3 votes

Sharia Law in the UK? Too Much Muslim Immigration?

What are your thoughts about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hKEd6rzbeg

I am thinking that the Mexican illegals (Catholic mostly) are not so bad after all.

Treg




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This is a real non issue

I'll bet 10,000 dollars

Government is supposed to protect our freedom, our property, our privacy, not invade it. Ron Paul 2007

Even that trend is reversing.

Even that trend is reversing. For the first time since the depression, more Mexicans leave the U.S. than enter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-first-time-since-dep...

The DANGER AHEAD axiom

When someone is Morally Self Righteous and has DEHUMANIZED the "Other" = DANGER AHEAD. Violence is soon to ensue.

I do not put up this video of Muslims in the UK to DEHUMANIZE them. But it seems to me that what we have is the DANGER AHEAD axiom taking place on BOTH sides.

Conservative Brits are Morally Self Rightious and have DEHUMANIZED the "other", and the Morally Self Rightious Muslims have DEHUMANIZED the "Other" Brits.

Perhaps we have a case of DOUBLE DANGER AHEAD?

One thing that will aid integration and calm down long term major disagreements is INTERMARRIAGE.

We should seek to support social policies and norms that aid, make possible Intermarriage and interfaith marriages as much as possible.

Your thoughts?

Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

This is nonsense

That's all we need are more cultural and race wars. Plays right into the anti-Paul propaganda.

By the way after 10 trips to London and spending often months there, there is no basis for your post: none.

There is danger ahead

when balkanization happens. It never ends well. The US took Florida from the spanish through immigration. It happens over and over again in history. That is why, throughout most of the last century, the US tried to cap immigation levels at a rate where immigrants would be incorporated into our culture, rather than balkanize the US. To allow unlimited immigration, would be to create a future war for our grandchildren.

Romeo and Juliet all over again?

It's the young that suffer, as this kind of hate poisons the naive and slays the innocent.

Free includes debt-free!

Queen Victoria made the citizens of

the Empire British subjects. Of course, she had no knowledge of mass transportation....and now the chickens have come home to roost

Treg, wolfe and obomba....I just finished reading

through all your comments here, and want to congratulate you all for providing one of the most respectful, intelligent discussions the DP has seen in quite awhile. In the past, this site used to be host to such polite debates far more frequently than it is today. I commend you for posting opinions that are actually worth reading.

And of course, I can't overlook BigT. He can say more in two sentences than most people can say in a paragraph.

Hats off to you all. I thoroughly enjoyed what you had to say.

This article fortells what kind of laws will be in the US

sharia law i think is already practiced in some places/courts around the country and is unacceptable as is all other religious laws.

the argument that democrats (like beckel on fox five) make is that so what is sharia law is practiced by courts like in paraellel because there are numerous cases of jewish law being allowed in courts. after ignoring beckel's question a few times, a couple of others on fox 5 said they also disagreed with jewish laws being practiced here as it should only be based on constitution and us laws.

The UK is a bit more advanced in terms of sharia law, but expect it might be implemented here with a parallel sharia law system. And, establishment republican Romney will not stand up to it in defense of the constitution as other candidates would.

Illegal mexican immigration is also bad because it leaves the borders open for terrorists and islamists to penetrate.

jj

For shame...

I have read and donated to the Daily Paul since before the 2008 election, but yet to post a comment until now.
Most of these comments are both ignorant and hateful. Clearly no one here knows didly squat about Sharia or Islam. This is the kind of activity that allows a minority to make all Paulians look racist.
I had the chance to speak with Dr. Paul on his very subject (The position of Muslim-Americans) just 3 weeks ago. He would be ashamed of your ignorance.

So...

you support Sharia Law being used in the United States? I'm quite certain Ron Paul would be ashamed of you if you do.

US has imprisoned more per capita then any other nation?

Is that what Ron Paul said. Perhaps we should remove the log from our own eye.

Free includes debt-free!

The US has 5% of the world's

The US has 5% of the world's population and over 25% of the world's prisoners. the land of the free only exists in the minds of people like Mike Huckabee.

I think you are

rather presumptive. You don't know what people have or haven't read or what anyone has investigated.
To willfully ignore the fact that there are Muslims who would be more than happy to have Sharia as the law of our country is not wise. We already know there have been the inappropriately termed 'honor killings' executed in America.
There's this fairly recent article
http://news.yahoo.com/muslim-lawsuit-response-rile-ohio-pork...
And what about footbath being put in that college?
Then there are the words from John Quincy Adams, who, eferring to Muhammad, wrote: “Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent god; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle.

Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion.

He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust; to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.

Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant...While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon the earth, and good will towards men.”

