Refugee Crisis – Germany Struggles with Continuing Violence

21 Responses to Refugee Crisis – Germany Struggles with Continuing Violence

1. J. Soden says:

   Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 3:00 pm

   Would somebody please wake up da prez and DHS to this problem on OUR horizon????
   Hello, Clowngress??? Anybody listening up there??????

   Reply
2. Tina says:

   Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 6:21 pm

   I get why the left yawns when Christians are subjected to such abuse but women, children and homosexuals? What’s going on? Lefties are capable of going ballistic if a Christian in America declines to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple but gays are being verbally abused and beaten up my Muslims in Germany and it’s not that big a deal.

   Curious. What will they have to say if we begin to have the same problems?

   Reply
   • Chris says:

     Friday, February 12, 2016 at 6:35 am

     Tina, the key phrase in your question is “in America.” You are literally asking why American lefties are more concerned with discrimination in America than discrimination in Germany, and you don’t see why that question is stupid?

     The violence in Europe has also not been one-side; a group of neo-Nazis launced an unprovoked assault on innocent refugees in a train station in Stockholm, saying they were looking for anyone who did not look Swedish. Hatred begets hatred and violence begets violence. You really want this type of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim sentiment sweeping Europe to come here? Because the extra violence and hate crimes will come with it.

     We have not had a tenth of the problems Europe has had with its Muslim population here. America is much better at integrating its different communities into one society. Segregated communities are rampant in Europe in a way that they aren’t here. Your solutions would only increase stigma and separation among Muslims and the rest of society and increase tensions when we need to be building bridges.

     Reply
3. Tina says:

   Friday, February 12, 2016 at 9:51 am

   “You are literally asking why American lefties are more concerned with discrimination in America than discrimination in Germany, and you don’t see why that question is stupid?”

   And amazingly you don’t see why your answer is stupid. One day you will be forced to choose between your knee jerk bigotry and your survival instinct. I hope you wake up in time.

   ” America is much better at integrating its different communities into one society. ”

   Oh yeah, you’re going to “integrate” a population whose purpose for being here is blowing up buildings, using mustard gas, and raping and assaulting women, children, and homosexuals. You’re going to extend your hand and build bridges. Good luck with that, FOOL!

   See Chris, it is YOU who refuses to distinguish between Muslim terrorists and the larger Muslim population. Because you are at the effect of liberal PCBS you can’t even begin to discuss the real threat that this refugee situation poses.

   Our president can’t either which is why we are now faced with “fighting” them here instead of over there.

   It’s so easy for you weenie liberals. He77, it isn’t you that’s tasked with the challenge of rooting these people out before they decimate large segments of our population.

   Reply
   • Chris says:

     Friday, February 12, 2016 at 3:00 pm

     Tina: “See Chris, it is YOU who refuses to distinguish between Muslim terrorists and the larger Muslim population.”

     Well, let’s evaluate that statement:

     I’m the one saying we shouldn’t ban all Muslim immigration just because some Muslims are terrorists, and you’re the one saying we should ban all Muslim immigration because some Muslims are terrorists.

     I’m the one saying we shouldn’t ban all Muslims from serving our country through our military and Congress, and you’re the one saying we should ban all Muslims from serving our country through our military and Congress.

     Your favored policies would–by definition–not distinguish between Muslim terrorists and average Muslims; they would exclude all Muslims.

     So no, it really is you who refuses to distinguish between Muslim terrorists and the larger Muslim population, at least in the policies you favor.

     So let me know when you’re ready to stop projecting and take responsibility for your own bigotry.

     Reply
     • Tina says:

       Friday, February 12, 2016 at 11:24 pm

       No Chris, you’re the one who’s saying he can “integrate” Muslims, so there’s no need to worry about terrorists embedding their fighters in the refugee population. Zero distinction! NONE! There is no reason for considering putting a hold on immigration. Chris the peacemaker has it all figured out. We all feel so much better!

       But please, someone, alert the generals and the CIA. They need to know this starling bit of information from the world renowned expert on terrorism, Chris.

       Reply
4. Libby says:

   Friday, February 12, 2016 at 9:34 pm

   “… decimate large segments of our population?”

   Really? You really think this is going to happen?

   I think you are being irrationally fearful. I mean, if the Africans didn’t, the Irish didn’t, the Laotians, Cambodians and Vietnamese didn’t (and Lord knows they had cause), then probably the Syrians won’t either.

   You really need to, quite literally, take a pill.

