Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 58 of 58
  1. #41
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Refugees in the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I haven't seen any red typing so I'll be blunt in pointing out that how we got into this mess is incredibly important. You might call that and "executive decision", I call it exploring the issue.

    Let's go further and look at the charges that climate change is a factor here: http://time.com/4024210/climate-change-migrants/

    Am I willing to let conservatives on the winning side? yes, welcome. Will I poke them with a stick to get them to take responsibility? yes, I admitted my complicity in the affair I'll be damned if I let anyone slide by with the "but there were rape rooms" defense ever.

    _________________

    As an aside, I've always wondered what a rape room looks like. How does it differ from any other room?
    Hmmm... let's see what the thread itself has to say about what happened here.

    First, the thematic statement in the OP:

    Europe is begging the U.S. to help alleviate the refugee problem due to the crisis in Syria. I think the U.S. has a more imperative to step up. I support Obama's order to allow 10,000 refugees into the U.S. this year. In fact, I'd call for more.
    Here's your response, which was mind numbingly irrelevant to the OP:

    It's good to see you're taking responsibility, after all it was your nonsensical wars in the region that destabilized it and led to this mess.
    And in response:

    MY nonsensical wars? Please support or withdraw this statement.
    Oh, and thanks for offering a positive contribution to the thread....
    What happens next on your end? Well, it basically turns into: "I'm not talking to you, I'm just talking to a group."

    "us conservatives" the decision to destabilize the area on faulty premises and jury rigged information was done by elected officials from your camp...own it.
    Let's compare the first quote to the last quote here... So, not only does he have to own something which wasn't his opinion in the first place, but you get to decide what the subject of the thread is. There are repeated requests after that for you to get back on topic, and you literally begin paring out those portions and only responding to the portions discussing your subject, not the thread's subject.

    Or better yet, let's just look at the title: refugees in the U.S. The question is... do we want refugees in the U.S.?

    A little brainstorming for the fellas at ODN, you can take or leave my two cents: maybe the next time this happens, we can all just ignore the bait and post purely OP relevant material? It is our prerogative after all, so there's no reason such material warrants a response. And most importantly, if there is a contributor that doesn't want to discuss the OP, he/she won't even have any other material to quote.
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  2. #42
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,866
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Refugees in the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash12 View Post

    Let's compare the first quote to the last quote here... So, not only does he have to own something which wasn't his opinion in the first place, but you get to decide what the subject of the thread is. There are repeated requests after that for you to get back on topic, and you literally begin paring out those portions and only responding to the portions discussing your subject, not the thread's subject.

    Or better yet, let's just look at the title: refugees in the U.S. The question is... do we want refugees in the U.S.?

    Without any context the question is meaningless. Since he uses the word "imperative" which imperative would that be?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  3. #43
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,137
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Refugees in the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Without any context the question is meaningless. Since he uses the word "imperative" which imperative would that be?
    Moral imperative. I think it came out more imperative.... sighhhh. I would have edited it but thought it was kinda obvious in its context. Lesson learned.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  4. #44
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Refugees in the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Moral imperative. I think it came out more imperative.... sighhhh. I would have edited it but thought it was kinda obvious in its context. Lesson learned.
    It was obvious. And so was the context. But the non-responses, and silence, has been deafening lately.
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  5. #45
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,866
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Refugees in the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash12 View Post
    It was obvious. And so was the context. But the non-responses, and silence, has been deafening lately.
    I work.

    ---------- Post added at 01:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Moral imperative. I think it came out more imperative.... sighhhh. I would have edited it but thought it was kinda obvious in its context. Lesson learned.
    That actually clarifies it quite nicely. There are many types of imperatives, that we may not agree that we have an imperative to act beyond a moral one is ok.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  6. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Refugees in the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I work.
    Sorry, didn't intend any offense by saying "silence". Although I do have to be candid when what I see constitutes non-responses. I swear, I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, hehehe, just wish we could produce some more material here resembling progress.
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  7. #47
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,963
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Refugees in the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Europe is begging the U.S. to help alleviate the refugee problem due to the crisis in Syria. I think the U.S. has a moral imperative to step up. I support Obama's order to allow 10,000 refugees into the U.S. this year. In fact, I'd call for more...

    Now, I known there are several counter-arguments to allowing refugees to enter here from Syria...

    2. We could be letting in potential terrorists.
    My Response: Yup. We certainly could. However, with proper security protocols in place, this is a minute threat. Certainly, it is a threat which can be mitigated against. However, I have heard people talk about freedom and liberty so, I have to wonder, is this hallow speak? Those who wish to comprise liberty for security deserve neither. Our policies must not be based on fear. Many of these Syrian refugees are middle class folk who have skills and just want to be safe.
    What makes you think that "proper security protocols" are in place?

    Now that at least one of the Paris terrorists has been identified as a Syrian "refugee", do you still think the threat of attacks here is "minute"?

    Isn't our federal government's primary job to protect our citizens from attack by foreigners?

    What makes supposed humanitarian efforts more important than protecting our own citizens?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  8. #48
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,137
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Refugees in the U.S.

    So... I am now really conflicted about my position here. While I truly support offering help to refugees from Syria, after France, I cannot help but think that it may lead to some very bad unintended consequences. I think the best idea I heard (and I'm a little ashamed to admit this) was from Huckabee.

    His idea was to offer assistance to Syrian refugees by helping them resettle in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE. Place the burden on the nations in that region. His argument was twofold.
    1) The U.S. just simply cannot properly vet the number of people necessary to make a positive impact while maintaining proper security for our own people.
    2) It really does not make sense to uproot people from their home to a completely different region with an unfamiliar culture, language, and even climate.

    We should offer manpower and monetary assistance to help Syrian refugees relocate to one of the above-named nations. It should be indicative of states within the region to deal with this issue rather than allowing them to pawn off their regional issues to the rest of the world. While we were willing in times past to take in Jews, Koreans, Cubans, et al, none of those groups contained militaristic sub-groups. Like I said. I am conflicted on this. If someone explains how we can safely bring over tens of thousands of Syrians here and why it is a better alternative than relocating them to another Arab state, I am all ears.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  9. Likes Squatch347, MindTrap028, evensaul liked this post
  10. #49
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,866
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Refugees in the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So... I am now really conflicted about my position here. While I truly support offering help to refugees from Syria, after France, I cannot help but think that it may lead to some very bad unintended consequences. I think the best idea I heard (and I'm a little ashamed to admit this) was from Huckabee.

    His idea was to offer assistance to Syrian refugees by helping them resettle in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE. Place the burden on the nations in that region. His argument was twofold.
    1) The U.S. just simply cannot properly vet the number of people necessary to make a positive impact while maintaining proper security for our own people.
    2) It really does not make sense to uproot people from their home to a completely different region with an unfamiliar culture, language, and even climate.

    We should offer manpower and monetary assistance to help Syrian refugees relocate to one of the above-named nations. It should be indicative of states within the region to deal with this issue rather than allowing them to pawn off their regional issues to the rest of the world. While we were willing in times past to take in Jews, Koreans, Cubans, et al, none of those groups contained militaristic sub-groups. Like I said. I am conflicted on this. If someone explains how we can safely bring over tens of thousands of Syrians here and why it is a better alternative than relocating them to another Arab state, I am all ears.
    Looks like that's what we're doing already:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refuge...rian_Civil_War

    Once again we see what a wonderful "friend" Saudi Arabia is putting us in this difficult position.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  11. #50
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Refugees in the U.S.

    I think we should take folks in greater numbers, but we do need a system for vetting and tracking folks as well as a way to welcome them and get them in the flow of American life while they are here. The best way is personal contacts and people who can watch out for them.

    Its sad to take folks who are already victims and make them suffer more for what their oppressors have done.

    Honestly, I don't need to be 100% safe. I'm willing to take some risks to do what is right. If the kids in the military can take some risks to do right by people, so can we civilians.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  12. #51
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,137
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Refugees in the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I think we should take folks in greater numbers, but we do need a system for vetting and tracking folks as well as a way to welcome them and get them in the flow of American life while they are here. The best way is personal contacts and people who can watch out for them.

    Its sad to take folks who are already victims and make them suffer more for what their oppressors have done.

    Honestly, I don't need to be 100% safe. I'm willing to take some risks to do what is right. If the kids in the military can take some risks to do right by people, so can we civilians.
    Here is my issue on this.
    1) Let's be clear. There is no such thing as vetting Syrian refugees. The idea we can vet these folks is not realistic. They probably don't have any paperwork proving their identity and we have no relationship with the Syrian government which would make any sort of real vetting process possible.

    2) We cannot track the millions of illegal immigrants already here. Almost half of the illegal immigrants in this country are people who overstayed their visa. So, there is no reason to believe we'll effectively be able to track hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of Syrian refugees.

    3) The idea of 100% safe is a silly benchmark. I think every American would agree that demanding perfect safety is unreasonable for any immigrant group. However, that does not mean we throw caution to the wind and ignore the very real risks associated with any Syrian refugee population. France has already been a possible demonstration of what may occur when the threat of Muslim terrorists hiding among Syrian refugees is not properly considered.

    You claim that bringing Syrians here is dependent upon two necessary conditions. Yet, I have demonstrated that neither condition can be achieved. So, I am guessing that while you may like to help the refugees, that you'll concede that it simply is not a viable option at the current time. I have come full circle on this and it has been a very difficult process. I still do not feel entirely pleasant about it. I just cannot help but measure the risks and conclude that they do not outweigh the benefits.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  13. #52
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    610
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Refugees in the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    While I truly support offering help to refugees from Syria, after France, I cannot help but think that it may lead to some very bad unintended consequences.
    Only one of the attackers came in with the Syrian refugees. Some of the others were natives of France. If he had been blocked the attack could still have taken place.
    The brutal, soul-shaking truth is that we are so earthly minded we are of no heavenly use.
    Leonard Ravenhill

    Blog

  14. #53
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Refugees in the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You claim that bringing Syrians here is dependent upon two necessary conditions. Yet, I have demonstrated that neither condition can be achieved. So, I am guessing that while you may like to help the refugees, that you'll concede that it simply is not a viable option at the current time. I have come full circle on this and it has been a very difficult process. I still do not feel entirely pleasant about it. I just cannot help but measure the risks and conclude that they do not outweigh the benefits.
    While we cannot completely vet or track all individuals we can to a degree vet and track most of them especially if the numbers are not vast and the way they come into the country is controlled. They are not flooding across the boarder in rafts here, they tend to come in on airplanes specifically as refugees. While may will not have paperwork you can ask them questions and connect them with local families who can get to know them and help them out, and if they go astray we can work on finding them.

    This is not our benefit vs our risk, its helping others vs our risk. These are people fleeing from daily misery, violence and fear. I don't feel it is entirely safe and that is the point, I'm personally OK with the added risk to help these folks out who have a pretty great need. Take some precautions, but don't expect to eliminate danger.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  15. Likes theophilus liked this post
  16. #54
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,137
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Refugees in the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    While we cannot completely vet or track all individuals we can to a degree vet and track most of them especially if the numbers are not vast and the way they come into the country is controlled. They are not flooding across the boarder in rafts here, they tend to come in on airplanes specifically as refugees. While may will not have paperwork you can ask them questions and connect them with local families who can get to know them and help them out, and if they go astray we can work on finding them.

    This is not our benefit vs our risk, its helping others vs our risk. These are people fleeing from daily misery, violence and fear. I don't feel it is entirely safe and that is the point, I'm personally OK with the added risk to help these folks out who have a pretty great need. Take some precautions, but don't expect to eliminate danger.
    I think you are mixing reason for emotion here. You specifically stated that we need a system to vet and track the refugees. The facts are that vetting with any reasonable degree of certainty is nearly impossible and we cannot track the people already here. Again, the fact is that 40% of the people in the U.S. illegally didn't sneak in. They have overstayed their visas. I can, therefore, conclude one of two possibilities
    1) You have decided to forgo all reason in order to appeal to emotion.
    2) You have decided that the federal government can be trusted to perform in a manner which is contrary to its historical performance levels (i.e. see point #1).

    And really, why would you transplant people here, into a completely foreign culture, thousands of miles from their home region when their are perfectly good alternatives much closer in both geography and culture. It is one thing if the U.S. was their only option or if the U.S. was the most convenient destination for them. Neither of these points are true. There are several middle eastern/northern asian countries which would make much better alternatives for them then the U.S. I am all for helping them get there. It is not like ISIL or Assad has dominated the region. Iran, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, and Saudi Arabia would all make much better places to move refugees to when the source nation is Syria.

    In 2013, about 36,000 individuals from Mexico and Central America sought asylum in the U.S. So, how about we send a few thousand to Jordan? To quell the humanitarian crisis which exists on the U.S. border with Mexico. Does this make any sense to you and if not, why? Could it be that the idea of sending a bunch of Guatemalans and Hondurans to live in a Muslim nation would be slightly unsettling to them? Could it be that cultural and language differences mean that their chances of success would be low? Look, if we are talking about a Nazi like spread across the ME and Europe such that there was almost no where else to turn, then I'd say, we have to suck it up and roll the dice. That is not what's at stake here. There are plenty of reasonable options much closer to home for these people and we needn't make stupid decisions on gut emotion when all logic should be directing us to keep at arm's distance. Helping others is great. In this case, though, I don't even think the help we are offering makes sense. It is bad for us and the refugees.

    ---------- Post added at 11:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by theophilus View Post
    Only one of the attackers came in with the Syrian refugees. Some of the others were natives of France. If he had been blocked the attack could still have taken place.
    At least one. I think you mean that at least one individual who snuck in among the refugees turned out to be a radicalized Muslim. How many others were among them? How many will become radicalized in their new host countries? Now, understand, as I laid out above for Sig. It isn't merely that I believe it is dangerous to bring Syrians here. I also believe it just does not make much sense.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  17. #55
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Refugees in the U.S.

    I think you are mixing reason for emotion here. You specifically stated that we need a system to vet and track the refugees. The facts are that vetting with any reasonable degree of certainty is nearly impossible and we cannot track the people already here. Again, the fact is that 40% of the people in the U.S. illegally didn't sneak in. They have overstayed their visas. I can, therefore, conclude one of two possibilities
    1) You have decided to forgo all reason in order to appeal to emotion.
    2) You have decided that the federal government can be trusted to perform in a manner which is contrary to its historical performance levels (i.e. see point #1).
    If you properly vet visas, then overstaying your visa shouldn't be much of a security risk, right?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  18. #56
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,137
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Refugees in the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    If you properly vet visas, then overstaying your visa shouldn't be much of a security risk, right?
    If visas were properly vetted then incidents of people overstaying would probably be very low, right?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  19. #57
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Refugees in the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I think you are mixing reason for emotion here.
    This is both an emotional and rational issue. It is emotional in that the reason for taking in refugees is largely based on human compassion and sympathy. Others suffer, we seek to aid them because we can. We are not doing it for our own benefit or gain beyond some sense of moral behavior.

    The only rational side of the argument is about what precautions we can take.

    You specifically stated that we need a system to vet and track the refugees. The facts are that vetting with any reasonable degree of certainty is nearly impossible and we cannot track the people already here. Again, the fact is that 40% of the people in the U.S. illegally didn't sneak in. They have overstayed their visas.
    We don't track tourists in America. When you come here we don't have any special programs to see where you go or require you to report in. Same goes for Americans traveling in most other western countries. (at least in my experience) That said, there is no reason we could not do that with refugees. They could be asked to report in every week or we could hire and assign social workers to check in with them and report any who fail to check in then investigate. We don't go investigating missing tourists for the most part. We just don't consider it worth the effort. If we thought they might be terrorists then perhaps we would. I imagine the Homeland Protection folks do track some of them these days if they are considered high risk.

    Furthermore the process of people coming in on tourist visas is rather different. Syrian refugees spend between one and two years getting background checks before they are allowed to be settled here.

    So really you are comparing two dissimilar things here. Normal folks on Visas and specific refugees whom we could treat in a different fashion if we felt the need. And I'd say there would be some wisdom in that considering the tactics of our enemies.

    And really, why would you transplant people here, into a completely foreign culture, thousands of miles from their home region when their are perfectly good alternatives much closer in both geography and culture.
    Because we can, and because we want to help them. The neighboring countries have far more refugees than they can reasonably handle. We are asked to take a very small fraction to help out. Generally people from many other cultures very much want to come to America because its a nice place. Not everyone likes the culture or country they grew up in. I'm sure among the millions fleeing war there are a few thousand who would like to be in the US or have family here already. You know as well as I there are many who would be perfectly happy being in the US and this is a red herring.

    In 2013, about 36,000 individuals from Mexico and Central America sought asylum in the U.S. So, how about we send a few thousand to Jordan?
    Not many. So far 4.3 million people have fled Syria. We have taken in around 2 thousand in that time so to be proportional we'd need Jordan to take about 17 refugees from all of central America. Mind you Jordan isn't exactly a place of great peace these days and they are already jammed to the rafters in refugees.

    All in all we are talking about making a token effort here, not taking any real sizable number of people and the process is miles different from folks traveling on a standard visa.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  20. #58
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,137
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Refugees in the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    This is both an emotional and rational issue. It is emotional in that the reason for taking in refugees is largely based on human compassion and sympathy. Others suffer, we seek to aid them because we can. We are not doing it for our own benefit or gain beyond some sense of moral behavior.

    The only rational side of the argument is about what precautions we can take.
    And you willingly ignore the fact that vetting Syrian refugees is an oxymoron. The State Dept has all but conceded that the vetting process is abnormal due to the constraints of the refugees and our relationship with Syria. Governments should avoid making emotional decisions. Either the process is in the best interests of the U.S. or it isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    We don't track tourists in America. When you come here we don't have any special programs to see where you go or require you to report in. Same goes for Americans traveling in most other western countries. (at least in my experience) That said, there is no reason we could not do that with refugees.
    What in our government's recent history suggests they could successfully manage this? Up until two years ago our Secretary of State was handling government business via a server stowed in someone's bathroom. Our government couldn't manage to successfully roll out a website with three years prep time and hundreds of millions of dollars. They cannot track or keep out the immigrants already arrested and deported. Our government is a joke. It is a step away from being a banana republic. I wouldn't trust them to vet a single Syrian successfully and even if they were able to do it, I'd have no faith in the government's ability to keep track of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    They could be asked to report in every week or we could hire and assign social workers to check in with them and report any who fail to check in then investigate. We don't go investigating missing tourists for the most part. We just don't consider it worth the effort. If we thought they might be terrorists then perhaps we would. I imagine the Homeland Protection folks do track some of them these days if they are considered high risk.
    They could be asked to do all sorts of things and I can imagine all kinds of wonderful programs. Are any of these thing you are imagining based on reality?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Furthermore the process of people coming in on tourist visas is rather different. Syrian refugees spend between one and two years getting background checks before they are allowed to be settled here.
    I was more making a point about the sorry state of affairs of our government to handle immigration issues in general. However, let's stop pretending time matters here. One to two years of background checks means nothing when there is no background to check and no nation to confirm any background which could exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    So really you are comparing two dissimilar things here. Normal folks on Visas and specific refugees whom we could treat in a different fashion if we felt the need. And I'd say there would be some wisdom in that considering the tactics of our enemies.
    No, I am comparing our inept federal government today with the inept government you are pretending does not exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Because we can, and because we want to help them. The neighboring countries have far more refugees than they can reasonably handle. We are asked to take a very small fraction to help out. Generally people from many other cultures very much want to come to America because its a nice place. Not everyone likes the culture or country they grew up in. I'm sure among the millions fleeing war there are a few thousand who would like to be in the US or have family here already. You know as well as I there are many who would be perfectly happy being in the US and this is a red herring.
    That's a load of crap. Because we can.... Not all neighboring countries seem willing to help
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/09/world/...ees-countries/
    Why isn't Iran, or Saudi Arabia on this list? If each of these nations took in a million refugees, problem solved. No need to ship these people off to Europe or North America. Like I said, we should be putting pressure on the region's nations to step up. We should offer money and resources, but not settlement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Not many. So far 4.3 million people have fled Syria. We have taken in around 2 thousand in that time so to be proportional we'd need Jordan to take about 17 refugees from all of central America. Mind you Jordan isn't exactly a place of great peace these days and they are already jammed to the rafters in refugees.

    All in all we are talking about making a token effort here, not taking any real sizable number of people and the process is miles different from folks traveling on a standard visa.
    You are purposefully dancing around the point here. How about the 11 million immigrants here illegally. Why don't we ship a million or so to Europe and a few hundred thousand to the Middle East/Asia? Does this sounds like a reasonable idea to you? We are bursting at the seams with impoverished immigrants. The humanitarian thing would be to ship some of them to Jordan... right? Russia? By the way, how many refugees has Russia taken? Zero. Iran? Zero. The UAE? Zero. Qatar? Zero. Cyprus? Zero. Saudi Arabia has only accepted refugees with family that already have residency in the Kingdom. My point here is that the region has not reached its capacity.


    Here is the multi-layered downside to relieving the region of its burden.
    By taking in refugees, we prolong the region's tolerance for the war being waged inside and around Syria. If the nations in that region are not forced to feel the pain of their inaction, then they will continue to look the other way as Iran, Russia, Assaad, and ISIL dictate events. I simply do not see us making anything more than a token gesture which does nothing to improve stability in the region, may increase instability, and is antithetical to our own national security interests.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Similar Threads

  1. The repatriation of North Korean refugees
    By BlueT in forum International Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 6th, 2008, 05:41 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •