55 replies to this topic

[Frizzle]

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.

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!?!?"

You can benefit your own people, you just choose not to.

If you don't believe the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria are for natural resources, you're either ignorant or directly benefiting from global imperialism.

Also pretty sure that the purpose of a firearm is to kill. You can't exactly eat soup with it or change the channel on your TV with it.

The fact that people are willing to condemn hundreds of thousands of people who need just because they ignorant or asylum procedures it's pretty pathetic.

[Emily]

All I see on Facebook is people saying that we need to help our homeless veterans and all of these other people before we help the Syrian refugees as a reason to not let them into our country. It's funny because I have never heard so many people arguing for benefits for our own people UNTIL there was a chance of Syrian refugees coming in. Suddenly, everyone is an open and outspoken supporter of "helping our own people over refugees." Where were you guys before? Hiding? Our veterans needed help long before this, but I didn't see anyone caring this much before. This is obviously not to say that people don't or shouldn't care about homeless veterans or other people who need help in America, but I don't think we should hide behind that as an argument for why we also can't help other people. 

[Frizzle]

http://www.c-span.or...s-dont-send-war

[talbs]

The fact that people are willing to condemn hundreds of thousands of people who need just because they ignorant or asylum procedures it's pretty pathetic.

 

Why should it be the responsibility of the United States to accommodate said people? There are almost 200 other countries to choose from.

[Frizzle]

Why should it be the responsibility of the United States to accommodate said people? There are almost 200 other countries to choose from.

Because America is responsible for arming the PKK rebels directly and through arms sales and manufactures weapons which are directly held by Assad's regime.

Because America has benefited greatly through economic slavery and imperialism over the last century, becoming rich of the backs of middle eastern and African countries.

Because it directly bombs and destroys Syrian towns and cities, killing innocent people and destroying lives.

Because you're the fucking richest country in the world and you need to take some goddamn responsibility for your actions.

[talbs]

Because you're the fucking richest country in the world and you need to take some goddamn responsibility for your actions.

 

As we approach $19,000,000,000,000 debt. 

[Frizzle]

As we approach $19,000,000,000,000 debt.

All large countries are in debt, it's how fiscal economics works. Maybe if the government stops spending trillions on blowing countries up and making corporations rich, then you'd be a bit better off.

Most Americans have homes, warmth, water, electricity, gas, food, security..

How many Syrians can say that?

[talbs]

All large countries are in debt, it's how fiscal economics works. Maybe if the government stops spending trillions on blowing countries up and making corporations rich, then you'd be a bit better off.

Most Americans have homes, warmth, water, electricity, gas, food, security..

How many Syrians can say that?

 

With $600 billion tied up in defense, I'd much rather shift gears and start "blowing countries up" than sit idly by waiting on a domestic event to occur. This President is content with the fight coming to American soil just for the sake of showing how "tolerant" he is.

[Frizzle]

Well that's the reason "the fight is coming to America".

If you start blowing up people and destroying countries, can you understand why people wish to retaliate?

[talbs]

Well that's the reason "the fight is coming to America".

If you start blowing up people and destroying countries, can you understand why people wish to retaliate?

 

Exactly the reason we don't need to display a welcome mat.

[Frizzle]

Exactly the reason we don't need to display a welcome mat.

I'm glad the majority of Americans don't hold such a xenophobic and on obnoxious view.

[Padme]

Why should it be the responsibility of the United States to accommodate said people? There are almost 200 other countries to choose from.

 

http://www.un.org/en...splacement.html

 

 

Your country is talking about taking in 10k people, your country has 10x the population of mine and we're taking in way more than you.

 

It's the responsibility of your country because we're all fucking humans. 

 

With $600 billion tied up in defense, I'd much rather shift gears and start "blowing countries up" than sit idly by waiting on a domestic event to occur. This President is content with the fight coming to American soil just for the sake of showing how "tolerant" he is.

 

Wow. I hear this about EVERY leader. They're only sticking to their promises because it would look bad if they didn't. Is it really that hard to think that a human can be human? 

 

People have said this about Hollande, Trudeau and Obama. 

 

You think Obama needs to save any face right now? He's on his way out and not able to get reelected. Sure he doesn't want to go down in history as being a dick head but he really has no need to be concerned about that.

[talbs]

Your country is talking about taking in 10k people, your country has 10x the population of mine and we're taking in way more than you.

 

Congratulations. Got room/compassion for 10,000 more?

I'm glad the majority of Americans don't hold such a xenophobic and on obnoxious view.

 

You'd be surprised.

[Kaddict]

All large countries are in debt, it's how fiscal economics works. 

Most large countries that aren't in complete economic turmoil are actually net creditors (ie. some countries have a debt, but have loaned out more money than they owe). The US isn't close to being a creditor. I think the only reason we haven't hit the same level as turmoil as other countries is simply because we are the US and people think "wow, they can't be that bad off, they are the richest country in the world" and I think our creditors are more uneasy demanding payment than they would be from say Greece.

 

You can benefit your own people, you just choose not to.

If you don't believe the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria are for natural resources, you're either ignorant or directly benefiting from global imperialism.

Also pretty sure that the purpose of a firearm is to kill. You can't exactly eat soup with it or change the channel on your TV with it.

The fact that people are willing to condemn hundreds of thousands of people who need just because they ignorant or asylum procedures it's pretty pathetic.

You think that is why the wars in the middle east started? Do you also believe that Bush personally blew up the trade centers?

Also, guns sole purpose aren't to kill other humans. They can kill other animals, be used for sport or simply to frighten off danger. Terrorism's sole purpose is to scare and kill people different than themselves.

 

You think Obama needs to save any face right now? He's on his way out and not able to get reelected. Sure he doesn't want to go down in history as being a dick head but he really has no need to be concerned about that.

