(July 25, 2016 at 10:05 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(July 25, 2016 at 10:02 am)wallym Wrote: Probably true on the screening front.  Intuitively, the screening process makes me nervous. What comes to mind is when some 18yo kid from Africa gets drafted in the NBA, and it turns out he might actually be 23.   But I think this goes to the poorly presented point Trump was making early on.  That its real hard, and maybe impossible sometimes, to vet people from 3rd world countries.

It just might be, but since refugees aren't terrorists, and a terrorist can get here without being a refugee...and it's very difficult to figure out that a terrorist is a terrorist regardless......where is the grounds in any of this for refusing -refugees-?

I don't buy the "well they can get here anyways" thing.  The less paths the better.  But that's a quibble.

Maybe you're right.  Maybe it's not about them being refugees, and it's about them being difficult to vet people from places that have lots of terrorists.  The idea bringing in a batch of 10,000 from a refugee camp at one time is probably what makes them stand out as a risk.  

If you were vetting me, I have a home, photo idea, recent utility, pictures of me in that place, ssn, etc...  Again, intuitively, it doesn't seem like 3rd world refugee camp folks are going to be able to provide the same certainty.  If they can, then I'm fine with it I guess.

Although, even then, I'd prefer they just go to Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or any of the other nearby places because of the financial/cultural stuff.

They don;t have those things...because they are refugees.  You're literally saying that the reason we cant/shouldn't help them is because they need help. Do you know how many refugees we took in from south east asia? Do you know how many south east asian terror attacks we've had on our soil because of that? I wasn;t any easier to vet them (I'd say a hell of alot harder due to the time and the sheer numbers - most weren't actually vetted).

Do you know how many refugees we -already- take in, yearly?

(July 25, 2016 at 10:21 am)Rhythm Wrote: They don;t have those things...because they are refugees.  You're literally saying that the reason we cant/shouldn't help them is because they need help.  Do you know how many refugees we took in from south east asia?  Do you know how many south east asian terror attacks we've had on our soil because of that?  I wasn;t any easier to vet them (I'd say a hell of alot harder due to the time and the sheer numbers - most weren't actually vetted).  

Do you know how many refugees we -already- take in, yearly?

I'm not literally saying that.  I'm saying maybe we can't/shouldn't help them because of circumstances related to why they need help.  

And I'm not aware of any ill will Burma has with the US.  The US, as far as I know, isn't constantly blowing up their cities, and 'oopsing' their children with drone strikes.  But we've taken Iraqi refugees, and that's seemed to have gone fine.  

This may all be moot.  Perhaps, they are perfectly capable of handling the vetting process.  In the end, I think that's all people really want.  A pretty high degree of certainty on who's coming in.  (I still prefer not involving the US, but that's for selfish reasons not safety reasons).

But the refugees in Europe aren't exactly doing the group proud.

(July 25, 2016 at 10:51 am)wallym Wrote: I'm not literally saying that.  I'm saying maybe we can't/shouldn't help them because of circumstances related to why they need help.

I think you like the way the one sounds over the other...but is there a qualitative difference between the statements?   

Quote:And I'm not aware of any ill will Burma has with the US.  The US, as far as I know, isn't constantly blowing up their cities, and 'oopsing' their children with drone strikes.  But we've taken Iraqi refugees, and that's seemed to have gone fine.  

You're not aware of any ill will that se asia might have had, as we absorbed nearly one million refugees?  Vietnam ring a bell?  Korea?  Laos?  I could continue.....

Quote:This may all be moot.  Perhaps, they are perfectly capable of handling the vetting process.  In the end, I think that's all people really want.  A pretty high degree of certainty on who's coming in.  (I still prefer not involving the US, but that's for selfish reasons not safety reasons).

I wholeheartedly agree.  However, whether or not we can do that will be moot point if we're unable to detach our condemnation of terrorists with our fears of refugees.  I;m not really prepared to criticize you for being -openly- selfish. Do that, have your own interests at heart. But at least allow for the possibility that taking in refugees does actually serve your interests.

Quote:But the refugees in Europe aren't exactly doing the group proud.

I think that europe isn't exactly doing europe proud (and have still managed to embarrass us, in context, in the process).....but I'm not sure why you have -again- welded the idea of refugees, as a whole no less...with the acts of a few loons or terrorists who might have or may one day be hidden -among- them.

(July 25, 2016 at 9:43 am)wallym Wrote:

(July 25, 2016 at 2:13 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: I always pick up hitchhikers. Like with the refugees, not only is it the decent thing to do, but the risk is extremely extremely low and you might end up with an enriching experience yourself.

It's an interesting question of how much risk is an okay amount of risk.  And then the secondary question of how much risk is okay to subject other people to.  I don't mind you picking up hitchhikers, because you're assuming all the risk. 

A hypothetical:  If there are 10k syrian refugees.  And exactly 1 of them will attempt a terrorist attack, do you let them in?  It's statistically unlikely any individual american will be harmed by the 1 attack, but that will be little consolation to the 3 people who get killed.  It's a tough balance to strike because there is no way for you to assume all the risk like there is in hitchhiking.

It's actually a very good comparison. Picking up hitchhikers is very safe after all, they are in your car which you are driving and like with the refugees, you can talk to the hitchhikers first and don't have to let them into your car and if you do you can keep track of them. That's how we can vet the refugees in a way the Europe cannot. Also this is a situation that we played a part in creating. How could we as Americans not do something to help?

Also, I'm not afraid of picking up hitchhikers and I'm not afraid of terrorism. I'm not going to live my life as though some worst case scenario is around the corner and I think that's a shitty way for a country to act too.

(July 25, 2016 at 11:03 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: I'm not going to live my life as though some worst case scenario is around the corner and I think that's a shitty way for a country to act too.

Even more so, since a country loses any kind of credit when it goes out of its way to plead human rights at any given occasion. Just lip service in any case, on the same lines as Al Capone setting up soup kitchens. Europe's no better in that department. Well, some countries, such as Germany, are. Because Merkel seems to be one of the select few conservative politicians still having a heart. But most of the others suck up to the most primitive and fear driven parts of their population. It comes kind of naturally with Poland or Hungary, given their governments, but it's sheer populism and the shifting of the burden at the expense of others. Mainly Greece or Italy, given their geographic situation.

"They're gonna come here and take our stuff...also terrorists!" No, they're not...and no, they aren't. It just doesn't seem to matter how many times or how many ways you find to answer either of those debasing accusations.

We're going in circles. I get what you are saying. I think it's just a tough sell given the rate of attacks around the world associated with refugees/islam/countries in the middle east/whatever demographic you want to blame it on.

Those attacks -aren't- associated with -refugees- except by those who do not wish to see those refugees reach their shores because...and I can't help but call it like I see it "they're gonna steal our stuff yall!".

I blame it on jihadi salafists. You know...the -terrorists-....and their unintentional/hapless compatriots......the people who keep insinuating or just outright calling refugees terrorists.

A lot of people conflate economic migrants with people declared as refugees by the UN.