Explosions and shootings in Paris

[wilkeliza]

Personally, I believe we should help as many refugees as possible. Any that can be adequately screened I have no problem with. I don't consider being prudent and cautious as hysteria. If anything the hysteria comes when it is suggested that we must bring them in immediately and any suggestion that there may be a couple bad apples is racist.

I think this may be one of the first time we agree on this. I am all for screening. What I am against is purposefully making these screenings longer or harder simply because they are Syrian because we are worried about terrorism. I have heard people say we shouldn't allow any more legal immigration or refugees who are screened when they don't realize they are saying these things to immigrants or generations who came from refugees not that long ago.

I had a family member straight out tell me that anyone of Syrian decent should be shipped back where they belong. I had to remind her that my fiance is of Syrian decent so she should probably watch what she says around me.

 

[luvsJack]

When you say that you need to help Americans who are not fighting for their lives before you help refugees, you are basically saying that American lives are worth more than any other lives. Simple as that.

So answer me this, if you have a choice between caring for your own child or the child down the street. You can only do one, not both, who do you choose? I would say 99% of all parents are going to say 'my own child". The country shouldn't be any different. First step should be caring for each and every American man woman and child, then we can care for others.

I am not sure if it was here or on FB but I liked what one person said--We don't lock the doors of our homes because we hate the person outside, we do it because we love the people inside. Borders are the same as doors. We cannot take care of the world. If taking in refugees poses a threat (not saying it does, but if) do we not have a responsibility to lock the doors and keep our citizens safe first and foremost?

Are American lives worth more? Globally, no. In America? I think so. Charity truly does begin at home.

 

[taitai]

All this hysteria over refugees is simply ridiculous. These are people who are fleeing ISIS. These are people who need our help. We should help them. The vetting process to be admitted as a refugee in the US is extremely thorough and takes 12-18 months to complete. They will be screened. If a terrorist wanted to enter the US to cause mayhem, acting as a refugee is the worst possible way to do it. Come in on a tourist visa. Come in on a student visa. That is how the 9/11 Saudi Bombers entered our country. Not a single one was here as a refugee.

Of the 3 million refugees fleeing Syria, possibly one entered Europe as a refugee. This hysteria is really taken over our country and makes us look like the worst type of bigots. My state is going to take refugees and I just emailed my Governor to thank him for not being a coward.

 

[luvsJack]

I'm sure there are lots of similarities with young adults that live to join gangs. It makes them feel powerful, tough, in charge. They get a kick out of being criminals. They have a group of ready made best friends. With Islamic Extremists we can probably add in a sprinkle of highly controversial religiosity to the mix.
Ugly combination of stuff, overall.

That is exactly how it sounded. That some are just looking for a place to belong and be accepted.

 

[nanienamou]

I posted this in the other thread about the Canadian response but it is worth bringing up here. Why are we judged as heartless while Saudi Arabia is given a pass? They are closer to the problem, share a way of life much closer to refugees and have plenty of ready made space. Much better conditions than in refugee camps. And moving these people into western civilization where they don't assimilate is being cited everywhere as a reason why their young men grow up and want to kill us.

I think it's not being addressed because it's simply not relevant in the discussion. Amnesty International has addressed the issue of Saudi Arabia and their lack of humanitarian effort in regards of the Syrian conflict many times. This is not new. We all know that Saudi Arabia is a country that has a poor track sheet regarding human rights and humanitarian effort. I don't think this is a reason to refuse help to refugees at all.

So answer me this, if you have a choice between caring for your own child or the child down the street. You can only do one, not both, who do you choose? I would say 99% of all parents are going to say 'my own child". The country shouldn't be any different. First step should be caring for each and every American man woman and child, then we can care for others.

A more accurate comparison is this: If my child is well-fed 99% of the time and a child suffering of hunger to the point of starvation arrives at my doorstep, I will feed him, even if I must sacrifice a whole meal for my family.

Of course charity starts at home, but you have to put situations in perspective. If I have to sacrifice a meal to save my neighbor from starvation, I think the choice would be obvious.

 

[luvsJack]

I think it's not being addressed because it's simply not relevant in the discussion. Amnesty International has addressed the issue of Saudi Arabia and their lack of humanitarian effort in regards of the Syrian conflict many times. This is not new. We all know that Saudi Arabia is a country that has a poor track sheet regarding human rights and humanitarian effort. I don't think this is a reason to refuse help to refugees at all.



A more accurate comparison is this: If my child is well-fed 99% of the time and a child suffering of hunger to the point of starvation arrives at my doorstep, I will feed him, even if I must sacrifice a whole meal for my family.

Of course charity starts at home, but you have to put situations in perspective. If I have to sacrifice a meal to save my neighbor from starvation, I think the choice would be obvious.

Sacrificing one meal, yes. Do you really believe that all children in this country are fed 99% of the time? we have children in this country that go hungry every day. We have adults in this country that go hungry every day. So your comparison is not accurate. They don't have enough food, they don't have a home or a bed to sleep in or to keep them warm in the winter. We have vets that are homeless. They sacrificed so we could give it all to someone else?

