To take or not to take Syrian refugees

[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.

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

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?

[Mister Agenda]

The refugee vetting process is already very thorough. Out of 750,000 refugees accepted into the USA, not one terrorists. Out of all the ways a terrorist could choose to enter the USA, gaining refugee status is the most difficult. Homeland Security is heavily involved.

[Edwardo Piet]

@ CL I understand your points completely but then surely you could just as easily have voted yes and put it like this: "As a Catholic I believe the right thing to do would be to let them in, so I voted "yes", however I do not expect the government to actually do it and I wouldn't blame them for that because this is a secular government, not a Catholic government."

So the question is: Are we voting for what we expect from the government or what we ourselves personally think the ideal decision would be?

I voted "yes". I would vote for "with certain limitations" but I am simply not knowledgeable enough on the issue to know what those limitations would fully be, for example: I don't know what the checking for terrorists would involve before clearing a refugee and letting them in. So I decided to generalize and vote "yes".

I don't buy into the whole "One country is not obligated to let other citizens in" because from an ethical point of view I think that the sufferings of all people from all countries matter and are relevant and I care just as much about innocent refugee's sufferings from other countries than I do about the citizens in my country. I am not a very political person at all, I'm thoroughly ignorant of politics: But I am very interested in ethics and I think ethics covers the bigger picture because it doesn't deal with specific countries but the whole world, and even other species.

[Longhorn]

Of course.

[The Grand Nudger]

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free-”

-pretty much settles it for me.

[Ben Davis]

I voted 'Yes, absolutely'. For me, this is a humanitarian issue that transcends the concept of 'nation': people need help to escape from horrible transgressions against their person and their rights. It's a no-brainer. That doesn't mean that everyone who claims to be a refugee is one and that's where the UN Convention (thanks for the link Aractus) helps provide minimum qualifications. I think they're very balanced and fairly represent potential refugees.

I understand the security issues and think that the best course of action is the one we currently use in the UK: border agents screen people at entry and cross-reference data with the intelligence agencies, both domestic & international. So-far, the agents in the UK have done an amazing job at protecting both the refugees and the UK citizenry (in spite being hampered by Conservative politicing).

[Angrboda]

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.

[SteelCurtain]

Whether we take them or not, they are leaving. They have to go somewhere. Taking them in with an emphasis on vetting and assimilation will produce a net gain in moderate Islam. They need to have their own Enlightenment. They need some goofball prophet to have a Joseph Smith moment and pump out an Allah-inspired New Testament. That shit ain't happening if we let them languish in the hinterlands. That is where resentment and extremism is bred and terrorism is fostered.

[Alex K]

Well, "fuck you, I've got mine" is always a viable option. It all depends on your values, doesn't it.

[Exian]

Depends on how funny and entertaining they are.