[QUOTE=The Party Spy;49128767]Is this not exactly what ISIS wants?[/QUOTE]
If you don't let refugees in or be really nice to them they'll become terrorists.
My Syrian neighbors lost the house they just built in Syria to the war, they're trying to get my family to convince our congressman to accept their family (who are Christian) into this country so they do not have to die at the hands of those assholes. I feel like the people denying refugees do not see the big picture.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49129377]My Syrian neighbors lost the house they just built in Syria to the war, they're trying to get my family to convince our congressman to accept their family (who are Christian) into this country so they do not have to die at the hands of those assholes. I feel like the people denying refugees do not see the big picture.[/QUOTE]
It's not that they're being shithead racists. Don't forget, only three days ago terrorists attacked Paris, and only recently was there evidence that one or more of the attackers snuck in with the huge swathes of refugees escaping from Syria.
All these certain states are doing, is locking themselves temporarily from refugees until a better and more secure way to screen them is devised and implemented. All they're doing is trying to keep another event like Paris from happening within the United States.
[editline]16th November 2015[/editline]
I am not saying your relatives don't deserve to come into this great country. These states and their Governors aren't saying that either. They're just trying to, because of recent events, keep themselves and their citizens safe for a while.
[QUOTE=The Party Spy;49128767]Is this not exactly what ISIS wants?[/QUOTE]
You're fucked either way. May as well mitigate damage in any way we can.
[QUOTE=TheJoker;49128771]PA seems to be perfectly ok with it tho.[/QUOTE]
Pennsylvania, especially the Philly area, have been getting Middle Eastern and African people for a decade or more now.
The hospital in my immediate area mainly performs births and such on immigrants as the white population is aging.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49129377]My Syrian neighbors lost the house they just built in Syria to the war, they're trying to get my family to convince our congressman to accept their family (who are Christian) into this country so they do not have to die at the hands of those assholes. I feel like the people denying refugees do not see the big picture.[/QUOTE]
Actually, the big picture is more of how the refugee status has been abused, not the other way around.
But this is arguing semantics.
What, are refugees from Syria somehow going all across the world enough for multiple states to reject them [I]specifically[/I] in knee-jerk to the terrorist attack?
Okay, a few posts up clarified that there's reason to believe more terrorists are specifically hiding amongst them, but still, that's a bit over-relatively specific
[QUOTE=Vasili;49129348]If you don't let refugees in or be really nice to them they'll become terrorists.[/QUOTE]
I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but if that really was true (for the vast majority of refugees, I at least hope, is isn't) we should be shooting the refugees then because, if that's all it takes to turn someone into a terrorist, then they are already too forgone.
[editline]17th November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=jamzzster;49128850]Irrelevant? That is awful to say about these people who have lost their homes and are escaping from the terror day in day out. They're more than welcome here in my opinion, you can keep yours. What we need is more checks and continuous intelligence of those entering. They're just as afraid of ISIS as we are.[/QUOTE]
It's pretty clear the person you're replying to is saying "what ISIS want is irrelevant".
As to your other point. Wanting to escape from terror alone isn't a good indication of if they will be able to truly become a member of western society. They, like any sane person, don't want to live in constant fear of being shot or bombed, but they may still have many cultural views that simply aren't compatible with the west.
If an immigrant holds views completely contrary to those of the average western and is unwilling to, if not change those views outright, at least accept that western society does have these separate views and they will no change, then they can fuck off and find a country where society shares their backwards views so they can feel at home, instead of attempting to drive the western countries they go to backwards.
And to be clear, I'm referring to views that impact others. So, for example, wanting everyone to follow sharia law. Everyone should be free to believe and do whatever they want so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
Not to mention, the small number of extremists who use this as an easier way to slip into the country. They too, can also fuck off.
Here's the problem though; even if you agree with what I said (perhaps you don't), how exactly do countries screen out these undesirable refugees? Some of them in Europe seem to be making it easy by acting like entitled brats, but what of the rest?
