Well, the answer isn't for the West to take all of the refugees either. Ask Europe how that is working out for them.
I really haven't seen any news whatsoever about how taking in legitimate Syrian refugees after a rigorous screening process has harmed anyone or any country.
So you think the problems in Europe right now wouldn't exist if there was proper screening? Everyone focuses on the migrants but what about the second generation? That generation seems to be the ones committee terror attacks in the USA and Europe.
There are plenty of problems within some Muslim communities, and disenfranchised second generation Muslims turning to extremism is one of those problems. Only an idiot would try and deny that. But I argue that not helping refugees is not the solution, and neither is encouraging widespread intolerance towards Muslims in general. I definitely do not think that helping these refugees is contributing to terrorism.
Which brings us back to Halifax. The second generation is being thrown into an unnatural environment without the necessary resouces to succeed. You call it temporary but the resources never come. This results in a generation that feels estranged from society and who then withdraws into their own communities. A small percentage of those never adapt and who actually feel resentment towards the community that takes them in. With good intentions you are putting Tillucum in Seaworld and only later will wonder why he killed his trainer.
Well, the answer isn't for the West to take all of the refugees either. Ask Europe how that is working out for them.
I really haven't seen any news whatsoever about how taking in legitimate Syrian refugees after a rigorous screening process has harmed anyone or any country.
So you think the problems in Europe right now wouldn't exist if there was proper screening? Everyone focuses on the migrants but what about the second generation? That generation seems to be the ones committee terror attacks in the USA and Europe.
There are plenty of problems within some Muslim communities, and disenfranchised second generation Muslims turning to extremism is one of those problems. Only an idiot would try and deny that. But I argue that not helping refugees is not the solution, and neither is encouraging widespread intolerance towards Muslims in general. I definitely do not think that helping these refugees is contributing to terrorism.
Which brings us back to Halifax. The second generation is being thrown into an unnatural environment without the necessary resouces to succeed. You call it temporary but the resources never come. This results in a generation that feels estranged from society and who then withdraws into their own communities. A small percentage of those never adapt and who actually feel resentment towards the community that takes them in. With good intentions you are putting Tillucum in Seaworld and only later will wonder why he killed his trainer.
Yeah, sounds like a problem (although I strongly oppose your comparison of Muslims in Canada to a whale kept in captivity). The people in Halifax definitely need to pull it together and govern better. My argument is against the "don't let "them" in" stance and with the blanket discrimination of Muslims. Not with the fact that Canada and Canadians need to do a better job of integrating immigrants. I do think that.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Well, the answer isn't for the West to take all of the refugees either. Ask Europe how that is working out for them.
I really haven't seen any news whatsoever about how taking in legitimate Syrian refugees after a rigorous screening process has harmed anyone or any country.
So you think the problems in Europe right now wouldn't exist if there was proper screening? Everyone focuses on the migrants but what about the second generation? That generation seems to be the ones committee terror attacks in the USA and Europe.
There are plenty of problems within some Muslim communities, and disenfranchised second generation Muslims turning to extremism is one of those problems. Only an idiot would try and deny that. But I argue that not helping refugees is not the solution, and neither is encouraging widespread intolerance towards Muslims in general. I definitely do not think that helping these refugees is contributing to terrorism.
Which brings us back to Halifax. The second generation is being thrown into an unnatural environment without the necessary resouces to succeed. You call it temporary but the resources never come. This results in a generation that feels estranged from society and who then withdraws into their own communities. A small percentage of those never adapt and who actually feel resentment towards the community that takes them in. With good intentions you are putting Tillucum in Seaworld and only later will wonder why he killed his trainer.
Yeah, sounds like a problem (although I strongly oppose your comparison of Muslims in Canada to a whale kept in captivity). The people in Halifax definitely need to pull it together and govern better. My argument is against the "don't let "them" in" stance and with the blanket discrimination of Muslims. Not with the fact that Canada and Canadians need to do a better job of integrating immigrants. I do think that.
C'mon...that whale example was great! In all seriousness though I again agree with you but i do think people need to relax on "the don't let them in" accusation. Certainly there are "some" who say that but it is just not the correct to make the assumption that "most" feel that way. What "most" are saying is we can't let people in if A) we can't verify who they are and/or if we don't have the capacity/resources to successfully integrate said individuals. That is not racism. It is recognizing that a failure to handle this properly will harm both the country and the immigrant. Getting logistics right prior to welcoming refugees matters.
