Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Should we let in refugees from Syria?


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#1 Cannabis

Cannabis
  • yungamerican


  • 801 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 03:30 PM

So if you live under a rock and don't know what is going on in the world right now the entire globe poses a threat to the terrorist group ISIS/ISIL it has a few different names. I am sure you have all heard about the various terroist attacks from the defacto government in Syria, to the attacks in Paris, ISIS shooting down a Russian passenger plane, multiple bombings in Beirut, Cairo and Yemen etc.

 

There is no doubt that ISIS is a world problem, however I feel that the ones who should be afraid and take more action is the US. ISIS made a video in which they called out the US saying that what happened in Paris will happen in DC and they will slaughter and kill Americans just like they did in Paris.

 

http://www.cnn.com/v...hington-npw.cnn

 

The current hot topic issue on facebook is if we should let 10,000 refugees into America. Many states have refused but Obama basically said no yall can't do this. PERSONALLY I feel that we should not let in these refugees. First of all we already have enough issues with the homeless and the poor who can't afford a standard of living. The addition of 10,000 people is damaging to our economy. Second although there is a background check system for these people the records in Syria are demolished and the CIA has even said that they can't properly check these people to see if they are members of ISIS. Today actually they found ISIS members posing as refugees. 

 

http://www.nbc-2.com...ay#.Vk0IuBNViko

 

The refugee issue is just so sad because they are attempting freedom from ISIS and the world is refusing them. ISIS wants to create fear, they are sly, they are not human. By creating this fear of refugees they are attempting to spark this crisis into a blazing fire. However all it takes is one ISIS member to pose as a refugee and get into America and it is game over. Out of 10,000 attempting to make it here it is safe to assume that they will slip through the cracks and there will be blood shed on American soil.

 

tldr: I don't think we should accept these refugees, What is your opinion?



#2 Rocket

Rocket
  • Ginger Snapped



  • 6,995 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 03:37 PM

I highly doubt 10,000 refugees is "damaging to our economy". The number is tiny compared to our national population.

 

I don't see why we shouldn't let them in. I'm all for it. If the situation were reversed I'd hope that I'd be accepted in another country.



#3 Rogue

Rogue

  • 634 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 03:47 PM

So... between let them in or let them to be killed off? Well... welcome to our country!



#4 Fikri

Fikri
  • submissive


  • 4,433 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 03:48 PM

perhaps adopt australian style? just throw money to some other foreign country to take up the refugees instead.

 

i just don't understand why the gulf countries aren't accepting any (similar language, culture, religion, yada yada), especially since it's widely assumed that they financed ISIS originally. :/



#5 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,916 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 03:52 PM

What a lot of people forget about in discussions about immigration is that America is literally the land of immigrants. Every American (aside from Native Americans) is an immigrant, or descended from immigrants. Closing off immigration from a certain place goes against this country's founding principles.  



#6 Cannabis

Cannabis
  • yungamerican


  • 801 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 03:54 PM

ISIS just wants to create fear, these people are trying to escape oppression and I hope they find the  freedom they deserve. The growing problems of ISIS is just so strong, however I feel that they will find a way into America one way or another it's just a matter of time.

 

I agree that it wouldn't be too damaging to our economy but there are other things that we should fund besides the potential terrorists that would enter our country. It will save a lot of lives mainly children I just feel like it's better to play it safe. The process for them to do a background check will take 24-48 months and by that time it will have already escalated, we shouldn't waste our resources on that when we should be fighting to save Syria.



#7 Swar

Swar
  • com muito orgulho, com muito amor <3


  • 9,100 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 03:56 PM

According to this site, there are more than 320 million people in the US. 10,000 is  0.00003125%. That's nothing. The economy excuse is pretty bad, imo.

 

Yes, let the refugees in. They're people, they're scared and they just want to feel safe.



#8 Keil

Keil
  • Above Average Mediocrity


  • 6,353 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 04:08 PM

Only if the refugees let into my country bring more economic gain than not welcoming refugees as long as we're short sighted in our decisions and we oversimplify the situation.



#9 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,916 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 04:08 PM

ISIS just wants to create fear, these people are trying to escape oppression and I hope they find the  freedom they deserve. The growing problems of ISIS is just so strong, however I feel that they will find a way into America one way or another it's just a matter of time.

 

I agree that it wouldn't be too damaging to our economy but there are other things that we should fund besides the potential terrorists that would enter our country. It will save a lot of lives mainly children I just feel like it's better to play it safe. The process for them to do a background check will take 24-48 months and by that time it will have already escalated, we shouldn't waste our resources on that when we should be fighting to save Syria.

Using that logic, wouldn't it make sense to deny immigration from any middle eastern country because we can't know for certain if they're part of ISIS?



#10 HiMyNameIsNick

HiMyNameIsNick
  • Shitlord


  • 1,719 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 04:10 PM

 The addition of 10,000 people is damaging to our economy.

 

 

You know nothing about macroeconomics, don't you?



#11 NeoVix

NeoVix
  • 152 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 04:20 PM

Of course. Fear is what the sick bastards want. We cannot be afraid of helping people who are running from the same shit that we are scared of!

 

I am from the UK though. But still, this is my opinion on it.



#12 blue

blue
  • doge

  • 2,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 04:36 PM

I keep seeing people bring up to help the vets n homeless first, but when shit ain't hitting the fan they're an afterthought.

I personally am on the fence about things like this so I have no preference at this point. I do like all the pros and cons being brought up tho.

#13 Adam

Adam
  • Coffee God


  • 4,361 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 04:44 PM

I keep seeing people bring up to help the vets n homeless first, but when shit ain't hitting the fan they're an afterthought.

There are always posts about helping vets, homeless or otherwise. The VA system, and their sub-par care, is always making headlines.



#14 talbs

talbs
  • 4,057 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 04:50 PM

I do not think we should accept any refugees from anywhere.



#15 KyloRen

KyloRen
  • Snoke says I'm special.



  • 5,125 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 04:51 PM

I feel like we should let some in, not 10,000 as that large number does make me feel a bit afraid about the possibility of them being ISIS. If that number was smaller, I'd feel better about it. 

 

However, the security process needs to be better. Such as maybe giving them a refugee camp and monitoring them to make sure they're all safe and not members of ISIS. Of course, since ISIS does use technology, maybe make the camp have access to tech, but secretly monitor it very well to see if any communicates with ISIS in any way or shows any sympathy towards them or support.  Of course, ISIS members might know they're being monitored and will find a way to circumvent the monitoring to communicate, but also make it very hard to leave the camp. And I mean very hard. Guards at the entrances, hidden around the camp to watch for anyone trying to sneak away, and so on. Also, keep the camp very far away from any important places. D.C and landmarks. Somewhere far out in the fields where there isn't anything around for miles. 



#16 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 05:24 PM

Stop sending troops to war for oil and you won't need to house and rehabilitate them.

Stop spending money on war for oil and you'll have enough money for the homeless and mentally ill.

You lose 30,000 people a year through firearms death and ISIS scares you? You lose hundreds of thousands a year due to salty, fatty foods and yet there's no issue with McDonald's or Subway?

Every single American is a product of European immigration yet people are toxic enough to deny aid on "we can't afford it". If you can afford to be the richest country in the world you can damn well afford to help the people who have lost everything because of the American government.

#17 Adam

Adam
  • Coffee God


  • 4,361 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 05:29 PM

I feel like we should let some in, not 10,000 as that large number does make me feel a bit afraid about the possibility of them being ISIS. If that number was smaller, I'd feel better about it. 

 

However, the security process needs to be better. Such as maybe giving them a refugee camp and monitoring them to make sure they're all safe and not members of ISIS. Of course, since ISIS does use technology, maybe make the camp have access to tech, but secretly monitor it very well to see if any communicates with ISIS in any way or shows any sympathy towards them or support.  Of course, ISIS members might know they're being monitored and will find a way to circumvent the monitoring to communicate, but also make it very hard to leave the camp. And I mean very hard. Guards at the entrances, hidden around the camp to watch for anyone trying to sneak away, and so on. Also, keep the camp very far away from any important places. D.C and landmarks. Somewhere far out in the fields where there isn't anything around for miles. 

I like the internment camps. Hold them here, in a safe location, until security measures can be placed to [attempt to] ensure America's safety -- however that might be. 



#18 Kate

Kate
  • 🐟🐳


  • 7,373 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 05:31 PM

Stop sending troops to war for oil and you won't need to house and rehabilitate them.

Stop spending money on war for oil and you'll have enough money for the homeless and mentally ill.

You lose 30,000 people a year through firearms death and ISIS scares you? You lose hundreds of thousands a year due to salty, fatty foods and yet there's no issue with McDonald's or Subway?

Every single American is a product of European immigration yet people are toxic enough to deny aid on "we can't afford it". If you can afford to be the richest country in the world you can damn well afford to help the people who have lost everything because of the American government.

And most of this applies to Canada too. 

Looooots of debate (and hate, and fear, and racism, and ignorance) on my Facebook the last week over the 25,000 refugees we're taking in. My heart is broken and I am exhausted from arguing over it, so I won't be saying much here, besides yes... America should take them in, yes Canada should take them in. 



#19 Amethyst

Amethyst

  • 2,741 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 05:35 PM

I keep seeing people bring up to help the vets n homeless first, but when shit ain't hitting the fan they're an afterthought.

I personally am on the fence about things like this so I have no preference at this point. I do like all the pros and cons being brought up tho.

 

My thoughts exactly on this.

 

Though, they are human and they don't deserve to get shat upon



#20 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,916 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 06:01 PM

I do not think we should accept any refugees from anywhere.

But why?



#21 Elindoril

Elindoril
  • Weeaboo Trash

  • 9,012 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 07:27 PM

Supposed to get a thousand or two refugees locally by the end of the year. They'll probably be way better than the shit stain citizens I put up with on a daily basis. At least since most of them can't drive none of them will try to run me over every time I try to legally cross the road.

Better plan! All the assholes that refuse to live in the same place as the refugees can live in the hellholes the refugees are fleeing from!

#22 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1,660 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 08:35 PM

I am on the fence about this one as well. 

Let them in: they are human beings and their home country sucks 20 ball sacks (In a bad way).

Don't: Why give benefits to these people when we can't benefit our own? Also, why have them come across the planet to a country with such a different culture, when their neighboring countries are much more like home to them. 

 

Stop sending troops to war for oil and you won't need to house and rehabilitate them.

Stop spending money on war for oil and you'll have enough money for the homeless and mentally ill.

You lose 30,000 people a year through firearms death and ISIS scares you? You lose hundreds of thousands a year due to salty, fatty foods and yet there's no issue with McDonald's or Subway?

Every single American is a product of European immigration yet people are toxic enough to deny aid on "we can't afford it". If you can afford to be the richest country in the world you can damn well afford to help the people who have lost everything because of the American government.

And (Just addressing one point here) the reason why ISIS (and other terrorist organizations) are worse than tobacco, fat/salt etc is that their main purpose is to kill people who live a different lifestyle. Fatty foods and tobacco is a personal decision which will kill you sooner in the long run (although it does cost the tax payer a ton). Firearms don't have the main/sole purpose of killing others. But, gun violence does bother me, and it bothers our entire society, so I think adding something else to the mix (ie a possible terrorist infiltration) would not be fine just because "well, not that many more people would be killed if we let ISIS in."

And actually, another point: The war was not "for oil." Was it longer/more in depth than it needed to be? Absolutely. But what is the difference in "help[ing] the people who have lost everything" versus the US going to war to track down people who caused people in the US to have lost everything (9/11). I just feel like people scream "America needs to be more isolationist" but then this roles around and people say "OMG, why isn't America getting more involved in people's problems!?!?" 



#23 Padme

Padme
  • 1,577 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 09:23 PM

LOL when some people don't give a shit about refugees and the status of them being integrated into their culture any year before this.

 

I see so many people* say stuff like  'we should worry about our own people first: the homeless, the aborted babies, and the veterans' yet those same people were the ones telling the homeless to get a job, trying to take away funding for children in low income homes (more worried about them being born than raised) and not giving a shit about those who fought for their freedom. 

 

*mainly conservative/republican types.

 

 

Globalization isn't there just so you can eat some imported pineapple, wipe your ass with toilet paper, have a smartphone and wear a gap sweatshirt that was brought to you by a lot of child or sweatshop labour. Check your first world privilege. I've yet to see a valid reason for not helping other god damn human beings. People where I live say we can't afford it, that it is millions of dollars blah blah blah. Trust me. The government can fund art pieces, subsidizations for major corporations, fund politicians pensions for serving only a couple years, and any damn thing they think is deserving. Guess what your government has budgets for this sort of thing. 

 

 

Edit: This seems aggressive and rude to anyone who has an opposing view. Sorry I'm not sorry. You're an asshole if you won't help out another human being because they look and speak differently than you and are in danger. 

 

Newsflash: We are all Earthlings. We all deserve a safe place to live. 


Edited by Padme, 18 November 2015 - 09:24 PM.


#24 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,916 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 09:36 PM

Newsflash: We are all Earthlings. We all deserve a safe place to live. 

I am waiting for the day when everyone realizes that we're all one human family. We should work together, not try to tear each other apart for inconsequential differences. One day :(



#25 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1,660 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 November 2015 - 09:44 PM

I am waiting for the day when everyone realizes that we're all one human family. We should work together, not try to tear each other apart for inconsequential differences. One day :(

Am I too cynical to think that we won't reach that day as a society? I mean, think of what we could accomplish if we didn't spend resources on wars, we put that into cures for health etc. I mean, that would be even more than the 500billion/year the US spends, because it includes the opportunity cost of those people being in different beneficial professions. But has there even been a civilization like that on Earth? Sadly, I think if there was, they got destroyed. :(




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users