The debate "Should western nations be taking in refugees" was started by
November 17, 2015, 7:28 pm.
By the way, DannyknowsItAll is disagreeing with this statement.
62 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 50 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
historybuff posted 10 arguments, PsychDave posted 41 arguments, omactivate posted 9 arguments, lawyer_to_be posted 1 argument, Zachfive posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
AstroSpace posted 8 arguments, DannyknowsItAll posted 3 arguments, bigB posted 20 arguments, TheFalseEnigma posted 1 argument, HRPufnStuf posted 43 arguments, historybuff posted 3 arguments, Wookie posted 5 arguments to the disagreers part.
obaidnb, wmd, invincible_01, omactivate, wmgreen00, AnnaRrei, RationalAtheist, keponefactory, WaspToxin, Swissor, Yuki_Amayane, zoeclare7, historybuff, sowhat, calebtanner, Dina, sherry2503, PsychDave, Zachfive, Sally, AngryBlogger, M and 40 visitors agree.
Mehul_c, bigB, action007man, fredtyu, TheFalseEnigma, MrShine, TheDuke, thekid, DannyknowsItAll, HRPufnStuf, lawyer_to_be, benhawthorne, Wookie, debaterjr, MarlemR, AstroSpace, Dysfunctional, dont_steal_this_username, Mousie, Screwd, AlenaMaisel and 29 visitors disagree.
I would agree with the concern about terrorists sneaking in using the refugee system if it weren't for the time involved. Most of the time it takes 12-24 months and for many if not all of those coming to Canada as part of the new government's pledge to take in 25, 000 refugees have been in the application process for 4 years. This would be a horrible method to infiltrate since it means you have able-bodied fighters sitting around doing nothing for years.
Originally I was concerned that ISIS would simply find men who had been accepted to come to North America and then replace them with their own operatives, thus getting in without the wait. What put my mind at ease on this front is the fact that there is a detailed screening process including the capture of biometric data. The UN takes a scan of the applicants retina upon starting the process, and attaches this to the file. That means that if someone replaced them, they would be discovered long before they got here.
The terrorists who attacked France were not refugees. They were immigrants who had been sent by ISIS into France through its system of immigration. Very few terrorists ever com into a country as refugees and so blocking refugees will block only refugees, not terrorists. In addition, refugees are very well vetted and the entire immigration process can take years before they are cleared for entry.
Accepting refugees improves the Muslim view of the West, reducing the number of Muslims radicalized both domestically and internationally. It also reduces the strain on the nation's being flooded with refugees, albeit only slightly since we would be taking a few thousand at most and millions are migrating. It does not substantially increase the risk of terrorism since the screenings for refugees are as thorough as possible and in most cases have taken years, which makes it a far less efficient method of infiltration than simply booking a plane ticket and claiming to be a tourist.
"And I will gladly cite it. Now what am I citing? This is a thread about refugees. What am I to cite? "
Could you explain where in this post you qualified what you were offering to cite?
I am prepared to move on, but you keep posting multiple responses so I am replying before I get them all. If it is acceptable, let's just get back to the topic.
I have cited the only source I have found, being a speech by Bridget Gabriel.
You seem to have lost track of the fact that you replied to me when I was asking for a reference. That is how you and I started this line of discussion. I asked someone else to provide at least one reference for the "many sites" that agreed with the statistic, and you replied to me. Why would you do so if you were unable to actually answer the question? Why would you offer to provide a reference with no idea what we were discussing, then be outraged that I would ask you for a reference?
Upon showing my use of an unspecified source which never happened.
Do you really want to continue this line of discussion? You claimed that you would gladly provide a reference and asked me what I wanted you to cite. I told you what I wanted, and you began evading. You now feel put upon that I tried to take you up on your offer to provide the reference. I am satisfied that you really don't know so we can move on to something more relevant to the topic at hand, but if you really want to keep discussing why I asked you to provide a reference we can.
And i said for you to quote me, but it was in respect to Wookie's article which was cited . Everyhting I said was there
No you referenced the same source, cite it.
Really so if I reference the article of Wookie I am culpable for others?
No thank you. I asked you to as you had offered. Apparently it was not a genuine offer.
Perhaps in the future you should let others respond to rebuttals of their arguments to avoid arguing from a position of ignorance, and not follow that by offering to cite something you do not have a reference to. I will stop asking you to cite a reference since, in spite of your offer to gladly cite one it is clear that you never had one and never had any real intention of providing one.
I never incorporated the 25 percent into my argument... Why do I have to source something I am not associated with? You cite it.
But you are so caught up in selective minutiae that I cant possibly escape this never-ending cycle of false accusations. If Wookie wanted to refute the source, he could have. But alas, he did not. He attempted to disprove it by stretching his articles statement
So in spite of claiming you would gladly cite a reference, you are unable to do so?
I never vouched for that claim :) I simply found a distortion within Wookie's source.
You still haven't cited the article. I found a quote made by Bridget Gabriel made in 2014 which has been thoroughly debunked. Could you provide the reference you said you gladly would at some point?
You didnt read the article did you... It doesnt deny that 15-25 percent are radicals, but that 25 percent doesnt mean they are violent in implementing Sharia Law
And even then, you are still misinterpreting the quote. The original quote was that 15-25 percent were at RISK of radicalization, not that they were radicals. There is a big difference between those two things.
Because it is 15-25 percent risk factor in the conflicted nations. It is 1 percent in Europe, which means letting them in decreases the number of those at risk of radicalization dramatically.
Does this mean you don't have supporting evidence for the statistic and are still arguing from a position of ignorance, or have you forgotten already that you said you would gladly cite supporting evidence?
If you understood the argument, you would see that Wookie attempted to debunk the 25 percent with an article. I then said the article does not deny the 25 percent, but rather stated how many were radicalized in Europe (1 percent) not the world.
So to be clear, you decided to take up a line of argument not only ignorant of the source being requested, but also of the actual line of argument itself? Each response that is a reply is linked to what it was replying to. You should have at least known what you were deciding to try to argue before taking up the line of debate.
