Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Banning foreign muslims wouldn't.
The US could ban all Pakistani nationals entering the country but they couldn't ban just Pakistani Muslims, it would need to be all Pakistanis, be they Christian, Hindu,uslim or whatever religion wise.
Why? (Constitutionally, not morally).
The establishment clause, spexifically the free exercise of religion. Any such ban would fail the common sense test in front of the Supremes.
Say a Christian immigrant comes to America and one hour after entering converts to Isalm. That person couldn't be thrown out as the free exercise clause would prohibit that action.
No restriction on their religious expression can be placed on them, so how could a religious restriction be placed on their entry?
You'd be looking at a 7-2 decision to overturn at best.
I'm not defending the position as its stupid, but it is not unconstitutional. The U.S. constitution only applies to Anerican citizens and those in the United States. Until you pass the American border, it does not apply to foreign citizens.
Danil Kvyat has been demoted from Red Bull Racing to Torro Rosso and Max Verstappen has been promoted to replace him. RBR saying that all drivers are contracted to them and the management can choose which car they drive in. Takes the heat of Sainz as well since it looks like Kvyat isn't going to have his contract renewed unless he can seriously prove himself over the next 5-7 races.
In other news, RBR and Renault are said to be coming to an agreement over an engine deal for 2017 and 2018. McLaren are in talks with Sauber over becoming their becoming McLaren's junior team, McLaren will pay off some (a lot) of Sauber's debt, they will get a cut price Honda engine and Vandoorne will have a seat in return. It gives Honda another team to gather data from and it isn't a team that will compete with McLaren like Red Bull would.
You're an open minded man, I have an invitation for you.
We'll visit a council estate and interview the residents, after consultation you can announce to them that you've found the solution to their problems, you're moving 100 unskilled immigrants onto the estate.
You up for that?
I'm an open minded man, I have a suggestion for you.
Why don't you stop trying to suggest that I am arguing things that I am not, making nonsense points that I have not begun to suggest and instead try to engage with the points that I actually am making?
Tell you what, I'll do all those imaginary things when you stop telling people what is best for them - deal?
You have zero concept of life on a council estate, telling ordinary people that immigration is good for them is patronising and wrong.
I'm entitled to express my views on what is best for this country, same as you. The difference between my views and your views is that you're willing to engage in economic vandalism in a spurious attempt to recreate a vision of a Britain in the past that never really existed.
So fortunately I shall carry on expressing my views and will stoically endure hearing you spout your ill-informed nonsense day in day out.
So can I assume you won't be accepting my invitation?
Keep your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears, those beastly people might disappear.
You see when you say immigration benefits the economy what you really mean is it benefits you, with rising house prices in London and cheap cleaners. Have a think about the cleaners and those trying to get a roof over their head.
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Banning foreign muslims wouldn't.
The US could ban all Pakistani nationals entering the country but they couldn't ban just Pakistani Muslims, it would need to be all Pakistanis, be they Christian, Hindu,uslim or whatever religion wise.
Why? (Constitutionally, not morally).
The establishment clause, specifically the free exercise of religion. Any such ban would fail the common sense test in front of the Supremes.
Say a Christian immigrant comes to America and one hour after entering converts to Isalm. That person couldn't be thrown out as the free exercise clause would prohibit that action.
No restriction on their religious expression can be placed on them, so how could a religious restriction be placed on their entry?
You'd be looking at a 7-2 decision to overturn at best.
I'd argue that an exclusion relating only to non-US citizens not currently within the US would be lawful as constitutional protections don't apply to them.
@JonIzzard: Bigger. Arrived at polling station to find I've already voted by post 6 times each for Sadiq Khan in Tower Hamlets and Lambeth. #vote2016
Amazing. But how do you know who 'you' voted for? Isn't it a secret ballot?
Isn't the register marked with those from whom postal votes are received so that you don't get to vote again in person ? It's been a while but aren't postal votes submitted with two envelopes, one inside the other, the outer one also containing a form with personal details so they can mark you as having voted before dropping the inner envelope containing the ballot paper into the anonymous counting bins ?
"David Cameron has 'no intention' of apologising to Donald Trump for calling him stupid"
Yet another sign that Dave isn't intending to stick around as Prime Minister for very much longer? You simply can't say things like that about a potential incoming US President, even if you think them.
It's all about respecting the Office, if not the man.
He doesn't hold office - yet - and if he does, lets see how much of his campaign rhetoric survives the transition......
Hopefully he makes it and first job is to order Cameron to bend over.
bb63..perhaps you may care to explain why letting a Rumanian in to the country..an EU citizen..and checking out The paperwork and visa etc that the chap from Pakistan presents, is prejudiced..all countries apart from Schengen areas..carry out the same checks.
An unskilled high-school drop out from Romania flashes his EU passport and walks into the UK, is able to sign-on for benefit, and use our hospitals at no charge.
No he can't. Not for three months anyway and is then subject to rigorous checks to ensure he is actively seeking a job, and has a realistic chance of getting one.
How long have you been living away from the UK?
If it makes you feel good to believe that is what really happens then I am happy for you.
I think part of the problem is you have an image of the UK, divorced, literally, from reality, and you remember bits of it from when you were here, and argue based upon that memory. Like many expats (I was one myself for a while), your memories are also tinged with a rosy, idealised vision of what you remember and what you think are the dangers to that vision.
The reality is that the vast vast majority of Eal lives.
We simply do not need immigrant baristas. We have plenty of British citizens who are capable of doing those jobs.
ANECDOTE: A friend of a friend opened a coffee bar in Covent Garden. Of the hundred or so job applications, only two were from Brits.
That is because wages and conditions have been depressed by immigrant labour. A less flooded low skill market would allow better wages and conditions and encourage more Brits to apply.
And a more expensive cup of coffee, which would mean, ceteris paribus, less coffee sold, less profit for the coffee shop, and potential market exit.
Really ?
So if I buy a coffee at Caffe Nero they pay UK tax on their profits. If I buy one at Starbucks they don't. Why should I subsidise a US national in my taxes ?
This has nothing to do with coffee sold and everything to do with maximising profits.
All societies handicap their economies. The UK always has but calls it different things over time. Benefits, taxes, regulation all are call of "fill your boots" by those that can.
I'm not aware of any other country which has the phrase, "too clever by half", where poor education and narrow mindedness is seen as a virtue. Alistair is correct to say that education is the key.
Your point on base jobs has merit but people don't always want to do the base jobs. Fruit picking in the Marches is done by Slavs because locals don't want too and the producers are ultimately constrained by the prices that consumers will pay. Care homes are staffed by immigrants for the same reasons. Traditionally bloody wars, early deaths and emigration helped solve the problem but that's less likely now.
I'm not aware of any other country which has the phrase, "too clever by half"
Just about every European country I have worked in has a similar phrase. If you want to see how bad it can get try negotiating with the CGT in France. We're fairly enlightened by comparison. Or try getting East Europeans who grew up under communism to admire progress.
The issue on base jobs is to remove the option of choice. Work has its own merits and once started on a path that breaks the option of sitting at home people generally move on.
I remember Nigel Lawson, as Chancellor, explaining that unemployment was a moral issue, not an economic one. We could (then) afford to pay benefits but the wasted and futile lives were a disgrace. Some work can be tedious and boring but there is still a dignity to labour (only with a small L of course) and earning your own living that pays the recipient and society in so many ways.
We also have to accept that a significant percentage of the population are not capable of benefitting hugely from more and more education. We need to find ways to provide them with meaningful work and relevant training. It will do so much more than some pointless college course with a discredited qualification at the end of it.
"David Cameron has 'no intention' of apologising to Donald Trump for calling him stupid"
Yet another sign that Dave isn't intending to stick around as Prime Minister for very much longer? You simply can't say things like that about a potential incoming US President, even if you think them.
It's all about respecting the Office, if not the man.
He doesn't hold office - yet - and if he does, lets see how much of his campaign rhetoric survives the transition......
Hopefully he makes it and first job is to order Cameron to bend over.
I suspect and early job will be to present us, and quite a lot of the rest of the world with rental slips for all the US military hardware on bases in our countries, at which point a lot of european defense budgets will go right out the window.
You're an open minded man, I have an invitation for you.
We'll visit a council estate and interview the residents, after consultation you can announce to them that you've found the solution to their problems, you're moving 100 unskilled immigrants onto the estate.
You up for that?
I'm an open minded man, I have a suggestion for you.
Why don't you stop trying to suggest that I am arguing things that I am not, making nonsense points that I have not begun to suggest and instead try to engage with the points that I actually am making?
Tell you what, I'll do all those imaginary things when you stop telling people what is best for them - deal?
You have zero concept of life on a council estate, telling ordinary people that immigration is good for them is patronising and wrong.
I'm entitled to express my views on what is best for this country, same as you. The difference between my views and your views is that you're willing to engage in economic vandalism in a spurious attempt to recreate a vision of a Britain in the past that never really existed.
So fortunately I shall carry on expressing my views and will stoically endure hearing you spout your ill-informed nonsense day in day out.
So can I assume you won't be accepting my invitation?
Keep your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears, those beastly people might disappear.
You see when you say immigration benefits the economy what you really mean is it benefits you, with rising house prices in London and cheap cleaners. Have a think about the cleaners and those trying to get a roof over their head.
You live in a bubble.
Stop trying to be prolier than thou. You seem to imagine I emerged fully formed as a middle-aged middle-class City professional. You have no idea of my background, my life experiences or my friends and family.
You can paint your childish cartoons of me in crayons all you like: they are about as valuable as a four year old's daubs. Just don't expect me to pat you on the head and give you a smartie.
"David Cameron has 'no intention' of apologising to Donald Trump for calling him stupid"
Yet another sign that Dave isn't intending to stick around as Prime Minister for very much longer? You simply can't say things like that about a potential incoming US President, even if you think them.
It's all about respecting the Office, if not the man.
He doesn't hold office - yet - and if he does, lets see how much of his campaign rhetoric survives the transition......
Hopefully he makes it and first job is to order Cameron to bend over.
All societies handicap their economies. The UK always has but calls it different things over time. Benefits, taxes, regulation all are call of "fill your boots" by those that can.
I'm not aware of any other country which has the phrase, "too clever by half", where poor education and narrow mindedness is seen as a virtue. Alistair is correct to say that education is the key.
Your point on base jobs has merit but people don't always want to do the base jobs. Fruit picking in the Marches is done by Slavs because locals don't want too and the producers are ultimately constrained by the prices that consumers will pay. Care homes are staffed by immigrants for the same reasons. Traditionally bloody wars, early deaths and emigration helped solve the problem but that's less likely now.
I'm not aware of any other country which has the phrase, "too clever by half"
Just about every European country I have worked in has a similar phrase. If you want to see how bad it can get try negotiating with the CGT in France. We're fairly enlightened by comparison. Or try getting East Europeans who grew up under communism to admire progress.
The issue on base jobs is to remove the option of choice. Work has its own merits and once started on a path that breaks the option of sitting at home people generally move on.
I remember Nigel Lawson, as Chancellor, explaining that unemployment was a moral issue, not an economic one. We could (then) afford to pay benefits but the wasted and futile lives were a disgrace. Some work can be tedious and boring but there is still a dignity to labour (only with a small L of course) and earning your own living that pays the recipient and society in so many ways.
We also have to accept that a significant percentage of the population are not capable of benefitting hugely from more and more education. We need to find ways to provide them with meaningful work and relevant training. It will do so much more than some pointless college course with a discredited qualification at the end of it.
Mr. Max, cheers for the Sauber news (already heard the Verstappen surprise).
Good to hear Sauber may yet survive. Sainz could still be tossed overboard, though.
Yeah, it's just a rumour at the moment, but it is one that makes sense. Honda need a new partner in F1 and McLaren don't want them to give engines to RBR, given that the latter are ready to sign with Renault, Honda look like they have been backed into a corner by Ron Dennis as they didn't want to have a senior/junior team, they wanted to supply two grade A teams.
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Nice try Layne, but treating people differently solely because of their race is exactly what racism is...
He said on the basis of religion not race, also wrong, but not racism.
It's also indirect discrimination on the grounds of race.
No, it is not. Which race would it be discriminating against? White Albanians, black Nigerians or Asian Indonesians?
Arabs, for one.
Arabs are racially Caucasians, by the American classification. There are also plenty of non-Muslim Arabs. What you are trying to claim is disparate impact, the theory that a law that disproportionately affects one race is racist. This theory has been rejected by the Supreme Court in the Arlington Heights decision in 1977. A sensible decision, as otherwise laws banning burglary could be said to be discriminatory.
All societies handicap their economies. The UK always has but calls it different things over time. Benefits, taxes, regulation all are call of "fill your boots" by those that can.
I'm not aware of any other country which has the phrase, "too clever by half", where poor education and narrow mindedness is seen as a virtue. Alistair is correct to say that education is the key.
Your point on base jobs has merit but people don't always want to do the base jobs. Fruit picking in the Marches is done by Slavs because locals don't want too and the producers are ultimately constrained by the prices that consumers will pay. Care homes are staffed by immigrants for the same reasons. Traditionally bloody wars, early deaths and emigration helped solve the problem but that's less likely now.
I'm not aware of any other country which has the phrase, "too clever by half"
Just about every European country I have worked in has a similar phrase. If you want to see how bad it can get try negotiating with the CGT in France. We're fairly enlightened by comparison. Or try getting East Europeans who grew up under communism to admire progress.
The issue on base jobs is to remove the option of choice. Work has its own merits and once started on a path that breaks the option of sitting at home people generally move on.
I remember Nigel Lawson, as Chancellor, explaining that unemployment was a moral issue, not an economic one. We could (then) afford to pay benefits but the wasted and futile lives were a disgrace. Some work can be tedious and boring but there is still a dignity to labour (only with a small L of course) and earning your own living that pays the recipient and society in so many ways.
We also have to accept that a significant percentage of the population are not capable of benefitting hugely from more and more education. We need to find ways to provide them with meaningful work and relevant training. It will do so much more than some pointless college course with a discredited qualification at the end of it.
I see the PM has voted this morning. Does that mean the PM has the choice between voting in his constituency (I see there are no locals in Witney today) or in London?
You're an open minded man, I have an invitation for you.
We'll visit a council estate and interview the residents, after consultation you can announce to them that you've found the solution to their problems, you're moving 100 unskilled immigrants onto the estate.
You up for that?
I'm an open minded man, I have a suggestion for you.
Why don't you stop trying to suggest that I am arguing things that I am not, making nonsense points that I have not begun to suggest and instead try to engage with the points that I actually am making?
Tell you what, I'll do all those imaginary things when you stop telling people what is best for them - deal?
You have zero concept of life on a council estate, telling ordinary people that immigration is good for them is patronising and wrong.
I'm entitled to express my views on what is best for this country, same as you. The difference between my views and your views is that you're willing to engage in economic vandalism in a spurious attempt to recreate a vision of a Britain in the past that never really existed.
So fortunately I shall carry on expressing my views and will stoically endure hearing you spout your ill-informed nonsense day in day out.
So can I assume you won't be accepting my invitation?
Keep your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears, those beastly people might disappear.
You see when you say immigration benefits the economy what you really mean is it benefits you, with rising house prices in London and cheap cleaners. Have a think about the cleaners and those trying to get a roof over their head.
You live in a bubble.
Stop trying to be prolier than thou. You seem to imagine I emerged fully formed as a middle-aged middle-class City professional. You have no idea of my background, my life experiences or my friends and family.
You can paint your childish cartoons of me in crayons all you like: they are about as valuable as a four year old's daubs. Just don't expect me to pat you on the head and give you a smartie.
Haha!
So this trip to the council estate for you to tell the residents what's best for them - you up for it?
You can paint your childish cartoons of me in crayons all you like: they are about as valuable as a four year old's daubs. Just don't expect me to pat you on the head and give you a smartie.
Why not? Patting people patronisingly on the head is what you are best at, be a shame to waste the talent
Birmingham Ladywood is apparently one of the most deprived wards in the country, is the site of 'Benefits Street' and sometimes has the most unemployment in the country.
I see the PM has voted this morning. Does that mean the PM has the choice between voting in his constituency (I see there are no locals in Witney today) or in London?
