I guess a lot of Americans feel the same way as I do: why do we have to compromise our safety to let even more refugees in, especially one's with possibly terrorist ties (even though it's the vast minority)? Why can't Muslim countries or any other country take these people in? Why does the United states always have to get involved with international problems when we have a plethora of domestic issues to solve? I.e. Thousands of homeless american vets yet we are going to provide housing and education for those emigrating to the united states from the middle east. I guess everyone has their breaking point and this seems to be it.
even more? 1800 people in the last 2 years. out of 5 million who left syria.
stop with the vets rhetoric. Congress has chosen something else in regards to their welfare. The people eleected to represent THEM and us have abdicated that responsibility for politics o get them re-elected. Some of those guys have washed their hands of the government to begin with. As wealthy a nation as this one is, we can certainly do both.
1800 in the last 2 years but that was before paris; the game has now changed. kind of like pre and post 9/11. so if congress was elected by them then you are ok with the recent vote regarding syrian refugees? forget vets rhetoric; we have a host of other problems in this country. why can't someone else pick up the slack and let us address our own issues.
No I am not ok with this vote. I have yet to see even one come forward and shout from the rooftops what is actually in place , instead we get rhetoric designed to re-elect and inches us closer to a totalitarian style state. Not just no, but go fuck yourself congress no.
Listen FIRST to those we rely on and consider our experts in the field. Tweak or change as needed after that.
any that wish to do us harm HERE are ALREADY HERE. What we enjoy here has its risk associated with it. we rely on out follow citizens to follow certain social norms as well as the riule of law which this nation was founded upon.
after cracks in the system were made known in 2010 , effective changes were made to vet to the best of our ability. As things present tweaks will surely be made. IF we are the morally supreior nation we make our selcves out to be and the leader of the free world we say we are, then we MUST lead by example and deed. period.
every time I start my truck and release the brakes , the public at large expects certain things from me. I expect certain things from the public. The public FAILS every fucking day. I still do what I do to the best of my ability in the face of that. I dont hide and say no, that freight aint going there cuz I cant be sure the public will treat me fairly.
there is no freedom without risk. plain and simple.
you keep them that are cleared out? Then every fucking white guy trying to buy any weapon needs to be stopped from doing so. Cuz we cant garauntee they wont flip out and massacre innocents.
why do anti gunners always conveniently bring up gun control in times of crisis? give me a freaking break. the big difference is we are talking about american citizens, not possible terrorists that have absolutely zero reason to be here except to cause harm to the united states. there is no freedom without risk. plain and simple. right? then please apply that to the 2nd amendment and then have an intelligent conversation without bring up every fucking white guy trying to buy any weapon. it seems like the majority of americans don't want these refugees here; your argument is we are morally superior. why do we have to be morally superior? let another country take the reigns for once.
Yeah, you're right. the fact we arent actively engaged in war on this soil cant have a goddamned thing to do with wanting to come here.
You completely missed the point about the gun thing.
We helped create the fucking mess, we definately perpetuate the fucking mess , now we expect others to do the heavy lifting.
What part of European Nationals do you not get in the Paris attacks? NOT refugee. CITIZENS OF THE UNION!
From what I ve read Two of the attackers snuck in through Greece. Are you prepared to possibly let in more? Myself and I m guessing the majority of American Do not want these people here. Let countries like Saudi arabia, Egypt or Iran take them in. And I think we are doing plenty of heavy lifting in this case and many instances since ww1.
Are you aware that the ones who are applying for legal passage and acceptance currently reside in camps in Turkey ?
who cares? last time I checked there aren't any non stop flights between syria and the us.
Those with legitimate concerns about vetting refugees should. That all interveiws etc take place there before approval in 18-24 months.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/americans-would-rather-send-troops-abroad-than-take-in-refugees-at-home_564dfea0e4b00b7997f98ca5 Americans Would Rather Send Troops Abroad Than Take In Refugees At Home In the wake of the Paris attacks, a new HuffPost/YouGov poll finds the public's mood is increasingly bellicose. There's considerably more support for sending U.S. ground troops to fight the Islamic State than there is for accepting the Syrian refugees fleeing from the terrorist group, a new HuffPost/YouGov poll finds.
Americans are broadly sympathetic to the plight of refugees and convinced other nations have an obligation to help. A 53 percent majority think people who flee war or political oppression should have the right to seek refuge in other countries, while 23 percent don't. Fifty-six percent believe that refugee crises are a problem for the entire world, not just neighboring countries.
But there's less consensus that the U.S. should be part of the solution. While 38 percent of Americans say the U.S. should take in refugees, 39 percent say it should not, with the remainder unsure. Most don't think the U.S. has a special role to play as a haven for people escaping war in their home countries.
While Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say the nation should accept refugees, support among both groups has dropped significantly in the past two months.
Manitoba is planning to resettle 2,000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2015. This is part of Canada’s larger commitment to bring in 25,000 of Syrian refugees by year’s end.
The poll was conducted three days after the terrorist attacks that killed 129 people on Nov. 13th.
It found 63 per cent of the public from Manitoba and Saskatchewan are opposed to the resettlement plan. 67 per cent of Alberta’s population is also against it. The poll found Canada was divided on the issue. Just over half of Canadians oppose the federal government’s resettlement plan.
However, even before the terrorist attacks in the French capital, fully half of the Canadian public was against it.
While about eight in 10 Republicans disapprove of letting in more refugees from Syria, including 64 percent who strongly disapprove, nearly two-thirds of Democrats support Obama's policy. Some 59 percent of independents are also opposed to the plan, according to the NBC News/SurveyMonkey online poll.
I guess a lot of Americans feel the same way as I do: why do we have to compromise our safety to let even more refugees in, especially one's with possibly terrorist ties (even though it's the vast minority)? Why can't Muslim countries or any other country take these people in? Why does the United states always have to get involved with international problems when we have a plethora of domestic issues to solve? I.e. Thousands of homeless american vets yet we are going to provide housing and education for those emigrating to the united states from the middle east. I guess everyone has their breaking point and this seems to be it.
even more? 1800 people in the last 2 years. out of 5 million who left syria.
stop with the vets rhetoric. Congress has chosen something else in regards to their welfare. The people eleected to represent THEM and us have abdicated that responsibility for politics o get them re-elected. Some of those guys have washed their hands of the government to begin with. As wealthy a nation as this one is, we can certainly do both.
1800 in the last 2 years but that was before paris; the game has now changed. kind of like pre and post 9/11. so if congress was elected by them then you are ok with the recent vote regarding syrian refugees? forget vets rhetoric; we have a host of other problems in this country. why can't someone else pick up the slack and let us address our own issues.
No I am not ok with this vote. I have yet to see even one come forward and shout from the rooftops what is actually in place , instead we get rhetoric designed to re-elect and inches us closer to a totalitarian style state. Not just no, but go fuck yourself congress no.
Listen FIRST to those we rely on and consider our experts in the field. Tweak or change as needed after that.
any that wish to do us harm HERE are ALREADY HERE. What we enjoy here has its risk associated with it. we rely on out follow citizens to follow certain social norms as well as the riule of law which this nation was founded upon.
after cracks in the system were made known in 2010 , effective changes were made to vet to the best of our ability. As things present tweaks will surely be made. IF we are the morally supreior nation we make our selcves out to be and the leader of the free world we say we are, then we MUST lead by example and deed. period.
every time I start my truck and release the brakes , the public at large expects certain things from me. I expect certain things from the public. The public FAILS every fucking day. I still do what I do to the best of my ability in the face of that. I dont hide and say no, that freight aint going there cuz I cant be sure the public will treat me fairly.
there is no freedom without risk. plain and simple.
you keep them that are cleared out? Then every fucking white guy trying to buy any weapon needs to be stopped from doing so. Cuz we cant garauntee they wont flip out and massacre innocents.
why do anti gunners always conveniently bring up gun control in times of crisis? give me a freaking break. the big difference is we are talking about american citizens, not possible terrorists that have absolutely zero reason to be here except to cause harm to the united states. there is no freedom without risk. plain and simple. right? then please apply that to the 2nd amendment and then have an intelligent conversation without bring up every fucking white guy trying to buy any weapon. it seems like the majority of americans don't want these refugees here; your argument is we are morally superior. why do we have to be morally superior? let another country take the reigns for once.
Yeah, you're right. the fact we arent actively engaged in war on this soil cant have a goddamned thing to do with wanting to come here.
You completely missed the point about the gun thing.
We helped create the fucking mess, we definately perpetuate the fucking mess , now we expect others to do the heavy lifting.
What part of European Nationals do you not get in the Paris attacks? NOT refugee. CITIZENS OF THE UNION!
From what I ve read Two of the attackers snuck in through Greece. Are you prepared to possibly let in more? Myself and I m guessing the majority of American Do not want these people here. Let countries like Saudi arabia, Egypt or Iran take them in. And I think we are doing plenty of heavy lifting in this case and many instances since ww1.
Are you aware that the ones who are applying for legal passage and acceptance currently reside in camps in Turkey ?
who cares? last time I checked there aren't any non stop flights between syria and the us.
Those with legitimate concerns about vetting refugees should. That all interveiws etc take place there before approval in 18-24 months.
Isnt that your concern? The vetting process?
No my concern is keeping them out to avoid another attack which is what the majority of Americans want.
All seem to revolve around fear and lack of knowledge about the process in place, where these would new americans or canadians are actually housed currently, that most of the isis affliated attacks abroad were by nationals of those countries or within EU boundries where freedom of movement across borders is accepted.
Last that France is accepting 25000 in the face of these attacks.
Fear stoked by selfserving assholes in gov and media.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
25,000 refugees ARE coming to Canada. The wheels are all turning, the various agencies are working hard to make it happen, settlement offices have been opened in various areas, school boards are working on making sure there is room for the children, the refugees are now being selected and informed of it. There is even a rich developer in Vancouver who has offered one of his apartment properties for families to live in when they arrive while they get on their feet.
Most Canadians actually support accepting refugees. They just want to know that they are properly screened, which they are. Most of those against it are simply misinformed and/or basing their opinion on illogical fears, just like in the US. But that doesn't matter in any case. Thank god our new givernment knows better and is currently moving full steam ahead.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I guess a lot of Americans feel the same way as I do: why do we have to compromise our safety to let even more refugees in, especially one's with possibly terrorist ties (even though it's the vast minority)? Why can't Muslim countries or any other country take these people in? Why does the United states always have to get involved with international problems when we have a plethora of domestic issues to solve? I.e. Thousands of homeless american vets yet we are going to provide housing and education for those emigrating to the united states from the middle east. I guess everyone has their breaking point and this seems to be it.
even more? 1800 people in the last 2 years. out of 5 million who left syria.
stop with the vets rhetoric. Congress has chosen something else in regards to their welfare. The people eleected to represent THEM and us have abdicated that responsibility for politics o get them re-elected. Some of those guys have washed their hands of the government to begin with. As wealthy a nation as this one is, we can certainly do both.
1800 in the last 2 years but that was before paris; the game has now changed. kind of like pre and post 9/11. so if congress was elected by them then you are ok with the recent vote regarding syrian refugees? forget vets rhetoric; we have a host of other problems in this country. why can't someone else pick up the slack and let us address our own issues.
No I am not ok with this vote. I have yet to see even one come forward and shout from the rooftops what is actually in place , instead we get rhetoric designed to re-elect and inches us closer to a totalitarian style state. Not just no, but go fuck yourself congress no.
Listen FIRST to those we rely on and consider our experts in the field. Tweak or change as needed after that.
any that wish to do us harm HERE are ALREADY HERE. What we enjoy here has its risk associated with it. we rely on out follow citizens to follow certain social norms as well as the riule of law which this nation was founded upon.
after cracks in the system were made known in 2010 , effective changes were made to vet to the best of our ability. As things present tweaks will surely be made. IF we are the morally supreior nation we make our selcves out to be and the leader of the free world we say we are, then we MUST lead by example and deed. period.
every time I start my truck and release the brakes , the public at large expects certain things from me. I expect certain things from the public. The public FAILS every fucking day. I still do what I do to the best of my ability in the face of that. I dont hide and say no, that freight aint going there cuz I cant be sure the public will treat me fairly.
there is no freedom without risk. plain and simple.
you keep them that are cleared out? Then every fucking white guy trying to buy any weapon needs to be stopped from doing so. Cuz we cant garauntee they wont flip out and massacre innocents.
why do anti gunners always conveniently bring up gun control in times of crisis? give me a freaking break. the big difference is we are talking about american citizens, not possible terrorists that have absolutely zero reason to be here except to cause harm to the united states. there is no freedom without risk. plain and simple. right? then please apply that to the 2nd amendment and then have an intelligent conversation without bring up every fucking white guy trying to buy any weapon. it seems like the majority of americans don't want these refugees here; your argument is we are morally superior. why do we have to be morally superior? let another country take the reigns for once.
