To take or not to take Syrian refugees

[Ashground]

"with certain limitations/conditions"  
So long as they accept our western values they're welcome. If the richer Muslim countries were really worth anything these people wouldn't need to leave the middle-east to find sanctuary.

[Aractus]

I picked "Yes, but with certain limitations/conditions", because yes those refugees should be helped but not at the cost of endangering the lives of the nations citizens. The refugees need to be occupied and constantly monitored as soon as they arrive.

In Australia if a refugee is deemed to be a threat to national security they are permanently detained, but they are still offered refuge from the persecution they would return to.

I'm pretty sure it's a human rights abuse, but at least they aren't sent back to die, like the Jews in WWII (see MS St. Louis).

[DespondentFishdeathMasochismo]

Should 1st world countries in the west take in Syrian refugees?

I have been following this issue and what I've heard that in some places the native population itself has become a minority. I am guessing this is places like Sweden, I also heard it was true of England. I am not one of those people who really cares about preserving a race or is against race mixing or something, but it makes me sad to see that these places with rich history and culture are being destroyed and replaced with third world refugees. I'm not saying it's the refugee's fault or anything. They come from a very impoverished nation, the problem of rape has become a crisis in the countries they've inhabited, I've heard time and time again. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe that this is a massive crisis, there are a lot of people who need to escape their country. They need to get to safety, but the way they're doing it is jeopardizing the lives of many other people. How does the country plan to sustain all of these people? Sweden itself said that it's cultures are not important and it's native people itself get placed as the lowest priority for getting an apartment in their own country. There's also the problem of muslims trying to adopt sharia law, they can't just adopt the culture of the new country, they are trying to take their traditions and enforce them on everyone. That is a massive religious problem. I've been hearing that Sweden, which used to be one of the best countries in the world, will become a third world country. 

These are things that trouble me, I hope that people aren't turning a blind eye to the massive problems of this refugee crisis. I live in one of the most multicultural areas of the united states and I love it here. It's a safe place to live and our school systems were a great place to grow up, in such ethnic diversity. I think it was told that we have refugees from about 20 different countries at our school alone. We only take in about 70,000 per year into our entire country though, I believe.

[Alex K]

Should 1st world countries in the west take in Syrian refugees?

I have been following this issue and what I've heard that in some places the native population itself has become a minority. I am guessing this is places like Sweden, I also heard it was true of England. I am not one of those people who really cares about preserving a race or is against race mixing or something, but it makes me sad to see that these places with rich history and culture are being destroyed and replaced with third world refugees.

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about

[DespondentFishdeathMasochismo]

I have been following this issue and what I've heard that in some places the native population itself has become a minority. I am guessing this is places like Sweden, I also heard it was true of England. I am not one of those people who really cares about preserving a race or is against race mixing or something, but it makes me sad to see that these places with rich history and culture are being destroyed and replaced with third world refugees.

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about

I'm not going to try to extrapolate on my points when I'm not even sure what you don't understand about what I wrote. If you want to try to be more specific or try to refute some of what I said using quotes, that's fine. I really have nothing to work with here.

[Alex K]

I object to your lumping of these people as third world refugees, whatever that is supposed to mean, and wonder which places with a rich history are being destroyed

[Dystopia]

I voted "no". I have found no compelling reason to vote "yes". I'm not someone who believes there is a moral duty to help other countries unless there's some sort of long term friendship or alliance between them. By a matter of coherence, I think it's unfair to take only some refugees and ban others, so either I choose to help all of them or none. Therefore, my answer is "no".

PS - I wouldn't really answer any differently if the group fleeing were non-Muslims.



But... As with anything, being strategic matters. The enemy of my enemy is my friend... I feel compelled to say I don't disagree with taking in all refugees because it will speed up the collapse of the EU, something I've been awaiting far too long.

[DespondentFishdeathMasochismo]

Okay I think I understand what you're confused about. You're confused about what you perceive to be a false dichotomy between being for race mixing and wanting to preserve the culture. Let me be more specific about that. I like Europian culture, it's neet. I don't want them to be demolished and replaced with third world culture. If they're replaced by anything, I want it to be a culture way more enlightened. The refugees are from a third world country. Now the native population is a minority, in a population of people from a third world country, trying to instill their third world values into the country they took over. That is scary as fuck. We take in such a small amount of people into America and they have to learn our languages and accel in our school systems. They go through intensive screening and background checks from the fbi before they come to our country. We only take 70,000 a year for the entire country of the United States. If you're not concerned about this issue, then you and I cannot relate on it at all or we've heard entirely different things.

---

[video=youtube] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44vzMNG2fZc
[/video]

---

I object to your lumping of these people as third world refugees, whatever that is supposed to mean, and wonder which places with a rich history are being destroyed

Oh, but they are third world. It's not so much as the rich history being destroyed, as much as these places with thriving first world cultures, are being destroyed. Don't get me wrong, I think that Europian tradition is cool, but that doesn't matter as much as the bigger picture.

[Aractus]

I voted "no". I have found no compelling reason to vote "yes". I'm not someone who believes there is a moral duty to help other countries unless there's some sort of long term friendship or alliance between them. By a matter of coherence, I think it's unfair to take only some refugees and ban others, so either I choose to help all of them or none. Therefore, my answer is "no".

PS - I wouldn't really answer any differently if the group fleeing were non-Muslims.

But... As with anything, being strategic matters. The enemy of my enemy is my friend... I feel compelled to say I don't disagree with taking in all refugees because it will speed up the collapse of the EU, something I've been awaiting far too long.

It's not a moral issue, it's a legal issue.

[Catholic_Lady]

I answered other.

I do think from a Catholic standpoint that the right thing to do would be to take them in. It is a Christian obligation to put our lives on the line for doing what's right, and the right thing to do would be to rescue these people even if we run the risk of bringing harm to ourselves.

But this is not a Catholic country with a Catholic government and not everyone who lives here is Catholic. So while I do think the right thing to do as a Catholic would be to take them in, I wouldn't expect a secular nation's government to do so when it runs the risk of bringing harm to the citizens, and wouldn't blame them if they didn't. They have no moral obligation to do so. Obviously, I think they'd be doing the morally right thing if they did, but since they are not bound by Catholic laws I don't think they'd be doing the "wrong" thing if they didn't.

What sickens me is to see some devout Christians being so against it.