States refusing to accept Syrian refugees

The logical reasons to allow or reject refugees have not changed.

The emotional reasons to allow or reject refugees have not changed.

In the USA, how many terrorist attacks have been by refugees, or even by people that have entered the US illegally? How many by citizens?

Statistically, we should allow the refugees and get rid of the citizens.
 
How dare any state or nation want to retain its character, protect its populace, and avoid becoming even slightly more like Syria?

The nerve!
 
I bet that is also what the native americans said before the honkys got there
 
On the one hand here come the bigots,on the other the hand the "Hate America" crowd.
The Hell with them both.
 
cullennz said:
No one hates america

More paranoia
Click to expand...

You seem to take great pleasure in bad mouthing it on every occasion....

And if you drag the Native Americans into this, I will drag in the Maoris....


I love how lefty Kiwis try to explain the two are not at all the same....
 
Travis said:
I once got robbed by a homeless person I let live in my home. As a result I never did that again.

No, wait, I kept doing it because I'm not a jerk.
Click to expand...


Your error is buying into social memes that edumicate you you are a jerk for not letting a homeless live in your home.

What a very Christian thing to do. Turn the other cheek, if someone takes your gerbil, offer your hamster as well and all that.


Seriously, is what passes through your head, patting you on the back, a Christian impulse, or a secular leftist impulse? People have noted socialism in Europe killing off care to join churches the past 50 years, by the government taking over the responsibilities churches historically did, like hospitals, carring for the old and infirmed and sick, helping the poor, and so on.

Hence few look to churches as the glorious helper movements they did, especially when Christianity was young, growing by leaps and bounds.

I wonder if it (non-church, socialist government glory join factor) has inhaled this impulse you are exhibiting, too.


ETA: This question, if it can be called that, comes off as much more in your face than is my intent.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
You seem to take great pleasure in bad mouthing it on every occasion....

And if you drag the Native Americans into this, I will drag in the Maoris....


I love how lefty Kiwis try to explain the two are not at all the same....
Click to expand...

So you can't handle criticism of US policy?

Every other country seems to be able to handle it

Feel free to bring up Maori. I will freely admit we aren't perfect
 
cullennz said:
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
Click to expand...

What kind of screening do you think they can do?
 
cullennz said:
I bet that is also what the native Americans said before the honkys got there
Click to expand...

Look, we beat their asses fair and square and took their land. Same way every other country on earth was founded. It's not the fault of us Hunkies that they never assimilated.
 
eeyore1954 said:
What kind of screening do you think they can do?
Click to expand...

As best they can

Passport checks. Police checks. International intel' checks

Sure there may be the odd 2 year old crazy extremist slip through, but that is why you spend time monitoring them in camps in the US
 
Ziggurat said:
The really funny thing about it being that it demonstrates why people should take your opponent's position seriously.
Click to expand...

I was trying to lighten the mood after the US posters all got paranoid and said I hated their country
 
Aepervius said:
Look if terrorist want to be smuggled they can from Mexico. 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.
Click to expand...

Personally I am in favor of letting refugees although I like the idea of helping provide for them elsewhere even better.

The US already said they would check every refugee.
Click to expand...
They could have proposed a more careful check up or keep refugee under surveillance
Click to expand...
But if you think those mean much I have a bridge to sell you.
What are they going to check them for? How are they going to keep all of them under surveillance? How much would it cost?
 
BoogieWoogieWookie said:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/states-refuse-accept-syrian-refugees-wake/story?id=35231800
Click to expand...
Or they only want Syrian Christians. :rolleyes:
The position Obama is criticizing is quickly becoming the leading position of the Republican field. Both Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush said over the weekend that in the wake of the Paris attacks, the US should limit refugee admissions to Christians (who make up about 10 percent of Syria's population).

Obama's argument, given in Turkey at the G20 summit, deliberately casts this as an affront not only to American values, but to universal values of pluralism, freedom of religion, and nondiscrimination.
Click to expand...
Because we all know terrorists couldn't lie about their religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom