Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Support of first freedoms back to pre-9/11 levels
Topic Started: Aug 23 2004, 11:21 AM (324 Views)
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=13573

Quote:
 
Americans’ support for their First Amendment freedoms — deeply shaken by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — continues to rebound and is back at pre-9/11 levels, according to the annual State of the First Amendment survey, conducted by the First Amendment Center in collaboration with American Journalism Review magazine.


Quote:
 
“The 2004 survey found that just 30 percent of those surveyed agreed with the statement, ‘The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees,’ with 65 percent disagreeing. The nation was split evenly, 49 percent to 49 percent, on that same question two years ago, in the survey following the ‘9/11’ attacks,” said Gene Policinski, acting director of the First Amendment Center.


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
I imagine that it is very hard to be President in the USA when the winds of political opinion and philosophy change so drastically. A President may take a very popular position and two years later his oponents make him out to be a President who is out of touch and not following the will of the people.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
I think its very important to hold on to our liberties in the face of terrorism. If we take away these guarantees we will have done the terrorists job for them. They want to undermine our free societies.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
I am more in favor of keeping our liberties and seriously restricting the liberties of those that may be suspect. I, after 9/11/01, supported:

*Closing immigration to those countries that have terrorist problems (including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, etc). Perhaps even Malaysia and Indonesia.

*Rounding up and sending home those who have overstayed their VISA. Especially those from the countries listed above.

*Seriously reducing the number of foriegn students from the countries listed above, if not eleminating them.

*Proctologist level tabs on all the green-carders from the countries listed above. Cancel the work VISAs and send them home.

Enough is enough.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
^^^^^

With out a second thought to those people who would fall under those criteria, but are here legitimately and respectfully?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
So a lot of those people go home bitter about there experience, feeling that they have been unfairly treated, reinforcing the notion of one rule for us, another for you? Is that going to create more or less terrorists and people who hate America?

Quote:
 
Closing immigration to those countries that have terrorist problems
Where do you draw the line? Should I be barred from the USA since my country still has a problem with terrorism (admitedly dormant)?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Sgt. Jaggs
Member Avatar
How about a Voyager Movie
ds9074
Aug 23 2004, 06:50 PM
So a lot of those people go home bitter about there experience, feeling that they have been unfairly treated, reinforcing the notion of one rule for us, another for you? Is that going to create more or less terrorists and people who hate America?

Quote:
 
Closing immigration to those countries that have terrorist problems
Where do you draw the line? Should I be barred from the USA since my country still has a problem with terrorism (admitedly dormant)?

Good point. It seems we can do no right in pleasing the international community while also protecting our interests. Tell me, what could we do better?
Would sugar-coating or putting a nice face on the difficult policies we make better us as a whole?

Criticism is fine but substantive critcism should detail some ideas or options yet to be explored.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
How is the USA denying entry to people from another country, harming them? How is it harmful for them to stay in their own country and not move to mine? I don't owe everyone in the world a free ride or opportunity in my country. Let them improve their own mess instead of coming here.

If the choice is between restricting the rights of foriegners from immigrating to the USA, restricting the rights of Americans who are protected under the constitution or doing nothing and suffering from terrorism.... I'll chose the first.

No, I am not saying that all people from Pakistan are evil terrorists. Many of them are harmless and peace loving and would probably do fine in US society. But there are many who want to kill us in the name of their evil religious beliefs. Unless you can come up with a way to weed these guys out, then I say we have stop the immigration. Again, restricting immigration from these countries does no harm to these people. You can't tell me that the only way these people can be happy and productive is if they move here to the USA (somerled, back me up here :lol: ).

And no, I don't think that Britain, a trusted and proven ally, should be treated in the same way as Saudi Arabia, a bought-off corrupt monarchy.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Quote:
 
How is the USA denying entry to people from another country, harming them? How is it harmful for them to stay in their own country and not move to mine? I don't owe everyone in the world a free ride or opportunity in my country. Let them improve their own mess instead of coming here.