Yeah, you're right. the fact we arent actively engaged in war on this soil cant have a goddamned thing to do with wanting to come here.
You completely missed the point about the gun thing.
We helped create the fucking mess, we definately perpetuate the fucking mess , now we expect others to do the heavy lifting.
What part of European Nationals do you not get in the Paris attacks? NOT refugee. CITIZENS OF THE UNION!
From what I ve read Two of the attackers snuck in through Greece. Are you prepared to possibly let in more? Myself and I m guessing the majority of American Do not want these people here. Let countries like Saudi arabia, Egypt or Iran take them in. And I think we are doing plenty of heavy lifting in this case and many instances since ww1.
Are you aware that the ones who are applying for legal passage and acceptance currently reside in camps in Turkey ?
who cares? last time I checked there aren't any non stop flights between syria and the us.
Those with legitimate concerns about vetting refugees should. That all interveiws etc take place there before approval in 18-24 months.
Isnt that your concern? The vetting process?
No my concern is keeping them out to avoid another attack which is what the majority of Americans want.
How do you figure not helping refugees is going to prevent terrorist attacks in the US? Because it most certainly won't.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
All seem to revolve around fear and lack of knowledge about the process in place, where these would new americans or canadians are actually housed currently, that most of the isis affliated attacks abroad were by nationals of those countries or within EU boundries where freedom of movement across borders is accepted.
Last that France is accepting 25000 in the face of these attacks.
Fear stoked by selfserving assholes in gov and media.
Probably some fear and lack of knowledge but more along the lines of trying to prevent another attack. I don't see what is wrong with this. Why would you want the enemy to come into your country?
All seem to revolve around fear and lack of knowledge about the process in place, where these would new americans or canadians are actually housed currently, that most of the isis affliated attacks abroad were by nationals of those countries or within EU boundries where freedom of movement across borders is accepted.
Last that France is accepting 25000 in the face of these attacks.
Fear stoked by selfserving assholes in gov and media.
Probably some fear and lack of knowledge but more along the lines of trying to prevent another attack. I don't see what is wrong with this. Why would you want the enemy to come into your country?
Who is suggesting that the enemy come to your country?? Your enemy is also the enemy of the refugees. They are fleeing your enemy. You know that.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
All seem to revolve around fear and lack of knowledge about the process in place, where these would new americans or canadians are actually housed currently, that most of the isis affliated attacks abroad were by nationals of those countries or within EU boundries where freedom of movement across borders is accepted.
Last that France is accepting 25000 in the face of these attacks.
Fear stoked by selfserving assholes in gov and media.
Probably some fear and lack of knowledge but more along the lines of trying to prevent another attack. I don't see what is wrong with this. Why would you want the enemy to come into your country?
Who is suggesting that the enemy come to your country?? Your enemy is also the enemy of the refugees. They are fleeing your enemy. You know that.
two of the paris attackers blended in with the refugees. who says they can't do the same thing when they come here or canada?
All seem to revolve around fear and lack of knowledge about the process in place, where these would new americans or canadians are actually housed currently, that most of the isis affliated attacks abroad were by nationals of those countries or within EU boundries where freedom of movement across borders is accepted.
Last that France is accepting 25000 in the face of these attacks.
Fear stoked by selfserving assholes in gov and media.
Probably some fear and lack of knowledge but more along the lines of trying to prevent another attack. I don't see what is wrong with this. Why would you want the enemy to come into your country?
Who is suggesting that the enemy come to your country?? Your enemy is also the enemy of the refugees. They are fleeing your enemy. You know that.
two of the paris attackers blended in with the refugees. who says they can't do the same thing when they come here or canada?
All seem to revolve around fear and lack of knowledge about the process in place, where these would new americans or canadians are actually housed currently, that most of the isis affliated attacks abroad were by nationals of those countries or within EU boundries where freedom of movement across borders is accepted.
Last that France is accepting 25000 in the face of these attacks.
Fear stoked by selfserving assholes in gov and media.
Probably some fear and lack of knowledge but more along the lines of trying to prevent another attack. I don't see what is wrong with this. Why would you want the enemy to come into your country?
