Syrian refugees in America

I might agree to allow Muslims in if they agree to publicly renounce all aspects of Islam that would support terrorism in any way and be required to repeat it on a regular basis. It would not guarantee that most Muslims wouldn't lie, but it would be a start. Let them prove that they do not accept the inhumane parts of the Koran. Let them say, "I piss on those parts of the Koran that support terrorism." Maybe it would reduce the percentage if terrorists and terrorist sympathizers to a level we can handle. I can't imagine anyone refusing to make such a renunciation. If they don't accept it, they can stay out. There are probably a lot of Syrians waiting to get into the US who would make that statement. Why shouldn't they get priority? What's wrong with this suggestion?
This idea may make people feel better but we're talking about terrorists who commit mass murder. Faced with abandoning their mission or lying on an affidavit I think they are going to lie. Also many American Islamic terrorists have been people born here or who came here as innocent children and were radicalized here. Being born somewhere else doesn't make someone an enemy and being born here doesn't mean they are a loyal American. Actions are what are important, not place of birth. Whether they were radicalized here or elsewhere it was their religion that radicalized them. Don't blame the country that took them in when they begged for refuge and then turned on it. The radicalization was inevitable no matter which country they inserted themselves into. They have proven that no country and no people are safe from their religion of violence. Read it for yourself http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
I might agree to allow Muslims in if they agree to publicly renounce all aspects of Islam that would support terrorism in any way and be required to repeat it on a regular basis. It would not guarantee that most Muslims wouldn't lie, but it would be a start. Let them prove that they do not accept the inhumane parts of the Koran. Let them say, "I piss on those parts of the Koran that support terrorism." Maybe it would reduce the percentage if terrorists and terrorist sympathizers to a level we can handle. I can't imagine anyone refusing to make such a renunciation. If they don't accept it, they can stay out. There are probably a lot of Syrians waiting to get into the US who would make that statement. Why shouldn't they get priority? What's wrong with this suggestion?
This idea may make people feel better but we're talking about terrorists who commit mass murder. Faced with abandoning their mission or lying on an affidavit I think they are going to lie. Also many American Islamic terrorists have been people born here or who came here as innocent children and were radicalized here. Being born somewhere else doesn't make someone an enemy and being born here doesn't mean they are a loyal American. Actions are what are important, not place of birth. Whether they were radicalized here or elsewhere it was their religion that radicalized them. Don't blame the country that took them in when they begged for refuge and then turned on it. The radicalization was inevitable no matter which country they inserted themselves into. They have proven that no country and no people are safe from their religion of violence. Read it for yourself http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm Lois, I must admit that you did find parts of the Quran that could be used to support terrorism. Also, note, please, that I have argued on this forum, since I began taking part, several(?) years ago re: the potential perniciousness of Islam as an ideology. And I will say again, that among religions, Islam is, hands down, the most amenable, in today's world, to be interpreted in ways that potentially and ACTUALLY are destructive to humanistic ideals. Now, I realize that anyone who is prone to black and white thinking, may have difficulty wrapping their head around these ideas that I can ALSO assert, these two things (as is relevant to the refuge crisis): Islam is not pure evil. It can be, and is, often, used to promote really bad ideas for humanity, but most Muslims DO NOT make those most destructive of interpretations. Syrian refugees who may find refuge in our country will mostly be people who identify as being Muslim. But the chances that they will also be people who make those destructive interpretations, are slim to none, with the vetting system that is in place. Rather, they are people, who despite the severe traumatization in their lives, will likely become positive contributing members of our society. It is imperative that we do not assume that people who identify with a certain extremely broad ideology are all going to act in the same way and believe the same things. (e.g., Bernie Sanders is not the same as Joseph Stalin.) So I implore you, to try to not mix up your valid concerns about the potential and actual dangers that lie within the extremely broad category of Islamic ideology, with the current, rigorous, Syrian refugee admission process to the U.S.

Canada should take them so they can show the world how multicultural they really are.
As I said: http://i.imgur.com/U4yUKrY.jpg :-)

I like those. Funny and ironic, my favorite.
But, of course, if the Syrian refugees ARE just like the pilgrims, they really don’t stand a chance to commit genocide on the existing population of North Americans. In Canada they face a sophisticated culture of humanitarian Pollyanna’s who will love them into assimilation. In the US they face a sophisticated culture of persons who, themselves, were, ancestrally, former immigrants, who collectively, have seen and done it all. The Pilgrims only had to face primitive tribes who were already competing desperately with each other in control of small territorial domains.

I like those. Funny and ironic, my favorite. But, of course, if the Syrian refugees ARE just like the pilgrims, they really don't stand a chance to commit genocide on the existing population of North Americans.
True, but still....we don't really need them.
Now, I'm not saying that there aren't moderate Moslems out there. But as I understand it, IS hates moderate Moslems as much as they hate us. What do you think they've been doing in Syria and Iraq all this time? They've been mostly killing other Moslems! It would be worthwhile simply to get Moslems in America to denounce terrorism in the name of Allah. That would brand them as moderates and they would be just as much "infidels" as the rest of us.
I think this is an important point. Don't forget, the refugees are fleeing IS (and Assad), and the war between them. So the only danger coming from the refugees might be that some IS-supporters might be secretly among them, and so come in the US. But concerning the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, the Charlie Hebdo killings, the train bombings in Madrid, the underground bombings in London, were all done by young people grown up in France, Belgium, Spain and England. They were not Arabs that specially came here for terrorist attacks. Most of them had already criminal backgrounds. At most IS and Al-Quaida provided money, contacts, to get explosives and/or weapons. But they were not 'members' of those groups that travelled here to commit their terrorist attacks. And as a final note: under the victims of the Bataclan theatre massacre were many young, integrated, moderate Muslims. There is no doubt that the terrorists also wilfully killed them too: as infidels according 'true Islam'. To put Islam under general suspicion is wrong: there are many more Moslem victims of 'Jihadists' than Westerners.
But concerning the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, the Charlie Hebdo killings, the train bombings in Madrid, the underground bombings in London, were all done by young people grown up in France, Belgium, Spain and England.
Just ask an older Muslim woman from one of those countries, one who is not afraid to speak up, if you can still find one. Ask them what a Mosque in America or England was like 30 years ago. Ask her if she had to enter through the back door, or couldn't sing. A group like ISIS doesn't just spring up out of nowhere overnight. The take over by Wahhabi Muslims took place over decades, just like Evangelicals slowly found their way back into American politics after being marginalized 90 years ago.
I like those. Funny and ironic, my favorite. But, of course, if the Syrian refugees ARE just like the pilgrims, they really don't stand a chance to commit genocide on the existing population of North Americans.
True, but still....we don't really need them. We need not to be dumbasses that exclude them due to paranoid BS and political gamesmanship.
I like those. Funny and ironic, my favorite. But, of course, if the Syrian refugees ARE just like the pilgrims, they really don't stand a chance to commit genocide on the existing population of North Americans.
True, but still....we don't really need them. Dod the indigenous peoples in North America need the Europeans who migrated here? Lois
I like those. Funny and ironic, my favorite. But, of course, if the Syrian refugees ARE just like the pilgrims, they really don't stand a chance to commit genocide on the existing population of North Americans.
True, but still....we don't really need them. Dod the indigenous peoples in North America need the Europeans who migrated here? LoisObviously not, since we killed their sorry asses. The difference is that Geronimo and his crew had no choice in the matter--we do.
I like those. Funny and ironic, my favorite. But, of course, if the Syrian refugees ARE just like the pilgrims, they really don't stand a chance to commit genocide on the existing population of North Americans.
True, but still....we don't really need them. We need not to be dumbasses that exclude them due to paranoid BS and political gamesmanship.Sounds good. Instead, we can exclude them because we already have a continental refugee problem, and they won't add a single thing to society except more social problems.

What refugee problem, MA?

I like those. Funny and ironic, my favorite. But, of course, if the Syrian refugees ARE just like the pilgrims, they really don't stand a chance to commit genocide on the existing population of North Americans.
True, but still....we don't really need them. We need not to be dumbasses that exclude them due to paranoid BS and political gamesmanship.Sounds good. Instead, we can exclude them because we already have a continental refugee problem, and they won't add a single thing to society except more social problems. That has consistently been the stance of many existing residents of the US, when we have, historically, admitted persons of a new immigrant group. Yet, here we are, a vibrant society of almost all immigrants. Are we struggling with social problems due to taking in refugees, historically? I don't see it.

Would the refugee Jews (during WWII) that we sent back, some to die in concentration camps, have, ultimately, not added “a single thing to society except more social problems”? I guess we’ll never know.

I might agree to allow Muslims in if they agree to publicly renounce all aspects of Islam that would support terrorism in any way and be required to repeat it on a regular basis. It would not guarantee that most Muslims wouldn't lie, but it would be a start. Let them prove that they do not accept the inhumane parts of the Koran. Let them say, "I piss on those parts of the Koran that support terrorism." Maybe it would reduce the percentage if terrorists and terrorist sympathizers to a level we can handle. I can't imagine anyone refusing to make such a renunciation. If they don't accept it, they can stay out. There are probably a lot of Syrians waiting to get into the US who would make that statement. Why shouldn't they get priority? What's wrong with this suggestion?
I assume you have scientific support from sociology, psychology and historians that such a strategy would help in mitigating radicalising Islam? Or is your posting just caused by some gland of yours? You are confusing my posts with yours, which are obviously caused by some gland. I never said the strategy would help in mitigating Islam. I offered it as a symbolic measure. Naturally you missed that, as you miss so many things. It must be those overactive glands of yours.
I might agree to allow Muslims in if they agree to publicly renounce all aspects of Islam that would support terrorism in any way and be required to repeat it on a regular basis. It would not guarantee that most Muslims wouldn't lie, but it would be a start. Let them prove that they do not accept the inhumane parts of the Koran. Let them say, "I piss on those parts of the Koran that support terrorism." Maybe it would reduce the percentage if terrorists and terrorist sympathizers to a level we can handle. I can't imagine anyone refusing to make such a renunciation. If they don't accept it, they can stay out. There are probably a lot of Syrians waiting to get into the US who would make that statement. Why shouldn't they get priority? What's wrong with this suggestion?
This idea may make people feel better but we're talking about terrorists who commit mass murder. Faced with abandoning their mission or lying on an affidavit I think they are going to lie. Also many American Islamic terrorists have been people born here or who came here as innocent children and were radicalized here. Being born somewhere else doesn't make someone an enemy and being born here doesn't mean they are a loyal American. Actions are what are important, not place of birth. Whether they were radicalized here or elsewhere it was their religion that radicalized them. Don't blame the country that took them in when they begged for refuge and then turned on it. The radicalization was inevitable no matter which country they inserted themselves into. They have proven that no country and no people are safe from their religion of violence. Read it for yourself http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm Lois, I must admit that you did find parts of the Quran that could be used to support terrorism. Also, note, please, that I have argued on this forum, since I began taking part, several(?) years ago re: the potential perniciousness of Islam as an ideology. And I will say again, that among religions, Islam is, hands down, the most amenable, in today's world, to be interpreted in ways that potentially and ACTUALLY are destructive to humanistic ideals. Now, I realize that anyone who is prone to black and white thinking, may have difficulty wrapping their head around these ideas that I can ALSO assert, these two things (as is relevant to the refuge crisis): Islam is not pure evil. It can be, and is, often, used to promote really bad ideas for humanity, but most Muslims DO NOT make those most destructive of interpretations. Are you sure of that? Although I agree that most Muslims don't make those most destructive of interpretations but too many apparently support those who do. All it takes is one person who does take the passages as commands from god to wreak havoc. Syrian refugees who may find refuge in our country will mostly be people who identify as being Muslim. But the chances that they will also be people who make those destructive interpretations, are slim to none, with the vetting system that is in place. Again, how can you be sure of that? Rather, they are people, who despite the severe traumatization in their lives, will likely become positive contributing members of our society. I can go along with that about most of them, but as I said, it only takes one or a few who think the Qur'an is the word of god and that ALL of it must be obeyed unequivocally. It is imperative that we do not assume that people who identify with a certain extremely broad ideology are all going to act in the same way and believe the same things. (e.g., Bernie Sanders is not the same as Joseph Stalin.) It only takes one Stalin or one religiously inspired terrorist to wreak havoc on a population. So I implore you, to try to not mix up your valid concerns about the potential and actual dangers that lie within the extremely broad category of Islamic ideology, with the current, rigorous, Syrian refugee admission process to the U.S. I don't. But I think symbolic gestures have their value and so does the US government. Just as with the oath people take when becoming a citizen, there is no guarantee that they won't break it, yet the government imposes it and hardly anyone complains about it. "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion." I would edit that for all people seeking refuge here to something like: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, sovereignty or religious command of violence of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject, that I will support the Constitution and laws of the United States of America while I am a resident of this country. In fact, I would be in favor of it being required by everyone seeking refugee status or permanent residency, not just Syrians and not just Muslims--EVERYONE of any politiical or religious philosophy. "Are you in favor of religious violence for any reason? Do you renounce the religious violence commands in all religious books? Do you have any intention of violently overthrowing the US government?" Of course people will lie, but a symbolic gesture is not worthless. The US government uses symbolic gestures all the time. Why the horrified reaction to this particular one and not to others? Lois

Lois, Again. The Syrian refugee acceptance process is already so rigorous, as to minimize the possibility of a Daesh member infiltrating, that it is not a serious concern. Is it possible? Is it possible that you will go insane and wipe out your family? It’s possible, but the chances are so minimal, that I would not advocate that you be locked up to in order to prevent it from happening. Now if you had to go thru the process of being chosen by a UN agency, and were lucky enough to be in the small minority who would be considered as not likely to kill your family, and THEN had to go thru a process of being evaluated by Homeland Security, the CIA, the FBI, the State Dept., the Defense Dept., etc., etc. over a two year period, AND ONLY then, were you determined to be unlikely to wipe out your family, EVEN THOUGH you personally have never done ANYTHING to make it seem like you would ever perform such a heinous act, THEN you were ALSO required to go thru even more steps, such as having to swear that you piss on any parts of your identification as an atheist, that suggests you should kill your family… wouldn’t that all seem to be a bit much?
AND MEANWHILE, people that are actually inclined to kill their family are not being paid any attention, because, those who should be concerned about them, are too busy worried YOU might be fratricidal because you happen to be an atheist.

Would the refugee Jews (during WWII) that we sent back, some to die in concentration camps, have, ultimately, not added "a single thing to society except more social problems"? I guess we'll never know.
You can't rewrite history as wrong-headed as it was. None of us was involved in the decision to turn the Jews back. It would not happen today. We can admit the errors of our parent's generation and move on. It does no good to wallow in regret for actions we had no part in. All we can do is try to do better in the future.
Would the refugee Jews (during WWII) that we sent back, some to die in concentration camps, have, ultimately, not added "a single thing to society except more social problems"? I guess we'll never know.
You can't rewrite history as wrong-headed as it was. None of us was involved in the decision to turn the Jews back. It would not happen today. We can admit the errors of our parent's generation and move on. It does no good to wallow in regret for actions we had no part in. All we cqn do is try to do better in the future. Yet, you seem eager to make it, all but, impossible for Syrian refugees to get asylum, today.