- This topic has 133 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 12 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Lest anyone think it was unsuccesful. Let’s do it again
“Besides differences in political, ideological, social, economic variables, etc.,”
Care to elaborate?
” bear in mind that the 1930’s the was pre-terror, pre 9/11 world.”
Yes but they had their concerns Communism, anarchist (many of whom were Jewish) and the possibility of Nazi Spies infiltrating the refugees
“Anyway, if we want to consider the issue from an empirical perspective, meaning what happens when the flow of muslim migrants enters a foreign country, we don’t have to look any further than Europe – and it’s not pretty.”
In what sense?
(See my new thread for related discussion)
” Chayecha Kodmin.”
This part I agree with. And Am only reffering to where the neccesary agencies feel it is safe.
“We are in the hands of the Jews”, (Henry) Adams lamented. “They can do what they please with our values.” He advised against investment except in the form of gold locked in a safe deposit box. “There you have no risk but the burglar. In any other form you have the burglar, the Jew, the Czar, the socialist, and, above all, the total irremediable, radical rottenness of our whole social, industrial, financial and political system” – Saveth, Edward N. (1948). “Henry Adams Norman Ancestors.” In: American Historians and European Immigrants 1875-1925. New York: Columbia University Press, p. 74.
Dbrim- “How absurd.”
You’re wasting your time arguing with these liberals! They only post what is PC, not what the reality is. Just take a look at the success Europe has had with their liberal policies. This includes immigration from Muslim countries!
Mass murdering terrorists are far far worse than commie sympathizers. And it is fairly easy to determine if a refugee is Jewish or not and thus if Jewish clearly not a Nazi.
dbrim – thank you
ubiquitin – i am not really participating in this up-and-back but i would assume you know that when someone says apples and elephants, they are talking about comparing two incomparable points, not that they are comparing things they like from things they don’t. Distorting the meaning of the prefacing idiom cannot possibly contribute to having a real conversation.
Joseph
“Mass murdering terrorists are far far worse than commie sympathizers.”
I agree completly. But they may not have
“And it is fairly easy to determine if a refugee is Jewish or not”
how on Earth. Sadly most werent frum they were coming From Germany?
Syag
I turned a phrase to make a point (pretty cleverly if I may say so 🙂
Its getting hard to keep track of all the various postitions. so here they are as I understand them.
My apolagies If Ive misunderstood you. Please correct me and feel free to add categories or add yourself
On the issue of syrian refugees
1) Let as many in as want to come
– nobody here says this
2) Lets as many is as we can safely (and practicly)
– a. Which we can do – Ubiquitin, Sam2, akuperma, Avi K
– b. but impossible – DY, Syag
3) Prevent them from coming – Health, Newbee, Joseph, flatbusher, dbrim
Again please correct me if IVe misunderstood
interesting. i guess i was really having a side conversation. I didn’t consider the impossibility to be my point, i considered that to be the given premise, and my point was that you can’t just open your doors to people because you have a policy to opening doors. period. i believe you started this discussion saying that we have no business turning people away, as if opening doors is a shita. I believe the shita is being smart and protective. Sometimes that allows for open doors, and sometimes it doesn’t. I was arguing the “blanketness” of your viewpoints, not about whether or not syrians can come in safely.
ubiquitin -“prevent them from coming – Health”
Actually I wasn’t going into the OP. (Even though I posted not to let them in.)
My point was that the government is not focusing on the way to deal with the issue! I posted previously -“What the Western World should do is to get rid of the problem in Syria & Iraq. Then they could go home.” They wouldn’t be refugees anymore!
Mass murdering terrorists are far far worse than commie sympathizers.
I agree completly. But they may not have
Who cares what “they may not have”? I’m not talking about what some people mistakenly think. I’m talking about objective reality.
“They shouldn’t let them in! What is happening/happened in Europe will happen here. Even Trump is a liberal. What the Western World should do is to get rid of the problem in Syria & Iraq. No more pussyfooting around! Then they could go home.”
Do you agree with my post from before???”
Yes, I think the US should be STRONGLY pressuring other Islamic countries to take them in. Its ridiculous for the US to do so.
Granted Im not a political expert, but it seems to me Obama wants to change the look, character and face of America sooner than keep US troops in Syria, defeat Isis, and pressure other Islamic countries to at least take in refugees.
syag
“I was arguing the “blanketness” of your viewpoints”
I have reiterated several times. I am only talking about when deemed safe, i am not talking about a blanket allowance.
Joseph
again while i agree with you, that isnt objective.
Whcih would you rather live in France with its refugees and recent terror attack or the Former Soviet Union?
now granted Its quite far fetched for the U.S. to have turned into the Soviet Union by allowing some refugees even if communist in. however there was mass anti-communist hysteria at the time (as well as a depression)and people were nervous granted the fear was overstated.
But the risk the refugees pose is alos being over-stated. There is a thorough vetting process in place that takes almost 2 years and involves almost every intelligence agency. Tourists pose a greater threat! None of the terror attacks in the US since and including 9/11 have been via the over 700,000 refugees we have taken in since then.
Mass anti-communist hysteria started after WWII with the onset of the Cold War, not during or before WWII. But even anti-communist hysteria wasn’t a serious fear about immigrants being commies.
Fears were not limited to spies and revolutionaries. Several decades previously NYC Police Commissioner Theodore Bingham published an article in the North American Review entitled “Foreign Criminals in New York” in which he blamed Russian-born Jews for property crimes and Italian immigrants for violent crimes.
i know, i was correcting your re-cap of where i fit in.
