States refusing to accept Syrian refugees

cullennz said:
We aren't that paranoid about the .001% who might be extremists

The rest are just people in a horrible situation who happen to be Muslim
Click to expand...

Nice to see your reading comprehension is lower than the refugees. 13% ISIS supporters is awful high. Anyone who supports ISIS can stay away from anywhere I live.

We dont need to support Muslims taking over the world either.
 
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...

And Homer and Bart Simpson will continually try to grab a donut that's wired up to a stun gun. Your choice, not mine.
 
Spaghetti said:
Nice to see your reading comprehension is lower than the refugees. 13% ISIS supporters is awful high. Anyone who supports ISIS can stay away from anywhere I live.

We dont need to support Muslims taking over the world either.
Click to expand...

10,000 would be taking over the world?
 
ponderingturtle said:
So just weight it by population. 4,471,000/750 vs 318,900,000/10,000.

So the US is taking in 1 refugee for every 31,890 people and new zeeland is taking in one refugee for every 5,961. So weighted to the population it is roughly 6 times as many.
Click to expand...

Weighting by population would work better if you'd be less careless with the facts. The U.S. plans to take 85,000 refugees in 2016 and 100,000 in 2017. These numbers spring mysteriously from the fact that all refugees are not Syrians.

So let's do that math again and get it right this time:

318900000/85000 = 3752

And once again New Zealand falls short.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
Look if terrorist want to be smuggled they can from Mexico.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. The Mexicans aren't stupid or so greedy that they will slit their own throats.

Anyways...please show me once instance where a terrorist has ever been smuggled via Mexico to the US. Just one.
 
jakesteele said:
Yes, exactly. Why should the onus be on us to fight their war, the war they should be fighting but are fleeing from.

To borrow a word/phrase, we are in a CrIsis.
Click to expand...

I don't think the finger-pointers want us to fight the Syrians war. I think they want us to adopt them.

They aren't very good advocates for the would-be Syrian Americans, from my POV. They're just pissing me off.
 
Last edited:
jakesteele said:
Yes, exactly. Why should the onus be on us to fight their war, the war they should be fighting but are fleeing from.

To borrow a word/phrase, we are in a CrIsis.
Click to expand...

You do realize a large reason for the war is because of US foreign policy? Not only indirectly through the invasion of Iraq (which triggered the Iraq civil war, the rise of ISIS, and the migration of millions from Iraq into Syria), but also directly by supporting anti-Assad rebel groups (many of which were Sunni Saud-supported and had ties with ISIS) with the specific intent of regime change. I agree though we shouldn't really be meddling in that war, but we are, along with a dozen other countries besides Syrian factions.

These people are just refugees from a warzone and we already take in many refugees (although they are only a small part of total immigration). I really see no reason not to take some of them in. I'm actually for a much more strict immigration policy in the united stated, but refugees will have little impact on the total numbers or the economy. The security concerns just seem like political demagoguery to me.
 
cullennz said:
Our international relations are awesome
Click to expand...

Largely because internationally you are irrelevant. No offense, it's an admirable position to be in.

To improve international relations would be an asinine reason to take in more Syrian refugees. It would be aimed at ordinary citizens of other countries.....and the US government should not care a whit what the average, relatively ill informed citizens of other nations think.

Other governments are not going to change their policies towards us based on whether or not we allow in proportionally more Syrian refugees than new Zealand. It's a stupid notion.

As for the actual thread topic, State governors don"t get a vote. Their opinion as to whether or not Syrian refugees are settled in their state doesn't count any more than my opinion on the subject.

As for my opinion, I'll leave it to the State Department and CIA to determine whether or not Syrian refugees pose a credible enough threat to deny them entry.
 
Caper said:
Here is a group of Syrian refugees that just arrived in Norway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUROBcWkHto

Can you blame US politicians for not wanting this in their communities?
Click to expand...

Again? You're posting this again? How many times have I replied to this, and you have completely ignored it? Do you care about facts at all, or do you just care if things fit inside your preconceived world view?
 
Ryokan said:
Again? You're posting this again? How many times have I replied to this, and you have completely ignored it? Do you care about facts at all, or do you just care if things fit inside your preconceived world view?
Click to expand...

it's been a basic tendency for migrants for centuries (at least) that migrants traveling a long way tend to be male, and those traveling only a short distance tend to be female. No one who studies the history of immigration would be surprised to see the groups reaching Europe are largely male while those in the camps in Syria's neighbors are largely female. (yes, refugees count as migrants/immigrants)

and the US is mostly interested in taking in those from the camps, ie, mostly families.
 
ThunderChunky said:
These people are just refugees from a warzone and we already take in many refugees (although they are only a small part of total immigration). I really see no reason not to take some of them in. I'm actually for a much more strict immigration policy in the united stated, but refugees will have little impact on the total numbers or the economy. The security concerns just seem like political demagoguery to me.
Click to expand...

apparently refusing to take in Syrian women and children will protect us from attacks by young men who are longtime residents of France and Belgium...


Seriously the American rightwing is the biggest collection of pant wetting sissies I've even seen. Gays, AIDs, Ebola, Muslims, Commies, the BLM, young black men with toy guns, Syrian women and kids.... the list of things that make them scream like little little girls and go hiding under their beds is seemingly endless....
 
Today we discovered that the French "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" have more courage and compassion than American conservatives.

French President Francois Hollande today promised that “France will remain a country of freedom,” defending his decision to honor a commitment to accept migrants and refugees despite Friday’s deadly terrorist attacks in Paris.

...

Hollande noted that “some people say the tragic events of the last few days have sown doubts in their minds,” but called it a “humanitarian duty” to help those people … but one that will go hand in hand with “our duty to protect our people.”
Click to expand...
 
jakesteele said:
And Homer and Bart Simpson will continually try to grab a donut that's wired up to a stun gun. Your choice, not mine.
Click to expand...

I take chances when I help people. You can call it stupid and refuse to help others if you so choose.
 
Toontown said:
Weighting by population would work better if you'd be less careless with the facts. The U.S. plans to take 85,000 refugees in 2016 and 100,000 in 2017. These numbers spring mysteriously from the fact that all refugees are not Syrians.

So let's do that math again and get it right this time:

318900000/85000 = 3752

And once again New Zealand falls short.
Click to expand...

Read the subject of the thread
 
The states, governors, who are so scared of Syrian refugees are asses.

However I must say that there is a difference between a refugee escaping specific discrimination or threat and economic or political refugees who have simply given up on their own country and want a new life somewhere else. That latter definition can apply to a large percentage of humanity and they cannot all be absorbed.

Between Jordan, Turkey, Iran and do nothing Saudi and the other Gulf States, there should be plenty of space for refugee camps and we should all pay for them, but the objective needs to be for these people to go home again.
 
cullennz said:
Read the subject of the thread
Click to expand...

That doesn't help Ponderingturtle's math. The planned 750 Syrians will be taken in over a 2.5 year period. So Pondering turtle should have divided by 300 instead of 750, if that was the comparison.

The 750 per year is New Zealand's total yearly refugee quota. So when Ponderingturtle used that number, I followed suit.

Comparing total numbers of refugees is a less ideologically biased comparison anyway. Syrians are no more special than any other refugees. Ponderingturtle simply seized an opportunity to use them as a US-bashing tool.
 
Last edited:
You lot could say you would mostly want widows and children

I know this brings it's own problems
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom