The 2016 United States Presidential Election

Who says that Muslim countries are not helping their own people. Did you type that without checking? As an example, the bulk of the Syrian refugees are settling in Muslim countries. Understandably that is their preference. The problem is that there are just too many of them for those countries to absorb humanely.Syrian Refugees

quote:

---

An estimated 11 million Syrians have fled their homes since the outbreak of the civil war in March 2011. Now, in the sixth year of war, 13.5 million are in need of humanitarian assistance within the country. Among those escaping the conflict, the majority have sought refuge in neighbouring countries or within Syria itself. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 4.8 million have fled to Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq, and 6.6 million are internally displaced within Syria. Meanwhile about one million have requested asylum to Europe. Germany, with more than 300,000 cumulated applications, and Sweden with 100,000, are EU’s top receiving countries.

---

Wikipedia includes a detailed breakdown of where the refugees are going. Clearly the idea that Muslim countries are not helping their own is complete shite.Refugees of the Syrian civil war - WikipediaEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Coming from the only person in the thread that vilifies foreigners for doing nothing more than attempting to escape conditions no human should have to endure, your proposal seems a bit hollow and more than a bit self serving. Where is Christ in what you say?

Your "information" was never correct. The first place the refugees went was to nearby countries. Apparently, there is no number of Muslims too small to be too many for the West to absorb. Sigh. Turkey is hosting about 2.7 million refugees. Yes there are some passing through to Europe, but that is because of Turkey's geography and not because Turkey is not hosting their share. There is absolutely no factual basis for your belief.

Your hatred for the Catholic Church is well known.

Well, if it is on your blog, that surely settles the issue.

removedEdited by NoNukes, : Needlessly provocative

Not specific, but it's the typical standard wingnut nonsense that many people who voted for Trump spout. If you are looking for a credible and understandable defense of Trump, I would suggest looking elsewhere. Aren't all of those things known about Trump? They clearly are not disqualifying to a large number of Americans. So many, in fact, that it is impossible to shame them over these issues.

There are some non-crazy reasons that can be used to defend a vote for Trump. What I find amusing is that some folks never seem to cite any of such things when explaining their position.

When I said positive terms I meant rational, non-wingnut terms that would sound rational to just about anybody. Heck, even I can do that. I explicitly did not mean terms that are just "Liberal = commie" or the equivalent. And not just the kind of terms favored by conspiracy minded folk who thinks things like that quoted above. I couldn't have asked for a better example of what I did not mean than your post. Thanks for responding on cue.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Are you quoting a book written by Stephen Douglas Mumford? This guy is practically my next door neighbor. I can agree with some of the stuff this folk says, but his main thing is population control. Dr. Mumford proposals include population control via large scale abortion among other things. Small wonder that such a person has a beef with the Catholic Church.I do have a beef with the Catholic Church's stance on contraception, but that does not lead me to accept every thing Mumford writes in a book. I suspect that his enmity with the Catholic Church and his dislike of immigration are among the few views the two of you have in common.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You were able to vet what he says, how exactly? The same way you vetted that anti-vaccine movie you insisted we watch?

Let's accept what Mumford says as fact at least for this discussion.Campaigning for the accepting of people who want to enter the US because of impossible condition is no sin or crime. Neither is sending folks to legal aid to when they have a legal or immigration hearing which may result in those folks having a recourse to stay in the country. That's how we treat human beings in this country.On the other hand, harboring illegal aliens in this country is indeed a crime, but my experience is that many churches in this country, and not just the Catholic ones, do help folks who immigrate and seek refugee status in this country. I suspect that the reasons for so doing is that their faith commands that they do with even aliens. Given the huge number of Catholics suffering throughout South America, I am not surprised at what I see here.On the other hand, I cannot accept everything I see in this paper because it was written by a scientist. If that were really the way folks behaved in these forums, debates on things like evolution and climate change would proceed quite a bit differently in these forums. In particular, it is clear that Mumford does some editorializing in the paragraph you provided.Now to critique what I see, I sincerely doubt that his claim that the Catholic Church is the only significant political opposition to the kind of immigration policy that wing nuts want. The claim that the RCC does recognize national boundaries and national sovereignty also seems to be something of an embellishment, something that jar pointed out AND offered argument to despite your claim that he did not.Illegal immigration is bad because it violates statutes and not because it is an immoral evil in and of itself. All men are made by the same creator and all have an equal right to seek opportunity and happiness once they are here. The resources is intended for that use among other uses. I understand that you wish it were otherwise. Again there is nothing nefarious about defending yourself and making your case in an immigration hearing. Our legal system is set up that way.

Wow, coming from the person who routinely refuses to read stuff, that's pretty funny. Thanks for providing an excerpt.

Perhaps you should look into his methods and claims regarding his drawing business back to the US. It looks like Trump and Pence came up with a 7 million dollar payment plan to save about 800 jobs. Meanwhile, the same company is still going to ship a similar number of jobs to Mexico. Nice work, but can it be replicated over the entire economy which normally adds about 5 times as many jobs to the economy each day? Should it be replicated?

What you spout here is simply wrong. They are of course not citizens of the US, but even non-citizens have rights here to an administrative hearing regarding their status. Nothing leftist about that. I understand that you wish things were otherwise.And of course the RC Church does not attempt to confer anything. Nothing you've posted here, even if taken at face value suggest that they are acting as if they run the country. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.