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

No hatred/ignorance, just respect for US constitution

is what is coming from comments below who reject sharia law being practiced in the US.

jj

The most dangerous religion of them all

This perverse religious cult demands that its adherents believe, among other things, that:

1. Murdering people who have not harmed you is perfectly moral and legitimate, whenever duly authorized by the god.

2. Stealing is permitted whenever the god deems it desirable. (And the god, not you, decides what is "desirable.")

3. The god owns your life and your property, and may dispose of them however it chooses.

4. The god will decide what you are allowed to eat, drink, smoke, inject or otherwise consume.

5. The god will decide how, and by whom, your children (IF it allows you to keep them at all) will be educated.

The name of this creepy and bizarre cult is "government."

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

fundamentalists 0 - dutch humor 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knRLJp-nqSg

That's how you deal with that (on their own show, lol)

Illegal Mexican immigration isn't the solution

to preserving our heritage, culture, and American traditions. Getting out of the Middle East is the solution. I have a cousin in the army who told me that Muslims who serve in the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan are given U.S. citizenship. I admit, I haven't verified if what she said is true, but if so,that is outrageous. By bombing their countries, and taking war to them, we are causing their economies to suffer even more, giving them all the more reason to want to immigrate here.

So, what's wrong with Muslims coming here? Nothing, if we limit their entrance to ten families per year because it takes that long for 300 million Americans to produce as many children as ten Muslim families will in a year's time.

Our heritage, culture, and

Our heritage, culture, and American tradition is one of freedom and open immigration. Anything else you claim it to be is nonsense. You and people like you have no right to tell people where they can move or live. Even if there are a lot of you and you get the government to do your bidding does not make it right. This movement is about advancing freedom, not some parochial view of culture, heritage, or tradition.

I don't know what tradition you're referring to,

but, it's certainly not the AMERICAN tradition. Only since 1965 has America been the Third World's trash can. The Statue of Liberty and the pro-immigrant sentiment of the late 19th century occured during a time of relative prosperity when we could accomodate an increased population, but, even that wasn't completely open and limited mainly to Europeans. If we care about advancing freedom in this country, the first thing we need to do is seriously slow down the amount of immigration from countries who have less freedom than we do.

Speaking of our heritage, culture, and American tradition, here's Thomas Jefferson on the impact of too much immigration:
"[Is] rapid population [growth] by as great importations of foreigners as possible... founded in good policy?... They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children." - Notes on Virginia Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:118

Most economists believe we

Most economists believe we would have higher prosperity if we had more immigration so your fear mongering is nonsense. I stand by my claim that this movement is about freedom and that includes the freedom to accept immigrants and to emigrate. I don't care what Jefferson had to say on the subject. He also owned slaves. Sorry but your xenophobia is disgusting to me.

About Jefferson owning slaves

He inherited the slaves from a family member when he was about 14. He did work against slavery in his political career and even condemned the slave trade in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence. However, he was unable to free most of his slaves during his lifetime nor in his will due to Virginia laws at the time. Also he paid his slaves for some of their work and allowed them to keep wages they earned other places.

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien

Thank you for the information

Thank you for the information about Jefferson and slaves. My point was only that he was not infallible and he was wrong if he believed that immigration was a bad thing.

So what if Jefferson owned slaves?

How does that have anything to do with immigration? And I don't care what the majority of economists say on immigration. The majority of economists believe in Keynesianism and reject Austrian economics, that doesn't make Keynes right and Mises wrong. Common sense tells a person that an influx of large numbers of immigrants from countries with far lower wages than this country drives American workers out of a job and lowers wages.

Jefferson's owning slaves has

Jefferson's owning slaves has nothing to do with immigration, but it also shows he was no saint and was not right about everything. Your supposed common sense about immigration is wrong on more than one level. You say that immigrants drive Americans out of jobs. So does technology. Should we outlaw machinery? We can create all the jobs we want just by outlawing the bulldozer and using shovels. Why is someone born in another country not entitled to the same freedom you enjoy? What gives you the right to tell them they cannot move here?

In that kind of environment, I'm not sure it was immoral

to own slaves. A comparison of belonging to a kind slaveowner and being free in that time period for blacks would be like the comparison of living in a communist country with welfare benefits, unemployment, retirement, etc. with a dictator that allowed relatively limited freedom if his subjects did what they were told to living in a fascist country with no welfare benefits, unemployment, paid retirement, etc.

We can't outlaw machinery, but we can limit immigration. It's bad enough that machinery puts Americans out of work, but why exacerbate it by adding unneeded immigrants to the culprits of unemployment?

"Why is someone born in another country not entitled to the same freedom you enjoy?" That's the same logic used by Neoconservatives to justify our marching all over the globe to liberate oppressed peoples. Are they entitled to the same freedom I enjoy? Well, are you and I entitled to the freedom we enjoy? Yes, I suppose when you consider the theory of natural rights, they are, but whether or not they take full advantage of the ability to enjoy the blessings of liberty in their countries like we do in ours is entirely up to them. When we were being oppressed by the British, we didn't emigrate to France (like it would've been any better there), we overthrew the Brits.

"What gives you the right to tell them they cannot move here?" The same thing that gives them the right to tell me I cannot move there. Besides, why in the world would you want to let ANYBODY else in when over 15% of working-age Americans can't find a job as it is? Most of those that come here come from poorer countries than America and are used to working for wages far below ours, so naturally the immigrants will get hired while Americans remain unemployed. Increased immigration would cause unemployment to go up not down.

So you would outlaw machinery

So you would outlaw machinery if you could, but you'll settle for outlawing immigration. You are displaying economic ignorance here. What seems like common sense to you is not borne out in fact. You really need to spend some time learning about economics, particularly free market economics.

My saying that someone else is entitled to freedom does not in any way mean we need to march all over the globe to give it to them. That is absurd. But if someone wants to move here, you are not some god endowed with the right to tell them no. Of course the government CAN tell them no, but they government does all kinds of things to infringe on freedom.

Ron Paul has recommended Bastiat, "The Law." Here is a short article laying out the economic case for immigration. More immigration does NOT increase unemployment but on the contrary, makes us all wealthier. The same is true of free trade. Immigration is just free trade in labor. Your thinking is totally backwards.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2010/Powellimmigrati...

I understand Bastiat's

"what is seen and what is not seen" law. But how do you account for the fact in 2009, the U.S. issued 1,130,818 green cards while unemployment has remained stagnant with the civilian labor-participation rate now at 63.6 percent, its lowest rate since the 1980s?

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2009/...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/8/the-real-unem...

If demand falls for a certain product, demand for another product will replace it. But, it is incredibly presumptuous to claim that when immigrants who demand a lower wage take the job of American workers that those workers will soon move on to bigger and better things, thereby making more money than they did before. There has to be a demand for those bigger and better things. If there was no demand before, there is no guarantee that the influx of immigrants will provide the demand for bigger and better things once the American workers are out of work. It could be with an open immigration policy that new immigrants satisfy the demands of the old immigrants while the previously, laid-off Americans remain unemployed. A person that chooses not to buy something creates demand for something else by spending his money elsewhere. A person that is laid off or fired cannot choose to "spend" his labor elsewhere. He may be too unfortunate to find anywhere to spend his labor and his potential labor will go to waste (kind of like what's happening today). Not surprisingly, 18-30 year olds have been the hardest hit by the recession and retain the highest unemployment rate. A lot of labor demand would be freed up if it weren't for the 6 million + green cards issued over the past five years.

Also, it's not infringing on freedom for the government to limit the number of people that can enter the country. That's like saying it's encroaching on my freedom for you to tell me I can't come on your property. And since we the people are represented in the government through our ability to vote; obviously, government officials have the same right to regulate who comes into the country just as a property owner decides who can and cannot step foot on his land.

Immigration is down in recent

Immigration is down in recent years due to the recession so to blame immigration for current unemployment is a bit ridiculous. When unemployment was lowest was when immigration was highest. This article, written in 2005, says that between 2000 and 2005, 8 million new immigrants came here. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1641 Yet this was a time when no one was complaining about too much unemployment.

He goes on to say that immigration brings a net gain of 20 Billion dollars to the economy. I firmly believe that immigration brings a vitality to our economy. As someone who owns a business and hires people, I find that hiring, even now, is a major problem. Many people simply do not want to work very much or very hard. We exacerbate the problem with extended unemployment benefits.

Our economy became the richest in the world because the early U.S. government allowed open immigration and mostly free trade. The 50 states themselves were a huge free trade zone. This competition and vitality is what produced all our wealth. Now you, and others like you, want to shut it down? That makes no sense.

Your comment about the government not infringing on freedom because it is the same as private property rights tells me that you really do not understand the freedom movement at all. The government is not an individual and it cannot act like one. It cannot possibly act on behalf of all people because not everyone wants the same things. You may not want to hire immigrants while I do. Your vote does not entitle the government to infringe on my freedom just because 51% of the people agree with you. What you are describing is tyranny of the majority, not freedom of individuals.

Well, we agree on unemployment benefits.

But, in my state, unemployment has dropped considerably since we passed an anti-illegal immigration law similar to Arizona's which has caused at least half of our previous 120,000 illegal immigrants, most of whom were employed to flee the state. The month the bill was signed into law (Sept.), unemployment in this state dropped below the national rate and began dropping monthly at twice the national rate. Unemployment dropped dramatically in counties with high levels of illegal immigrants as legal residents started filling their jobs.

http://standwitharizona.com/blog/2011/11/20/alabama-law-pays...

www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/alabama/