   Reply
5. Tina says:

   Friday, February 12, 2016 at 11:09 pm

   Libby IF the next big terror attack on the US did involve Mustard Gas it could mean a large segment of the population would be decimated. We could experience another 911. it is possible. Are you denying that?

   Noticing the possibility is not irrational fear, as much as you’d like to pretend it is.

   “…if the Africans didn’t, the Irish didn’t, the Laotians, Cambodians and Vietnamese didn’t…”

   None of them flew jets into the world trade center either. I think we have a bit of a precedent setting record and pattern of attack on American soil in this case. I just hope for your sake if it happens, it doesn’t happen in the Bay Area.

   Reply
6. Chris says:

   Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 8:04 am

   Tina: “No Chris, you’re the one who’s saying he can “integrate” Muslims, so there’s no need to worry about terrorists embedding their fighters in the refugee population.”

   No, that’s not even close to what I said. I said that we as a country (not me, personally–are you really that dumb to think that’s what I meant?) already DO a good job of integrating Muslims, and this is part of why we haven’t seen the type of violence here that we’ve seen in Europe. I never said there was no need to worry about ISIS embedding among the refugees. I said your solutions are an overreaction to that possibility.

   “But please, someone, alert the generals and the CIA.”

   If you had actually bothered reading the entire article you linked to, instead of stopping the moment you felt your biases were confirmed, you would have seen that the article you linked actually supports my point about Muslim integration in the US. From your article:

   And American Muslims are generally more integrated into society than European Muslims, many of whom are confined to housing projects on the outskirts of big cities. The discrimination they face might motivate some to turn to radical Islamist groups.

   [National Security Analyst Peter Bergen said] “[T]he profile of a terrorist in Europe now amongst the Muslim population is they are very disadvantaged, they come out of a criminal background, they often meet in prison and are radicalized in prison. And we’re not seeing that in the United States because American Muslims don’t live in ghettos, their average income is the same as the average American, the average education is the same.

   The article also cites experts saying that homegrown attacks by Muslims influenced by ISIS’ social media will continue to be more likely than orchestrated attacks by foreign ISIS operatives.

   Your proposals that we put a hold on Muslim immigration, ban Muslims from serving our country in military and government, and follow the example of extreme European anti-Islam groups (most if not all of which are connected to white supremacists) would only serve to damage our relations with the US Muslim population, creating a group of angry second-class citizens ripe for radicalization. Maybe we’d be a bit more safe from the threat of ISIS operatives posing as immigrants, but we’d be much less safe from lone wolves as they’d now have more reason to see the US as at war with Islam, not just terrorists. Since we actually have had a lot of lone wolf attacks and zero ISIS agents posing as immigrants (so far), I am more concerned about the former. I’m also concerned about making sure we follow the Constitution, which your proposal to implement a religious test for government office violates in the name of security.

   Reply
   • Tina says:

     Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 2:17 pm

     Chris: ” I never said there was no need to worry about ISIS embedding among the refugees. I said your solutions are an overreaction to that possibility.”

     Is it possible for you to say you think it’s an overreaction without calling me stupid or any number of other names? Unfortunately that always seems to be your greater purpose.

     America imagines it has done a better job at assimilating people from foreign nations but I think this is based in a false sense of security that ignores how America has changed since the 1990’s and increasingly so in the last 10-15 years. Our southern border has been breached by drug cartels as well as foreigners that have come here illegally. People are moving into our country and they are being encouraged to hang on to their language and heritage. There are many more people here who have no intention to assimilate. Our prisons are filled with recruiters either of dangerous gangs or terrorists. Our nation is rapidly transforming and this refugee crisis will not make assimilation easier nor America stronger or more secure.

     Yesterday a possible lone wolf attack in Ohio took place. The man has apparently been under scrutiny by the FBI. Attacks of this nature have increased in America in the last eight years. Expectations are that they ill increase. Bringing in more people that need monitoring and that cold be recruiters of lone wolves seems a bad idea at this juncture. These are extraordinary times requiring extraordinary measures.

     Various legal types have said a temporary ban would be unconstitutional but not all legal experts agree:

     Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, pointed out that the Supreme Court “has held consistently, for more than a century, that constitutional protections that normally benefit Americans and people on American territory do not apply when Congress decides who to admit and who to exclude as immigrants or other entrants. “This is called the plenary power doctrine,” he continued. “The court has repeatedly turned away challenges to immigration statutes and executive actions on grounds that they discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, and political belief, and that they deprive foreign nationals of due process protections.”

