US House Votes to Suspend Syrian Refugee Intake - Polidicks

[QUOTE=soulharvester;49153095]Easy to criticize our political systems from the U.K. innit? Our governments and political systems are nothing alike so please don't act like just rushing social programs into it would fix everything.[/QUOTE] Nothing short of an armed revolution would significantly change the government, honestly. Politicians get cockblocked, the President gets cockblocked, protests get cockblocked, it's not easy to get shit done. It's like pushing against a tidalwave, except in this case you're pushing against old people richer than you could possibly imagine.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49151749]Strange how it's only now we've all suddenly become [I]so interested[/I] in taking care of our poor and our veterans. I mean shit, that could legit be a serious concern for you, I don't know you, but I've been seeing this same sentiment blooming on a huge scale on social media from people who routinely display ignorance or vitriol towards the same subjects they now suddenly want to champion. [I]What about [U]our[/U] poor people? What about our VETERANS?"[/QUOTE] That's a pretty damn large assumption, considering you're dead wrong about that generalization. I've always of been the opinion that the primary focus of nation building and "New School fund drives" etc, should not be abroad but back home. Detroit Michigan, Gary Indiana, etc. No one should try and warp me out of context, either. I didn't say we shouldn't help other countries, but the mass of donation drives I've seen on the TV and the internet [particularly between 2000 and 2010] were focused on different countries. It's not like I'm saying we shouldn't spend the money or time, but is it amoral to want to put time and effort where [I]you as a person[/I] can see it everyday? This is where government and private industry can both intervene, like Oprah or the such, but they haven't. They go for headlines, and Detroit Michigan only makes headlines when it declares bankruptcy or stalls public worker payments. [QUOTE]Why should Germany take in hundreds of thousands, potentially even millions, while the US balks at the idea of a few thousand? Not only are we substantially wealthier, we're several orders of magnitude larger. [/QUOTE] Europe has serious issues stalling the flow of refugees. Italy was fined for attempting to deport refugees. Unless Europe throws the laws strangling its response by the wayside, which will not happen fast due to bureaucracy, the refugees will enter regardless of EU stance. The United States does not have this. It has a massive ocean. The U.S. has the ability to stem the tide like Europe was never able to and engage in proper vetting, but even then its not secure because Syrian documents are being forged with their own official equipment.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;49153095]Easy to criticize our political systems from the U.K. innit?[/QUOTE] Yeah. It kinda is. What's your point? Our political system had us (God knows how much longer thanks to Cameron) in a state where I won't go bankrupt for stubbing my damn toe. Where losing my job isn't the end of the world, just a bit of a inconvience. American exceptionalism gets right up my arse, you're really no different from the other countries taking in refugees. Technically, you're better off than a few of them. Making excuses about "terrorist threats" when your biggest are and will be for a long time domestic threats is stupid.

Our system is intentionally meant to block anything that doesn't have massive support from literally everyone, that's kind of the point.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;49153120]Our system is intentionally meant to block anything that doesn't have massive support from literally everyone, that's kind of the point.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, the American system has a ton of support. Kinda like how if I start making too much money, while on food-stamps, they'll take that benefit away. Even though, with the amount of money I'm making, the cost of food would bring me back down below the poverty line. You're fucking daft if you don't think the system is flawed. It's broken beyond belief.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;49153117]American exceptionalism gets right up my arse, you're really no different from the other countries taking in refugees. Technically, you're better off than a few of them. Making excuses about "terrorist threats" when your biggest are and will be for a long time domestic threats is stupid.[/QUOTE] If domestic threats are our biggest threat that makes me damn fucking proud that my government has been so successful at mitigating all the threats it can deal with while maintaining the kinds of freedoms it has. The government can't prevent domestic threats without infringing on human rights, so until we create an ideal society they're always going to exist. The reason we face so few threats is specifically because our government is so fucking paranoid about shit like this, because it keeps it's citizens safe. I'm not of the stance that the select refugees from your select crisis from a select country have the express privilege of just being dumped in our country when we literally don't do that for ANY of the other people being slaughtered on a daily fucking basis anywhere else. You're just upset because the EU is currently fucking themselves over by taking in way more refugees than they can possibly handle, have fucking fun with that we're not interested, sell your extremism catalysts elsewhere. edit: @kyle I was referring to passing legislation, there's so many ways to block legislation here it's hard to pass literally anything that challenges status quo.

[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;49152425]I think a lot of people have it in their minds that we are going to open the doors like Europe did and let millions of people in. Also it's a good excuse to bash Obama. That's really popular these days. People are still asking "What has Obama done in 8 years???"[/QUOTE] he ain't done nofin in the last 8 years, even though we're not in a recession, he followed through on people's demands to leave iraq, and he is gonna take over the country in 2017 to prevent himself from stepping down

[QUOTE=soulharvester;49153164]If domestic threats are our biggest threat that makes me damn fucking proud that my government has been so successful at mitigating all the threats it can deal with while maintaining the kinds of freedoms it has. The government can't prevent domestic threats without infringing on human rights, so until we create an ideal society they're always going to exist. The reason we face so few threats is specifically because our government is so fucking paranoid about shit like this, because it keeps it's citizens safe. I'm not of the stance that the select refugees from your select crisis from a select country have the express privilege of just being dumped in our country when we literally don't do that for ANY of the other people being slaughtered on a daily fucking basis anywhere else. You're just upset because the EU is currently fucking themselves over by taking in way more refugees than they can possibly handle, have fucking fun with that we're not interested, sell your extremism catalysts elsewhere.[/QUOTE] Agreed. Our system is thorough enough that it could handle 10,000 people, even 20,000. But to open the flood gates is a hilariously bad idea. The only difference between the U.S. and Europe to a terrorist is that it's easier to get across the Mediterranean than the Atlantic.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;49153117]Yeah. It kinda is. What's your point? Our political system had us (God knows how much longer thanks to Cameron) in a state where I won't go bankrupt for stubbing my damn toe. Where losing my job isn't the end of the world, just a bit of a inconvience. American exceptionalism gets right up my arse, you're really no different from the other countries taking in refugees. Technically, you're better off than a few of them. Making excuses about "terrorist threats" when your biggest are and will be for a long time domestic threats is stupid.[/QUOTE] That American exceptionalism comes generally from military people and their spouses so take it and shove it up your arse. There's a lot of people here who see that our system is fucked. Because every state may as well be their own fucking country to really get anything done the federal government needs more power to do anything, but because President Obama needs to sign so many executive orders to just take a shit the right wing will slam on him for using said powers.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;49153095]Easy to criticize our political systems from the U.K. innit? Our governments and political systems are nothing alike so please don't act like just rushing social programs into it would fix everything. Do you have something thoughtful to bring to the debate other than "america take your share! Don't let us jump off this bridge by ourselves!"?[/QUOTE] Most people that are critical of the US policy towards refugees should be damned ashamed of the UK's policy too. One interesting thing to look at would be the amount of people who voted to stop refugees in order to protect the American poor and compare it to those who voted against improving welfare for and spending on veterans. If I recall correctly most republicans came out against that one.

[QUOTE=Vengeful Falcon;49153254]One interesting thing to look at would be the amount of people who voted to stop refugees in order to protect the American poor and compare it to those who voted against improving welfare for and spending on veterans. If I recall correctly most republicans came out against that one.[/QUOTE] edit: I misread your post. Literally no one important is voting to stop refugees to "protect american poor", people who tell you that are making dumb arguments. People ignore the homeless problems here primarily because it's a men's issue, and apparently we're not interested in men's issues in america, I don't want to get into that debate here though. Also, the reason we're cutting down on welfare spending for veterans is because people are demanding we cut down on military spending, which that is a part of. It's one of the few things they can cut that doesn't impact actual military operation, I'd also like to not derail into that further. It's just another example of when you demand budget cuts the first things to go are the ones that benefit the people.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;49153095]Easy to criticize our political systems from the U.K. innit? Our governments and political systems are nothing alike so please don't act like just rushing social programs into it would fix everything. Do you have something thoughtful to bring to the debate other than "america take your share! Don't let us jump off this bridge by ourselves!"?[/QUOTE] So what you're saying is basically "Our system is retarded, please don't criticize it!"? Of course the European systems have problems with the number of refugees, but it's literally hilarious to watch people from the US go "We can't handle any more! Sweden might be taking in 20 times what we are this year, but we [I]really[/I] can't handle it, it's impossible".

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49153565]So what you're saying is basically "Our system is retarded, please don't criticize it!"? Of course the European systems have problems with the number of refugees, but it's literally hilarious to watch people from the US go "We can't handle any more! Sweden might be taking in 20 times what we are this year, but we [I]really[/I] can't handle it, it's impossible".[/QUOTE] It's questionable if Sweden can effectively handle it either, which is sort of the point. Just because Europe's governments is willing to swamp their countries in refugees doesn't mean the US should follow suit. [editline]20th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49151749]Why should Germany take in hundreds of thousands, potentially even millions, while the US balks at the idea of a few thousand? Not only are we substantially wealthier, we're several orders of magnitude larger.[/QUOTE] I don't think many people jointly think the US shouldn't take any refugees and Germany (or the EU in general) should pick up the slack, or vice versa.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49153565]So what you're saying is basically "Our system is retarded, please don't criticize it!"? Of course the European systems have problems with the number of refugees, but it's literally hilarious to watch people from the US go "We can't handle any more! Sweden might be taking in 20 times what we are this year, but we [I]really[/I] can't handle it, it's impossible".[/QUOTE] You're misrepresenting everything I've said and I don't feel like writing 10 paragraphs to re-explain things I've already stated because you didn't follow the context (I was responding to hexpunk telling us that it's our fault that we have a homeless problem, which it is, don't get me wrong, but it's way more complex to change things here than it is in the U.K., in the U.S. there has to be massive political support for something to pass, our system is BUILT to gridlock, it's intentional.) But to summarize, Yeah, you're right in that the U.S. COULD handle nearly as many if not more immigrants than most of the europe, if we wanted too. But we don't want too, because the risks aren't worth it when we haven't even explored (or even talked about) alternative options. The U.S. didn't ask Europe to open their arms to millions of refugees, that was your mistake, not ours. Let us know how it works out for you. I give it less than 5 years before the majority of Europe flips to extreme right. You're forcing your citizens to make a choice between their own safety and those of other country's citizens, how does that normally work out? Instead of inviting hostile cultures to invade our countries I'd rather send western cultures and ideals to theirs, the stance the EU is taking creates more problems instead of solving them.

I don't care if this sounds mean, but I'm not opening my door to someone who might not even take their shoes off or be thankful, metaphorically speaking. [editline]20th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Rumbler;49148908] I think you should shut up for a second here and read into the shit your country is pulling and has pulled worldwide. Suggest reading into how many weapons your country delivers to questionable groups as well.[/QUOTE] you're quoting all of that but aren't providing links I'm not disagreeing or trying to be a smart ass but where is this coming from

[QUOTE=Incoming.;49147645] No country should drag itself down with others for human rights.[/QUOTE] Are you fucking serious? Really? Holy shit.

[QUOTE=draugur;49154006]Are you fucking serious? Really? Holy shit.[/QUOTE] Alrighty then, give me some clear, non hyperbolic reasons for a country to saturate itself, compared to a responsible refugee program. Don't strawman me. edit How is that even a productive reply, I don't get it. Why bother if you're going to act like I'm calling for a second crusade when I've already clearly stated I'm not. i mean holy shit you clipped the other half of the sentence for no reason

[QUOTE=soulharvester;49153767]You're misrepresenting everything I've said and I don't feel like writing 10 paragraphs to re-explain things I've already stated because you didn't follow the context (I was responding to hexpunk telling us that it's our fault that we have a homeless problem, which it is, don't get me wrong, but it's way more complex to change things here than it is in the U.K., in the U.S. there has to be massive political support for something to pass, our system is BUILT to gridlock, it's intentional.) But to summarize, Yeah, you're right in that the U.S. COULD handle nearly as many if not more immigrants than most of the europe, if we wanted too. But we don't want too, because the risks aren't worth it when we haven't even explored (or even talked about) alternative options. [B]The U.S. didn't ask Europe to open their arms to millions of refugees[/B], that was your mistake, not ours. Let us know how it works out for you. I give it less than 5 years before the majority of Europe flips to extreme right. You're forcing your citizens to make a choice between their own safety and those of other country's citizens, how does that normally work out? Instead of inviting hostile cultures to invade our countries I'd rather send western cultures and ideals to theirs, the stance the EU is taking creates more problems instead of solving them.[/QUOTE] Not like there's much to do about it, we aren't even taking in the majority - most of them stay in Jordan or Turkey. Forcing people back to a country in a state of war would basically be a crime in my opinion, so we'll have to take the ones who come here. You kinda have the Atlantic Ocean to prevent this.

All I can say about this whole situation with immigrants in general is that this is what happens when people don't think ahead. When our politicians care nothing about what is actually going on and just want to get to the next election cycle, this is what happens. If instead of wasting our time and resources on trying to support infrastructure for immigration, we spent that on actually improving the countries these people are coming from, then maybe things would be better. But we didn't, and even if we were to reduce or change our immigration numbers we still wouldn't, because we can't think of the the future...

[QUOTE=Incoming.;49154277]i mean holy shit you clipped the other half of the sentence for no reason[/QUOTE] No I didn't, I was addressing a complete sentence. A sentence is a complete thought and statement where the end is signified with a period, exclamation point or question mark. You posted: [QUOTE=Incoming.;49147645] No country should drag itself down with others for human rights. I don't trust the government and its capabilities to handle this well right off the bat.[/QUOTE] That's two complete thoughts. You could have joined them together into one sentence with a semicolon, therefore saying the second statement holds relevance to the first, but they still would have been two complete thoughts and therefore are completely valid and within context in my post. If you can't understand why saying "No country should drag itself down with others for human rights." is a really dumb thing, then I really don't know what to tell you. "Alrighty then, give me some clear, non hyperbolic reasons for a country to saturate itself, compared to a responsible refugee program." * 10,000 refugees isn't saturation * Other countries that have much worse living conditions are doing way more than the United States, which is a country with a greater ability to do things due to having a vast wealth of resources and manpower. If you're worried about a refugee program having an effect on the economy or whatever, maybe you should worry more about the billions wasted on "defense" expenses, bloated defense contracts for example. Because those things do/will/have cost more than a few thousand refugees. *Suspending all intake of refugees isn't a "responsible refugee program" You can't have a "responsible refugee program" if you have no refugee program in operation. *Refugees that can afford to get to America already have some form of money and are probably educated. They're capable of working and integrating into society and therefore minimize drain on the country anyway. * Refugees can be a benefit to a country because of the previous point, winning the hearts and minds of people is how you combat a war of ideology. Telling them to fuck off like they're sub-human filth who don't deserve human [I]rights[/I] because it makes it a little tough for us, and therefore furthering the US. Vs. Them mentality this conflict has, is literally the exact opposite of a winning move.

[QUOTE=draugur;49154553]No I didn't, I was addressing a complete sentence. A sentence is a complete thought and statement where the end is signified with a period, exclamation point or question mark. You posted:[/QUOTE] I hope you realise this is Facepunch, right? It's like picking pins and needles to drag something that far. Can you not put two and two together? You want me to go back and edit that one period? If you can't be bothered to read past one post you don't agree with to find me later say on the same page "I'm not saying we should never take them in, but claiming this is a knee-jerk reaction like I've seen others do, is as much of a knee-jerk reaction as the people you claim are being ridiculous." Which completely blows out of the water the theory that I oppose 10,000 people? I never said 10,000 refugees was saturation, but plans change, and I don't trust the current administration to not increase quotas should they face little or no resistance. No matter what your damn opinion is [because thats what these are at this point] it doesn't give you the right to drag me through the goddamn mud over things that I've already said I'm for. If 10, 15, even 20 of these 10,000 are demented assholes that can translate into a lot of friggin collateral damage for not only innocent Americans, but the damn refugees you're trying to protect. Do you realise the shit a massive attack would stir should it be trailed back to this program? You should be all for skepticism should that translate into tighter protocol. Another issue is one of vetting. How do you vet these people? How do you tell one document is a lie from one that isn't, when both are the same and you're dealing with good liars? How do you expect to keep them out? Can you tell me more than just a blanket statement the administration gives the press? Usually a "We do interviews" or "It's a 50% acceptance rate." is all I hear. All you're doing is bending and warping the situation into some weird "All or nothing" thought free "trust us" response. I thought language existed to transfer information? Correct me if I'm wrong, but suspending the program does not mean defunding it. Republicans [at least moderate ones] are correct in being weary of the situation. Oh, and guess what! [URL="http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/18/house-democrats-syria/75999262/"]The democrats plan to put forward[B] their own version[/B].[/URL] Is that not something considered compromise? I can't predict the future, but if that version passes instead of the republican one [should the democrat's alternative actually materialize] I'd consider that a wonderful example of negotiation. But that's predicting the future, which no one can do with certainty, so don't crucify me should that not come to pass. [QUOTE]*Refugees that can afford to get to America already have some form of money and are probably educated. They're capable of working and integrating into society and therefore minimize drain on the country anyway.[/QUOTE] You make it out to be like they're paying for the whole thing themselves. [QUOTE]Refugees sign a promissory note to repay their airfare once they are established, and they are met at the airport by members of one of nine non-government resettlement agencies contracted by the State Department.[/QUOTE] -[URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-how-the-us-plans-to-welcome-10000-syrian-refugees-2015-9"]Business Insider[/URL] The primary thing that sets this situation apart from the past is [and i'm repeating myself here] there is very limited information available on who is who. If someone has forged the right documents, and is enough of a friggin psychopath, they might just damn well pass. Not once have I called for them to "fuck off". I've seen people go back and forth on this forum on both extremes of the issue, never once stopping to try and have a civil discussion about the situation. I find it pathetic that I have to repeat myself every other post "I don't want to block the refugees permanently, I just want tighter controls." because people are too fixated on lines they don't like, than the bigger picture.

If you're so worried about them being terrorists maybe you should think for a moment about that border with Mexico. How drugs, guns, and people are so easily brought into the US. This isn't pre-911 where there's a reason to enter the country legally, people are profiled now; you can't hide in plain sight when you're the demographic of profiling. If the idea is that an attack is going to be carried out, accepting as many through the legal process where they can be properly documented in some form is superior to one where the state has no idea they existed until it's too late if we're trying to address how to prevent an attack.

[QUOTE=draugur;49155296]If you're so worried about them being terrorists maybe you should think for a moment about that border with Mexico. How drugs, guns, and people are so easily brought into the US. This isn't pre-911 where there's a reason to enter the country legally, people are profiled now; you can't hide in plain sight when you're the demographic of profiling. If the idea is that an attack is going to be carried out, accepting as many through the legal process where they can be properly documented in some form is superior to one where the state has no idea they existed until it's too late if we're trying to address how to prevent an attack.[/QUOTE] I don't see how the latter is relevant because I view this whole thing as political posturing. They can't just suspend a refugee program for 3 years or something without massive outrage, and the idea is to put the Democrats on the defensive. [I]They[/I] have to defend [I]their[/I] plans against opposition. After all, the democrats are already beginning to [URL="http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/18/house-democrats-syria/75999262/"]come up with a response[/URL], from the sounds of it.

Let's clear up a few things: This doesn't suspend the entire refugee program. This would just suspend accepting refugees from Syria until more screening procedures are put in place. The US would still bring in 70,000+ refugees from other areas of the world. Syria isn't the only place that has refugees fleeing.

Okay, and so this helps prevent terrorism how then? Terrorists would probably come with fake documents anyway, they'll just get their fake documents in the flavour of another nation; we're talking about ISIS, the richest terrorist group in the world at the moment. It's a pointless knee-jerk gesture that only hurts legitimate people at this point.

[QUOTE=draugur;49157205]It's a pointless knee-jerk gesture that only hurts legitimate people at this point.[/QUOTE] It's a knee-jerk reaction that is aimed at protecting the people we KNOW are legitimate. How about you bitch about the U.K. only agreeing to take in 20,000 refugees in the following four years than at us, on the other side of the pond. [url=http://www.vox.com/2015/9/3/9252649/syrian-refugee-boy-british-tabloids]The U.K. doesn't give a shit about these refugees[/url] so how about you stop acting all high and mighty and demanding that we just open the flood gates like the rest of Europe you hypocrite.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;49157912]It's a knee-jerk reaction that is aimed at protecting the people we KNOW are legitimate. How about you bitch about the U.K. only agreeing to take in 20,000 refugees in the following four years than at us, on the other side of the pond. [url=http://www.vox.com/2015/9/3/9252649/syrian-refugee-boy-british-tabloids]The U.K. doesn't give a shit about these refugees[/url] so how about you stop acting all high and mighty and demanding that we just open the flood gates like the rest of Europe you hypocrite.[/QUOTE] People don't approve of their governments actions just because they're from the country. We can criticize America and Britain at the same time, most people are capable of thinking about two different things at the same time. Oh, and we'll just judge America by Fox News, that's basically what pointing at our disgusting tabloid press and using it as a representative of the UK is like.

[QUOTE=draugur;49157205]Okay, and so this helps prevent terrorism how then? Terrorists would probably come with fake documents anyway, they'll just get their fake documents in the flavour of another nation; we're talking about ISIS, the richest terrorist group in the world at the moment. It's a pointless knee-jerk gesture that only hurts legitimate people at this point.[/QUOTE] It has become increasingly difficult to fake passports in the last 20 years, mostly thanks to things like computer chips. Syria is a special case because after the army fell in areas of question, all offical documents and possibly the equipment that makes them was seized. This means you can wish people into existence and create fake histories.

[QUOTE=Rumbler;49148803]Everyone in this thread is a filthy dirty xenophobe racist for wanting to divert your economic and social resources to your own people first. You will bow down and accept people with a totally different culture into your country furthering the already problematic integration that has been 'reached' during the last 30-40 years or else you are a no-good dirty filthy racist. You think those lives are worth less than an Americans?! Wow really. Apparently, if you ask BDA.[/QUOTE] Careful now, you'll get banned for voicing an opinion. And as Professor Richard Dawkins and other Athiest scholars once said, Islam is not a race.