 

[nanienamou]

Sacrificing one meal, yes. Do you really believe that all children in this country are fed 99% of the time? we have children in this country that go hungry every day. We have adults in this country that go hungry every day. So your comparison is not accurate. They don't have enough food, they don't have a home or a bed to sleep in or to keep them warm in the winter. We have vets that are homeless. They sacrificed so we could give it all to someone else?

Well, I live in Canada, so probably I'm a little biased, since we have so many social programs to help everybody, like welfare, unemployment insurance, universal health care, and I can go on and on. I'm pretty certain that nobody around here lives in a temporary shelter, kids are not sleeping in the cold, people get medical attention, have access to food banks, clean toilets and good hygiene, etc.

 

[asta]

I think it's not being addressed because it's simply not relevant in the discussion. Amnesty International has addressed the issue of Saudi Arabia and their lack of humanitarian effort in regards of the Syrian conflict many times. This is not new. We all know that Saudi Arabia is a country that has a poor track sheet regarding human rights and humanitarian effort. I don't think this is a reason to refuse help to refugees at all.



A more accurate comparison is this: If my child is well-fed 99% of the time and a child suffering of hunger to the point of starvation arrives at my doorstep, I will feed him, even if I must sacrifice a whole meal for my family.

Of course charity starts at home, but you have to put situations in perspective. If I have to sacrifice a meal to save my neighbor from starvation, I think the choice would be obvious.

It is very relevant. It is the heart of the most logical solution to the refugee problem. Saudi Arabia does not get a by just because they have refused to help in the past.

 

[nanienamou]

I don't understand. Are you saying that since Saudi Arabia is not helping the refugees, we shouldn't be helping the refugess either?

 

[asta]

Well, I live in Canada, so probably I'm a little biased, since we have so many social programs to help everybody, like welfare, unemployment insurance, universal health care, and I can go on and on. I'm pretty certain that nobody around here lives in a temporary shelter, kids are not sleeping in the cold, people get medical attention, have access to food banks, clean toilets and good hygiene, etc.

Wow! I don't know any specifics about Canada to challenge your details but it is amazing that everyone is taken care of. I am shocked that no one lives in temporary shelter, goes hungry or needs their hygiene issues met. We help feed the hungry and homeless in our city (USA, not Canada) and there is plenty of need here. My husband is sleeping in the gym of our church tonight so that a group of needy can come in out of poor weather conditions and have shelter. There is so much need!

 

[asta]

I don't understand. Are you saying that since Saudi Arabia is not helping the refugees, we shouldn't be helping the refugess either?

Not at all. Just saying that it is illogical to try to accommodate them everywhere when plenty of resources are there and ready made for them much closer to their homes - both physically and ideologically.

 

[nanienamou]

Wow! I don't know any specifics about Canada to challenge your details but it is amazing that everyone is taken care of. I am shocked that no one lives in temporary shelter, goes hungry or needs their hygiene issues met. We help feed the hungry and homeless in our city (USA, not Canada) and there is plenty of need here. My husband is sleeping in the gym of our church tonight so that a group of needy can come in out of poor weather conditions and have shelter. There is so much need!

Not *everyone*, we all know it is an impossible task... What is being said is that you can't really compare the needy around here with the refugees. Both need help and just the fact that the needy here are citizens of a stable country is an advantage for them. We can discuss about this for days, but there is no accurate measure and nor should there be about who "needs" more. However, we should help people who are in danger of death and that is the case with refugees in general.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

^ We're in danger of death.

 

[dadtoagirl03]

All this hysteria over refugees is simply ridiculous. These are people who are fleeing ISIS. These are people who need our help. We should help them. The vetting process to be admitted as a refugee in the US is extremely thorough and takes 12-18 months to complete. They will be screened. If a terrorist wanted to enter the US to cause mayhem, acting as a refugee is the worst possible way to do it. Come in on a tourist visa. Come in on a student visa. That is how the 9/11 Saudi Bombers entered our country. Not a single one was here as a refugee.

Of the 3 million refugees fleeing Syria, possibly one entered Europe as a refugee. This hysteria is really taken over our country and makes us look like the worst type of bigots. My state is going to take refugees and I just emailed my Governor to thank him for not being a coward.

I would say your govenor is an idiot and not looking out for the citizens of his state.

 

[handinpocket]

^ We're in danger of death.

Amen to that sister!

 

[gwynne]

I would say your governor is an idiot and not looking out for the citizens of his state.

Well, taking in refugees or not isn't truly under the governor's control, although some would like it to appear that it is. I'm sure the ones that are making the most noise are hoping their residents have little understanding of the actual legal process.

The whys and hows of this are basically spelled out in the Refugee Act of 1980.

 

[Geoff_M]

All this hysteria over refugees is simply ridiculous.

