Replies

i wrote:

But the Arabs don't want to assimilate. They want to destroy Israel, all of it.

DentsRun wrote:
I think for many Palestinians that's true. On the other hand, Sharon wants to drive all the Palestinians across the Jordan River. Furthermore, a recent Maariv poll shows that half all Israelis do too.

1. Please cite.
2. If so, I imagine that terrorism has caused a backlash.

America is a fairly unique contry. Most countries are based on nationality. You would erase this. That is not tolerance any more than forcing interracial marriges would be.

Does this mean you want the United States to return to an immigration policy which discriminates on the basis of ethnicity? The last time we had such a policy (1965)American Jews fought long, hard and successfully to change the law. Do you really want to turn back the clock?
1. I took the US out of the debate on nationality. What part of unique and most don't you get?
2. I want all immigration reduced to assimilate immigrants. This is entirely irrelevent.
3. Jew supported the 1965 law and it is to our detriment. The importation of 4 million Muslims is not in the interest of American Jews. Balkanizing America is not in our interest.

That is not tolerance any more than forcing interracial marriges would be.

I'm talking about having an imigration policy which ignores ethnicity and religion. That doesn't mean just because someone of a different ethnicity/religion was admitted to your country that you are required to marry them. Maybe you could live next door to them, go bowling with them, and invite them to help you celebrate your wedding to someone you freely chose.

1. This changes the nature of the culture and people. It is a forced mixing of peoples.
2. In the case of Israel it would be suicide.

I think for many Palestinians that's true. On the other hand, Sharon wants to drive all the Palestinians across the Jordan River. Furthermore, a recent Maariv poll shows that half all Israelis do too.
1. Please cite.

That was from an October 27, 2001 column by New York Times writer Anthony Lewis. The full quote is as follows: "In a poll of Israelis just published by the newspaper Maariv, 50 percent said they favored "transferring" all Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza — sending them to Arab countries."

Do you really want to turn back the clock?

1. I took the US out of the debate on nationality. What part of unique and most don't you get?

And I put the U.S. back in. There are a lot of things wrong with current U.S. immigration policy, but one of the few things we do right, it seems to me, is not discriminate on the basis of religion or ethnicity.

Jew(s) supported the 1965 law and it is to our detriment. The importation of 4 million Muslims is not in the interest of American Jews. Balkanizing America is not in our interest.

Are you saying therefore that we should halt immigration of Muslims on the grounds that Muslims don't assimilate? I don't know if that's true. But if it is they certainly are not unique. Let me ask you a question. Do you distinguish between people who call themselves "American Jews" and people who call themselves "Jewish Americans?"

1. [Non-discrimination on the basis of religion or ethnicity] changes the nature of the culture and people. It is a forced mixing of peoples.

I don't know what's forced about it. No one says that just because we eliminated miscegination laws in the American south that southerners are "forced" to marry people of a different race. It just gives them a choice if, in case, they want to. As far as I can tell, most Americans agree that it is right and proper not to consider religion or ethnicity as a factor in immigration. Do you think most Americans are wrong? What would be a better policy when it came to religion/ethnicity?