[editline]17th November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mooe94;49128857]I think if Daesh wants to get into the country, they will get in regardless even if you stop the borders for Syrian refugees[/QUOTE]
Monitoring several hundred thousand new people (refugees) is much harder than monitoring the trickle of people who would otherwise get in.
honestly with the kind of people we got in Lynn and Dorchester and Roxbury i'd be pretty okay with putting refugees somewhere in a tenement outside of Boston. anything's better than a warzone
I'm surprised nobody brought up the fact that someone stole weapons from a[I] freaking army reserve armory[/I] in Worcester, within the same week as the Paris attacks. I'd say people in Massachusetts have plenty reason to be worried.
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CT9-1b8WoAAfYWt.jpg[/img]
Found this comparison by the Washington Post sort of interesting. It's important to make the distinction between refugees and terrorists - people fleeing ISIS are not the type to join ISIS in terrorist attacks. With proper screening, I don't see why we shouldn't let them in. There are plenty of areas where accepting refugees has been perfectly successful - you just need a strong social network and non-profits to help integrate the population into the community as quickly and as cleanly as possible.
Hell, I live near Minneapolis/St. Paul, and even with a huge population of Somali refugees (95,000+), and a constant fearmongering about people leaving to join ISIS, we haven't had any attacks at all and the fairly-integrated Muslim Somali population is taking huge steps to track down and report ISIS recruiters.
Find areas with some already-existing westernized Syrian roots and use those areas as focus spots for accepting Syrian refugees. We did that in Minnesota and it's worked fairly well with the right social nets. Having naturalized Syrians with certain western values aid in the integration of fleeing Syrian refugees could be seriously effective. Isolating them and pumping them away to camps, like Europe has been doing in certain areas, is incredibly damaging and leads to senses of isolation and increases support for extremism.
Combine naturalized Syrian communities with the incoming Syrian refugees and you'll get some good results. It worked in Minnesota with Hmong and Somali populations, for the most part. Adopt a slightly stricter screening process for incoming refugees and you'll have next to no issues.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49136761]
Hell, I live near Minneapolis/St. Paul, and even with a huge population of Somali refugees (95,000+), and a constant fearmongering about people leaving to join ISIS, we haven't had any attacks at all and the fairly-integrated Muslim Somali population is taking huge steps to track down and report ISIS recruiters.[/QUOTE]
For clarification: Minnesota has 21k Somalian refugees, not 95,000-plus.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49136761][img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CT9-1b8WoAAfYWt.jpg[/img]
Found this comparison by the Washington Post sort of interesting. It's important to make the distinction between refugees and terrorists - people fleeing ISIS are not the type to join ISIS in terrorist attacks. With proper screening, I don't see why we shouldn't let them in. There are plenty of areas where accepting refugees has been perfectly successful - you just need a strong social network and non-profits to help integrate the population into the community as quickly and as cleanly as possible.
Hell, I live near Minneapolis/St. Paul, and even with a huge population of Somali refugees (95,000+), and a constant fearmongering about people leaving to join ISIS, we haven't had any attacks at all and the fairly-integrated Muslim Somali population is taking huge steps to track down and report ISIS recruiters.
Find areas with some already-existing westernized Syrian roots and use those areas as focus spots for accepting Syrian refugees. We did that in Minnesota and it's worked fairly well with the right social nets. Having naturalized Syrians with certain western values aid in the integration of fleeing Syrian refugees could be seriously effective. Isolating them and pumping them away to camps, like Europe has been doing in certain areas, is incredibly damaging and leads to senses of isolation and increases support for extremism.
Combine naturalized Syrian communities with the incoming Syrian refugees and you'll get some good results. It worked in Minnesota with Hmong and Somali populations, for the most part. Adopt a slightly stricter screening process for incoming refugees and you'll have next to no issues.[/QUOTE]
To be fair that was America in one of the highest points of being a isolationist country.
We should not be taking in Syrians until screening procedures are not shit. Too many attacks where a individual was on some FBI/intelligence watch list and turned out they were ready to attack.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49137153]For clarification: Minnesota has 21k Somalian refugees, not 95,000-plus.[/QUOTE]
Whoops, my mistake, accidentally put all Somali immigrants in the US just in MN. They have a sizable portion and there aren't many issues at all - other than racism from the other side.
