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. What have I suggested that would "make it, all but, impossible for Syrian refugees to get asylum, today"? All I have suggested is that all refugees take an oath that they will not engage in religious or political violence. How does that "make it, all but, impossible for Syrian refugees to get asylum, today"? Can you explain how that would keep them out? Do you think they would react to such a requirement by throwing up their hands and saying, "Well, if you require that I abjure all such violence, forget it, I won't come to the US"?
I don’t want the refugees here. I don’t care about their problems.
The US has been bad enough for over a century that we could have exported our own refugees.
Certain demographics of the US could rightfully seek asylum in other nations. Some have over the years.
I don’t care about the Syrian refugees. Or their problems.
I care about the internal refugees we have right here in America. Millions of American born citizens are refugees of the American Dream.
The Syrians should stay where they are and fix their own country. However daunting that is.
Most of Europe doesn’t want them either. They want some. They definitely don’t want the hordes they realized are coming.
Who can blame them? Their national identities are being threatened. Lot’s of people care about this.
edit spelling
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. What have I suggested that would "make it, all but, impossible for Syrian refugees to get asylum, today"? All I have suggested is that all refugees take an oath that they will not engage in religious or political violence.... No, what you actually suggested is that they be required to say that they "piss on the parts of the Koran...". Lot's of folks have ideas about what would make the vetting process more rigorous than it already is. The House passed a bill requiring the impossibility of each of the heads of various agencies to swear that any Syrian refugees admitted would pose absolutely no threat ever. If you already have a more than sufficient vetting process, adding more and more criteria, is nonsensical. And, AGAIN, it takes the focus away from actual, MUCH more likely avenues by which Daesh can infiltrate. Why do you want to make it easier for Daesh to infiltrate, by focusing on an avenue where it is least likely to occur? That is irrational.
I don't want the refugees here. I don't care about their problems. The US has been bad enough for over a century that we could have exported our own refugees. Certain demographics of the US could rightfully seek asylum in other nations. Some have over the years. I don't care about the Syrian refugees. Or their problems. I care about the internal refugees we have right here in America. Millions of American born citizens are refugees of the American Dream. The Syrians should stay where they are and fix their own country. However daunting that is. Most of Europe doesn't want them either. They want some. They definitely don't want the hordes they realized are coming. Who can blame them? Their nationally identities are being threatened. Lot's of people care about this.And yet, European countries, who are exponentially more at risk than the US, by doing so, are accepting more refugees than we are. Isolationism is an appealing idea, but taken to its extreme, it would be economically devastating, making life even more miserable for the millions of Americans that you are concerned about.
Forget the terrorism angle. That’s a great political football being used by both sides.
Any refugee that wants to come here should have no parents and be under the age of 18.
I’m all for that.
Other than that…tough it out in your own country.
Just like millions of Americans do here in the US.
In ghettos, and drug infested neighborhoods, and over populated jails etc…
...who are exponentially more at risk than the US...At risk for what?
...who are exponentially more at risk than the US...At risk for what? Daesh infiltration via Syrian refugees and lack of cultural assimilation of these refugees.
...who are exponentially more at risk than the US...At risk for what? Daesh infiltration via Syrian refugees and lack of cultural assimilation of these refugees. I just recently posted to forget the terror angle.(not really a factor as has been recently born out in Paris. The terror angle is just misdirected fear-mongering) Aside from that...yes, thank you.
...who are exponentially more at risk than the US...At risk for what? Daesh infiltration via Syrian refugees and lack of cultural assimilation of these refugees. I just recently posted to forget the terror angle.(not really a factor as has been recently born out in Paris. The terror angle is just misdirected fear-mongering) Aside from that...yes, thank you. The terror angle being just a political tactic, is a big part of what I have been arguing.
The terror angle being just a political tactic, is a big part of what I have been arguing.Yes I know. I view it as a red herring coming from both angles. From the right as the obvious fear-mongering that leads nowhere. From the left as an effective meme to springboard from to promote internationalism. edit: that meme being the fear-mongering itself.
The terror angle being just a political tactic, is a big part of what I have been arguing.But you also said the Europeans were "exponentially at more risk from daesh infilitration." So what do you really mean TimB? I'm getting conflicting messages from you here. And I'll add... I personally don't think they are at any greater risk. So it should be quite easy to see where I stand on the "terrorism" thing.
The terror angle being just a political tactic, is a big part of what I have been arguing.But you also said the Europeans were "exponentially at more risk from daesh infilitration." So what do you really mean TimB? I'm getting conflicting messages from you here. And I'll add... I personally don't think they are at any greater risk. So it should be quite easy to see where I stand on the "terrorism" thing. Majid Nawaz said the processing of refugees is much less rigorous. They are literally, and I mean that literally, pouring onto the shores of European countries. We have a tremendous amount of control since we can stop them as they exit airplanes, and they know they won't have the right papers if they just get on a plane head here. They really have no choice but to put up with whatever hoops we ask them to jump through for a year or two. Europe however has the choice of creating camps near borders and maintaining them, trying to control shipments of people as they pass through, or quickly processing them and letting them in. I suppose they could hire news camera people to kick them, too.