     He said while the court hasn’t ruled specifically on religious discrimination, “it has also never given the slightest indication that religion would be exempt from this general rule.”

     Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment specialist at the UCLA School of Law, mostly agreed.

     “As a policy matter, I think that banning entry by Muslims would be a very bad idea, for many reasons. But, like many very bad ideas, it might not be unconstitutional,” he wrote.

     In fact, the Legal Information Institute at Cornell cites this provision of federal law:

     Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. …

     …Akhil Reed Amar, who is at Yale Law School, told NPR the Supreme Court “has never completely repudiated a very long-standing doctrine – known as the ‘plenary power’ doctrine – that gives Congress very broad power to keep aliens of all sorts from entering American if Congress so chooses.”

     Volokh noted Posner’s opinion, and said, “I would add that, in Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), the Supreme Court applied the ‘plenary power doctrine’ to the exclusion of people based on their political beliefs, despite the Free Speech Clause. The cases that Posner is referring to, together with Kleindienst, suggest that the exclusion of people based on their religious beliefs is likewise constitutional.”

     He noted that, “at this point, the precedents counsel in favor of the constitutionality of such a rule.”

     Posner pointed out there even is a precedent for Trump’s idea.

     “In 1891, Congress passed a statute that made inadmissible people who practice polygamy (directed, at the time, at Mormons), and in 1907 extended this ban to people who ‘who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.’ While Congress later repealed the latter provision (the former seems to be still on the books), no court – as far I know – ruled it unconstitutional.”

     He said it’s clear, “The plenary power doctrine is universally loathed by scholars and some have argued that it is effectively a dead letter. But any honest answer to a journalist’s question about whether Trump’s plan to ban Muslim immigration is unconstitutional should start with the plenary powers doctrine, and observe that it would be an uphill battle to persuade the Supreme Court to abandon a century of precedent.”

     He said it’s unfortunate that scholars – “who certainly know better” – are telling journalists who don’t like Trump’s ideas what they want to hear.

     “Not everything that is stupid or offensive is unconstitutional,” he said.

     And when the Iranian hostage crisis developed under President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, Front Page Mag reports he issued orders designed to pressure Iran. One of them said Iranians were banned from entering the U.S. unless they opposed the Shiite Islamist regime – or had a medical emergency.

     He said, in 1980, “The Secretary of Treasury and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires.”

     Carter also ordered 50,000 Iranian students in the U.S. at the time to report to immigration offices and face deportation if they were in violation of their visas.

     See also here:

     If “respectable” politicians refuse to even talk about the real problems caused by mass Muslim immigration, then a larger and larger share of the public will turn to carnival barkers unafraid of elite disapproval.

     Under current trends, the United States will admit about 1 million new Muslim-origin immigrants over the next decade, plus hundreds of thousands of Muslim guest workers and foreign students. In addition, something like 50,000 young people from Muslim immigrant families turn 18 in the United States each year. Many of these individuals are productive citizens who pose no threat to our republic. Iman the supermodel, television’s Dr. Oz, Fareed Zakaria, Coke CEO Muhtar Kent — whatever their merits or lack thereof, their Muslim origins pose no threat to us. Some are even politically conservative American patriots, such as our own Reihan Salam. But large Muslim populations, continually refreshed by ongoing mass immigration, are a problem. Polling suggests between a quarter and a third are not attached to the principles of the Constitution, supporting things such as sharia law over U.S. law and the use of violence against those who insult Islam. Nor is this merely hypothetical; Muslims account for only about 1 percent of the U.S. population but account for about half of terrorist attacks since 9/11. That means Muslims in the United States are about 5,000 percent more likely to commit terrorist attacks than non-Muslims.

     …while Islam is indeed a religion, it is also more than that — and it is the political aspects that concern us. As Andy McCarthy noted last week, Islam’s non-religious element — sharia — “involves the organization of the state, comprehensive regulation of economic and social life, rules of military engagement, and imposition of a draconian criminal code.” That program of Islamic supremacism is fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution, and we should strive to minimize the number of people living in our country who hold such beliefs. As Walter Russell Mead wrote the other day, “a cosmopolitan and tolerant society can’t thrive if it admits millions of migrants who hate and despise cosmopolitan values.”

     The narrowest solution would be to restore the principle of “ideological exclusion” to U.S. immigration law. With the end of the Cold War — which too many imagined to be the End of History — we eliminated the legal bar to enemies of America who were not actual members of terrorist organizations or card-carrying members of totalitarian political parties. Specifically, the law says the State Department is prohibited from keeping a foreigner out “because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States.” In other words, since 1990 we have applied the First Amendment to all foreigners abroad seeking admission to our country. The only exception is if the secretary of state “personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest” — note this exception is only for a “compelling . . . foreign policy interest,” not a domestic-policy one, like limiting the number of residents who support killing apostates.

     Even President Obama has paid (grudging) lip service to the ideological — as opposed to the violent — threat. In his Oval Office speech Sunday night he said “Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to . . . speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.” So why aren’t we keeping out people who adhere to such interpretations?

     Such screening would be stricter for people coming as immigrants than for nonimmigrants (visitors). So long as he’s not a terrorist, it doesn’t matter too much to us if a Turkish businessman attending a trade show in Atlanta supports the killing of homosexuals. But for people who want to become permanent (or even long-term “temporary”) residents, it does matter. At the very least, we should be asking things like whether they support freedom of religion and speech, regardless of content, even if it is insulting to other faiths. Of course people could, and would, lie, but the very fact that such a question is asked would send a message about what we expect of people hoping to live among us — that believing in Islamic supremacism is disqualifying even if you yourself do not use violence. But large-scale immigration of non-violent Islamic supremacists also facilitates violence, by forming and sustaining neighborhoods that serve as cover and incubators for jihad attacks, however unintentionally. Muslim immigrant neighborhoods, and their mosques and other institutions, fit Mao’s observation regarding the peasantry’s role in China’s war against the Japanese: “The people are like water and the army is like fish.” DHS’s chief intelligence officer told the House Select Committee on Intelligence in 2007, “As previous attacks indicate, overseas extremists do not operate in a vacuum and are often linked with criminal and smuggling networks — usually connected with resident populations [in the U.S.] from their countries of origin (emphasis added).”

     The Somali community in Minneapolis is a prime example. Established through refugee resettlement, and continually expanded and refreshed by more resettlement (nearly 9,000 Somali refugees were admitted last year) as well as follow-on chain migration, it has been the source of dozens of recruits for Al Shabaab and ISIS, and dozens more supporters, even though most community members aren’t necessarily terrorists or even fellow-travelers. Just this summer, a Somali graduate of a Minnesota high school died fighting for ISIS in Syria. As the Washington Times noted, immigration “is having the unintended consequence of creating an enclave of immigrants with high unemployment that is both stressing the state’s safety net and creating a rich pool of potential recruiting targets for Islamist terror groups.”

     Whether an idea is stupid or not is a matter of opinion. Given we live in an extremely saturated PC world it doesn’t come as a surprise that a number of educated people would think this idea stupid. Obviously it is not so utterly stupid, given the conditions that now plague our world, since educated and informed people find it worthy of consideration.

     The PC among us could stand to apply a bit of humility to themselves and respect for the opinions of others.

     And for the record this was not my idea; it was Mr. Trumps. We are merely discussing it.

     Reply
7. Harold says:

   Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 9:08 am

   Tina, Just maintain your position on immigration, it is best for America right now. Also that until we have developed a better vetting system, (San Bernardino is an excellent example of failure) we should temporally suspend immigration to all Middle Eastern immigrants into America until we have a better system in place. And that applies to, Muslim or otherwise (way to much possibility of a sleeper)
   Especially those young able bodied Middle Eastern men capable of defending their own country. Why not stay and help preserve their way of life on their own soil?
   America can’t even deal with people refusing to follow police authority when given directions by the police under suspicion of a crime. And now the Liberals want wide open refugee problems like Germany, the destruction of this country is on a fast downhill pace.
   So until there is proper education of what is happening and why, all this feel good, warm fuzzy headed thinking about immigration should be curtailed. And where a lot of this thinking comes from is socialist thinking.
   Socialism needs a scape goat to succeed, currently one of its favorite targets is Wall Street and evil Capitalism” And they are selling this C&@P to the young voter employing the old expression of “Youth must be served”, mainly through media and educators because they realize it is important to indoctrinate today’s youthful voters through said educators and the media with an entitlement ideology.
   Socialist realize that they have a small time frame to achieve that, because as people age they grow to understand that any government based on socialism will lead to the ruination of a prosperous country and life, and at the same time that only the Governing self serving politicians benefit and enjoy a life of reward.
   People eventually will realize that Government creates all our problems to begin with, then Government steps in to falsely solve them with over the top regulation, if only for the benefit of their contributing crony benefactors, and lay the cost of their actions on the backs of average tax payers.
   That fact is not being taught through the media nor higher education, and it will only come with life’s experiences. Right now about 43% of Today’s youth between 18 and 29 think socialism is the answer, and it’s not hard to figure out how they came up with that entitlement mentality, especially if you pay attention to mainstream media and popular college thinking. The only consoling fact is as they age from 30 on up, less and less of them follow those anal doctrines. But has the damage already been done, Yes!