For your convenience, I will sum it up for you. AstroSpace stated that 15-25 percent of all Muslims are radicals. When asked if he had proof, he said yes. He has yet to respond since being asked to provide that proof. Both yourself and BigB agreed with this statistic, and as yet neither of you have shown any evidence that this is anything more than rhetoric said once in 2014 and never actually substantiated. It was also misrepresented since no estimate anywhere has shown anywhere near that many radical Muslims since the original statistic was about how many Muslims were AT RISK of becoming radicalized. You then seem to have forgotten that you had referenced this statistic and had even tried to dismiss information debunking it, still without justifying it in any way.
Do you now have any supporting evidence for the estimate that 15-25% of Muslims are radicals, or will you admit that you, along with others, have misrepresented a heavily flawed piece of statistics to try to further your case?
It says that the 15-25 are radical, but may not take up violent means. It doesnt mean they wont either. So allowing them into the US would decrease their propensity to do harm how?
And I will gladly cite it. Now what am I citing? This thread is about allowing in refugees. What am i to cite?
You decided to take up his argument, that means either you have supporting evidence or are arguing while ignorant. I asked where the statistic came from. Which is it?
Quote me please I will gladly cite it.
first of all it isn't a fact. it is an unsubstantiated claim. secondly if you are going to repeat it as though it is a fact then you must be able to back it up, or don't use it.
Am i required to source another's fact?
That would be a no?
Or affirmation depending on how the first question is answered
As the opposition I would like to ask who you believe the refugees are.
You say many sites support the claim that 15-25% of Muslims are radicals, but failed to actually provide any evidence. Could you cite at least one of these many sites so that we can see how reputable the study was that provided that statistic?
The 15-25% is based on a small sample size in the Muslim countries and does not apply to all Muslims. It also makes it clear that the 15-25% is not radicalised Muslims but the percentage of Muslims who could be radicalised.
In Western countries less than 1% of the Muslim population could be radicalised.
If we allow refugees into our countries we can reduce their chances of radicalisation and therefore it is safer to allow refugees in than to exclude them. It actually makes sense on grounds of security.
Your article only says less than 1 percent in Europe. It doesnt attempt to counter the 15-25 percent
BigB, take a read of this article and then come back please. By the way, this was only my second result on Google, so not sure where you're getting your articles from.
I looked it up and many sites say 15% to 25% of Muslims around the world are radical. A conservative number would be 180 million an aggressive number would be 300 million, almost the population of the US. Over 180 million want to destroy western civilization
my bad. I thought you had said it. yes I meant the lie about 25% of Muslims.
ya your right.
I think historybuff was referring to AstroSpace saying that 25% of Muslims are radicals, then claiming he had proof but failing to actually provide any.
Theres only one statistic and its neither of us haha
@historybuff What statistic did I lie about? I'm confused. did you mean HRPufnStuF's comment.
They dont care about fighting us. They want to destroy every freedom and live in Sharia Law. How are we weakened by decapitating Christians in their own country. How are we weakened by bombing civilians. How are we weakened by their "gorilla warfare". The truth is it is not warfare but terrorism. They want to destroy any belief in freedom there and in the West
We're mperialists huh? We left Western Germany to their own sovereignty. We left Japan to their sovereignty. We left Iraq tp its sovereignty. Where is our empire?
Alex your statistic isn't true. don't throw out such blatant lies. if you have some evidence provide it. America has vast firepower. trying to fight a traditional style of war is pointless. their only choice is to fight a guerilla war. I'm not saying they are right to do so. but from their point of view they have no choice. it is the only way to resist American imperialism. and yes, America is an imperialist power and has been for decades if not centuries.
Ok they are callous.
We are combating terrorists, but they hide amongst the people. They are the cowards, not us, but this is a digression. They specifically target civilians for the purpose of causing terror.
Yep, on both sides. What are you not getting, that what we are doing to millions of people is terrorism, it's just state sponsored terrorism. Most of them are living in fear not just of ISIS, but also us.
As I said read the reports of the state of mind of drone operators and then come back.
War is horrific. There have always been civilian casualties.
Look at the casualty estimates for civilian deaths from drone strikes and tell me we are limiting collateral damage as much as possible.
Great! Would you care to share it?
Do you have any evidence to support that statistic?
25% of Muslims are radicals.
But the reality is we do limit collateral damage. We could level the entire region in days without nuclear weapons if we desired.
So the United States is to blame for European colonists, as we fought for freedom ourselves. Never did we turn and attack Britain or Europe without provocation. Also they have shown they want to bomb us. It is as close as 9/11 or Paris. Are we to blame for terrorists hiding behind civilians. They know if terrorists are in the area, and they know when they are to strike Americans. Its just a tendency noticed within our interaction with the Middle East. Terrorists hide within hospitals and schools in efforts to protect them for they are true cowards. Also the Civil War argument. It was half of our country's economy and therefore was difficult to remove. Therefore, we went to war for the issue since it was that important. Countries like Britian ended slavery because they were colonizing throughout the world amd had the power of India under their control.
ermmmmm... HRPufnStuf, I suggest you polish up on your history in the region, most of the "modern" nations in that are weren't nations until recent history when arbitrary lines were drawn regardless of belief systems or traditional groupings of people. That's half the problem, the "rescue" of Afghanistan from the USSR. The area has been in continuous political termoil for a long time, not just recently.
A large number of the people in the area blame the West for the termoil they have had to endure. That's not to say they want to bomb us, just that they can (and to an extent rightly so) lay the blame at our feet.
What I want to see is a true alternative to the current bombings, which are not, as you claim undertaken with the utmost sensitivity to innocent lives.
Have you seen the recent reports regarding drone operators? How they dehumanise anyone unfortunate enough to find themselves in their sites? The fact they call children fun size terrorists?
As for the most compassionate country in the world, there are a few things I'd like to remind you of... The American Civil War was about slavery, half your population thought they should have a right to slaves. Police barbarity. Mass shootings.
90% of drone strikes don't hit their target. Innocent people killed during drone strikes are classified as enemy targets, unless the individual can prove otherwise after their death.
Do I need to continue? Stop believing the propaganda you're presented with by big media, they all have their own agenda's and it's not your freedom or the truth.
Radicalism gains power based on destabilization. Hussein fell and we were left as the stabilizing power in Iraq. After we gave up this power, ISIS took it. Not to mention compassion is irrelevant to these people. We saved Afghanistan from the USSR, and we were repaid with 9/11
The United States has been shown to carry the greatest concern of international affairs. We care more about the civilians of other nations far more than they do. We are the greatest and most compassionate nation of all. We are a place of resounding freedom, and radical Islam hates this. If they wanted compassion, they would reject Sharia Law. If they wanted understanding, they would not massively execute prisoners based on their beliefs. Muslims within our own country have been radicalized by infiltrating terrorists. Individuals who have never seen the face of war turn against their own nation and bomb its people.
Keep trying to bomb an ideal? The thing with an ideal, the only way to beat it and win is with compassion for those who are innocently caught up in it all, otherwise you only create more people who want that ideal.
After all, the US led coalition in Afghanistan and Iraq with all its military might did such a good job of destroying the radicalised ideal last time around. Some people seem to have extremely short memories!
Even top brass in the US military acknowledge that the drone program creates more terrorists than it kills. You cannot bomb people into not hating you.
you aren't understanding. unleashing the US military would make it worse. look at Vietnam. you had a vastly larger, more powerful military. but the more you bombed the more they hated you and the more recruits the viet Cong got. you cannot bomb away terrorists. every terrorist you kill will also kill women and children. it will leave orphans and widows who will blame America for killing their loved ones. there is NO purely military solution. if you dont try to help people you only make terrorists stronger in the long run.
The issue here is that the US has made itself unable to do what is right. We have by far the greatest military in the world, yet we cannot fight. Im days we could annihilate the entire caliphate, but we are afraid of harming civilians. If ISIS wants war with us, then we should unleash our capabilities upon them. Inaction leads to just as much damage as it ensures the life of ISIS
National security is at more risk from tourism than refugees. It is at more risk from those already inside than those trying to enter. You are hiding from phantoms to make yourself feel better and ignoring the real dangers.
By alienating Muslims and condemning them to misery and suffering that the US military helped create you guarantee that they will blame you. The next generation is growing up in slums when they survive. Women are being raped and killed as they try to flee with their families. Men are seeing their families killed before their eyes. Children are growing up without parents. While all this is happening you are arguing that you shouldn't have to help because maybe there might be one who is dangerous. You would rather they all die than trust that those doing the screening, not to mention the police and intelligence agencies are able to do their jobs and keep you safe.
ISIS and al assad are the issue. Not the United States. Its not our moral grounds to subject our people terrorism
Those look a lot alike as you watch children die while preventing them from coming to your side of the invisible line.
We must not hide behind borders, but defend our sovereignty.
Im not afraid, but rather am aware. Im not fighting this issue out of emotion as was accused earlier, but rather because I know national security cannot be ensured if we cannot guarantee the merits of refugees.
Your plan is to try to hide behind your border and hope the terrorists go away. That had never worked throughout history and will not serve America now. Your ideas for how to keep America safe guarantee the next generation of terrorists will be larger than this one and have more hatred for the nations that destabilized their country, killed their friends and families, then left them to die in a war zone. If someone treated you as badly as you intend to treat them, would you be alright with it?
You say you are not afraid, then explain that you are afraid letting in refugees will lead to an increased risk to America. Even if that were a well founded fear, it is still fear.
We shouldnt let Christian refugees in either since we cannot determine if they are terrorists. We arent discriminating
the vast majority of Muslims hate ISIS. the vast majority of Muslims are not extremists. but the more you make them feel like outsiders the more terrorists you are creating. did America learn nothing from Vietnam? the more you bomb civilians the more enemies you create. the more civilians you leave on bombed out ruins the more children grow up seeing America as their enemy.
you can't stop all extremism through acceptance. but without acceptance you won't ever stop extremism. we will still need security and vigilance. but if you treat all Muslims like enemies then the west is alot of trouble. islam is the fastest growing religion. they will outnumber Christians before too much longer. if we don't start getting along with them the cycle of violence will never end.
wow, your idea is not good at all. You really think making them feel "accepted" will do anything? Lol, you're funny. So I guess telling them we love and accept them for who they are will change anything. I'm impressed by your intelligence on this matter
so your plan is to crack down on Muslims and try to keep them out? that will only make more radicalized Muslims. the only way keep Muslims from seeing you as the enemy is by making them feel accepted. as long as people treat them as suspected terrorists you are only helping to create terrorists.
They already want to kill us. The problem is opening us up for domestic terrorism. Within the US, they try to radicalize Muslims to kill Americans. Our efforts should be to secure us from domestic terrorism to the best of our abilities.
if you don't take refugees the government can't ensure they won't kill Americans. if you refuse to help them then far more of them will become radicalized and greatly increase the odds of them attacking you. trying to keep them out only plays into the hands of terrorists. they want to paint us as heartless and evil.
But lets put it this way. If we let them in, can the government ensure that they wiill not kill Americans. My argument lies in the truth that they cant.
Im not afraid. Fear is distinct from reluctance. I believe that allowing refugees cannot guarantee the safety of the US which is the governments primary function. Blind compassion will not lead me to err, and I look toward the sovereignty of the United States.
I'm sorry but your argument boils down to fear, I can't argue against that. All I can say is that it's sad we can't agree to help these people in a meaningful way, that will reduce their chances of radicalisation.
If we continue as you want, all we will do is create bigger enemies in the future. I just don't understand how anyone cannot understand that.
You see asylum relies upon the hope that an individual did something horribly wrong within Syria. If not, they are just another stranger entering the country. Therefore asylum puts the work entirely on the US who has no ability to learn the background of these individuals.
Nonetheless, saying that there are ways into the country does not defend policy. If we are in danger, why repeat failed policy?
As for the two you claim were refugees, we don't know. However if you read the whole article, you will see most of the attackers would have had no problem entering the US with a tourist visa. So what now, lock down the borders completely in case some one with no criminal record, or even a secular individual, might enter the country?
Just the first result I cam up with on google:
The majority of the terrorists were Belgian or French, your argument is invalid.
France24. Has said, "two of the perpetrators came through Greece escaping the war in Syria"
Two of them were refugees
I have yet to see any proof that any of them were refugees. one posed as one but was already in Europe. it looks like they were all European nationals. therefore this attack has absolutely nothing to do with refugees.
Maajid Nawaz, a former extremist said in the news the US should close its borders temporarily. A former extremist is advising against taking refugees in
the one who planned the attack posed as a refugee, two others in the attack were syrian refugees. France made the statement after investigating it
How many years do you think ISIS would be willing to have operatives sit idle in a refugee camp so that MAYBE they could cone to the US? Many if not all of those now being brought over as refugees have been in these camps for 3-4 years. That is a horrendously inefficient way to try to get people in when they could just book a plane ticket and say they were on vacation.
They don't have any information on those being screened. Screening requires that an individual must have done something in Syria to be known. The fact is we dont know about those coming in, and FBI James Comey admitted this
Refugees are not anonymously accepted. They are more thoroughly screened than any tourist.
No im not. But I do not want anonymous acceptance into the US that occurs with asylum.
Do you advocate closing the borders to all tourists and shutting out all public information from outside US borders?
Military spending is key to a sovereign nation so that spending doesnt matter. Now the issue is not a humanitarian one, it is a matter of national security. The governments one job is to keep its people safe, and this is further prevented if we allow practically anybody into the country who wants to enter.
Only in option 1 they aren't safe from ISIS, they'll be living in poverty and overcrowded conditions. You continue to ignore the mental issues this could easily cause such as depression.
Mental health issues such as this could make these people much more liable to radicalisation.
Again, the US is the richest country in the history of world. You can easily afford to rehome these people, you can easily afford to invest in infrastructure and work. But you continue to ignore these arguments and suggestions as they do not agree with your position. I have spoken on several occasions about why your suggestion will not work, but rather than argue your point back, you're ignoring any comments that do not agree with you.
Would you really want to be put into what essentially would be a concentration camp, rather than be treated as a human being? I don't think so!
I know you're going to argue the cost thing, but I suggest you take a closer look at your government and it's spending. How many billions have been spent on bombing in the middle east this year alone? And before you state this is to combat ISIS, we already know that bombing on its own cannot destroy an ideal.
what would I want
1. to be asked if I want to go to a safe zone where I get food, shelter, water, work and education. also being safe from ISIS.
2. be dumped in a country with no money, food or shelter?
3. be left in the middle of a war with no help.
they are curently getting 3 and if I were them I would pick 1. 1 us how I want to be treated.
Or perhaps 7:1:
"?Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
I'm sorry I just can't agree with your arguments. I long for the day when people actually care about all humans as much as each other. As for the Christians in the room:
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Nobody is happy to reject them. Id love to help them, but we just cant. Our nation has a responsibility to defend its people, a purpose given directly by the Framers (John Jay Federalist 2). Humanitarian aid is not the purpose of our government, and we cannot risk it for the sake of our citizens.
Let me just get this right, you're happy to do absolutely nothing about the humanitarian crisis we have a large and direct part in causing? You're happy to turn these people, many of whom we are responsible for making homeless direct to ISIS, where they will either be killed or radicalised into a comrade in arms?
And please don't mention "safe" zones again, as all this will do is pen people into a small area to be attacked. Or alternatively give the people trapped in them a reason to hate the West and be radicalised in turn.
We arent discriminating against muslims. I say no to christians to. Neither because of their views, but completely because of their religion but rather potential infiltration of terrorists...
your views are incredibly short cited. and no we are not the enemy of Islam. that is the exact kind of statements that help to radicalize Muslims. when they see the west as their enemy then they want to fight you. the more you discriminate against them the worse it gets. you are playing right into ISISs hands.
We already are the enemy of Islam! You continue to argue that they can get in other ways, so does that mean we should open the doors and say "hey terrorists, we know there are ways into the US, so come on in!" Thats defending your argument by a greater of evils. We should fix our border, deport, self-deport, and continue to keep restrictions on those comong in. And dont give me terrorists dont come in as refugees. In 2013, 12 terrorists or bombmakers slipped into Kentucky since they were not caught in the vetting process. Let me guess, since you got in we should concede and allow them to slaughter innocent lives?
I'm fed up of hearing commenters saying that the terrorists in Paris were refugees. The terrorists you're so afraid were smuggled in as refugees were actually residents in France and Belgium for the most part, not refugees at all so please stop this argument.
Also if ISIS want terrorists in the US, what's to stop them putting them on a commercial airliner and flying them in via any airport as has been done in the past and continues to be done. ISIS have a lot of resources and do not need to rely on refugees to get their militia into the US or any other country.
This means the whole argument of not taking refugees because some of them might be terrorists completely moot.
Do you have any idea how many people cross borders every day? the idea that keeping out the victims of terrorists will keep you safe from those terrorists is rediculous. it is exactly what ISIS wants. they want the west to be hostile. they want to paint us as the enemy of Islam. the more hostile we appear the more powerful we are making them. being kind and accepting is the best thing we can do to undermine Islamic extremism.
okay, with all the attacks happening, we would we let refugees in? If they were able to attack paris, they can easily slip an isis member in. he can now poison our water and food and we wouldn't know. then war will break out.
no. your plan wouldn't work. and we explained why.
we can do both. I don't know if you saw my plan for making a safe zone overseas. but this way refugees are safe from ISIS and so are we.
19 terrorists killed 2977 Americans. I will be called immoral before I'd subject Americans to death. It is not the duty of the US to defend other nations, yet we choose to. Our goverment protects its own first and foremost, and anything beyond is of pure benevolence. So yes letting 2 bad guys in gives me issue. How can we protect refugees if we cannot guarantee our own protection?
Contrary to popular reporting, this is not an issue of compassion nor innocence; however, it is an issue of terrorists infiltrating Western society by means of posing as refugees. This case is not as simple as letting these stated individuals because doing so may have grand ramifications for the future. The simple fact is that no country may vet a refugee since the only way to do so is if they have made a rippled in the pond in Syria. Head of the FBI, James Comey, stated that they can only vet those in the database, and if no informations exists, nothing fruitful may come of it. Therefore, it is impossible to guarantee the safety of citizens if refugees are admitted since the Paris attacks have already shown that terrorists will take advantage of the refugee crisis in hopes of destroying the West.
the last part I'm referring to bacha bazi. Which culture?
