lejend wrote:Laurence Drake wrote:lejend wrote:Laurence Drake wrote:lejend wrote:Laurence Drake wrote:It's not a red herring. It's a serious issue that you need to address to maintain coherence.
Nuclear proliferation is a serious issue but that doesn't make it relevant. It's a red herring and distracts from the discussion.
It's not a red herring because the logical implication of your stance is that anyone with radically illiberal ideologies should not have the right to live in liberal democracies, and that this involves deporting native-born citizens with Communist or Nazi or religious fundamentalist views. You have to be prepared to accept this implication, or else explain why this implication doesn't in fact follow. Otherwise your stance is either incoherent or incomplete.
There is no right to migrate to another country. Countries have a right to reject any and all immigrants with an incompatible culture. I think "believes in human rights" is a very reasonable and fair requirement for immigration benefits.
It's not just the right to migrate that's important here. You said yourself that demographic displacement is still a worry even among the native-born. This is about the right to remain in a country, even after you've developed ties and even after you've created a home for yourself there, whether through birth or extended residence. Do people lose that right because they hold radically illiberal views?
Yes, you do lose most of your rights if you violate others' rights. Let's say indigenous Europeans and their supporters drop to 49% of the population. They are outvoted by the immigrant populations and foreign laws are passed, such as the prohibition of homosexuality. Are Europeans supposed to simply take it?
Keep in mind that much of Europe was under Islamic control for over half a millennium.
You lose some rights, not others. Once you're a citizen, they can't take that away from you, if you like to call yourself a constitutional democracy that is. Ofcourse, once you become a dictatorship or a totalitarian regime, you can do as you please.
And not much of Europe was under Islamic control for over half a century. It was a longer timeframe but a much smaller region. Spain was from 700 - 1400. Sicily was held for about 1-2 centuries and The balkan was held from 1453 - 1900. That's not even a quarter of europe in total, and not even at the same time.
Can you explain why we have to keep that in mind? The islamic rule of Muslim spain was much more tolerant than the reign of Queen Isabella and Ferdinand, who expulsed the jews and started the inquisition. Cordoba was also very advanced in terms of cultural and scientific development, and the information acquired by the conquest of Cordoba greatly influenced the renaissance. Not much can be said about the conquerers of sicily, they were basically pirates, but so were the Norman adventurers who kicked the muslims out and ruled it after, and now the maffia rules it. So basically not much changed there. And the ottoman rule of the Balkan in no way compares to what european christian nations did basically anywhere else on the world at the same time and later in history. But yes, go Hungary and the Polish Hussars!!!
Stick to the facts, if you want propaganda, go troll reddit.