States refusing to accept Syrian refugees

[Skeptic Ginger]

The problem Ryokan is seeing young able bodied men, alone (some going ahead of the family, I know, but they left the family behind, what does that say?) while the US is expected to send our able bodied young men to fight in their country.

I agree with your Jews in WWII example if the Syrians are leaving a completely hopeless situation as no doubt most are. So it is a complex situation. I, myself, have an intellectual response (Jews in WWII) and an emotional response (all those young able bodied men fleeing, leaving the family behind and it looks like what they might be is economic refugees). It's hard not to react when the US is doing some of the fighting for them.

We are actually fighting for ourselves as well, (back to the intellectual reaction). But I also believe Obama is right, people in those countries and neighboring countries need to be doing the fighting themselves for many reasons.

It's not as simple as some people like their black and white worlds to be.

 

[cullennz]

The Jews were too busy being rounded up and put in death camps to do much fighting

 

[trustbutverify]

It's actually not quite that simple.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

A lot of this is only happening because of your illegally invading Iraq so you are kind of cleaning up your own mess

This post, while fundamentally true, is functionally useless.

 

[Toontown]

A lot of this is only happening because of your illegally invading Iraq so you are kind of cleaning up your own mess

This post, while fundamentally true, is functionally useless.

It's actually not fundamentally true. I could debunk it, but it's not worth the time. Debunking anything automatically triggers a lot of moles to pop up, saying exactly what was debunked. This continues until the debunking disappears behind page 2.

I once forced a lawyer to claim that the UN resolutions were not to be taken literally.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

We should try to save as many as we possibly can.

 

[cullennz]

This post, while fundamentally true, is functionally useless.

Fair point.

Hindsight is lovely

The present is what it is

 

[Information Analyst]

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.

That makes as much sense as suggesting that if someone uses a train to reach a place where they then to commit a mass murder, all railways should be shut down.

 

[Information Analyst]

You must be so embarrassed.

Why? Per head of population it's seven times what America is taking.

 

[Information Analyst]

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?

Yeah, like people who go to conferences are representative of anything other than those who have enough time to do that sort of thing, rather than being busy getting on with their lives....

 

[Information Analyst]

750 over 3 years. Awesome, aren't they. And always among the least hypocritical people in internet discussions.

New Zealand taking 250 in a single year is still twice the per capita rate of the US taking 10,000 in a single year.

 

[Toontown]

Why? Per head of population it's seven times what America is taking.

False.

In 2016, NZ plans to take 1350. Roughly 1 in 3300 per capita.

The US plans to take 85,000. Roughly 1 in 3700 per capita.

The difference is insignificant.

 

[Information Analyst]

I have an idea: Let the British Commonwealth turn New Zealand into the world's largest refugee camp. It would do wonders for your International relations.

My, but aren't we very behind the times...?

 

[Toontown]

New Zealand taking 250 in a single year is still twice the per capita rate of the US taking 10,000 in a single year.

Your numbers keep shifting. A minute ago it was 7 times.

Why are you only counting Syrians? Because Syrians are special, or is it because only counting Syrians is a dishonest way to make NZ look good?

 

[Information Analyst]

Your numbers keep shifting. A minute ago it was 7 times.

Nope, because the first was to a claim of 750, and the second to one of 750 over three years. Seven times in one year rounds down to double over three years.

Why are you only counting Syrians? Because Syrians are special, or is it because only counting Syrians is a dishonest way to make NZ look good?

Because the number of Syrians only was what was being discussed initially. The normal NZ refugee quota is 750 per year, so if they're taking an additional 750 Syrians over two-and-a-half years, that's 1000 per year. The first cited document details previous intakes including Syrians, so clearly more than 750 will be going to NZ in the time period in question.

If the United States is going to raise its total quota of feguees from all sources to 85,000 next year (from 70,000 this year), then that puts it at a similar per capita rate to New Zealand. The additional 15,000 for the United States is slightly lower per capita than the extra 250 for New Zealand.

 

[Toontown]

Because the number of Syrians only was what was being discussed initially.

No, not really. The originating question was simply how many refugees is NZ taking, not how many Syrians. There is no logical reason why the nationality of a refugee should cause her to go uncounted in the Great Humanitarian War.

In terms of per capita refugees of all stripes, the US and NZ are roughly equal in 2016. But only because NZ is temporarily increasing it's quota to take more Syrians. Before that, the US had a significant per capita advantage.

 

[Information Analyst]

No, not really. The originating question was simply how many refugees is NZ taking, not how many Syrians.

In terms of per capita refugees of all stripes, the US and NZ are roughly equal.

On the contrary, when it started on page one it was implicit from the context that posters were talking specifically about Syrian refugees.

 

[The Don]

The problem Ryokan is seeing young able bodied men, alone (some going ahead of the family, I know, but they left the family behind, what does that say?) while the US is expected to send our able bodied young men to fight in their country.

I'm (comparatively) young and pretty able-bodied but I would be utterly useless in an armed conflict against ISIS. I have no military training, there is no command infrastructure and I have no weapons.

OTOH members of armed forces are well trained, well equipped and have a proper command structure.

That said, here in the UK there hasn't been much of a call for Western boots on the ground, more like airstrikes and logistical support. It may be different in the U.S.

 

[Toontown]

On the contrary, when it started on page one it was implicit from the context that posters were talking specifically about Syrian refugees.

The question could be interpreted that way, since Cullenz was referring only to Syrians.

But then I am left to ponder why Cullenz would refer only to Syrians, and why you would follow suit. There is no logical reason why the nationality of a refugee should cause her to go uncounted in the Great Humanitarian War.

 

[Information Analyst]

The question could be interpreted that way, since Cullenz was referring only to Syrians.

But then I am left to ponder why Cullenz would refer only to Syrians, and why you would follow suit. There is no logical reason why the nationality of a refugee should cause her to go uncounted in the Great Humanitarian War.

You might think that, but from the available actual figures, it looks like NZ is ahead slightly on "extra Syrian refugees," and probably the same degree behind "all refugees including Syrians." Everyone should probably call it quits.