1. All residents of the United states pay sales taxes and gas taxes, including illegal immigrants
2. Illegal immigrants and lower class people in general are the most voracious purchasers of basic goods and contribute strongly to an economy
3. Taking unwanted but needed jobs
4. Immigrants in general work towards founding new businesses, which are needed for economic growth. Sergey Brin, for example, was a Russian immigrant who helped found Google
5. Drugs use and crime are attributes of low-class and low-income society, they exist independent of whether someone is an immigrant.
6. Illegal weapons entering the country do so via smuggling which is already acknowledged as a problem, not through immigrants.
7. There are no major terrorist groups based within the United States
8. Cartels operate by proxy in the United States often through legal immigrants or residents, very rarely through illegals. They're smart, they know it doesn't work.

Not anyone. If you are confirmed to be a potential danger or otherwise ineligible to enter the United States you're not getting in.

"The minority is causing mass destruction across the world." No, they're not. More people have died from gang violence or murder in the spam of time between the Paris Attacks than actually died in the Paris Attacks. In fact, more people died of those things on the day of the attacks than actually died in the attacks, but the media and politicians profit from making it seem like a huge disaster, so you don't hear that. Islamic terrorism is a public issue, not a serious one, and in the United States attacks are exceptionally rare. 73 people have died from Islamic terrorism in the 14-year span of time since 9/11. 73, out of a population of over 300 million. To contrast, over 400,000 people died from gun violence in the 12-year span of time between 2001 and 2013, yet you would claim that the former is more pressing issue and deserves an immediate violation of the constitutional equal-protection clause to fix.

In fact, just today more people died in car accidents than have died from Islamic terrorist attacks between now and 2001.

>With the way the U.S. has been catering to the minority
The US has never catered to the minority. Some liberals have, but when 30% of the population is saying that we should kick all illegal immigrants out and build a fucking wall, are you honestly going to tell me that we're catering to minorities?

The SJWs are the only ones with policies that cater to minorities, and they are small, though dangerous, and their attitude does not reflect the majority of the United States. The extent to which mainstream liberals cater to minorities is supporting police sensitivity training (which benefits everyone), calling for cheaper education (which also benefits everyone), and not actively restricting the rights of minorities. If you call serving the public interest and not actively repressing entire racial groups an example of "catering to the minority" then the liberals who I hate so passionately can by all means sign me up.

Not to mention that US immigration policy is already incredibly strict. Do you know why we don't have no go zones? It's not because our police are militant or we don't have enough muslims, it's because we handpick the people accepted into our country and make sure that they are not radicals. When people become radicalized is when they are already in the country. In understand restricting travel to Syria and the Middle-East, but banning an entire group from entering the United States is simply absurd. In fact, it's beyond absurd. It harkens back to 100 years ago where the concern for individual civil rights was considered negligible in most countries, and limited even in the United States. It's utterly unacceptable.

First: what positives do illegals bring us? Apart from taking jobs that most American's won't do or can't do because they fall under the law of minimum wage, they bring no positives to the table. There is a massive influx of crime, illegal weapons and drugs are brought into the country and they leech on the American people by drawing on unemployment and other government programs. A wall is a great idea, if we focus on allowing them to come in as they please then we are allowing other terror groups, cartels and more into our country. I would rather not let my country become anothre Mexico.

I agree with the cheaper education, but at the same time, people have to know the risks. I am $30,000 in debt and I don't blame my school for the year I spent, I blame myself for not working harder to maintain my scholarship. Also free school if they do 4 years in any of the military branches as active duty.

The immigration does not hand select people that come in. We have a drawn out process but anyone with enough money and time can become a citizen of the U.S.

We should ban then for now, their minority are causing mass destruction across the world. It does not matter where they come from or who they are, they are letting their majority dictate who they are as a people by not fighting against ISIS. Also we don't have "no go" zones because we have not allowed a mass number to come into our country without going through the process. But the 10,000 "refugees" would have created multiple of these zones.

1. All residents of the United states pay sales taxes and gas taxes, including illegal immigrants
2. Illegal immigrants and lower class people in general are the most voracious purchasers of basic goods and contribute strongly to an economy
3. Taking unwanted but needed jobs
4. Immigrants in general work towards founding new businesses, which are needed for economic growth. Sergey Brin, for example, was a Russian immigrant who helped found Google
5. Drugs use and crime are attributes of low-class and low-income society, they exist independent of whether someone is an immigrant.
6. Illegal weapons entering the country do so via smuggling which is already acknowledged as a problem, not through immigrants.
7. There are no major terrorist groups based within the United States
8. Cartels operate by proxy in the United States often through legal immigrants or residents, very rarely through illegals. They're smart, they know it doesn't work.

Not anyone. If you are confirmed to be a potential danger or otherwise ineligible to enter the United States you're not getting in.

"The minority is causing mass destruction across the world." No, they're not. More people have died from gang violence or murder in the spam of time between the Paris Attacks than actually died in the Paris Attacks. In fact, more people died of those things on the day of the attacks than actually died in the attacks, but the media and politicians profit from making it seem like a huge disaster, so you don't hear that. Islamic terrorism is a public issue, not a serious one, and in the United States attacks are exceptionally rare. 73 people have died from Islamic terrorism in the 14-year span of time since 9/11. 73, out of a population of over 300 million. To contrast, over 400,000 people died from gun violence in the 12-year span of time between 2001 and 2013, yet you would claim that the former is more pressing issue and deserves an immediate violation of the constitutional equal-protection clause to fix.

In fact, just today more people died in car accidents than have died from Islamic terrorist attacks between now and 2001.

If he only cared about preventing dangerous Muslims from entering, he would be targeting only refugees, which I can agree with, but he's not. He's saying that all Muslims, even from progressive countries like Indonesia, or from Islamic allies of the US like the kurds or Saudi Arabia, are not allowed in. He's gone so far as justify it by saying "Well it's what we did with the Germans and Japanese during World War Two", which has been established for decades as racist policies that did nothing in truth to protect civilians or the war effort.

Ok, but once again. We had two Muslims, 1 from America, the other Pakistan. Both had limited contact with the radical groups and killed 14 people. Plus most Muslim societies operate off of Sharia Law. Look into the 'No Go" areas of the UK where these "Moderate" Muslims have taken over. The police don't go in, tourists and citizens don't go. Massive increases in violent crime have happened because these people that follow their laws don't believe they should follow the laws set in ours. Unless they are willing to assimilate to our laws and even some of our customs then they have no place in our society. With the way the U.S. has been catering to the minority lately, they would allow these people to make their own towns, follow that law and do as they please or force the cities they will reside in to accept their law over the given state and federal laws.

>With the way the U.S. has been catering to the minority
The US has never catered to the minority. Some liberals have, but when 30% of the population is saying that we should kick all illegal immigrants out and build a fucking wall, are you honestly going to tell me that we're catering to minorities?

The SJWs are the only ones with policies that cater to minorities, and they are small, though dangerous, and their attitude does not reflect the majority of the United States. The extent to which mainstream liberals cater to minorities is supporting police sensitivity training (which benefits everyone), calling for cheaper education (which also benefits everyone), and not actively restricting the rights of minorities. If you call serving the public interest and not actively repressing entire racial groups an example of "catering to the minority" then the liberals who I hate so passionately can by all means sign me up.

Not to mention that US immigration policy is already incredibly strict. Do you know why we don't have no go zones? It's not because our police are militant or we don't have enough muslims, it's because we handpick the people accepted into our country and make sure that they are not radicals. When people become radicalized is when they are already in the country. In understand restricting travel to Syria and the Middle-East, but banning an entire group from entering the United States is simply absurd. In fact, it's beyond absurd. It harkens back to 100 years ago where the concern for individual civil rights was considered negligible in most countries, and limited even in the United States. It's utterly unacceptable.

First: what positives do illegals bring us? Apart from taking jobs that most American's won't do or can't do because they fall under the law of minimum wage, they bring no positives to the table. There is a massive influx of crime, illegal weapons and drugs are brought into the country and they leech on the American people by drawing on unemployment and other government programs. A wall is a great idea, if we focus on allowing them to come in as they please then we are allowing other terror groups, cartels and more into our country. I would rather not let my country become anothre Mexico.

I agree with the cheaper education, but at the same time, people have to know the risks. I am $30,000 in debt and I don't blame my school for the year I spent, I blame myself for not working harder to maintain my scholarship. Also free school if they do 4 years in any of the military branches as active duty.

The immigration does not hand select people that come in. We have a drawn out process but anyone with enough money and time can become a citizen of the U.S.

We should ban then for now, their minority are causing mass destruction across the world. It does not matter where they come from or who they are, they are letting their majority dictate who they are as a people by not fighting against ISIS. Also we don't have "no go" zones because we have not allowed a mass number to come into our country without going through the process. But the 10,000 "refugees" would have created multiple of these zones.

1. All residents of the United states pay sales taxes and gas taxes, including illegal immigrants
2. Illegal immigrants and lower class people in general are the most voracious purchasers of basic goods and contribute strongly to an economy
3. Taking unwanted but needed jobs
4. Immigrants in general work towards founding new businesses, which are needed for economic growth. Sergey Brin, for example, was a Russian immigrant who helped found Google
5. Drugs use and crime are attributes of low-class and low-income society, they exist independent of whether someone is an immigrant.
6. Illegal weapons entering the country do so via smuggling which is already acknowledged as a problem, not through immigrants.
7. There are no major terrorist groups based within the United States
8. Cartels operate by proxy in the United States often through legal immigrants or residents, very rarely through illegals. They're smart, they know it doesn't work.

