What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Are you for or against taking in Syrian refugees? (1 Viewer)

Are you for/against taking in refugees?

  • For

    Votes: 247 52.0%
  • Against

    Votes: 228 48.0%

  • Total voters
    475

Ned

Footballguy
Simple poll - I'm curious where the FBG geniuses stand on this topic. It's been entertaining and depressing to read the coverage, hear responses, and read facebook posts ( :lol: ) on the subject.

 
I know refugees that have escaped the horrors of war. If you haven't gone through it, you have absolutely no idea the level of fear and real loss these people have experienced (talking enire families being massacred, not just losing your iphone). I'm not turning my back on these people.

 
Pretty obvious by now these people have a legitimate reason to be fleeing their homeland. Why you'd turn them away is beyond me.

 
No reason not to accept them. Shame on our government and/or Governors not accepting refugees or even talking/thinking about it.

 
Pretty obvious by now these people have a legitimate reason to be fleeing their homeland. Why you'd turn them away is beyond me.
I voted against. Im probably misguided in some of your eyes, but IMO, from a schooling perspective alone, we cant afford the people we have now.

 
Seems logistically problematic. Let Europe take care of their neighbors. We take in enough refugees as is from Mexico and Central America.

 
Seems logistically problematic. Let Europe take care of their neighbors. We take in enough refugees as is from Mexico and Central America.
Huh? Mexican refugees?

And we're not taking in enough refugees from Central America- in fact we're fighting to keep them out.

We suck at this. We should do better across the board. Welcoming others and providing a safe haven and opportunity is a fundamental principle of our nation- perhaps the fundamental principle. It's what made us great.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't have a problem with taking them in. I DO have a problem with the way our screening process seems to currently work. From my understanding, the actual screening process is pretty lax and there is no system in place to follow-up or track these folks. Victims should absolutely be taken care of. But we need to insure that we're protecting and caring for victims and not perpetrators.

What's really a shame is that many of these folks likely wouldn't even be refugees if we had been more decisive on Syria when all of this started. Setting up a safe zone in Syria was the least we could have done to prevent this.

 
Seems logistically problematic. Let Europe take care of their neighbors. We take in enough refugees as is from Mexico and Central America.
Total number of refugees admitted to the United States from Latin America for FY 13, the most recent available data: 4,439.

Total number of refugees admitted from all countries for the year: 69,926. There are 49 cities in Texas alone with populations greater than the number of refugees we admit in a year.

I think we can handle a few more.

 
I don't have a problem with taking them in. I DO have a problem with the way our screening process seems to currently work. From my understanding, the actual screening process is pretty lax and there is no system in place to follow-up or track these folks. Victims should absolutely be taken care of. But we need to insure that we're protecting and caring for victims and not perpetrators.

What's really a shame is that many of these folks likely wouldn't even be refugees if we had been more decisive on Syria when all of this started. Setting up a safe zone in Syria was the least we could have done to prevent this.
Where are you getting the information that our vetting process is weak?
 
I don't have a problem with taking them in. I DO have a problem with the way our screening process seems to currently work. From my understanding, the actual screening process is pretty lax and there is no system in place to follow-up or track these folks. Victims should absolutely be taken care of. But we need to insure that we're protecting and caring for victims and not perpetrators.

What's really a shame is that many of these folks likely wouldn't even be refugees if we had been more decisive on Syria when all of this started. Setting up a safe zone in Syria was the least we could have done to prevent this.
Our screening process for refugees is pretty intensive. The DoS, DHS, FBI, UN, and other agencies all are apart of the screening process. Yes, it may not be a bad idea to keep an eye on them for a period of time after they have been here. But, it's not like Syrians are knocking at the door to come in and we're just handing them a welcome package.

 
I don't have a problem with taking them in. I DO have a problem with the way our screening process seems to currently work. From my understanding, the actual screening process is pretty lax and there is no system in place to follow-up or track these folks. Victims should absolutely be taken care of. But we need to insure that we're protecting and caring for victims and not perpetrators.

What's really a shame is that many of these folks likely wouldn't even be refugees if we had been more decisive on Syria when all of this started. Setting up a safe zone in Syria was the least we could have done to prevent this.
Where are you getting the information that our vetting process is weak?
It's all over Brietbart.

 
I don't have a problem with taking them in. I DO have a problem with the way our screening process seems to currently work. From my understanding, the actual screening process is pretty lax and there is no system in place to follow-up or track these folks. Victims should absolutely be taken care of. But we need to insure that we're protecting and caring for victims and not perpetrators.

What's really a shame is that many of these folks likely wouldn't even be refugees if we had been more decisive on Syria when all of this started. Setting up a safe zone in Syria was the least we could have done to prevent this.
On just that point alone - we should probably be taking in more. It's pretty hypocritical of us to go over to the ME, stir up all this ####, and then turn our backs on the folks fleeing from the choas we helped to create.

I had been on the fence for a while on for/against, but as I digest more and more, I think we have a duty to take some of these folks in.

 
I don't have a problem with taking them in. I DO have a problem with the way our screening process seems to currently work. From my understanding, the actual screening process is pretty lax and there is no system in place to follow-up or track these folks. Victims should absolutely be taken care of. But we need to insure that we're protecting and caring for victims and not perpetrators.

What's really a shame is that many of these folks likely wouldn't even be refugees if we had been more decisive on Syria when all of this started. Setting up a safe zone in Syria was the least we could have done to prevent this.
Our screening process for refugees is pretty intensive. The DoS, DHS, FBI, UN, and other agencies all are apart of the screening process. Yes, it may not be a bad idea to keep an eye on them for a period of time after they have been here. But, it's not like Syrians are knocking at the door to come in and we're just handing them a welcome package.
Just this snippet from your first link is pretty interesting:

After you register with UNHCR, they get referred to resettlement to a particular country. So far I think they've referred about 17, 18, maybe 19,000 Syrians to the United States. Fewer than 2,000 had arrived by the end of the last fiscal year. It takes a long time to process people. We put them through so many layers of security; every refugee has to have a face-to-face interview with the Department of Homeland Security. They're compared against three or four security databases. They have to tell their story again and again. And then if the United States has, in its allocation for refugee resettlement, a place for them, they go through their medical history, their travel arrangements. This process usually takes 18 to 24 months to complete.
 
I don't have a problem with taking them in. I DO have a problem with the way our screening process seems to currently work. From my understanding, the actual screening process is pretty lax and there is no system in place to follow-up or track these folks. Victims should absolutely be taken care of. But we need to insure that we're protecting and caring for victims and not perpetrators.

What's really a shame is that many of these folks likely wouldn't even be refugees if we had been more decisive on Syria when all of this started. Setting up a safe zone in Syria was the least we could have done to prevent this.
Our screening process for refugees is pretty intensive. The DoS, DHS, FBI, UN, and other agencies all are apart of the screening process. Yes, it may not be a bad idea to keep an eye on them for a period of time after they have been here. But, it's not like Syrians are knocking at the door to come in and we're just handing them a welcome package.
Always reminds me of the screening process Tony Montana went through (warning, some salty language): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZgE_sUrXFY

 
I'm not for it, but it has to be done. We helped make the mess, we help clean it up. It's a ##### position to take where you're all for sticking your nose in, helping make the mess, but then backtrack when it gets messy and you don't want to help clean up :thumbdown:

 
I say we take in the women and three year old children. As for young males of a potential age to have been radicalized, with them we move with far greater caution.

What I am woefully ignorant about is their fate and status once they are here. Do they automatically gain citizenship? Do the children born here have citizenship, as I would expect? Once one family member is in the door do we have a policy about uniting families so that we will let others come join them? What is the limit on familial relationship for restoring families, what degree of kinship? I do not currently understand the parameters of exactly what we are talking about here. I presume others do and may enlighten me. What is not enlightening is the fear and xenophobia I have heard from the political right, nor the snotty patronizing from Obama. This is not a time for trying to score political points. This should not be a wedge issue or a chance to feed read meat to a political base. This is a time for thoughtful policy. Unfortunately we Americans are not particularly amenable to that, and in particular we are not amenable to setting aside politics during a campaign season, and it is always a campaign season.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How many refugees is Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Australia, New Zealand taking on? Everybody doing their share?

