[@Penny]

My commitment is not to any law, although it is, but principal. If my life is so terrible or under such great threat, I need to fight. I cannot choose to flee or freeze. If my home and lifestyle is under attack through those channels as you described them, I am doing a disservice to myself, my family and my nation by doing otherwise. I do understand that mindset that safe haven in another country is the best option, that it has the most promise, that it has the least likely dangers to face. It just so happens my beliefs coincide with the law.

In fact, I do actively support the concept of having both static and randomized security check points, mandatory uses of identification be it voting to just purchasing gasoline, and relatively deep screening for non-nationals. This is my area of bias because with my life this is considered normal, you have no option but to do these things, but they are again fundamental to circulation control and policing of a populace. 

No less, I believe it is a simple task made difficult by the presence of government bureaucracy, the notion of border and immigration control; I do not believe the standard, untrained, undisciplined citizen should be carrying this out, on the contrary rather, but as I stated earlier I am of the understanding some things simply are the way they are, as with the military complex I spoke to in another albeit unrelated post. It will cost time, it will cost money, and it will cost emotional currency. It is essential one separates emotional motives from factors of enforcement. Would I [i]feel[/i] bad to divide a family because I am carrying out orders? Yes, but at the same time they made their choice and as adults that choice affected their children, which ultimately impacted them now; this too could have been avoided if the law affecting their status as born citizens was changed to not include those of illegal immigrants.

While I believe the vetting process could use improvement in the department of efficiency, as well as increased standards, I again cannot move to the appeal to emotion the argument has.

In the end am fond of the phrase, "[i]No[/i] safety, know pain - [i]know[/i] safety, no pain." The United States should be setting the trend for fostering an environment of stability, safety, security and standards. This includes planning for the future and executing it as a long term, overarching objective that stretches beyond presidencies and politics, of which monitoring and controlling immigration both illegal and legal are essential.

[@Dynamo Frokane]

I will not disagree with you there, but again I admit I can only speak to what I have experienced or known. To reiterate, not that those things do not happen to the left - there's videos of it all over YouTube, Facebook, and any other flavor of social interaction on the internet - but I have not seen it myself. The only people I [i]have[/i] witnessed did so in a manner as to mock it, alas I am certain there are those in the "Alt-Right" who use it unironically like those in the actual Alt-Right who have embraced it.

To the other point, I have not encountered a situation wherein a woman or immigrant was under attack in any sense specific to them being one, the other, or both. I also make no mistakes that extreme views are an avoidable factor of life, in which people should abstain from acting on their biases in day to day life and in private. As an example of what I mean and to use myself, I might not be fond of illegal immigrants, but I treat them with human decency; they are not relegated to some "unclean" caste or "lesser" status of people. They are simply [i]people[/i] who broke the law. I say even the same for those who are considered the lowest of low as with sexual offenders, to which they should be punished to the fullest extent as with any other criminal.

[@Vilageidiotx]

I have to disagree that operations of terror and their motives are not continuous to meet those goals, largely because they can fall under a general banner and all meet a net gain. By this I mean, even in the fringe case of an actual radical national acting under extremist views for a certain group alone, [i]all[/i] of them benefit. The reality is that the self-radicalized are the most dangerous because of how easy it is to convert moderates to actual extremists in any spectrum, or at minimum to make them sympathizers; just look at politics to use another example.

Terrorism in the United States is not succeeding overtly, but it doesn't need to as history has shown us time and time again; an attack only [i]needs[/i] to happen - it needn't be another 9/11 - it just needs to elevate the public perception, get into the media and provoke a government response. The fact that Islamophobe is thrown out as a slur now is a tell tale sign of that; people [i]are[/i] legitimately wary of the Muslim population. Does that mean every Muslim is a terrorist? No, not at all and anyone who believes so is unbecoming of decency to themselves and others.

To address the point of conversion, no, but that is an ideal outcome for the motions from the extremes you see in Europe; [i]subversion[/i] is a more likely result. To address it again, the radical population which leverages and motivates the moderates around it, demand special considerations like that of infamous Sharia Law or that non-members obey their customs and cultural values. The average German, to use any non-specific example, is under no obligation to obey Islamic ideals or laws in Germany, just the same as it is not the duty of the German government to recognize, advocate, foster or cater to these pockets of culture. I sincerely doubt Western civilization will bow as a whole to it and convert, but it is and will continue to suffer damage it could otherwise avoid.

Moving on to the next topic, I do not believe you are likely to see a legitimate uprising of Alt-Right or "Alt-Right" politically that will have or act on nationalist motives sufficient enough to provoke international incidents. In part because they have not the numbers or the platform, but also because the way the American political field is stratified. What I believe we will see, at least with the United States, is a comparatively strong - to compare it with the recent past of the more left leaning - center-right and actual right push across all boards. Not because of the "loony left", but because the left has lost its basis of power and has gone too far into its own extreme, examples being Bernie Sanders, Maxine Waters and Elizabeth Warren among others, helping to mobilize the right better; Hillary Clinton's failure as a supposed moderate indicates this to me further.

I believe the actual right to be too politically disorganized to be a threat to anyone but itself as I see more squabbling and in-fighting there than I perceive elsewhere and the actual Alt-Right riding on the coat tails of the "Alt-Right" and moderates. Among the left there seems to be certain aspects they generally agree on enough to collaborate on as a singular political unit.

Antifa I will state again only has the capacity to act on their anarchist beliefs in a manner that will turn the right and the moderates decisively against them. They are the caliber of organization that may include a radical who acts with deadly violence against their opposition, not because the entire group advocates that - although what I have read and seen, they do advocate violence and "resistance" as a whole - yet instead because of it. They may be throwing fire crackers for the time being or bringing airsoft guns as a "show of force", but all it takes is one person to bring an improvised device or discharge a firearm to set off a potential hysteria. I do not believe they have the discipline, knowledge or desire to prevent such an incident; the actual Alt-Right and the "Alt-Right" have, in contrast, at minimum demonstrated basic, entry-level small unit tactics and trigger discipline, as well as a bias against random acts of violence against civilian population and structure.

And to finally address the issue of Islamophobia, I again see this as a natural outcome from a faction that has made itself a persona of terror. If it were not for those extremists who continue to receive attention, continue to carry out attacks, and continue to display their ability to appear at seeming random, I would agree with you, although I find this to not be the current case. American citizens should always be wary of people they are not familiar to [i]regardless[/i] of who they are for their own safety and should foster an environment of vigilance and a culture of watchfulness. However, it is the reality that a specific set of ideological people have branded the rest of their population the "enemy" by proxy.

[@Dinh AaronMk]

I would say walking out on [i]anyone[/i] during a speech, presentation, or ceremony is disrespectful and in such poor taste it makes one childish. You do not need to agree with them, but you should show them respect for their position and prestige, at bare minimum that they have been honored or selected for such a role. I am no fan of Barrack Obama, but I would still stand or sit politely in such a situation and not disrupt him, just as I would shake his hand or wish him a good day.