Why let him in the country in the first place then? (Rhetorical.)
There implications for political refugees who may face death if they are deported back. I know you aren't referring to cases like that but it's the implications of changes to this area would have for more legitimate cases. Another kind of situation would be one where the new, more "flexible" allowed the government in power to easily deport someone who represented a political ideology that ran contrary to that of the government's (or interested parties it represented).
The law changed in the right way can lead to more efficiency and "justice." Change it the wrong way and you could unleash a ****storm.
And what gives us that right exactly? (I'm assuming you're talking about the right to occupy this territory exclusively here.)
Those aren't exclusively western principles. Hell, some of those aren't even western principles; ever stopped to notice that God actually has a pretty prominent place in these western "secular" states (see our Constitution--what do you think legitimizes this country's head of state?).
Another thing is, there's a difference between age-old cultural traditions and a resurgence of extremist Islam in the past decades. Once you have a lot of people of similar background together, the two sometimes overlap when meddlesome Mullahs start dicking around in the lives of ignorant, highly conservative Muslims.
A "moderate" Muslim is an educated person just like you who happens to follow Islam.
LOL Well thanks for clearing that one up.
(I'll be honest: I've thought that at one time or another but just like the deportation thing, it's complicated because who decides what is culturally-acceptable and what isn't and just how far can the state legitimately delve into people's personal lives before it becomes too invasive?)
I wouldn't read too much into that if I were you; I personally think his spin doc was on acid half the time.
Yeah baby!!! Nuke 'em into the Stone Age...oh wait.
Pakistanis don't support the Taliban. The have some clout in some areas of the government and they are difficult as hell to get rid of but that doesn't mean the population wouldn't very much like to put all this bs behind them (as if being dirt poor isn't bad enough).
...Uh huh. Please re-read the history of the Middle East over the last century-and-a-half. The "West" isn't the cause of all the problems but it certainly gets the lion's share.
The problem is not with the religion but how it is interpreted. Until less than a century ago, Christianity was just as intolerant. When people's standard of living increases over numerous generations, they cease to be duped by ridiculous interpretations of their faith. Many of the Muslims of which you speak are bloody poor and the conservatism that accompanies that slows things down; add to that religious leaders spreading hateful ideas among the ignorant and a highly racists majority and there you have your actual problem.
The origins of Islam and Christianity are the same, as is the philosophy behind them. At a spiritual level, both are benevolent (rarely violent and only in circumstances where no avenue is available). Once they became organized religions they became 'enforceable' according to the dominant interpretation of the time.
So what you're saying you just walked off to take a piss while Laurence Fishburne sat there awkwardly with the two pills?
