Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, what is 65000in the scheme of things? Heck, why not 650,000? The goal posts never stop moving do they? And then they are used to justify more and more of the same. See? Now Mexicans flooding in are used as a justification to allow others in. Of course, none of that was ever a consideration when the idea of allowing just a few more in was being discussed right?
So basically let's just close our borders and become an isolationist country?
Yeah, in the name of its going to happen anyway, lets just allow it to happen right now. Where has that been the common theme before? Why yes, that is called the ends justifying the means. Now who lives and dies by that mantra?
Y'know, all the comments here to the effect that the U.S. has no responsibility for helping with the humanitarian crisis in Syria, would have slightly more weight if the U.S. wasn't militarily involved in Syria.
Yeah, in the name of its going to happen anyway, lets just allow it to happen right now. Where has that been the common theme before? Why yes, that is called the ends justifying the means. Now who lives and dies by that mantra?
I really would like to know, would you approve of letting ANY refugees into the US (not just Syria)? And if so, under what circumstances?
Y'know, all the comments here to the effect that the U.S. has no responsibility for helping with the humanitarian crisis in Syria, would have slightly more weight if the U.S. wasn't militarily involved in Syria.
It really is a shame our incompetent commander in chief drew an adjustable line in the sand. We should help put in the humanitarian crisis. We should.not let them in.
I understand that, but do you honestly think that bringing in 65,000 Syrians is going to change the immigrant dynamic in the US? No, they will still be a tiny minority of immigrants. Europe has a bigger problem to deal with, no doubt, particularly Germany and Sweden. They've gone too far and it will cause problems down the line for them. But I don't see why the US can't be sensible, humane, and responsible by letting in a limited number of well-vetted refugees with legitimate claims. It's not like it's something we don't already do every day. Oh, and by the way, as a signatory to the UN HRC, we are obligated to accept refugees. The US doesn't have the problem of opening the floodgates from that part of the world because it's too hard to be smuggled to the US from there. We have to worry more about Latin America though that's actually really tapered off in recent years.
It sure changed the twin cities. Did congress endorse that signature? If no no such obligation exists
I challenge all who posted on this thread to take a break and Google what the Muslims who came to this country have done to destroy the American way and insisted Sharia law is the way they want to be governed. It's just ludicrous what these lower than scum have done to American cities. I dare you, call my bluff. And if you really want to see what we are in for, just look up what they have done to London, England. But of course this is not a public issue because you know who is the president. This country is sooooo screwed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
