The Trump Presidency – 2016

[JPhillips]

Two points.

A business owner can refuse service to any individual. It's only when they refuse classes of people that they run into problems.

If you're claiming asylum at a point of entry there is no crime. If you cross illegally for the first time it' a misdemeanor. Show me the misdemeanor where the government takes your kids and flies them to another state.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I actually agree with you, she shouldn't have been blamed. I don't think she really "supports" it but finds ways to rationalize the process to survive the best she can.

I don't view this as political or party affiliation. I do view this on moral ground. In my mind, there are not many crimes as heinous as purposely separating a child from parent(s) without good cause.

To many people political affiliations and moral grounds are one in the same. I'm not a fan of refusing service to people who leave their politics at the door.

I do support stopping illegal immigration and do not support 'catch and release'. Illegal immigration needs to be dealt with holistically (e.g. the demand side as well as the supply, laws, additional guest workers etc.) but specific to this situation ...

If you have to hold the applicant/illegal for breaking a law, find a way to keep the child with them.

I'd be interested in hearing more about this holistic approach. I'm assuming that you don't want the kids to be kept in a regular jail with their parents. So what kind of conditions should they be kept in? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm also going to assume that you want the kids to be kept in fairly comfortable positions. If that is so then wouldn't that encourage illegal immigration?

Maybe they did or maybe they didn't - did they tell the parents they were holding that if they voluntarily left the country, they would be reunited with their child? Or did we keep them in limbo land ... I don't know but would not surprise me if it was the latter.

Change the laws on requesting for asylum (e.g. don't allow it on the mexican border anymore) so we don't have to deal with the busloads of them showing up on our border after weeks of news media.

No idea what options are given to the parents.

I'm also interested in how you want to change the laws on asylum. Maybe refuse anyone coming in through Mexico unless they are actually fleeing Mexico? In the end I think you need to hire more justices to get the giant backlog of cases cleared.

I don't see this as a valid analogy. If a US citizen commits a felony and is tossed in a jail, does the underage children get tossed into a holding camps/cell as well or do they go with other family or social/foster support?

It's not the act of holding the illegals that I have a problem with. Its the separation of the underage children and tossing them into holding camps for long periods of time.

Keep them with the parents and fix the other processes/laws to prevent illegals from coming or staying with some holistic immigration reform program.

The point is that Americans who commit crimes are separated from their children, why should illegal immigrants be treated different?

I think people know that kids of inmates generally get sent to a next of kin. However a lot of kids crossing the border do not have this option.

Should there also be a holistic approach for incarcerated Americans who get to spend their prison time with their kids?

[JPhillips]

For almost all of them it's either not a crime or a misdemeanor.

And taking the kids isn't the worst of it. They took them with no plan on reuniting them and now they can't figure out how to reunite them.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

For almost all of them it's either not a crime or a misdemeanor.

And taking the kids isn't the worst of it. They took them with no plan on reuniting them and now they can't figure out how to reunite them.

It's a misdemeanor punishable by prison time to cross the border illegally. It's a felony in certain circumstances.

I'll agree it is inexcusable to lose track of the kids.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

It's a misdemeanor punishable by prison time to cross the border illegally. It's a felony in certain circumstances.

I'll agree it is inexcusable to lose track of the kids.

So is the transportation of water hyacinths, marking on money, and using the flag as clothing.

[JPhillips]

The law says they can be fined or imprisoned or both. The Trump admin is choosing to jail them and was choosing to take away their kids.

They don't have to.

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'd be interested in hearing more about this holistic approach. I'm assuming that you don't want the kids to be kept in a regular jail with their parents. So what kind of conditions should they be kept in? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm also going to assume that you want the kids to be kept in fairly comfortable positions. If that is so then wouldn't that encourage illegal immigration?

Glad to have this conversation and it is complex. My ask is have a two-way dialog. If you criticize my suggestions, provide some alternatives yourself and let's have a dialog.

Before I start rambling, its always good to try level set a baseline. Here's where I'm coming from. Not in any particular order. Feel free to agree, disagree or add to.

1) Most of today's illegals come from south of the border. Most come for economic reasons, most are law-abiding but there is a criminal element
2) Legal visa holders stay in the US after their visa has expired
3) We can't track well who is in the country
4) Some industries need "migrants" to work jobs that American's won't. Many are hiring illegals and turning a blind eye (not as bad as before though)
5) It is to the US advantage to encourage highly skilled people (e.g. entrepreneurs, PhD students but not sure about pure wealth etc. you get the idea) to immigrate to the US. Certain groups should have preference
6) There is not a "chain immigration" problem where an immigrant is able to sponsor non-immediate family members. One should be able to sponsor immediate family members (e.g. spouse, child) but not an uncle, aunt etc.
7) There is a problem with H1B visa's, it has been abused by global companies. Benefit of visa lottery is suspect. Country quotas may not be fairly distributed
8) Non-citizen woman that has a baby in the US has secured US citizenship for that baby. Consider changing this law, maybe when child turns 18, the child can apply for fast track to citizenship vs automatic at birth

So my holistic solution (admittedly easier said than done) to immigration reform includes

1) Definitely kick out illegals with felonies
2) Acknowledge that economic need is the main driver. Setup something/fund etc. that helps the southern economies and encourages US companies that used illegals/migrant labor to invest further south; setup a renewable guest worker program
3) Make it harder for illegals to come and stay in the country. I personally believe the Wall is a good start to show commitment, resolve & deterrence; add the deterrent that if you are ever caught as an illegal, you can never, ever come back to the US legally or get guest worker visa
4) For the demand side of employers hiring, really crack down on them. I'm not just talking about a small business unit in a big conglomerate, I'm talking about the mom-and-pop farmers, builders, chicken processors, lawn improvement etc. also
5) However, don't just crack down on demand without offering an alternative. I think a renewable guest worker program is good. Allows us to track and control who stays or not. I do not know if guest worker should have a path to citizenship. I lean towards no but it should be renewable
6) Identify highly skilled immigrants and, assuming we can overcome the security and background check challenges, give them a fast track to US citizenship. Many of these will probably be Chinese or Asian students
7) Implement a system that can track all immigrants, guest workers, identified illegals, folks that overstayed their visas etc.
8) Fix the abuse with H1-B; get rid of lottery and give its allocations to other visa spots; review quota allocations to ensure its fair regardless of national origin
9) Fix the birthright law. Unsure what is possible but possibly when child turns 18, the child can apply for fast track to citizenship vs automatic at birth.

