Religious Persecution by the President of the United States

[2PhiloVoid]

So the solution is to make the process itself undemocratic (to limit free formation of opinion)? Only let in immigrants that have the "correct" belief(s)?

No. I didn't say that. I prefer the idea that we should ONLY let in immigrants who will abide by and affirm the central core political values of our Constitution / Bill of Rights, and who even if not yet a citizen, would affirm a set of personal values that reflect the oath of allegiance that naturalized citizens later need to have and promise.

I don't think that's too much to ask, and what's more, I don't think die-hard Communists or those committed to other similarly alternatively inclined political devotions can do so or are willing to do so.

I have met several chilean, kurdish and turkish (not at the same time!) communists, seeking and getting asylum in Sweden, and none of them have led a revolt or tried to change any regime. I have meet others as well, but not in any significant numbers. I volunteer at a "språkcafé" (language café), people being communists are not a usual ground to deny them residence from the ones I have spoken to.

I do know of people who have done violent acts based on their politics, who have been denied though.

What immigrant-caused communist takeover are you thinking about?

Communist parties have been on the ballot and gotten seats since 1921 here.

They shouldn't be HERE. And I have my reasons for saying so.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So the solution is to make the process itself undemocratic (to limit free formation of opinion)? Only let in immigrants that have the "correct" belief(s)?

It's two different processes we're talking about here.

Undemocratic would be attempting to prevent the votes of actual citizens.

There's nothing undemocratic about wanting limit immigration to prevent the voter composition from being changed in the future.

Given that you live in Sweden, fair to assume you wouldn't want some aspects of US culture in your country... would that be a fair assumption?

If so, would it be wrong or "undemocratic" of you to want want stricter immigration policies to make sure a bunch of us don't come over there and outvote you in a few years on things like social welfare programs and gun control and things of that nature?


If this link is accurate, it would seem as if you guys already have some rather strict rules, assimilation standards requiring language proficiency and respect for the Swedish culture and history, and quite a lengthy probationary period where you have to be entirely self-sufficient economically.

New rules for Swedish citizenship from 6 June 2026 – Swedish Migration Agency

New rules for Swedish citizenship will come into force on 6 June 2026. This will affect you if you have applied, are planning to apply, or want to make a notification for Swedish citizenship.

www.migrationsverket.se

Based on these standards, for the specific group of Somali immigrants in question in Minnesota, the majority of them wouldn't be making the cut to become Swedish.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

No. I didn't say that.

Sorry for the ambiguity, that part was directed to @ThatRobGuy.

I prefer the idea that we should ONLY let in immigrants who will abide by and affirm the central core political values of our Constitution / Bill of Rights, and who even if not yet a citizen, would affirm a set of personal values that reflect the oath of allegiance that naturalized citizens later need to have and promise.

I don't think that's too much to ask, and what's more, I don't think die-hard Communists or those committed to other similarly alternatively inclined political devotions can do so or are willing to do so.

Why not? They can promise to abide by the constitution and laws, and still work to change them.

They shouldn't be HERE. And I have my reasons for saying so.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

It's two different processes we're talking about here.

Undemocratic would be attempting to prevent the votes of actual citizens.

There's nothing undemocratic about wanting limit immigration to prevent the voter composition from being changed in the future.

Given that you live in Sweden, fair to assume you wouldn't want some aspects of US culture in your country... would that be a fair assumption?

If it is supported by a majority of inhabitants, then it should change.

If so, would it be wrong or "undemocratic" of you to want want stricter immigration policies to make sure a bunch of us don't come over there and outvote you in a few years on things like social welfare programs and gun control and things of that nature?

Yes.

If this link is accurate, it would seem as if you guys already have some rather strict rules, assimilation standards requiring language proficiency and respect for the Swedish culture and history, and quite a lengthy probationary period where you have to be entirely self-sufficient economically.

New rules for Swedish citizenship from 6 June 2026 – Swedish Migration Agency

New rules for Swedish citizenship will come into force on 6 June 2026. This will affect you if you have applied, are planning to apply, or want to make a notification for Swedish citizenship.

www.migrationsverket.se

Based on these standards, for the specific group of Somali immigrants in question in Minnesota, the majority of them wouldn't be making the cut to become Swedish.

Why not? We have more than a few somali immigrants. We pay for them to go to school to learn swedish. Also, these are the requirements for citizenship, not residence (permanent or temporary). People normally spend the probationary time with a residence permit, they can go to school and work with a residence permit. And vote in local and regional elections (but not national). Residence permits also gives one access to social benefits and healthcare.

For holders of permanent residence permits (and of course citizenship) we also allow familial immigration.


Please note, there is no requirement of "correct" thought.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sorry for the ambiguity, that part was directed to @ThatRobGuy.



Why not? They can promise to abide by the constitution and laws, and still work to change them.

They would not change them toward a fuller democracy. To think they would is a delusional pipe dream (which is not an insinuation that I somehow think you're on that very pipe, unless you tell me otherwise).

 

[Stopped_lurking]

They would not change them toward a fuller democracy. To think they would is a delusional pipe dream (which is not an insinuation that I somehow think you're on that very pipe, unless you tell me otherwise).

But they can do it within the legal framework, that should be good enough (according to me). Do I also detect a hint of "not a true communist" in your thinking? As in if they call themselves communists, but don't work toward an political revolution they are not true communists?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But they can do it within the legal framework, that should be good enough (according to me). Do I also detect a hint of "not a true communist" in your thinking? As in if they call themselves communists, but don't work toward an political revolution they are not true communists?

First off, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy only has limited not plenary application. In fact, all fallacies have limits and can't just be hauled out and applied willy-nilly to whatever we think they apply to. Deeper analytic scrutiny always needs to be applied first before slapping another person's statements of qualification with the label of a 'true' fallacy.

Secondly, I know that some folks who identify with Communism instead think that reform rather than revolution is the way to bring about needed changes in society for the sake of better equality. However, if immigrants who identify with a watered down communism want a snowball's chance of getting into the U.S. and enjoying its benefits, they should be required to verbally eschew in legal contexts that they do not believe in the modes of revolution or in the suppression of other people's generic level religious beliefs that make for peace, social stability and other facets of human meaning.

If, on the other hand, immigrants who identify with communism do think revolution and suppression are viable modes of political operation, they need to be quickly escorted out of the country.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

First off, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy only has limited not plenary application. In fact, all fallacies have limits and can't just be hauled out and applied willy-nilly to whatever we think they apply to. Deeper analytic scrutiny always needs to be applied first before slapping another person's statements of qualification with the label of a 'true' fallacy.

I wasn't implying that you used it fallaciously. It was your use of qualifiers such as die-hard and "Communism as full head gear" that alerted me that you were perhaps using a narrower definition than me.

Secondly, I know that some folks who identify with Communism instead think that reform rather than revolution is the way to bring about needed changes in society for the sake of better equality. However, if immigrants who identify with a watered down communism want a snowball's chance of getting into the U.S. and enjoying its benefits, they should be required to verbally eschew in legal contexts that they do not believe in the modes of revolution or in the suppression of other people's generic level religious beliefs that make for peace, social stability and other facets of human meaning.

Ok, to me it seems strange to require more of immigrants than other americans. I hope they are allowed to be communists.

If, on the other hand, immigrants who identify with communism do think revolution and suppression are viable modes of political operation, they need to be quickly escorted out of the country.

Pretty sure, that it is actually illegal to try to do any of those things anyway. Can't that be enough?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I wasn't implying that you used it fallaciously. It was your use of qualifiers such as die-hard and "Communism as full head gear" that alerted me that you were perhaps using a narrower definition than me.

That's fair.

Ok, to me it seems strange to require more of immigrants than other americans. I hope they are allowed to be communists.

Actually, I think I offered context in post #101 that implies a standard. But to be honest, I would prefer that no fellow American be allowed to be a free roaming communist.

Pretty sure, that it is actually illegal to try to do any of those things anyway. Can't that be enough?

No, a simple status of illegality isn't enough really in my estimation. Besides, there are other ways to promote equality and fairness. Communists don't actually have a special or privileged opinion or position on that issue; nor do they have a good track record historically.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

That's fair.


Actually, I think I offered context in post #101 that implies a standard. But to be honest, I would prefer that no fellow American be allowed to be a free roaming communist.

"...be allowed..." What is hidden behind these words? Do you feel they should sanctioned in some way?

No, a simple status of illegality isn't enough really in my estimation. Besides, there are other ways to promote equality and fairness.

Absolutely, I don't think communists have ever managed to create equality or fairness. I'm not a fan of plan economies (they don't produce equality) or their ease of sacrificing the individual on the altar of the collective good (which is unfair to the one being sacrificed).

Communists don't actually have a special or privileged opinion or position on that issue; nor do they have a good track record historically.

Don't worry I dislike communist as much as anyone. But I'm not prepared to discriminate based on ideology. If the ideology is being expressed in action I'm ok with sanctions, if they are illegal.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"...be allowed..." What is hidden behind these words? Do you feel they should sanctioned in some way?

There's nothing hidden in my statements that aren't corollaries to the facts of their own ideology that full on Communists try to hide.

Absolutely, I don't think communists have ever managed to create equality or fairness. I'm not a fan of plan economies (they don't produce equality) or their ease of sacrificing the individual on the altar of the collective good (which is unfair to the one being sacrificed).

Agreed.

Don't worry I dislike communist as much as anyone. But I'm not prepared to discriminate based on ideology. If the ideology is being expressed in action I'm ok with sanctions, if they are illegal.

On a lesser level, I agree. But I think more should be done, just like I do with other social issues, even those pertaining to social media.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Why not? We have more than a few somali immigrants. We pay for them to go to school to learn swedish. Also, these are the requirements for citizenship, not residence (permanent or temporary). People normally spend the probationary time with a residence permit, they can go to school and work with a residence permit. And vote in local and regional elections (but not national). Residence permits also gives one access to social benefits and healthcare.

For holders of permanent residence permits (and of course citizenship) we also allow familial immigration.


Please note, there is no requirement of "correct" thought.

Were most of the Somalis in Sweden were the result of going through the refugee/asylum process, and not through the typical immigration process?

It would also seem as if Sweden has started taking actions on the matter that may not align with what many would consider to be "the progressive position" on this matter.

Somalis in Sweden face deportation under new policy

STOCKHOLM, Sweden – Sweden has deported several Somali nationals and is preparing to expel more under its most restrictive immigration policy in decades, triggering alarm within the Somali community, whose leaders warn that the returnees face grave dangers in their homeland. At least eight...

www.caasimada.net

The article notes that the Center right party over there (not sure what the name of their party is, but you'd probably know) took charge in 2022.


Why do you suppose that (even in progressive nations that are far more liberal than we are) after about 10 years of unrestricted immigration and asylum seeking from Muslims of specific national origins (common thread seems to Muslims be Somalia, Yemen, and Syria), it creates enough of a rift and cultural tension, that it pushes people to the right wing party?


The argument about the US is typically "because America has a poor track record on race in the recent past" or "Trump got them all worked up about it"

But that isn't the same case in Scandinavia to the best of my knowledge.

Something similar happened in the Netherlands too, yes?
Where after years of being reliably left-leaning liberal nations, center-right coalitions started popping up, specifically in response to mass migration, despite giving messaging of being very amicable to it when it first started happening.


Or as a quicker summarizing:
How do some of the most liberal nations on the planet go from "Welcome to our new Asylum seeking friends and neighbors, we'd be happy to have you here and set an example for the rest of the world to follow!"

To Finland, Sweden, and Netherlands all having center-right coalition governments, and in Denmark, their Social Democrats party simply changed their platforms to be stricter on immigration.

And Italy, France, and Austria all seeing their right-wing parties making gain due to that one solitary issue.

 

[RileyG]

I presented the distinction. I didn't say "all Muslims" (I specifically highlighted the contrast between Somalia vs. places like Egypt & Turkey)

Given that the hijab is meant to deter sexual attraction, the fact that they're putting their 5 year olds in them indicates that it's a culture where attraction to girls that young is somewhat normalized.

View attachment 381385

45% of girls from that culture are married off before 18, with some married off as young as 9-10.

"it's normal to be attracted to girls that young, so in order to prevent male lust, the onus is on the female to cover from head to toe, because her causing another man to lust would be a sin on her part" is not a social attitude I want more of in the country.

Somali culture arguably has a more regressive track record in this area than Iran.

This is in the United States, not Somalia or Iran. Women here are married 18 or usually older.

 

[RileyG]

The POTUS is attacking 5 year old celebrating a school achievement. Trump has a long history of attacking vulernable groups....but this is a new low.

Somehow I’m not surprised.

Sigh.

 

[Vambram]

Somehow I’m not surprised.

Sigh.

The POTUS is not attacking kids.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is in the United States, not Somalia or Iran. Women here are married 18 or usually older.

In terms of legally recognized marriage, yes.

But in terms of "faith-recognized marriage", that can be done in secret.

Hence the reason the practice of polygamy (despite not being legal, and often involving girls who are underage) still goes in the FLDS sect of Mormonism out in Utah because according to their teachings, a man must have at least 3 wives (recognized in the eyes of the church, obviously official state recognition doesn't matter to them) in order to get into heaven. The secrecy is facilitated by the insular nature of the community.

Likewise, the Somali enclaves in Minnesota have the same issues

Somali women speak out about sexual assault by men they trusted

When trust turns to terror: Trauma of abuse by someone a Somali woman trusted can be worsened by traditions of shame and silence.

sahanjournal.com

Lot's of abuse going on, combined with a moral code involving not allowing the civic authorities handle it, but rather, deferring it to religious arbitration and "handle the matter internally"

 

[RileyG]

The POTUS is not attacking kids.

My criticism of the POTUS is I sometimes with he would filter himself more. That’s all.

Peace

 

[RileyG]

In terms of legally recognized marriage, yes.

But in terms of "faith-recognized marriage", that can be done in secret.

Hence the reason the practice of polygamy (despite not being legal, and often involving girls who are underage) still goes in the FLDS sect of Mormonism out in Utah because according to their teachings, a man must have at least 3 wives (recognized in the eyes of the church, obviously official state recognition doesn't matter to them) in order to get into heaven. The secrecy is facilitated by the insular nature of the community.

Likewise, the Somali enclaves in Minnesota have the same issues

Somali women speak out about sexual assault by men they trusted

When trust turns to terror: Trauma of abuse by someone a Somali woman trusted can be worsened by traditions of shame and silence.

sahanjournal.com

Lot's of abuse going on, combined with a moral code involving not allowing the civic authorities handle it, but rather, deferring it to religious arbitration and "handle the matter internally"

Ahhh, gotcha! Thanks for the clarification.

My doctor is a Muslim from South Africa, he has an arranged marriage with his wife (she does not wear a hijab), and their son, who is in his early 20s I think, also had an arranged marriage, and I think they either married in India or South Africa. His son got married to his wife last year.

They are only married to one woman, because it’s the law of the land here.

Makes sense they’re some extremists who do otherwise.

Peace

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Ahhh, gotcha! Thanks for the clarification.

My doctor is a Muslim from South Africa, he has an arranged marriage with his wife (she does not wear a hijab), and their son, who is in his early 20s I think, also had an arranged marriage, and I think they either married in India or South Africa. His son got married to his wife last year.

They are only married to one woman, because it’s the law of the land here.

Makes sense they’re some extremists who do otherwise.

Peace

There's some differences within different sects and groups within the Muslim community.

Like I touched on earlier, Turkish and Egyptian Muslims are very different than Syrian and Somali Muslims with regards to certain social attitudes
(much like the FLDS types I described above, are way different than Mitt Romney, he's Mormon, but he's not taking on multiple church-recognized brides under the age of 18)

And it wouldn't be hypocritical or "anti-Mormon bigotry" to say "We're fine with the Mitt Romney type of Mormon moving here, but we don't want tens of thousands of the Warren Jeffs types of Mormons moving here, we don't need that type of nonsense here" -- because of those very real differences.

Somali Muslim culture is uniquely bad in the aspects I'm referring to (Syria and Yemen aren't far behind them). In terms of their treatment of women and girls (and their relative indifference toward the culture of the host country they happen to be living in), they make Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh look like an open-minded feminist utopia in comparison.


And the framing of the debate is a bit unfair from some progressives. Because they've basically set up a standard of "you're an anti-Muslim bigot if you won't welcome one of the absolute worst forms of it with open arms"

 

[RileyG]

There's some differences within different sects and groups within the Muslim community.

Like I touched on earlier, Turkish and Egyptian Muslims are very different than Syrian and Somali Muslims with regards to certain social attitudes
(much like the FLDS types I described above, are way different than Mitt Romney, he's Mormon, but he's not taking on multiple church-recognized brides under the age of 18)

And it wouldn't be hypocritical or "anti-Mormon bigotry" to say "We're fine with the Mitt Romney type of Mormon moving here, but we don't want tens of thousands of the Warren Jeffs types of Mormons moving here, we don't need that type of nonsense here" -- because of those very real differences.

Somali Muslim culture is uniquely bad in the aspects I'm referring to (Syria and Yemen aren't far behind them). In terms of their treatment of women and girls (and their relative indifference toward the culture of the host country they happen to be living in), they make Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh look like an open-minded feminist utopia in comparison.


And the framing of the debate is a bit unfair from some progressives. Because they've basically set up a standard of "you're an anti-Muslim bigot if you won't welcome one of the absolute worst forms of it with open arms"

Also, to be fair, the LDS Church hasn’t practiced polygamy in 100+ years. Those who do are offshoots and are not part of the LDS Church. They are various and rather small.

Thanks for the info!

Peace!