Reply With Quote
I don't care about minor DUI's...bombs and other sleepercell attacks. You know, muslim things. Also would be interested in getting some before&after pics of the neighborhoods they'll be polluting
Here's a question: why these specific refugees? And not the thousands, or millions, of refugees all over the world that in many cases are probably worse off than these Syrian ones?
I don't care about minor DUI's...bombs and other sleepercell attacks. You know, muslim things. Also would be interested in getting some before&after pics of the neighborhoods they'll be polluting
We already have refugee relocation programs for them that, to my knowledge, are in no danger of going away. The controversy is specifically about Syrian refugees.
I get that.
Like I said, it can/should be done w/ extreme delicacy. Throwing numbers out there to quantify that risk is silly in my opinion. There shouldn't be any extremist/terrorism risk. If there is we're doing it wrong.
The numbers are just a directional means of illustrating the scale we're talking about. Nobody wants any risk of a terrorist attack. But I would argue we give ourselves a greater-than 1-in-110,000 chance of a terrorist attack on our turf by clinging to an anti-Muslim isolationist policy than we do through a careful relocation program.
Fundamentally, if the resettlement program creates goodwill while also bringing in better people than what we currently have (which is why I threw out 1 in 12 are felons - under no cir stance would I expect resettled refugees would be felons at anywhere NEAR that rate), that's good for the country.
The skittles are already here, tbh
It's not only the attacks though. And that's what I explained in an earlier post. It's fundamentalism/extremism. I don't want any of that Sharia bull , whether it manifests itself as violence or as sympathy.
And the whole anti-isolationist policy is IMO unfounded. Explain to me how resettling refugees helps lessen terrorism, extremism etc. If anything it's our Western influence that has worsened that since a great number of people in the ME think we're infidels. They see our welcoming gesture as an affront, conversion of their people to a corrupt culture.
They've been coming in for the past two years already.
So far the scoreboard is preemptively busting/deporting a couple for jihadist language last year.
One caveat of the conservative fearmongering is hypervigilance in surveillance. It's not like they are going to be able to join flight schools and buy fertilizer by the truckload and its going to be missed.
The primary strategy of radical Islamists is to pit Muslims against the Western world through propaganda that paints the West as an active enemy of Muslims. While banning Syrian refugees over fears of radicalist tendencies isn't the only brush they can paint that picture with, it's certainly one of them.
I'm not even convinced they use it as a brush. And if they do, it's of virtual no consequence. They'll couch it some other way so that it fits into Islam, which is where they get all their propaganda from. Millions of Muslims have lived & were accepted here in the West since before 9/11, and it didn't mean a damn thing as far as that goes.
I'm for taking in refugees fwiw. But I sure as don't have to be an advocate of Islam or believe in a pipe dream that it not doing so would further widen the West-ME divide. Because ultimately it takes away from the greater point, which is that Islam, as it's practiced throughout the ME, Africa, and as far as the Philippines is in most cases antiquated and a cancer that breeds hate & intolerance.
Why is it a bad argument? Europeans were not the first humans here. Railing against immigrants seems a bit hypocritical.
The answer to your nonsensical question is zero. How is your question relevant? Is the problem of immigration dependant on the existence of a nation? Again, there are tribes that would disagree.
Although if you want to take that route there were nations here before the USA, that were swept aside.
IT was very predictable.
What country does the following describe:
A totalitarian police state, formed as a country roughly after world war I, that encompasses multiple religions and ethnicities that, prior to the police state, were actively killing each either in sectarian bloodshed. The police state kept a lid on the tensions, then the police state was removed, and the groups were suddenly free to kill each other, which they started doing almost immediately.
Don't have the house to be able to take in an entire family.
If I can find someone within a reasonable distance, to be able to do something meaningful, I will. Mentoring, advice, and whatever social network I can provide, with financial assistance if needed. An investment.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...-u-s-this-week
Five members of the Jouriyeh family, who are Syrian refugees headed to the U.S. from Jordan this week as part of a resettlement program.
Raad Adayleh/AP
Haven't really looked into it yet. Sorry if whatever plans I have are not to your timeline.
As U.S. Politicians Shun Syrian Refugees, Religious Groups Embrace Them
Najla cooks for Syria Day at Global Grace Café at the Reformed Church of Highland Park in New Jersey. Najla is from Syria and arrived in the U.S. 10 months ago with her husband and daughter after the United Arab Emirates canceled a residency permit, ending her job at an insurance company.
Deborah Amos/NPR
When 31 governors called for a ban on Syrian refugees coming into the U.S. after last November's terrorist attacks in Paris, it united faith-based communities across the country. They are challenging the wave of opposition to these refugees by taking a leading role in resettling them.
"If they didn't have the churches and synagogues providing what they do, this system would collapse," says Jennifer Quigley, referring to the federal resettlement program that is now under attack from Congress and many governors.
Quigley is a strategist for refugee protection with Human Rights First, an advocacy group that has pressed the administration to increase Syrian resettlement from the pledged goal of 10,000 in 2016 to 100,000 in fiscal year 2017.
Damn Christians and their flaky religion.
Last edited by TeyshaBlue; 10-02-2016 at 05:07 PM.
There were nomadic tribes you brainwashed liberal moron
So if they were just nomadic tribes they deserved slaughter?There were nomadic tribes you brainwashed liberal moron
What are you trying to say here?
Your posts reek of brainwashing from schools, teachers, professors... America was great when it was the parents raising the children, not the state and the idealogue indoctrinators in the schools.
One of the hallmarks of brainwashing is an inability to answer questions that require critical thinking.There were nomadic tribes you brainwashed liberal moron
I noticed you melted down when I tried to get some clarification on something fairly simple.
So I will ask again, because you seemed unable to provide an answer for some reason.
So if they were just nomadic tribes they deserved slaughter?
Little late to re-fight the Indian wars, RG.
Typical liberal twerp moving the goal posts. Did I say about slaughter, wad?
As a Jew I can't believe you consider any feral Muslim immigration from that region of the world acceptable. Most of the attacks in Europe are on Jews that are minding their own business walking down the street. The primary target of the San Bernardino attack was his Jewish coworker. You’re gonna have a big target on that buzzard beak of yours
Yes it is.
Never to late to be honest about it, though. Do you agree?
That seemed to be implied in your post, so I was asking for a clarification, just so I can understand your viewpoint.
For the record, distorting someone's views is more correctly called a strawman fallacy, not moving the goal posts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
If you are going to accuse someone of being an idiot, doing so while incorrectly using terms is very ineffective.
So the question remains. I notice you still haven't been able to answer, despite its simplicity. I am merely looking for an honest answer.
So if they were just nomadic tribes they deserved slaughter?
If we left, who would go to their casinos?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
