Truck of peace hits New Orleans

[aupmanyav]

Modi Trump joint declaration: "We will fight Islamic terrorism."
Islamic terrorism is not a fantasy, it is a fact of life.

 

[Derec]

Leftism is also a part of the Western Tradition.

I did not say it wasn't. But Islamism isn't.
And Leftism can be part of western tradition and still be wrong on unrestricted Muslim mass migration.

You lack the most basic education as to Western history and society, but think you're qualified to be its gatekeeper? What a joke!

Bullshit! I probably know more about it than you.
What is the real joke is you thinking that there is nothing wrong with wholesale influx of Islamists into western societies.

 

[Derec]

Your response is pretty illiberal - keep people out with whom you disagree.

No, it is not illiberal. It is merely realistic. Liberalism should not be a suicide pact. It should not be importing foreigners whose values are diametrically opposed to liberal ones. You seem to think any restrictions on the kinds of immigrants are let in are fundamentally "illiberal". That is not the case.

Note that I am not saying that we should not accept any immigrants from places like Afghanistan. But they should be vetted and rejected if they show Islamist views or otherwise show that they are incompatible with western societies.

Take Farhad N., the "car of peace" Afghan in Munich. His asylum case was rejected in 2017 because he lied, but he still stayed. First because of appeals, then because of COVID, then because he was in job training. Him lying on his asylum application should have led to a quick deportation instead.
Farhad N. soll in seinem Asylverfahren gelogen haben [article in German]

 

[Derec]

I neither have nor need any such credentials, as I'm not the one pushing a flawed political agenda justified by supposed defense of "The West" against a stereotyped villainous portrayal of "The East". Not my dumb argument, not my responsibility to defend.

It's not our dumb argument either. It's your straw man, big enough for Burning Man to be envious of it.
It's not about everybody from "The East". It's about adherents of ideologies incompatible with, and opposed to the West. Islamism wants to make the entire world subservient to Islam. One way to make the West submit is to islamicize it, to make Islam the majority through high immigration and high birth rates. Schools in some European cities are already majority Muslim, which is a bad sign for the future.

Of course, I am more qualified from a professional standpoint to comment on Western History than someone who has never studied the issue, having logged plenty of credit hours on the history and social anthropology of Europe and the Middle East, but I assume literal qualifications are not what you were after. Academic qualifications are actually disqualifications, I know, in the bizarro otherworld of far right wing rhetoric...

The problem with social science is that so much of it has been politicized. You may have a lot of technical knowledge, but that does not mean you are not pushing a far left political agenda with all your apologetics for Islamism and for Islamisation of the West. And you may have a lot of technical knowledge, but I have not seen use any of it in these discussions about political Islam. You just attack others instead of defending your positions about mass Muslim migration into the West being benign rather than malignant.

 

[laughing dog]

Your response is pretty illiberal - keep people out with whom you disagree.

No, it is not illiberal. It is merely realistic. Liberalism should not be a suicide pact. It should not be importing foreigners whose values are diametrically opposed to liberal ones. You seem to think any restrictions on the kinds of immigrants are let in are fundamentally "illiberal". That is not the case.

Nope. Denying entry because of political or religious beliefs runs counter to political and religious freedom.

Please don’t tell me what I believe, because you are terrible at it.

 

[Politesse]

It's not our dumb argument either. It's your straw man, big enough for Burning Man to be envious of it.
It's not about everybody from "The East". It's about adherents of ideologies incompatible with, and opposed to the West. Islamism wants to make the entire world subservient to Islam. One way to make the West submit is to islamicize it, to make Islam the majority through high immigration and high birth rates. Schools in some European cities are already majority Muslim, which is a bad sign for the future.

I have a huge problem with violent Islamist movements, as should everyone. But you can't tell if someone participates in such a movement by looking at them, or at their passport. Only ignorant fools think that race and religion are synonyms, nor nationality. And even in the case of those movements, restricting immigration arbitrarily on the basis of ethnicity, religion, nationality, or any other such irrelevant factor does nothing to curb their reach or appeal.

If your private war is not with "The East" then why do you go on about the just-as-fictional "West"?

 

[bilby]

Islamism wants to make the entire world subservient to Islam. One way to make the West submit is to islamicize it, to make Islam the majority through high immigration and high birth rates. Schools in some European cities are already majority Muslim, which is a bad sign for the future.

So what?

Catholicism wants to make the entire world subservient to the Pope. One way to make the West submit is to Catholicize it, to make Catholicism the majority through high immigration and high birth rates. Schools in some European cities are already majority Catholic, which is a bad sign for the future.

Catholic extremist terrorists have bombed many English cities, and even directly fought the British Army, inside the United Kingdom, as recently as the 1970s.

And yet, you barely ever mention Catholicism, and seem to want to amplify and publicise every bad behaviour that is in any way connected to Islam.

Why would that be?

 

[TSwizzle]

Another stabbing rampage from the religion of peace.

A 23-year-old man randomly stabbed five passersby in Villach, a city in southern Austria, on Saturday, police said. A 14-year-old was killed and four others were injured in the attack. The suspect was detained by police. He is a Syrian national with legal residence in Austria, police said.

Daily Mail

 

[Bomb#20]

Your response is pretty illiberal - keep people out with whom you disagree.

No, it is not illiberal. It is merely realistic. Liberalism should not be a suicide pact. It should not be importing foreigners whose values are diametrically opposed to liberal ones. You seem to think any restrictions on the kinds of immigrants are let in are fundamentally "illiberal". That is not the case.

Nope. Denying entry because of political or religious beliefs runs counter to political and religious freedom.

Liberalism: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

Authoritarianism: Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils...

Why on earth would liberalism require the German people to welcome in Nazis as immigrants? Why would, say, hypothetical Austrian Nazis have the right to choose whether to share Germany with the people of Germany, but the people of Germany not have a right to choose whether to share Germany with Austrian Nazis? Germany belongs to the people of Germany; it doesn't belong to Austrian Nazis. Is there something you see in the definition of liberalism that requires rulers to put the alleged rights of foreigners above the actual rights of their own subjects?

Importing Nazis is destructive of the end of securing the rights of the people of Germany. Their government is doing that. It is the right of the people to alter it, and remove from power the philosopher-king wannabes who choose to import Nazis whenever their philosophy tells them denying entry because of political beliefs runs counter to political freedom. It does no such thing -- Austrian Nazis are free to practice their political freedom, in Austria. Likewise, the people of Germany are free to practice theirs, in Germany, by insisting the German government secure their rights or else face alteration. Political freedom is a right. Immigration is a privilege. The people of Germany have a right to a say on whom they share their country with, philosopher-kings who try to compel commoner natures to stand aside notwithstanding.

 

[Politesse]

So you feel there should be a blanket immigration ban on any ethnic or national Germans who wish to immigrate to other countries? As the race and nation that produced the Naziism you so despise?

 

[laughing dog]

Your response is pretty illiberal - keep people out with whom you disagree.

No, it is not illiberal. It is merely realistic. Liberalism should not be a suicide pact. It should not be importing foreigners whose values are diametrically opposed to liberal ones. You seem to think any restrictions on the kinds of immigrants are let in are fundamentally "illiberal". That is not the case.

Nope. Denying entry because of political or religious beliefs runs counter to political and religious freedom.

Liberalism: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

Authoritarianism: Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils...

Why on earth would liberalism require the German people to welcome in Nazis as immigrants? Why would, say, hypothetical Austrian Nazis have the right to choose whether to share Germany with the people of Germany, but the people of Germany not have a right to choose whether to share Germany with Austrian Nazis? Germany belongs to the people of Germany; it doesn't belong to Austrian Nazis. Is there something you see in the definition of liberalism that requires rulers to put the alleged rights of foreigners above the actual rights of their own subjects?

Importing Nazis is destructive of the end of securing the rights of the people of Germany. Their government is doing that. It is the right of the people to alter it, and remove from power the philosopher-king wannabes who choose to import Nazis whenever their philosophy tells them denying entry because of political beliefs runs counter to political freedom. It does no such thing -- Austrian Nazis are free to practice their political freedom, in Austria. Likewise, the people of Germany are free to practice theirs, in Germany, by insisting the German government secure their rights or else face alteration. Political freedom is a right. Immigration is a privilege. The people of Germany have a right to a say on whom they share their country with, philosopher-kings who try to compel commoner natures to stand aside notwithstanding.

What on earth are you going on about?" No one said the people of Germany did not have the right on whom they share their country with. And why are you going on about Nazis?

I am under the impression that religious and political freedom are cornerstones of liberalism. But denying entry because of religious or political beliefs is antithetical to the religious and political freedom. Which means to me that it is illiberal to deny immigration on those grounds.

 

[southernhybrid]

There is a lot of discussion in the linked piece about terrorism based on different ideologies and how society has influenced them etc. But, the fact is that far right terroristic, committed by white males is the biggest threat these days when it comes to domestic terrorism. And, it even mentions how military experience sometimes influences acts of terrorism and this seems to be on the rise.

Blacks commit 5x as many homicides per capita as whites. But that is not politically correct. Neither is saying that Muslims commit a disproportionale share of terrorist attacks.
So, stats must be massaged to get the politically correct result that whitey is the real problem.
Forget 9/11, Boston Marathon Bombing, Pulse shooting, San Bernardino shooting, NY/NJ bombings, "truck of peace" attacks in places like NoLa and NYC, various failed plots and attempts, no, it's always the white people that are the real problem.

The article was discussing terrorism. White males on the far right commit most of the terroristic acts in the US these days. That's just a fact! Did you even bother to read the entire article before posting your unrelated response?

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Another stabbing rampage from the religion of peace.

A 23-year-old man randomly stabbed five passersby in Villach, a city in southern Austria, on Saturday, police said. A 14-year-old was killed and four others were injured in the attack. The suspect was detained by police. He is a Syrian national with legal residence in Austria, police said.

Daily Mail

Whatever happened to the concept of individual responsibility?

 

[TSwizzle]

The article was discussing terrorism. White males on the far right commit most of the terroristic acts in the US these days. That's just a fact! Did you even bother to read the entire article before posting your unrelated response?

Seems that “fact” may be under review as the article has been removed from the website.

 

[Bomb#20]

Nope. Denying entry because of political or religious beliefs runs counter to political and religious freedom.

Liberalism: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

Authoritarianism: Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils...

Why on earth would liberalism require the German people to welcome in Nazis as immigrants? Why would, say, hypothetical Austrian Nazis have the right to choose whether to share Germany with the people of Germany, but the people of Germany not have a right to choose whether to share Germany with Austrian Nazis? Germany belongs to the people of Germany; it doesn't belong to Austrian Nazis. Is there something you see in the definition of liberalism that requires rulers to put the alleged rights of foreigners above the actual rights of their own subjects?

Importing Nazis is destructive of the end of securing the rights of the people of Germany. Their government is doing that. It is the right of the people to alter it, and remove from power the philosopher-king wannabes who choose to import Nazis whenever their philosophy tells them denying entry because of political beliefs runs counter to political freedom. It does no such thing -- Austrian Nazis are free to practice their political freedom, in Austria. Likewise, the people of Germany are free to practice theirs, in Germany, by insisting the German government secure their rights or else face alteration. Political freedom is a right. Immigration is a privilege. The people of Germany have a right to a say on whom they share their country with, philosopher-kings who try to compel commoner natures to stand aside notwithstanding.

What on earth are you going on about?" No one said the people of Germany did not have the right on whom they share their country with. And why are you going on about Nazis?

Seriously? Do the math. I'm going on about Nazis because Nazism is a political belief. So it's covered by your assertion "Denying entry because of political or religious beliefs runs counter to political and religious freedom.", so you implicitly claimed that denying entry to Nazis runs counter to political and religious freedom. That strikes me as patently ridiculous. I'm pointing out the people of Germany have the right on whom they share their country with in order to show that excluding Nazis violates nobody's rights. Political freedom includes the right to believe your beliefs and advocate them; it does not include the right to move to whatever foreign country you fancy whose people don't want you there. If what you believe is that you have the right to end that country's people's political and religious freedom, then denying you entry because of your political beliefs is their right to political and religious freedom in action. It is their government securing their rights -- the cornerstone of liberal government.

I am under the impression that religious and political freedom are cornerstones of liberalism.

Indeed they are. That's why it's the job of a liberal government to secure the religious and political freedom of the people under its jurisdiction. It is not the job of a liberal government to secure the religious and political freedom of some foreigner in some other country -- that's his own government's job. It is especially not the job of a liberal government to secure the religious and political freedom of some foreigner in some other country by sacrificing the religious and political freedom of the people under its own jurisdiction, betraying their trust and idiotically importing boatloads of Nazis.

But denying entry because of religious or political beliefs is antithetical to the religious and political freedom.

Show your work.

Violating people's rights because of religious or political beliefs is antithetical to religious and political freedom. Entry is not a right. Entry is a gift, a gift the inhabitants of a country bestow upon whom they choose and withhold from whom they choose. And if the inhabitants are seriously liberal they'll secure their rights by withholding that gift from Nazis.

Which means to me that it is illiberal to deny immigration on those grounds.

Then you need a rethink.

 

[laughing dog]

Nope. Denying entry because of political or religious beliefs runs counter to political and religious freedom.

Liberalism: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

Authoritarianism: Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils...

Why on earth would liberalism require the German people to welcome in Nazis as immigrants? Why would, say, hypothetical Austrian Nazis have the right to choose whether to share Germany with the people of Germany, but the people of Germany not have a right to choose whether to share Germany with Austrian Nazis? Germany belongs to the people of Germany; it doesn't belong to Austrian Nazis. Is there something you see in the definition of liberalism that requires rulers to put the alleged rights of foreigners above the actual rights of their own subjects?

Importing Nazis is destructive of the end of securing the rights of the people of Germany. Their government is doing that. It is the right of the people to alter it, and remove from power the philosopher-king wannabes who choose to import Nazis whenever their philosophy tells them denying entry because of political beliefs runs counter to political freedom. It does no such thing -- Austrian Nazis are free to practice their political freedom, in Austria. Likewise, the people of Germany are free to practice theirs, in Germany, by insisting the German government secure their rights or else face alteration. Political freedom is a right. Immigration is a privilege. The people of Germany have a right to a say on whom they share their country with, philosopher-kings who try to compel commoner natures to stand aside notwithstanding.

What on earth are you going on about?" No one said the people of Germany did not have the right on whom they share their country with. And why are you going on about Nazis?

Seriously? Do the math. I'm going on about Nazis because Nazism is a political belief. So it's covered by your assertion "Denying entry because of political or religious beliefs runs counter to political and religious freedom.", so you implicitly claimed that denying entry to Nazis runs counter to political and religious freedom. That strikes me as patently ridiculous. I'm pointing out the people of Germany have the right on whom they share their country with in order to show that excluding Nazis violates nobody's rights. Political freedom includes the right to believe your beliefs and advocate them; it does not include the right to move to whatever foreign country you fancy whose people don't want you there. If what you believe is that you have the right to end that country's people's political and religious freedom, then denying you entry because of your political beliefs is their right to political and religious freedom in action. It is their government securing their rights -- the cornerstone of liberal government.

I am under the impression that religious and political freedom are cornerstones of liberalism.

Indeed they are. That's why it's the job of a liberal government to secure the religious and political freedom of the people under its jurisdiction. It is not the job of a liberal government to secure the religious and political freedom of some foreigner in some other country -- that's his own government's job. It is especially not the job of a liberal government to secure the religious and political freedom of some foreigner in some other country by sacrificing the religious and political freedom of the people under its own jurisdiction, betraying their trust and idiotically importing boatloads of Nazis.

But denying entry because of religious or political beliefs is antithetical to the religious and political freedom.

Show your work.

Violating people's rights because of religious or political beliefs is antithetical to religious and political freedom. Entry is not a right. Entry is a gift, a gift the inhabitants of a country bestow upon whom they choose and withhold from whom they choose. And if the inhabitants are seriously liberal they'll secure their rights by withholding that gift from Nazis.

Show your work.

Which means to me that it is illiberal to deny immigration on those grounds.

Then you need a rethink.

Or you do.

 

[bilby]

Nope. Denying entry because of political or religious beliefs runs counter to political and religious freedom.

Liberalism: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

Authoritarianism: Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils...

Why on earth would liberalism require the German people to welcome in Nazis as immigrants? Why would, say, hypothetical Austrian Nazis have the right to choose whether to share Germany with the people of Germany, but the people of Germany not have a right to choose whether to share Germany with Austrian Nazis? Germany belongs to the people of Germany; it doesn't belong to Austrian Nazis. Is there something you see in the definition of liberalism that requires rulers to put the alleged rights of foreigners above the actual rights of their own subjects?

Importing Nazis is destructive of the end of securing the rights of the people of Germany. Their government is doing that. It is the right of the people to alter it, and remove from power the philosopher-king wannabes who choose to import Nazis whenever their philosophy tells them denying entry because of political beliefs runs counter to political freedom. It does no such thing -- Austrian Nazis are free to practice their political freedom, in Austria. Likewise, the people of Germany are free to practice theirs, in Germany, by insisting the German government secure their rights or else face alteration. Political freedom is a right. Immigration is a privilege. The people of Germany have a right to a say on whom they share their country with, philosopher-kings who try to compel commoner natures to stand aside notwithstanding.

What on earth are you going on about?" No one said the people of Germany did not have the right on whom they share their country with. And why are you going on about Nazis?

Seriously? Do the math. I'm going on about Nazis because Nazism is a political belief. So it's covered by your assertion "Denying entry because of political or religious beliefs runs counter to political and religious freedom.", so you implicitly claimed that denying entry to Nazis runs counter to political and religious freedom. That strikes me as patently ridiculous. I'm pointing out the people of Germany have the right on whom they share their country with in order to show that excluding Nazis violates nobody's rights. Political freedom includes the right to believe your beliefs and advocate them; it does not include the right to move to whatever foreign country you fancy whose people don't want you there. If what you believe is that you have the right to end that country's people's political and religious freedom, then denying you entry because of your political beliefs is their right to political and religious freedom in action. It is their government securing their rights -- the cornerstone of liberal government.

I am under the impression that religious and political freedom are cornerstones of liberalism.

Indeed they are. That's why it's the job of a liberal government to secure the religious and political freedom of the people under its jurisdiction. It is not the job of a liberal government to secure the religious and political freedom of some foreigner in some other country -- that's his own government's job. It is especially not the job of a liberal government to secure the religious and political freedom of some foreigner in some other country by sacrificing the religious and political freedom of the people under its own jurisdiction, betraying their trust and idiotically importing boatloads of Nazis.

But denying entry because of religious or political beliefs is antithetical to the religious and political freedom.

Show your work.

Violating people's rights because of religious or political beliefs is antithetical to religious and political freedom. Entry is not a right. Entry is a gift, a gift the inhabitants of a country bestow upon whom they choose and withhold from whom they choose. And if the inhabitants are seriously liberal they'll secure their rights by withholding that gift from Nazis.

Which means to me that it is illiberal to deny immigration on those grounds.

Then you need a rethink.

The problem seems to be the assumption that people from a particular country, or of a particular religion, share a common set of beliefs.

@Derec is fond of pointing out that 99% of Afghans have beliefs that are incompatible with Western values, and then concluding that therefore Afghans should be prohibited from emigration to the West.

The problem (as I am sure you are aware) with this (assuming ad argumentum that it is true) is that it implies denying escape from radical Islam to the 1% (~420,000) of Afghans who are opposed to redical Islam, and currently stuck in a country where radical Islam is massively dominant.

US and EU immigration law currently (or at least until Trump started unilaterally dictating US law) treats applicants for migration as individuals. The details of what constitutes grounds to accept or deny such an application may be sensible or daft; But regardless, they are applied on a case by case basis. Nobody is denied entry solely because they are Afghan; And (contra @Derec) that should remain true even if policy becomes to deny entry to radical Muslims, because 99% is less than 100%.

Banning Nazis from entering Germany is a German prerogative; But banning Austrians on the assumption that all Austrians are Nazis is idiotic, illiberal and immoral (and quite possibly other things beginning with "i"), unless there is hard evidence for the claim that all Austrians are Nazis. The fact that most Austrians are Nazis is not sufficient, even if true.

The shortcut of assuming that all members of a given nationality, citizenship or ethnicity will agree on some political or religious position is commonplace; But it's untrue, and bigoted.

Fairness demands that we treat each individual as an individual, and seek to learn his particular political and religious views before rejecting him. All the more so if those views are at odds with the majority of his countrymen, and are dangerous to express in his present location.

"Muslim" is not a single immutable set of beliefs. To determine whether an individual is a threat, we need to know far more about him than just that he calls himself a Muslim.

 

[Bomb#20]

The problem seems to be the assumption that people from a particular country, or of a particular religion, share a common set of beliefs.

@Derec is fond of pointing out that 99% of Afghans have beliefs that are incompatible with Western values, and then concluding that therefore Afghans should be prohibited from emigration to the West.

The problem (as I am sure you are aware) with this (assuming ad argumentum that it is true) is that it implies denying escape from radical Islam to the 1% (~420,000) of Afghans who are opposed to redical Islam, and currently stuck in a country where radical Islam is massively dominant.

US and EU immigration law currently (or at least until Trump started unilaterally dictating US law) treats applicants for migration as individuals. The details of what constitutes grounds to accept or deny such an application may be sensible or daft; But regardless, they are applied on a case by case basis. Nobody is denied entry solely because they are Afghan; And (contra @Derec) that should remain true even if policy becomes to deny entry to radical Muslims, because 99% is less than 100%.

Banning Nazis from entering Germany is a German prerogative; But banning Austrians on the assumption that all Austrians are Nazis is idiotic, illiberal and immoral (and quite possibly other things beginning with "i"), unless there is hard evidence for the claim that all Austrians are Nazis. The fact that most Austrians are Nazis is not sufficient, even if true.

The shortcut of assuming that all members of a given nationality, citizenship or ethnicity will agree on some political or religious position is commonplace; But it's untrue, and bigoted.

Fairness demands that we treat each individual as an individual, and seek to learn his particular political and religious views before rejecting him. All the more so if those views are at odds with the majority of his countrymen, and are dangerous to express in his present location.

"Muslim" is not a single immutable set of beliefs. To determine whether an individual is a threat, we need to know far more about him than just that he calls himself a Muslim.

Dude! Did you even read the exchange? Here is the post that started it:

Islamists certainly should not be welcomed in the West. Do you really have a problem with that?

Of course I do.

And herein lies the problem.

"The West" is a dubious and complex entity that no one elected you to speak for. I - and all of my "liberal values" - are no less a part of the Western tradition than your orientalist ..., and I'm not inclined to give them up at the behest of terrorists, foreign or domestic.

Except that by welcoming Islamists - whose values are antithetical to individual liberty - you betray any liberal values you may have. Of course, you seem to confuse actual liberalism with leftism. Leftists have been enamored with political Islam for a long time for some reason. There is even a name for that: "Islamo-leftism".

Your response is pretty illiberal - keep people out with whom you disagree.

As you can see, Derec did not advocate excluding Afghans, or Muslims. He advocated excluding ***> Islamists <***. Laughing dog did not say liberalism requires treating people as individuals, which of course it does. He said liberalism requires taking people in regardless of their political beliefs, including Islamists, and by implication including Nazis, which it of course does not. This isn't a debate about "the assumption that people from a particular country, or of a particular religion, share a common set of beliefs". I said nothing relying on any such assumption; that's your own insertion. Nobody said the Germans should exclude an Austrian individual without bothering to check whether he personally is a Nazi. And if the Germans ever come to their senses and decide to exclude Islamists, of course they should investigate whether the Afghan applicant at hand is personally an Islamist before excluding him, if they intend to be liberal. If you want to kibitz, knock yourself out, but try to keep up with what people are arguing for.

 

[Bomb#20]

Liberalism: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...
...

...
But denying entry because of religious or political beliefs is antithetical to the religious and political freedom.

Show your work.

Entry is not a right. Entry is a gift, a gift the inhabitants of a country bestow upon whom they choose and withhold from whom they choose. And if the inhabitants are seriously liberal they'll secure their rights by withholding that gift from Nazis.

Show your work.

A government that welcomes in Nazi immigrants is a government that has become destructive of securing its subjects' rights.

 

[laughing dog]

Liberalism: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...
...

...
But denying entry because of religious or political beliefs is antithetical to the religious and political freedom.

Show your work.

Entry is not a right. Entry is a gift, a gift the inhabitants of a country bestow upon whom they choose and withhold from whom they choose. And if the inhabitants are seriously liberal they'll secure their rights by withholding that gift from Nazis.

Show your work.

A government that welcomes in Nazi immigrants is a government that has become destructive of securing its subjects' rights.

How so?