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.
Did we change after the 2 world trade center bombings, did we stop visas and halt immigration.
Yes US changed after the world trade center incident. If you travelled to the US before and after the incident, then you would easily notice the difference, the visa policies also changed.
But no one is saying US should stop visas and halt immigration. We are just saying US shouldn't increase the number of Syrians coming to the US. Not only will that increase the risk of terrorism, but it is also a totally ineffective way of helping refugees. The cost of helping 15K refugees could help 300K in Turkey or safe areas in Syria. This would also be better for the refugees in the long term, because they will be in a familiar culture.
The reason Obama want to do this, is not because it is a good policy, but because his friends in the EU want him to take his "fair share". He should tell them they need to get a better policy themselves, instead of asking US to take parts of their burden.
The cost of helping 15K refugees could help 300K in Turkey or safe areas in Syria. This would also be better for the refugees in the long term, because they will be in a familiar culture.
As one of those despised progressive Liberals with the sheer temerity to post on this Right Wing board I have to say that I have never supported immigration for political reasons. I would allow some immigration to obtain a scientist or talented engineer but not an unskilled laborer except for the agricultural industry on a seasonal basis. I base the latter on the observation that the orchards in my neighborhood have been importing summer workers from Jamaica for generations. There are simply not enough local willing to do most of the work for the pay offered.
I have not and do not favor any immigrants from the Middle East. They have a vastly different culture and seem to be far more reluctant of change the way they live in order to become American before they are Muslim or Syrian or whatever. We have absolutely nothing to gain from these immigrants. We actually face a substantial threat because some will use immigration to enter the US in order to expand their War on the West.
I am considering the possibility and severity of this threat to be sufficient to consider establishing a system of Internment Camps as was done with the Japanese during WW2. I realize the effect of this would be very far fetched but the severity of the threat forces the consideration.
OP: Would you be more comfortable with allowing vetted refugees into our country if the NRA (and the politcians they own) weren't so hell-bent on arming them?
OP: Would you be more comfortable with allowing vetted refugees into our country if the NRA (and the politcians they own) weren't so hell-bent on arming them?
Seems like they might be less of a risk if the NRA/GOP wasn't in favor of allowing them access the tools of terrorism.
(Sure, the bad guys can get them, but why make it easy for them? SMH)
If they could be properly vetted, sure. Properly means the FBI approves, not because a politican said so.
With that said, I also agree with GregW above who said that we really have nothing to gain by it since they won't likely be assimilating and will probably start demanding they be allowed to follow Sharia law instead of our laws
If they could be properly vetted, sure. Properly means the FBI approves, not because a politican said so.
With that said, I also agree with GregW above who said that we really have nothing to gain by it since they won't likely be assimilating and will probably start demanding they be allowed to follow Sharia law instead of our laws
In today's environment, I agree with him too. If you look at the artcle posted a few pages back (NYTimes), it addresses this very issue. Looking at it honestly, think all parties (Muslims, non Muslims, etc.) share responsibility for the current state of affairs...
Yes US changed after the world trade center incident. If you travelled to the US before and after the incident, then you would easily notice the difference, the visa policies also changed.
But no one is saying US should stop visas and halt immigration. We are just saying US shouldn't increase the number of Syrians coming to the US. Not only will that increase the risk of terrorism, but it is also a totally ineffective way of helping refugees. The cost of helping 15K refugees could help 300K in Turkey or safe areas in Syria. This would also be better for the refugees in the long term, because they will be in a familiar culture.
The reason Obama want to do this, is not because it is a good policy, but because his friends in the EU want him to take his "fair share". He should tell them they need to get a better policy themselves, instead of asking US to take parts of their burden.
Yes we changed in terms of security requirements but we did not drastically change our acceptance of refugees and immigration policy.
We didn't take issue with the Iraqi refugees which numbered around 20,000 the last few years but now we need to halt Syrians entering the country. Turkey is already overburdened and have some rather deep problems with regard to religion and ethnic background, Jordan is also over burdened with immigrants.
All our intervention in the ME and we are going to tell the EU it's not our issue with a country our size. A small country like Germany can accept a few hundred thousand and we can't alow 185,000.
This is the policy of accepting refugees has always been th esame it did not just change under Obama, this has been the case throughout our history. We should not be over reacting to one incident and changing our policy based on what is happening in France.
Yes we changed in terms of security requirements but we did not drastically change our acceptance of refugees and immigration policy.
We didn't take issue with the Iraqi refugees which numbered around 20,000 the last few years but now we need to halt Syrians entering the country. Turkey is already overburdened and have some rather deep problems with regard to religion and ethnic background, Jordan is also over burdened with immigrants.
All our intervention in the ME and we are going to tell the EU it's not our issue with a country our size. A small country like Germany can accept a few hundred thousand and we can't alow 185,000.
This is the policy of accepting refugees has always been th esame it did not just change under Obama, this has been the case throughout our history. We should not be over reacting to one incident and changing our policy based on what is happening in France.
Sorry, I'm not willing to sacrifice a few hundred Americans (or more) on the alter of "doing our part" to assuage liberal guilt.
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.
