Muslims, Intolerance, Portuyn and Liberals

[Ned]

I've been thinking about Pim Fortuyn's position on immigration a little more. If I understand the posts here correctly, the essence of his position was that the Moslem immigrants, a religious people, were against homosexuals and homosexual rights. When they began voting in Dutch elections, they would elect representatives who would then vote to increase discrimination against homosexuals. Since he was a homosexual, he was against further immigration of Moslems as a matter of protecting his own civil liberties.

I'm not sure that there is any vice in this position. What do others think about this? Could a Republican, for example, "legitimately" be against Mexican immigration because Mexican immigrants tend to vote Democratic? Similarly, could Democrats "legitimately" be against Cuban immigration because Cuban immigrants tend to vote Republican? No one United States openly talks this way. But even so, I think their actions are consistent with the above political considerations.

For example, Fidel Castro's daughter explained Clinton's actions in the Elian Gonzalez case as an attempt to prevent Fidel from allowing a second mass of emigration of Cubans to the United States -- a second Mariel incident. Could Clinton have been influenced by the fact that Cuban refugees tend to vote Republican?

Ned

[Ramo]

Ramo, Interesting quote from Tamerlane's grandson. Seems rather civilized in contrast to his grandfather. Ned

Depends on what you mean by civilization. Is murdering hundreds of thousands of people (the sack of Delhi alone had a death toll of around 10^5 people) any less of a mark of civilization than computing the sine table?

He was definitely a good astronomer and mathematician. In fact, those words were written upon an oberservatory he built in Samarkland. But, like with just about any ruler, I wouldn't call his rather short reign good for his people.

2) How would you identify "non-fundie" Muslims and separate them from their persecutors?

I wouldn't.

My point was that I don't think any woman enjoys being killed because her rape shamed her family's honor, regardless of her political preferences. I don't think a gay person would enjoy being killed for acting on his/her sexual preferences, regardless of his/her political preferences. I don't think anyone would enjoy being tossed in prison for expressing non-orthodox politics or religion, regardless of his/her political preferences.

The idea is not only to give people who already oppose the governments in which they live a way out, but to allow as many people as possible to have the freedoms we enjoy. That's what someone who gives a **** about liberty would advocate.

Muslims who come to America are a self-selecting group, and one which likely contains very few people interested in Islam as a political ideology.

Self-selecting? Are Moslems who come to Europe not self-selecting?

But more importantly, I think immigration in Europe has different patterns than in the United States. Whether because of their larger numbers, greater discrimination, or different countries of origin, Muslim immigrants in Europe don't do as well (economically, socially, or politically) as their American counterparts.

Certainly, but why should their socio-economic status in Europe necessarily have any bearing on the religious ideology which they subscribe to? Does a Moslem who fares more poorly in society become more extremist in terms of religious ideology?

Pakistan also had a female prime minister,IIRC, but that doesn't mean that people there don't it's ok to... FE, to kill a woman because she had ex-marital sex.

But it shows that a good portion of the population recognize the need to stop the "honor killings." In Pakistan, honor killings are mostly limited to certain conservative areas.

My point is that religious values aren't uniform among Islamic countries. Honor killings, for instance, are pre-Islamic customs (Mohammed, in fact, condemned them, IIRC).

Also Bangladesh is one of a relatively small number of countries that are muslim and relatively democratic.

I wouldn't call it particularly democratic. It's closer to "democracy" that exists in, for instance, Latin American states.

yes, and of course, all of the people that are currently in holland and throughout europe, that are muslims , are political and religious dissidents, small groups of freedom-loving idividuals in their countries.

That's not what I'm saying. Read above.

You are the David Floyd of immigration debates.

If you mean that I'm an extremist, absolutely. I'm an extremist with respect to everything else, why should immigration be any different?

I just have the silly idea that it's supremely immoral to say that a person shouldn't be able to gain a better life and more freedom for him and his family.

Ignore my ideas about immigration if you want, but don't expect me to stop advocating them.

Allowing states to dump their people on other states stabilizes the bad states and destabilizes the good ones.

Nice to know that you place the interest of the people over the benefit/detriment of their states.

Don't let people move away from their culture to flee oppression, give them the weapons they need to free themselves. One of those weapons is a dissident community, which won't do Saudi Arabian people etc. any good washing dishes and smoking hash in the NL.

Who the hell are you to tell a person how to live his or her life?! What gives you the godamned moral authority to condemn one to a life of oppression?

Besides, I don't know what good preventing people from entering the West does to a dissident community when so few people are willing to take the risks needed to oppose the state, in the first place.

Nor do I see how the dissident community is helped if a woman stays in her country and is killed because her "acts" (like getting raped) shame her family's honor.

[Ned]

Let’s see. Ramo or Sikander?

We recently had a situation in Haiti where we intervened to restore order rather than see a tide of refugees come to the U.S. Clinton's intervention worked. Sikander 1, Ramo 0.

Kennedy failed to do that however with Castro. The result has been a large number of Cubans in the U.S. They are doing well. Castro continues his oppression. Boo on Kennedy. Sikander 2, Ramo 0.

The Mexican government has been a disaster. The result is a large Mexican population in the U.S. who, again, are largely doing well. Seems to me we should have done something about Mexico long ago. Sikander is right again. Sikander 3, Ramo 1.

The Vietnamese were suffering under the iron boot of communism. Boat people fled. We helped settle them. But there was little we could do to help fix the situation in Vietnam. Score one for Ramo. Sikander 3, Ramo 1.

I could go on, but one sees the drift. Eventually the world will generally have to deal with the problem state. Taking in refugees only prolongs the inevitable.

On the whole, Sikander is right. But not always.

Ned

[Ramo]

I could go on, but one sees the drift. Eventually the world will generally have to deal with the problem state. Taking in refugees only prolongs the inevitable.

On the whole, Sikander is right.

Freedom of movement and military interventions aren't mutually exlusive.

BTW, I don't know if Sikander advocates military interventions all around the world, but I doubt he does.

We recently had a situation in Haiti where we intervened to restore order rather than see a tide of refugees come to the U.S. Clinton's intervention worked. Sikander 1, Ramo 0.

Actually, our Haitian immigration policy is quite "amusing." Out of the thousands of political dissidents leaving Haiti for the US in the 80's, something on the order of 30 were accepted. It was quite interesting how the Haitian boat people fleeing for the lives were sent back by our government to Duvalier. Then Duvalier, our loyal puppet, was overthrown in favor of democracy. Atrocities were greatly reduced, etc., etc. People were entering Haiti, rather than leaving it. So our leadership started allowing many, many more people in. But then Astrides was overthrown by the military coup, and conditions returned back to "normal" (i.e. Baby Doc-era conditions) where people in danger of being tortured were sent back. See, the US considered them "economic" refugees, rather than "political" refugees such as Cubans. So they end up found hacked to pieces. Apparantly by poverty. I don't know how that policy could posibly be thought of as "working," but there ya have it.

I don't see why the US intervention could've happened without the dissidents being slaughtered bit.

But it would've been better if Wilson didn't intervene in the first place and ravage the country for so long, setting it back decades. And if we didn't give support all of those murderours dictators, particularly Duvalier.

Castro continues his oppression.

Fairly comparably to most other Latin American states. Compared to the US' current posterstate Colombia, it's a paradise.

And then there's all that economic warfare we've been waging against Cuba after the Bay of Pigs. I guess you could consider that "intervention."

The Mexican government has been a disaster. The result is a large Mexican population in the U.S. who, again, are largely doing well. Seems to me we should have done something about Mexico long ago. Sikander is right again. Sikander 3, Ramo 1

We did intervene. The most recent important interventions were during their last Mexican Civil War. The initial interventions in the war was to help the central gov't and stop the damn dirty Zapatistas and other revolutionaries, who had the gall to end Mexico's semi-feudal system. Then the gov't was acting up, so we helped Pancho Villa. But we realized that he wasn't particularly loyal, so we dropped him. And he attacked the US in reprisals, so we attacked back, switching back to the gov't's side (who then dropped us again).

Yep, we sure did a good job there.

[Fidel]

Kennedy failed to do that however with Castro. The result has been a large number of Cubans in the U.S. They are doing well. Castro continues his oppression. Boo on Kennedy. Sikander 2, Ramo 0.

infamous castro's oppression is nothing in comparison with the oppression executed by washington's lackeys for past 50 years all over the latin america. cubans in cuba are also doing well. check UN survey on the quality of living.

The Mexican government has been a disaster. The result is a large Mexican population in the U.S. who, again, are largely doing well. Seems to me we should have done something about Mexico long ago. Sikander is right again. Sikander 3, Ramo 1.

something = invade them? is mexico a truly sovereign state? as much as any latin american country. why need to station troops?

The Vietnamese were suffering under the iron boot of communism. Boat people fled.

how can anyone seriously comment on the misfortunes of communism in vietnam after us dropped more bombs on them than in the entire WW2. i think vietnamese would benefit more from some generous war reparations us would pay them for its agression. that would be very noble and would 'help'

I could go on, but one sees the drift. Eventually the world will generally have to deal with the problem state. Taking in refugees only prolongs the inevitable.

as long as the us has the monopoly on defining what is the problem state, it will be a tough one. suppose most of the world's population identifies us as the 'problem state'? cuba is the best example of the ugly face of washington lobbying. what harm has cuba done to us interests? what aggressive act has it commited in the past 50 years?

[Saint Marcus]

I've been thinking about Pim Fortuyn's position on immigration a little more. If I understand the posts here correctly, the essence of his position was that the Moslem immigrants, a religious people, were against homosexuals and homosexual rights. When they began voting in Dutch elections, they would elect representatives who would then vote to increase discrimination against homosexuals. Since he was a homosexual, he was against further immigration of Moslems as a matter of protecting his own civil liberties.

That's a little bit too easy. The situation is more complex than that.

The essence of his position is that Holland has problems (health care, education, security, etc), and that the more people we get the bigger those problems will be. It's bad for Holland as a whole to take in more immigrants. Holland is full. That is his main point for being against immigration.

A second note is that Fortuyn, in his personal views (not political views), is against muslim immigrants specifically, for the reason you described. They are too conservative, don't addept, and are against "modernity" (gay rights, women rights, etc). This is a secondary point though.

Back to your comment: very good argument indeed. But the situation is slightly different from what you percieve it as. This issue of immigrants voting anti-gay parties is pretty much a non-issue since most immigrants aren't allowed to vote, and since the only anti-gay parties are Christian parties (not muslim, not secularist). (muslim) immigrants aren't likely to vote on Christian parties. Fortuyn was more concerned with anti-gay violence, which is mostly carried out by muslim youth in Holland.