So if I buy a coffee at Caffe Nero they pay UK tax on their profits. If I buy one at Starbucks they don't. Why should I subsidise a US national in my taxes ?
This has nothing to do with coffee sold and everything to do with maximising profits.
Of course Starbucks pay tax on profits. The issue is they haven't had profits to tax.
Partially that is because of transfer rates etc and partially that is because they have been undergoing a massive expansion so what would have been profit is instead used in investment (perfectly legal) and so there is no profit left to tax.
Eventually like McDonald's we will see Starbucks reach a saturation point where rapid expansion is no longer viable, investment will fall and profits will rise with taxes paid accordingly.
Stop trying to be prolier than thou. You seem to imagine I emerged fully formed as a middle-aged middle-class City professional. You have no idea of my background, my life experiences or my friends and family.
You can paint your childish cartoons of me in crayons all you like: they are about as valuable as a four year old's daubs. Just don't expect me to pat you on the head and give you a smartie.
Haha!
So this trip to the council estate for you to tell the residents what's best for them - you up for it?
I have no idea what you are trying to prove, but you're proving yourself to be a prize idiot.
You're an open minded man, I have an invitation for you.
We'll visit a council estate and interview the residents, after consultation you can announce to them that you've found the solution to their problems, you're moving 100 unskilled immigrants onto the estate.
You up for that?
I'm an open minded man, I have a suggestion for you.
Why don't you stop trying to suggest that I am arguing things that I am not, making nonsense points that I have not begun to suggest and instead try to engage with the points that I actually am making?
Tell you what, I'll do all those imaginary things when you stop telling people what is best for them - deal?
You have zero concept of life on a council estate, telling ordinary people that immigration is good for them is patronising and wrong.
I'm entitled to express my views on what is best for this country, s So fortunately I shall carry on expressing my views and will stoically endure hearing you spout your ill-informed nonsense day in day out.
So can I assume you won't be accepting my invitation?
You live in a bubble.
Stop trying to be prolier than thou. You seem to imagine I emerged fully formed as a middle-aged middle-class City professional. You have no idea of my background, my life experiences or my friends and family.
You can paint your childish cartoons of me in crayons all you like: they are about as valuable as a four year old's daubs. Just don't expect me to pat you on the head and give you a smartie.
I always think of you as a Norfolk farmboy who acquired delusions of being Louis XIV upon buying a small flat in London :-)
So if I buy a coffee at Caffe Nero they pay UK tax on their profits. If I buy one at Starbucks they don't. Why should I subsidise a US national in my taxes ?
This has nothing to do with coffee sold and everything to do with maximising profits.
Of course Starbucks pay tax on profits. The issue is they haven't had profits to tax.
Partially that is because of transfer rates etc and partially that is because they have been undergoing a massive expansion so what would have been profit is instead used in investment (perfectly legal) and so there is no profit left to tax.
Eventually like McDonald's we will see Starbucks reach a saturation point where rapid expansion is no longer viable, investment will fall and profits will rise with taxes paid accordingly.
@JonIzzard: Bigger. Arrived at polling station to find I've already voted by post 6 times each for Sadiq Khan in Tower Hamlets and Lambeth. #vote2016
Amazing. But how do you know who 'you' voted for? Isn't it a secret ballot?
Isn't the register marked with those from whom postal votes are received so that you don't get to vote again in person ? It's been a while but aren't postal votes submitted with two envelopes, one inside the other, the outer one also containing a form with personal details so they can mark you as having voted before dropping the inner envelope containing the ballot paper into the anonymous counting bins ?
It is always possible to find out who someone/everyone has voted for should it be determined necessary by a court .
Stop trying to be prolier than thou. You seem to imagine I emerged fully formed as a middle-aged middle-class City professional. You have no idea of my background, my life experiences or my friends and family.
You can paint your childish cartoons of me in crayons all you like: they are about as valuable as a four year old's daubs. Just don't expect me to pat you on the head and give you a smartie.
Haha!
So this trip to the council estate for you to tell the residents what's best for them - you up for it?
I have no idea what you are trying to prove, but you're proving yourself to be a prize idiot.
Oh come on Alistair you should know the maxim about insults and arguments.
Let's cut to the chase, I say immigration doesn't benefit the lower echelons of society, you disgaree. I'm simply suggesting that you and I ask the lower echelons of society and then we'll report our findings.
You're an open minded man, I have an invitation for you.
We'll visit a council estate and interview the residents, after consultation you can announce to them that you've found the solution to their problems, you're moving 100 unskilled immigrants onto the estate.
You up for that?
I'm an open minded man, I have a suggestion for you.
Why don't you stop trying to suggest that I am arguing things that I am not, making nonsense points that I have not begun to suggest and instead try to engage with the points that I actually am making?
Tell you what, I'll do all those imaginary things when you stop telling people what is best for them - deal?
You have zero concept of life on a council estate, telling ordinary people that immigration is good for them is patronising and wrong.
I'm entitled to express my views on what is best for this country, s So fortunately I shall carry on expressing my views and will stoically endure hearing you spout your ill-informed nonsense day in day out.
So can I assume you won't be accepting my invitation?
You live in a bubble.
Stop trying to be prolier than thou. You seem to imagine I emerged fully formed as a middle-aged middle-class City professional. You have no idea of my background, my life experiences or my friends and family.
You can paint your childish cartoons of me in crayons all you like: they are about as valuable as a four year old's daubs. Just don't expect me to pat you on the head and give you a smartie.
I always think of you as a Norfolk farmboy who acquired delusions of being Louis XIV upon buying a small flat in London :-)
That is considerably closer to the mark, I have to admit.
@JonIzzard: Bigger. Arrived at polling station to find I've already voted by post 6 times each for Sadiq Khan in Tower Hamlets and Lambeth. #vote2016
Amazing. But how do you know who 'you' voted for? Isn't it a secret ballot?
Isn't the register marked with those from whom postal votes are received so that you don't get to vote again in person ? It's been a while but aren't postal votes submitted with two envelopes, one inside the other, the outer one also containing a form with personal details so they can mark you as having voted before dropping the inner envelope containing the ballot paper into the anonymous counting bins ?
It is always possible to find out who someone/everyone has voted for should it be determined necessary by a court .
That is a little worrying, that means it can also be determined by the unlawful and the unscrupulous without asking a court.
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Nice try Layne, but treating people differently solely because of their race is exactly what racism is...
He said on the basis of religion not race, also wrong, but not racism.
It's also indirect discrimination on the grounds of race.
No, it is not. Which race would it be discriminating against? White Albanians, black Nigerians or Asian Indonesians?
Arabs, for one.
Arabs are racially Caucasians, by the American classification. There are also plenty of non-Muslim Arabs. What you are trying to claim is disparate impact, the theory that a law that disproportionately affects one race is racist. This theory has been rejected by the Supreme Court in the Arlington Heights decision in 1977. A sensible decision, as otherwise laws banning burglary could be said to be discriminatory.
The fact it's discrimination based on religion makes it all the more unconstitutional. First amendment rules that out.
Discrimination based on race would be more constitutional.
So if I buy a coffee at Caffe Nero they pay UK tax on their profits. If I buy one at Starbucks they don't. Why should I subsidise a US national in my taxes ?
This has nothing to do with coffee sold and everything to do with maximising profits.
Of course Starbucks pay tax on profits. The issue is they haven't had profits to tax.
Partially that is because of transfer rates etc and partially that is because they have been undergoing a massive expansion so what would have been profit is instead used in investment (perfectly legal) and so there is no profit left to tax.
Eventually like McDonald's we will see Starbucks reach a saturation point where rapid expansion is no longer viable, investment will fall and profits will rise with taxes paid accordingly.
Stop trying to be prolier than thou. You seem to imagine I emerged fully formed as a middle-aged middle-class City professional. You have no idea of my background, my life experiences or my friends and family.
You can paint your childish cartoons of me in crayons all you like: they are about as valuable as a four year old's daubs. Just don't expect me to pat you on the head and give you a smartie.
Haha!
So this trip to the council estate for you to tell the residents what's best for them - you up for it?
I have no idea what you are trying to prove, but you're proving yourself to be a prize idiot.
Oh come on Alistair you should know the maxim about insults and arguments.
Let's cut to the chase, I say immigration doesn't benefit the lower echelons of society, you disgaree. I'm simply suggesting that you and I ask the lower echelons of society and then we'll report our findings.
Up for it?
I would be delighted to tour any number of council estates and discuss migration with them. But not in your company, since you are clearly an odious cretin.
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Nice try Layne, but treating people differently solely because of their race is exactly what racism is...
He said on the basis of religion not race, also wrong, but not racism.
It's also indirect discrimination on the grounds of race.
No, it is not. Which race would it be discriminating against? White Albanians, black Nigerians or Asian Indonesians?
Arabs, for one.
Arabs are racially Caucasians, by the American classification. There are also plenty of non-Muslim Arabs. What you are trying to claim is disparate impact, the theory that a law that disproportionately affects one race is racist. This theory has been rejected by the Supreme Court in the Arlington Heights decision in 1977. A sensible decision, as otherwise laws banning burglary could be said to be discriminatory.
The fact it's discrimination based on religion makes it all the more unconstitutional. First amendment rules that out.
Discrimination based on race would be more constitutional.
Does the constitution apply to non-US citizens outside of US borders ?
"David Cameron has 'no intention' of apologising to Donald Trump for calling him stupid"
Yet another sign that Dave isn't intending to stick around as Prime Minister for very much longer? You simply can't say things like that about a potential incoming US President, even if you think them.
It's all about respecting the Office, if not the man.
He doesn't hold office - yet - and if he does, lets see how much of his campaign rhetoric survives the transition......
Hopefully he makes it and first job is to order Cameron to bend over.
Stop trying to be prolier than thou. You seem to imagine I emerged fully formed as a middle-aged middle-class City professional. You have no idea of my background, my life experiences or my friends and family.
You can paint your childish cartoons of me in crayons all you like: they are about as valuable as a four year old's daubs. Just don't expect me to pat you on the head and give you a smartie.
Haha!
So this trip to the council estate for you to tell the residents what's best for them - you up for it?
I have no idea what you are trying to prove, but you're proving yourself to be a prize idiot.
Oh come on Alistair you should know the maxim about insults and arguments.
Let's cut to the chase, I say immigration doesn't benefit the lower echelons of society, you disgaree. I'm simply suggesting that you and I ask the lower echelons of society and then we'll report our findings.
Up for it?
I would be delighted to tour any number of council estates and discuss migration with them. But not in your company, since you are clearly an odious cretin.
Brilliant!
Somebody mentioned the phrase "too clever by half" earlier.
I can only applaud the council for providing operations management courses for the public sector, with material for case studies on brand management, crisis management. Barnet Council are having their Ratners moment.
Will the foul ups be a foretaste of things to come with the EU referendum?
So if I buy a coffee at Caffe Nero they pay UK tax on their profits. If I buy one at Starbucks they don't. Why should I subsidise a US national in my taxes ?
This has nothing to do with coffee sold and everything to do with maximising profits.
Of course Starbucks pay tax on profits. The issue is they haven't had profits to tax.
Partially that is because of transfer rates etc and partially that is because they have been undergoing a massive expansion so what would have been profit is instead used in investment (perfectly legal) and so there is no profit left to tax.
Eventually like McDonald's we will see Starbucks reach a saturation point where rapid expansion is no longer viable, investment will fall and profits will rise with taxes paid accordingly.
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Nice try Layne, but treating people differently solely because of their race is exactly what racism is...
He said on the basis of religion not race, also wrong, but not racism.
It's also indirect discrimination on the grounds of race.
No, it is not. Which race would it be discriminating against? White Albanians, black Nigerians or Asian Indonesians?
Arabs, for one.
Arabs are racially Caucasians, by the American classification. There are also plenty of non-Muslim Arabs. What you are trying to claim is disparate impact, the theory that a law that disproportionately affects one race is racist. This theory has been rejected by the Supreme Court in the Arlington Heights decision in 1977. A sensible decision, as otherwise laws banning burglary could be said to be discriminatory.
The fact it's discrimination based on religion makes it all the more unconstitutional. First amendment rules that out.
Discrimination based on race would be more constitutional.
Foreign nationals have no constitutional rights though, if the measure were limited to immigration rather than return American Muslims, then the constitution doesn't apply. Trump could push through an executive order temporarily banning immigration of Muslim people.
Nearly three fourths of cases investigated by immigration authorities, refugees who claimed to be minors were found to be adults upon further examination but global statistics show that knowing one's age is not always so simple.
Off topic, went leafleting last night. Mainly on what appeared to be an ex-local authority / housing association estate.
I live in a wealthy part of the village, so the contrast was interesting.
What struck me the most is that a lot of people just don't seem to have any money. I saw lots of old second-hand cars, untended wild gardens (that looked a mess) and properties in bad need of renovation. Lots of rubbish and detritus around too in people's yards; quite a few kids bikes. Conversely, most seemed to have a decent telly, and quite a few homes had several kids inside of various ages.
I couldn't help but get the impression that many not only wouldn't vote but it wouldn't even occur to them.
Also went onto a small private estate: two rather rude people (out of 150 homes leafleted) - one put his teenage son in front of the letterbox so I couldn't deliver to it (I didn't realise this at the time and just thought he was waiting so politely asked if I could put it through the door) and then it immediately came straight back out again onto his porch floor, the rather angry father being just inside.
I also had another women follow me down the street with a leaflet after I'd delivered to her: "I don't want THIS", and didn't make eye contact with me or smile.
On the other hand, a few other people I met at the doorstep were smiley, friendly and polite.
Wife just found out we have one of those elections for crime / police person (whatever the correct title is?). Neither of us had heard anything about it and she only found out when voting. For the council elections we have had ongoing personal contact from the Lib Dem team (plus a leaflet about every week or so), 1 or 2 leaflets from the blues ... and that's it.
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Nice try Layne, but treating people differently solely because of their race is exactly what racism is...
He said on the basis of religion not race, also wrong, but not racism.
It's also indirect discrimination on the grounds of race.
No, it is not. Which race would it be discriminating against? White Albanians, black Nigerians or Asian Indonesians?
Arabs, for one.
Arabs are racially Caucasians, by the American classification. There are also plenty of non-Muslim Arabs. What you are trying to claim is disparate impact, the theory that a law that disproportionately affects one race is racist. This theory has been rejected by the Supreme Court in the Arlington Heights decision in 1977. A sensible decision, as otherwise laws banning burglary could be said to be discriminatory.
The fact it's discrimination based on religion makes it all the more unconstitutional. First amendment rules that out.
Discrimination based on race would be more constitutional.
The First Amendment does not ban discrimination based on religion. It simply bans Congress from making a law preventing free exercise of religion. Even if we were to assume the U.S. constitution applied to foreign citizens outside the U.S., which it does not, someone being turned down for entry into the U.S. is not being prevented from exercising their religion.
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Nice try Layne, but treating people differently solely because of their race is exactly what racism is...
He said on the basis of religion not race, also wrong, but not racism.
It's also indirect discrimination on the grounds of race.
No, it is not. Which race would it be discriminating against? White Albanians, black Nigerians or Asian Indonesians?
Arabs, for one.
Arabs are racially Caucasians, by the American classification. There are also plenty of non-Muslim Arabs. What you are trying to claim is disparate impact, the theory that a law that disproportionately affects one race is racist. This theory has been rejected by the Supreme Court in the Arlington Heights decision in 1977. A sensible decision, as otherwise laws banning burglary could be said to be discriminatory.
The fact it's discrimination based on religion makes it all the more unconstitutional. First amendment rules that out.
Discrimination based on race would be more constitutional.
Foreign nationals have no constitutional rights though, if the measure were limited to immigration rather than return American Muslims, then the constitution doesn't apply. Trump could push through an executive order temporarily banning immigration of Muslim people.
I don't think that's true. I thought the reason that detainees are in Guantanamo Bay and not in the continental US is to avoid them being afford rights.
Off topic, went leafleting last night. Mainly on what appeared to be an ex-local authority / housing association estate.
I live in a wealthy part of the village, so the contrast was interesting.
What struck me the most is that a lot of people just don't seem to have any money. I saw lots of old second-hand cars, untended wild gardens (that looked a mess) and properties in bad need of renovation. Lots of rubbish and detritus around too in people's yards; quite a few kids bikes. Conversely, most seemed to have a decent telly, and quite a few homes had several kids inside of various ages.
I couldn't help but get the impression that many not only wouldn't vote but it wouldn't even occur to them.
Also went onto a small private estate: two rather rude people (out of 150 homes leafleted) - one put his teenage son in front of the letterbox so I couldn't deliver to it (I didn't realise this at the time and just thought he was waiting so politely asked if I could put it through the door) and then it immediately came straight back out again onto his porch floor, the rather angry father being just inside.
I also had another women follow me down the street with a leaflet after I'd delivered to her: "I don't want THIS", and didn't make eye contact with me or smile.
On the other hand, a few other people I met at the doorstep were smiley, friendly and polite.
Perhaps election fatigue is kicking in.
Last year I knocked on thousands of doors, it was fascinating and completely changed my view of things. The sneering of Thornberry and 1 or 2 on here is nauseating, as you point out, life for millions is a struggle for a myriad of reasons.
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Nice try Layne, but treating people differently solely because of their race is exactly what racism is...
He said on the basis of religion not race, also wrong, but not racism.
It's also indirect discrimination on the grounds of race.
No, it is not. Which race would it be discriminating against? White Albanians, black Nigerians or Asian Indonesians?
Arabs, for one.
Arabs are racially Caucasians, by the American classification. There are also plenty of non-Muslim Arabs. What you are trying to claim is disparate impact, the theory that a law that disproportionately affects one race is racist. This theory has been rejected by the Supreme Court in the Arlington Heights decision in 1977. A sensible decision, as otherwise laws banning burglary could be said to be discriminatory.
The fact it's discrimination based on religion makes it all the more unconstitutional. First amendment rules that out.
Discrimination based on race would be more constitutional.
Does the constitution apply to non-US citizens outside of US borders ?
It's debatable. For instance the US has a visa free travel arrangement with the UK. If a British Muslim flew to America on their UK passport as they're entitled to do so, then they're stood on US soil at passport control does the constitution protect them?
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Nice try Layne, but treating people differently solely because of their race is exactly what racism is...
He said on the basis of religion not race, also wrong, but not racism.
It's also indirect discrimination on the grounds of race.
No, it is not. Which race would it be discriminating against? White Albanians, black Nigerians or Asian Indonesians?
Arabs, for one.
Arabs are racially Caucasians, by the American classification. There are also plenty of non-Muslim Arabs. What you are trying to claim is disparate impact, the theory that a law that disproportionately affects one race is racist. This theory has been rejected by the Supreme Court in the Arlington Heights decision in 1977. A sensible decision, as otherwise laws banning burglary could be said to be discriminatory.
Clearly all laws will have a discriminatory effect somewhere. But one which is profoundly disproportionate in its impact between races, particularly one which would be known to be so in advance, can't reasonably be described as anything other than racist.
Citing US legal precedent in this area is fraught with danger given some of the egregious decisions made in the past.
Off topic, went leafleting last night. Mainly on what appeared to be an ex-local authority / housing association estate.
I live in a wealthy part of the village, so the contrast was interesting.
What struck me the most is that a lot of people just don't seem to have any money. I saw lots of old second-hand cars, untended wild gardens (that looked a mess) and properties in bad need of renovation. Lots of rubbish and detritus around too in people's yards; quite a few kids bikes. Conversely, most seemed to have a decent telly, and quite a few homes had several kids inside of various ages.
I couldn't help but get the impression that many not only wouldn't vote but it wouldn't even occur to them.
Also went onto a small private estate: two rather rude people (out of 150 homes leafleted) - one put his teenage son in front of the letterbox so I couldn't deliver to it (I didn't realise this at the time and just thought he was waiting so politely asked if I could put it through the door) and then it immediately came straight back out again onto his porch floor, the rather angry father being just inside.
I also had another women follow me down the street with a leaflet after I'd delivered to her: "I don't want THIS", and didn't make eye contact with me or smile.
On the other hand, a few other people I met at the doorstep were smiley, friendly and polite.
Perhaps election fatigue is kicking in.
Last year I knocked on thousands of doors, it was fascinating and completely changed my view of things. The sneering of Thornberry and 1 or 2 on here is nauseating, as you point out, life for millions is a struggle for a myriad of reasons.
I'd a very similar experience to Casino last time I leafleted. It was usually middle class LDs who got all arsey. Labour voters were more 'no point luv'.
I've just come back from the polling station. To my surprise voting was quite brisk. About 10 voters inside and a steady stream of people entering and exiting.
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Nice try Layne, but treating people differently solely because of their race is exactly what racism is...
He said on the basis of religion not race, also wrong, but not racism.
It's also indirect discrimination on the grounds of race.
No, it is not. Which race would it be discriminating against? White Albanians, black Nigerians or Asian Indonesians?
Arabs, for one.
Arabs are racially Caucasians, by the American classification. There are also plenty of non-Muslim Arabs. What you are trying to claim is disparate impact, the theory that a law that disproportionately affects one race is racist. This theory has been rejected by the Supreme Court in the Arlington Heights decision in 1977. A sensible decision, as otherwise laws banning burglary could be said to be discriminatory.
The fact it's discrimination based on religion makes it all the more unconstitutional. First amendment rules that out.
Discrimination based on race would be more constitutional.
Foreign nationals have no constitutional rights though, if the measure were limited to immigration rather than return American Muslims, then the constitution doesn't apply. Trump could push through an executive order temporarily banning immigration of Muslim people.
I don't think that's true. I thought the reason that detainees are in Guantanamo Bay and not in the continental US is to avoid them being afford rights.
Most of the detainees in Guantanamo are foreign nationals iirc, I don't know what the SCOTUS ruling on US nationals in Guantanamo was though.
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Nice try Layne, but treating people differently solely because of their race is exactly what racism is...
He said on the basis of religion not race, also wrong, but not racism.
It's also indirect discrimination on the grounds of race.
No, it is not. Which race would it be discriminating against? White Albanians, black Nigerians or Asian Indonesians?
Arabs, for one.
Arabs are racially Caucasians, by the American classification. There are also plenty of non-Muslim Arabs. What you are trying to claim is disparate impact, the theory that a law that disproportionately affects one race is racist. This theory has been rejected by the Supreme Court in the Arlington Heights decision in 1977. A sensible decision, as otherwise laws banning burglary could be said to be discriminatory.
The fact it's discrimination based on religion makes it all the more unconstitutional. First amendment rules that out.
Discrimination based on race would be more constitutional.
Does the constitution apply to non-US citizens outside of US borders ?
It's debatable. For instance the US has a visa free travel arrangement with the UK. If a British Muslim flew to America on their UK passport as they're entitled to do so, then they're stood on US soil at passport control does the constitution protect them?
Well the point is that in order to get the ESTA one must apply online, the application would be rejected for British Muslims.
Again, I'm not agreeing with the policy of banning entry of Muslim people to the US, just showing that it would be possible, and probably workable in the main part.
I see the PM has voted this morning. Does that mean the PM has the choice between voting in his constituency (I see there are no locals in Witney today) or in London?
I believe that you can vote in both/all elections providing that they don't overlap i.e. if you're on the electoral roll in Norfolk and Yorkshire, you could vote in local elections in both (assuming they have them on the given day), but in a general election it would have to be one or the other.
I'm not 100% sure on this but remember being surprised when I was told it in the past.
A big yuck to the series of elections today being branded 'Super Thursday', though if such marketing does do anything to drive higher turnout, I might be persuaded to hold my nose.
Wife just found out we have one of those elections for crime / police person (whatever the correct title is?). Neither of us had heard anything about it and she only found out when voting. For the council elections we have had ongoing personal contact from the Lib Dem team (plus a leaflet about every week or so), 1 or 2 leaflets from the blues ... and that's it.
We've had nothing either about the PCC election so won't be voting.
As far as I can see in the Thames Valley area, Cherwell is all up and Reading, MK, Wokingham and West Oxon are electing a third. It would make sense for the candidates to concentrate on leafleting those areas as more people will turn up.
Really if they want to increase turnout they should get rid of the monumentally stupid election by thirds system and sync it so the whole of the country has council elections at the same time e.g.
Years ending 0 and 5 - UK General election Years ending 1 and 6 - Devolved assembly elections Years ending 2 and 7 - Council elections and PCC elections Years ending 4 and 9 - Euro elections (if we stay in)
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Nice try Layne, but treating people differently solely because of their race is exactly what racism is...
He said on the basis of religion not race, also wrong, but not racism.
It's also indirect discrimination on the grounds of race.
No, it is not. Which race would it be discriminating against? White Albanians, black Nigerians or Asian Indonesians?
Arabs, for one.
Arabs are racially Caucasians, by the American classification. There are also plenty of non-Muslim Arabs. What you are trying to claim is disparate impact, the theory that a law that disproportionately affects one race is racist. This theory has been rejected by the Supreme Court in the Arlington Heights decision in 1977. A sensible decision, as otherwise laws banning burglary could be said to be discriminatory.
The fact it's discrimination based on religion makes it all the more unconstitutional. First amendment rules that out.
Discrimination based on race would be more constitutional.
Does the constitution apply to non-US citizens outside of US borders ?
It's debatable. For instance the US has a visa free travel arrangement with the UK. If a British Muslim flew to America on their UK passport as they're entitled to do so, then they're stood on US soil at passport control does the constitution protect them?
Well the point is that in order to get the ESTA one must apply online, the application would be rejected for British Muslims.
Again, I'm not agreeing with the policy of banning entry of Muslim people to the US, just showing that it would be possible, and probably workable in the main part.
Off topic, went leafleting last night. Mainly on what appeared to be an ex-local authority / housing association estate.
I live in a wealthy part of the village, so the contrast was interesting.
What struck me the most is that a lot of people just don't seem to have any money. I saw lots of old second-hand cars, untended wild gardens (that looked a mess) and properties in bad need of renovation. Lots of rubbish and detritus around too in people's yards; quite a few kids bikes. Conversely, most seemed to have a decent telly, and quite a few homes had several kids inside of various ages.
I couldn't help but get the impression that many not only wouldn't vote but it wouldn't even occur to them.
Also went onto a small private estate: two rather rude people (out of 150 homes leafleted) - one put his teenage son in front of the letterbox so I couldn't deliver to it (I didn't realise this at the time and just thought he was waiting so politely asked if I could put it through the door) and then it immediately came straight back out again onto his porch floor, the rather angry father being just inside.
I also had another women follow me down the street with a leaflet after I'd delivered to her: "I don't want THIS", and didn't make eye contact with me or smile.
On the other hand, a few other people I met at the doorstep were smiley, friendly and polite.
Perhaps election fatigue is kicking in.
Last year I knocked on thousands of doors, it was fascinating and completely changed my view of things. The sneering of Thornberry and 1 or 2 on here is nauseating, as you point out, life for millions is a struggle for a myriad of reasons.
I'd a very similar experience to Casino last time I leafleted. It was usually middle class LDs who got all arsey. Labour voters were more 'no point luv'.
LDs are the worst. They are usually very keen for you to know it too.
To be honest the main negative for me on the poorer estates is I'm constantly on edge about the hounds: a handful of people do seem to have some truly terrifying dogs that they let roam free, or are secretly silently lying prone by the letterbox ready to rip up anything that comes through it.
How do postmen do it?
And I could swear the votes of some are influenced by how their dog reacts to you.
I quite like Trump but if Cameron thinks he's stupid he should stand by it.
Let's hope this is the beginning of a trend where faux outrage and looking to be insulted on behalf of others dies out.
I think Cameron is divisive, I don't think he's stupid, I'm not going to apologise.
Wasn't it that Cameron said that Trump's *policy* re muslims enterin the country was stupid, divisive and wrong? Which it is. He might have worded it clumsily but it's obvious that was the meaning.
Even that is playing with fire, better to say nothing and let your outriders take any pot shots that seem appropriate, so that you can disown the comment if it becomes an embarrassment. With thousands of returning ISIS fighters we have an unknown future as far as islamic terrorism in the UK.
Cameron is right to stand up for the right of law-abiding British muslims to enjoy the same immigration rights as any other British citizen. We should not collude in other countries' racist policies.
I hold no brief for Trump's policy. But Muslims are not a race. If Trump announced that he would ban all Catholics from entering the US it would be utterly deplorable but it would not be racist.
Sorry to be pedantic about this. But I dislike the way - and I don't think it leads to clear thinking - the word "racism" is being used to mean anything the speaker/writer doesn't like.
Lol at what? The findings or the results if they're right? Wouldn't 41% list combined with 48% constituency leave the SNP very much on the edge of minority/majority position?
It's delinquent aping of an established American concept (which is, itself, fine). What we're having today are 'elections'. Not special elections. Just elections.
Going out soon to buy a new electric kettle. My old one died the death this morning.
Will it be one of those low power Kettles that takes like 10 minutes to boil thanks to David Camerons beloved EU?
There would be no point in mandating a maximum power level for a kettle. In fact, the higher power, the better, since it would heat the water more quickly and waste less heat overall.
I see the PM has voted this morning. Does that mean the PM has the choice between voting in his constituency (I see there are no locals in Witney today) or in London?
I believe that you can vote in both/all elections providing that they don't overlap i.e. if you're on the electoral roll in Norfolk and Yorkshire, you could vote in local elections in both (assuming they have them on the given day), but in a general election it would have to be one or the other.
I'm not 100% sure on this but remember being surprised when I was told it in the past.
If you are paying council tax in two locations you get votes in council matters including PCCs in those locations.
I quite like Trump but if Cameron thinks he's stupid he should stand by it.
Let's hope this is the beginning of a trend where faux outrage and looking to be insulted on behalf of others dies out.
I think Cameron is divisive, I don't think he's stupid, I'm not going to apologise.
Wasn't it that Cameron said that Trump's *policy* re muslims enterin the country was stupid, divisive and wrong? Which it is. He might have worded it clumsily but it's obvious that was the meaning.
Even that is playing with fire, better to say nothing and let your outriders take any pot shots that seem appropriate, so that you can disown the comment if it becomes an embarrassment. With thousands of returning ISIS fighters we have an unknown future as far as islamic terrorism in the UK.
Cameron is right to stand up for the right of law-abiding British muslims to enjoy the same immigration rights as any other British citizen. We should not collude in other countries' racist policies.
I hold no brief for Trump's policy. But Muslims are not a race. If Trump announced that he would ban all Catholics from entering the US it would be utterly deplorable but it would not be racist.
Sorry to be pedantic about this. But I dislike the way - and I don't think it leads to clear thinking - the word "racism" is being used to mean anything the speaker/writer doesn't like.
It would be indirectly discriminatory against various racial groups without justification.
Layne might not think indirect discrimination is a thing, but in this country, it is.
A big yuck to the series of elections today being branded 'Super Thursday', though if such marketing does do anything to drive higher turnout, I might be persuaded to hold my nose.
Agreed....it devalues the word "super"...but then the US had how many "Super Tuesdays" ? 4-5-6?
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Nice try Layne, but treating people differently solely because of their race is exactly what racism is...
He said on the basis of religion not race, also wrong, but not racism.
It's also indirect discrimination on the grounds of race.
No, it is not. Which race would it be discriminating against? White Albanians, black Nigerians or Asian Indonesians?
Arabs, for one.
Arabs are racially Caucasians, by the American classification. There are also plenty of non-Muslim Arabs. What you are trying to claim is disparate impact, the theory that a law that disproportionately affects one race is racist. This theory has been rejected by the Supreme Court in the Arlington Heights decision in 1977. A sensible decision, as otherwise laws banning burglary could be said to be discriminatory.
The fact it's discrimination based on religion makes it all the more unconstitutional. First amendment rules that out.
Discrimination based on race would be more constitutional.
Foreign nationals have no constitutional rights though, if the measure were limited to immigration rather than return American Muslims, then the constitution doesn't apply. Trump could push through an executive order temporarily banning immigration of Muslim people.
I don't think that's true. I thought the reason that detainees are in Guantanamo Bay and not in the continental US is to avoid them being afford rights.
Most of the detainees in Guantanamo are foreign nationals iirc, I don't know what the SCOTUS ruling on US nationals in Guantanamo was though.
So apparently none of them were American except one who they put there before they realised he was American. Once they found out, they moved him back to the US, then ultimately released him in Saudi Arabia, on the condition that he stop being American.
I quite like Trump but if Cameron thinks he's stupid he should stand by it.
Let's hope this is the beginning of a trend where faux outrage and looking to be insulted on behalf of others dies out.
I think Cameron is divisive, I don't think he's stupid, I'm not going to apologise.
Wasn't it that Cameron said that Trump's *policy* re muslims enterin the country was stupid, divisive and wrong? Which it is. He might have worded it clumsily but it's obvious that was the meaning.
Even that is playing with fire, better to say nothing and let your outriders take any pot shots that seem appropriate, so that you can disown the comment if it becomes an embarrassment. With thousands of returning ISIS fighters we have an unknown future as far as islamic terrorism in the UK.
Cameron is right to stand up for the right of law-abiding British muslims to enjoy the same immigration rights as any other British citizen. We should not collude in other countries' racist policies.
I hold no brief for Trump's policy. But Muslims are not a race. If Trump announced that he would ban all Catholics from entering the US it would be utterly deplorable but it would not be racist.
Sorry to be pedantic about this. But I dislike the way - and I don't think it leads to clear thinking - the word "racism" is being used to mean anything the speaker/writer doesn't like.
It would be indirectly discriminatory against various racial groups without justification.
Layne might not think indirect discrimination is a thing, but in this country, it is.
The world as it is and as Layne imagines it to be have little, if anything, in common
Off topic, went leafleting last night. Mainly on what appeared to be an ex-local authority / housing association estate.
I live in a wealthy part of the village, so the contrast was interesting.
What struck me the most is that a lot of people just don't seem to have any money. I saw lots of old second-hand cars, untended wild gardens (that looked a mess) and properties in bad need of renovation. Lots of rubbish and detritus around too in people's yards; quite a few kids bikes. Conversely, most seemed to have a decent telly, and quite a few homes had several kids inside of various ages.
I couldn't help but get the impression that many not only wouldn't vote but it wouldn't even occur to them.
Also went onto a small private estate: two rather rude people (out of 150 homes leafleted) - one put his teenage son in front of the letterbox so I couldn't deliver to it (I didn't realise this at the time and just thought he was waiting so politely asked if I could put it through the door) and then it immediately came straight back out again onto his porch floor, the rather angry father being just inside.
I also had another women follow me down the street with a leaflet after I'd delivered to her: "I don't want THIS", and didn't make eye contact with me or smile.
On the other hand, a few other people I met at the doorstep were smiley, friendly and polite.
Perhaps election fatigue is kicking in.
Last year I knocked on thousands of doors, it was fascinating and completely changed my view of things. The sneering of Thornberry and 1 or 2 on here is nauseating, as you point out, life for millions is a struggle for a myriad of reasons.
I'd a very similar experience to Casino last time I leafleted. It was usually middle class LDs who got all arsey. Labour voters were more 'no point luv'.
LDs are the worst. They are usually very keen for you to know it too.
To be honest the main negative for me on the poorer estates is I'm constantly on edge about the hounds: a handful of people do seem to have some truly terrifying dogs that they let roam free, or are secretly silently lying prone by the letterbox ready to rip up anything that comes through it.
How do postmen do it?
And I could swear the votes of some are influenced by how their dog reacts to you.
I've always worn leather gloves, stops your fingers getting caught on sprung letterboxes and can come off if a furry razorblade is on the other side. I hate doors with slots at the bottom.
Going out soon to buy a new electric kettle. My old one died the death this morning.
Will it be one of those low power Kettles that takes like 10 minutes to boil thanks to David Camerons beloved EU?
There would be no point in mandating a maximum power level for a kettle. In fact, the higher power, the better, since it would heat the water more quickly and waste less heat overall.
That's what I always thought. Surely a kettle that takes a long time to slowly boil will use more energy than one that does it quickly?
Still, Cameron's beloved EU Bureaucrats know best....
Lol at what? The findings or the results if they're right? Wouldn't 41% list combined with 48% constituency leave the SNP very much on the edge of minority/majority position?
Well in just over 12 hours we'll begin to see what the results are, no point in arguing over it now I think.
I see the PM has voted this morning. Does that mean the PM has the choice between voting in his constituency (I see there are no locals in Witney today) or in London?
I believe that you can vote in both/all elections providing that they don't overlap i.e. if you're on the electoral roll in Norfolk and Yorkshire, you could vote in local elections in both (assuming they have them on the given day), but in a general election it would have to be one or the other.
I'm not 100% sure on this but remember being surprised when I was told it in the past.
Makes sense. As a student I voted in Oxford in 2006 and 2008 and Woking in 2007. I wasn't sure if you were allowed to vote in different boroughs on the same day, but I guess you must be allowed.
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Nice try Layne, but treating people differently solely because of their race is exactly what racism is...
He said on the basis of religion not race, also wrong, but not racism.
It's also indirect discrimination on the grounds of race.
No, it is not. Which race would it be discriminating against? White Albanians, black Nigerians or Asian Indonesians?
Arabs, for one.
Arabs are racially Caucasians, by the American classification. There are also plenty of non-Muslim Arabs. What you are trying to claim is disparate impact, the theory that a law that disproportionately affects one race is racist. This theory has been rejected by the Supreme Court in the Arlington Heights decision in 1977. A sensible decision, as otherwise laws banning burglary could be said to be discriminatory.
The fact it's discrimination based on religion makes it all the more unconstitutional. First amendment rules that out.
Discrimination based on race would be more constitutional.
Does the constitution apply to non-US citizens outside of US borders ?
It's debatable. For instance the US has a visa free travel arrangement with the UK. If a British Muslim flew to America on their UK passport as they're entitled to do so, then they're stood on US soil at passport control does the constitution protect them?
Whether a ban is workable is a different question to whether it's constitutional! I agree that once they're on US soil then the constitution applies. There is an argument that the far side of customs is 'international', hence duty-free sales, so they're not on 'US soil' until they've cleared customs. It's not an argument I'd accept on balance but there is at least a case. Presumably the carriers would be required to enforce the ban at the embarkation point as part of their licence to operate, or some such arrangement.
Here is something that I just thought of, if the mayoral result is close, as in very close, could Zac force a rerun given that Barnet is probably his strongest borough and having voters turned away there hurts him more than any other candidate.
LDs are the worst. They are usually very keen for you to know it too.
To be honest the main negative for me on the poorer estates is I'm constantly on edge about the hounds: a handful of people do seem to have some truly terrifying dogs that they let roam free, or are secretly silently lying prone by the letterbox ready to rip up anything that comes through it.
How do postmen do it?
And I could swear the votes of some are influenced by how their dog reacts to you.
Last May in Eastbourne I was leafletting a row of terraced houses, and at one of them I couldn't get the leaflet through the letter box, which seemed to be jammed. As I tried to post the leaflet through it, there was a fearsome barking on the other side and the door opened to reveal a rough-looking chap with lots of tattoos and with various bits of metal adorning him, holding a vicious-looking bull terrier. I thought I was about to get a torrent of abuse or worse, but instead the chap just pointed to the side of the door where there was a postbox and a sign saying 'please post mail here'.
Going out soon to buy a new electric kettle. My old one died the death this morning.
Will it be one of those low power Kettles that takes like 10 minutes to boil thanks to David Camerons beloved EU?
There would be no point in mandating a maximum power level for a kettle. In fact, the higher power, the better, since it would heat the water more quickly and waste less heat overall.
That's what I always thought. Surely a kettle that takes a long time to slowly boil will use more energy than one that does it quickly?
Still, Cameron's beloved EU Bureaucrats know best....
Scientifically, it should take the same amount of power to boil the water....I presume that the fast boil kettles allow more heat to escape and thus more inefficient than slowly raising the temperature, but I bet the difference in the grand scheme of things is totally insignificant.
I quite like Trump but if Cameron thinks he's stupid he should stand by it.
Let's hope this is the beginning of a trend where faux outrage and looking to be insulted on behalf of others dies out.
I think Cameron is divisive, I don't think he's stupid, I'm not going to apologise.
Wasn't it that Cameron said that Trump's *policy* re muslims enterin the country was stupid, divisive and wrong? Which it is. He might have worded it clumsily but it's obvious that was the meaning.
Even that is playing with fire, better to say nothing and let your outriders take any pot shots that seem appropriate, so that you can disown the comment if it becomes an embarrassment. With thousands of returning ISIS fighters we have an unknown future as far as islamic terrorism in the UK.
Cameron is right to stand up for the right of law-abiding British muslims to enjoy the same immigration rights as any other British citizen. We should not collude in other countries' racist policies.
I hold no brief for Trump's policy. But Muslims are not a race. If Trump announced that he would ban all Catholics from entering the US it would be utterly deplorable but it would not be racist.
Sorry to be pedantic about this. But I dislike the way - and I don't think it leads to clear thinking - the word "racism" is being used to mean anything the speaker/writer doesn't like.
Well said, it has become the most misused word and has successfully closed down many rational discussions. Everybody has prejudices, some irrational, others based on experience.
I disagree with Trump on Muslims but admire his honesty, its clear millions of Americans agree with him.
Here is something that I just thought of, if the mayoral result is close, as in very close, could Zac force a rerun given that Barnet is probably his strongest borough and having voters turned away there hurts him more than any other candidate.
I think it's unlikely ti come to that. Sadiq will win easily.
Comments
That was my response to him, would he be enlisting?
He's got it all planned, he wants to ship a million of our scrotes to the Sahara and get them to fight a million scrotes from elsewhere.
I can see the flaws in his plan.
Danil Kvyat has been demoted from Red Bull Racing to Torro Rosso and Max Verstappen has been promoted to replace him. RBR saying that all drivers are contracted to them and the management can choose which car they drive in. Takes the heat of Sainz as well since it looks like Kvyat isn't going to have his contract renewed unless he can seriously prove himself over the next 5-7 races.
In other news, RBR and Renault are said to be coming to an agreement over an engine deal for 2017 and 2018. McLaren are in talks with Sauber over becoming their becoming McLaren's junior team, McLaren will pay off some (a lot) of Sauber's debt, they will get a cut price Honda engine and Vandoorne will have a seat in return. It gives Honda another team to gather data from and it isn't a team that will compete with McLaren like Red Bull would.
UK Chief Rabbi Mirvis "disappointed" after turned away by Barnet polling station https://t.co/zPkayZmAAv #PollingDay https://t.co/ggFVdXwn1k
Keep your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears, those beastly people might disappear.
You see when you say immigration benefits the economy what you really mean is it benefits you, with rising house prices in London and cheap cleaners. Have a think about the cleaners and those trying to get a roof over their head.
You live in a bubble.
Good to hear Sauber may yet survive. Sainz could still be tossed overboard, though.
Labour's PCC candidate in Suffolk writes a blog in the voice of her dog and it's astonishing https://t.co/CX8DSW1A8s https://t.co/HBFeBTzWAw
So if I buy a coffee at Caffe Nero they pay UK tax on their profits. If I buy one at Starbucks they don't. Why should I subsidise a US national in my taxes ?
This has nothing to do with coffee sold and everything to do with maximising profits.
Maybe it's a celt thing :-)
You can paint your childish cartoons of me in crayons all you like: they are about as valuable as a four year old's daubs. Just don't expect me to pat you on the head and give you a smartie.
French Pres Hollande has achieved lowest approval-rating ever on 13%. And 91% of voters under-35 don't trust him.
Ouch......
So this trip to the council estate for you to tell the residents what's best for them - you up for it?
Three of its polling stations follow:
http://www.birminghamheritage.org.uk/images/members/stpaul.jpg
http://i2.birminghammail.co.uk/incoming/article5594.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/birmingham-city-council-house-177703095.jpg
http://www.birminghammuseums.org.uk/assets/venue_photos/photo-jewellery-55badacdabb5ccf03da70517db7aed33.jpg
OK, this is also a polling station
http://www.emporis.com/images/show/492221-Large-exterior-view-from-hall-street.jpg
Partially that is because of transfer rates etc and partially that is because they have been undergoing a massive expansion so what would have been profit is instead used in investment (perfectly legal) and so there is no profit left to tax.
Eventually like McDonald's we will see Starbucks reach a saturation point where rapid expansion is no longer viable, investment will fall and profits will rise with taxes paid accordingly.
Let's cut to the chase, I say immigration doesn't benefit the lower echelons of society, you disgaree. I'm simply suggesting that you and I ask the lower echelons of society and then we'll report our findings.
Up for it?
Discrimination based on race would be more constitutional.
http://news.sky.com/story/1606404/starbucks-tax-bill-falls-as-profits-rise
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14471179.Salmond_appeals_to_Scots_Americans_to_reject__quot_nightmare_quot__of_Trump_becoming_US_President/
We laugh.
Somebody mentioned the phrase "too clever by half" earlier.
Have a nice day.
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-05/chaos-in-london-as-voters-turned-away-from-the-polls-due-to-problems-with-lists/
I can only applaud the council for providing operations management courses for the public sector, with material for case studies on brand management, crisis management. Barnet Council are having their Ratners moment.
Will the foul ups be a foretaste of things to come with the EU referendum?
Foul ups at all 155 polling places.
https://www.barnet.gov.uk/citizen-home/news/Electoral-registration-lists.html
I live in a wealthy part of the village, so the contrast was interesting.
What struck me the most is that a lot of people just don't seem to have any money. I saw lots of old second-hand cars, untended wild gardens (that looked a mess) and properties in bad need of renovation. Lots of rubbish and detritus around too in people's yards; quite a few kids bikes. Conversely, most seemed to have a decent telly, and quite a few homes had several kids inside of various ages.
I couldn't help but get the impression that many not only wouldn't vote but it wouldn't even occur to them.
Also went onto a small private estate: two rather rude people (out of 150 homes leafleted) - one put his teenage son in front of the letterbox so I couldn't deliver to it (I didn't realise this at the time and just thought he was waiting so politely asked if I could put it through the door) and then it immediately came straight back out again onto his porch floor, the rather angry father being just inside.
I also had another women follow me down the street with a leaflet after I'd delivered to her: "I don't want THIS", and didn't make eye contact with me or smile.
On the other hand, a few other people I met at the doorstep were smiley, friendly and polite.
Perhaps election fatigue is kicking in.
Citing US legal precedent in this area is fraught with danger given some of the egregious decisions made in the past.
Doesn't matter how bad things may get in life at least we can always point and laugh at the Lib-Dems!
Again, I'm not agreeing with the policy of banning entry of Muslim people to the US, just showing that it would be possible, and probably workable in the main part.
I'm not 100% sure on this but remember being surprised when I was told it in the past.
As far as I can see in the Thames Valley area, Cherwell is all up and Reading, MK, Wokingham and West Oxon are electing a third. It would make sense for the candidates to concentrate on leafleting those areas as more people will turn up.
Really if they want to increase turnout they should get rid of the monumentally stupid election by thirds system and sync it so the whole of the country has council elections at the same time e.g.
Years ending 0 and 5 - UK General election
Years ending 1 and 6 - Devolved assembly elections
Years ending 2 and 7 - Council elections and PCC elections
Years ending 4 and 9 - Euro elections (if we stay in)
To be honest the main negative for me on the poorer estates is I'm constantly on edge about the hounds: a handful of people do seem to have some truly terrifying dogs that they let roam free, or are secretly silently lying prone by the letterbox ready to rip up anything that comes through it.
How do postmen do it?
And I could swear the votes of some are influenced by how their dog reacts to you.
Sorry to be pedantic about this. But I dislike the way - and I don't think it leads to clear thinking - the word "racism" is being used to mean anything the speaker/writer doesn't like.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7127693/Fury-as-it-emerges-Corbyn-DEFENDED-Hamas-terror-group-and-backed-its-claims-to-Israeli-land.html
It's delinquent aping of an established American concept (which is, itself, fine). What we're having today are 'elections'. Not special elections. Just elections.
And they always happen on a Thursday.
Layne might not think indirect discrimination is a thing, but in this country, it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_detainees_at_Guantanamo_Bay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
Still, Cameron's beloved EU Bureaucrats know best....
https://twitter.com/LBofHavering/status/728150246056808448?lang=en
For those of use just electing Police and Crime commissioners it doesn't feel all that exciting.
I disagree with Trump on Muslims but admire his honesty, its clear millions of Americans agree with him.