BoogieWoogieWookie
Thinker
States refusing to accept Syrian refugees
- Thread starter BoogieWoogieWookie
- Start date
Skeptic Tank
Trigger Warning
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Messages
- 3,121
Syrians should be in Syria, it's right there in the name.
While I hate to agree with racists, there is something to be said in favor of refusing refugees at this time. We know that terrorist organizations targeting the USA are using the influx of refugees into Europe and elsewhere to plant insurgents into their target countries. It's only logical, therefore, to at least temporarily halt the influx of refugees until we can at least figure out how to weed out the terrorists from the folks looking to escape war.
Would this make us jerks? Not in my opinion, but it's also not really a relevant question. I'd rather be treated by Dr. House--someone who's cold, uninterested in my opinions, and effective--than by J.D.--someone warm, open, and so easily distracted that his own friends mock him for it. The cause of the suffering of the refugees is not the USA's refusal to actually put some thought into how we're going to handle the situation; rather, it's ISIS. The fact that we're not willing to commit suicide to help them is only being a jerk in the most superficial and self-destructive interpretation of the events.
You were already an embarrassment just taking 10,000
I don't think so. Again, they are not US citizens, and therefore we are under no obligation to take care of them. Don't confuse mercy with obligation. Secondly, this is a known pathway by which enemies attack us. It only makes sense to leave such a pathway open if 1) there is no other way to defeat the enemy, or 2) you're setting a trap. You don't hand opportunities to your enemies to harm you without cause.
And again, I'm not saying we need to stop accepting refugees entirely. I'm merely saying that at this point, we need to reconsider our evaluation process. If we can find a way to weed out terrorists posing as refugees from actual refugees, cool. Bring 'em in. The USA has a lot of land we're not using; the BLM can help them get established on some of the land that was graded for housing developments in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. If we CAN'T differentiate between refugees and terrorists posing as refugees, obviously we have to consider whether we can allow anyone in. The USA's responsibility is to protect its own citizens from threats foreign and domestic. Protecting someone else's citizens is outside that scope of work.
No one is under an obligation to take care of them. It is called fronting up in a humanitarian crisis.
It is called doing your part as a global member
And you wonder why the US has a fairly poor reputation when it comes to international relations.
I notice that you are evading the fact that this is a known pathway by which terrorists enter their target countries. Please address that. What reason--REASON, mind you, not Argument from Intimidation (poor name, but that's the fallacy you are using)--is there for leaving open a known point of weakness in the country's defense?cullennz said:
If you cannot present a reason--a REASON, not an appeal to emotion, insult, or other nonsense--why we should do so, perhaps you should reconsider your position.
Finally, I note that you start by saying "It's not an obligation", but everything else basically says "...but it's totally an obligation." So we can dismiss the first clause in your post, as contradicted by all evidence within it.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Oh dear.
I never thought I would see a day where American are the one surrendering to fear and openly admit it.
ETA: "French Surrendering" apparently lost its cachet.
I support taking more refugee in the country I am in.
I never thought I would see a day where American are the one surrendering to fear and openly admit it.
ETA: "French Surrendering" apparently lost its cachet.
I support taking more refugee in the country I am in.
Last edited:
Taking a bit of time to re-evaluate how we handle a complex and dangerous situation is "surrendering to fear"?
I'm genuinely curious: Is there a rational argument to be had in this discussion? Or are we just going to be inundated with appeals to emotion on the scale of Halmark cards?
The reason is simple. To help with your international relations.
The ones that will be taken are sitting in intern camps on the outskirts
They have been screened by the UN and then will be screened by your own officials
I was going to respond to you point by point, but if you can say this in response to my statement than it's obvious you've no interest in a serious discussion. It's obvious that this screening process is the issue I was discussing--to say "We're screening them" in response to my statements is to completely ignore what I said. I will not participate in a conversation where you get to determine what both of us say.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,585
That is not a compelling reason. Not for the US, nor for anyone else.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Look if terrorist want to be smuggled they can from Mexico. The US already said they would check every refugee. But what happens ? Immediately out of fear than real security problem people start closing door. Like alabama which had no refugee up to now.
That is fear pure and simple or political abuse of the situation. They could have proposed a more careful check up or keep refugee under surveillance or whatnot. No. No discussion. Immediate closing of border.
If you state one should have a calm discussion about it, then ask those who closed the discussion and closed up.
You mean the known pathway bit? I didn't bother because it is so bloom'n obvious
It always has been.
That is why they need to be put into internment camps in the states and monitored for about 3 months
All cool
Mass paranoia is quite interesting to watch
Cleon
King of the Pod People
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddles masses yearning to be free....
Nah. On second thought, **** it."
Nah. On second thought, **** it."
Last edited:
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Like when we refused all those Germans on the St. Loius in 1938. They went back to Germany where they belonged. I hear some of them even lived through the war.