right. Your guy is always wrong.

Even if they do the exact same thing!

That's justice to some, I suppose. It might surprise you but I personally would support someone I despised if they were falsely accused. Likewise, I would not support a friend if they did wrong.

When we start making excuses for those we like and treat unfairly others just because we don't like them we are heading down a slippery slope to disaster.

I don't often agree with Rush Limbaugh but there's a saying of his that is right on!

"Liberals define freedom as the freedom to agree!"

[benny]

Ah yes, situational ethics.

My guy is always right. Your guy is always wrong.

Even if they do the exact same thing!

That's justice to some, I suppose. It might surprise you but I personally would support someone I despised if they were falsely accused. Likewise, I would not support a friend if they did wrong.

When we start making excuses for those we like and treat unfairly others just because we don't like them we are heading down a slippery slope to disaster.

It would be all very good if only human beings were not unconscioulsy projecting upon others parts of themselves that they can't stand.

[Oleg Bach]

We should deport immigration policy makers who are to stupid to study a culture to find out what it is before importing it - for instance - any person creating policy as far as immigration should at least go to the nation for at least 60 days and look around - instead of blindly importing people that hate us...Why would you open the door of your home to a person that had an agenda to rob and murder you? What the hell were we thinking?

[Argus]

It's a waste of time and energy to deport terrorists or immigrants who support terrorism. National security cannot be maintained by people unable to withstand terror from the inside (i.e. in their foro interno).

I disagree. We have already seen what the likes of those Islamist Imams in the UK have managed to do to radicalize elements of the UK Muslim population and instigate attacks on civilians in the UK. That is why such people are now deported. We should certainly do the same thing here. And one of the things which would help would be to go back to the old rules which required immigrants be resident here for 7 years before they could get citizenship. That was moved to 3 years as yet another ploy to garner immigrant/ethnic votes by the Liberals.

[Oleg Bach]

I disagree. We have already seen what the likes of those Islamist Imams in the UK have managed to do to radicalize elements of the UK Muslim population and instigate attacks on civilians in the UK. That is why such people are now deported. We should certainly do the same thing here. And one of the things which would help would be to go back to the old rules which required immigrants be resident here for 7 years before they could get citizenship. That was moved to 3 years as yet another ploy to garner immigrant/ethnic votes by the Liberals.

Liberals are like those who believe that though cocaine - pot and alcohol that - communal use among friends is just fine..that they have a RELATIONSHIP..When in truth there is no friend ship just a mutual parasitic association..to try to garner votes from immigrants who are terroristic...is very similar to a bunch of junkies feeding each other lies to survive.

[benny]

I disagree. We have already seen what the likes of those Islamist Imams in the UK have managed to do to radicalize elements of the UK Muslim population and instigate attacks on civilians in the UK. That is why such people are now deported. We should certainly do the same thing here. And one of the things which would help would be to go back to the old rules which required immigrants be resident here for 7 years before they could get citizenship. That was moved to 3 years as yet another ploy to garner immigrant/ethnic votes by the Liberals.

UK is the perfect exemplification of how terror is an internal phenomenon. Muslims in the UK are admitted in England mainly because the Middle East used to be inside the British Empire.

[Oleg Bach]

UK is the perfect exemplification of how terror is an internal phenomenon. Muslims in the UK are admitted in England mainly because the Middle East used to be inside the British Empire.

This is the mistake that Britain made as we made - we are nations based on the prosperity and peace that originated in Christianity....Hindus or Muslims are not of the same cloth - and we tainted our nations by infecting them with cheap labour...slaves that seek to kill the master.

[benny]

This is the mistake that Britain made as we made - we are nations based on the prosperity and peace that originated in Christianity....Hindus or Muslims are not of the same cloth - and we tainted our nations by infecting them with cheap labour...slaves that seek to kill the master.

Britain had only lack originality, because Pax Romana was the only grandiose model, it created a Pax Britanica. USA, with its Pax Americana, is also now paying for the same lack of originally.

[KeyStone]

I confess that after witnessing the demonstrations by Tamils over the past week I'm reminded of a movie from the seventies called Soylent Green. In the movie, large garbage trucks with big scoops in front went into crowds of demonstrators, scooped them up by the dozens, and dumped them into the back of the garbage truck like refuse. I was thinking - hey, we could use some of those here. Only, rather than carting them back to a factory for processing, they ought to be driven to the airport for outshipment back to their homelands.

Tamil Support for Terrorism out in the Open

I guess it's all in how we define the terms.

Firstly, if they are immigrants who have become Canadians citizens, then absolutely not.

Once they become citizens, they are as Canadian as anyone else.

By supporting, if you mean supplying money, information or equipment to the terrorists, then OK.

If you mean, arguing on the side of the terrorists - then no.

People should have the right to debate, protest etc for anything that they want. That is how legitimate change occurs.

Without being able to do that, then you give people little chance to effect change other than through terrorism.

Then of course, there is how you define terrorism, which is the subject of far too many books.

[benny]

We too often forget in our vast country that streets are not primarily meant for transportation, they are first and foremost public places.

[lictor616]

I confess that after witnessing the demonstrations by Tamils over the past week I'm reminded of a movie from the seventies called Soylent Green. In the movie, large garbage trucks with big scoops in front went into crowds of demonstrators, scooped them up by the dozens, and dumped them into the back of the garbage truck like refuse. I was thinking - hey, we could use some of those here. Only, rather than carting them back to a factory for processing, they ought to be driven to the airport for outshipment back to their homelands.

Tamil Support for Terrorism out in the Open

how about not permitting them to come in in the first place?

Oh i'm sorry, please excuse my insensitivity and intolerance.

Let them all in- give them sharia courts, and be damn thankful for the privilege of being mocked and spat upon by the filthy and savage anthropoids to whom you are giving away your country. now THAT'S the canadian liberal way!

[cybercoma]

Everyone should be deported except the First Nations.

[lictor616]

Everyone should be deported except the First Nations.

does first nation also include the Ancient Solutreans (a European people from northern Spain) that inhabited the east coast of the US and Canada 17 000 years ago?

[Argus]

Everyone should be deported except the First Nations.

Thanks, no discussion of immigration would be complete, of course, without someone suggesting only the aborigines - who themselves migrated here from somewhere else - are legitimate inhabitants.

[benny]

"First come, first served" is only a good principle if one is respecting the Lockean proviso.

Edited April 20, 2009 by benny

[tango]

does first nation also include the Ancient Solutreans (a European people from northern Spain) that inhabited the east coast of the US and Canada 17 000 years ago?

Geez, lictor, for the first time you said something of interest!

However, it's a derail here.

Would you start a new thread and present this theory for those who may not be familiar?

It's a fascinating topic, and most people are not aware that the original people of North America were/are Caucasians.

The mysterious 'haplogroup x' and mysterious 'Mound People'.

More about this please!

In another thread.

I want to know what you know.

[lictor616]

"First come, first served" is only a good principle if one is respecting the Lockean proviso.

The term 'American' properly applies only to Europeans in the United States, members of the ethnicity that took the country from the savages and "made themselves" the first people. The term could etymologically apply to every bit of land and every inhabitant of the Western Hemisphere, from the North Pole to Cape Horn, but it is theirs by prescriptive right: they took if for themselves, having no distinctive name, and Americans have an unquestioning right to the land so long as their are willing *AND ABLE* to defend it as such.

That is the law of life and nations.

Israel was likewise "stolen" but who dream to say that the Jews in Israel aren't in their own country? So long as they are able to maintain themselves on it ... it is theirs.

Edited April 20, 2009 by lictor616

[benny]

For all threads related to terror, remember this old saying: a bad dream is simply a realized dream.

[M.Dancer]

The term 'American' properly applies only to Europeans in the United States, members of the ethnicity that took the country from the savages and "made themselves" the first people.

Thank you for being consistent in your ridiculousness.

[benny]

Thank you for being consistent in your ridiculousness.

Ignorance is Bliss.

[lictor616]

Thank you for being consistent in your ridiculousness.

M.Dancer, if you could (for a change) actually explain your arguments, describe how a statement of mine is "x or y or z".

If you don't feel like it ... then why bother responding at all? Its not like your imposing on me much. Either show me the error in my thinking or ignore me.

You may have a point- but at least make a case for it. Stop keeping your reasoning a secret.

[tango]

Thanks, no discussion of immigration would be complete, of course, without someone suggesting only the aborigines - who themselves migrated here from somewhere else - are legitimate inhabitants.

North America itself migrated here. What's your point again?

Fact is, there were existing civilizations here but the Pope deemed them non-Christian savages, and declared their land "unoccupied".

We recognize now the fallacy of that decision, both in humanity and in law.

The Doctrine of Discovery "Terra nullius" no longer holds any legal power.

And likewise the genocide-for-land that it spawned is recognized.

[benny]

M.Dancer, if you could (for a change) actually explain your arguments, describe how a statement of mine is "x or y or z".

If you don't feel like it ... then why bother responding at all? Its not like your imposing on me much. Either show me the error in my thinking or ignore me.

You may have a point- but at least make a case for it. Stop keeping your reasoning a secret.

If it was lawful for Europeans to expropriate the savages then the law has an obscene secret side attached to it.

[lictor616]

North America itself migrated here. What's your point again?

Fact is, there were existing civilizations here but the Pope deemed them non-Christian savages, and declared their land "unoccupied".

We recognize now the fallacy of that decision, both in humanity and in law.

The Doctrine of Discovery "Terra nullius" no longer holds any legal power.

And likewise the genocide-for-land that it spawned is recognized.

And exactly how did the "natives" have any real "legal" claim to the territories of north america?

You (like so many other self hating "Euro-canadians") seem blinded by the infectious hallucination about "ONE WORLD," which teaches that every biped anthropoid are to the tenth decimal equal and furbished with equal "rights". Many hapless Canadians are so inhibited by the fiction about "human rights," presumably ordained by some unnamed God or supernatural force, so that they can't face the fact that there can be no rights except those a society, whether a tribe, a nation, or a country, bestows on its members and may deem it expedient to extend in part to such aliens as it tolerates in its midst.

The natives had no legal conception of private property and land. They raided each other and conquered territory CENTURIES before the first white man ever came. They certainly recognized no right for fellow natives to retain their property... and why should this standard be different for Europeans?

And why not ask our "gallant little democratic ally" Israel about the validity of "Terra Nullius" in our modern age? Or the East timorese perhaps? Or Darfur? Or Turkey?

you see dear fellow countryman, there ARE no rights except those a society, whether a tribe, a nation, or a country, bestows on its individual members.

Human Rights did'nt prevent Rwanda, Human Rights are figments of the imagination. Rights cannot exist without force. you can't depend on anything but force in statecraft. Diplomacy works only if it's backed up by force. Diplomacy itself is about force: the threat of it, the use of it, the direction of it.

Whether people are fair or "nice" or equitable is irrelevant. Our choice is to be feared or to be the victim. There is no other choice.

Edited April 20, 2009 by lictor616

[benny]

And exactly how did the "natives" have any real "legal" claim to the territories of north america?

You (like so many other self hating "Euro-canadians") seem blinded by the infectious hallucination about "ONE WORLD," which teaches that every biped anthropoid are to the tenth decimal equal and furbished with equal "rights". Many hapless Canadians are so inhibited by the fiction about "human rights," presumably ordained by some unnamed God or supernatural force, so that they can't face the fact that there can be no rights except those a society, whether a tribe, a nation, or a country, bestows on its members and may deem it expedient to extend in part to such aliens as it tolerates in its midst.

The natives had no legal conception of private property and land. They raided each other and conquered territory CENTURIES before the first white man ever came. They certainly recognized no right for fellow natives to retain their property... and why should this standard be different for Europeans?

And why not ask our "gallant little democratic ally" Israel about the validity of "Terra Nullius" in our modern age? Or the East timorese perhaps? Or Darfur? Or Turkey?

you see dear countryman, there ARE no rights except those a society, whether a tribe, a nation, or a country, bestows on its individual members.

Natural rights have been accepted by liberal Europeans for a reason.