It is shocking that about 50% of overall voters either support or are indifferent towards this proposal.
My guess is that plenty of Democrats support the idea, too. But since it’s a thoughtcrime, they answer in the negative.
I didn’t find Trump’s suggestion in the least bit outrageous. Impractical, perhaps (given that Muslims could just lie). What I find truly outrageous is just how Orwellian our society has become.
Just make it a moratorium on almost all immigration like we’ve done in the past. Everybody should be happy with that, right?
Ban all travel. The economy will save so much money!
No! I have $100 trillion Zimbabwe dollars I need to spend NOW.
That’s some serious pocket change.
But if nobody travelled we could save enough money to pay off the national debt! Then everyone can retire.
Too bad they’re not Iraqi dinars. You’d be sitting on a fortune waiting to happen! (as soon as they re-value, that is)
my entire point is that your “thems” are much bigger than our “thems” therefore creating a serious distinction deserving of the term “them”. we are more diverse than the U.S. and our diversity results in several small groups of disadvantaged and neglected people therefore disallowing them from attaining the gang-like scale that can easily be acheived by most intercity blacks and hispanics in the U.S. this gang-like scale results in communities within communities and the demeanor of the people within these communities is bleak. thus the killing. i’m certain we’re on the same side in terms of explaining U.S. violence rates.
it is the only major Canadian city within walking distance of the U.S. so it’s not that curious. boom!
^ So the US owes its gun violence problems to the fact that ultra-violent Vancouver is within walking distance? Damn Canadians!
In what way is Canada more diverse racially? US is 63.7% “non-hispanic white” and Canada is 86%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
diverse as in the # of subgroups within the minority population. the U.S. is dominated by blacks and hispanics. we have no such domination. this is a key difference.
that said, our major cities are certainly on the same level of ethnic diversity as your large cities.
compare Toronto and New York. both have approximately 40-50% whites. from what i see it is difficult to differentiate between non-hispanic white and hispanic white in New York due to crossbreeding. New York is 25% black and 25% hispanic and 10% “Asian”, so it basically only has 2 large minority groups. meanwhile, Toronto has 4 medium sized minority groups (12% south asian, 11% chinese, 9% black, 5% filipino and many other groups between 1-3%). the influence of minority groups in Canada is much lower due to this diversity, within the visible minority subgroup.
we have no “thems” because them are several subgroups with minimal political and/or brute force power and have limited ability to mobilize. add to that the fact it is much better to be a low income person in Canada than in the U.S. and the motivation to form gangs and/or be violent is much lower.
Serious question. Are minority groups in Canada fairly well integrated into overall society, or do they tend to self-segregate like is common in the US?
MLA, the theory doesn’t really make sense since most gangs exist to facilitate drug trade and most of the violence in question occurs within the same minority, i.e. white on white
Having spent a bit of time in Toronto this suumer, my anecdotal observation is while there are certainly loads of ethic groups in the city, I noticed zero integration. Certainly a stew as opposed to a melting pot. Culture differences will come to a head. The majority of Canadians are not fond of the honor killings of daughters.
So it’s Orwellian now to reject the idea that all muslims should be tarred with the same brush due to the actions of a few? The number of active jihadists worldwide is less than 1% of 1% of all muslims.
There are lots of crazy Christians and non-believers too you know. Most mass killings in the US are by Christians. Hitler was born a Catholic but was not practising. The nominally atheist communist regimes of Stalin (Christian background), Mao (Buddhist) and Pol Pot (Buddhist) committed some of the worst crimes in history. The Rwandan genocide was the worst in our lifetimes and that was a tribal conflict between largely Christian groups. So do we ban all Christians, Buddhists and atheists from entering the US too?
Trump’s idea is an affront to personal freedom and dignity. It is the beginning of a slippery slope. What’s the next step once all muslims (around 1 in 4 of all people) are classified as different and dangerous? Will we make them sew stars into their lapels next? Does that sort of thinking not make war inevitable?
Just saying that Hitler and Trump both had/have similar ideas. Mass deportations, demonizing religious subsects, blaming immigrants for their countries problems…
Yeah. And the worrying thing is that Trump is not alone here, in the US or elsewhere. In Europe there is UKIP, FN (Le Pen), similar groups in many other countries too. It’s not that they are typically full out Nazis, but that their mindset is at least sympathetic towards some ot those ideas you mention.
It makes it much more difficult to build trust between communities and have an integrated socitey when people think of other groups as different and to be feared. Rhetoric like Trump’s is only aggravating the situation. As a lot of people have said in recent days, Trump’s comments have ironically made the US less safe than before when his intention was the opposite.
The response was certainly Orwellian. Sure it’s perfectly reasonable to oppose the idea. It’s perfectly reasonable to agree with it (as a plurality seem to). But is it reasonable for the *White House* to say that the statement disqualifies Trump for the White House (an ideological test for an elected position)? The level of outrage for a proposal that is probably perfectly legal but that merely violates PC Principal is certainly Owellian. We now apparently have defined thought boundaries. Cross them at your own peril.
It’s pretty funny, too, that you present a fallacy (by name, no less) as an argument.