Give me your tired, poor, huddled masses

[Tambora]

Some might do well to read 1 Corinthians 11.

Who here do you think has not????

 

[Town Heretic]

This is beyond pants or bonnets on Amish women.

You're talking about your response to it, not their motivation or response to it. Is it more drastic? Sure. But then, the Amish look pretty drastic in Hollywood.

If their practice is to abuse or diminish women, if they practice and support killing nonbelievers then I don't approve.

Okay. None of that would be orthodoxy for Islam but I'm certain it is the result in some cultural settings and where it is I'll stand with you in opposing it.

You can practice your religion as long as it doesn't inflict harm on others. Our society cannot tolerate violence because it is someone's personal belief.

I completely agree with the latter, though again I reserve the right to give "harm" the stink eye, since it can be stretched pretty thinly. Some people would say that my teaching Jack to love God is a sort of harm. I think they're ignorant. Life.

Will look at the link.

Can't ask for more. :thumb:

What is an example of something harmful but also lawful? Could you mean refusal of blood like the JW or faith based fundamental Christians who refuse to take their sick kids to the doctors and believe in prayer alone?

That's the first thing that came to mind, though I'm also mindful that some people see harm in what I'd call the good, supra.

While I have problems with it I could see that. Maybe lawful is a better way to state it. But you know laws - here today, changed tomorrow.

Mostly around the blurry edges, but sure.

It was wrong when Christianity forced people to conform with violence and it is wrong now when Islam does the same. Two wrongs don't do something.

I'm against violating anyone's right to the free exercise of conscience.

They can say Islam is a religion of peace, but actions speak louder than words

I agree with the last entirely. And most of the one and a half billion adherents of Islam aren't the problem.

Perhaps they have qualified peace. If everyone converted to Islam there would be peace.

I'd say you're conflating the exception with the demonstrable rule.

I will be on the lookout for it on TCM. Great channel. Thank you Mr. Turner.

I miss it (cable cut) though I do have a good library and some of the old standards are in public domain and on FB or offered through other services. I'll be happy when TCM has a stand alone buy in like HBO. It's a really good movie. I hope you feel the same way about it that we do.

What would be your one line movie review for Quiet Man? I like that thread which I think you started.

Warm, funny, sentimental and a fine, if idealized look at a time and people you wish you'd lived to walk among, though mostly on vacation.

I've started a few movie threads. One Sentence Movie Reviews, Going to the Movies, and American Film Icons. I thought the first would let the Twitter lovers chime in, the second would allow those who like to put their elbows into it a bit more room, and the last (which I need to get back to) is my homage to great actors and actresses I've had the good fortune to watch over the years. Glad you liked...one of them? :chuckle:

I have an optimistic view of humanity. There are bad apples that muck it up for the rest of us. A secular government is better. Diversity is an important ingredient. The US is lucky to have so many viewpoints. It, while painful, can lead to better understanding and compassion for others. Diversity in the US is being obliterated because of news isolation. Fake News mantras, Facebook, no common truths - bleech.

I by and large agree with everything in that. Well said.

EDIT: Well, Town I cannot find that link you gave to glass. If you could be so kind.

I'll poke around and find it later. If I forget nudge me. :cheers:

 

[exminister]

Turns out, there's a biological basis for those reactions:
http://factmyth.com/factoids/liberals-and-conservatives-brains-are-different-on-average/

The old saying:

Liberals are open and friendly because they think everyone is pretty much like they are. Conservatives are suspicious and surly for the same reason.

Is an exaggeration, but there's a grain of truth in it.

Is it like how nature "ensures" there is a proper balance between males and females so that being annoyed is a constant state?

 

[The Barbarian]

Is it like how nature "ensures" there is a proper balance between males and females so that being annoyed is a constant state?

[science teacher]Actually, the distribution of sexes is because of random assortment of chromosomes at meiosis.[/science teacher]

There's considerable evidence to suggest that humans are becoming more and more "domesticated" and less likely to be violent. The evidence from primitive societies is that each tribe was pretty much at war with any other tribe adjoining them, unless they had a deal to gang up on a third.

There was an obvious advantage to that kind of behavior. Laid back and friendly groups would probably not last very long.

Farming pretty much changed the rules, and with larger populations, it became necessary to trust and respect lots of people one was not personally related to or friends with. And selection would work on that; violent, suspicious, uncooperative people were less likely to leave offspring, possibly because they got killed a lot by alarmed neighbors.

So indications are that the tendency has been for human brains to become more peaceable and less prone to violence. It would be a really interesting project to see the relative sizes of the anterior cingulate gyrus and amygdala in in Japanese compared to Yanomomi tribesmen in Brazil.

Historically, violence has declined markedly in our society. Consider early Anglo-Saxon society, compared to an American town today.

We aren't there yet, but we've come a long way.

 

[The Barbarian]

What is this Borg you are talking about? A stated national goal? Immigrants always assimilated in the past.

Yeah, the Acadians came here from Canada in 1755, and they immediately switched to English, right?

 

[ClimateSanity]

Yeah, the Acadians came here from Canada in 1755, and they immediately switched to English, right?

Was there a constitutional united States of America with an immigration policy in place at that time? No.

 

[The Barbarian]

Was there a constitutional united States of America with an immigration policy in place at that time? No.

Actually, for much of our history, we didn't have an immigration policy in place. In Iowa there were areas where spoke German up to the mid-1900s.

Without an official language or a national immigration policy, it was pretty much libertarian until the Chinese Exclusion Act, and that only applied to a very small part of immigration.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Actually, for much of our history, we didn't have an immigration policy in place. In Iowa there were areas where spoke German up to the mid-1900s.

Without an official language or a national immigration policy, it was pretty much libertarian until the Chinese Exclusion Act, and that only applied to a very small part of immigration.

What part of American history since the signing of the Constitution had no immigration policy? Please be specific.

 

[ClimateSanity]

I guess you are referring to the Amana colonies. Are you saying new Germans coming in during the 1950's were not expected to speak English or assimilate? I'm pretty sure you are mistaken.

 

[The Barbarian]

What part of American history since the signing of the Constitution had no immigration policy? Please be specific.

The first law limiting immigration to the United States was in 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act, which limited immigration of people from China only. Previous to this, there were laws that governed naturalization of certain classes of people, but there were none limiting immigration to the United States.

 

[The Barbarian]

I guess you are referring to the Amana colonies.

Also the old order Amish communities, many of which also spoke German. Farther west,the Hutterites also spoke German.

Are you saying new Germans coming in during the 1950's were not expected to speak English or assimilate?

By whom? In the 1970s, German was still used in church services in Amana, and in some Louisiana parishes, French is spoken by as much as a quarter of the people living there.

And those people considered themselves to be fully American in every sense of the word. And they were.

 

[ClimateSanity]

The first law limiting immigration to the United States was in 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act, which limited immigration of people from China only. Previous to this, there were laws that governed naturalization of certain classes of people, but there were none limiting immigration to the United States.

So there was immigration policy. They had rules for those who immigrated here. I'm not talking about excluding certain countries. I'm talking about the requirement of assimilation for those applying for entry. You are claiming there was none of that before the china act?

 

[ClimateSanity]

Also the old order Amish communities, many of which also spoke German. Farther west,the Hutterites also spoke German.



By whom? In the 1970s, German was still used in church services in Amana, and in some Louisiana parishes, French is spoken by as much as a quarter of the people living there.

And those people considered themselves to be fully American in every sense of the word. And they were.

I'm referring to the immigration authorities who processed them coming in. Are you saying there was no assimilation requirements in place in 1950?

 

[ClimateSanity]

Also the old order Amish communities, many of which also spoke German. Farther west,the Hutterites also spoke German.



By whom? In the 1970s, German was still used in church services in Amana, and in some Louisiana parishes, French is spoken by as much as a quarter of the people living there.

And those people considered themselves to be fully American in every sense of the word. And they were.

It doesn't matter what they chose to speak after they were admitted. I'm talking about assimilation requirements at entry.

 

[gcthomas]

It doesn't matter what they chose to speak after they were admitted. I'm talking about assimilation requirements at entry.

Do you have a reference for the assimilation requirements you assert existed, please? Since you know they existed it will be far quicker if you just reveal your source.

 

[The Barbarian]

It doesn't matter what they chose to speak after they were admitted. I'm talking about assimilation requirements at entry.

When did speaking English become a legal requirement for entry?

 

[jgarden]

Give me your tired, poor, huddled masses

The Trump Administration cited the Canadian immigration system as their model, and yet Canada has brought in over 50,000 Syrian immigrants since 2016.

Unlike the POTUS, however, Canada's prime minister and other officials were at the airport to welcome the first flights of these new Canadians on their arrival.

To date, there has been no reported incidents of this group being involved in any criminal or terrorist acts!

 

[ClimateSanity]

When did speaking English become a legal requirement for entry?

The Naturalization Test

To become a naturalized U.S. citizen,*you must*pass the naturalization test.*At your naturalization interview, you will be required to answer questions about your application and background. You will also take an English and civics test unless you qualify for an*exemption*or waiver.

For more information, see*USCIS Policy Manual English and Civics Testing Guidance.**

Study Materials

USCIS*offers a variety of*study materials, including:

Study Materials for the Civics TestStudy Materials for the English Test

These and other citizenship resources for immigrants, educators, and organizations are available on*the*Citizenship Resource Center*website.

Exceptions from English & Civics Requirements

For information on exceptions or modifications to the English and civics requirements for naturalization, visit our*Exceptions & Accommodations*page.

If You Don’t Pass

You will be given two opportunities to take the English and civics tests and to answer all questions relating to your naturalization application in English.*If you fail any of the tests at your initial interview, you will be retested on the portion of the test that you failed (English or civics) between 60 and 90 days from the date of your initial interview.*See*8 CFR 312.5(a)*and*335.3(b)

 

[ClimateSanity]

It's a requirement for citizenship.
I never said anything about mere entry.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Do you have a reference for the assimilation requirements you assert existed, please? Since you know they existed it will be far quicker if you just reveal your source.

Assimilation has always been the goal. As recently as the efforts to pass a comprehensive immigration reform act in order to give amnesty to illegals, many requirements were put in that were intended to facilitate immigration.

A better question is when did our immigration policy favor non assimilation prior to Kennedy's immigration laws of 1965?