Well, since we're all descendants of immigrants…Oh yeah....well MOST of the violent crimes committed in the US last year were committed by immigrants, or by the descendants of immigrants...
Link?
Why do Democrats/Liberals care more about Refugees and Immigrants than Americans?
- Thread starter Phenomenally Frantastic
- Start date
Link?
You shouldn't need a 'link'.
Nearly every American citizen is an 'immigrant' or 'descendant of an immigrant' to the New World. A small fraction of crimes (and violent crimes) in the US is committed by 100% native Americans (American Indians). Anyone of mixed (non-native) heritage is a descendant of an 'immigrant'.
Thus, we really DO need to stop 'immigration'; maybe all non-native Americans need to pack up and leave...
Good point. They are also mostly white, mostly male and mostly Christian.Oh yeah....well MOST of the violent crimes committed in the US last year were committed by immigrants, or by the descendants of immigrants...
Was thinking not of helping you, was thinking of the "everyone."
No it is not. Those men in the picture he supplied were beheaded. Those people holding the signs about anti-gay, as incredibly hideous as they are, did not kill any gay people.
Maybe because "we" liberals are Americans and remember where we came from? Unless you are a native American, you are here because of an immigrant. Just 'cause your white and here now doesn't mean we should forget why we all are here.
The argument "we are here because of an immigrant" is not valid. Things are not the same now as they were 100 years ago. You do realize U.S. immigration was significantly limited for about 40 years...from the '20s to the '60s?
We MUST put limits on the people we allow into this country and they must be thoroughly vetted.
This idea scares me. A government that gets it into its head to thoroughly vet every visitor, might just start vetting every resident. Lets try to guard against the police state. How about just a light vetting to keep out the convicted criminals and we roll the dice with anyone who hasn't gone to jail yet?
By your logic, liberals win all the noble prizes. That's an indictment of being awesome. You cons never think things through.
Well then, you can provide a link to what you were looking at. No gay porn please.
Have you looked? Google criminals by race, religion and gender and you will see the white Christian male leads the way in arrest for violent crime. Which demo do you even doubt and why? Whites are the biggest demo. Christians are the biggest religion and it can't be a shock that males commit the most crimes.
This site has some graphs that make the point. https://infogr.am/Black-34991937313
FIFY[/QUOTE]
Don't project your sexual preferences onto me. Keep that tummy sticks nonsense to yourself.
Who said anything about visitors? Or a police state?
I'm talking about immigrants. Try to keep up.
Me too, keep up indeed. If you are going to create a government adept at sniffing around every aspect of a person's life before you let them into the nation, you are creating the apparatus for a government to do that to all of us. I don't trust the government as much as you do.
You're right. And the guy holding a sign in his pic probably didn't kill anyone either.
But my bottom pic was a news article of 27 Americans killed for being gay. The people beheaded were not Americans and that happened in another country.
Not in this discussion its not. Here you are playing the part of the big government authoritarian.
So we're only concerned about killing Americans because of their beliefs or life styles and only if they were killed in this country? BTW, Americans have been killed/beheaded by ISIS. Oh yea, I forgot, that didn't happen in this country. Never mind.
Well yes, of course. It only makes sense to prioritize our own problems. What kind of bleeding heart globalist are you? Wash out your own eye before you start picking at another's. That's what Allah said.
Human first, American second. It's too bad we aren't all like that. A a lot like American first, political party second.
I disagree. Its better to get your own house in order before you go taking on your neighbor's issues. In fact it probably wise to really limit how much you take on your neighbor's issues at all.
Then you think we should take on the issues here at home before bringing in people from around the world that are in trouble? I mean we have people living below the poverty line here that often don't know where their next meal will come from, and/or are homeless. So why not take care of our own before bringing in others and handing them a weekly/monthly heap of money to live off of?
NPP is a joke. When it turns cold to Ghandi for 12 years... it bears little meaning.
Elihu Root (1912)
Root was awarded for a bunch of different mini-achievements. A decade earlier, however, he'd been investigated by a Senate committee for overseeing the brutal repression of the Philippines independence movement while Secretary of War, and the country remained under U.S. jurisdiction for more than 30 years.
Aristide Briand (1926)
Briand was the French Foreign Affairs Minister. He received the prize for spearheading the Locarno Treaties.
The treaties fixed the location of Germany's western boarders. But they left its eastern borders "open to arbitration," meaning weaker Eastern European nations would have to negotiate the terms of their own existence.Poland's Foreign Affairs Minister in the 1930swould later say of the treaty that "Germany was officially asked to attack the east, in return for peace in the west."
Briand would also go on to co-author the Kellogg-Briand pact, which had a similarly short-lived impact.
Frank Kellogg (1928)
In 1928, Kellogg, the U.S. Secretary of State, co-authored a treaty in which the leaders of all major powers agreed to renounce war.
It seemed like a good idea at the time — World War I was still relatively fresh in everyone's minds.
But it's now regarded as a bit of a joke, given that just a few years later Germany would begin violently expanding its borders.
Carl von Ossietzky* (1935)
*Here is an instance when the right guy got the right award, but the committee itself acted shamefully. Von Ossietzky, a writer and pacifist, helped expose Germany's secret rearmament in violation of the Versailles treaty. Two members of the Nobel committee resigned over the decision and Hitler had him arrested and shipped to a concentration camp.
Nobody (1948)
The rules of the Nobel Prize are kind of odd. There's a provision for not awarding the prize when no one meets its criteria, and as you'll see as you read through this post, they should probably be invoking it way more frequently.
But 1948 was an instance when there was an obvious candidate who was somehow ignored: That year, Mahatma Gandhi, who led India's non-violent movement for independence, was assassinated. He'd been nominated 12 times previously, but shunned. Another Nobel rule says the recipient must be living, and the committee did not see fit to make an exception in this case.
The committee has since bent over backward for the omission. In 2006, remarks attributed to the head of the committee basically prove the argument of this post: "Gandhi could do without the Nobel Peace Prize, whether Nobel committee can do without Gandhi is the question."
Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho** (1973)
The Paris Peace agreement had nominally set terms for an end to the Vietnam War by initiating a ceasefire. And it's true that American forces began leaving. But earlier that year, the U.S.'secret bombing campaign against Cambodia, which killed hundreds of thousands of people and which Kissinger spearheaded, had been revealed.
**Le Duc Tho, Ho Chi Minh's successor as Vietnam Communist Party head, at least had the sense to decline accepting the prize.
Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzakh Rabin (1994)
Another example of the prize's shortsightedness. The Oslo accords seemed like a good idea at the time, but they merely proved another temporary stopgap in what remains the world's longest-running conflict.
Kofi Annan and the United Nations (2001)
If the U.N. seems particularly feckless today, one can make an argument that Annan expedited its decline in relevancy when he was investigated in 2004 for improperly steering Iraq arms-for-food program contracts to his son. Although he was technically cleared, it still "indicated that Annan may have initially misled investigators about contacts he had with senior executives at his son's company before they won a U.N. contract," according to the Washington Post.
And it's now difficult not to wince at the citation itself, which recognizes Annan and the U.N. itself for "work for a better organized and more peaceful world."
Wangari Muta Maathai (2004)
Maathai was a lifelong democracy and environmental activist who helped advance political rights and sustainable development in Kenya and East Africa. Yet she maintained odd views about the origins of HIV:
"Like many others I wonder about the theories on the origin, nature and behaviour of the virus. I understand that there is consensus among scientists and researchers internationally that the evolutionary origin most likely was in Africa even though there is no final evidence. I am sure that the scientists will continue their search for concluding evidence so that the view, which continues to be quite widespread that the tragedy could have been caused by biological experiments that failed terribly in a laboratory somewhere, can be put to rest."
Barack Obama (2009)
Obama himself suggested he was undeserving of the award (One of the few times Obama was spot on about something), and it seems like another example of a year when the committee should have just punted.
This thread is about allowing refugees into our country and if that makes us less safe.
In this country it's more likely you'll be killed in a hate crime than a terror attack.
The argument being made is akin to saying other countries shouldn't allow Americans in b/c we have the KKK.
Sounds like Natural wants to take care of our own issues before letting in the Syrian refugees. Just saying.
There are about a half dozen other categories for you to review. But I agree Gandhi was awesome.