The terror angle being just a political tactic, is a big part of what I have been arguing.But you also said the Europeans were "exponentially at more risk from daesh infilitration." So what do you really mean TimB? I'm getting conflicting messages from you here. And I'll add... I personally don't think they are at any greater risk. So it should be quite easy to see where I stand on the "terrorism" thing. Majid Nawaz said the processing of refugees is much less rigorous. They are literally, and I mean that literally, pouring onto the shores of European countries. We have a tremendous amount of control since we can stop them as they exit airplanes, and they know they won't have the right papers if they just get on a plane head here. They really have no choice but to put up with whatever hoops we ask them to jump through for a year or two... Thanks for elaborating for me.
Thanks for elaborating for me.TimB, so you do think the refugees carry a terrorist risk, or not? Because you said the "terror" angle was just political. Then you said in a subsequent post that Europe was in exponentially greater danger from terrorists. That's why I asked you, "at risk for what?" I think your exact words were "daesh infiltration". What makes you think the refugees carry a greater risk to be terrorists?
Thanks for elaborating for me.TimB, so you do think the refugees carry a terrorist risk, or not? Because you said the "terror" angle was just political. Then you said in a subsequent post that Europe was in exponentially greater danger from terrorists. That's why I asked you, "at risk for what?" I think your exact words were "daesh infiltration". What makes you think the refugees carry a greater risk to be terrorists? I think that the chance of Daesh infiltration amongst Syrian refugees into the US, is close to zero, due to the existing rigorous vetting system, and the Atlantic Ocean. I think that the chance of Daesh infiltration into European countries, by their hiding among Syrian refugees is considerably higher. If their purpose is infiltration for purposes of terrorism, then they are not refugees, they are terrorists. I am not Mr. Spock so I can't accurately provide you with the exact odds, but if the odds are 1 in 100 million for it to happen in the US, and the odds of it happening in Europe are 1 in 1 million, then that would qualify as a considerably higher or exponentially higher risk in Europe.
I think that the chance of Daesh infiltration into European countries, by their hiding among Syrian refugees is considerably higher.So some of the European Leaders are not engaging in purely political fear-mongering then? It could be described as practical politics. That is, politics which view a situation and then pass corresponding laws.
If their purpose is infiltration for purposes of terrorism, then they are not refugees, they are terrorists.But that would still give populaces an equal cause for alarm concerning refugees. I myself feel no need for alarm because I think these terrorist events will happen at frequencies and causations that are unaffected by influxes of refugees. Even influxes of refugees with or without infiltrators. It's math and statistics and probability. Basically if we view the next 20 years and add that in with the terror actions of say the past 20 years, will refugees(or terrorists disguised as refugees) have any discernible impact on the numbers. I'm definitely betting no. However, if I'm wrong then the fear mongerers were right.
On another note, the Syrians are OK. Syria is a secular state to begin with. Or was…who knows what it is now.
Hence the refugees.
There’s plenty of Syrians in the US and they assimilate pretty good. Keeping their own cultural identity in the process.
Which is good. That’s what the US is all about.
The Irish celebrate St Pats, The Germans celebrate Oktoberfest, the Greeks celebrate their thing etc etc etc…
Now women walking around the streets in black robes with just an eye-slit…
Or communities that center everything around their temple, church, or mosque is another thing.
Private enclaves that shield their children from the US and it’s rich, vibrant culture is not good.
This includes new arriving muslims, or homegrown 5th generation Americans.
Refugees who arrive here and can’t fit in because of their own religious prejudices or cultural barriers don’t belong here.
They begin to harbor bad feelings and contempt for the place that they wanted to come to in the first place!!!
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? LoisSo what is the basic value you are promoting here? It sounds like you are saying people who claim a religious identity can be required to say a pledge. Applying that value consistently, the same requirement could be made to an atheist, they could be told to renounce something written by Pol Pot for example. Or, we could stick the principles of religious freedom and the supreme court ruling that we can't force people to say pledges. I would support such a pledge from anyone of any religion and atheists coming into the country. . The US already forces American citizens to take pledges and oaths and to sign affidavits. It is nothing new. I have only suggested that people state that they will not follow any religious command that supports terrorism. Other than that they would be able to practice their religion. Would you feel comfortable with anyone entering the country who refuses to take a pledge that they will not engage in terrorism, including religious terrorism? LL
While we’re adding useless requirements, why not also require them to do the Hokey Pokey, pass a sobriety test, knit a sweater, perform a scene from the musical “Cats”, eat an all beef hot dog, recite the words to the Star Spangled Banner backwards, and swear they will never set fire to little old ladies hair?
What refugee problem, MA?The south of the border one.