I can't see taking them in en masse.  The process we have in place has admitted a trickle presumably because of the difficulty of vetting them given the situation in their homeland. 

I really can't see a solution to the Syrian situation.  I do agree with Bernie Sanders, though.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/bernie-s...-and-bush/

Quote:Bernie Sanders: World is paying the price today for the ‘tough, but stupid’ policies of Cheney and Bush

Sometimes things get so fucked up that it is impossible to fix them.  This could well be one of them.

(November 17, 2015 at 1:29 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Ostensibly the purpose of limiting immigration from Syria is to avoid the importation of terrorists.  While a laudable goal, limiting immigration is not an effective method of stopping terrorism in your country.  It is too easy to get in, and there are way too many soft targets for this strategy to be effective.  Therefore I say yes, as a no vote rests on an unsound strategy.

What about housing? What about jobs and the economy? What about different languages? What about background checks? What about sharia law being brought over with them? What about culture clash? There's millions of people coming into Europe setting up camp, yet all the proponents have to say is "hooray for helping people!" It seems almost tacitly absurd.

(November 17, 2015 at 12:25 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Should 1st world countries in the west take in Syrian refugees?

Not sure if I'm in the minority or not, but I said yes with limitations.  Obviously there needs to be extensive background checks and passing a series of tests that perhaps most normal aliens are not subjected to, but I don't see a valid reason not to take them.  Terrorism is an idealogy and not limited to a set group of people.  There are members of ISIS that are from countries all over the globe.  I live very near the highest population of Muslims in the U.S. in Dearborn, MI and I know a great deal of Middle Eastern folks from that area.  I have a very good friend who is a Muslim and lives in this neighborhood, called me on the phone this weekend crying over the attacks.  When we stereotype and generalize we find ourselves offending a great deal more than we intend to.  Do not discriminate based on origin, race, gender, etc.  

I disagree with the GOP on this one and actually find it ironic in a way.  When we have local terrorism (crazy gunmen), the GOP is the first to say not to punish the good gun owners for the actions of the bad ones.  But that is precisely the message they are sending by refusing all refugees.  You are punishing those that are trying to escape from that madness themselves, because of a few crazies.  Open the door, but put up a dozen checkpoints.

(November 17, 2015 at 12:25 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Should 1st world countries in the west take in Syrian refugees?

Yes with the condition that either they pay for their own housing, health care, food and education or other people volunteer the money to give them.  And either they or volunteers pay for the administration funds it will take to monitor them all coming into the country. 

The monitoring system should ensure that no high risk drug users/ terrorists/ criminals are among the refugees and also it would be preferable if they can at least be literate in their own language.

So basically as long as no taxes which are forcibly taken from the 1st world population by the government are used to pay for anything to do with any of the procedure.  It has to be an unforced, genuinely charitable plan of action with responsibility and caution taken relating to the people coming in to the country.

Your "rich European cultures" have changed over centuries.

Refusing to help out your fellow humans because it might come at the expense of changing your habits, rituals, or cultural identity in some way is so indescribably racist and inhuman, I can't even begin to believe I've read that reasoning in this thread.

(November 17, 2015 at 2:58 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Your "rich European cultures" have changed over centuries.

Refusing to help out your fellow humans because it might come at the expense of changing your habits, rituals, or cultural identity in some way is so indescribably racist and inhuman, I can't even begin to believe I've read that reasoning in this thread.

I don't actually know if this was aimed at my anyway but I'd just like to clarify that I'm not interested in any of the things you mentioned, I'm purely interested in money, education, health care, crime rate, terrorist attacks.

Syrians living next door to me isn't going to change my habits, rituals or cultural identity I really have no fear of that at all.

It wasn't.

But the rest of that stuff is fucking arguable anyway. These people aren't freeloaders. They're desperate and looking for aid.

(November 17, 2015 at 2:49 pm)Kingpin Wrote:

(November 17, 2015 at 12:25 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Should 1st world countries in the west take in Syrian refugees?

Not sure if I'm in the minority or not, but I said yes with limitations.  Obviously there needs to be extensive background checks and passing a series of tests that perhaps most normal aliens are not subjected to, but I don't see a valid reason not to take them.  Terrorism is an idealogy and not limited to a set group of people.  There are members of ISIS that are from countries all over the globe.  I live very near the highest population of Muslims in the U.S. in Dearborn, MI and I know a great deal of Middle Eastern folks from that area.  I have a very good friend who is a Muslim and lives in this neighborhood, called me on the phone this weekend crying over the attacks.  When we stereotype and generalize we find ourselves offending a great deal more than we intend to.  Do not discriminate based on origin, race, gender, etc.  

I disagree with the GOP on this one and actually find it ironic in a way.  When we have local terrorism (crazy gunmen), the GOP is the first to say not to punish the good gun owners for the actions of the bad ones.  But that is precisely the message they are sending by refusing all refugees.  You are punishing those that are trying to escape from that madness themselves, because of a few crazies.  Open the door, but put up a dozen checkpoints.

Well said as usual.

(November 17, 2015 at 10:29 am)Dystopia Wrote: A legal issue that exists due a pseudo-objective smug sense of morality that is imposed on western nations for no particular reason other than pity and making people feel guilty. Is there any reason I should care about the UN or consider them a respectable institution in the international paradigm, other than the fact that it is ruled by countries with more power?

No it was made in the wake of the MS St. Louis tragedy, asshole.

If you really don't think it's important, then withdraw from the protocol. You do realise that your asshole country is the only first world State that has signed the protocol but not the convention?

(November 17, 2015 at 8:49 pm)Aractus Wrote:

(November 17, 2015 at 10:29 am)Dystopia Wrote: A legal issue that exists due a pseudo-objective smug sense of morality that is imposed on western nations for no particular reason other than pity and making people feel guilty. Is there any reason I should care about the UN or consider them a respectable institution in the international paradigm, other than the fact that it is ruled by countries with more power?

No it was made in the wake of the MS St. Louis tragedy, asshole.

If you really don't think it's important, then withdraw from the protocol. You do realise that your asshole country is the only first world State that has signed the protocol but not the convention?

He's not American.

Who's the asshole now, asshole?