So, what happened to peaceful integration?

[K-man]

Not so long ago we were discussing integration of refugees, or rather the non-integration. I was told rather forcefully that I should get over it because given time the Islamic extremists will assimilate. Now, I wasn't referring to ordinary Muslims. I was referring to the dyed in the wool extremists who have no intention of peacefully integrating. The following video highlights my concerns. This guy shouldn't have even been in the country, exploits a legal loophole, lives on welfare for 19 years then plots to set off bombs in a sports stadium containing 100,000 sports fans.

For the sake of political correctness I believe the clip was never actually put to air.

How would you handle a case like this? :asian:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Not so long ago we were discussing integration of refugees, or rather the non-integration. I was told rather forcefully that I should get over it because given time the Islamic extremists will assimilate. Now, I wasn't referring to ordinary Muslims. I was referring to the dyed in the wool extremists who have no intention of peacefully integrating. The following video highlights my concerns. This guy shouldn't have even been in the country, exploits a legal loophole, lives on welfare for 19 years then plots to set off bombs in a sports stadium containing 100,000 sports fans.

For the sake of political correctness I believe the clip was never actually put to air.

How would you handle a case like this? :asian:

I can't view the clip at the moment, but I get the idea, I think. Still probably can't comment since we're talking about Australia and I know nothing about Australia's immigration laws.

But I can comment on immigration and assimilation and such things in more general terms, at least as it is in the USA.

First, it's important to understand the concept of freedom of speech. As practiced in the USA, all forms of speech are not just tolerated but protected, including that speech which espouses hatred of one's own government. With certain exceptions, especially regarding in this case incitement to riot, or actual threats, or planning actual insurrection, one may say what one wishes about the government.

Clearly, a person who enjoys the freedom to criticize our government whilst living under the freedoms it defends is ironic at the least, and ungrateful in the extreme. It's distasteful to think of a person immigrating to the USA, especially as a refugee, and then making public statements condemning that very government or calling for overthrow. However, it's legal; for a citizen, for an immigrant, even for a visitor. It's protected speech in general terms.

Second, the concept of immigration in general. Once a person is accepted for permanent residence in the USA, that person is subject to certain restrictions that citizens do not have, and that person can be expelled to their country of origin in certain circumstances. But generally, that immigrant is as free to express their opinions - no matter how hateful or distasteful - as any citizen.

Third, the concept of public assistance. I realize it's very different in the USA than in other places, but in very general terms, assistance is based on need and not on immigration or citizenship status (other than the requirement that they be legal), and it's not based upon their political viewpoints. "Do you hate the hand that feeds you?" "Yes, I do." "OK, then, no Welfare for you!"

Taking the three together, it's easy to see how ugly it is when an immigrant, especially a refugee, takes a public position of hatred for the government that has extended the helping hand to him.

But let's consider just two elements. For example, a citizen by birth who receives public assistance and hates the government as well. What to do with them? Well, nothing, basically. So it would seem that what we're saying is that it is the fact of their immigrant/refugee status, rather than their receipt of public assistance and simultaneous hatred of the government, which we find odious.

What if the immigrant/refugee hates the government but does NOT receive public assistance? Is that OK? It's less ironic, of course, but would we then consider they would be free to make such statements? If so, then it is the fact that they receive public assistance whilst complaining about the government that provides it that we seem to dislike.

What if the immigrant/refugee receives public assistance but does not hate the government that provides it? Do we have a problem with that person? In this case, one has to question whether a need-based system is what the person who dislikes it really wants; it might seem they want a system based on where a person is from, rather than what their actual needs are.

Given all of this, I find that there is much to dislike about a person who claims refugee status to obtain legal immigrant status, takes public assistance, and makes public statements about their hatred of the very government that provides their daily bread and keeps a roof over their heads. It's rude, it's ugly, it's disgusting. However, when asked what is to be done about it, my answer would be nothing at all. In a free society, if they're here legally, and they qualify for public assistance, they have the same right to hate our government as I do. Let 'em rant. I don't like it, but sometimes freedom means things I don't like happen anyway.

That does not mean that I think they should be able to make plots to blow things up or hurt people. That's not 'free speech' and such a person would be correctly arrested and prosecuted - but that's the same whether the person is an immigrant or a citizen, on public assistance or independently wealthy. It's the act which is criminal and should be prosecuted, not the fact of their immigration status or receipt of public assistance.

