Inciting what? Violence? I never said discrimination was legal or should be, but there's a difference between something being considered "hate speech" because it incites people to do something illegal and censoring something for being "offensive". I doubt anyone can make a solid case that Charlie Hebdo is responsible for inciting anything against any group and should therefore be censored (at least, not from anything I've seen).
But of course, I understand that different countries have different tolerances, regardless of what they claim.
Well no. Charlie hebdo does not have any such issues nor is being accused of anything, at least as far as I know. Nor I think they should have any such issues, at least based on what they do. Note that I am not talking about anyone finding something "offensive". Of course, when it comes to hate speech people are offended but that sort of misses the point. It's not about someone offending anyone, it's about inciting violence and discrimination.
Well no. Charlie hebdo does not have any such issues nor is being accused of anything, at least as far as I know. Nor I think they should have any such issues, at least based on what they do. Note that I am not talking about anyone finding something "offensive". Of course, when it comes to hate speech people are offended but that sort of misses the point. It's not about someone offending anyone, it's about inciting violence and discrimination.
But the being able to prove whether something is inciting imminent violence or that someone has any culpability for discrimination is not a cut and dry issue. Here in the US there are multiple constitutional precedents that protect the content of expression, but not necessarily the mode of expression. I could hate black people and say racist things, but if I'm not burning a cross on someone's lawn or preventing someone from being employed based on these racist feelings, there's no laws being broken. But if I'm a cartoonist and I want to satirize Islam or any other religion at the expense of others, then it becomes a matter of free speech. Unless said cartoons read like manuals for committing crimes, there's nothing even remotely ambiguous there in my opinion. When people start trying to say that even the simplest thing, such as an idea, shouldn't be legal, then you're getting into 1984 Thought Police territory for me.
But the being able to prove whether something is inciting imminent violence or that someone has any culpability for discrimination is not a cut and dry issue. Here in the US there are multiple constitutional precedents that protect the content of expression, but not necessarily the mode of expression. I could hate black people and say racist things, but if I'm not burning a cross on someone's lawn or preventing someone from being employed based on these racist feelings, there's no laws being broken. But if I'm a cartoonist and I want to satirize Islam or any other religion at the expense of others, then it becomes a matter of free speech. Unless said cartoons read like manuals for committing crimes, there's nothing even remotely ambiguous there in my opinion. When people start trying to say that even the simplest thing, such as an idea, shouldn't be legal, then you're getting into 1984 Thought Police territory for me.
Well no, it isn't clear cut. I did point out that the standard to even prosecute someone of something like this is actually pretty high. As in, it's not easy to get prosecuted for this and I am pretty sure the actual principle is to avoid prosecution altogether. Mostly because of the stuff you mention about it not being clear cut and taking this too far being in itself an issue. However it's still a thing in most places. I am not sure of what the point here is though. I mean, I am not suggesting hebdo should be silenced or shouldn't be doing what it is doing nor I even find it wrong to begin with (at worst its cringeworthy).
I agree in that an idea itself being illegal is wrong (even ignoring the impractical aspects of such a thing). I am not sure that is what is going on here either.
So then what you're saying is that it shouldn't be legal for people to say or do ignorant things? The freedom of speech doesn't exist to allow people to be bigoted (or whatever in this case), it exists as a barrier between being able to speak freely and not. If we start outlawing speech that is insulting or offensive to some, then who judges such things? How would such a law be enforced? Doing such a thing would create 10x more problems than it solves. Being offended/insulted is never an excuse for the censorship of someone else.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Okay, I'm not a Trump supporter, but when did he say he would do it because he would treat all of them as terrorists or put them in concentration camps? I don't recall him ever going that far.
This isn't a matter of legality, it's a matter of how irresponsible people like Trump claim they're all acting in the name of free speech, when in fact they're acting the opposite of what the free speech dogma was originally intended to be. I'm not advocating for limiting freedom of speech and expression, but my country does have a pretty good set of legal rules regarding discriminatory and bigoted speech. It's sometimes hit and miss, but more hit than miss. And that's mostly because thanks to the strong social norms backing it up.
Usually, when a case like this springs up, the authorities decide whether not to go through the case by gauging the social reaction in large. Our social norms that has been planted since the founding of our nation has given us the unique ability of social judgement towards bigoted actions. Thanks to this unique trait, we're able to judge for ourselves as a whole and distinguish between bigoted speech and free speech.
The basis for this trait is our core 5 tenets ingrained into our philosophy, otherwise known as Pancasila. The first tenet is "Believing in one Supreme God". The story behind it, and subsequently its meaning, goes like this: the founding father initially drafted the first tenet as exclusively aimed towards a particular religion, since it so happened that the majority of the population believed in it, but thanks to the urging of his friend and fellow founders, he changed it to the above. The meaning for that tenet is that for every religion that exists here, all have the same belief that there exists one or many omnisicient, transcendental beings. Why it's made into a singularity is because while polytheistic religions exist, there is a structural system in those polytheistic religions after all. The singularity would then be used to refer to the top.
This story has been taught and told in textbooks in schools to instill a pluralistic society. Even without the laws, we would still fare well enough thanks to the core tenets. As early as grade school, we're taught to be open to other religions with the Pancasila as a symbol to rally around.
A concrete symbol like Pancasila really helps us to move towards understanding those different from us. In fact, it's been credited by most middle east analysts as why our society has not fallen into shambles even with the great recession of 1998 despite sharing similarities with those from the middle east.
Back to our judgement, thanks to having Pancasila around, we have a clear and concise way to differentiate hateful and bigoted speech with clear, legitimate speech. How? As an addition to the Pancasila symbol, it's also summed up in our motto which goes hand-in-hand with each other: Bhinneka Tunggal Ika. Which means Diverse but United. This is how we're able to reject any kind of bigots: within our diverse society we remind ourselves that we are together as one. Which means any sort of individual/group aiming to marginalize a certain group of religion, ethnicity within our country, is an enemy to us all.
For us, an insult to Muhammad, Jesus and what have you, can be seriously seen as an enemy to the state, as it obviously aims to stoke anger within the community. Thet's why, when cases like this arise, authorities are quick to act before it spreads any further. To encourage this, laws prohibiting bigoted speech are in place to give them legal standing to prevent anymore problems.
The procedures to punish on the basis of bigoted speech is also pretty stringent but also lax in punishment. Why? Because a person cannot be processed by the court if there is no one suing, so when someone is going to prosecute someone on the basis of bigoted speech, it is usually scrutinized heavily. Those wanting to prosecute often have to think twice because most judges would rather the prosecutor provide very concrete evidence and must be very blatant as well. It also helps that thanks to social media the people can also have a look at the case as well. More often than not, the judges often take into considerations of the people as a whole whether to proceed or not.
If a punishment is doled out it's usually quite lax. But nevertheless, the whole process is more than enough to serve as a reminder that bigoted speech won't fly in our society.
Even with extremists around, they very much fail miserably, because we're not stupid enough to be baited. Bhinneka Tunggal Ika has appealed to our better angels and common sense for us to be immune to their baiting. As corrupt as my country is, when I look at other parts of the world rife with conflicts and violence, thanks to our ideology and motto, I can actually proudly say I'm proud of my country.
But the being able to prove whether something is inciting imminent violence or that someone has any culpability for discrimination is not a cut and dry issue. Here in the US there are multiple constitutional precedents that protect the content of expression, but not necessarily the mode of expression. I could hate black people and say racist things, but if I'm not burning a cross on someone's lawn or preventing someone from being employed based on these racist feelings, there's no laws being broken. But if I'm a cartoonist and I want to satirize Islam or any other religion at the expense of others, then it becomes a matter of free speech. Unless said cartoons read like manuals for committing crimes, there's nothing even remotely ambiguous there in my opinion. When people start trying to say that even the simplest thing, such as an idea, shouldn't be legal, then you're getting into 1984 Thought Police territory for me.
There's good satire, and there's just plain bad satire. Charlie falls into the latter. If he wanted to satirize Islam, a better joke would be to make one about the supposedly 72 virgins in total. Moslemshow in France does a better job of satirizing Islam and its rituals.
Back to our judgement, thanks to having Pancasila around, we have a clear and concise way to differentiate hateful and bigoted speech with clear, legitimate speech. How? As an addition to the Pancasila symbol, it's also summed up in our motto which goes hand-in-hand with each other: Bhinneka Tunggal Ika. Which means Diverse but United. This is how we're able to reject any kind of bigots: within our diverse society we remind ourselves that we are together as one. Which means any sort of individual/group aiming to marginalize a certain group of religion, ethnicity within our country, is an enemy to us all.
No one said bigots weren't rejected here. Of course, there's nothing unreasonable about bigoted people being admonished by the public, that's sort of just how it goes. However, saying that there's should be some sort of legal reasoning for Trump not being able to say what he's saying is nearly as un-American as some of the crazy things he suggests, banning Muslims from entering the country being one of them. Mind you, being for his freedom to say these things is not tantamount to supporting his views. That is basically the linchpin of the support for freedom of speech.
For us, an insult to Muhammad, Jesus and what have you, can be seriously seen as an enemy to the state, as it obviously aims to stoke anger within the community. Thet's why, when cases like this arise, authorities are quick to act before it spreads any further. To encourage this, laws prohibiting bigoted speech are in place to give them legal standing to prevent anymore problems.
Well, not to be dismissive of you or anything, but you seem to be applying your country's laws to the laws in the US (this is a thread about the US election after all), when they're clearly different, especially when it comes to banning speech in order to "prevent problems". I personally don't see that as being healthy at all, whether it's enforced to the letter of the law or not. And if the punishment is trivial, what's the actual point of having such laws anyway? There are a bunch of philosophical differences at play here, and that probably has a lot to do with the US being a secular state.
Almost every Republican I know, on the other hand, like him, and I know several who are embarrassed to admit such a thing. A sizable chunk of the Republican base also view him favorably, as evidenced here. The only reason that some Republicans hate him is because they think he will lose, not because of his policies.
As for why people support Trump, there are two main reasons. The first is that a majority of Republicans actually agree with Trump's policies. On the subject of mass deportations, a national CNN poll found that a majority of Republicans want this. Among Trump supporters, 67% agree. On the subject of banning Muslims from entering the United States, a survey from Bloomberg Politics found solid majorities supported this ban. 65% of likely GOP primary voters support Trump's proposal; 51% agree strongly. And 37% of GOP primary voters nationally are more likely to vote for Trump after hearing his Muslim banning proposal. Republican voters are responding to Trump as sailors respond to sirens preciselybecause he is speaking to these voters' anxieties with blatant xenophobia and maximal solutions (e.g. mass deportations).
The second main reason is that a solid majority of Republican voters believe Trump is a plausible nominee. In fact, going back to the CNN poll I linked, 52% of Republican voters say Trump has the best chances of winning the presidency this November.
This isn't a matter of legality, it's a matter of how irresponsible people like Trump claim they're all acting in the name of free speech, when in fact they're acting the opposite of what the free speech dogma was originally intended to be.
The whole point of freedom of speech is not allowing an individual or group define what is acceptable based on their personal beliefs. All forms of expression, as long as they aren't inciting violence, are protected under the law, period.
Almost every Republican I know, on the other hand, like him, and I know several who are embarrassed to admit such a thing. A sizable chunk of the Republican base also view him favorably, as evidenced here. The only reason that some Republicans hate him is because they think he will lose, not because of his policies.
As for why people support Trump, there are two main reasons. The first is that a majority of Republicans actually agree with Trump's policies. On the subject of mass deportations, a national CNN poll found that a majority of Republicans want this. Among Trump supporters, 67% agree. On the subject of banning Muslims from entering the United States, a survey from Bloomberg Politics found solid majorities supported this ban. 65% of likely GOP primary voters support Trump's proposal; 51% agree strongly. And 37% of GOP primary voters nationally are more likely to vote for Trump after hearing his Muslim banning proposal. Republican voters are responding to Trump as sailors respond to sirens preciselybecause he is speaking to these voters' anxieties with blatant xenophobia and maximal solutions (e.g. mass deportations).
The second main reason is that a solid majority of Republican voters believe Trump is a plausible nominee. In fact, going back to the CNN poll I linked, 52% of Republican voters say Trump has the best chances of winning the presidency this November.
Oh no, I know he obviously has his supporters. My point was that most people would probably be ashamed to admit such a thing. But I think that speaks more to the weakness of the Republican party than anything else. Most of the rhetoric in the campaign has little to do with actual issues, and more to do with anger and appealing to the lowest common denominator.
Just saying on the firsthand basis, no one I know supports him. But of course, I live in a blue state, so even our conservatives can't really be compared to those from the Bible Belt or the like.
No one said bigots weren't rejected here. Of course, there's nothing unreasonable about bigoted people being admonished by the public, that's sort of just how it goes. However, saying that there's should be some sort of legal reasoning for Trump not being able to say what he's saying is nearly as un-American as some of the crazy things he suggests, banning Muslims from entering the country being one of them. Mind you, being for his freedom to say these things is not tantamount to supporting his views. That is basically the linchpin of the support for freedom of speech.
Strengthening the views of many with legal standings goes a very long way. It's how laws are made, after all. But the question here is, if all you're going to do is admonish them, then what good does that do for the ones targeted? The bigots will just keep going on until they convince everybody of their views. Trump and ISIS is a prime example. You know what they say: tell a lie many times, and people will see it as the truth. At that point, things will have reached a point of no return.
Well, not to be dismissive of you or anything, but you seem to be applying your country's laws to the laws in the US (this is a thread about the US election after all), when they're clearly different, especially when it comes to banning speech in order to "prevent problems". I personally don't see that as being healthy at all, whether it's enforced to the letter of the law or not. And if the punishment is trivial, what's the actual point of having such laws anyway? There are a bunch of philosophical differences at play here, and that probably has a lot to do with the US being a secular state.
Wasn't my intention. I merely intended to make comparisons, that's all. You say that it's unhealthy with the way our laws work, but I'm asking you, are your laws working for your country? One thing why ours work and others don't, which many analysts have agreed on, is that it boils down to our common sense.
P.S.: This is over midnight here, so if you want, we can take this over to PM and I'll try to reply tomorrow.
That said, I can't say I know much of indonesia but the impression I had of it was that it is bankrupt in terms of human rights and freedom of speech. As in, cuba levels of either. Maybe I'm wrong about that? A quick look at human rights watch suggests severe repression, less than tolerant attitude towards foreign reporters, a ban of atheism...
Oh no, I know he obviously has his supporters. My point was that most people would probably be ashamed to admit such a thing. But I think that speaks more to the weakness of the Republican party than anything else. Most of the rhetoric in the campaign has little to do with actual issues, and more to do with anger and appealing to the lowest common denominator.
Just saying on the firsthand basis, no one I know supports him. But of course, I live in a blue state, so even our conservatives can't really be compared to those from the Bible Belt or the like.
I live in a swing state and have firsthand experience working with both parties, so I encounter opinions all over the board on a daily basis. Usually Republican establishment figures tend to win the presidential nomination because of the critical influence Republican delegates from blue states possess. You'd think it'd be the same with 2016 since Trump has more support in the South than he does in the high plains or Mountain West. Still, I'm not too sure at this point since Trump has been dominating the polls for 6+ months now and the general loathing Republican voters have for establishment candidates (e.g. Bush).
I also wouldn't call today's Republican Party "conservative". Trump's success is a clear demonstration that the party, as a whole, has more in common with a far-right party than a center-right party. You know something is odd when the Republican Party is the only "conservative party" in the world that denies climate change, for example. Reactionaries would be a more appropriate term.
The whole point of freedom of speech is not allowing an individual or group define what is acceptable based on their personal beliefs. All forms of expression, as long as they aren't inciting violence, are protected under the law, period.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Oh no, I know he obviously has his supporters. My point was that most people would probably be ashamed to admit such a thing. But I think that speaks more to the weakness of the Republican party than anything else. Most of the rhetoric in the campaign has little to do with actual issues, and more to do with anger and appealing to the lowest common denominator.
Just saying on the firsthand basis, no one I know supports him. But of course, I live in a blue state, so even our conservatives can't really be compared to those from the Bible Belt or the like.
That statement totally runs counterpoint to what CH did. They did it with the clear conscience fully knowing the consequences of doing what they did. Some of you may have forgotten that 10 years ago, Jyllands-Posten in Denmark did this too. That incident should've warned them not to try their stunt again. So why? It's simple, the intent to incite violence was there. I wouldn't be surprised this was a ploy to get more money by painting themselves as martyrs. They had a clear precedent for this and was even warned not to, and yet they went on with it. If that's not intentional, I don't know what is.
That statement totally runs counterpoint to what CH did. They did it with the clear conscience fully knowing the consequences of doing what they did. Some of you may have forgotten that 10 years ago, Jyllands-Posten in Denmark did this too. That incident should've warned them not to try their stunt again. So why? It's simple, the intent to incite violence was there. I wouldn't be surprised this was a ploy to get more money by painting themselves as martyrs. They had a clear precedent for this and was even warned not to, and yet they went on with it. If that's not intentional, I don't know what is.
Oh yeah, it definitely is. Religious intolerance, though? Not so much.
CH was the victim here. This is not a "they had it coming" scenario. While I do think some of their stuff is cringe-worthy, they did not do anything which can or should be illegal. As far as I know at least (maybe there is more to this and I missed it) they simply made a depiction of Muhammad. It is completely reasonable that muslims are offended at that but.... it should end at that, being offended. Of course it was intentional but that does not mean they had it coming, it doesn't work that way.
So... what was your point? I am not sure if I missed the joke or you were forced to write that.
That said, I can't say I know much of indonesia but the impression I had of it was that it is bankrupt in terms of human rights and freedom of speech. As in, cuba levels of either. Maybe I'm wrong about that? A quick look at human rights watch suggests severe repression, less than tolerant attitude towards foreign reporters, a ban of atheism...
EDIT: didn't see your edit. Not as severe as you'd like to think. But the ones doing the repression are the ones with big pockets and run their mafias. That is the biggest problem with our free speech situation, but the good thing is, the central government doesn't even think of trying to do that. It would be literally politically suicidal. Those doing the repression are businessmen who got voted into office but instead abuses it for his vested interests in the region. And even then, it's a very limited number. Our main concern is criticisms of higher-ups, but if backlash against the speakers happens, you can be sure there's a riot coming their way. More often than not, this is a very risky move due to the massive pressure from the public. There has been several cases where they end up leaving their posts.
Another one, is the corrupt cops, boy you have no idea how I want to Akumetsu them. The truly corrupt ones are at the judicial branch , the executives at least do a good job of distancing themselves from this pile of shit. That, in turn gives a bit of hope, now the only question when this will stop.
If you want to continue this, feel free to PM me. I'm dead tired and I can't think straight.
I'm gonna ask, is Charlie Hebdo a champion of free speech or are they abusers of that very same free speech? The fact that they outright insult a religion by blatantly equating their religion and depicting their spiritual leader/prophet as an insane madman who encourages violence, but is all the more praised as heroes for it, downright defeats the purpose of free speech itself.
Free speech is not a special right, nor is it an obligation. It's a responsibility.
I want all of you to be honest to me and say it to me straight, What do you think of Charlie Hebdo?
They aren't a champion of free speech, they hide behind that in order to attack religions. They don't deserve to be attacked for that, but on the other hand they can't complain because they were told to cease. I can't feel too bad for Hebdo, but I can't say they deserved that either.
Funnily, many people who champion freedom or complain about murder/terrorist attacks seem to have no problem with religious zealots or pro-life asshats attacking abortion centers or Planned Parenthood places and even kill the employees or abortion doctor/s.
Anyway, I find it fucked up that republicans and others are accusing Obama of faking his tears when he was bringing up the children murdered by Lanza. Pretty sure Obama, along with so many others, still feel horrified at how kids lost their lives.
They aren't a champion of free speech, they hide behind that in order to attack religions. They don't deserve to be attacked for that, but on the other hand they can't complain because they were told to cease. I can't feel too bad for Hebdo, but I can't say they deserved that either.
Funnily, many people who champion freedom or complain about murder/terrorist attacks seem to have no problem with religious zealots or pro-life asshats attacking abortion centers or Planned Parenthood places and even kill the employees or abortion doctor/s.
Anyway, I find it fucked up that republicans and others are accusing Obama of faking his tears when he was bringing up the children murdered by Lanza. Pretty sure Obama, along with so many others, still feel horrified at how kids lost their lives.
You are being very contradictory there. In context, what reason was there for hebdo to not do what they did? Was it illegal? As far as I can tell, no. Were they inciting violence? As far as I can tell, no. Were they discriminating everyone? Again, no. Maybe I am mistaken but as far as I can tell they are against muslim discrimination and favor better treatment for immigrants over there. Was what they were doing libel, slander or something of the sort? As far as I can tell, no.
Now, another big question, where they offensive? Of course they were. 1000 times yes, they were extremely offensive. However lets put this in context with the definition of satire:
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
The sole reason of being of satire is to offend people. It's its one job. Satire that does not offend is either inherently pointless, it caters to no one. And finally, hebdo does not have to give a damn about what a religion which they specifically are not a part of says about depictions of anything. If muslims don't want to draw Muhammad, that's great! It's neither reasonable nor fair to impose such a thing on people who don't share your views or religion. There is no reasonable grounds under which the guys had it coming or were not victims.
You are being very contradictory there. In context, what reason was there for hebdo to not do what they did? Was it illegal? As far as I can tell, no. Were they inciting violence? As far as I can tell, no. Were they discriminating everyone? Again, no. Maybe I am mistaken but as far as I can tell they are against muslim discrimination and favor better treatment for immigrants over there. Was what they were doing libel, slander or something of the sort? As far as I can tell, no.
Now, another big question, where they offensive? Of course they were. 1000 times yes, they were extremely offensive. However lets put this in context with the definition of satire:
The sole reason of being of satire is to offend people. It's its one job. Satire that does not offend is either inherently pointless, it caters to no one. And finally, hebdo does not have to give a damn about what a religion which they specifically are not a part of says about depictions of anything. If muslims don't want to draw Muhammad, that's great! It's neither reasonable nor fair to impose such a thing on people who don't share your views or religion. There is no reasonable grounds under which the guys had it coming or were not victims.
If a religion asks them to stop, why shouldn't they? I don't see why they can't respect the wishes of a religion. If you're going to offend people, you should be prepared for the backlash.
I never said they had it coming or deserved it. In fact, I twice said the attacks were unwarranted.
Two refugees out of thousands, who came three to six or seven years ago. Your point is null and void, the candidates are on the wrong track. Plus, they're from Iraq, not Syria. Still pretty sure the US screens refugees far better than it screens people who want to buy guns.
Instead of saying no to refugees, who go through a very strict and long screening process, we should focus on saying no to letting everyone have guns. So far, handguns have killed far more Americans than terrorists, refugees or homegrown.
If a religion asks them to stop, why shouldn't they? I don't see why they can't respect the wishes of a religion. If you're going to offend people, you should be prepared for the backlash.
I never said they had it coming or deserved it. In fact, I twice said the attacks were unwarranted.
Two refugees out of thousands, who came three to six or seven years ago. Your point is null and void, the candidates are on the wrong track. Plus, they're from Iraq, not Syria. Still pretty sure the US screens refugees far better than it screens people who want to buy guns.
Instead of saying no to refugees, who go through a very strict and long screening process, we should focus on saying no to letting everyone have guns. So far, handguns have killed far more Americans than terrorists, refugees or homegrown.
I would argue that the issue is, why should they stop? If what they are doing is not illegal and does not cause violence then there is no reason for them to stop. More than that, stopping is at their discretion.
You said "they can't complain because they were told to cease". That pretty much means they had it coming even if later on you said the attacks were unwarranted.
Now, I am not saying they shouldn't expect a backslash. However that backslash should never be violent. Anyone can answer or reply to what they are saying. Free speech goes both ways in that regard, they can do what they are doing at their discretion but in turn they are to receive responses in kind. Calling someone out on being an asshole is in no form or context an intrusion of someone's free speech after all.
Well, it did cause violence. I mean, you can't expect to offend people and not expect someone to get a bit physical. But I can see why you think I thought they had it coming. I still don't think they deserved such horrific act, just to reiterate.
True, and the terrorists took it too far by bombing the place (that was months before massacre, right?). But then again, I'm still sore about some Americans holding events where they show pictures and paintings of Mohammad just to piss off the Muslims.
Two refugees out of thousands, who came three to six or seven years ago. Your point is null and void, the candidates are on the wrong track. Plus, they're from Iraq, not Syria. Still pretty sure the US screens refugees far better than it screens people who want to buy guns.
Instead of saying no to refugees, who go through a very strict and long screening process, we should focus on saying no to letting everyone have guns. So far, handguns have killed far more Americans than terrorists, refugees or homegrown.
They are still from the same area. Every refugee from that area of the world should be blocked from coming here. They clearly use our countries kindness against us hatching time delayed plots when we least expect them.