Who is suggesting that the enemy come to your country?? Your enemy is also the enemy of the refugees. They are fleeing your enemy. You know that.
two of the paris attackers blended in with the refugees. who says they can't do the same thing when they come here or canada?
Manitoba is planning to resettle 2,000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2015. This is part of Canada’s larger commitment to bring in 25,000 of Syrian refugees by year’s end.
The poll was conducted three days after the terrorist attacks that killed 129 people on Nov. 13th.
It found 63 per cent of the public from Manitoba and Saskatchewan are opposed to the resettlement plan. 67 per cent of Alberta’s population is also against it. The poll found Canada was divided on the issue. Just over half of Canadians oppose the federal government’s resettlement plan.
However, even before the terrorist attacks in the French capital, fully half of the Canadian public was against it.
Were (Canada) taking in 25,000 by the end of the year......or at least try. You see, there are times when the majority are wrong. Sometimes a politician has to do what is right, not what is popular. Our PM was given a majority, a mandate, campaigning that he would bring in 25,000 by the end of the year. I'm not his biggest fan, but at least he has the balls to do what's right.
All seem to revolve around fear and lack of knowledge about the process in place, where these would new americans or canadians are actually housed currently, that most of the isis affliated attacks abroad were by nationals of those countries or within EU boundries where freedom of movement across borders is accepted.
Last that France is accepting 25000 in the face of these attacks.
Fear stoked by selfserving assholes in gov and media.
Probably some fear and lack of knowledge but more along the lines of trying to prevent another attack. I don't see what is wrong with this. Why would you want the enemy to come into your country?
Who is suggesting that the enemy come to your country?? Your enemy is also the enemy of the refugees. They are fleeing your enemy. You know that.
two of the paris attackers blended in with the refugees. who says they can't do the same thing when they come here or canada?
I guess a lot of Americans feel the same way as I do: why do we have to compromise our safety to let even more refugees in, especially one's with possibly terrorist ties (even though it's the vast minority)? Why can't Muslim countries or any other country take these people in? Why does the United states always have to get involved with international problems when we have a plethora of domestic issues to solve? I.e. Thousands of homeless american vets yet we are going to provide housing and education for those emigrating to the united states from the middle east. I guess everyone has their breaking point and this seems to be it.
even more? 1800 people in the last 2 years. out of 5 million who left syria.
stop with the vets rhetoric. Congress has chosen something else in regards to their welfare. The people eleected to represent THEM and us have abdicated that responsibility for politics o get them re-elected. Some of those guys have washed their hands of the government to begin with. As wealthy a nation as this one is, we can certainly do both.
1800 in the last 2 years but that was before paris; the game has now changed. kind of like pre and post 9/11. so if congress was elected by them then you are ok with the recent vote regarding syrian refugees? forget vets rhetoric; we have a host of other problems in this country. why can't someone else pick up the slack and let us address our own issues.
No I am not ok with this vote. I have yet to see even one come forward and shout from the rooftops what is actually in place , instead we get rhetoric designed to re-elect and inches us closer to a totalitarian style state. Not just no, but go fuck yourself congress no.
Listen FIRST to those we rely on and consider our experts in the field. Tweak or change as needed after that.
any that wish to do us harm HERE are ALREADY HERE. What we enjoy here has its risk associated with it. we rely on out follow citizens to follow certain social norms as well as the riule of law which this nation was founded upon.
after cracks in the system were made known in 2010 , effective changes were made to vet to the best of our ability. As things present tweaks will surely be made. IF we are the morally supreior nation we make our selcves out to be and the leader of the free world we say we are, then we MUST lead by example and deed. period.
every time I start my truck and release the brakes , the public at large expects certain things from me. I expect certain things from the public. The public FAILS every fucking day. I still do what I do to the best of my ability in the face of that. I dont hide and say no, that freight aint going there cuz I cant be sure the public will treat me fairly.
there is no freedom without risk. plain and simple.
you keep them that are cleared out? Then every fucking white guy trying to buy any weapon needs to be stopped from doing so. Cuz we cant garauntee they wont flip out and massacre innocents.
why do anti gunners always conveniently bring up gun control in times of crisis? give me a freaking break. the big difference is we are talking about american citizens, not possible terrorists that have absolutely zero reason to be here except to cause harm to the united states. there is no freedom without risk. plain and simple. right? then please apply that to the 2nd amendment and then have an intelligent conversation without bring up every fucking white guy trying to buy any weapon. it seems like the majority of americans don't want these refugees here; your argument is we are morally superior. why do we have to be morally superior? let another country take the reigns for once.
You realize the majority of Americans don't want to take in 10,000 refugees....out of hundreds of thousands. Not even a drop in the bucket. Hardly taking the lead, Germany has that covered. Even Canada is taking in 25, 000 by the end of this year....as a start. That would equal the US taking in 250,000.
Taking in 10,000 is a joke, not taking in any is amoral.
I'm guessing germany is taking that many in because of geography. As of today (the last I read) the candadian plan isn't even approved yet. (maybe it has changed?) so again, why does the united states have to take in any? why can't other countries for once take the lead in something? I mean we are the number one country in the world when it comes to foreign aid and are the military leader against isis....let someone else take the reigns for once.
Germany is taking the lead for accepting these refugees (800,000).
Historically, in the MT, when people were demanding the US and other forces withdraw from the middle East... this was typically supported with the notion that we should leave Muslims to deal with the ISIS problem.
How do these people feel now? Is it fair to say that this refugee crisis demonstrates that some form of international intervention is required to suppress the ISIS threat?
Some of these same people make very little of ISIS and disregard their level of threat. Am I in the minority thinking this group of shitheads is a legitimate concern?
All seem to revolve around fear and lack of knowledge about the process in place, where these would new americans or canadians are actually housed currently, that most of the isis affliated attacks abroad were by nationals of those countries or within EU boundries where freedom of movement across borders is accepted.
Last that France is accepting 25000 in the face of these attacks.
Fear stoked by selfserving assholes in gov and media.
Probably some fear and lack of knowledge but more along the lines of trying to prevent another attack. I don't see what is wrong with this. Why would you want the enemy to come into your country?
Who is suggesting that the enemy come to your country?? Your enemy is also the enemy of the refugees. They are fleeing your enemy. You know that.
two of the paris attackers blended in with the refugees. who says they can't do the same thing when they come here or canada?
Who says they will?
Really, that s your counter?
Really, that's yours?
Your counter was weak.
While I support Canada's efforts to assist (they're modest at best)... I think a country and its citizens have every right to be concerned for who they accept into their fold- especially given the potential risks.
All seem to revolve around fear and lack of knowledge about the process in place, where these would new americans or canadians are actually housed currently, that most of the isis affliated attacks abroad were by nationals of those countries or within EU boundries where freedom of movement across borders is accepted.
Last that France is accepting 25000 in the face of these attacks.
Fear stoked by selfserving assholes in gov and media.
Probably some fear and lack of knowledge but more along the lines of trying to prevent another attack. I don't see what is wrong with this. Why would you want the enemy to come into your country?
Who is suggesting that the enemy come to your country?? Your enemy is also the enemy of the refugees. They are fleeing your enemy. You know that.
two of the paris attackers blended in with the refugees. who says they can't do the same thing when they come here or canada?
2 blended in across virtually unchecked borders. Were not in a controlled situation and were exploited a tenous situation.
The refugees that would come here arent in that situation. Since when did common syrians become our enemy? I didnt catch that news story or hear the president say such.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
All seem to revolve around fear and lack of knowledge about the process in place, where these would new americans or canadians are actually housed currently, that most of the isis affliated attacks abroad were by nationals of those countries or within EU boundries where freedom of movement across borders is accepted.
Last that France is accepting 25000 in the face of these attacks.
Fear stoked by selfserving assholes in gov and media.
Probably some fear and lack of knowledge but more along the lines of trying to prevent another attack. I don't see what is wrong with this. Why would you want the enemy to come into your country?
Who is suggesting that the enemy come to your country?? Your enemy is also the enemy of the refugees. They are fleeing your enemy. You know that.
two of the paris attackers blended in with the refugees. who says they can't do the same thing when they come here or canada?
Who says they will?
Really, that s your counter?
Really, that's yours?
Your counter was weak.
While I support Canada's efforts to assist (they're modest at best)... I think a country and its citizens have every right to be concerned for who they accept into their fold- especially given the potential risks.
I don't think you guys realize that I'm not in some kind of competition. "Counter". No. Voiced opinion, yes.
So we take in refugees because it's humane and the right thing to do after the best vetting process ever performed, now what? What's the plan? So which rich billionaires are going to step up and offer to pay for refugees to live in the US? Corporate CEOs, celebrities, pro atheletes, etc?? Sorry, haven't watched any news lately... Any offers on this yet???
I guess a lot of Americans feel the same way as I do: why do we have to compromise our safety to let even more refugees in, especially one's with possibly terrorist ties (even though it's the vast minority)? Why can't Muslim countries or any other country take these people in? Why does the United states always have to get involved with international problems when we have a plethora of domestic issues to solve? I.e. Thousands of homeless american vets yet we are going to provide housing and education for those emigrating to the united states from the middle east. I guess everyone has their breaking point and this seems to be it.
The countries in the region are hosting millions of refugees, you are just echoing a right wing disinformation point. It is ironic too, considering it has clearly been the conservatives who block veterans bills every time they come up.
I guess a lot of Americans feel the same way as I do: why do we have to compromise our safety to let even more refugees in, especially one's with possibly terrorist ties (even though it's the vast minority)? Why can't Muslim countries or any other country take these people in? Why does the United states always have to get involved with international problems when we have a plethora of domestic issues to solve? I.e. Thousands of homeless american vets yet we are going to provide housing and education for those emigrating to the united states from the middle east. I guess everyone has their breaking point and this seems to be it.
The countries in the region are hosting millions of refugees, you are just echoing a right wing disinformation point. It is ironic too, considering it has clearly been the conservatives who block veterans bills every time they come up.
I m no conservative; I ve voted democrat every time since 1996. However I did live through 9/11 like many other people and have learned not to be so trusting of people. I agree no one is against law abiding Syrian refugees but you can not guarantee an Isis fighter won't slip in with them. See by not allowing any of them in you do guarantee that a terrorist won't slip through.
I guess a lot of Americans feel the same way as I do: why do we have to compromise our safety to let even more refugees in, especially one's with possibly terrorist ties (even though it's the vast minority)? Why can't Muslim countries or any other country take these people in? Why does the United states always have to get involved with international problems when we have a plethora of domestic issues to solve? I.e. Thousands of homeless american vets yet we are going to provide housing and education for those emigrating to the united states from the middle east. I guess everyone has their breaking point and this seems to be it.
The countries in the region are hosting millions of refugees, you are just echoing a right wing disinformation point. It is ironic too, considering it has clearly been the conservatives who block veterans bills every time they come up.
I m no conservative; I ve voted democrat every time since 1996. However I did live through 9/11 like many other people and have learned not to be so trusting of people. I agree no one is against law abiding Syrian refugees but you can not guarantee an Isis fighter won't slip in with them. See by not allowing any of them in you do guarantee that a terrorist won't slip through.
So let me get this straight... You aren't willing to gamble any American lives, but Syrian lives, they can be gambled with?
I guess a lot of Americans feel the same way as I do: why do we have to compromise our safety to let even more refugees in, especially one's with possibly terrorist ties (even though it's the vast minority)? Why can't Muslim countries or any other country take these people in? Why does the United states always have to get involved with international problems when we have a plethora of domestic issues to solve? I.e. Thousands of homeless american vets yet we are going to provide housing and education for those emigrating to the united states from the middle east. I guess everyone has their breaking point and this seems to be it.
The countries in the region are hosting millions of refugees, you are just echoing a right wing disinformation point. It is ironic too, considering it has clearly been the conservatives who block veterans bills every time they come up.
I m no conservative; I ve voted democrat every time since 1996. However I did live through 9/11 like many other people and have learned not to be so trusting of people. I agree no one is against law abiding Syrian refugees but you can not guarantee an Isis fighter won't slip in with them. See by not allowing any of them in you do guarantee that a terrorist won't slip through.
So let me get this straight... You aren't willing to gamble any American lives, but Syrian lives, they can be gambled with?
This makes no sense- its an unfair question.
Not that 'gambling' is the operative term for this situation... would you flip a coin to determine the well being of your child versus another, RG? Does your child hold a special place in your heart?
I'm assuming from this post that your child holds no more value than any other child. This is why I ask. If I am wrong... you should retract your rather arrogant statement where you challenged another for holding such a selfish position.
