Washington Man Accused of Hurling Molotov Cocktails at ICE Detention Center Killed by Police

[ruby sparks]

I'm in favour of restricted immigration.

Though I don't kid myself that I'm saying that because of anything other than self-interest, ultimately.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm pretty sure I've already answered that one with a no.

And then you reversed yourself by saying they have a moral right to demand entry ("open or die") because they are like ants in the movie Antz or something.

That's different from saying I would advocate for it. It only means that whilst I am in favour of restricted immigration, I'm not going to get on my moral high horse about it, or be unaware of my privileges, or be unsympathetic to those less well off than me, just because I happened to be born somewhere and they didn't.

And perhaps that might also lead me to be ok with perhaps slightly lesser restrictions, or more exceptions, than you. I don't know. We'd have to get into detail about what restrictions we each favour and what might constitute an exception, etc.

My comment about the ants was also partly just realpolitiks. Right and wrong go out the window if you have enough muscle. As it always has. And is partly why our countries can afford to put up the barriers.

Just don't kid yourself that these people are somehow in the wrong, and you are in the right, that's all. They are only doing what you would do in their shoes and you had either their gumption or their desperation.

 

[ruby sparks]

To the best of my knowledge, immigrants are a net benefit, in terms of taxation and economics, in the UK at least.

I am not saying end all immigration, but that immigration should be regulated and legal.
And taxation and economics is not the entire picture. UK (or EU or US) are not benefited by letting in Islamists who demand Sharia Law for example. Or rape girls like Pakistani migrants have done in Rotterham for years because authorities did not want to appear "racist". Or rape/murder native European girls like a lot of especially Afghan mass migrants have done in Germany in recent years.

Again, yes to immigration but it should be sane. Which means

• restrict numbers to what the needs of host countries are. Just because 100,000s of mass migrants show up at the border or float off the coast of Africa does not mean you have to take them in.
• select people
  • to exclude extremists and criminals (the Afghan Hussein Khavari who murdered a young German woman also severely injured a young woman in Greece but Germany let him in as a "refugee" anyway).
  • based on the needs of the host country. Modern economy has little need for unskilled labor and so letting in mass quantities of people with 6th grade education and no language skills is not productive.
  • based on willingness to integrate and not create parallel societies in host countries. For example, if an applicant refuses to shake hands with a person of the opposite sex that shows unwillingness to integrate into a Western society. That also includes willingness to learn the language. To get back to US and Latin American migrants, too many spend 20-30 years in US and never bother to learn English.
• it should be easy and quick to deport people in the country illegally or people who commit serious crimes and/or get radicalized while in country. There should not be so many appeals given that the whole process drags on for years.

I think I'd go along with nearly all of that.

I might just query the bit about not needing unskilled labour.

I might also add allowing in at least a certain number of legitimate asylum seekers, unless there is some particular reason not to, which could be political or pragmatic (say hypothetically 5 million legitimate asylum seekers turn up).

 

[Derec]

Right and wrong go out the window if you have enough muscle.

Or an inside man/woman to act as an useful idiot. Like Angela Merkel in Europe. Or most of the Democratic candidates who want to decriminalize illegal entry and abolish ICE.

 

[Derec]

I might just query the bit about not needing unskilled labour.

Some, but not nearly as much as mass migration would provide. Due to automation needs for unskilled labor are less and less.

 

[ruby sparks]

I might just query the bit about not needing unskilled labour.

Some, but not nearly as much as mass migration would provide. Due to automation needs for unskilled labor are less and less.

Ok.

 

[ruby sparks]

Right and wrong go out the window if you have enough muscle.

Or an inside man/woman to act as an useful idiot. Like Angela Merkel in Europe. Or most of the Democratic candidates who want to decriminalize illegal entry and abolish ICE.

I am honestly not au fait with an overall appraisal of Merkel's policy or it's outcomes, so I can't really comment. I do read that there have been downsides, but without an overall analysis, which might extend into the future long term, I don't know enough. For example, Germany might obtain a useful (and cheap) younger demographic that may help to pay the pensions and medical care of the older generation. I don't know. Those Germans are smart, and she's no pushover.

As for abolishing ICE, I think that's daft, unless those advocating for it propose some better alternative. At the moment I'd say, from what little I know, that ICE are doing a dirty job that someone has to do on behalf of those comfortably ensconced further away from the border zone. I'm sure they're not doing it perfectly, but I'd guess they're being asked to do too much, especially at the moment.

 

[ruby sparks]

Due to automation needs for unskilled labor are less and less.

Theoretically perhaps, or eventually. I regularly read in what are usually reliable places that at the moment there is a great need for many people to do the jobs that (especially young) indigenous nationals just wouldn't even apply for because they think it's beneath them or might interfere with their playing X-box. Most immigrants I know word HARD or would if they could get a chance to.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You don't die of exposure after a even a triage nurse clears you as ok.

You posted general information, not anything about a specific case. In any case, if you are dehydrated because you deliberately crossed the desert, the risk to your life and health is your fault. Same with those idiots who board dinghys in Libya in order to cross into Europe in an attempt top scam some benefits for themselves. If they drown off the coast of Libya, it's their own fault, not that of EU.

Of course what I posted was general--that's the 30-second version of medical triage, suitable for lay people and should have been done for anyone rescued from an extreme situation. The perfusion test is a measure of blood flow (in trauma, a matter of blood loss)--if you're seriously dehydrated it's not going to be flowing normally and that will show up.

I do agree if they drown off the coast of Libya it's their own fault, likewise if they die of exposure in our desert. However, if we take them into custody we assume medical responsibility, at that point they should be treated if they need it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would like to see a citation for that vast majority claim. Also, why is poverty not a valid reason to want to move? It's normally associated with other things such as lack of access to basic necessities and having to live in dangerous (as in lawless) environments too.

I don't doubt that a lot of them could be called economic migrants. And there will be some that we might call genuine refugees. You made no distinction.

Poverty is a reason to want to move. It's not a reason to be able to claim refugee status. Economic migrants are not refugees.

 

[ruby sparks]

I would like to see a citation for that vast majority claim. Also, why is poverty not a valid reason to want to move? It's normally associated with other things such as lack of access to basic necessities and having to live in dangerous (as in lawless) environments too.

I don't doubt that a lot of them could be called economic migrants. And there will be some that we might call genuine refugees. You made no distinction.

Poverty is a reason to want to move. It's not a reason to be able to claim refugee status. Economic migrants are not refugees.

Obviously. Why do you think I said, in the line directly above yours, 'I don't doubt that a lot of them could be called economic migrants. And there will be some that we might call genuine refugees.'?

 

[Derec]

Theoretically perhaps, or eventually. I regularly read in what are usually reliable places that at the moment there is a great need for many people to do the jobs that (especially young) indigenous nationals just wouldn't even apply for because they think it's beneath them or might interfere with their playing X-box.

Again, there are some jobs like that (esp. in agriculture) but fewer than before and far less than the number of unskilled mass migrants pushing at our gates.

Most immigrants I know word HARD or would if they could get a chance to.

This is a bit contradictory to what the Left is saying in other contexts. I hear a lot that Americans work far more - longer hours, far less vacation time - than people in say Canada or Western Europe. And yet you want to bring in large numbers of people who are used to far worse work conditions and that will drive a race to the bottom.
Which is it? Should working conditions of Americans be improved to be more like Canada/Europe or should they be made worse by competing with millions of people used to far worse?

 

[Arctish]

I'll grant you that it is not absolute proof, but it is certainly evidence of her Islamism.
I would argue that thinking getting married under Islamic law is more important than getting legally married under US law is a pretty good indication of Islamism.
As is invoking Allah to do something against the "evil doings of Israel".


I know, but we have Ilhan Omar invoke Allah for a political purpose (her opposition to Israel defending itself against Hamas aggression in this case) and we have her privileging Islamic law over secular US law.

Invoking Allah for political or personal reasons is not evidence one is an Islamist. It's evidence that person is a religious Muslim or at least a cultural one, like how saying "bless you" when someone sneezes indicates you're a member of the European Christian cultural group.

If you're confused on that point, I can start a thread on the definition if Islamist and we can get into more detail.

Your first claim remains unsupported.

I disagree.

No you didn't. All you did was show that she criticized Zionism in general and the State of Israel for specific policies. She did not criticize Jews in general or show any particular prejudice against them.

Yes I did. She objects to Israel defending itself against Islamist terrorism of Hamas and foreign aggression from Gaza (ruled by Islamist Hamas). She calls self-defense by Israel "evil doings'. When what any country in the world has a right to do (defend itself) is deemed "evil doings" because the country is Jewish, then that is 100% antisemitism.
She is also supporter of BDS which is clearly antisemitic, a fact even recognized by the German Parliament.

Your second claim, that she's an anti-Semite, remains unsupported.

Wrong. It is very well supported. Ilhan Omar is an antisemite.

Please repost those quotes. And don't just quote mine a few sentence fragments. Post the entire statement in context.

I think you're basing that charge of anti-Semitism on her being opposed to specific human rights violations in the West Bank, and the racist religiously bigoted policies of the Netanyahu-led Israeli government, but perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps you aren't playing fast and loose with terms because you're a big fan of Netanyahu and his policies but want to make Omar sound like the bigoted asshole.

Perhaps.

 

[Derec]

No, the third claim fails o. The clause "just" which in place and context would be read by any reasonable person to apply exclusivity to the mere hailing of opposing a man for no good reason at all.

There is plenty of reasons to oppose Trump. I am not a Trump supporter myself. However, blindly supporting "the Squad" (better name would be "the Minions") is just idiotic.

There is a lot to oppose from the fact that he's a pedophile rapist,

BS. He has not been charged, much less convicted of any rape, and I do not think he was even ever accused of a rape of a child.

to the fact he presides o er children being thrown in cages,

That is an asinine oversimplification of what is going at the border and you know it.

and is trying to start a useless war.

It is Iran that is trying to start a war. Trump has shown quite a bit of restraint (see aftermath of the drone drowning), a bit too much restraint for my taste. The recent seizure of British tankers would probably have been prevented had Trump shown strength and bombed some IRGC locations after they downed our drone.
I think now US and UK need to seize every Iranian vessel anywhere in the world unless they release the British ships immediately.

 

[Derec]

Invoking Allah for political or personal reasons is not evidence one is an Islamist. It's evidence that person is a religious Muslim or at least a cultural one, like how saying "bless you" when someone sneezes indicates you're a member of the European Christian cultural group.

"May Allah awaken the people to help them see the evil doings of Israel" is certainly not the same as saying "bless you". It is exactly something an Islamist might say.

If you're confused on that point, I can start a thread on the definition if Islamist and we can get into more detail.

If you want to you may, but I think you are the one who is confused.

Please repost those quotes. And don't just quote mine a few sentence fragments. Post the entire statement in context.

I already did.

 

[Arctish]

"May Allah awaken the people to help them see the evil doings of Israel" is certainly not the same as saying "bless you". It is exactly something an Islamist might say.


If you want to you may, but I think you are the one who is confused.

Please repost those quotes. And don't just quote mine a few sentence fragments. Post the entire statement in context.

I already did.

That's a sentence fragment. I'm asking for the entire statement in context.

Even so, she's clearly criticizing Israel, not expressing anti-Semitism.

We probably do need a thread on the definitions of Islamist and Zionist, and why they don't mean Muslim and Jew.

 

[Derec]

Even so, she's clearly criticizing Israel, not expressing anti-Semitism.

She is opposing Israel for defending itself, something any country has a right to do.
She is only opposing Israel's right to defend itself, which makes it antisemitic.
Antisemites these days like to hide behind claims that they are only "ant-zionist". Do not be deceived by that.

 

[Arctish]

Remember when we discussed those teenagers in Gaza playing soccer in a stadium that were killed by the IDF in retaliation for a Hamas attack on an Israeli military target? One of the links I provided mentions them. I remember you making up a story about the kids watching the attack and then providing cover for the Hamas guys by kicking a soccer ball around (I know, it makes no sense but you said it). The attack on the IDF wasn't a war crime. The murder of those kids was. So if you want to talk about war crimes, let's start with that one, but let's take it to a new thread.

In this thread we are discussing Rep. Omar's tweet within the context of current events at the time she made it and her life experiences. Some people here were awfully quick to assume her tweet was motivated by anti-Semitism and awfully slow to consider how it fits in with her life experiences.

She knows what it is to be a civilian caught in the crossfire of war. She knows what it is to be helplessly hiding under her bed with family members and hoping no one blows the house to smithereens. She knows what it means to be a refugee and utterly dependent on donated aid. And even though she wasn't in Somalia during the worst part of the famine, she most likely has a keen understanding of the evil of leaders like Mohammed Farah Aidid, who use hunger and desperation as weapons and who intercept humanitarian aid and block its distribution for political gain.

IMO her experiences far outweigh any other motive behind her reaction to what was happening in Gaza. And since her criticisms appear to be focused on Zionism and Zionist policies, not on Judaism or Judaic practices, I think you'd have to be deliberately conflating terms to accuse her of anti-Semitism.


*** I also think the deliberate conflation of terms is part of the Standard Book of Zionist Apologetics, probably in one of the early chapters since it's deployed so quickly and so often. But that's a topic for another thread.

Civilians get caught in the crossfire. That has nothing to do with the fact that Hamas targets civilians.

We can discuss that in another thread. This thread is about a man who attacked an ICE facility and has lately been a discussion of Rep. Omar's tweets during Operation Pillar of Defense.

I'm sure she would agree with you that civilians get caught in crossfire which is why IMO she criticized Israel the day after it conducted a massive bombing and shelling of Gaza. Gaza is full of civilians, and shelling is pretty indiscriminate. There were a lot of children hiding under beds the day before, and given her personal experiences it's natural she would react strongly to that.

I also believe she saw the blockade and the attack on the Turkish flotilla carrying aid to Gaza two years before as the same sort of 'evil doings' Mohammed Farah Aidid had been responsible for in Somalia. The Israelis weren't letting the Gazans starve, but they weren't letting the donated food into Gaza as it arrived, either. And that's another situation sure to provoke a strong reaction from a former refugee who was once dependent on humanitarian aid for food and basic necessities.

Like I said, I think her life experiences far outweigh any other motive behind her tweeted reaction to what was happening in Gaza. And I think it informs her opinions of ICE, the detention centers, asylum seekers, and the humanitarian crisis at the border.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm sure she would agree with you that civilians get caught in crossfire which is why IMO she criticized Israel the day after it conducted a massive bombing and shelling of Gaza. Gaza is full of civilians, and shelling is pretty indiscriminate.

Yes, shelling is pretty indiscriminate--which is why Israel normally only uses guided rounds.

I also believe she saw the blockade and the attack on the Turkish flotilla carrying aid to Gaza two years before as the same sort of 'evil doings' Mohammed Farah Aidid had been responsible for in Somalia. The Israelis weren't letting the Gazans starve, but they weren't letting the donated food into Gaza as it arrived, either. And that's another situation sure to provoke a strong reaction from a former refugee who was once dependent on humanitarian aid for food and basic necessities.

The "attack" was on a ship carrying no aid, just martyrs.

Like I said, I think her life experiences far outweigh any other motive behind her tweeted reaction to what was happening in Gaza. And I think it informs her opinions of ICE, the detention centers, asylum seekers, and the humanitarian crisis at the border.

In other words, she pays more heed to her opinions than the facts. She shouldn't be in office.

 

[Arctish]

Yes, shelling is pretty indiscriminate--

True.

which is why Israel normally only uses guided rounds.

While it's true that Israel uses guided rounds when accuracy is paramount (assassinations, strikes on rocket manufacturing facilities, etc.), Operation Pillar of Defense featured widespread shelling. You can call that abnormal if you like, but it's what was happening in Gaza when Omar sent that tweet.

The "attack" was on a ship carrying no aid, just martyrs.

False. But even if it was true, that's no excuse for Israel raiding it in international waters. In fact, it's even less of an excuse.

Like I said, I think her life experiences far outweigh any other motive behind her tweeted reaction to what was happening in Gaza. And I think it informs her opinions of ICE, the detention centers, asylum seekers, and the humanitarian crisis at the border.

In other words, she pays more heed to her opinions than the facts. She shouldn't be in office.

That's not what I said. I said I believe her life experiences (which are facts, btw) inform her opinions. That's how it is for normal people. We use our experiences as a basis for evaluating current events.

I think learning nothing from experience and/or being unable to apply that knowledge is a heck of a lot more disqualifying for office than having an opinion based on experiences most people don't share.