I think it's a bit short-sighted to label any renewed scrutiny of the acceptance of Syrian refugees as ridiculous hysteria. There is good evidence, though it it still evolving, that ISIS has leveraged the Syrian refugee situation to help facilitate the attacks in Paris. Whether the attacker truly entered the EU posing as a "refugee", or was using a mis-appropriated passport remains to be seen. But, it is wishful thinking that the passport, only reportedly found on one attacker was part of some "false flag" operation on the part of ISIS and a real objective of the attacks was to get Westerners to turn against Syrian refugees (whom I doubt only consist of Muslims).

While I think that it's wrong to categorically now refuse Syrian refugees, I don't see it as "hysteria" to call for a pause in the operation to re-examine the process to see if there's any lessons to be learned (either from any news out of Paris, or any other loop-holes that can be identified and closed) before such programs are resumed. Lost in all of the media hand-wringing I hear today is that many (most?) of the state Governors, but perhaps not all, are not calling for a permanent halt to assisting in the resettlement of Syrian refugees within their borders, but only a "stand down" to reassess the security of the processes. Take our Governor, for example, here's what he said (bolding mine): "Michigan is a welcoming state and we are proud of our rich history of immigration. But our first priority is protecting the safety of our residents. Given the terrible situation in Paris, I've directed that we put on hold our efforts to accept new refugees until the U.S. Department of Homeland Security completes a full review of security clearances and procedures." He also later assured people that the state will resume the resettlement program, and that he also is still planning on increasing the number of refugees that the state can assist. Note that he isn't making additional demands or requiring 100% assurances. I'm curious what part of this approach that people find unreasonable?

We are basically taking the same approach that we did in grounding all US air traffic for several days after 9/11, in a similar "pause", even though only ~0.00005% of the air passengers on that fateful day were hellbent on mass murder.

 

[cabanafrau]

Well, I live in Canada, so probably I'm a little biased, since we have so many social programs to help everybody, like welfare, unemployment insurance, universal health care, and I can go on and on. I'm pretty certain that nobody around here lives in a temporary shelter, kids are not sleeping in the cold, people get medical attention, have access to food banks, clean toilets and good hygiene, etc.

I haven't visited Toronto in several years, but are you saying that the streets of downtown Toronto aren't peopled by a homeless population anymore? That would be good news.

 

[gwynne]

I think it's a bit short-sighted to label any renewed scrutiny of the acceptance of Syrian refugees as ridiculous hysteria. There is good evidence, though it it still evolving, that ISIS has leveraged the Syrian refugee situation to help facilitate the attacks in Paris. Whether the attacker truly entered the EU posing as a "refugee", or was using a mis-appropriated passport remains to be seen. But, it is wishful thinking that the passport, only reportedly found on one attacker was part of some "false flag" operation on the part of ISIS and a real objective of the attacks was to get Westerners to turn against Syrian refugees (whom I doubt only consist of Muslims).

While I think that it's wrong to categorically now refuse Syrian refugees, I don't see it as "hysteria" to call for a pause in the operation to re-examine the process to see if there's any lessons to be learned (either from any news out of Paris, or any other loop-holes that can be identified and closed) before such programs are resumed. Lost in all of the media hand-wringing I hear today is that many (most?) of the state Governors, but perhaps not all, are not calling for a permanent halt to assisting in the resettlement of Syrian refugees within their borders, but only a "stand down" to reassess the security of the processes. Take our Governor, for example, here's what he said (bolding mine): "Michigan is a welcoming state and we are proud of our rich history of immigration. But our first priority is protecting the safety of our residents. Given the terrible situation in Paris, I've directed that we put on hold our efforts to accept new refugees until the U.S. Department of Homeland Security completes a full review of security clearances and procedures." He also later assured people that the state will resume the resettlement program, and that he also is still planning on increasing the number of refugees that the state can assist. Note that he isn't making additional demands or requiring 100% assurances. I'm curious what part of this approach that people find unreasonable?

We are basically taking the same approach that we did in grounding all US air traffic for several days after 9/11, in a similar "pause", even though only ~0.00005% of the air passengers on that fateful day were hellbent on mass murder.

Of course it sounds good, reassuring. I think the governors that are trying to appear like they themselves will "protect" their citizens should tell their citizens the truth. There are a lot of solid reasons for the Refugee Act of 1980. It's not in our overall best interest to have individual states engaging in foreign policy.

It is a complicated situation. And yes, I am for carefully vetting refugees, but that was going to happen, anyway. It's part of the process.

 

[luvsJack]

Not *everyone*, we all know it is an impossible task... What is being said is that you can't really compare the needy around here with the refugees. Both need help and just the fact that the needy here are citizens of a stable country is an advantage for them. We can discuss about this for days, but there is no accurate measure and nor should there be about who "needs" more. However, we should help people who are in danger of death and that is the case with refugees in general.

Its nice that you don't have anyone around you living in a temporary shelter. We do. In fact we have many people living in a little tent city down by a creek behind WalMart. THEIR needs should come first. The man on the corner that is dirty and hungry and homeless but did 3 tours in Vietnam, should come first.