States refusing to accept Syrian refugees

I once got robbed by a homeless person I let live in my home. As a result I never did that again.

No, wait, I kept doing it because I'm not a jerk.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Syrians should be in Syria, it's right there in the name.
Click to expand...

While I hate to agree with racists, there is something to be said in favor of refusing refugees at this time. We know that terrorist organizations targeting the USA are using the influx of refugees into Europe and elsewhere to plant insurgents into their target countries. It's only logical, therefore, to at least temporarily halt the influx of refugees until we can at least figure out how to weed out the terrorists from the folks looking to escape war.

Would this make us jerks? Not in my opinion, but it's also not really a relevant question. I'd rather be treated by Dr. House--someone who's cold, uninterested in my opinions, and effective--than by J.D.--someone warm, open, and so easily distracted that his own friends mock him for it. The cause of the suffering of the refugees is not the USA's refusal to actually put some thought into how we're going to handle the situation; rather, it's ISIS. The fact that we're not willing to commit suicide to help them is only being a jerk in the most superficial and self-destructive interpretation of the events.
 
Dinwar said:
While I hate to agree with racists, there is something to be said in favor of refusing refugees at this time. We know that terrorist organizations targeting the USA are using the influx of refugees into Europe and elsewhere to plant insurgents into their target countries. It's only logical, therefore, to at least temporarily halt the influx of refugees until we can at least figure out how to weed out the terrorists from the folks looking to escape war.

Would this make us jerks? Not in my opinion, but it's also not really a relevant question. I'd rather be treated by Dr. House--someone who's cold, uninterested in my opinions, and effective--than by J.D.--someone warm, open, and so easily distracted that his own friends mock him for it. The cause of the suffering of the refugees is not the USA's refusal to actually put some thought into how we're going to handle the situation; rather, it's ISIS. The fact that we're not willing to commit suicide to help them is only being a jerk in the most superficial and self-destructive interpretation of the events.
Click to expand...

You were already an embarrassment just taking 10,000
 
cullennz said:
You were already an embarrassment just taking 10,000
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Again, they are not US citizens, and therefore we are under no obligation to take care of them. Don't confuse mercy with obligation. Secondly, this is a known pathway by which enemies attack us. It only makes sense to leave such a pathway open if 1) there is no other way to defeat the enemy, or 2) you're setting a trap. You don't hand opportunities to your enemies to harm you without cause.

And again, I'm not saying we need to stop accepting refugees entirely. I'm merely saying that at this point, we need to reconsider our evaluation process. If we can find a way to weed out terrorists posing as refugees from actual refugees, cool. Bring 'em in. The USA has a lot of land we're not using; the BLM can help them get established on some of the land that was graded for housing developments in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. If we CAN'T differentiate between refugees and terrorists posing as refugees, obviously we have to consider whether we can allow anyone in. The USA's responsibility is to protect its own citizens from threats foreign and domestic. Protecting someone else's citizens is outside that scope of work.
 
Dinwar said:
I don't think so. Again, they are not US citizens, and therefore we are under no obligation to take care of them. Don't confuse mercy with obligation. Secondly, this is a known pathway by which enemies attack us. It only makes sense to leave such a pathway open if 1) there is no other way to defeat the enemy, or 2) you're setting a trap. You don't hand opportunities to your enemies to harm you without cause.

And again, I'm not saying we need to stop accepting refugees entirely. I'm merely saying that at this point, we need to reconsider our evaluation process. If we can find a way to weed out terrorists posing as refugees from actual refugees, cool. Bring 'em in. The USA has a lot of land we're not using; the BLM can help them get established on some of the land that was graded for housing developments in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. If we CAN'T differentiate between refugees and terrorists posing as refugees, obviously we have to consider whether we can allow anyone in. The USA's responsibility is to protect its own citizens from threats foreign and domestic. Protecting someone else's citizens is outside that scope of work.
Click to expand...

No one is under an obligation to take care of them. It is called fronting up in a humanitarian crisis.

It is called doing your part as a global member

And you wonder why the US has a fairly poor reputation when it comes to international relations.
 
cullennz said:
No one is under an obligation to take care of them. It is called fronting up in a humanitarian crisis.

It is called doing your part as a global member
Click to expand...
I notice that you are evading the fact that this is a known pathway by which terrorists enter their target countries. Please address that. What reason--REASON, mind you, not Argument from Intimidation (poor name, but that's the fallacy you are using)--is there for leaving open a known point of weakness in the country's defense?

If you cannot present a reason--a REASON, not an appeal to emotion, insult, or other nonsense--why we should do so, perhaps you should reconsider your position.

Finally, I note that you start by saying "It's not an obligation", but everything else basically says "...but it's totally an obligation." So we can dismiss the first clause in your post, as contradicted by all evidence within it.
 
Oh dear.

I never thought I would see a day where American are the one surrendering to fear and openly admit it.

ETA: "French Surrendering" apparently lost its cachet.

I support taking more refugee in the country I am in.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
I never thought I would see a day where American are the one surrendering to fear and openly admit it.
Click to expand...

Taking a bit of time to re-evaluate how we handle a complex and dangerous situation is "surrendering to fear"?

I'm genuinely curious: Is there a rational argument to be had in this discussion? Or are we just going to be inundated with appeals to emotion on the scale of Halmark cards?
 
Aepervius said:
Oh dear.

I never thought I would see a day where American are the one surrendering to fear and openly admit it.

ETA: "French Surrendering" apparently lost its cachet.

I support taking more refugee in the country I am in.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

I can't wait till one pulls that joke again
 
Dinwar said:
I notice that you are evading the fact that this is a known pathway by which terrorists enter their target countries. Please address that. What reason--REASON, mind you, not Argument from Intimidation (poor name, but that's the fallacy you are using)--is there for leaving open a known point of weakness in the country's defense?

If you cannot present a reason--a REASON, not an appeal to emotion, insult, or other nonsense--why we should do so, perhaps you should reconsider your position.

Finally, I note that you start by saying "It's not an obligation", but everything else basically says "...but it's totally an obligation." So we can dismiss the first clause in your post, as contradicted by all evidence within it.
Click to expand...

The reason is simple. To help with your international relations.

The ones that will be taken are sitting in intern camps on the outskirts

They have been screened by the UN and then will be screened by your own officials
 
They have been screened by the UN and then will be screened by your own officials
Click to expand...
I was going to respond to you point by point, but if you can say this in response to my statement than it's obvious you've no interest in a serious discussion. It's obvious that this screening process is the issue I was discussing--to say "We're screening them" in response to my statements is to completely ignore what I said. I will not participate in a conversation where you get to determine what both of us say.
 
Dinwar said:
Taking a bit of time to re-evaluate how we handle a complex and dangerous situation is "surrendering to fear"?

I'm genuinely curious: Is there a rational argument to be had in this discussion? Or are we just going to be inundated with appeals to emotion on the scale of Halmark cards?
Click to expand...

Look if terrorist want to be smuggled they can from Mexico. The US already said they would check every refugee. But what happens ? Immediately out of fear than real security problem people start closing door. Like alabama which had no refugee up to now.

That is fear pure and simple or political abuse of the situation. They could have proposed a more careful check up or keep refugee under surveillance or whatnot. No. No discussion. Immediate closing of border.

If you state one should have a calm discussion about it, then ask those who closed the discussion and closed up.
 
Well, the screening into Europe consisted of checking to see if there was any international arrest warrants out for them so...yeah, we're probably good.
 
Dinwar said:
I was going to respond to you point by point, but if you can say this in response to my statement than it's obvious you've no interest in a serious discussion. It's obvious that this screening process is the issue I was discussing--to say "We're screening them" in response to my statements is to completely ignore what I said. I will not participate in a conversation where you get to determine what both of us say.
Click to expand...

You mean the known pathway bit? I didn't bother because it is so bloom'n obvious

It always has been.

That is why they need to be put into internment camps in the states and monitored for about 3 months

All cool

Mass paranoia is quite interesting to watch
 
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddles masses yearning to be free....

Nah. On second thought, **** it."
 
Last edited:
Dinwar said:
I don't think so. Again, they are not US citizens, and therefore we are under no obligation to take care of them. Don't confuse mercy with obligation. Secondly, this is a known pathway by which enemies attack us. It only makes sense to leave such a pathway open if 1) there is no other way to defeat the enemy, or 2) you're setting a trap. You don't hand opportunities to your enemies to harm you without cause.
Click to expand...

Like when we refused all those Germans on the St. Loius in 1938. They went back to Germany where they belonged. I hear some of them even lived through the war.
 
The logical reasons to allow or reject refugees have not changed.

The emotional reasons to allow or reject refugees have not changed.

In the USA, how many terrorist attacks have been by refugees, or even by people that have entered the US illegally? How many by citizens?

Statistically, we should allow the refugees and get rid of the citizens.
 
How dare any state or nation want to retain its character, protect its populace, and avoid becoming even slightly more like Syria?

The nerve!
 
I bet that is also what the native americans said before the honkys got there
 
On the one hand here come the bigots,on the other the hand the "Hate America" crowd.
The Hell with them both.
 
cullennz said:
No one hates america

More paranoia
Click to expand...

You seem to take great pleasure in bad mouthing it on every occasion....

And if you drag the Native Americans into this, I will drag in the Maoris....


I love how lefty Kiwis try to explain the two are not at all the same....
 
Travis said:
I once got robbed by a homeless person I let live in my home. As a result I never did that again.

No, wait, I kept doing it because I'm not a jerk.
Click to expand...


Your error is buying into social memes that edumicate you you are a jerk for not letting a homeless live in your home.

What a very Christian thing to do. Turn the other cheek, if someone takes your gerbil, offer your hamster as well and all that.


Seriously, is what passes through your head, patting you on the back, a Christian impulse, or a secular leftist impulse? People have noted socialism in Europe killing off care to join churches the past 50 years, by the government taking over the responsibilities churches historically did, like hospitals, carring for the old and infirmed and sick, helping the poor, and so on.

Hence few look to churches as the glorious helper movements they did, especially when Christianity was young, growing by leaps and bounds.

I wonder if it (non-church, socialist government glory join factor) has inhaled this impulse you are exhibiting, too.


ETA: This question, if it can be called that, comes off as much more in your face than is my intent.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
You seem to take great pleasure in bad mouthing it on every occasion....

And if you drag the Native Americans into this, I will drag in the Maoris....


I love how lefty Kiwis try to explain the two are not at all the same....
Click to expand...

So you can't handle criticism of US policy?

Every other country seems to be able to handle it

Feel free to bring up Maori. I will freely admit we aren't perfect
 
cullennz said:
The reason is simple. To help with your international relations.

The ones that will be taken are sitting in intern camps on the outskirts

They have been screened by the UN and then will be screened by your own officials
Click to expand...

What kind of screening do you think they can do?
 
cullennz said:
I bet that is also what the native Americans said before the honkys got there
Click to expand...

Look, we beat their asses fair and square and took their land. Same way every other country on earth was founded. It's not the fault of us Hunkies that they never assimilated.
 
eeyore1954 said:
What kind of screening do you think they can do?
Click to expand...

As best they can

Passport checks. Police checks. International intel' checks

Sure there may be the odd 2 year old crazy extremist slip through, but that is why you spend time monitoring them in camps in the US
 
Ziggurat said:
The really funny thing about it being that it demonstrates why people should take your opponent's position seriously.
Click to expand...

I was trying to lighten the mood after the US posters all got paranoid and said I hated their country
 
Aepervius said:
Look if terrorist want to be smuggled they can from Mexico. But what happens ? Immediately out of fear than real security problem people start closing door. Like alabama which had no refugee up to now.

That is fear pure and simple or political abuse of the situation. They could have proposed a more careful check up or keep refugee under surveillance or whatnot. No. No discussion. Immediate closing of border.

If you state one should have a calm discussion about it, then ask those who closed the discussion and closed up.
Click to expand...

Personally I am in favor of letting refugees although I like the idea of helping provide for them elsewhere even better.

The US already said they would check every refugee.
Click to expand...
They could have proposed a more careful check up or keep refugee under surveillance
Click to expand...
But if you think those mean much I have a bridge to sell you.
What are they going to check them for? How are they going to keep all of them under surveillance? How much would it cost?
 
BoogieWoogieWookie said:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/states-refuse-accept-syrian-refugees-wake/story?id=35231800
Click to expand...
Or they only want Syrian Christians. :rolleyes:
The position Obama is criticizing is quickly becoming the leading position of the Republican field. Both Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush said over the weekend that in the wake of the Paris attacks, the US should limit refugee admissions to Christians (who make up about 10 percent of Syria's population).

Obama's argument, given in Turkey at the G20 summit, deliberately casts this as an affront not only to American values, but to universal values of pluralism, freedom of religion, and nondiscrimination.
Click to expand...
Because we all know terrorists couldn't lie about their religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom