Are you for or against taking in Syrian refugees? (3 Viewers)

[Ditkaless Wonders]

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?

Wait, my apologies, that is a needless sidetrack in an otherwise interesting discussion. I agree with your main point. Please disregard my ill-considered sidetrack.

 

[TobiasFunke]

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?

You're looking at it exactly backwards. The point is that the attacks happen and lives are lost with or without the possible Syrian refugee's involvement.

 

[TobiasFunke]

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?

Yup, pretty solid analogy.

ETA: The difference obviously being that the harm done by turning back refugees is far greater than the harm done by forcing people to go to retail stores or sit through waiting periods to buy guns. But the idea is the same- gives us a sense of control to think a small policy tweak can help prevent these things even though deep down most of us know that's not the case at all.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

For. Terrorists can always get into the US if they really want to. No reason to punish legitimate refugees for that.

 

[RBM]

I don’t, obviously, put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives among these refugees, so that’s a huge concern of ours,” Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said at a security industry conference in September, using another name for the Islamic State. He added that the government has “a pretty aggressive program” for screening refugees but that he is less confident about European nations.

FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said.

Although Comey said the process has since “improved dramatically,” Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. “If we don’t know much about somebody, there won’t be anything in our data,” he said. “I can’t sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that there’s no risk associated with this.”

 

[The General]

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.

What is the screening process? What are the differences?

Is there not a way we can figure this out?

How many are we actually talking about getting?

 

[pantagrapher]

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?

You're looking at it exactly backwards. The point is that the attacks happen and lives are lost with or without the possible Syrian refugee's involvement.

Seriously. RBM with some epic point-missing there.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

For. Terrorists can always get into the US if they really want to. No reason to punish legitimate refugees for that.

But the process for admitting a mass of refugees is different than a more "traditional" day-to-day immigration management isn't it?

 

[hagmania]

What frustrates me the most is that if we do turn away a potential terrorist posing as a refugee, he might just go elsewhere and commit a heinous act against humanity.

The problem is not the refugees, blaming them is ignorant and insensitive.

 

[RBM]

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?

You're looking at it exactly backwards. The point is that the attacks happen and lives are lost with or without the possible Syrian refugee's involvement.

Seriously. RBM with some epic point-missing there.

So since we probably have some here already, what's a few more? Gotcha. Smart stuff man.

 

[The General]

I don’t, obviously, put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives among these refugees, so that’s a huge concern of ours,” Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said at a security industry conference in September, using another name for the Islamic State. He added that the government has “a pretty aggressive program” for screening refugees but that he is less confident about European nations.

FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said.

Although Comey said the process has since “improved dramatically,” Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. “If we don’t know much about somebody, there won’t be anything in our data,” he said. “I can’t sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that there’s no risk associated with this.”

Can we get the whole article here? Would like to read.

 

[Osaurus]

For. Terrorists can always get into the US if they really want to. No reason to punish legitimate refugees for that.

An error occurred

You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day

 

[urbanhack]

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?

You're looking at it exactly backwards. The point is that the attacks happen and lives are lost with or without the possible Syrian refugee's involvement.

Seriously. RBM with some epic point-missing there.

So since we probably have some here already, what's a few more? Gotcha. Smart stuff man.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/21/us/where-syrian-refugees-are-in-the-united-states.html

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Against, but was against prior to terrorist acts. My complaint is more about economics. I'm sure they will all arrive and immediately find jobs and won't need any financial government assistance.

 

[MattFancy]

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?

You're looking at it exactly backwards. The point is that the attacks happen and lives are lost with or without the possible Syrian refugee's involvement.

Seriously. RBM with some epic point-missing there.

So since we probably have some here already, what's a few more? Gotcha. Smart stuff man.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/21/us/where-syrian-refugees-are-in-the-united-states.html

What I would love to hear is what the Governors of the states that do not want to accept more refugees plan to do about the ones that are already there?

 

[pantagrapher]

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?

You're looking at it exactly backwards. The point is that the attacks happen and lives are lost with or without the possible Syrian refugee's involvement.

Seriously. RBM with some epic point-missing there.

So since we probably have some here already, what's a few more? Gotcha. Smart stuff man.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

From urbanhack's article

"Refugees trying to reach the United States must apply through the United Nations, and before being accepted, they are screened by the F.B.I. and through databases run by the Defense Department and other federal agencies.

The additional 10,000 Syrian refugees this year would come from 18,000 referrals already submitted by the United Nations. State Department officials said that more than half of them were children."

That makes me feel a LITTLE better about it.

 

[urbanhack]

From urbanhack's article

"Refugees trying to reach the United States must apply through the United Nations, and before being accepted, they are screened by the F.B.I. and through databases run by the Defense Department and other federal agencies.

The additional 10,000 Syrian refugees this year would come from 18,000 referrals already submitted by the United Nations. State Department officials said that more than half of them were children."

That makes me feel a LITTLE better about it.

the process they go through is tougher than any other immigrant or refugee will go through.

 

[timschochet]

Against, but was against prior to terrorist acts.

This doesn't surprise me at all. I would guess that the majority of people who are the strongest against this were against it before last Friday, and are also in favor of a hardline against illegal immigrants, and generally opposed to all immigration.

 

[timschochet]

How many refugees is Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Australia, New Zealand taking on? Everybody doing their share?

I have no idea about most of the countries you listed, but Saudi Arabia has not taken in a single refugee. Nor has any other of our so-called Arab allies. It doesn't change the question of what WE should do, but the Arab states have IMO behaved shamefully about this, just as they have all these years with the Palestinians whom they profess to care about. They won't lift a finger.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Minnesota has had a huge influx of Hmong, Somali, and Bosnian immigration over the last 20 years.

It's worked out pretty well although we have had more ISIS recruits than anyone else (I'm not citing that for use as a reason to deny Syrian immigration.)

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Against, but was against prior to terrorist acts.

This doesn't surprise me at all. I would guess that the majority of people who are the strongest against this were against it before last Friday, and are also in favor of a hardline against illegal immigrants, and generally opposed to all immigration.

No, not opposed to all immigration. If you come over here and you already have a job lined up, I'm more than happy to have you. I just don't like allowing whoever wants to come here and then have them compete with the people who are already trying to find jobs.

 

[E-Z Glider]

It's been entertaining and depressing to read the coverage, hear responses, and read facebook posts ( ) on the subject.

Such a polarizing topic. Everyone wants everything to be so black and white. It does seem pretty hypocritical that the many of the conservative/religious zealots are so against it. My favorite FB quote so far... "You know that Nativity play that you go see at church every year at Christmas? It's about a middle eastern family seeking refuge and shelter. Merry Christmas!"

 

[MattFancy]

Against, but was against prior to terrorist acts.

This doesn't surprise me at all. I would guess that the majority of people who are the strongest against this were against it before last Friday, and are also in favor of a hardline against illegal immigrants, and generally opposed to all immigration.

No, not opposed to all immigration. If you come over here and you already have a job lined up, I'm more than happy to have you. I just don't like allowing whoever wants to come here and then have them compete with the people who are already trying to find jobs.

We're not just allowing whatever Syrians to come here that want to come here though.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Against, but was against prior to terrorist acts.

This doesn't surprise me at all. I would guess that the majority of people who are the strongest against this were against it before last Friday, and are also in favor of a hardline against illegal immigrants, and generally opposed to all immigration.

No, not opposed to all immigration. If you come over here and you already have a job lined up, I'm more than happy to have you. I just don't like allowing whoever wants to come here and then have them compete with the people who are already trying to find jobs.

We're not just allowing whatever Syrians to come here that want to come here though.

No we are inviting them and they will still need government assistance. IMO we have more than enough people living off the dole. Why add to it.

 

[[icon]]

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

Yes.

IMO this is founded in two questions.

SHould we? Of course... in a perfect world we as a nation would feed and shelter all those in need. The reality is that's just not feasable. Every dollar spent on bringing in refugees is one dollar denied Americans in need (like homeless vets). The issue is that, fiscally, we are no longer in a place where we can shoulder this burden ourselves.

What is particularly frustrating is when you see neighboring nations like Saudi Arabia sit on resources like the city of Mina (vacant air conditioned tent city capable of housing 3 Million) that they refuse to open to this problem. Saudi's only contribution is $ to build mosques in Europe. OF COURSE.....

Bottom Line: This isn't a utopian environment. You can tap dance around it and sugar coat it with moral fluff pieces... but we have finite resources. Are you comfortable knowing one Homeless american vet/child starves or struggles for every Syrian refugee we take in?

 

[MattFancy]

Against, but was against prior to terrorist acts.

This doesn't surprise me at all. I would guess that the majority of people who are the strongest against this were against it before last Friday, and are also in favor of a hardline against illegal immigrants, and generally opposed to all immigration.

No, not opposed to all immigration. If you come over here and you already have a job lined up, I'm more than happy to have you. I just don't like allowing whoever wants to come here and then have them compete with the people who are already trying to find jobs.

We're not just allowing whatever Syrians to come here that want to come here though.

No we are inviting them and they will still need government assistance. IMO we have more than enough people living off the dole. Why add to it.

Inviting them in? By putting them through all kinds of various screening and security checks? 19,000 have applied for resettlement here, 2,000 have been granted the chance to come here. A little over 10% is not inviting.

 

[The Commish]

I'm curious what the % is of people who are against the refugees but supported going into Syria. 70% ??

 

[satch]

One of the biggest issues surrounding the next US Presidential election is how to secure our borders to stop the influx of potentially dangerous immigrants. While we figure that out, seems like a great idea to allow 10,000 refugees from the terrorist hub of the world onto our soil. What could possibly go wrong? I mean, surely our vetting process is fool proof, and it's not like a terrorist would pretend to NOT be a terrorist, or falsify documents to fool us, or anything of that nature. Should be fine.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It's been entertaining and depressing to read the coverage, hear responses, and read facebook posts ( ) on the subject.

Such a polarizing topic. Everyone wants everything to be so black and white. It does seem pretty hypocritical that the many of the conservative/religious zealots are so against it. My favorite FB quote so far... "You know that Nativity play that you go see at church every year at Christmas? It's about a middle eastern family seeking refuge and shelter. Merry Christmas!"

Maybe this is all just a long performance piece by the religious right?

Or maybe they're trying to bring about the second coming. "Hey, locking out needy Middle Easterners and forcing them to sleep outdoors on the ground worked last time- let's see if we can recapture some of that old magic."

 

[Bozo]

[icon], on 18 Nov 2015 - 10:59 AM, said:

NetnautX, on 18 Nov 2015 - 09:18 AM, said:Seems logistically problematic. Let Europe take care of their neighbors. We take in enough refugees as is from Mexico and Central America.

Yes.

IMO this is founded in two questions.

SHould we? Of course... in a perfect world we as a nation would feed and shelter all those in need. The reality is that's just not feasable. Every dollar spent on bringing in refugees is one dollar denied Americans in need (like homeless vets). The issue is that, fiscally, we are no longer in a place where we can shoulder this burden ourselves.

What is particularly frustrating is when you see neighboring nations like Saudi Arabia sit on resources like the city of Mina (vacant air conditioned tent city capable of housing 3 Million) that they refuse to open to this problem. Saudi's only contribution is $ to build mosques in Europe. OF COURSE.....

Bottom Line: This isn't a utopian environment. You can tap dance around it and sugar coat it with moral fluff pieces... but we have finite resources. Are you comfortable knowing one Homeless american vet/child starves or struggles for every Syrian refugee we take in?

Need to get our own house in order before taking on more.

 

[urbanhack]

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456395388/paris-attacks-ignite-debate-over-u-s-refugee-policy

 

[B-Deep]

Against, but was against prior to terrorist acts.

This doesn't surprise me at all. I would guess that the majority of people who are the strongest against this were against it before last Friday, and are also in favor of a hardline against illegal immigrants, and generally opposed to all immigration.

No, not opposed to all immigration. If you come over here and you already have a job lined up, I'm more than happy to have you. I just don't like allowing whoever wants to come here and then have them compete with the people who are already trying to find jobs.

We're not just allowing whatever Syrians to come here that want to come here though.

No we are inviting them and they will still need government assistance. IMO we have more than enough people living off the dole. Why add to it.