 
I don't have a problem with taking them in. I DO have a problem with the way our screening process seems to currently work. From my understanding, the actual screening process is pretty lax and there is no system in place to follow-up or track these folks. Victims should absolutely be taken care of. But we need to insure that we're protecting and caring for victims and not perpetrators.

What's really a shame is that many of these folks likely wouldn't even be refugees if we had been more decisive on Syria when all of this started. Setting up a safe zone in Syria was the least we could have done to prevent this.
Where are you getting the information that our vetting process is weak?
It's all over Brietbart.
That must also be the source for the notion that most of the refugees are young men, something I've heard repeated a lot in the last couple days. Nailed it, of course.

 
I say we take in the women and three year old children. As for young males of a potential age to have been radicalized, with them we move with far greater caution.

What I am woefully ignorant about is their fate and status once they are here. Do they automatically gain citizenship? So the children born here have citizenship, as I would expect? Once one family member is in the door do we have a policy about uniting families so that we will let others come join them? What is the limit on familial relationship for restoring families, what degree of kinship? I do not currently understand the parameters of exactly what we are talking about here. I presume others do and may enlighten me. What is not enlightening is the fear and xenophobia I have heard from the political right, nor the snotty patronizing from Obama. This is not a time for trying to score political points. this should not be a wedge issue or a chance to feed read meat to a political base. This is a time for thoughtful policy. Unfortunately we Americans are not particularly amenable to that, and in particular we are not amenable to setting aside politics during a campaign season, and it is always a campaign season.
You already asked more questions than every Republican Governor and every Republican candidate for President.

 
No thanks. Too risky when you know terrorists will be infiltrating and even high ranking intelligence officials question if we can even properly screen them. American lives are top priority.

 
send them to Russia or a neighboring country. not our problem

eventually this country will be 51%+ illegals
if it isn't already :bag:

 
No thanks. Too risky when you know terrorists will be infiltrating and even high ranking intelligence officials question if we can even properly screen them. American lives are top priority.
This is also true of non-refugee immigrants. And student visas. Hell, any visa at all. No reason a terrorist couldn't pose as someone else and obtain a business or tourism visa. Perhaps we just shut our borders completely. Nobody goes in or out without a US passport. After all, American lives are top priority.

 
Not "never" but not right now. And I'm pretty shocked the "for" is winning here. If one of these refugees goes full Paris over here it's going to be very bad for the politicians beating their chests right now about wanting more refugees.

 
Wasn't it found that those involved in the Paris attacks weren't Syrian refugees? Or am I way off on that?

 
That intensive screening process managed to let in potentially dozens of al-Queda in Iraq bomb builders as refugees in 2013. That screening process let in terrorist plotters Dritan, Shain, and Eljvir Duka, the Tsarnaev brothers (despite warnings), the Blind Sheik,Ramzi Yousef,Mir Aimal Kansi, Nuradin Abdi, and oh yeah, the 9/11 hijackers.

And let's not forget that our current administration relaxed the rules for refugees last year and now permit entry to those who admit to providing "limited material support" to terror groups.

And I'm assuming this same UN vetting part of the process is the same one that vetted the Syrian refugee responsible for taking part in the Paris attacks Friday. Pardon me for not putting a whole lot of trust in them.

 
No thanks. Too risky when you know terrorists will be infiltrating and even high ranking intelligence officials question if we can even properly screen them. American lives are top priority.
This is also true of non-refugee immigrants. And student visas. Hell, any visa at all. No reason a terrorist couldn't pose as someone else and obtain a business or tourism visa. Perhaps we just shut our borders completely. Nobody goes in or out without a US passport. After all, American lives are top priority.
You're just not following or acknowledging the issues with screening this group. It's not comparable to standard immigrant screening.

 
As long as they are not a bunch of 18-30 year-old single males, they are low risk. But I voted no because my assumption until proven otherwise is the screening process is to PC to be effective. If you want to believe in rainbows and unicorns, by all means open the floodgates.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No thanks. Too risky when you know terrorists will be infiltrating and even high ranking intelligence officials question if we can even properly screen them. American lives are top priority.
This is also true of non-refugee immigrants. And student visas. Hell, any visa at all. No reason a terrorist couldn't pose as someone else and obtain a business or tourism visa. Perhaps we just shut our borders completely. Nobody goes in or out without a US passport. After all, American lives are top priority.
You're just not following or acknowledging the issues with screening this group. It's not comparable to standard immigrant screening.
Since most of the terrorists have been EU residents, what are the unique issues with screening Syrian refugees?

 
750,000 refugees admitted to the United States since September 2001. None have committed a terrorist act on US soil.

Also, it still isn't even confirmed that the terrorist in Paris definitely posed as a refugee.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not "never" but not right now. And I'm pretty shocked the "for" is winning here. If one of these refugees goes full Paris over here it's going to be very bad for the politicians beating their chests right now about wanting more refugees.
You know most of the terrorists who committed the attacks in Paris did not pose as refugees, right? The perpetrators (both triggermen and organizers) were mostly domestic or Belgian nationals. To my knowledge there's only one person who is thought to have snuck in posing as a refugee.

The "blame the refugee program" nonsense is IMO a normal but misguided effort to explain the inexplicable and to feel a sense of control where control is really impossible. We don't want to face the truth that these sorts of things probably can't be prevented entirely, and can be limited only by long-term thinking in foreign policy matters as well as hard work and collaborative efforts by intelligence agencies. So we try to find some small, easily understandable thing we can control and focus on that. This time around its apparently refugee admission, which is unfortunate because we (everyone, not just the US) should prioritize helping refugees, not turning them away.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No thanks. Too risky when you know terrorists will be infiltrating and even high ranking intelligence officials question if we can even properly screen them. American lives are top priority.
This is also true of non-refugee immigrants. And student visas. Hell, any visa at all. No reason a terrorist couldn't pose as someone else and obtain a business or tourism visa. Perhaps we just shut our borders completely. Nobody goes in or out without a US passport. After all, American lives are top priority.
You're just not following or acknowledging the issues with screening this group. It's not comparable to standard immigrant screening.
Since most of the terrorists have been EU residents, what are the unique issues with screening Syrian refugees?
Most? One is enough man. You actually just typed that?

 
RBM, are you for completely closing the borders at the moment? Because just one student visa, etc.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not "never" but not right now. And I'm pretty shocked the "for" is winning here. If one of these refugees goes full Paris over here it's going to be very bad for the politicians beating their chests right now about wanting more refugees.
You know most of the terrorists who committed the attacks in Paris did not pose as refugees, right? The perpetrators (both triggermen and organizers) were mostly domestic or Belgian nationals. To my knowledge there's only one person who is thought to have snuck in posing as a refugee.

The "blame the refugee program" nonsense is IMO a normal but misguided effort to explain the inexplicable and to feel a sense of control where control is really impossible. We don't want to face the truth that these sorts of things probably can't be prevented entirely, and can be limited only by long-term thinking in foreign policy matters as well as hard work and collaborative efforts by intelligence agencies. So we try to find some small, easily understandable thing we can control and focus on that. This time around its apparently refugee admission, which is unfortunate because we (everyone, not just the US) should prioritize helping refugees, not turning them away.
Like closing "gun Show Loopholes" after school shootings?

 
Not "never" but not right now. And I'm pretty shocked the "for" is winning here. If one of these refugees goes full Paris over here it's going to be very bad for the politicians beating their chests right now about wanting more refugees.
You know most of the terrorists who committed the attacks in Paris did not pose as refugees, right? The perpetrators (both triggermen and organizers) were mostly domestic or Belgian nationals. To my knowledge there's only one person who is thought to have snuck in posing as a refugee.

The "blame the refugee program" nonsense is IMO a normal but misguided effort to explain the inexplicable and to feel a sense of control where control is really impossible. We don't want to face the truth that these sorts of things probably can't be prevented entirely, and can be limited only by long-term thinking in foreign policy matters as well as hard work and collaborative efforts by intelligence agencies. So we try to find some small, easily understandable thing we can control and focus on that. This time around its apparently refugee admission, which is unfortunate because we (everyone, not just the US) should prioritize helping refugees, not turning them away.
Like closing "gun Show Loopholes" after school shootings?
No! We can't do something rash like that!

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top