Joseph
sorry that is incorrect. The first red scare took place just after the Russian Revolution in 1919 Led by AG Palmer. In certainly picked up after WW2 but many laws were designed in the 20’s 30’s to prevent Communists from servinf in any fedearal office and – more to the point- prevent immigration of supected Communists
ubiq, please cite where in the U.S. Code of pre-WWII, Federal law inhibited immigration on the basis of Communist affiliation. To the best of my knowledge that did not occur.
Joseph
i’d be glad to.
Read about the immigration act of 1924. (Which while not based on communist affiliation per se, did heavily restrict immigrants from Eastern Europe)
Dont get to caught up on immigration legislation per se. Since my point was regarding the excuse. People were afraid of communists, Jews were occasionaly communists. Thus they were vary of Jews coming in. This isnt unreasonable. There is a nice wikipedia page on the First Red scare.
of course they were wrong!
Also dont just limit to communists read about the anarchist exclsuion act which became the immigration act of 1918. As you may have guessed many Jews were Anarchists (Emma Goldman comes to mind)
Scared, that’s what Franklin said aboutthe Germans and Henry Adams ym’s said about the Jews. Here is a halachic article that I just received by e-mail:
THE REFUGEE CONTROVERSY AND ‘CHEZKAS YISHUV’
The right to inhabit a city.
Rabbi Micha Cohn
In recent weeks there have been ongoing debates between presidential candidates about immigration and the European refugee crisis. At the heart of these questions is how much are countries obligated to compromise their own security and economic system to help the less fortunate? In this article we will explore a pertinent rabbinic discussion from the Middle Ages called chezkas yishuv.
The Views of the Rosh & Maharik
The Maharik (See Rema CM 156) wrote that other Rishonim disagreed with the Rosh. They maintained that inhabitants of a city do have a chazaka on their town. This gives them a right to prevent others from moving there, especially if it will hurt their livelihood. According to this approach, the right to live in a city does belong to its inhabitants. As such, newcomers need the permission of the original inhabitants to move in.
Rabbeinu Tam writes that there was a cherem (excommunication) instituted in some communities against unwanted newcomers. The idea of the cherem was to circumvent the halachic question of chezkas yishuv. Even if the townspeople could not stop the newcomers from moving in, they could make a cherem on them to protect their source of livelihood. This means that the community members would prohibit anyone from doing business with the newcomers.
The Dispute Between the Maharik and Mabit
Communities also sought to protect their interests from newcomers by another indirect tactic. Newcomers needed permission from the local authorities to move in. The townspeople would convince the authorities not to give the newcomers a permit. The Maharik ruled that this is permissible (cited in Rema and Darchei Moshe ibid). He explained that since there was serious concern about the negative impact of newcomers, it is permissible to indirectly prevent them from moving in. The Maharik viewed causing the authorities not to issue a permit as only preventing the newcomers from getting a benefit, not as taking away something they already had. The Mabit (See Pischei Teshuva CM 156), however, disagreed. He maintained that even indirectly causing the newcomers to lose a legitimate right is not permissible.
Drawing Conclusions
We can glean from these discussions some important insights about some of the current issues. Does a country belong exclusively to its citizens? Possibly not. Should illegal immigrants be deported? Should a country refuse to take in refugees if they pose a security threat? These question could depend on how significant these risks are. If there is a real concern that the illegal immigrants are causing financial hardship to citizens or if the security risks are significant, one could consider them to be a rodef, a pursuer. Furthermore, there may be a difference between deporting individuals already in the country and not letting newcomers in. Otherwise, if they are willing to pay their fair share in taxes, we should welcome them and not behave like the selfish people of Sedom.
Are you sure you put that in the right thread? Did you mean to put it here?
(It doesn’t really fit there either, but at least it seems a bit related.)
DY, are you addressing me? If so you have a serious problem with reading comprehension. The title of this thread is “Banning Syrian Refugees From the US”. The title of the article is “THE REFUGEE CONTROVERSY AND ‘CHEZKAS YISHUV'”.
No, I b”H comprehend very well. I read the article, not just the title. Yes, they’re both about refugees, but the halachic discussion within really has nothing to do with current events.
of the idea
of the Syrian refugees are going to help is the on the United States become a better country is not important we should see them are the risks of my daily review of life and if so this should not be kind of oil part of this but can use in the 30 if they were not destroying the way of life as you so spoke so that is
No, I’m saying that the poskim weren’t addressing a situation where the concern was letting in people with intent to kill as many people as they can.
What does pizza have to do with this?
DY,
1. If newcomers can be kept out because they might cause the authorities to expel the current residents kal v’chomer if they might kill people.
2. Who mentioned pizza? More reading comprehension issues. However, if you insist, there would be a nafka mina if the fear is that Syrian refugees might open a competing kosher pizza place.
Avi, the other tzad would also agree. You don’t need a kal vachomer. The headline and opening paragraph were just a teaser to get people to read the article, but no real shaychus.
Pizza was a reference to Mendelssohn. I assume you mean the famous Boro Park pizzeria, because you surely wouldn’t care what Moses Mendelssohn has to say about hashkafa.
Where is the best place to get kosher pizza in each town?
Im looking for pizza with thin crust and exceptional sauce and good amount of cheese.
DY,
1. I think that the whole article is pertinent. One of the questions we will be asked after 120 years is whether we understood devar betoch devar.
2. I have no idea what establishments exist in Boro Park nor do I particularly care. I was indeed referring to Moses Mendelssohn. I was using his quote (now now) to point out the obvious conclusion from your statement “the halachic discussion within really has nothing to do with current events”. Whether you embrace or reject his hashkafa is up to you.
SDD -“Banning Syrian Refugees From the US”
They should ban Somalis from coming here also!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.