Moving on to assimilation, I doubt that such people can or will assimilate. One might also add that there are many groups in the USA which have never assimilated and perhaps never will, although they do peacefully co-exist within our system to the largest extent. From cultural enclaves such as we have in Detroit (Mexicantown, Corktown, Greek Town, and the various areas known for ethnic groups such as Hamtramck and the places where Albanians, Chaldeans, and other groups live) to more isolated groups such as the Amish and various ultra-orthodox Jewish groups, we have many small groups that never have assimilated, or which have assimilated to minor degrees only.

So one must ask if 'assimilation' is the issue, or if hatred and/or actions against one's government arising from those who have not assimilated is the issue.

In other words, do we really care if a given group 'assimilates' with us, so long as they are in fact peaceful and obey our laws? Do we in the USA have a problem with the Amish? After all, they truly do not assimilate. They don't pay into Social Security (fact). They don't have health insurance, and even under the new Obamacare rules, they don't have to buy health insurance, even though the rest of us do. They speak heavily-accented English and have their own language, which they refuse to give up even after many generations in the USA. They file taxes, they register for the draft, they vote. They have the right to voice their opinions of the USA as they wish; as much as any of us do. However, the Amish don't have a problem with the USA, and they don't foment rebellion or hatred or violence.

So it would seem that non-assimilation isn't the issue. The issue appears to be hatred, violence, and other 'abuses' of rights that offend our sensibilities which come from non-assimilated or culturally-isolated groups of immigrants or citizens.

I have an opinion regarding assimilation, and that is that assimilation occurs naturally over generations in most cases. Amish, ultra-Orthodox Jews, and other groups resist assimilation because they wish to maintain their identity and their own ways, but it is hard for their children to resist the siren call of Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Levi's Blue Jeans, and MTV. We sell them assimilation, basically. Our 'Western' cultural values (such as they are) are so compelling that they are banned in many repressive nations; they're the most destructive forms of propaganda we could field! No national intelligence agency could devise a more compelling argument for Democracy and Free Enterprise than rock-and-roll and tight jeans do.

The second part of assimilation that comes along with such commercialization of Western culture is the culture of consumerism. People who have mortgages to pay and car payments to make and kids in soccer practice and so on do not have a lot of interest in violent revolution, generally speaking. They may bemoan the loss of their traditional culture, but if they want to keep the kids happy by paying for their summer camp and braces and the newest style jeans and school stuff, they have to keep working, keep saving, and keep paying those bills.

So to me, the way we assimilate immigrants is to sell them stuff and then make them pay for it. Just like we do citizens. Turn them into consumers of popular crap and they'll be too busy paying for it to think about distributing leaflets and standing on street corners talking about Jihad. And if we don't get them, we'll get their kids.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Good Post Bill, well thought out, and well presented.
for me... I still say revamp our immigration policies, do not take in anyone who does not have an ability to support themselves, unless its under the most drastic humanitarian reasons... their homeland is destroyed, they will be killed, tortured, etc in their homeland.
We need to fingerprint, picture, and DNA register every single person who comes into this country for any reason from outside, especially in times like we currently live in.
I justify this because I do not consider our American Rights as World rights.
I do not consider a non citizen as deserving of our American Rights... Human rights sure, but I do not consider taking advantage of our system Human Rights. They should have the right to live by rules, work on a path towards citizenship, contribute, and become a citizen who enjoys full rights, or go back to wherever they came from.

Personally I do not care if they assimilate with us, as long as they coexist with us, and do not try to force their beliefs over our laws. If people want to make an agreement with each other under Sharia Law, then so be it, but keep that crap out of our court systems period, I see no reason we need to monitor, uphold, or deal with anything that has any religious aspect to it... Sharia law is embedded in their religion, it should not even be discussed in a court in the United States, same as trying to make someone stand u p to Christian old testament rules.
Personally I like to be able to visit an area like Chinatown, Koreatown, or any cultural area and enjoy the food, the aura, the people(if they and I are both respectful of each other) and then return to my own area
I realize that what I want is not how it is... thats fine. I get it... doesn't mean it is not a valid opinion. I just know I am sick and damn tired of paying so much money in taxes to go to programs that appear to me anyways to support people taking advantage of the system, unfairly taking advantage of benefits of our country without paying their fair share, scamming on hard working taxpayers and not only not assimilating(which doesnt worry me) but not even bothering to obey laws, or try to make a life outside of public assistance, free health care, free education, destroying the environment by many different ways... No I pay my taxes and how I see the money being used disgusts me.
I want to see it changed... I hope that as the economy falters it will finally wake people up, make them realize all this waste, abuse, and put an end to it, change it, and move forward.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Good Post Bill, well thought out, and well presented.
for me... I still say revamp our immigration policies, do not take in anyone who does not have an ability to support themselves, unless its under the most drastic humanitarian reasons... their homeland is destroyed, they will be killed, tortured, etc in their homeland.
We need to fingerprint, picture, and DNA register every single person who comes into this country for any reason from outside, especially in times like we currently live in.
I justify this because I do not consider our American Rights as World rights.
I do not consider a non citizen as deserving of our American Rights... Human rights sure, but I do not consider taking advantage of our system Human Rights. They should have the right to live by rules, work on a path towards citizenship, contribute, and become a citizen who enjoys full rights, or go back to wherever they came from.

Personally I do not care if they assimilate with us, as long as they coexist with us, and do not try to force their beliefs over our laws. If people want to make an agreement with each other under Sharia Law, then so be it, but keep that crap out of our court systems period, I see no reason we need to monitor, uphold, or deal with anything that has any religious aspect to it... Sharia law is embedded in their religion, it should not even be discussed in a court in the United States, same as trying to make someone stand u p to Christian old testament rules.
Personally I like to be able to visit an area like Chinatown, Koreatown, or any cultural area and enjoy the food, the aura, the people(if they and I are both respectful of each other) and then return to my own area
I realize that what I want is not how it is... thats fine. I get it... doesn't mean it is not a valid opinion. I just know I am sick and damn tired of paying so much money in taxes to go to programs that appear to me anyways to support people taking advantage of the system, unfairly taking advantage of benefits of our country without paying their fair share, scamming on hard working taxpayers and not only not assimilating(which doesnt worry me) but not even bothering to obey laws, or try to make a life outside of public assistance, free health care, free education, destroying the environment by many different ways... No I pay my taxes and how I see the money being used disgusts me.
I want to see it changed... I hope that as the economy falters it will finally wake people up, make them realize all this waste, abuse, and put an end to it, change it, and move forward.

I can't think of anything I disagree with here, with the very minor quibble that I don't have a particular problem with the 'Sharia Law' aspect of enforcing civil contracts through the court system so long as we still let Catholic Canon Law and Jewish Law and etc under the same circumstances. Now, if you want to throw it ALL out (as I suspect you meant), then sure, no problem.

And I think we do fingerprint immigrants; I know we have started fingerprinting everyone who flies into the country on a visitor visa, unless I'm mistaken. DNA I don't know about, but I guess I would not have a problem with that for immigrants seeking permanent status. I know I don't want to give up my DNA as a citizen just for the purpose of government identification.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I can't think of anything I disagree with here, with the very minor quibble that I don't have a particular problem with the 'Sharia Law' aspect of enforcing civil contracts through the court system so long as we still let Catholic Canon Law and Jewish Law and etc under the same circumstances. Now, if you want to throw it ALL out (as I suspect you meant), then sure, no problem.

And I think we do fingerprint immigrants; I know we have started fingerprinting everyone who flies into the country on a visitor visa, unless I'm mistaken. DNA I don't know about, but I guess I would not have a problem with that for immigrants seeking permanent status. I know I don't want to give up my DNA as a citizen just for the purpose of government identification.

ya I meant all religions.. I feel if people want to live under religious based law then they should agree to do so under their religions watch, seperate from the courts, and if someone backs out of a religious agreement then let their religion deem the consequences... as long as nothing they do break our laws as a country, state, county, city etc..
I agree on the DNA part, I also have no interest in giving my DNA, or allowing my kids to be taken either, I consider that an American Right, not a Human Right though, and if someone wants to become a citizen I think thats a requirement I want of them. If I felt I did not want to be an American Citizen anymore, and another country was one I wanted to go to, and that was a requirement?.. I would have no problem doing it, if its worth leaving where you are and changing your life completely it seems a relatively minor issue to comply with.