While I agree 100% and very strongly with the statement, “Let them improve their own mess instead of coming here.” (although I would be more respectful and say country instead of mess). I can not consciously say that it would be right to deny them legitimate entry into this country. The simple fact remains that had this mentally been adopted only 45 short years ago to the group of immigrants then, my family would not have come to this great land and make a great life for our selves. So if I where to sit here an deny this opportunity to the new group of legitimate immigrants I would be nothing but a hypocrite. Also their aren’t many groups of people in this country (whether you go back decades or centuries) that can honestly say other wise. This is what America is, the land of opportunity and diversity, and this is what makes America the greats country in the world. The minuet you take that way for the sake of safety is the day we no longer live in “America” and it will also be the first day to the down fall of this country. Now all this idealism is not with out measure, we do need to persecute those who are not here legitimately with a earnest, and we should militantly protect our prose boarders. But we should not deny entry by default.

Quote:
 
If the choice is between restricting the rights of foreigners from immigrating to the USA, restricting the rights of Americans who are protected under the constitution or doing nothing and suffering from terrorism.... I'll chose the first.
I would pick the fourth choice that you left out, spare no expense in trying to make this country as safe as it can be (nothing will be 100%) while at the same time allowing legitimate immigration, and the rights of all Americans granted by the constitution. If this means I will be 80% save as appose to 95% safe, I will take those odds, because the price to be 95% safe is to high. It would mean selling who we are and what makes us so great. I wouldn’t want to raise my kids in a world where their country denies the hopes and dreams of so many, even if it may mean I cant rais them at all.

Quote:
 
No, I am not saying that all people from Pakistan are evil terrorists. Many of them are harmless and peace loving and would probably do fine in US society. But there are many who want to kill us in the name of their evil religious beliefs. Unless you can come up with a way to weed these guys out, then I say we have stop the immigration. Again, restricting immigration from these countries does no harm to these people
So you would punish all for the actions of a few? I wonder how you would fair if we where to state doing that with other issues? It seems to me that there is a group of white conservatives out their that like to go around blowing up buildings for their cause, maybe we should take all the white conservatives and send them away so that we can be safe, that is of cores unless you can think of a to weed these guys out. Sending these people away wont harm them, we will pick a nice island off the south pacific or other location of their choice.

Quote:
 
You can't tell me that the only way these people can be happy and productive is if they move here to the USA (somerled, back me up here  ).
Some no, Some yes but that’s not the point. The point is it wouldn’t be right to deny them the same opportunities so many others have already benefited from (see first thought) and it would make American Un-American.

Quote:
 
And no, I don't think that Britain, a trusted and proven ally, should be treated in the same way as Saudi Arabia, a bought-off corrupt monarchy.
– Which Americans get to make the decisions on which counties are good and witch are bad.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Quote:
 
So you would punish all for the actions of a few?

How is denying immigration punishment? It is not their right, it is a priveledge for which they ask and are denied. Plicking me up out of my country and deporting me to some other place is not the same as denying immigration to people from a different country.

I don't know where your folks immigrated from 35 years ago, around 1970, but I don't think that it was the same post 911 world we live in today. And there was probably not the terrorist threat that we have today.

And, no, I am not willing to risk American lives so that we can provide immigrants a place to live. Again, they can stay home and clean up their mess. If it wasn't a mess, they would want to stay there. How about bringing about change in these countries that I named instead of running and bringing thier problems here?

Quote:
 
Which Americans get to make the decisions on which counties are good and witch are bad.

Why the state department, of course. We already have a list of countries that are high on the terrorist danger level. There is a starting place.

Again, I am not advocating harming anyone. I am not advocating depriving anyone of thier rights. Just a bit more intelligence with respect to our immigration policies.

Quote:
 
This is what America is, the land of opportunity and diversity, and this is what makes America the greats country in the world.

I disagree, what makes America great is economic freedom and protection against all-powerful government.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Quote:
 
How is denying immigration punishment? It is not their right, it is a priveledge for which they ask and are denied. Plicking me up out of my country and deporting me to some other place is not the same as denying immigration to people from a different country.
It is not a punishment of our laws, it’s a punishment of morality.

Quote:
 
I don't know where your folks immigrated from 35 years ago, around 1970, but I don't think that it was the same post 911 world we live in today. And there was probably not the terrorist threat that we have today.
I apologies my addition was wrong, it was more like 45 years ago and so 1960’s – One side came form a country which had been in a long and bloody war with this country not to many years prior, and was once labeled part of the axes of evil (Italy). The other side came form a country which was at “war” with this country at the time of their immigration over idealisms (the Ukraine, formally part of the Soviet Union).

Quote:
 
Again, they can stay home and clean up their mess. If it wasn't a mess, they would want to stay there. How about bringing about change in these countries that I named instead of running and bringing their problems here?
I agree with this.

Quote:
 
Why the state department, of course. We already have a list of countries that are high on the terrorist danger level. There is a starting place.
So then we should deny accesses to this country to Israelis?

Quote:
 
Again, I am not advocating harming anyone. I am not advocating depriving anyone of thier rights. Just a bit more intelligence with respect to our immigration policies.
I would agree with this as well, I just don’t see closing the boarders to legitimate immigration and intelligent way to fix our immigration policies.

Quote:
 
I disagree, what makes America great is economic freedom and protection against all-powerful government.
And you would give it more power with this idea. Do you really think it is the economic freedom and protection against all-powerful government alone that makes this country great? You still need the people to take advantage of that system. People like Albert Einstein, Arnold Schwarzenegger and the builders of this country who all happened to be immigrants.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
I have one small thing to add to this discussion.

You have also forgotten about legitimate refugees. They often come from war torn countries that would be high on the State Department lists. Unfortunately, 38957, your plan would leave thousands, even millions of refugees with no haven. Compare those lives to the few that you might be risking at home.

And I also speak from personal family experience. In the 1930's and 40's the borders of the US (and Canada :angry: ) were closed to Jewish immigrants from Germany and Eastern Europe. My mother's family was lucky to get to China, but as you know millions of others were not so lucky.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Its not only a question of people being refused permission to enter, it is also a question of whether you throw people out. 38957 you seemed to be talking about sending people back to their country of origin even if they are currently in the USA legally.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Minuet
Aug 24 2004, 12:22 PM
I have one small thing to add to this discussion.

You have also forgotten about legitimate refugees. They often come from war torn countries that would be high on the State Department lists. Unfortunately, 38957, your plan would leave thousands, even millions of refugees with no haven. Compare those lives to the few that you might be risking at home.

And I also speak from personal family experience. In the 1930's and 40's the borders of the US (and Canada  :angry: ) were closed to Jewish immigrants from Germany and Eastern Europe. My mother's family was lucky to get to China, but as you know millions of others were not so lucky.

Min, there are other countries... they don't have to come here. These are special times. This isn't bigotry, this is a safety issue.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
First, I didn't put Israel on my list, but I would put Palestinian territories.

Second, yes I do believe that economic freedom and protection from an all-powerful government are primarily what made this country greats.

Third, I am familiar with refugees. I know some from Eastern Europe and I am not talking about these. I am talking about immigrants, not refugees, from countries that are high on the terrorist list. Refugees usually come from a war-torn region like the Bosnia region in the mid-1990s or from a country like Cuba that we embargo the heck out of.

Fourth, I am not talking about sending back naturalized citizens. I didn't say that. I am not talking about rescinding green-cards, I didn't say that. I am talking about student and work VISAs from these terrorist countries. One of the biggest problems is that these guys get here on a student or work VISA and then run off and we can't keep track of them. Let's eliminate that, it is a problem.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus