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.
The Constitution is silent on the matter, so it falls under the 9th and 10th Amendments.
They can flee to Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Oman, Qatar, Yemen, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, Algeria and a dozen other States that have majority Muslim populations or in which Muslims are a significant minority.
There is no logical reason to bring those refugees from the Middle East to Europe or the Americas.
Exactly. Most countries understand this.
Bringing 10,000 will not do anything to solve the refugee crisis. But it will bring in potential terrorists or other criminals. Even if just 1% turn out to be criminals/terrorists that is at least 100 of them. AND FOR WHAT? So people feel PC??? For cheap labor???
There is some risk in everything we do, you cannot eliminate risk. Fear of a significant threat to your life is one thing, irrational fear of some miniscule threat is not. Some people have a fear of flying is that rational.
What does "it depends" mean? The question wasn't ambiguous in the slightest. It's asking if you would be willing to take the same risk you are asking other Americans to take.
If you think the odds are minuscule then you should have no hesitation in saying yes, not "it depends".
See. I think people support this, so they can feel good about themselves but only so long as they aren't really the ones taking on the risk. Sure they could happen to be in whatever place a terrorist attack might happen but odds are, it would be some other Americans who are the victims.
If you could know FOR CERTAIN that any potential terror attack from terrorists hiding among the Syrian refugees would directly affect you and your family instead of random strangers, would you still take the risk?
Would you still take those odds?
The Constitution is silent on the matter, so it falls under the 9th and 10th Amendments.
They can flee to Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Oman, Qatar, Yemen, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, Algeria and a dozen other States that have majority Muslim populations or in which Muslims are a significant minority.
There is no logical reason to bring those refugees from the Middle East to Europe or the Americas.
Might just be a small piece of a bigger puzzle.
Now what is the bigger puzzle here ?
What would be accomplished by settling Muslims in countries all over the world ?
The French attackers proved that extremism survives relocation and disregards country of birth.
Jihadism isn't wiped out by relocation out of ME countries.
And Muslims aren't the only ones moving across the countries.
There is mass migration of lots of groups into first world countries.
What does "it depends" mean? The question wasn't ambiguous in the slightest. It's asking if you would be willing to take the same risk you are asking other Americans to take.
If you think the odds are minuscule then you should have no hesitation in saying yes, not "it depends".
See. I think people support this, so they can feel good about themselves but only so long as they aren't really the ones taking on the risk. Sure they could happen to be in whatever place a terrorist attack might happen but odds are, it would be some other Americans who are the victims.
If you could know FOR CERTAIN that any potential terror attack from terrorists hiding among the Syrian refugees would directly affect you and your family instead of random strangers, would you still take the risk?
Would you still take those odds?
Let's stick to the case at hand rather than what if's. The odds are miniscule and I would not mind having these people in my neighborhood, we have always accepted refugees and helped others in distress as was the case with Vietnam
We cannot predict anything for certain, even if you stopped all immigration tomorrow there is nothing to say with complete assurance that there will not be a terror attack. You are searching for the perfect world and that does not exist but the odds microscopic that any of these people would take the actions you suggest.
This is nothing short of grandstanding by the GOP, if they wanted to be serious they would have also addressed the Visa program which accepts millions each year. They didn't even raise the issue, now why would that be the case. Mike Pence can move on when his actions are overruled, go back to his constituents and declare he tried.
What does "it depends" mean? The question wasn't ambiguous in the slightest. It's asking if you would be willing to take the same risk you are asking other Americans to take.
If you think the odds are minuscule then you should have no hesitation in saying yes, not "it depends".
See. I think people support this, so they can feel good about themselves but only so long as they aren't really the ones taking on the risk. Sure they could happen to be in whatever place a terrorist attack might happen but odds are, it would be some other Americans who are the victims.
If you could know FOR CERTAIN that any potential terror attack from terrorists hiding among the Syrian refugees would directly affect you and your family instead of random strangers, would you still take the risk?
Would you still take those odds?
It's the height of arrogance and presumption to assume that someone is a coward for opting out of charity because of potential danger.
To put it bluntly, we don't owe them anything so cowardice doesn't come in to play. We aren't obligated to take them in. If they were our own countrymen or family and we refused out of self preservation, you'd have a point.
Are we also "cowards" for not taking in all of the rest of the oppressed people on the planet? Why stop at the Syrians?
How many homeless people have you taken in lately? None? Why not? They are sleeping out in the cold and the rain and have nothing to eat. By the same logic, I could call you a coward for putting your self interests above the plight of others when you are able to help.
Actually what you are saying is something a coward would say, you would deny help to those who need it because YOU don't feel safe. I wouldn't be surprised if you were like some of the people i see on facebook posting all these big macho memes how you would die for you country, how you would stock up on ammo to kill others and yet the at the same time seem to cower in fear of refugees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
Sick of bleeding heart liberals who put foreigners above our national safety and think we have an endless pool of taxes, resources and jobs to support the world's poor and destitute while our own citizens do without out. I find it despicable that bleeding heart liberals have so little compassion for our own under these circumstances. Such hypocricy.
You know what's funny a republican giving a damn about anyone from this country, the republicans in this country are the one's cutting welfare, cutting medicaid, cutting social security, as well as services for the poor and homeless. When was the last time you even spared a glance at a homeless person and felt something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Might just be a small piece of a bigger puzzle.
Now what is the bigger puzzle here ?
What would be accomplished by settling Muslims in countries all over the world ?
The French attackers proved that extremism survives relocation and disregards country of birth.
Jihadism isn't wiped out by relocation out of ME countries.
And Muslims aren't the only ones moving across the countries.
There is mass migration of lots of groups into first world countries.
The french have bigger cojones than many of our bravest American citizens in TEXAS which is funny because it seems many of the posters on this site who are from texas like to come across as big and bad when in reality they are more like scared suburbanites.
Actually what you are saying is something a coward would say, you would deny help to those who need it because YOU don't feel safe. I wouldn't be surprised if you were like some of the people i see on facebook posting all these big macho memes how you would die for you country, how you would stock up on ammo to kill others and yet the at the same time seem to cower in fear of refugees.
You know what's funny a republican giving a damn about anyone from this country, the republicans in this country are the one's cutting welfare, cutting medicaid, cutting social security, as well as services for the poor and homeless. When was the last time you even spared a glance at a homeless person and felt something?
The french have bigger cojones than many of our bravest American citizens in TEXAS which is funny because it seems many of the posters on this site who are from texas like to come across as big and bad when in reality they are more like scared suburbanites.
As if any of us citizens have a say in what the Fed Gov or EU or NATO or the UN decide to do.
They will come here, they are coming here and there's not a damn thing anyone can say or do to stop it.
We are allies with Turkey who is so corrupt that Turks are advertising fake Syrian passports for $2K on Facebook.
I thought they were the "American" Civil Liberties organization. What does that have to do with refugees who are not American?
Many argue that the president can't just ignore the laws he doesn't like. I will agree with that. The ACLU has agreed with that. Our laws and Constitution does grant the federal government the say over immigration. We may not like what they decide but that is the law.
Actually what you are saying is something a coward would say, you would deny help to those who need it because YOU don't feel safe. I wouldn't be surprised if you were like some of the people i see on facebook posting all these big macho memes how you would die for you country, how you would stock up on ammo to kill others and yet the at the same time seem to cower in fear of refugees.
It's not "cowering in fear of refugees", you idiot. Why does this stupid fear meme have to creep into every discussion? According to leftists, no one can have an opinion on something that they disagree with without having an irrational fear of it.
Islamophobic
Transphobic
Homophobic, etc, etc..
I also find it funny that no none yet has answered the question I posed earlier...
Basically, If you could know FOR CERTAIN that any potential terror attack from terrorists hiding among the Syrian refugees would directly affect you and your family instead of random strangers, would you still take the risk?
Whatever you think those odds are, would you gamble with your life or your families lives in the same way that you are asking other Americans to gamble with theirs?
That's the reason I didn't get any actual answers because most liberals are more than happy to gamble with the lives of OTHER Americans to make themselves feel good but if the question comes down to asking if THEY would assume the risk, predictably, no one is willing to step up.
Typical liberal behavior.
Super charitible with OTHER people's money and super courageous so long as OTHER people will likely be absorbing the risk.
...then if someone raises an objection to this, they get lectured about how cowardly and heartless they are.
I also really have to wonder how many liberals gave a TENTH OF A CRAP about the plight of the Syrians before it became an issue that they could play politics with to bash conservatives on.
This is the same group that wants to enact strict gun control because some gun owners might be dangerous but we shouldn't reject Syrian refugees because some of them might be dangerous
that the states do not have the right is kind of the point. As for the rest....yeah making life difficult for people fleeing ISIS sounds like such a American thing to do right?
I keep hearing this statement floating around. i think one thing should be absolutely clear here. We really have no idea what the agenda and motive of everyone "fleeing" from isis is. That's the whole point. Even if we can ascertain with 100% certainty that they are not ISIS, which we can't, the cultural differences between muslim refugees and western countries are so divergent and at odds with one another, and on such a fundamental level, that accepting a large influx of "refugees" would have serious consequences for the host country. This has been proven. Look at what some of these european countries are experiencing right now and look at a country like Japan.
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.
