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.
Perhaps. I hold the view that people need to have respect for those who are their political opposites on both sides. Something about saying liberals lives are less valuable just doesn't sit well with me.
But that's fair. Indeed, the Democrats pretending their is no threat and saying anyone who opposes letting in as many refugees as possible is racist are a problem. I agree with that. Personally, I'm not even anti-refugee. Many are trying to avoid a bloody civil war. I'm sympathetic to that. I however do not think it's unreasonable to increase security, be somewhat selective in who we bring it, and just generally be smart about the issue. It's not saying "Syrians are dangerous because they're brown" because that's obviously stupid. Syrian people are in the midst of a vicious conflict in a period of time where radicalization is taking hold. The circumstance causing this radicalization, also, would probably have the same sort of effect anywhere, of people of any race or religion.
Frankly, my position is basically agnostic. It's neither entirely conservative nor liberal and, if I do say so myself, is a pretty fair common ground. But I'm sure someone would call me racist or a traitor to America, depending on their perspective and you're probably not wrong in saying I should care more about that. But unwarranted disrespect bothers me. I can't help.
If you look at our exchanges on this thread, you'll see who started with the disrespect.
Hundreds of people admitted to the United States as refugees are the subjects of FBI counterterrorism investigations involving ISIS – including some individuals from countries cited on President Trump’s revised travel ban.
Nearly a third of the 1,000 FBI domestic terrorism cases – 300 – involve those admitted to the U.S. as refugees, a Department of Homeland Security official said Monday. That number was confirmed later in the day by Attorney General Jeff Sessions during a news conference. Officials said some of those 300 came to “infiltrate” the U.S., while others were radicalized once they were in the country.
so to be clear the vast majority of terrorism INVESTIGATIONS are on Americans!
and to be clear with an average of 35k muslim refugees per year the total being investigated (innocent or otherwise) from all years combined is just 300...
300?
well how many of those 300 were found to have done anything???
anyone?
or did fox just tie two stories under one headline and fool gulliable Fox news viewers ..
To be clear folks, nobody in the story says a single person in that 300 has done anything wrong at any point .
what we have is more fake news.
the fake part is where it goes on to discuss terrorists without noting they are no longer talking about refugees and americans who were being investigated.
I never once said or insinuated I want liberals killed. I'm saying that if they are in favor of letting in high risk refugees, they should be the ones assuming that risk.
That's not how legislation works though. If you want border security, fine. Me too. But ultimately, public debate has to happen and sometimes that means taking a loss. As I said in another post, I feel my overall views on the whole issue revolving around refugees is a pretty centrist stance anyway, but a debate will move forward. And if the end result of debate is not an increase in security, you cannot volunteer other people's cities for taking in refugees. They can. You can talk to your local city council members and state representatives to see about minimizing number of refugees.
My point is really a great debate in civil discourse. In fairness, I don't really think you want people to die. But at the same time, I'm not sensing a great level of respect for the costal liberals. They have reasons for their views, as you yours. And if the debate ends up being "you're racist" or "you want 'em in your house!" the debate will go no where and somehow everyone will be unhappy.
I don't want any refugees coming to the US, especially from places like Syria; however, if liberals force us to accept them, it only makes sense that the liberal cities take them.
Why is this going over your head?
Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticratic
Because you can't enact policy like that. If I oppose a war, I don't get to say you can't tax me because I don't like it. That's stupid. You cannot target policy at a political party. That's what tyrants do.
If they are allowed to come in, those cities that have vocally supported them should be the ones welcoming their new "guests". They should also pick up the bigger share of the $65,000 to resettle each one of them. Aren't those the richer cities? Surely with all the compassion/passion they have burning buildings, blocking ambulances, etc. to protest, they won't mind putting their money where their mouths are!
So none of the Trump supporters want to acknowledge that the 300 refugees being investigated have not been reported to have actually done anything wrong?
Not one of you want to touch that do you.
You all fell for the story, failed to read it fully and thought you found 300 bad guys when for all you know you found 300 heros or 300 innocent refugees who are being checked out just to be extra safe like you asked...
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.