Other:

10) I think its perfectly reasonable to not allow immigrants/refugees from countries that we cannot clear satisfactorily. This is obviously tricky and I don't know the definition of "satisfactorily" is. We get flak from the Europeans but I don't see them (or the Vatican for that matter) volunteering to take our Latin/South American "refugees" or, in other words, you worry about countries close to you and we'll do the same.
11) I don't agree with US allowing dual citizenship. Probably a small matter in the big scheme of things but it eats at me. I understand US citizens benefit from this also from other countries (e.g. Canada)
12) DACA is tough. Under the assumption there is a holistic immigration reform, then I say let them stay (e.g. grandfathered) and provide path to citizenship
13) I don't see how this could work but if there was a way to ensure immigrants will "assimilate" that would be great. Obviously controversial and I don't know how to write a proposed law but here's a use case for me -- if you immigrate and insist on wearing a full burkha with face covered, see'ya. You want to wear a head scarf for modesty, no problems with that.

Whew, I'm sure I'll think of more after a good nights rest. I look forward to understanding your POV and alternatives to reform and lets have the dialog. I am personally interested in this as I am an immigrant myself.

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'm also interested in how you want to change the laws on asylum. Maybe refuse anyone coming in through Mexico unless they are actually fleeing Mexico? In the end I think you need to hire more justices to get the giant backlog of cases cleared.

I am not educated enough on this subject. In general, I do think people should be able to apply for asylum (although I am not sure it's evenly applied e.g. political refugees, economic refugees, fear for life etc.).

I don't disagree that more justices will help but that's addressing the symptom and not the bigger issue of immigration reform IMO. Are you saying the immigration/illegal issues will be resolved by just hiring more justices? e.g. you are okay with the immigration laws as they stand today?

If they weren't able to apply at the border (e.g. the current debate with the children) would we be in this situation? Other asylum seekers find a way to apply without being on our border.

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The point is that Americans who commit crimes are separated from their children, why should illegal immigrants be treated different?

They are being treated differently based on where their kids end up and with whom.

I don't understand why you do not see a clear difference between holding cell with strangers vs other family members or social/foster support. Maybe I'm missing a nuance to your counterpoint.

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Should there also be a holistic approach for incarcerated Americans who get to spend their prison time with their kids?

I don't know about "holistic" approach but incarcerated Americans get visitation rights with their family/kids and their kids are not in holding cells in the meantime. Can we say this was going to happen without the public outcry?

[SackAttack]

There are two things I want to point out; the first is directly aimed at Edward's comment about wanting "assured" assimilation:

the thing about 'assimilation' is that that has always, always, been generational. Mom, Dad, Grandma, Grandpa, they tend to cling to the "old ways."

And the first-generation kids become Americanized with ridiculous rapidity, because socialization with other kids assimilates them in a way stripping cultural identity via dress codes never could.

That's not a suggestion. That's literally how things happen. Go back and look at non-Anglophile immigration over the last 150 years. Check out primary sources, and look at how the older generations of each immigrant wave have been aggravated by the children, both those who came over and those who were born here. And, yeah, the older immigrants end up leaning on the kids to translate and shit.

You (not YOU you, but you get the idea) wanna gripe about adults speaking Spanish and having their kids translate instead of learning English? History lesson - the same exact thing happened with Italian immigrants a century ago.

The older generations will bust ass to build a better life for their kids, but the reality is that assimilation on the degree you demand is a bottom-up thing. Give it two, three generations, and what you'll see are kids that might be multilingual, might be multi-cultural, but they will also be functionally inseparable from an "American" identity.

The second thing, not aimed directly at Edward, but rather something that's been on my mind for a while now which may have already been touched on:

2) The government's approach here is "one-size-fits-all." That is to say, the separations aren't just happening to "illegal" families. It's happening to folks who are coming here and turning themselves in at the border seeking asylum, as well.

When you (not YOU you, but you get the idea) frame it as "well American citizens who commit crimes and go to jail get imprisoned, also," it ignores the reality that these forced separations are happening under the assumption that ALL the migrants are illegals and we'll sort it out later. Years later, generally, given how backlogged immigration courts are.

Which is part of the issue with Trump's "deport them all NOW" approach; immigration courts don't have the same presumption of a right to counsel that criminal courts do, and the backlog and administrative demand that shit happen right the fuck now means that you have two pressures on these families, whether they're asylum seekers (which is a status provided for by law), or illegal immigrants: the first is that the prohibition on children being detained for more than 20 days means that families are getting ripped apart with no real expectation of when or even if they might be reunited and 2) if someone gets swept up in an ICE raid, the presumption ends up being that "if they weren't guilty they wouldn't have gotten swept up" and they're unable to present affirmative defenses, even if the facts support their appeal to stay.

And that ignores all of the OTHER ways immigration law is broken (some of which you address).

[stevew]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...estaurant-that

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

There are two things I want to point out; the first is directly aimed at Edward's comment about wanting "assured" assimilation:

the thing about 'assimilation' is that that has always, always, been generational. Mom, Dad, Grandma, Grandpa, they tend to cling to the "old ways."

And the first-generation kids become Americanized with ridiculous rapidity, because socialization with other kids assimilates them in a way stripping cultural identity via dress codes never could.

That's not a suggestion. That's literally how things happen. Go back and look at non-Anglophile immigration over the last 150 years. Check out primary sources, and look at how the older generations of each immigrant wave have been aggravated by the children, both those who came over and those who were born here. And, yeah, the older immigrants end up leaning on the kids to translate and shit.

You (not YOU you, but you get the idea) wanna gripe about adults speaking Spanish and having their kids translate instead of learning English? History lesson - the same exact thing happened with Italian immigrants a century ago.

The older generations will bust ass to build a better life for their kids, but the reality is that assimilation on the degree you demand is a bottom-up thing. Give it two, three generations, and what you'll see are kids that might be multilingual, might be multi-cultural, but they will also be functionally inseparable from an "American" identity.

(FYI - 1st gen can refer to the immigrant or child of the immigrant. I am using 2nd gen to define the child of the immigrant for clarity)

I agree with you about 2nd gen. My 2nd gen kids are well assimilated in the US culture, as I have as 1st gen, which is fantastic and do believe this is the case for vast, vast majority of others.

The use case I proposed (admittedly to the extreme) is the full fledge burqa (e.g. only eye slit) in the 1st gen (and the inevitable 2nd gen). I do not know how wide spread the issue is in the US but I use the example as clear cut for me line in the sand.

A couple links.

European countries seem to be "fighting" back The Islamic veil across Europe - BBC News

Doesn't seem to be a restriction in the US, article is not specific to immigrants https://www.quora.com/Is-wearing-the...ted-in-the-USA

My stance is not fear of terrorism in the US with burqa covered men/women. Some will say its about religious freedom but to me it is primarily about assimilation (1st or 2nd gen).

Curious to know what is your stance on this specific burqa issue?

[JPhillips]

I'll point out again that some countries have no process for renouncing citizenship. My daughter retains her Chinese citizenship and can never renounce it. There are many countries where that's true.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Glad to have this conversation and it is complex. My ask is have a two-way dialog. If you criticize my suggestions, provide some alternatives yourself and let's have a dialog.

Before I start rambling, its always good to try level set a baseline. Here's where I'm coming from. Not in any particular order. Feel free to agree, disagree or add to.

1) Most of today's illegals come from south of the border. Most come for economic reasons, most are law-abiding but there is a criminal element
2) Legal visa holders stay in the US after their visa has expired

Is there a reason you are using the term “illegals”?

I’m not sure it was your intent in this post, but you didn’t really explain why such a massive, expensive and draconian approach is necessary.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

To many people political affiliations and moral grounds are one in the same. I'm not a fan of refusing service to people who leave their politics at the door.

Seems like she asked the staff and how they felt serving/cooking.

If this was analt right nazi spokesperson and a staff of color, would it have been reasonable to refuse? I’m just not sure the person who delivers a message of hate gets to decide when the are political/hateful to others.

[RainMaker]

No one would care if they kicked out David Duke or Richard Spencer. Why is this pig any different?

[corbes]

Extreme partisanship is one of the characteristics of the atmosphere in which authoritarianism flourishes and democracy withers.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Is there a reason you are using the term “illegals”?

I’m not sure it was your intent in this post, but you didn’t really explain why such a massive, expensive and draconian approach is necessary.

I take it you don't think there is an illegal immigration problem? To solve this I propose there needs to be a holistic approach which I attempted to explain to NobodyHere my POV.

I re-read and do think "illegals" is appropriate.

"1) Most of today's illegals come from south of the border. Most come for economic reasons, most are law-abiding but there is a criminal element"

Can you help me understand why you brought up the wording of "illegal"?

[Edward64]

Interesting developments, didn't know Jared was that far along (or so he claims).

No specifics on the deal he is working on but he's bypassing Abbas and appealing to other Arab nations and supposedly appealing to the Palestinian people.

I wonder how much support he really has from SA, Jordan, Qatar and Egypt.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...-idUSKBN1JJ16D

Jared Kushner, U.S. President Donald Trump’s senior adviser, said Washington would announce its Middle East peace plan soon, and press on with or without Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas.
:
Palestinian officials, who want East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state, accused Kushner of trying to undermine Abbas and what they described as their leader’s moderate camp.

Kushner - Trump’s son-in-law who is meeting leaders in the region, but not Abbas - told Palestinian newspaper Al Quds in an interview published in Arabic on Sunday, that he doubted whether the Palestinian president was willing or able to seal a deal.
:
“However, I do question how much President Abbas has the ability to, or is willing to, lean into finishing a deal. He has his talking points which have not changed in the last 25 years,” he added.

Kushner appealed directly to the Palestinian people and portrayed Abbas, 82, as a leader entrenched in the past.

“There have been countless mistakes and missed opportunities over the years, and you, the Palestinian people, have paid the price,” said Kushner, who is on the trip with U.S. envoy Jason Greenblatt. “Don’t let your leadership reject a plan they haven’t even seen,” he added.

Abbas has refused to see Trump’s team since the embassy decision, accusing Washington of pro-Israel bias.
:
Kushner visited Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt before talks on Friday and Saturday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Kushner said Arab leaders had told him they wanted to see a Palestinian state, long the foundation of U.S. policy in the region. Asked if the new U.S. peace plan would accommodate that view, he reiterated that it was up to the Israeli and Palestinian “leadership and people” to determine the shape of a final agreement.
:
In the interview, Kushner again refused to go into details on his peace plan. “I don’t want to speak about specifics of the deal we are working on,” Kushner said.

[cuervo72]

Much easier to forge a deal when you only need to worry about working with one side.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I take it you don't think there is an illegal immigration problem? To solve this I propose there needs to be a holistic approach which I attempted to explain to NobodyHere my POV.

I re-read and do think "illegals" is appropriate.

"1) Most of today's illegals come from south of the border. Most come for economic reasons, most are law-abiding but there is a criminal element"

Can you help me understand why you brought up the wording of "illegal"?

I’m having a hard time understanding the problem your approach is addressing. The only one I can see is you think there is a problem of small businesses hiring?

I think calling a person an “illegal” is akin to saying Jap (YMMV). It is only for this particular class of people are we ok with describing their identity as merely an illegal. A felon, a gang member, a drug user are all illegals. But some how a single illegal act does not change the status of their personhood. Yet with undocumented people they are defined, dismisses and known as an illegal. Just my opinion, of course, and I was more interested in your reasoning/motivation in using that term.

I’m also not sure what you mean by “holistic approach”. Are your suggestions aimed at creating a healthier America? It certainly does not seemed aimed at creating the greatest good for the greatest amount of people (humanity being in need of a holistic approach).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I’m having a hard time understanding the problem your approach is addressing. The only one I can see is you think there is a problem of small businesses hiring?

Please see #10569. If that doesn't explain what I think the problem is and what I think the solution is, I don't know what else to do?

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I think calling a person an “illegal” is akin to saying Jap (YMMV). It is only for this particular class of people are we ok with describing their identity as merely an illegal. A felon, a gang member, a drug user are all illegals. But some how a single illegal act does not change the status of their personhood. Yet with undocumented people they are defined, dismisses and known as an illegal. Just my opinion, of course, and I was more interested in your reasoning/motivation in using that term.

I don't agree its akin to saying Jap as that is an ethnic slur. Illegal is a common vernacular used even before Trump (and national origin neutral). I used what I have read/heard. I guess "undocumented" is the more PC term now but tbh it didn't come to mind.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I’m also not sure what you mean by “holistic approach”. Are your suggestions aimed at creating a healthier America? It certainly does not seemed aimed at creating the greatest good for the greatest amount of people (humanity being in need of a holistic approach).

Sorry for not being clear. In my industry, "holistic" is to see the big picture vs a discrete chunk of a problem/issue/challenge etc. In other words, trying to solve the illegal immigration issue by reforming immigration "holistically" vs. just tossing illegals into prison.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Edward64

(FYI - 1st gen can refer to the immigrant or child of the immigrant. I am using 2nd gen to define the child of the immigrant for clarity)

I agree with you about 2nd gen. My 2nd gen kids are well assimilated in the US culture, as I have as 1st gen, which is fantastic and do believe this is the case for vast, vast majority of others.

The use case I proposed (admittedly to the extreme) is the full fledge burqa (e.g. only eye slit) in the 1st gen (and the inevitable 2nd gen). I do not know how wide spread the issue is in the US but I use the example as clear cut for me line in the sand.

A couple links.

European countries seem to be "fighting" back The Islamic veil across Europe - BBC News

Doesn't seem to be a restriction in the US, article is not specific to immigrants https://www.quora.com/Is-wearing-the...ted-in-the-USA

My stance is not fear of terrorism in the US with burqa covered men/women. Some will say its about religious freedom but to me it is primarily about assimilation (1st or 2nd gen).

Curious to know what is your stance on this specific burqa issue?

It's complicated, and I don't have time to untie Gordian's knot right this moment (but I may try later tonight); that said, I would offer this quote from the Vice President of the United States. From his speech accepting the VP nomination in 2016:

I'm a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order.

You want to talk about assimilation? Here's a white male who takes it for granted that his values are "American" and that he doesn't need to proclaim them. He lists his religious and political identities as being prima facie what he's about.

His political rivals seized on that, but otherwise? Nobody batted an eye. But if an immigrant puts their religious identity ahead of national identity, they're viewed with suspicion. A third-generation Turkish immigrant wearing a burqa would, by the stance you took, be seen as fundamentally inassimilable, even though we already just agreed that 1st- and 2nd-generation immigrant kids assimilate to American culture like a duck to water. But if they hold on to the faiths of their fathers and adopt those cultural aspects, their American-ness gets called into question.

I'll try to revisit this later tonight when I get home from work, but chew on that mentally for a bit, if you would.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

You want to talk about assimilation? Here's a white male who takes it for granted that his values are "American" and that he doesn't need to proclaim them. He lists his religious and political identities as being prima facie what he's about.

Don't really know much about Pence and know he is not representative of majority of Americans.

But I think I would prefer him to be President over the person we have now. Regardless of his religious/political beliefs, he is a professional politician and the old rules/controls (wherever they are now) would have applied to him.

Religion is still important but its lower than Family and Country.

Americans don’t cite ‘God, family, country’ quite like the cliche goes - The Washington Post

“God, family and country” might make for a good country music tune, but that’s not really how most Americans see the strongest influences on their personal identity.

The real order is family first (62 percent), followed by “being an American” (52 percent). “Religious faith” lolls way down in third place (38 percent) — if it’s mentioned at all, according to a survey released Thursday (March 19) by The Barna Group.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

... a third-generation Turkish immigrant wearing a burqa would, by the stance you took, be seen as fundamentally inassimilable, even though we already just agreed that 1st- and 2nd-generation immigrant kids assimilate to American culture like a duck to water. But if they hold on to the faiths of their fathers and adopt those cultural aspects, their American-ness gets called into question.

I'll try to revisit this later tonight when I get home from work, but chew on that mentally for a bit, if you would.

I did agree with 2nd Gen assimilating quite well. My point is 1st Gen Burqa woman will not assimilate well in the US and there is a fair chance she will share her values to the 2nd Gen and they won't assimilate as well either.

Holding onto faiths is good with me. In a prior post I said if a woman wants to keep her headscarf/hijab for religious reasons (e.g modesty) that is fine. I just see a burqa as extreme and a definite red flag.

Thanks for the discussion. I am interested in your reply specific to the burqa.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Don't really know much about Pence and know he is not representative of majority of Americans.

And we shouldn’t govern as if he were.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Please see #10569. If that doesn't explain what I think the problem is and what I think the solution is, I don't know what else to do?

So I’ve read it a few times, still unclear. It seems your solutions are about how to remove people and prevent any further undocumented stays?

Maybe, working backwards would help me. How would America be better (great again?) if all your suggestions were implemented?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

So I’ve read it a few times, still unclear. It seems your solutions are about how to remove people and prevent any further undocumented stays?

Maybe, working backwards would help me. How would America be better (great again?) if all your suggestions were implemented?

Let's have a two way dialog. Interested in your suggestions?

[RainMaker]

I don't have any great solutions to the immigration situation. I do think setting up concentration camps and separating families is disgusting. A black mark on the country.

While we can't take in every person, I do think we can show compassion to those we can't help. Most are simply trying to make a better life for themselves and their family. Something every one of us would do in that situation. Instead of brutally punishing them for that act, perhaps we could punish the businesses that sidestep the law in offering them jobs. I know this goes against our country's stance to openly fellate any and all large businesses, but it would help.

Another idea is to help these other countries improve. We hand billions in aid to horrific countries across the globe yet ignore our neighbors. Improving their situations would mean less reason to cross the border. You could probably figure out that it would save us money in the long run.

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't agree its akin to saying Jap as that is an ethnic slur. Illegal is a common vernacular used even before Trump (and national origin neutral). I used what I have read/heard. I guess "undocumented" is the more PC term now but tbh it didn't come to mind.

I don't have an issue with the word "illegal" but I see where he's coming from. The word is only used to describe those coming from Mexico or South America. I've never heard it mentioned when discussing Asian or European immigrants. I've never heard someone who overstayed their student visa described as "illegals". There is definitely a ethnic stereotype to the term despite the fact that illegal immigrants come from all over the world.

Originally Posted by Edward64

13) I don't see how this could work but if there was a way to ensure immigrants will "assimilate" that would be great. Obviously controversial and I don't know how to write a proposed law but here's a use case for me -- if you immigrate and insist on wearing a full burkha with face covered, see'ya. You want to wear a head scarf for modesty, no problems with that.

Seems kind of weird that you'd want such control over other people's lives. There are negative consequences to not assimilating to culture already. Not sure why it matters to you or anyone else how they choose to live their life as long as it doesn't hurt you. That was kind of the point of this country in the first place.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Let's have a two way dialog. Interested in your suggestions?

It seems there are several popular reasons for immigration reform:

1. Too many people taking jobs away from citizens
2. Undocumented people are a drain on our resources
3. Many are dangerous, reform will make us safer
4. They bring in drugs and weapons

Is this about right? Are you saying your holistic approach will significantly improve some of these 4?

For me, I believe #4 is the only real, urgent problem. But because it is the least addressed I believe most immigration talk is merely rooted in political opportunism

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

It seems there are several popular reasons for immigration reform:

1. Too many people taking jobs away from citizens
2. Undocumented people are a drain on our resources
3. Many are dangerous, reform will make us safer
4. They bring in drugs and weapons

Is this about right? Are you saying your holistic approach will significantly improve some of these 4?

For me, I believe #4 is the only real, urgent problem. But because it is the least addressed I believe most immigration talk is merely rooted in political opportunism

I think my position in describing the problem was

1) Most of today's illegals come from south of the border. Most come for economic reasons, most are law-abiding but there is a criminal element
2) Legal visa holders stay in the US after their visa has expired
3) We can't track well who is in the country
4) Some industries need "migrants" to work jobs that American's won't. Many are hiring illegals and turning a blind eye (not as bad as before though)
5) It is to the US advantage to encourage highly skilled people (e.g. entrepreneurs, PhD students but not sure about pure wealth etc. you get the idea) to immigrate to the US. Certain groups should have preference
6) There is not a "chain immigration" problem where an immigrant is able to sponsor non-immediate family members. One should be able to sponsor immediate family members (e.g. spouse, child) but not an uncle, aunt etc.
7) There is a problem with H1B visa's, it has been abused by global companies. Benefit of visa lottery is suspect. Country quotas may not be fairly distributed
8) Non-citizen woman that has a baby in the US has secured US citizenship for that baby. Consider changing this law, maybe when child turns 18, the child can apply for fast track to citizenship vs automatic at birth

I can see where you would derive #1 from my list. I don't think #2-4 was on my list or I didn't stress them?