Assuming this is true:

Because watching people die is wrong

Because we are the wealthiest nation in history and we can afford to help people in times of severe tragedy

Because these refugees are hopeless, and when people lack hope they are prime targets to get recruitted by extremists

lets put it in some solid terms, if you were outside holding your child on a winter night, and arrived at the gates of a mansion. You asked for admitttance to wamr your child and were told no. Your child freezes to death, dies in your arms. If given the chance would you burn that mansion to the ground? Would you seek revenge? That is how we are portrayed. A wealthy nation that hates Muslims trying to steal their oil and crush their religion, heartless and uncaring for those who suffer. I understand that Isis is causing the suffering, but when you have lost hope you'll cling to whatever light is available, even if it is a false one.

I do not know how to break this cycle, but we must try to break this cycle. I am certain that making Syrians and Muslims feel more like the United states does not care if any of them live or die perpetuates the cycle. Isis tells recruits the USA has declared war on Islam. Our response is Cruz trying to introduce a bill into congress that bans Muslim refugees but allows Christian ones. It's like he is writing their playbook for them.

We have to find a way to assist the refugees and protect ourselves. It is not easy, it may not be 100%, but IMO we have to try.

 

[The Ref]

The conclusion I keep coming back to is send in the troups, clear an area, set up a no fly zone and keep the Syrians in Syria.

And when I say "send in the troups" I mean Russia, Europe, Saudis, Iran and only for the purpose of keeping these people safe until we figure out what to do with the Isis problem.

 

[Cjw_55106]

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

eventually this country will be 51%+ illegals

if it isn't already

Admittedly, Im a bit slow. I dont understand the correlation.

 

[MattFancy]

Against, but was against prior to terrorist acts.

This doesn't surprise me at all. I would guess that the majority of people who are the strongest against this were against it before last Friday, and are also in favor of a hardline against illegal immigrants, and generally opposed to all immigration.

No, not opposed to all immigration. If you come over here and you already have a job lined up, I'm more than happy to have you. I just don't like allowing whoever wants to come here and then have them compete with the people who are already trying to find jobs.

We're not just allowing whatever Syrians to come here that want to come here though.

No we are inviting them and they will still need government assistance. IMO we have more than enough people living off the dole. Why add to it.

Assuming this is true:

Because watching people die is wrong

Because we are the wealthiest nation in history and we can afford to help people in times of severe tragedy

Because these refugees are hopeless, and when people lack hope they are prime targets to get recruitted by extremists

lets put it in some solid terms, if you were outside holding your child on a winter night, and arrived at the gates of a mansion. You asked for admitttance to wamr your child and were told no. Your child freezes to death, dies in your arms. If given the chance would you burn that mansion to the ground? Would you seek revenge? That is how we are portrayed. A wealthy nation that hates Muslims trying to steal their oil and crush their religion, heartless and uncaring for those who suffer. I understand that Isis is causing the suffering, but when you have lost hope you'll cling to whatever light is available, even if it is a false one.

I do not know how to break this cycle, but we must try to break this cycle. I am certain that making Syrians and Muslims feel more like the United states does not care if any of them live or die perpetuates the cycle. Isis tells recruits the USA has declared war on Islam. Our response is Cruz trying to introduce a bill into congress that bans Muslim refugees but allows Christian ones. It's like he is writing their playbook for them.

We have to find a way to assist the refugees and protect ourselves. It is not easy, it may not be 100%, but IMO we have to try.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

If they bring 10,000 Syrian refugees to Nebraska and put them all in one place it would be the 17th largest "city" in Nebraska. Hell, the 3rd largest city in Nebraska is 54K.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The conclusion I keep coming back to is send in the troups, clear an area, set up a no fly zone and keep the Syrians in Syria.

And when I say "send in the troups" I mean Russia, Europe, Saudis, Iran and only for the purpose of keeping these people safe until we figure out what to do with the Isis problem.

There's four million Syrian refugees. You're talking about building a city the size of Los Angeles from scratch and then surrounding it with massive security measures.

That sounds a lot more complicated and expensive then expanding and maybe applying additional security measures to the refugee program we already have in place and encouraging our allies to do the same.

 

[Henry Ford]

The conclusion I keep coming back to is send in the troups, clear an area, set up a no fly zone and keep the Syrians in Syria.

And when I say "send in the troups" I mean Russia, Europe, Saudis, Iran and only for the purpose of keeping these people safe until we figure out what to do with the Isis problem.

Shouldn't be hard to build New York City and protect it in the middle of a war zone.

 

[TobiasFunke]

If they bring 10,000 Syrian refugees to Nebraska and put them all in one place it would be the 17th largest "city" in Nebraska. Hell, the 3rd largest city in Nebraska is 54K.

Why would we do that, though? Haven't they been through enough?

 

[Henry Ford]

If they bring 10,000 Syrian refugees to Nebraska and put them all in one place it would be the 17th largest "city" in Nebraska. Hell, the 3rd largest city in Nebraska is 54K.

There are 16 cities in Nebraska?

 

[Christo]

How many refugees is Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Australia, New Zealand taking on? Everybody doing their share?

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:

I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

But only if the ####### Russians, Chinese and Saudis do their share.

 

[moleculo]

I'm most definitely for. There is a non-zero risk of letting in a bad guy. However, I think that rejecting them will lead to even more bad guys on the ground, and will be worse long term.

If these people have no where else to go, they stay in Syria and are brutalized until they are dead or join up with ISIS. Turning away those in need really helps ISIS's recruiting - "The infidel nations have turned their back on you. We are your only source of hope".

further, refugee relocation is not the only door the bad guys have. If they want in, they will find a way. If they pass thru the refugee gates, at the very least we will know who they are and have a shot at surveillance.

All of that neglects the basic human dignity angle. We would not have any moral authority at all if we turn our backs on those in need.

No...all things considered, accepting refugees with open arms is the right thing do to. Rejecting them would be a terrible, terrible blunder.

 

[Osaurus]

If they bring 10,000 Syrian refugees to Nebraska and put them all in one place it would be the 17th largest "city" in Nebraska. Hell, the 3rd largest city in Nebraska is 54K.

There are 16 cities in Nebraska?

I remember 3

 

[Henry Ford]

For. I don't believe that bringing in refugees is significant boost in danger - if they can get in as refugees, they can get in as tourists/using coyotes from Mexico/sneaking across the Canadian border/etc.

 

[moleculo]

Against, but was against prior to terrorist acts.

This doesn't surprise me at all. I would guess that the majority of people who are the strongest against this were against it before last Friday, and are also in favor of a hardline against illegal immigrants, and generally opposed to all immigration.

No, not opposed to all immigration. If you come over here and you already have a job lined up, I'm more than happy to have you. I just don't like allowing whoever wants to come here and then have them compete with the people who are already trying to find jobs.

We're not just allowing whatever Syrians to come here that want to come here though.

No we are inviting them and they will still need government assistance. IMO we have more than enough people living off the dole. Why add to it.

Assuming this is true:

Because watching people die is wrong

Because we are the wealthiest nation in history and we can afford to help people in times of severe tragedy

Because these refugees are hopeless, and when people lack hope they are prime targets to get recruitted by extremists

lets put it in some solid terms, if you were outside holding your child on a winter night, and arrived at the gates of a mansion. You asked for admitttance to wamr your child and were told no. Your child freezes to death, dies in your arms. If given the chance would you burn that mansion to the ground? Would you seek revenge? That is how we are portrayed. A wealthy nation that hates Muslims trying to steal their oil and crush their religion, heartless and uncaring for those who suffer. I understand that Isis is causing the suffering, but when you have lost hope you'll cling to whatever light is available, even if it is a false one.

I do not know how to break this cycle, but we must try to break this cycle. I am certain that making Syrians and Muslims feel more like the United states does not care if any of them live or die perpetuates the cycle. Isis tells recruits the USA has declared war on Islam. Our response is Cruz trying to introduce a bill into congress that bans Muslim refugees but allows Christian ones. It's like he is writing their playbook for them.

We have to find a way to assist the refugees and protect ourselves. It is not easy, it may not be 100%, but IMO we have to try.

this.

 

[Henry Ford]

How many refugees is Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Australia, New Zealand taking on? Everybody doing their share?

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:

I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

But only if the ####### Russians, Chinese and Saudis do their share.

Has a nice ring to it.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Against, but was against prior to terrorist acts.

This doesn't surprise me at all. I would guess that the majority of people who are the strongest against this were against it before last Friday, and are also in favor of a hardline against illegal immigrants, and generally opposed to all immigration.

No, not opposed to all immigration. If you come over here and you already have a job lined up, I'm more than happy to have you. I just don't like allowing whoever wants to come here and then have them compete with the people who are already trying to find jobs.

We're not just allowing whatever Syrians to come here that want to come here though.

No we are inviting them and they will still need government assistance. IMO we have more than enough people living off the dole. Why add to it.

Assuming this is true:

Because watching people die is wrong

Because we are the wealthiest nation in history and we can afford to help people in times of severe tragedy

Because these refugees are hopeless, and when people lack hope they are prime targets to get recruitted by extremists

lets put it in some solid terms, if you were outside holding your child on a winter night, and arrived at the gates of a mansion. You asked for admitttance to wamr your child and were told no. Your child freezes to death, dies in your arms. If given the chance would you burn that mansion to the ground? Would you seek revenge? That is how we are portrayed. A wealthy nation that hates Muslims trying to steal their oil and crush their religion, heartless and uncaring for those who suffer. I understand that Isis is causing the suffering, but when you have lost hope you'll cling to whatever light is available, even if it is a false one.

I do not know how to break this cycle, but we must try to break this cycle. I am certain that making Syrians and Muslims feel more like the United states does not care if any of them live or die perpetuates the cycle. Isis tells recruits the USA has declared war on Islam. Our response is Cruz trying to introduce a bill into congress that bans Muslim refugees but allows Christian ones. It's like he is writing their playbook for them.

We have to find a way to assist the refugees and protect ourselves. It is not easy, it may not be 100%, but IMO we have to try.

What you gonna call that pretty baby?

You must call it one thing or another

This one parted water, that one walked upon

Perhaps I'll call this child the Rose of Sharon

What's to be the ground that child walks upon?

Will it be solid rock or shifting sand?

Think I'll set him down upon free highways

Think I'll bring him up to walk the land

Think I'll call him just another stranger

Think I'll call him knocking at your door

Asking you for shelter from the lightning

And space to rest upon your kitchen floor

Will he be a man of constant sorrow?

Born to beg a coat against the storm?

Will he want a house with marble pillars?

And fire for the night to keep him warm?

And if a stranger comes for troubled shelter

With hounds and torchlight on his midnight trail

Will he find a moment free of madness there?

And ears that still can hear to tell his tale?

Then you could call that child the Rock of Ages

You could call him raft upon the flood

He has been the face of many races

He has been the palace in the blood

If that child should end up in a prison

As sometimes chance will deal to honest men

One room is like another to a stranger

Any man of worth will be his friend

Now what you gonna call that pretty baby?

You must call it one thing or another

Think I'll call him flame out on the water

Think I'll call him shore between the sea

Drop him on the rocks and he will shatter

Cut him with a blade and he will bleed

Plant him in the ground, he will rise up again

Sometimes as a flower, sometimes a reed

What you gonna call that pretty baby?

You must call him one thing or another

This one parted water, that one walked upon

Perhaps I'll call this child a Rose of Sharon

--Robert Hunter (From memory so forgive any inaccuracies in recall)

 

[Dickies]

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.

If we can't afford the people we have now, then we surely cannot afford another war.

I am all for accepting the refugees.

 

[CurlyNight]

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.

Spot on. While we were in this country as US citizens before the Iranian revolution, we went to Iran and were caught there during the revolution. Those extremists might as well have been called terrorists for we lived in fear all the time with stupid curfews and rules. I've seen people shot outside my bedroom window for no reason, just walking down the street peacefully after curfew. Syrians have it way worse than we did. Vast majority seeking refuge are women, children and men who just want to be given a chance at a 'normal' life. That should be a right for all around the world, not just us in the US.

And isn't there one governor, Jendal, who was a refugee himself and is saying no to opening his state to them??? Wow. Ironically he just pulled out of the 2016 GOP race. Wonder why.