Well, the answer isn't for the West to take all of the refugees either. Ask Europe how that is working out for them.
I really haven't seen any news whatsoever about how taking in legitimate Syrian refugees after a rigorous screening process has harmed anyone or any country.
So you think the problems in Europe right now wouldn't exist if there was proper screening? Everyone focuses on the migrants but what about the second generation? That generation seems to be the ones committee terror attacks in the USA and Europe.
There are plenty of problems within some Muslim communities, and disenfranchised second generation Muslims turning to extremism is one of those problems. Only an idiot would try and deny that. But I argue that not helping refugees is not the solution, and neither is encouraging widespread intolerance towards Muslims in general. I definitely do not think that helping these refugees is contributing to terrorism.
I think the citizens of France would disagree. It is contributing to the destabilization of Europe. Brexit would not have happened without the migration movement. And the individuals committing terror attacks in Europe are first or second generation.
Germany just brought in enough migrants in 2015 to fill the city of Houston. I think the largest companies in Germany hired 26 migrants last year. So what they have done is bring in 2.1 million people who will struggle to find work and where there is a history of a small minority turning to terrorism when they are disenfranchised.
Countries in Europe are closing their borders for the first time in 40+ years because of this. Can you at least recognize that people who are against bringing migrants over are not racist but at the end of the day having a practical outlook based on what they see happening in the world?
Well, the answer isn't for the West to take all of the refugees either. Ask Europe how that is working out for them.
I really haven't seen any news whatsoever about how taking in legitimate Syrian refugees after a rigorous screening process has harmed anyone or any country.
So you think the problems in Europe right now wouldn't exist if there was proper screening? Everyone focuses on the migrants but what about the second generation? That generation seems to be the ones committee terror attacks in the USA and Europe.
There are plenty of problems within some Muslim communities, and disenfranchised second generation Muslims turning to extremism is one of those problems. Only an idiot would try and deny that. But I argue that not helping refugees is not the solution, and neither is encouraging widespread intolerance towards Muslims in general. I definitely do not think that helping these refugees is contributing to terrorism.
Which brings us back to Halifax. The second generation is being thrown into an unnatural environment without the necessary resouces to succeed. You call it temporary but the resources never come. This results in a generation that feels estranged from society and who then withdraws into their own communities. A small percentage of those never adapt and who actually feel resentment towards the community that takes them in. With good intentions you are putting Tillucum in Seaworld and only later will wonder why he killed his trainer.
Yeah, sounds like a problem (although I strongly oppose your comparison of Muslims in Canada to a whale kept in captivity). The people in Halifax definitely need to pull it together and govern better. My argument is against the "don't let "them" in" stance and with the blanket discrimination of Muslims. Not with the fact that Canada and Canadians need to do a better job of integrating immigrants. I do think that.
C'mon...that whale example was great! In all seriousness though I again agree with you but i do think people need to relax on "the don't let them in" accusation. Certainly there are "some" who say that but it is just not the correct to make the assumption that "most" feel that way. What "most" are saying is we can't let people in if A) we can't verify who they are and/or if we don't have the capacity/resources to successfully integrate said individuals. That is not racism. It is recognizing that a failure to handle this properly will harm both the country and the immigrant. Getting logistics right prior to welcoming refugees matters.
No, I don't think "most" are saying that. I'm just talking about those who are. I am talking about the people who DO base their opinions on racism/bigotry, whether they admit it or not. And I do think there are a LOT of people who do that, and some of them just hide it behind more reasonable explanations that they picked up from reading the news and editorials. But anyway, I don't agree that we don't have the capacity or the resources. I think it is simply an administrative issue. Don't punish people who are suffering because our own admin systems and immigration regulations suck. Fix the admin issues and the regulations (for me, the regulation that needs the most work is how to settle immigrants/refugees. I think there should be more control of where they live and work, at least for their first 5 years in the country. I also think that English lessons need to be more readily available to all immigrants who need them). And sure, get those things right. Ideally these things would be done before the people arrive and not after.