Not anyone. If you are confirmed to be a potential danger or otherwise ineligible to enter the United States you're not getting in.

"The minority is causing mass destruction across the world." No, they're not. More people have died from gang violence or murder in the spam of time between the Paris Attacks than actually died in the Paris Attacks. In fact, more people died of those things on the day of the attacks than actually died in the attacks, but the media and politicians profit from making it seem like a huge disaster, so you don't hear that. Islamic terrorism is a public issue, not a serious one, and in the United States attacks are exceptionally rare. 73 people have died from Islamic terrorism in the 14-year span of time since 9/11. 73, out of a population of over 300 million. To contrast, over 400,000 people died from gun violence in the 12-year span of time between 2001 and 2013, yet you would claim that the former is more pressing issue and deserves an immediate violation of the constitutional equal-protection clause to fix.

In fact, just today more people died in car accidents than have died from Islamic terrorist attacks between now and 2001.

yeah, even though I dindu nuffin

Well you dindu nuffin. Indonesia has overwhelmingly been one of the most progressive Islamic nations, and one of the few where women have even served as leaders. In addition, they have been more than accommodating to U.S. interests, and we're going to repay them with this?

having woman as a leaders aren't correlated to any kind of religion. and even though it was a bad choice (seriously shitty president) but in some provinces and several cities, they are a lot woman that nominate themselves to be a mayor and got elected. but it has nothing to do with religion, it's just our government policy that allows woman to candidate herself as mayor.

but, in my views as a muslim, I don't give a shit. I mean, they treat us like this yet they wonder why islam is not acting as "Religion of Peace?" it's even hard for us (progressive islamic nations) to tell the truth about true islam to other fellow muslim. we even having a hard time because we just hate each other, like how Syi'ah hate Sunni.

Even in each muslim countries, there's different method about how they teach islam. example in Indonesia, I am really a moderate muslim, I wear shorts, I am in a relationship with woman (which is actually forbidden in Qur'an), I drink beers. And if I do that kind of things in middle east, probably getting whipped (punishement in Islam). I know what I do is a sin, I know it very well. but that's my problems, it's between me and Allah. I don't know whether I'm going to hell or heaven, Allah knows it best.

So every argument people thinks about "hurr durr islam is religion of bomb" and the other "whoa, you insult islam? I kill you", it's actually just some asshole having debate with other assholes. he just act like asshole and brings up in the name of Allah and some other people who think logically even though he knows he's debating with someone who believes in the unseen.

conclusion : some muslims are asshole and aren't educated enough. if they educated enough, they won't give a shit about that or they would give goods discussion about islam rather than bombing shit out of people.

You, I like you. You think about this the way I do.
My point by saying that you have had women as leaders is principally that in a Middle-Eastern nation that would not happen, regardless of her qualifications. The fact that it has happened in Indonesia at all is an indication that the nation is not full of radicals

In my opinions, middle-eastern muslims aren't ready for the changes now. they really do everything according to Qur'an and Hadith. that's why they thinks Jihad only means war even though there's A LOT of things that's actually a Jihad. being Sabr (patience and not lose control of rage) is actually a Jihad. and for me, it's a challenge cause I'm kinda short temper.

now you get how I feel to explain this everyday at least once to people who needs education about Muslims and Islam. and fake hadith even make it worse than ever.

The unfortunate bit is that Near-Asia kinda got the 1-2 between the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the beginning the Cold War. It's no coincidence that moral advancement tends to happen in large and prosperous nations: when resources are readily available, people focus in on philosophy and science. In the Middle-East, which is exceptionally poor, people look for any resource to survive and thrive, and militant to greedy imams can easily take advantage of that. It's a shame really, and it gets harder and harder to fix by the year.

I fucking wish I could equate this place to Smooth Jazz and Rap, It's probably more along the lines of the small group of disillusioned cringelords. We've sucked ass at social skills, just like anyone else, and we've been needing all sorts of Jesus, but the difference is that we know it.

Eh, what really makes a cringe lord? we all have our hobbies and we have our weird interests. But as long as it doesn't take over our lives and social skills come when you are willing to break out of your box. I have been outgoing but I also am very stiff, I dislike trying to start a convo. I went against my norm and went to a game night and now I have a new hobby of playing board games with my friends.

There was a guy on 8/k/ who claimed to be part of government simulation/planning team, who "played" five or so games of "Portion of the U.S. rebels against government" with varying degrees of scale. He was on the red (civilian rebellion) team for all of them. The blue (U.S. government) only won a single game. How did they "win"? After the U.S. government used WMDs on a rebel-controlled city the rebels firebombed all of the west coast. After the complete destruction of Cali, Oregon, and most of Washington the U.N. stepped in and a peace treaty was made that completely replaced everyone in the U.S. government.
That was decided to be a win for the U.S. government. How do you think the losses went?