 

[granfire]

ya I meant all religions.. I feel if people want to live under religious based law then they should agree to do so under their religions watch, seperate from the courts, and if someone backs out of a religious agreement then let their religion deem the consequences... as long as nothing they do break our laws as a country, state, county, city etc..
I agree on the DNA part, I also have no interest in giving my DNA, or allowing my kids to be taken either, I consider that an American Right, not a Human Right though, and if someone wants to become a citizen I think thats a requirement I want of them. If I felt I did not want to be an American Citizen anymore, and another country was one I wanted to go to, and that was a requirement?.. I would have no problem doing it, if its worth leaving where you are and changing your life completely it seems a relatively minor issue to comply with.

LOL, you are going to destroy DNA once an immigrant become a citizen then?
Be careful what you ask for.

And yes, immigrants are fingerprinted extensively. Used to be only the right index finger, now it's everything except the palms.

And considering how backed up labs are to analyse DNA evidence in criminal cases...I think that is not going to happen any time soon. (besides, you know those tests still cost a lot of money...that could be better spend elsewhere)

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

LOL, you are going to destroy DNA once an immigrant become a citizen then?
Be careful what you ask for.

And yes, immigrants are fingerprinted extensively. Used to be only the right index finger, now it's everything except the palms.

And considering how backed up labs are to analyse DNA evidence in criminal cases...I think that is not going to happen any time soon. (besides, you know those tests still cost a lot of money...that could be better spend elsewhere)

No I see no reason to remove the data.
let the cost transfer to the person immigrating. Like I said I see no reason for someone to come here who is going to simply live on public assistance, we dont need that. I can go buy a DNA kit and send it in and have results in less then a week, so what are you talking about? the local CSI lab? lol.... I think the disconnect is that I expect the person wanting to come here to cover the costs, you want us to cover the costs?

 

[granfire]

No I see no reason to remove the data.
let the cost transfer to the person immigrating. Like I said I see no reason for someone to come here who is going to simply live on public assistance, we dont need that. I can go buy a DNA kit and send it in and have results in less then a week, so what are you talking about? the local CSI lab? lol.... I think the disconnect is that I expect the person wanting to come here to cover the costs, you want us to cover the costs?

LOL, you are making assumptions you can't proof.

Besides, there are enough native borns who made it a family tradition to be kept by public assistance...by your reasoning they should be on a boat to some place else...

But see, coming to America is not as easy as you think it is. There are a lot of steps involved. Maybe some people don't have the earning potential you prefer, but still they - in general - do contribute.
And there are vital, essential positions that go unnoticed and are usually not paid, so leaving the contributor in the position of need (maybe even poverty). Though staying home and raising children is not regarded as important my many.


You are throwing everything into one pot, give it a good stir and claim you came up with an argument.

But you are throwing the illegals who slave away in the fields of this country (and you benefit from it, to make this clear) with Doctors and engineers and other highly skilled workers.

In general, I don't expect others to comply with things I would not do myself. So if you don't feel it is right for the average Joe, who just happened to pop his head out within the geographical borders of the country to submit to such things, why would you expect others to do so?

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

LOL, you are making assumptions you can't proof.

Besides, there are enough native borns who made it a family tradition to be kept by public assistance...by your reasoning they should be on a boat to some place else...

But see, coming to America is not as easy as you think it is. There are a lot of steps involved. Maybe some people don't have the earning potential you prefer, but still they - in general - do contribute.
And there are vital, essential positions that go unnoticed and are usually not paid, so leaving the contributor in the position of need (maybe even poverty). Though staying home and raising children is not regarded as important my many.


You are throwing everything into one pot, give it a good stir and claim you came up with an argument.

But you are throwing the illegals who slave away in the fields of this country (and you benefit from it, to make this clear) with Doctors and engineers and other highly skilled workers.

In general, I don't expect others to comply with things I would not do myself. So if you don't feel it is right for the average Joe, who just happened to pop his head out within the geographical borders of the country to submit to such things, why would you expect others to do so?

what assumptions?
my sister bought a take home DNA kit, sent it off and had results in a week... thats not an assumption thats a fact.

I am far more willing to work with American Citizens, provide temporary relief, and help get them back on their feet... and I would rather we work with what we have now, rather then allow more people to come here and require assistance to survive. Personally I want to see the majority of welfare and assistance programs gone. BTW they are called assistance programs right? meaning a hand up, not long term or permanent... but thats another discussion entirely.
I am also not throwing anyone away, you are the one making assumptions.. who said anything about throwing anyone away? You... you are the only one who did.