Comments
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
Isnt that your concern? The vetting process?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Americans Would Rather Send Troops Abroad Than Take In Refugees At Home
In the wake of the Paris attacks, a new HuffPost/YouGov poll finds the public's mood is increasingly bellicose.
There's considerably more support for sending U.S. ground troops to fight the Islamic State than there is for accepting the Syrian refugees fleeing from the terrorist group, a new HuffPost/YouGov poll finds.
Americans are broadly sympathetic to the plight of refugees and convinced other nations have an obligation to help. A 53 percent majority think people who flee war or political oppression should have the right to seek refuge in other countries, while 23 percent don't. Fifty-six percent believe that refugee crises are a problem for the entire world, not just neighboring countries.
But there's less consensus that the U.S. should be part of the solution. While 38 percent of Americans say the U.S. should take in refugees, 39 percent say it should not, with the remainder unsure. Most don't think the U.S. has a special role to play as a haven for people escaping war in their home countries.
While Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say the nation should accept refugees, support among both groups has dropped significantly in the past two months.
source: http://globalnews.ca/news/2346795/more-than-half-of-prairie-population-oppose-refugee-resettlement-poll/
More than half of prairie population oppose refugee resettlement: poll
A recent Angus Reid public opinion poll shows more than half of the prairie population opposes resettling Syrian refugees into their provinces.
Manitoba is planning to resettle 2,000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2015. This is part of Canada’s larger commitment to bring in 25,000 of Syrian refugees by year’s end.
The poll was conducted three days after the terrorist attacks that killed 129 people on Nov. 13th.
It found 63 per cent of the public from Manitoba and Saskatchewan are opposed to the resettlement plan. 67 per cent of Alberta’s population is also against it.
The poll found Canada was divided on the issue. Just over half of Canadians oppose the federal government’s resettlement plan.
However, even before the terrorist attacks in the French capital, fully half of the Canadian public was against it.
Majority of Americans disapprove of President Barack Obama's plans to allow more Syrian refugees to settle in the U.S., an issue that sharply divides Americans across party lines, a new poll shows.
While about eight in 10 Republicans disapprove of letting in more refugees from Syria, including 64 percent who strongly disapprove, nearly two-thirds of Democrats support Obama's policy. Some 59 percent of independents are also opposed to the plan, according to the NBC News/SurveyMonkey online poll.
source: http://www.npr.org/2015/11/21/456857350/this-isnt-the-first-time-americans-have-shown-fear-of-refugees?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=news
Such fears escalated sharply after the deadly terror attacks in Paris on Friday, the 13th — a November night of random slaughter that took at least 130 lives and wounded hundreds. Polls throughout the week showed clear majorities of Americans supporting at least "a pause" in the resettlement of refugees from the region being roiled by the self-proclaimed Islamic State.
Last that France is accepting 25000 in the face of these attacks.
Fear stoked by selfserving assholes in gov and media.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Most Canadians actually support accepting refugees. They just want to know that they are properly screened, which they are. Most of those against it are simply misinformed and/or basing their opinion on illogical fears, just like in the US. But that doesn't matter in any case. Thank god our new givernment knows better and is currently moving full steam ahead.
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/world/why-germany-is-taking-in-so-many-refugees-the-benefits-and-risks-1.3226962
Historically, in the MT, when people were demanding the US and other forces withdraw from the middle East... this was typically supported with the notion that we should leave Muslims to deal with the ISIS problem.
How do these people feel now? Is it fair to say that this refugee crisis demonstrates that some form of international intervention is required to suppress the ISIS threat?
Some of these same people make very little of ISIS and disregard their level of threat. Am I in the minority thinking this group of shitheads is a legitimate concern?
While I support Canada's efforts to assist (they're modest at best)... I think a country and its citizens have every right to be concerned for who they accept into their fold- especially given the potential risks.
Amd I think the majority of people in our countries agree with us.
The refugees that would come here arent in that situation. Since when did common syrians become our enemy? I didnt catch that news story or hear the president say such.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
No. Voiced opinion, yes.
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
See by not allowing any of them in you do guarantee that a terrorist won't slip through.
Not that 'gambling' is the operative term for this situation... would you flip a coin to determine the well being of your child versus another, RG? Does your child hold a special place in your heart?
I'm assuming from this post that your child holds no more value than any other child. This is why I ask. If I am wrong... you should retract your rather arrogant statement where you challenged another for holding such a selfish position.