[URL="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/11/16/3722628/no-state-governors-cant-refuse-to-accept-syrian-refugees/"]They can't actually do this [/URL]
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49128619]People have reason to be concerned considering that seems to be how they got into France.[/QUOTE]
so the solution is to generalise them all as being "potential ISIS members" and tell them to go somewhere else
brilliant
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49137623]so the solution is to generalise them all as being "potential ISIS members" and tell them to go somewhere else
brilliant[/QUOTE]
No one has said this. Do you honestly not understand the argument or are you purposefully strawmanning?
[QUOTE=sgman91;49137644]No one has said this. Do you honestly not understand the argument or are you purposefully strawmanning?[/QUOTE]
There's a lot more security checks that go into place because these refugees will be coming to the US via plane unlike crossing the border without needing to undergo any checks
That's one argument why the US, Canada, Australia and NZ should accept more refugee's because you've got an extra layer of security
You'll probably a tiny few who are bad eggs but to think that they could be all potential ISIS members is silly in itself, we shouldn't halt the refugee intake because of Paris, because that's exactly what ISIS wants the west to do
More we vilify innocent Muslims -> likelihood in them finding comfort with ISIS's teachings -> radicalisation
I don't think we should categorically deny refugees, but I think right now, until our vetting process is deemed safe, we should put a stay on it.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49137652]to think that they could be all potential ISIS members is silly in itself[/QUOTE]
Saying this again doesn't make it relevant. No one is making that argument.
[QUOTE]we shouldn't halt the refugee intake because of Paris, because that's exactly what ISIS wants the west to do[/QUOTE]
I highly doubt they want the US to take the only real inlet for them to get terrorists in the US away from them. FP really seems to intimately know what ISIS wants all of sudden. You want to provide some evidence that they want the US to not take refugees?
[QUOTE]More we vilify innocent Muslims -> likelihood in them finding comfort with ISIS's teachings -> radicalisation[/QUOTE]
Again, no one is arguing that all refugees are terrorists or even likely terrorists.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49137652]There's a lot more security checks that go into place because these refugees will be coming to the US via plane unlike crossing the border without needing to undergo any checks
That's one argument why the US, Canada, Australia and NZ should accept more refugee's because you've got an extra layer of security
You'll probably a tiny few who are bad eggs but to think that they could be all potential ISIS members is silly in itself, we shouldn't halt the refugee intake because of Paris, because that's exactly what ISIS wants the west to do
More we vilify innocent Muslims -> likelihood in them finding comfort with ISIS's teachings -> radicalisation[/QUOTE]
Well considering the Boston Marathon bombing was done by two people who came from asylum seekers, I think it is perfectly fine to be critical of taking more refugees in. The idealistic scenario of where taking people in will lead to only good things is morally sound, but objectively a terrible idea.
When Dzhohkar, a college student well involved academic life, was integrated with mainstream society, and had a brother on watch list is able to do the crimes they did, it is a clear sign that no one can guarantee that it is safe to do this and for that I wholeheartedly respect Massachusetts decision and that of any other state.
Besides let people who have helped the US through efforts in our campaign integrate first. It is ridiculous that refugees are having to fly planes over to atlantic when they just need a safe haven.
[QUOTE=opaali;49137469][URL="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/11/16/3722628/no-state-governors-cant-refuse-to-accept-syrian-refugees/"]They can't actually do this [/URL][/QUOTE]
Can't believe it took a page until somebody said this.
State governors can throw up roadblocks and make the process more difficult for refugees, but they don't have the power to block them altogether. This is a political move more than anything to put pressure on the administration.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49137644]No one has said this. Do you honestly not understand the argument or are you purposefully strawmanning?[/QUOTE]
No one has said it, but the states imply it (arguably 20+ governors have said it). Suddenly we need more security checks because these refugees are potential ISIS members in the wake of the Paris attack.
Lets not beat around the bush here. Thats what the states are afraid of despite no credible evidence that they should be.
[editline]18th November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tudd;49137703]Well considering the Boston Marathon bombing was done by two people who came from asylum seekers, I think it is perfectly fine to be critical of taking more refugees in. The idealistic scenario of where taking people in will lead to only good things is morally sound, but objectively a terrible idea.
When Dzhohkar, a college student well involved academic life, was integrated with mainstream society, and had a brother on watch list is able to do the crimes they did, it is a clear sign that no one can guarantee that it is safe to do this and for that I wholeheartedly respect Massachusetts decision and that of any other state.
Besides let people who have helped the US through efforts in our campaign integrate first. It is ridiculous that refugees are having to fly planes over to atlantic when they just need a safe haven.[/QUOTE]
Tam came in 2002 and became radicalized [I]within the US[/I], was picked up by Russia as being radical when he visited, but the US did nothing about it. The US ignoring warnings has caused 9/11, Pan Am 103, and the Boston Bombings.
Dzhoh came to the US in 2007 and was influenced by his radicalized brother. Neither of them were "terrorists" until they both were settled in the US.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49137765]No one has said it, but the states imply it (arguably 20+ governors have said it). Suddenly we need more security checks because these refugees are potential ISIS members in the wake of the Paris attack.
Lets not beat around the bush here. Thats what the states are afraid of despite no credible evidence that they should be.[/QUOTE]
No they aren't...? They are in no way generalizing them all as ISIS members. They are speaking out about a real risk evidenced by the attack in Paris. What more evidence can you ask for that a real risk exists?
There's a massive difference between saying, "All the refugees are ISIS members," and "There's a chance that a very small number of the refugees might be ISIS members." The argument being made is the latter, not the former.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49137765]No one has said it, but the states imply it (arguably 20+ governors have said it). Suddenly we need more security checks because these refugees are potential ISIS members in the wake of the Paris attack.
Lets not beat around the bush here. Thats what the states are afraid of despite no credible evidence that they should be.
[editline]18th November 2015[/editline]
Tam came in 2002 and became radicalized [I]within the US[/I], was picked up by Russia as being radical when he visited, but the US did nothing about it. The US ignoring warnings has caused 9/11, Pan Am 103, and the Boston Bombings.
Dzhoh came to the US in 2007 and was influenced by his radicalized brother. Neither of them were "terrorists" until they both were settled in the US.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, so basically your saying that even the best screening might not mean anything thus reaffirming my position.
Nobody is arguing they were terrorists before coming here, were arguing the possibility bringing in people will be a risk. And to evidence from history and current events it is because despite how many fantastic immigrants you bring in, you cannot say there is no risk. I believe people should be able to immigrate here despite their background, but it is a stupid decision until our procedures are reevaluated.
I don't see that big of an issue with this. I mean isn't the point of harboring Refugees just giving them a safe haven so they aren't killed by the ongoing war? Why send them to the complete other side of the planet, thousands of miles away from home where they will be Alienated?
[QUOTE=Destroyox;49138046]I don't see that big of an issue with this. I mean isn't the point of harboring Refugees just giving them a safe haven so they aren't killed by the ongoing war? Why send them to the complete other side of the planet, thousands of miles away from home where they will be Alienated?[/QUOTE]
So countries and leaders can fulfill "were not racist and need brownie points." despite how ridiculous displacing millions of people thousands a miles is logically for "temporary" safe haven just to have ironically further culture conflicts.
[QUOTE=Tudd;49138061]So countries and leaders can fulfill "were not racist and need brownie points." despite how ridiculous displacing millions of people thousands a miles is logically for "temporary" safe haven.[/QUOTE]
I think it's because everyone knows that these are immigrants, not refugees. What is the US going to do after the war? Go collect them all and force them out? Of course not.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49138068]I think it's because everyone knows that these are immigrants, not refugees. What is the US going to do after the war? Go collect them all and force them out? Of course not.[/QUOTE]
Everyone knows it, but the rhetoric is purposely manipulative and my quotations around "temporary" reflect that.
Even if you don't agree with me about my thoughts on why I think this situation is ridiculous because I might be some skeptical right-wing asshole, the future of a stable Syria is slowly going away when you basically have their workforce disappearing. That is irresponsible to do no matter the good intentions.
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-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
lots can change in 100 years
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