BTW dont you dare get snippy with me about staying at home and raising kids.
I quit a 6 figure corporate job to do just that, and I started teaching martial arts, investing, and other things that fit into my families life so that we do not send our kids to child care, just because you take care of kids does not mean you can not work, or even find time to do things... I teach, train, raise my kids, and we do lots of things as a family, and I am even considering going to school again as well, so dont give me that nonsense. I consider staying at home with kids so important, that my family took a huge hit in income to do so, after 5 years now we are closing in on completely replacing that income, but it was a huge hit. And just because you choose to do so does not mean you are stuck in poverty, thats crap.

Funny I live in California, we have plenty of illegal and legal immigrants here working fields.. doing odd work, etc.. The ones I see working the fields seem to be doing more then fine, some are driving newer trucks then mine as a matter of fact. So are they driving those trucks because they are getting paid a pitance, or are they breaking the law and getting money elsewhere? oh i dont know from assistance programs maybe? hrmm that would be a debate worth having if you could come up with some proof one way or the other.. But regardless I have no problem bringing in immigrant workers to fill jobs in the fields... the money paid is plenty for them to survive without assistance... they might not have that nice truck, and they probably wont buy a house.... but hello neither of those are American Rights, let alone human rights...
And yes I am asking someone that wants to immigrate and live in my country to do something I dont have to do... because I want to make sure they are buying in to our country, living by the rules, and planning on putting an effort forth to be successful, not to come here and leech off of us. I make no apologies for that.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Like I said I see no reason for someone to come here who is going to simply live on public assistance, we dont need that.

The issue, I think is not about their initial arrival, but what happens afterwards. Even more so in today's economy, anyone can lose their job through no fault of their own.

So...

Do citizens (born in the USA) deserve benefits?
Do citizens (naturalized) deserve benefits?
Do legal resident aliens deserve benefits?

If no, then we would have to change our current model, which is (mostly) need-based and not status-based.

We would also have to consider what happens to people who are here legally, become unemployed or disabled, and are not allowed to receive public assistance. It's one thing to say "they don't get any," but if they actually starve and/or die of medical issues? Will we let that happen? Should we let that happen? I'm not trying to pull heartstrings here, but if we say they get no services, then we have to have the discussion about what happens when they do NOT get services. We could maybe deport resident aliens, but what about naturalized citizens? Do they get the boot as well if they lose their jobs or become disabled?

And then of course we still have that sticky situation where legal immigrants have children in the USA - who are citizens by birth. The kids would be eligible for services; their parents not? This is what the situation is for illegal aliens currently; parents get nothing, children who are citizens get services (although of course actually given to the parents ).

What about the fact that those who have been working and then have lost their jobs or become disabled have paid taxes into the system designed to help them (just as you and I do) but they are forbidden from partaking in the system they've paid into? Perhaps we'd not let taxes be taken out of immigrant wages for the portion of taxes that pays social services?

I'm not trying to be disagreeable here. But when we start drawing lines, well, we have to actually draw them. That means making decisions about who does and does not get services, and then what happens to those who do not get services. It's one thing to say, for example, that immigrants without jobs cannot have social services. It's another to think about "OK, then what happens when they begin to literally starve to death?"

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I never said it was an easy fix lol..
and yes you just scratched the surface of the what ifs...

Off the top of my head I would have to say that resident aliens should have a stipulation to their residency of a job. No job then they have a certain amount of time to rectify and change the situation... or maybe ability to survive without a job if they have none... If a resident alien marries into money and never has to work again then great for them! If a resident alien wins the lottery and never has to work again then great for them.... if a resident alien loses their job but has money saved to cover themselves for a year then they have time to look for a job.. and if it comes to it I am all for sending them back home if they cant make it work here.

I see no difference in status between a 10th generation citizen and a person who became a citizen yesterday. So I would treat them the same.

I could see a model changing to needs based with a requirement of citizenship to qualify, not residency.

As far as the citizens, well thats the hard thing.

 

[K-man]

I can't view the clip at the moment, but I get the idea, I think. Still probably can't comment since we're talking about Australia and I know nothing about Australia's immigration laws.

But I can comment on immigration and assimilation and such things in more general terms, at least as it is in the USA.

First, it's important to understand the concept of freedom of speech. As practiced in the USA, all forms of speech are not just tolerated but protected, including that speech which espouses hatred of one's own government. With certain exceptions, especially regarding in this case incitement to riot, or actual threats, or planning actual insurrection, one may say what one wishes about the government.

Clearly, a person who enjoys the freedom to criticize our government whilst living under the freedoms it defends is ironic at the least, and ungrateful in the extreme. It's distasteful to think of a person immigrating to the USA, especially as a refugee, and then making public statements condemning that very government or calling for overthrow. However, it's legal; for a citizen, for an immigrant, even for a visitor. It's protected speech in general terms.

Second, the concept of immigration in general. Once a person is accepted for permanent residence in the USA, that person is subject to certain restrictions that citizens do not have, and that person can be expelled to their country of origin in certain circumstances. But generally, that immigrant is as free to express their opinions - no matter how hateful or distasteful - as any citizen.

Third, the concept of public assistance. I realize it's very different in the USA than in other places, but in very general terms, assistance is based on need and not on immigration or citizenship status (other than the requirement that they be legal), and it's not based upon their political viewpoints. "Do you hate the hand that feeds you?" "Yes, I do." "OK, then, no Welfare for you!"

Taking the three together, it's easy to see how ugly it is when an immigrant, especially a refugee, takes a public position of hatred for the government that has extended the helping hand to him.

But let's consider just two elements. For example, a citizen by birth who receives public assistance and hates the government as well. What to do with them? Well, nothing, basically. So it would seem that what we're saying is that it is the fact of their immigrant/refugee status, rather than their receipt of public assistance and simultaneous hatred of the government, which we find odious.

What if the immigrant/refugee hates the government but does NOT receive public assistance? Is that OK? It's less ironic, of course, but would we then consider they would be free to make such statements? If so, then it is the fact that they receive public assistance whilst complaining about the government that provides it that we seem to dislike.

What if the immigrant/refugee receives public assistance but does not hate the government that provides it? Do we have a problem with that person? In this case, one has to question whether a need-based system is what the person who dislikes it really wants; it might seem they want a system based on where a person is from, rather than what their actual needs are.

Given all of this, I find that there is much to dislike about a person who claims refugee status to obtain legal immigrant status, takes public assistance, and makes public statements about their hatred of the very government that provides their daily bread and keeps a roof over their heads. It's rude, it's ugly, it's disgusting. However, when asked what is to be done about it, my answer would be nothing at all. In a free society, if they're here legally, and they qualify for public assistance, they have the same right to hate our government as I do. Let 'em rant. I don't like it, but sometimes freedom means things I don't like happen anyway.

That does not mean that I think they should be able to make plots to blow things up or hurt people. That's not 'free speech' and such a person would be correctly arrested and prosecuted - but that's the same whether the person is an immigrant or a citizen, on public assistance or independently wealthy. It's the act which is criminal and should be prosecuted, not the fact of their immigration status or receipt of public assistance.

Moving on to assimilation, I doubt that such people can or will assimilate. One might also add that there are many groups in the USA which have never assimilated and perhaps never will, although they do peacefully co-exist within our system to the largest extent. From cultural enclaves such as we have in Detroit (Mexicantown, Corktown, Greek Town, and the various areas known for ethnic groups such as Hamtramck and the places where Albanians, Chaldeans, and other groups live) to more isolated groups such as the Amish and various ultra-orthodox Jewish groups, we have many small groups that never have assimilated, or which have assimilated to minor degrees only.

So one must ask if 'assimilation' is the issue, or if hatred and/or actions against one's government arising from those who have not assimilated is the issue.

In other words, do we really care if a given group 'assimilates' with us, so long as they are in fact peaceful and obey our laws? Do we in the USA have a problem with the Amish? After all, they truly do not assimilate. They don't pay into Social Security (fact). They don't have health insurance, and even under the new Obamacare rules, they don't have to buy health insurance, even though the rest of us do. They speak heavily-accented English and have their own language, which they refuse to give up even after many generations in the USA. They file taxes, they register for the draft, they vote. They have the right to voice their opinions of the USA as they wish; as much as any of us do. However, the Amish don't have a problem with the USA, and they don't foment rebellion or hatred or violence.

So it would seem that non-assimilation isn't the issue. The issue appears to be hatred, violence, and other 'abuses' of rights that offend our sensibilities which come from non-assimilated or culturally-isolated groups of immigrants or citizens.

I have an opinion regarding assimilation, and that is that assimilation occurs naturally over generations in most cases. Amish, ultra-Orthodox Jews, and other groups resist assimilation because they wish to maintain their identity and their own ways, but it is hard for their children to resist the siren call of Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Levi's Blue Jeans, and MTV. We sell them assimilation, basically. Our 'Western' cultural values (such as they are) are so compelling that they are banned in many repressive nations; they're the most destructive forms of propaganda we could field! No national intelligence agency could devise a more compelling argument for Democracy and Free Enterprise than rock-and-roll and tight jeans do.

The second part of assimilation that comes along with such commercialization of Western culture is the culture of consumerism. People who have mortgages to pay and car payments to make and kids in soccer practice and so on do not have a lot of interest in violent revolution, generally speaking. They may bemoan the loss of their traditional culture, but if they want to keep the kids happy by paying for their summer camp and braces and the newest style jeans and school stuff, they have to keep working, keep saving, and keep paying those bills.

So to me, the way we assimilate immigrants is to sell them stuff and then make them pay for it. Just like we do citizens. Turn them into consumers of popular crap and they'll be too busy paying for it to think about distributing leaflets and standing on street corners talking about Jihad. And if we don't get them, we'll get their kids.

Bill, I don't want to talk about freedom of speech. I know your opoinion, I respect your opinion and I don't necessarilly agree with you position.

This post is not about that. It is in fact totally irrelevent. It is a shame because your comment without seeing the video has totally derailed my post.

This guy was plotting jihad on Australian soil. His organisation was planning to set off bombs at one of Australia's top sporting events. That is what I sought to discuss. :asian:

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Bill, I don't want to talk about freedom of speech. I know your opoinion, I respect your opinion and I don't necessarilly agree with you position.

This post is not about that. It is in fact totally irrelevent. It is a shame because your comment without seeing the video has totally derailed my post.

This guy was plotting jihad on Australian soil. His organisation was planning to set off bombs at one of Australia's top sporting events. That is what I sought to discuss. :asian:

we can discuss it, and I thought Bill did a really good job of addressing it, plus other options in his post..
personally I say take the guy out behind Ayers Rock and do a double tap, then there is no more need for discussion.... but I know you Aussies are not as "wild west" as we are here in the States.... so that might not be a welcomed comment either.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This guy was plotting jihad on Australian soil. His organisation was planning to set off bombs at one of Australia's top sporting events. That is what I sought to discuss. :asian:

I did actually comment on that. It's a crime no matter what the status is of the person who commits it. It's disgusting when the person doing it is taking full advantage of the freedoms, extended helping hand, and hospitality of the nation they intend to attack.

What I sought to do was not to derail your topic, but to point out that it would be the same crime if the person had been a native-born (Australian in your case). In the US, we've had our own bombers who were born here; one was even a 'war hero' of sorts before he decided to blow up the Oklahoma City Federal Building. It would have been the same crime had he been a refugee from some repressive Islamic regime and then decided to take the same action, yes?

 

[K-man]

..personally I say take the guy out behind Ayers Rock and do a double tap, then there is no more need for discussion.... but I know you Aussies are not as "wild west" as we are here in the States.... so that might not be a welcomed comment either.

Mate. I'm with you.

 

[K-man]

I did actually comment on that. It's a crime no matter what the status is of the person who commits it. It's disgusting when the person doing it is taking full advantage of the freedoms, extended helping hand, and hospitality of the nation they intend to attack.

What I sought to do was not to derail your topic, but to point out that it would be the same crime if the person had been a native-born (Australian in your case). In the US, we've had our own bombers who were born here; one was even a 'war hero' of sorts before he decided to blow up the Oklahoma City Federal Building. It would have been the same crime had he been a refugee from some repressive Islamic regime and then decided to take the same action, yes?

I have no problem with your position or what you posted. What I felt was wrong was that you were prepared to post a detailed response without actually viewing the video.

I can't view the clip at the moment, but I get the idea, I think. Still probably can't comment since we're talking about Australia and I know nothing about Australia's immigration laws.

It is like you posting a link to an article and saying; "I think this is bad. What would you do about it?" Then me saying; "I haven't got time to look at it just now, I'll read it later. But this is what I think it will be about, so .... (lengthy response)".