A report done in 2006 by Ann-Christine Hjelm from Karlstads University. 85% of those sentenced to at least two years in prison for rape were foreign born or second-generation immigrants.
In 1975, Swedish Parliament decided to change the former homogeneous Sweden into a multicultural country. Violent crime has increased by 300%. In 1975, 421 rapes were reported; in 2014 it was 6,620/ that's a 1,472% increase. Over the past 10-15 years, immigrants have mainly come from Muslim countries.
"Banlieue de la Republique" (suburbs of the Republic) found that Seine-Saint-Denis and other Parisian suburbs are becoming "separate Islamic societies" cut off from the French state, and where Islamic Sharia law is rapidly displacing French civil law.
You think it's based on politics for the reason why Lebanese people have told me the US should allow these refugees. That argument alone is illogical. The majority of these refugees will not assimilate into our society, they fight each other over there and they will bring it over here. I have a few Lebanese friends who are fresh off the boat, they tell me on how those people think. How violent they really are and hypocritical their ideology is. You said you know what culture I'm talking about, which one is that? If I maybe so bold to ask
Can anyone tell me a plan besides the one I have put out? I have yet to hear how these refugees will live in america. putting them in the middle of a city with no money is a bad idea
Meant to also add that perhaps the Lebanese don't want the Syrians let in because of politics in the region. Then again wars and occupations rarely have a bad influence on people do they?!
Can you give me details of these European safe zones controlled by Sharia law please, as I would like to see some unbiased reporting on it.
As for Sweden, due to their policies over the last 40 years there population has exploded. And as they do not collect data on ethnic or religious basis it is difficult to work out the route cause of the rise in rape. I do understand the culture you are referencing, but what you are saying is that instead of helping children and women (as well as men) we should leave them in danger due to the actions of a few.
I think we should ban Christianity because according to the bible rapists should marry their victims. You see how this goes?
Safe zones have been set up in a number of European countries, the police and regular civilian population are not allowed in. These safe zones are governed by sharia law (side note: not a civil way to govern).
Part of their culture includes a practice called "bacha bazi", tell me if you think you want that kind of practice in you neighborhood. Sweden has become the rape capital of the world, they have recorded a rise in raps and 100% of the rapes have been by the refugees. But you still want them in, really intelligent. There is a huge population of Lebanese here in the US, and many of them have told me the US should not let them in. I wonder why.
These safe zones you talk of, how will they differ from refugee camps that already exist?
Refugee camps already exist and unfortunately they barely provide the necessities people need to live. As someone else said the cost of running one of these camps is massive.
If you provide a decent standard of living for these people, they are much less likely to turn to terrorism as they won't have any need to. On the other hand, if we force them into camps where there basic needs aren't met... do you understand where this would lead?
As for letting people in to the US, do you know much about your 18 month screening process, the most robust in the world? Also add that to the fact that as much as you complain about the expense, the US is the richest country in the history of the world, and the cost of settling a few thousand refugees is minimal compared to the amount other nations are spending.
I am not emotional. We helped create the mess that is killing them, now you want to hide under your bed from the big scary terrorists. The middle east doesn't own the west, but human decency extends to all people, not just those fortunate enough to be born American. You want to abandon innocent people to deal with the consequences of the US repeatedly destabilizing the region? That is a great way of making sure that the US stays hated and keeps getting attacked. Isolationism has never helped any nation in history, so the idea of locking down the borders should ring warning bells for anyone who knows their history. By helping people we can break the cycle of hate and stop more terrorists from being created.
Dave, you act like we are owned by the middle east or something. You are afraid of being disliked by mid eastern countries. Nothing is going to stop them, we're gonna let in terrorists, I say shut off the borders and they can keep their bombs to themselves. America will turn into a war zone just because liberals had to get all emotional.
may I see this plan. I don't see how letting refugees live in poverty with no money, jobs or shelter will make them happy. I can see how more people will hate america.
No, it's a plan to help them relocate and integrate into society. They will appreciate the fact that those in the West cared and helped them. Gradually they will learn that not all Americans are intolerant hate filled people, assuming the Americans they meet are not, which will reduce the image of America as the enemy of Muslims and the middle east. The US gains new citizens, recognition from the international community for helping those in need, and goodwill from Muslims everywhere (barring ISIS) for demonstrating that they are not the enemy.
actually it's a plan for refugees to die or turn to terrism.
what is your plan. let them in america with no money is not a plan.
Alex, reread the comments and maybe you will understand why your idea will not work. It is more expensive and will cost far more US lives trying to defend a "safe zone" in the middle of a war zone.
I said we should help them. I have given my plan. we help them and don't let 2 of them kill us.
building a safe zone, teaching them, giving them food, water shelter, and work is quite different from commending them to death.
letting them come into the us and letting them fend for themselves actually is worse. jobs are not easy to get and without jobs you have no food or shelter.
your plan won't work. we've given you lots of reasons it won't work. what you're saying is we should condemn 1000 people to the possibility of torture and death because there is a small chance that 2 of them could be bad. and you call yourself a Christian. Jesus commanded you to care for the poor. to love even your enemies. if you are that heartless then immoral then I don't see how you can consider yourself a Christian.
I don't want to do nothing and let these refugees fend for themselves o want to help, and I have given a plan that will help without letting spurs come in.
let's say we let 1000 refugees in. 2 are spies. these 2 blow up buildings or shoot people killing hundreds of americans. is it worth it? these refugees will come the us and live in poverty, while hundreds of we due
Haven't read all the comments but I need to post!
Those of you saying France has shut it's borders to refugees, that's bullshit. Days after the attacks in Paris they let 30,000 refugees in. Meanwhile in the US you're arguing about 10,000 over the next couple of years.
Let's look at this sensibly shall we. The refugees are fleeing war and death. Now some of what they are fleeing is being caused by ISIS, however who created the power vacuum for ISIS to grow? That would be the US and it's allies. Where are the other bombs coming from that are forcing people to flee in terror, oh that's right, the US and it's allies!
So we go over there, we start a war on false pretenses, we destroy the government which somehow managed to keep these many different cultures together as a single nation and then we leave ISIS to come out of it as a result.
We then continue bombing, destroying homes and lives of innocent people (yes some of the bombs hit their targets but only 1 in 10).
And as a direct or indirect result of OUR actions people are forced to flee from their homes, from their culture and from their family and friends to find a safe harbor.
Then we being civilised westerners turn around and tell them to piss off as we don't want them. Who do they turn to then? They only have one choice, ISIS.
How is it so hard to see this is the worst possible solution as it only serves to swell the ranks of ISIS?
So you would prefer to assume they are all guilty and judge them accordingly?
ok guys, I didn't mean that statement that was sarcasm. but it proves that we would lawfully have no way of knowing if a refugee is a terrists without breaking the constitution.
so violating the constitution for a month is fine? it doesn't matter how long you do a terrible thing. it is still a terrible thing. if you start thinking that it is ok to spy on people who have done nothing wrong how long before it is acceptable to spy on American citizens who have done nothing wrong?
I don't mean spy on them. I mean make sure they aren't communicating with someone illegal. Say if they are doing fine in a month we stop. Just monitor texts and email and social media for a month.
If you can install micro chips into your children to see where your children are at its hardly a myth...
That argument is the poster child for why those in the middle east hate America. You have simultaneously vilified them and denied their human rights and expect them to be grateful. You are willing to condemn people to death if they do not accept treatment you would not accept yourself. The hypocrisy in that one statement is stunning.
that would be wildly unconstitutional. and the fact that you would be alright with that says alot about you. that you don't care about human rights or the American Constitution.
if you said to these refugees "you can only come in america if you let us spy on your phone, Internet at all times, and have no bill of rights rights" go ahead do that I don't care, they won't want to come.
that chip thing is a myth. obviously Danny does not know it all
Everybody's phones and Internet is being spied on everyday to keep surveillance on the civil population.. why do you think the Obama administration wants RFID chips implanted into people...
There us a difference between ID badges like a Jew in Nazi territory during world war two and monitoring phones and other contacts
wouldn't that idea kinda be like the other thread?
The one about Trump wanting the Muslims in the US to wear I.D. badges
what if we keep close surveillance on them
do most of those refugees have any sort of records or documents? interrogations are pretty easy to pass. say "I'm going to america for a better life" bam your in. next thing we know that person is building a bomb, blowing things up, and stealing info.
Alex, we have ways of finding terrorists. We have 48 hours of intense precaution. interrogations, records, the whole thing
I think the middle east should start playing more of a role in this crisis. People do not want the US to police the world and staying out of the uprising in Syria (which eventually helped the rise of ISIS). The US stayed out of it, and now the world thinks the US should do something
The administration wants ten thousand refugees in the next fiscal year. eighty-five thousand additional refugees by the end of 2016. An additional one hundred thousand by 2017. -John Kerry
The United States has already devoted 4.5 billion dollars for the refugees. You want to bring in an additional number of people to the US. Meanwhile 49,993 US veterans are homeless. The US is 18 trillion dollars in debt, 67% of the federal budget goes to entitlements. 68% of the refugees already in the US have been given homes and money. The United States had a 3 trillion dollar revenue and the government spent 3.5 trillion dollars.
Yes, the United States government (citizens) can not continually pay and take care of the world.
People around the world hate the United States and says we are responsible for everything bad going on. Yet, when things do go wrong the world looks to the United States to fix it.
Two questions for you BigB.
First, why can the US not afford it? If there is billions of dollars free to spend on walls along the border, why is there not enough to save people from being killed.
There second question is where you are getting the number of refugees the Obama administration wants to bring in. I can see lots of Republican sources saying he wants to bring in almost 200,000 but I can't find anything official from the government saying. Could you provide a reference to where a government official gave those numbers.
Yeah we can help but we don't have to take them in. The US financially can not handle it. We can take a few thousand but not a hundred thousand like this administration wants to do
BigB, your argument is counter to your vote. You say you think we should help, but voted that we shouldn't.
I agree that the other nations on the middle east should be helping, but their failure should not give us an out. Saying "if they don't help I shouldn't have to either" is juvenile and doesn't accomplish anything.
and then ISIS spy says "I'm a refugee, let me in" and hundreds of Americans die.
The west is supposed to show that they are a safe haven to refugees
I think the West should help because we are in a position to help. It's bothering me that everybody is ignoring the fact that nations in the middle east have a chance to help but refuse to do so.
I've been reading articles all about the West and how much money they given and how many refugees they've taken in. But hardly anything on the middle eastern nations
Why is it up to the West to take these refugees in? Saudi Arabia is the only nation on the Arabian Peninsula to take in refugees. The other nations have contributed money to the refugees but refuse to take any. Why is it up to the West to give money and shelter them?
I think it's terrible situation these people have, but why isn't anybody talking about some of the middle eastern nations refusing to help?
and you couldn't protect them. unless you wanted to drop large numbers of American troops in a foreign country that doesn't want them there in the middle of a huge war.
I thought he meant shelters in America, but leaving them in Syria is putting them right in the middle of a 4 way war
They are already there. The terrorists in Paris were home grown. Refugees would not increase your risk, so you are condemning people to death for the illusion of increased safety.
what I fear is ISIS in america
It is amazing how closely these arguments mirror arguments made against Jewish refugees from the Nazis. They were referred to as Hitler's slave spies and people were worried that allowing them in would compromise national security and allow disguised Nazis to infiltrate. Do you really want the next generation to remember this the way we remember the genocide, knowing that we could have saved lives and didn't?
Your plan is to build a settlement in a war zone. How well do you honestly think that would work? Removing them from the region and letting them enter the US means that they are safe from everyone other than xenophobic or Islamophobic Americans. Do you honestly believe that they have more to fear from Americans than ISIS? If not, how can you justify saying we should hand them tools and wish them luck surviving the genocidal attackers they are fleeing?
now the problem is.
a huge change is not good for people. these immigrants coming may not adapt well. a job is hard to find in the us.