 

Actually, a president always needs to save face if he/she wants his/her party to have any shot in the upcoming elections. Not just with the executive branch, but with the house and senate. People can get pissed off about an entire political ideology just because they didn't like a person. 

[Waser Lave]

I don't think Western countries should accept refugees because they have a responsibility to do so, I think they should do it because it's the right thing to do. The vast majority of the people who have fled places like Syria don't want to take advantage of our benefits systems, they just want to not live every day with the risk of their families being bombed or slaughtered. If we accept genuine refugee families (as opposed to the thousands of single, young men who are also wandering around Europe) who are properly vetted then the risk of an ISIS member being included in there is vastly reduced too.

[talbs]

I don't think Western countries should accept refugees because they have a responsibility to do so, I think they should do it because it's the right thing to do. The vast majority of the people who have fled places like Syria don't want to take advantage of our benefits systems, they just want to not live every day with the risk of their families being bombed or slaughtered. If we accept genuine refugee families (as opposed to the thousands of single, young men who are also wandering around Europe) who are properly vetted then the risk of an ISIS member being included in there is vastly reduced too.

 

That's a solid response, especially regarding the vetting process. If there are people who are granted asylum here, I would much prefer they be "genuine families" as you say, versus combat age wanderers. Of course ISIS and/or any lone wolves can be among the families as well, but I don't see any reason as to why we shouldn't proceed with extreme caution.

[Kaddict]

I don't think Western countries should accept refugees because they have a responsibility to do so, I think they should do it because it's the right thing to do. The vast majority of the people who have fled places like Syria don't want to take advantage of our benefits systems, they just want to not live every day with the risk of their families being bombed or slaughtered. If we accept genuine refugee families (as opposed to the thousands of single, young men who are also wandering around Europe) who are properly vetted then the risk of an ISIS member being included in there is vastly reduced too.

I agree with this point. I have to say this since people may take me arguing different points as me saying I don't agree with refugees being let in. I am also for tons of humanitarian efforts to help them everything gets figured out; with food, money, clothing, blankets etc.

[Blanc]

Analysing some points, I'm favor of let in Refugees. Like Swarley said, "They're people, they're scared and they just want to feel safe.", yeah, that's true. They're like us, humans. Even with ISIS possible infiltration, had thousands peoples scared and just want an place to live, we can't prevent it, it's inhuman just let them in danger. Let they in can put us on danger, but'll save some lives and don't expose them in a worst danger. I would be hypocritical to say I'm 100% in favor of it, so i'll just say i'm in favor, not fully.

[Adam]

Is it fair to say that the first 'Syrian refugee' that blows themselves up  (yes I realize how bad that sounds) will ruin my trust in them? I'm all for giving them a chance to live here, under close surveillance, but I'm going to keep my guard up. I'd rather keep my head on a swivel than having my head on a metaphorical stake. 

[Blanc]

Is it fair to say that the first 'Syrian refugee' that blows themselves up  (yes I realize how bad that sounds) will ruin my trust in them? I'm all for giving them a chance to live here, under close surveillance, but I'm going to keep my guard up. I'd rather keep my head on a swivel than having my head on a metaphorical stake. 

 

That will not ruin your trust on them, you'll be just more careful about them. Imagine that one refugee blowed up himself and killed many peoples on your country. Isn't the others refugees fault because they all isn't ISIS infiltrers, but you'll be more careful about they.

[Adam]

That will not ruin your trust on them, you'll be just more careful about them. Imagine that one refugee blowed up himself and killed many peoples on your country. Isn't the others refugees fault because they all isn't ISIS infiltrers, but you'll be more careful about they.

I don't think you know me lol. I'd never hurt them, but I sure as hell wouldn't trust them.

[Blanc]

I don't think you know me lol. I'd never hurt them, but I sure as hell wouldn't trust them.

I didn't said you would hurt them!! You don't look a bad person, but you're right, I wouldn't trust them too.

[Adam]

I have trust issues anyway, so I guess it wouldn't be too out of the ordinary for me to be skeptical. 

[NapisaurusRex]

OK, I barely skimmed this thread, but this is something I've been rolling around in my head since the Syrian refugee crisis began. I'm as much of a gun-toting, Bible-beating, save-the-fetus, xenophobic person as any other southern Republican.

 

It's not our responsibility as nation to take in Syrian refugees. We would have saved time, money, and blood by maintaining that pre-WW isolationist status. 

 

Buuuut we didn't and here we are. I think we should help Syrian refugees, with an emphasis on women and children. As much as I enjoy looking at picture after picture of sexy 20-something year old male refugees on facebook, I feel like it's the children who have the future to look forward to. And sure, I'll admit there's some ageism and sexism going on in my head. I'll also admit that part of that stems from a gruesome article about babies being used for bayonet practice I read last week. I don't want my babies raped and mangled and it gives me a burning desire to want to save other women's babies from that fate.

 

I'm 99.9% NOT concerned about any of them being part of ISIS. Terrorists? Sure, maybe. But according to the ISIS religious standpoint, which appears to be their main reason for slaughtering people, they are forbidden from leaving the Holy Land after they've entered it, except to expand the boundaries that are already attached to that area. The extremists who are terrorizing others in the name of ISIS are people who are unable to go to the Caliphate for whatever reason. The ISIS terrorists are already here. They don't need to be imported or refuged and they won't be brought in with Syrian refugees. I'm more concerned about the fact that I see a few dozen people daily who can't tell a Mexican from a Middle Eastern and in reality, we're probably bringing in who knows what from every angle because of it, without the screening process that the refugees will supposedly go through. 

 

Finally, generalized expected statement about Jewish refugees and the Holocaust.