Can you explain where you think I said #2-4? Or are they your definition of what the problem is?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I did agree with 2nd Gen assimilating quite well. My point is 1st Gen Burqa woman will not assimilate well in the US and there is a fair chance she will share her values to the 2nd Gen and they won't assimilate as well either.

Holding onto faiths is good with me. In a prior post I said if a woman wants to keep her headscarf/hijab for religious reasons (e.g modesty) that is fine. I just see a burqa as extreme and a definite red flag.

Thanks for the discussion. I am interested in your reply specific to the burqa.

What about Hassids or the Amish or native traditions from other parts of the world?

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think my position in describing the problem was



I can see where you would derive #1 from my list. I don't think #2-4 was on my list or I didn't stress them?

Can you explain where you think I said #2-4? Or are they your definition of what the problem is?

I’m trying to put words in your mouth because I don’t see you describe the problem.

Is the problem their very existence? The fact they are here illegally they are constantly trespassing on our land? If every undocumented person pooped golden eggs, would there still be a problem?

It seems it is not what they do in America that is your problem, it is merely they are in America. Yes?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't have any great solutions to the immigration situation. I do think setting up concentration camps and separating families is disgusting. A black mark on the country.

I have agreed that separating families is bad.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

While we can't take in every person, I do think we can show compassion to those we can't help. Most are simply trying to make a better life for themselves and their family. Something every one of us would do in that situation. Instead of brutally punishing them for that act, perhaps we could punish the businesses that sidestep the law in offering them jobs. I know this goes against our country's stance to openly fellate any and all large businesses, but it would help.

I do agree with you. I think renewal guest worker programs is great. I do also believe the "demand" side needs to be address, not just he "supply".

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Another idea is to help these other countries improve. We hand billions in aid to horrific countries across the globe yet ignore our neighbors. Improving their situations would mean less reason to cross the border. You could probably figure out that it would save us money in the long run.

I agree. We need to help our neighbors to the south more.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't have an issue with the word "illegal" but I see where he's coming from. The word is only used to describe those coming from Mexico or South America. I've never heard it mentioned when discussing Asian or European immigrants. I've never heard someone who overstayed their student visa described as "illegals". There is definitely a ethnic stereotype to the term despite the fact that illegal immigrants come from all over the world.

I see the nuance now, thanks for the insight. I don't think of illegals as just south of the border, I think of all illegals -- Europeans, Asians, Latin/South America etc.

When I went through the process in the 90's, the term illegals was not limited to just south of the border.

When I hear undocumented workers I think of Latin/South America. I personally think illegal is a better term but I see where you are coming from.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Seems kind of weird that you'd want such control over other people's lives. There are negative consequences to not assimilating to culture already. Not sure why it matters to you or anyone else how they choose to live their life as long as it doesn't hurt you. That was kind of the point of this country in the first place.

I guess it matters to me because, as an immigrant, I believe there are plenty of people that would love to immigrate to the US and assimilate.

If someone does not wish to assimilate (e.g. my use case of a full burqa woman), then I see her quota slot as being wasted and could have been better spent on another who would love to assimilate.

I don't mean everyone become like the Smiths or Johnsons. It's good to retain your culture and your religion but the full burqa just seems to be the extreme.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What about Hassids or the Amish or native traditions from other parts of the world?

Just my experience, not sure if its truly representative ...

I've worked in New York and have seen hasidic jews interact with the public. I visited B&H and believe they are owned by hasidic jews so IMO it seems they have assimilated pretty well.

I see Amish assimilate pretty well also. I've worked in Ohio and they have restaurants and businesses that cater to the public.

I don't see other examples that are to the degree of full burqa's. I have and will admit this is the clear cut example to me, there may be others.

Question to you -- are you okay with an immigrant that insists on wearing a full burqa?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I’m trying to put words in your mouth because I don’t see you describe the problem.

Is the problem their very existence? The fact they are here illegally they are constantly trespassing on our land? If every undocumented person pooped golden eggs, would there still be a problem?

It seems it is not what they do in America that is your problem, it is merely they are in America. Yes?

I think I see the confusion.

I think its sufficient to say they have broken laws in the country. With that said, I don't think the immigration laws are perfect and do believe the laws need to be reformed.

I'm not sure I see your point. Putting words in your mouth ...

Why don't you think illegals in the country is bad?

[JPhillips]

There's a Hassid community not far south of me that demanded a male bus driver for the boys because the sexes can't mingle. Women in Amish communities are generally very restricted in their dealings with men.

But as with the burqa, I'm absolutely fine as long as it is a choice of the wearer. I'd very much disagree with it being forced, but I don't see any real difference between that and the isolation through clothing and behavior of Hassid women.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Don't really know much about Pence and know he is not representative of majority of Americans.

Correct.

But I think I would prefer him to be President over the person we have now.

There aren't, honestly, many options that would have been objectively 'worse.'

Regardless of his religious/political beliefs, he is a professional politician and the old rules/controls (wherever they are now) would have applied to him.

I mean, I think the old rules went out the window once McTurtle decided that the judiciary wasn't an urgent matter unless a Republican sat the White House. The controls might have mattered, but the rules were a dead letter once he decided to spend eight years obstructing the ability of the executive to fill judicial vacancies by any means necessary, followed by forcing a Supreme Court vacancy to go unfilled for 11 months in the hopes that a Republican could nominate a True Believer.

(Witness the urgency with which he's moved on judicial nominations since Trump's election; suddenly This Must Be Done where before 'eh, the Courts of Appeals don't REALLY need their vacancies filled')

The rules at that point became "whatever necessary" and I'm not sure a Pence Presidency would have been exactly 'normal.' But that's getting off topic.

I did agree with 2nd Gen assimilating quite well. My point is 1st Gen Burqa woman will not assimilate well in the US and there is a fair chance she will share her values to the 2nd Gen and they won't assimilate as well either.

Mothers passing their values to their sons and daughters is not a new phenomenon; if you think Italian mothers, Russian mothers, Polish mothers, Mexican mothers, etc, haven't shared their values with their children in the last 150 years, you're mistaken. Thing is? Hasn't mattered. The kids assimilate, because childhood is a natural melting pot in a way legislation can never replicate.

As far as the religious aspect of wearing a burqa, that's where we get into Gordian's knot. See, the thing is, religion is only partly about faith in a Higher Power. Part of it is about control. If you look at, say, Judaism, and particularly Leviticus, and look at the rules set forth for the practice of the faith, a lot of those rules were about cementing the power of the faith leaders (and by extension, men) in those societies.

Clothing rules in the Abrahamic faiths are an extension of that control, of demarcating the Proper Roles of men and women in society. To the extent that a devout Muslim woman would have difficulty assimilating in American society, that's going to be a function of what her faith has mandated about her role. It's not the burqa; the burqa is just the outward demonstration of the woman following the rules her faith has laid upon her. The kids may follow those rules while they're under their parents' control, but they won't hew to it as tightly as adults as their parents did, and their children will cling less tightly still.

Again, let's bring it back to Christianity. A hundred years ago, church revivals were a Big Deal. They still are in some parts of the country, and you still have the older people crying about how a return to faith is needed and how this thing or the other thing is because we don't let public schools indoctrinate children with Christianity anymore, but if you talk to people of a certain age and they talk about the impact faith had on their lives as children, compare that then to someone of childbearing age today. They still raise their children in faith, but you're more likely than not to find that people raising children now, two-three generations after revivals were last a Big Deal, are *probably* not saturating their children's lives as heavily with religion as their parents' or grandparents' lives were saturated. That's not to say that nobody does, but it's the nature of cultural drift.

Islam is a thousand years younger than Christianity, and a good three or four thousand years younger than Judaism. That's part of what makes it seem more alien, for those who are concerned about its adherents' ability to assimilate. There hasn't been time for the same level of cultural drift to happen as has done with its geographical brethren, where faith is just kind of 'assumed' but isn't as outwardly fundamentalist anymore.

Holding onto faiths is good with me. In a prior post I said if a woman wants to keep her headscarf/hijab for religious reasons (e.g modesty) that is fine. I just see a burqa as extreme and a definite red flag.

And yet, that still boils down to "how pious am I comfortable with other people being?" If you look at orthodox Christians and Jews, women don't dress all that differently from fundamentalist Muslims. Not surprising, because the three originate from more or less common ground. But, again, pious Christian and Jewish women don't draw the same backlash for that level of dress.

It's when the dress is, or appears to be, explicitly Muslim that the more fundamental it gets, the more objectionable it becomes.

Thanks for the discussion. I am interested in your reply specific to the burqa.

Getting back to the Gordian knot here, part of what makes my feelings on the burqa so difficult to unravel is because it's rooted in the concept of male supremacy/authority within the faith (and other Abrahamic faiths have similar control elements), but at the same time, it's a thing devout Muslim women adopt as an expression of their faith and submission to Allah.

I don't know how to separate the two.

I do know that if a burqa ban isn't about terrorism fears, then it becomes about whose religious expressions are most valid. Whether you mean it to or not, when you start saying "well I'm okay with THIS but not with THAT and if they want to immigrate they have to agree to stop doing THAT thing" what you're doing is undermining the First Amendment. It's a judgment as to whose religious views and expression thereof have inherent value.

I'm leery of that.

If a burqa ban is about security or terrorism fears, that's a different conversation. I'm not sure I'd be any more open to it, but that's a different conversation with different leverage points.

If it's not about security, then the conversation you're really having is about whose religious freedom is more valid, and which groups are allowed to be more assertive in their devotion to faith.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Women in Amish communities are generally very restricted in their dealings with men.

Specific to my experience of Amish in Ohio, I didn't see that at all. In the stores and restaurants, they were mostly women. They smiled and interacted with everyone (and I like to think one flirted with me).

[JPhillips]

Are you sure they weren't Mennonite? They often live together, but the Mennonites are far more open in their dealings with the public.

But, regardless, we could go through all sorts of religious traditions where women cover themselves and are largely forbidden from associating with men. Why is that okay? What is the marker for assimilation?

edit: After some reading the Amish apparently have allowed unmarried women and women with children more contact with the public. It generally wasn't like that when I was a kid, but the Amish have gotten much more commercial and connected to the rest of the world. But it took them many many years to reach this point. Why can't women in burqas be given the same opportunity?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Just my experience, not sure if its truly representative ...

I've worked in New York and have seen hasidic jews interact with the public. I visited B&H and believe they are owned by hasidic jews so IMO it seems they have assimilated pretty well.

I see Amish assimilate pretty well IMO. I've worked in Ohio and they have restaurants and businesses that cater to the public.

I don't see other examples that are to the degree of full burqa's. I have and will admit this is the clear cut example to me, there may be others.

Question to you -- are you okay with an immigrant that insists on wearing a full burqa?

I don't see this assimilation problem that you do. Middle Eastern immigrants are higher educated than Americans. They make more money than Americans. And they gain English proficiency at a higher level than the average immigrant. What's the issue?

If it's a dress thing, I don't see it either. I've lived in Chicago for most of my life and I don't believe I've ever seen someone in a full burqa. Maybe this is taking place but it has to be such a minuscule part of the population that I can't see what the problem is.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't see this assimilation problem that you do. Middle Eastern immigrants are higher educated than Americans. They make more money than Americans. And they gain English proficiency at a higher level than the average immigrant. What's the issue?

If it's a dress thing, I don't see it either. I've lived in Chicago for most of my life and I don't believe I've ever seen someone in a full burqa. Maybe this is taking place but it has to be such a minuscule part of the population that I can't see what the problem is.

I agree on first paragraph. I see 2nd Gen assimilating quite well.

I have seen women dress in full burqa in Chicago, New York (but they could have been tourists) and on a flight I took.

I'm about assimilation. My theory (right or wrong) is that someone in a burqa does not wish to assimilate in the US and therefore lets give that slot to someone that does.

I saw Sacks answer and will respond back tomorrow after more thought. But I can see how "assimilation" may mean different things to different people and maybe it would be good to try define it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Are you sure they weren't Mennonite? They often live together, but the Mennonites are far more open in their dealings with the public.

But, regardless, we could go through all sorts of religious traditions where women cover themselves and are largely forbidden from associating with men. Why is that okay? What is the marker for assimilation?

edit: After some reading the Amish apparently have allowed unmarried women and women with children more contact with the public. It generally wasn't like that when I was a kid, but the Amish have gotten much more commercial and connected to the rest of the world. But it took them many many years to reach this point. Why can't women in burqas be given the same opportunity?

Positive they were not Mennonite.

Re: women in burqas given the same opportunity to assimilate. I believe a woman that insists on wearing a full burqa will not assimilate well. Because of that, give that quota slot to an immigrant that will.

Re: the marker for assimilation, I think that is a valid point. I can see from Sacks, RM and your response that maybe we need to try define what assimilation means. I'll try do that tomorrow.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Why don't you think illegals in the country is bad?

Well there it is, the question I have been asking you for the last few posts. Should of asked that in the first place . I assume what you think is bad about undocumented people in the country is addressed in your holistic approach?

We live in a country where undocumented people do more good than harm. We have built massive industries(justice, bails bonds, prison guards, etc) and raised our standard of living on the backs of undocumented people.

Bad people (alt right, Trump) have gained power and influence by scapegoating illegals.

Most southern undocumented people and drugs come across in vehicles, the wall is political theater. If we were serious, we would treat border crossings like an airport. But we don’t because of the massive economic hit that would be to commerce.

So until I see otherwise, I’m with my country and politicians, and agree with them that undocumented people do more economic and political good than harm.

[RainMaker]

That is the irony in all this. The areas that actually cut down on crime (such as border crossings) aren't funded enough because they would hurt so many industries. More drugs coming across the border means more work for police and prison guards.

Also worth pointing out that a study showed that refugees are a net positive on our economy. This was a report done by Trump's own DHS. The White House killed it because it went against their bogus excuses.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/u...ort-trump.html

We all deep down know what the reason is on a lot of this stuff.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Middle Eastern immigrants are higher educated than Americans.

Not saying you're wrong, but do you have any sources on this?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Well there it is, the question I have been asking you for the last few posts. Should of asked that in the first place . I assume what you think is bad about undocumented people in the country is addressed in your holistic approach?

We do live in a country with laws. Sure some laws are bad or inadequate, let's change them (e.g. immigration laws) through the process.

My holistic approach was not just for illegals, it was for legal and illegals (e.g. that's how I define holistic reform). So yes, I am sure my approach addressed some of the issues but would not say it was the all encompassing solution because I wasn't just focused on illegals (nor do I think it should be).

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Most southern undocumented people and drugs come across in vehicles, the wall is political theater. If we were serious, we would treat border crossings like an airport. But we don’t because of the massive economic hit that would be to commerce.

So until I see otherwise, I’m with my country and politicians, and agree with them that undocumented people do more economic and political good than harm.

"Treat border crossing like an airport" is interesting analogy but means different things if you mean "domestic" or "international" airport.

If international - you have to get a visa, security checks, you come into country do some visiting or meeting, maybe live in the country for however long the visa allows, and then you leave (or renew your visa).

I view this as akin to renewable guest workers programs. Controlled entry and exit.

If domestic - no visas, you do have security checks, but basically no restriction to travel or work.

It seems as if you want the "domestic" version? Does that mean you want non-US people, assume you meant from the southern borders but could also apply from all over the world, to be able to travel & work in the US at will (e.g. pretty much no limitations other than for security checks)?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But as with the burqa, I'm absolutely fine as long as it is a choice of the wearer. I'd very much disagree with it being forced, but I don't see any real difference between that and the isolation through clothing and behavior of Hassid women.

The "forced" part is maybe where I have the problem.

I do believe majority of burqa's are "forced".

Islam says women should cover themselves to be modest (paraphrase), I'm pretty sure there is not the full-burqa requirement, its just the interpretation. There are many Muslim countries that say the hijab is acceptable.

Are there consequences for a woman not to wear a burqa in a burqa-wearing country? I think the answer is yes.

Are burqa's a way for men to control "their" women. I think the answer is yes.

I think its valid to ask, if they are forced & oppressed, shouldn't we be willing to let them immigrate? Three scenarios and not sure how they could be implemented.

• If we want to give them a period of "adjustment", counseling, and see if they will stop wearing burqa's before immigration, I'm good with that.
• If we want to make sure her husband will allow the non-wearing of burqa I'm good with that also.
• If a woman is willing to exchange her burqa for a hijab and the husband is not willing, then let's have a path for just the woman.

[Edward64]

In the dialog on immigration reform with SackAttack, RM and JPhillips, we talked about assimilation (e.g. use case is the woman in a burqa).

I think its good to try define what people think assimilation. I found lots of different definitions or markers (no surprise). Invariably, lots of "its more complicated than that" which is true but IMO, its almost analysis-paralysis.

So here's what I found.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Societ...of-an-American

Using these markers, as well as other data points such as homeownership, marital status, and citizenship, Vigdor created an index that calculated a statistical difference between immigrants and native-born Americans. Full assimilation, according to Vigdor's work, is when these data points are indistinguishable.

"Assimilation is a process whereby people come to adopt the various mannerisms and behavior of native-born residents of a country...," Vigdor says.

In his work, he developed three categories of assimilation – civic, cultural, and economic – and then combined those categories for an overall assimilation score.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/d...to-assimilate/

If you were to ask the average person on the street what is meant by “assimilation,” he or she would say something about immigrants fitting into American society without creating undue problems for themselves or for those already here. In Assimilation, American Style Peter Salins presents a considerably more thoughtful, though in my opinion incorrect, version of this common sense view of assimilation. Salins argues that an implicit contract has historically defined assimilation in America. As he puts it: “Immigrants would be welcome as full members in the American family if they agreed to abide by three simple precepts”:

First, they had to accept English as the national language.

Second, they were expected to live by what is commonly referred to as the Protestant work ethic (to be self-reliant, hardworking, and morally upright).

Third, they were expected to take pride in their American identity and believe in America’s liberal democratic and egalitarian principles.

This one is where I came up with the analysis-paralysis statement. The author proceeded to counter the 3 points by saing it complicated, multi-dimensional and other characteristics of assimilation. He says the below.

My point is that both sides of this debate ignore precisely what I am arguing—that assimilation and conflict go hand in hand.

Attention Required! | Cloudflare
The factors they used in table 1.1. are

1) Labor market outcomes
2) Job quality
3) Adult's cognitive skill and training
4) Household income
5) Housing
6) Health status & healthcare
7) Civic engagement
8) Social cohesion

So my definition/markers of assimilation are:

(I use Salins definition as a base and updated them)

First, they had to accept English as the national language.

I think this is fair gauge. So no change.

Yes, you will have the 1st Gen adults who may not know English well or the elderly grandma. Not saying we shouldn't allow them to immigrate, just saying this is a far marker of their progress/lack of in assimilation.

First, they had to accept English as the national language.

Second, they were expected to live by what is commonly referred to as the Protestant work ethic (to be self-reliant, hardworking, and morally upright).

The word Protestant may bring up "religion". I like the sentence but would remove "Protestant", so my rewording is:

Second, they were expected to live by what is commonly referred to as the US ideal (?) work ethic (to be self-reliant, hardworking, and morally upright).

Third, they were expected to take pride in their American identity and believe in America’s liberal democratic and egalitarian principles

Can probably ask what does "American identity" mean and I'll just define it using other phrases in the 1st and 3rd links.

adopt the various mannerisms and behavior of native-born or per the third study 7) Civic engagement 8) Social cohesion.

I'm not sure I would have democratic and egalitarian principles, it seems too high-level?

So how I would reword it is:

Third, they were expected to take pride in their American identity (e.g. adopt the mannerisms and behavior of native-born, civic engagement, social cohesion)

[JPhillips]

So we need to adopt the mannerisms and behavior of Native Americans?

That definition is based on the idea that previous waves of immigrants didn't change what it meant to be American, but they did. The Puritans did, the Spanish did, the French did, the Africans did, the Germans did, the Italians did, the Irish did, the Caribbeans did, etc. The idea that they need to become us hasn't ever been the reality of how immigration works.

Now I don't have time to discuss longer because I have to go to an Irish Hooley, plan for the big Columbus Day parade, buy my liederhosen for Oktoberfest, print my photos from Puerto Rico day.....

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Mothers passing their values to their sons and daughters is not a new phenomenon; if you think Italian mothers, Russian mothers, Polish mothers, Mexican mothers, etc, haven't shared their values with their children in the last 150 years, you're mistaken. Thing is? Hasn't mattered. The kids assimilate, because childhood is a natural melting pot in a way legislation can never replicate.

Don't disagree. I've always used "salad bowl" vs melting pot which means there are cultural, ethnic etc. stuff that says separated but we're all one happy family mixed in a bowl, overlaid by the American "special salad dressing".

However, I do believe there are those that won't get into the salad bowl with the rest of us so let's not waste our time.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

As far as the religious aspect of wearing a burqa, that's where we get into Gordian's knot. See, the thing is, religion is only partly about faith in a Higher Power. Part of it is about control. If you look at, say, Judaism, and particularly Leviticus, and look at the rules set forth for the practice of the faith, a lot of those rules were about cementing the power of the faith leaders (and by extension, men) in those societies.

Clothing rules in the Abrahamic faiths are an extension of that control, of demarcating the Proper Roles of men and women in society. To the extent that a devout Muslim woman would have difficulty assimilating in American society, that's going to be a function of what her faith has mandated about her role. It's not the burqa; the burqa is just the outward demonstration of the woman following the rules her faith has laid upon her. The kids may follow those rules while they're under their parents' control, but they won't hew to it as tightly as adults as their parents did, and their children will cling less tightly still.

TBH, I don't see "clothing in all Abrahamic faiths is an extension of that control". Its kinda broad. I do agree it applies to muslim women wearing burqas.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Again, let's bring it back to Christianity. A hundred years ago, church revivals were a Big Deal. They still are in some parts of the country, and you still have the older people crying about how a return to faith is needed and how this thing or the other thing is because we don't let public schools indoctrinate children with Christianity anymore, but if you talk to people of a certain age and they talk about the impact faith had on their lives as children, compare that then to someone of childbearing age today. They still raise their children in faith, but you're more likely than not to find that people raising children now, two-three generations after revivals were last a Big Deal, are *probably* not saturating their children's lives as heavily with religion as their parents' or grandparents' lives were saturated. That's not to say that nobody does, but it's the nature of cultural drift.

Islam is a thousand years younger than Christianity, and a good three or four thousand years younger than Judaism. That's part of what makes it seem more alien, for those who are concerned about its adherents' ability to assimilate. There hasn't been time for the same level of cultural drift to happen as has done with its geographical brethren, where faith is just kind of 'assumed' but isn't as outwardly fundamentalist anymore.

I know my POV has religious overtones but it really is about assimilation (see prior post on my definition of assimilation).

There is no doubt devout muslim women can assimilate (I see more and more with hijabs, saw one at my Starbucks the other day and see several working at Hartsfield airport), I just don't see it with women insistent on wearing the full burqa.

But your paragraphs does raise an interesting point. It seem to say -- Christianity took 2 thousand years, give Islam the same amount of time. I don't think I agree but maybe a topic for another day.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

And yet, that still boils down to "how pious am I comfortable with other people being?" If you look at orthodox Christians and Jews, women don't dress all that differently from fundamentalist Muslims. Not surprising, because the three originate from more or less common ground. But, again, pious Christian and Jewish women don't draw the same backlash for that level of dress.

It's when the dress is, or appears to be, explicitly Muslim that the more fundamental it gets, the more objectionable it becomes.

I know its somewhat semantics but its not "more fundamental it gets", its really the "more extreme it gets".

I don't see an equivalent in the Christian or Jewish world re: burqa. Can you elaborate on what you think is the most fundamentalist garbs that Christian and Jewish women wear day-to-day?

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Getting back to the Gordian knot here, part of what makes my feelings on the burqa so difficult to unravel is because it's rooted in the concept of male supremacy/authority within the faith (and other Abrahamic faiths have similar control elements), but at the same time, it's a thing devout Muslim women adopt as an expression of their faith and submission to Allah.

I don't know how to separate the two.

Because I see plenty of devout muslim women and men accept the hijab in muslim countries in SEA, I do question if the burqa is accepted freely by those muslim women that are not allowed to wear anything other than burqas.

Per a prior post to JPhillips.

Are there consequences for a woman not to wear a burqa in a burqa-wearing country? I think the answer is yes.

Are burqa's a way for men to control "their" women. I think the answer is yes.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I do know that if a burqa ban isn't about terrorism fears, then it becomes about whose religious expressions are most valid. Whether you mean it to or not, when you start saying "well I'm okay with THIS but not with THAT and if they want to immigrate they have to agree to stop doing THAT thing" what you're doing is undermining the First Amendment. It's a judgment as to whose religious views and expression thereof have inherent value.

I'm leery of that.

Religion is not a main driver for me. It is the idea of "assimilation" which is much broader (and I tried to define in a prior post).

But I do see where you are coming from, its a slippery slope.

But because its tough to define or set the criteria of who should be allowed in or not doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to set those criterias. Obviously alot of different opinions and some are going to lose out.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

If a burqa ban is about security or terrorism fears, that's a different conversation. I'm not sure I'd be any more open to it, but that's a different conversation with different leverage points.

If it's not about security, then the conversation you're really having is about whose religious freedom is more valid, and which groups are allowed to be more assertive in their devotion to faith.

It's not about security (or at least not until the first incident on US soil) and its not about religious freedom (although there are religious overtones). It is about assimilation which I define from the prior post as:

1. They had to accept English as the national language.
2. They were expected to live by what is commonly referred to as the US ideal (?) work ethic (to be self-reliant, hardworking, and morally upright).
3. They were expected to take pride in their American identity (e.g. adopt the mannerisms and behavior of native-born, civic engagement, social cohesion)

[JPhillips]

What about cloistered nuns?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So we need to adopt the mannerisms and behavior of Native Americans?

That definition is based on the idea that previous waves of immigrants didn't change what it meant to be American, but they did. The Puritans did, the Spanish did, the French did, the Africans did, the Germans did, the Italians did, the Irish did, the Caribbeans did, etc. The idea that they need to become us hasn't ever been the reality of how immigration works.

It is not based on the definition that previous waves of immigrants didn't change what it meant to be American.

Certainly don't think that is logical to assume we are still all from the white, Puritan stock. There is nothing I read in the linked studies that indicate or implied that (please let me know if you see differently).

What it means to be American evolves over time. At this point in time, a burqa clad woman will not assimilate well is what I am saying.

Per my other post to you -- do you believe the majority women dressed in burqas do so willingly or are they forced?