I think maybe there can be a #6
this will be a rewards system: good refugees get to go to america.
the problem is the immigrants that don't go will get mad and become extremists. that's why I'm not including #6 in my plan.
make sure that strict rules to protect us from terrorists coming in are put in place when we make sure of the reasons for refugees and let refugees be in American society and to know American people if that's what they want.
I f we add that to Alex's plan and help them build homes and a nice sort of neighborhood and it sounds like a solid idea
if done the wrong way correct it would bad.
1. gather refugees, ask them if the want to help built a shelter for themselves
2. have the ones that say yes built the homes, have the military put up defenses.
3. train these refugees how to succeed, or if they have a skill, let them use it in the shelter.
4. make sure conditions are good, clean water, food, beds, ect.
5. refugees will be happy because what person, who is safe from their enemy, living in good conditions, with a job, or is being trained to get a job turns to extreneism?
if done right this shelter will be awsome. also after a while when these refugees learn to love the us army for saving them, let them fight against ISIS. only let well trusted people who you know are not spies fight however.
AstroSpace, how many checks do you think any major airport does every day? If you are so worried, shouldn't you shut down all international travel? You are at more risk from people traveling than you are from refugees.
it is economically and socially unfeasible to do that Alex. it would cost vast amounts of money. it would be almost impossible to secure unless you send in large military units. that would of course make it more expensive and a huge political liability. it would result in virtually all of these people having nothing to do and having no money while being stuck in close quarters. in short it is the perfect recruiting ground for extremists.
can we not still help them without bringing them in? built a safe area over in their homeland? this way they are safe and we are safe
What worries me as a human being is that people are so blind to think logically and must be emotionally unstable and let refugees in.
It is a dilemma now, I don't think the people of France and people of the West nations would take the refugees and risk the chance of another terrorist attack.
That worries me as a human being. Men, women and children are dying and people in the West are too afraid to do anything about it. All of the Paris attackers were European. Many had already been flagged as terrorists and had not been arrested yet. To use that as justification for not helping those who need it makes me concerned for what kind of world we are creating. Some people point to other Arab nations and ask why we should help when they won't, but we should help BECAUSE they won't. If we want the view that the west hates Muslims to change so that we stop feeding the terrorists recruits, we need to stop treating them all as criminals and terrorists. The refugees are trying to escape ISIS. Abandoning them is what ISIS wants since it shows that the west doesn't care about Muslims.
I want to help these immigrants, but I don't want to let ISIS spies in america. they can do dome damage.
I don't really think those who reject the refugees do so out of genuine hatred. It's just that there's a dangerous element that overshadows any amount of compassion some of us can muster.
Hell, even I'm the type who says "better safe then sorry".
America has been the early liberator who always ask for freedom, rights etc. It seems so contradicting if ever they fail to continue this moral ascendency. They already have the premise of helping. Why stop there?
When western nations take in refugees, it's not necessarily going to the point wherein they can't feed their own people. Only that, when these countries become more engaging, they share the burden with the rest of the world. European countries, for example, need not be filled to the brink with refugees as the burden can be shared with western nations. Additionally, this can serve as a role model to other countries.
In terms of accommodating these refugees, my policy would be to give these people temporary citizenship to those governments who accept them. It answers both sustainability and the urgency of the problem. In doing so, I don't think it necessarily mean that refugees will steal the jobs of Americans because in the first place, a normal company hires people based on capability and attitude.
They could but that does not mean they should because bringing in refugee into the nation brings harms more than benefits.
the entire country is based on immigrants. that is where your history is and since you have negative population growth it is required. you want to turn your back on millions of starving and dying people because 1 in 1000 of them might try to hurt you. you are much more likely to get killed by an American citizen than a immigrant.
You guys want to put Americans lives in danger and compromise national security so that you can let in some terrorists. Seems smart, right?
our country was not always a good place for immigrants.
We are a country that was made to be a safe haven for immigrants who are being treated poorly. We have a rigorous process for protecting our country from terrorists.
Umm...If I may...Astro, you're sweeping generalization of the Middle East and its state is ignorant. No offense. Also, Obama has stated that he will not be able to keep his promise of extracting our soldiers for from Iraq. Despite my objection, current events and new information must have sparked this change.
On topic: The refugee conundrum. I can sympathize with the people who actually need to get the hell out of dodge, but I'm a son logic. Terrorists are using this migration as an opportunity to slip through the cracks, that's a fact. We don't need these sleeper-cells in addition to the ones we most likely already have. They pose a threat to National Security and, for that reason, 75% of me refuses the refugees outright... Still, the remaining 25% of me wants to let the refugees in as long as they go through a rigorous entry process. Luckily, that's exactly what my state is doing.
I don't blame The President either way though. From the way you'd hear most politicians talk about it, The United States is the beacon leader of the world. With that in mind, I understand the principal of accepting refugees... We gotta be good role-models right...derp*
if you want to compare the US to the Ottoman empire circa Americas independence then the ottomans were much richer and more powerful.
you don't know history at all do you? until 1918 the middle East was unified in one empire, the ottoman empire. by the start of WW 1 they had declined. but they were more advanced and better led than most of Europe at one point. the middle East only collapsed after the west carved up the middle East after WW1. they then ruled/heavily meddled in it for decades. the west is largely responsible for the current state of the middle East.
HAHA, Dave and Alex are on a team now. Cute. Alex, why does it even matter if terrorists are "refugees" or not, they are still coming into the country under our moronic president, Obama. France just had gigantic shootings, and you say that there's no evidence? Give me an effing break. Jesus, you guys are seriously blind. Again, my point doesn't get through your guys' thick liberal skulls. Seriosuly, the middle east has been in ruins for hundreds of years. Did we have drones hundreds of years ago, dave? The US didn't even exist more than 200 years ago! And you blame us for the conditions of mid east. God. They slam a plane into our towers and kill our innocents and slaughter European families AND YOU WONDER WHY WE HATE THEM! Lmfao the IRONY. You are obsessed with taking the side of the attacker, aren't you guys?
I got a question, when did I blame Obama for the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom? Bush millions a day on the war and left a good bit off the books, still curious on what the other money was spent on.
You are right I do. Bush is the same in that aspect. I'm tired of people blaming Bush for Obama is doing. Obama ended the war, great for him. But what else has he done for those people? He pulled the troops out and left a power vacuum in the region. It's kinda crazy cause Bush is an idiot but he was right about pulling the troops out early. People look at Obama and think he's this great leader, no he is Bush just so happens to be on the other side of the spectrum
It funny that you also blame Obama for the costs associated with the war. You seem to blame a lot on Obama.
To rebuff your point Dave, before Bush got out of office he did say we would be there for a long time because if we left too early then you open the possibility of extremist rising in Iraq that would be much worse. So far he was right, we left too early and it created a power vacuum over there. Bush said we needed to be their for awhile to stamp out extremism. Now I didn't agree with going into Iraq in the first place. However, leaving the country the way we did we kinda screwed Iraq up. I blame Obama with the rise of ISIS
I know I'm getting in this debate late and I don't care if someone is racist or not (free speech). Racism to me doesn't seem like a viable word to use, if you think about it there is only one race and that's the human race. We all bleed red.
Now on to what I wanted to say. I saw some pictures of these "starving" refugees, and well I noticed a good bit of them are between 18 and 30 and of military age. Some of them don't look starving, they look like special forces soldiers. They look like body builders ready to kick some ass. (again, just the power of observation)
I do have one more thing, why are the western nations giving more money for the refugees than the nation's over in the Arabian Peninsula. Why have five middle eastern nations refused to take in Syrian refugees? Why does the west have to take these refugees in?
be racist if you want, I don't care.
just use real facts. you said all the refugees mean harm. actually none of them do. the ISIS spies are not refugees, they are only in disguise as one. if you are going to be racist, at least use facts.
We call you racist because you claim to be able to tell a terrorist on sight and generalized the conditions in the middle east by saying they defecate on the floor forcing little German Boyd to pick it up. If you make racist comments, we will call you racist, it has nothing to do with whether you feel that you are winning the debate.
You are right, the middle east is in ruins. You are wrong however when you try to claim that the west is not responsible for some parts of that. The US keeps overthrowing and destabilizing governments that don't like them, resulting in a power vacuum and a population who blame the west for the problems on their communities. There was no real reason to destroy Saddam Hussain's government, and the rest of the world said as much, but the US went in anyways. Now we have Islamic extremists springing up and you are surprised that they blame us for the terrible conditions and that people in the region are angry at the West after they saw their children and relatives killed by us bombs either intentionally or as collateral damage. They have seen drones and bombers destroy their community, and you wonder why they hate us.
Your imagination of a fictional situation in which we care about your opinion doesn't enter into the debate, so I am not sure why you felt the need to give such a long winded description. I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't panic when you post because even other conservatives distance themselves from your position, so you hurt whichever side of the debate you side with more than you help it.
Can we get back to the actual debate now that you are done feeling like a martyr
I find it HILARIOUS how you guys call me racist as a back up for losing the debate. I can imagine it now, a panicked look on your face. Your eyes dart wildly as you see you have no evidence to support refugees. You look to a huge red button, which reads "Losing the debate? CLICK HERE FOR RACISM APPEAL!" You slam the button over and over. How ironic, you talk about why logical arguments are best, then try to attack me with emotion. LMFAO I seriously don't care if you call me racist, it's just fact. The middle east is in ruins and YOU KNOW IT. Bombs going off, terrorism, disgusting cities. And it's not out fault! The middle east has been like that for CENTURIES. Reality hurts, doesn't it?
That is not necessarily true. Emotional arguments appeal to some people, logical arguments to others. By making both kinds you appeal to both audiences.
emotional is the opposite of logical. the more emotional you get the less you are able to be objective and consider the issue. you cannot be emotional and logical. one blocks the other.
I like to be emotional and logical
they can be. but it usually ends in people making deeply emotional arguments and not basing them in logic. which ends any hope at debate.
Heated debates are always the best
oh, ok. I agree that was racist astro.
not you Alex, it was astro. I didn't see yours when I wrote that.
what was racist?
all the attackers in France were European citizens. they weren't refugees. stooping refugees will only make things worse.
that was so racist and ignorant I'm just going to ignore it because it makes no sense. the middle East is shitty for lots of reasons. but pretty high on the list is meddling/imperialism from Europe and America. you are largely responsible for the problem.
why don't lots of Americans find these "jobs" that are availible.
most immigrants are good people trying to leave, however ISIS has put spies in them, and these spies do big damage. we want to help these refugees, but we don't want to end up hurting everyone.
Ben Carson says "look to somewhere that works and do what they do" this quote can also be taken in the inverse as "don't do something that doesn't work!" letting in immigrants, like they did in frannce did not works, so don't do it.
It's called Sharia law a great way to turn a country into the stone age...
Why do you think France is shutting off its borders bigtime? Oh, yes, because the refugees are tearing the country to hell, shooting unarmed people. Look at the middle east. Those countries are shit holes, it's not because of poverty, it's just morons that have no idea how to maintain a country! They defecate on the floor and throw it out the window, then little German boys have to go and clean it up. That is ridiculous. Why should we even care about these refugees who only mean harm?
why do you assume they will have a bad life? lots of refugees find jobs and become citizens and live good lives.
unless your just trying to do the right thing and let these people have a good life. the truth is bringing them to america will give them bad lives, and give us worse lifes.
so you want to have them in poverty on america so they they can turn terrist here. ok you want more terrists in the us, I see.
they have no money, anywhere they go there're going to be in poverty. if poverty=terrism and in america they will have poverty. that means america will have terrists, I don't want terrists in my country, don't know about tou, but it seems you do.
keeping them in poverty with no future guarantees that large numbers of them will turn to extremism. this will continue these problems for another generation. at least in another country they have a chance at a job and a life.
yes, exept how the hell are you going to give them a stable future if you can't even give americans one? unlogical.
The more people are desperate the more they turn to radical answers to their problems. if you give them a stable life and a future then they won't need to turn to extremism. locking them in a wartorn country or a refugee camp is a great way to breed extremism.