   Reply
   • Tina says:

     Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 3:03 pm

     God comments Harold.

     I appreciate your support too.

     Reply
     • Tina says:

       Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 8:48 pm

       Chris I have not fully embraced Trumps idea. I find such absolutism on proposals a bit odd and irrelevant since none of us is in a position to make the decision. Under a barrage of negative criticism that included charges of racism and bigotry I have attempted to make the suggestion seem worthy of consideration, as I would if I were in a position to make a decision.

       A leader sets the tone early in his presidency. Obama talked a lot about America coming together, but at the same time he’s pitted groups against each other and he’s intimated that there is widespread discrimination against Muslims, which is not the truth at all. Discord is greater in America under his leadership. Had he set a better example this proposal could be accepted as a possible practical temporary solution to a worrisome problem. Unfortunately it just brings out the fangs.

       I don’t think much of Trumps leadership performance so far but the suggestion is worthy of consideration as part of a plan to keep American’s safe. A good leader could present the idea without making it seem an attack on Muslims generally. As I’ve said before, Muslims, including Muslim Americans, are hurt by terrorists just as any other person. Some of them are brave enough to speak up about it and offer warnings and advice.

       It’s not clear that the American people have been told the truth about refugees. Our President is more concerned with appearing inclusive than in keeping America safe. He can’t afford to do that as leader of the nation. I fear our media mirrors the attitude of the President.

       Reply
     • Tina says:

       Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 8:55 pm

       Wow…that should read, “Good comments Harold.”

       I’m certain it was obvious but wanted to clear the record anyway.

       Reply
8. Libby says:

   Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 2:16 pm

   Tina, Harold … It’s not a safe world. Never was. Never will be.

   But your fervor to abandon the nation’s founding principles is pretty damned disheartening.

   Reply
   • Tina says:

     Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 3:06 pm

     Libby you lefties abandoned the nations founding principles beginning back in the sixties and you’ve led this nation along the path of “revolution” ever since. Go “fundamentally transform” elsewhere, we’ve had quite enough of it already!

     Reply
9. Chris says:

   Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 3:55 pm

   Tina, if we want Muslims to continue adapting and embracing American values, the worst possible plan I could imagine is banning Muslim immigrants from coming to America, and forbidding them from serving this country through the military and the government.

   I agree with Professor Volokh that the former would not be unconstitutional (though the latter definitely would), but it would still be wrong and counter-productive, and would increase extremist’s recruiting efforts.

   If we want Muslims to continue assimilating in the US, we have to treat them like Americans. Doing otherwise would not only increase radicalism among Muslims here, it would prevent foreign Muslims who would otherwise immigrate and become patriotic Americans from doing so. Cutting off our cultures from one another is not the answer. It would only create more hatred and division.

   I would not object to a stricter screening process or even some of the questions mentioned in that article, but a blanket ban on Muslim immigrants is a terrible idea.

   Reply
10. Libby says:

    Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 5:46 pm

    Tina, you have not defended yourself. You wanna try again?

    Reply
11. Tina says:

    Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    Libby, I don’t need to defend myself.

    If you have a question I’ll be happy to answer as best I can as long as you make what you’re asking clear. I can’t always find the pathway to your thinking when you try to get too cute.

    Reply
12. Libby says:

    Monday, February 15, 2016 at 7:03 pm

    Spiffy. You admit to irrational Islamophobia, an intent to exclude all Muslim immigration and incarcerate and deport those already here … a la Trump.

    Now we have it clearly, we don’t need to see another post on the subject that does not make this perfectly plain … no more “code”, no more evasions, just nice clear xenophobia.

    Reply
13. Tina says:

    Monday, February 15, 2016 at 8:01 pm

    There you go again. Putting words in my mouth.

    Since you refuse to address the subject of the post kindly take your irrational charges of xenophobia and peddle them elsewhere; we’re on to your silly PC game and frankly it’s pretty much worn out.

    Reply