>I've been hearing this argument a lot from the people
>I've spoken to 'on the streets' (ie, non-activists,
>ordinary Janes and Johns) about what to do about
>terrorism and it goes like this:
>
>"The US needs to stay out of the Middle East and leave
>them alone. The US needs to take care of its people,
>corporations don't care about the little guy..."
>
>So far somewhat good, but it always ends with:
>
>"And we have to put a stop to immigration."
>
>What has everyone else been hearing?
The same deal. When I hear anti-immigration sentiments, I first say, in mock-horror, "You mean you don't want people like _me_ to civilize America & enrich American culture??? Damn, that's _your_ loss! You don't want immigrants, then you are _condemned_ to Taco Bell tacos, no more authentic tacos for you, etc." First laugh at the anti-immigrant idea, then open up a serious discussion on how America depends on immigrant labor, immigrant contribution to support the aging population, etc.
>The second most heard argument is (after I lay out my
>own argument against bombings and bring up the idea of
>treating this as a criminal matter rather than a
>military matter) "Well yeah, I don't like violence
>either, but we have to do something!" Sometimes
>followed by "And if we rely on international law, what
>do we do if they refuse to hand them over?"
Use the Socratic method. Let _them_ state their alternatives down to _how exactly they would go about implementing them_, and then you _deconstruct_ them by pointing out contradictions, etc.
Yoshie