HOWEVER, the Syrian refugees COULD NOT WAIT. They really needed to leave the conditions they were in immediately, and I think it would be inhumane and immoral to deny them safety just because we're worried about things not being perfectly prepared for their arrival. I think that some temporary inconveniences are well worth it in the case of refugees in dire need. There is a humanitarian crisis going on, and I think saying we should hold off on saving the lives of innocent people just because we don't want to be inconvenienced by the lack of perfect preparation is a pretty sick idea.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Well, the answer isn't for the West to take all of the refugees either. Ask Europe how that is working out for them.
I really haven't seen any news whatsoever about how taking in legitimate Syrian refugees after a rigorous screening process has harmed anyone or any country.
So you think the problems in Europe right now wouldn't exist if there was proper screening? Everyone focuses on the migrants but what about the second generation? That generation seems to be the ones committee terror attacks in the USA and Europe.
There are plenty of problems within some Muslim communities, and disenfranchised second generation Muslims turning to extremism is one of those problems. Only an idiot would try and deny that. But I argue that not helping refugees is not the solution, and neither is encouraging widespread intolerance towards Muslims in general. I definitely do not think that helping these refugees is contributing to terrorism.
Which brings us back to Halifax. The second generation is being thrown into an unnatural environment without the necessary resouces to succeed. You call it temporary but the resources never come. This results in a generation that feels estranged from society and who then withdraws into their own communities. A small percentage of those never adapt and who actually feel resentment towards the community that takes them in. With good intentions you are putting Tillucum in Seaworld and only later will wonder why he killed his trainer.
Yeah, sounds like a problem (although I strongly oppose your comparison of Muslims in Canada to a whale kept in captivity). The people in Halifax definitely need to pull it together and govern better. My argument is against the "don't let "them" in" stance and with the blanket discrimination of Muslims. Not with the fact that Canada and Canadians need to do a better job of integrating immigrants. I do think that.
C'mon...that whale example was great! In all seriousness though I again agree with you but i do think people need to relax on "the don't let them in" accusation. Certainly there are "some" who say that but it is just not the correct to make the assumption that "most" feel that way. What "most" are saying is we can't let people in if A) we can't verify who they are and/or if we don't have the capacity/resources to successfully integrate said individuals. That is not racism. It is recognizing that a failure to handle this properly will harm both the country and the immigrant. Getting logistics right prior to welcoming refugees matters.
No, I don't think "most" are saying that. I'm just talking about those who are. I am talking about the people who DO base their opinions on racism/bigotry, whether they admit it or not. And I do think there are a LOT of people who do that, and some of them just hide it behind more reasonable explanations that they picked up from reading the news and editorials. But anyway, I don't agree that we don't have the capacity or the resources. I think it is simply an administrative issue. Don't punish people who are suffering because our own admin systems and immigration regulations suck. Fix the admin issues and the regulations (for me, the regulation that needs the most work is how to settle immigrants/refugees. I think there should be more control of where they live and work, at least for their first 5 years in the country. I also think that English lessons need to be more readily available to all immigrants who need them). And sure, get those things right. Ideally these things would be done before the people arrive and not after.
HOWEVER, the Syrian refugees COULD NOT WAIT. They really needed to leave the conditions they were in immediately, and I think it would be inhumane and immoral to deny them safety just because we're worried about things not being perfectly prepared for their arrival. I think that some temporary inconveniences are well worth it in the case of refugees in dire need. There is a humanitarian crisis going on, and I think saying we should hold off on saving the lives of innocent people just because we don't want to be inconvenienced by the lack of perfect preparation is a pretty sick idea.
Well your heart is absolutely in the right place but unfortunately these "administrative issues" never get fixed. This is a sad fact which results in a policy that isn't humanitarian at all.
Which policy is not humanitarian? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Nothing could be less humanitarian than just leaving those people to freeze in a refugee camp, so the only thing that would not be humanitarian is refusing them entry just because there are some dolts organizing things over here (amongst a lot of people who are doing a good job). But FWIW, getting 25,000 refugees screened and brought to Canada in the amount of time that they did was an impressive feat, and whatever inconveniences and problems that have stemmed from doing that seem pretty minor, all things considered. It could have been a lot worse. I think it was and is being handled pretty well overall. I'm just glad all those people are safe and that the initiative served as a good example of what can be done when people just fucking do it instead of just talking about it and arguing about it indefinitely.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Which policy is not humanitarian? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Nothing could be less humanitarian than just leaving those people to freeze in a refugee camp, so the only thing that would not be humanitarian is refusing them entry just because there are some dolts organizing things over here (amongst a lot of people who are doing a good job). But FWIW, getting 25,000 refugees screened and brought to Canada in the amount of time that they did was an impressive feat, and whatever inconveniences and problems that have stemmed from doing that seem pretty minor, all things considered. It could have been a lot worse. I think it was and is being handled pretty well overall. I'm just glad all those people are safe and that the initiative served as a good example of what can be done when people just fucking do it instead of just talking about it and arguing about it indefinitely.
Well let's hope that the next axe attacker doesn't emergency from this group of 25000.
Which policy is not humanitarian? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Nothing could be less humanitarian than just leaving those people to freeze in a refugee camp, so the only thing that would not be humanitarian is refusing them entry just because there are some dolts organizing things over here (amongst a lot of people who are doing a good job). But FWIW, getting 25,000 refugees screened and brought to Canada in the amount of time that they did was an impressive feat, and whatever inconveniences and problems that have stemmed from doing that seem pretty minor, all things considered. It could have been a lot worse. I think it was and is being handled pretty well overall. I'm just glad all those people are safe and that the initiative served as a good example of what can be done when people just fucking do it instead of just talking about it and arguing about it indefinitely.
Well let's hope that the next axe attacker doesn't emergency from this group of 25000.
Let's hope that no axe attacker emerges from any group of any size. If one or a dozen or 100 of the 25,000 refugees do something bad, that will not change my opinion. They are still human beings, and I think the potential risks are reasonable when weighed with the benefits. These are human beings who desperately needed help. Children included. The chances of even one of them turning into a terrorist are slim, but if one or three or ten do, then we deal with it (and, better, work hard to fix the things that grow terrorists). 25,000 people were still saved, which is righteous.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Which policy is not humanitarian? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Nothing could be less humanitarian than just leaving those people to freeze in a refugee camp, so the only thing that would not be humanitarian is refusing them entry just because there are some dolts organizing things over here (amongst a lot of people who are doing a good job). But FWIW, getting 25,000 refugees screened and brought to Canada in the amount of time that they did was an impressive feat, and whatever inconveniences and problems that have stemmed from doing that seem pretty minor, all things considered. It could have been a lot worse. I think it was and is being handled pretty well overall. I'm just glad all those people are safe and that the initiative served as a good example of what can be done when people just fucking do it instead of just talking about it and arguing about it indefinitely.
Well let's hope that the next axe attacker doesn't emergency from this group of 25000.
Let's hope that no axe attacker emerges from any group of any size. If one or a dozen or 100 of the 25,000 refugees do something bad, that will not change my opinion. They are still human beings, and I think the potential risks are reasonable when weighed with the benefits. These are human beings who desperately needed help. Children included. The chances of even one of them turning into a terrorist are slim, but if one or three or ten do, then we deal with it (and, better, work hard to fix the things that grow terrorists). 25,000 people were still saved, which is righteous.
These are human beings who are watching their homeland be destroyed and you are advocating for Dunkirk instead of Normandy.
Which policy is not humanitarian? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Nothing could be less humanitarian than just leaving those people to freeze in a refugee camp, so the only thing that would not be humanitarian is refusing them entry just because there are some dolts organizing things over here (amongst a lot of people who are doing a good job). But FWIW, getting 25,000 refugees screened and brought to Canada in the amount of time that they did was an impressive feat, and whatever inconveniences and problems that have stemmed from doing that seem pretty minor, all things considered. It could have been a lot worse. I think it was and is being handled pretty well overall. I'm just glad all those people are safe and that the initiative served as a good example of what can be done when people just fucking do it instead of just talking about it and arguing about it indefinitely.
Well let's hope that the next axe attacker doesn't emergency from this group of 25000.
Let's hope that no axe attacker emerges from any group of any size. If one or a dozen or 100 of the 25,000 refugees do something bad, that will not change my opinion. They are still human beings, and I think the potential risks are reasonable when weighed with the benefits. These are human beings who desperately needed help. Children included. The chances of even one of them turning into a terrorist are slim, but if one or three or ten do, then we deal with it (and, better, work hard to fix the things that grow terrorists). 25,000 people were still saved, which is righteous.
These are human beings who are watching their homeland be destroyed and you are advocating for Dunkirk instead of Normandy.
I don't know what you mean by that. I am aware of those WWII battles, both of which were successful for the allies in the end. Dunkirk I think was more won because of German incompetence rather than allied success, no? And yes, they are human beings who had to watch their homeland be destroyed (after having their own personal lives torn apart). I don't understand what connection you are trying to make between the two. Are you saying that I am advocating for Syrian incompetence rather than Canada's success by supporting the aid for the refugees?? Or am I reading too far into it?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Which policy is not humanitarian? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Nothing could be less humanitarian than just leaving those people to freeze in a refugee camp, so the only thing that would not be humanitarian is refusing them entry just because there are some dolts organizing things over here (amongst a lot of people who are doing a good job). But FWIW, getting 25,000 refugees screened and brought to Canada in the amount of time that they did was an impressive feat, and whatever inconveniences and problems that have stemmed from doing that seem pretty minor, all things considered. It could have been a lot worse. I think it was and is being handled pretty well overall. I'm just glad all those people are safe and that the initiative served as a good example of what can be done when people just fucking do it instead of just talking about it and arguing about it indefinitely.
Well let's hope that the next axe attacker doesn't emergency from this group of 25000.
Let's hope that no axe attacker emerges from any group of any size. If one or a dozen or 100 of the 25,000 refugees do something bad, that will not change my opinion. They are still human beings, and I think the potential risks are reasonable when weighed with the benefits. These are human beings who desperately needed help. Children included. The chances of even one of them turning into a terrorist are slim, but if one or three or ten do, then we deal with it (and, better, work hard to fix the things that grow terrorists). 25,000 people were still saved, which is righteous.
These are human beings who are watching their homeland be destroyed and you are advocating for Dunkirk instead of Normandy.
I don't know what you mean by that. I am aware of those WWII battles, both of which were successful for the allies in the end. Dunkirk I think was more won because of German incompetence rather than allied success, no? And yes, they are human beings who had to watch their homeland be destroyed (after having their own personal lives torn apart). I don't understand what connection you are trying to make between the two. Are you saying that I am advocating for Syrian incompetence rather than Canada's success by supporting the aid for the refugees?? Or am I reading too far into it?
Dunkirk was an evacuation while Normandy was an invasion. Both successful but Dunkirk was not a solution to the problem. Humanitarianism doesn't end with the evacuation of refugees but with the prevention of the continued displacement and genocide of the same people. As Samantha Power once said the world has a "responsibility to protect" but we have abrogated that responsibility. Resettling refugees is certainly noble and makes us feel good but it does nothing to stop the problem. We potentially rob the region of it's brightest members and leave the rest to chaos.
Which policy is not humanitarian? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Nothing could be less humanitarian than just leaving those people to freeze in a refugee camp, so the only thing that would not be humanitarian is refusing them entry just because there are some dolts organizing things over here (amongst a lot of people who are doing a good job). But FWIW, getting 25,000 refugees screened and brought to Canada in the amount of time that they did was an impressive feat, and whatever inconveniences and problems that have stemmed from doing that seem pretty minor, all things considered. It could have been a lot worse. I think it was and is being handled pretty well overall. I'm just glad all those people are safe and that the initiative served as a good example of what can be done when people just fucking do it instead of just talking about it and arguing about it indefinitely.
Well let's hope that the next axe attacker doesn't emergency from this group of 25000.
Let's hope that no axe attacker emerges from any group of any size. If one or a dozen or 100 of the 25,000 refugees do something bad, that will not change my opinion. They are still human beings, and I think the potential risks are reasonable when weighed with the benefits. These are human beings who desperately needed help. Children included. The chances of even one of them turning into a terrorist are slim, but if one or three or ten do, then we deal with it (and, better, work hard to fix the things that grow terrorists). 25,000 people were still saved, which is righteous.
These are human beings who are watching their homeland be destroyed and you are advocating for Dunkirk instead of Normandy.
I don't know what you mean by that. I am aware of those WWII battles, both of which were successful for the allies in the end. Dunkirk I think was more won because of German incompetence rather than allied success, no? And yes, they are human beings who had to watch their homeland be destroyed (after having their own personal lives torn apart). I don't understand what connection you are trying to make between the two. Are you saying that I am advocating for Syrian incompetence rather than Canada's success by supporting the aid for the refugees?? Or am I reading too far into it?
Dunkirk was an evacuation while Normandy was an invasion. Both successful but Dunkirk was not a solution to the problem. Humanitarianism doesn't end with the evacuation of refugees but with the prevention of the continued displacement and genocide of the same people. As Samantha Power once said the world has a "responsibility to protect" but we have abrogated that responsibility. Resettling refugees is certainly noble and makes us feel good but it does nothing to stop the problem. We potentially rob the region of it's brightest members and leave the rest to chaos.
Okay. I agree that just plain old evacuation isn't a solution to the problems in Syria. It is a solution to keeping those people alive though, and I can get behind that. As far as I know, the international community hasn't just walked away from the conflict in Syria. There is absolutely no plan to "end" with evacuation. It can both save lives and help refugees and work to stop the problem. As far as I can tell, that is exactly what is happening. Unfortunately, it is not an easy problem to solve. So meanwhile, saving some refugees seems like the only decent way to go. Surely you agree with that? It doesn't do much good to leave the region's brightest members to die. They certainly weren't able to use their talents where they were.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Well, the answer isn't for the West to take all of the refugees either. Ask Europe how that is working out for them.
I really haven't seen any news whatsoever about how taking in legitimate Syrian refugees after a rigorous screening process has harmed anyone or any country.
So you think the problems in Europe right now wouldn't exist if there was proper screening? Everyone focuses on the migrants but what about the second generation? That generation seems to be the ones committee terror attacks in the USA and Europe.
There are plenty of problems within some Muslim communities, and disenfranchised second generation Muslims turning to extremism is one of those problems. Only an idiot would try and deny that. But I argue that not helping refugees is not the solution, and neither is encouraging widespread intolerance towards Muslims in general. I definitely do not think that helping these refugees is contributing to terrorism.
You seem to contradict yourself here.
You stated that obviously disenfranchised second generation Muslims will turn to extremism... but then say helping refugees does not lead to terrorism.
Which policy is not humanitarian? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Nothing could be less humanitarian than just leaving those people to freeze in a refugee camp, so the only thing that would not be humanitarian is refusing them entry just because there are some dolts organizing things over here (amongst a lot of people who are doing a good job). But FWIW, getting 25,000 refugees screened and brought to Canada in the amount of time that they did was an impressive feat, and whatever inconveniences and problems that have stemmed from doing that seem pretty minor, all things considered. It could have been a lot worse. I think it was and is being handled pretty well overall. I'm just glad all those people are safe and that the initiative served as a good example of what can be done when people just fucking do it instead of just talking about it and arguing about it indefinitely.
Well let's hope that the next axe attacker doesn't emergency from this group of 25000.
Let's hope that no axe attacker emerges from any group of any size. If one or a dozen or 100 of the 25,000 refugees do something bad, that will not change my opinion. They are still human beings, and I think the potential risks are reasonable when weighed with the benefits. These are human beings who desperately needed help. Children included. The chances of even one of them turning into a terrorist are slim, but if one or three or ten do, then we deal with it (and, better, work hard to fix the things that grow terrorists). 25,000 people were still saved, which is righteous.
A small price to pay! And the odds are it won't be you paying the price so no big whoop?
I'm not sure that's necessarily the correct attitude. If you bought food from some store that issued a recall of that food for the remote possibility it might be tainted... would you eat the food anyways?
Which policy is not humanitarian? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Nothing could be less humanitarian than just leaving those people to freeze in a refugee camp, so the only thing that would not be humanitarian is refusing them entry just because there are some dolts organizing things over here (amongst a lot of people who are doing a good job). But FWIW, getting 25,000 refugees screened and brought to Canada in the amount of time that they did was an impressive feat, and whatever inconveniences and problems that have stemmed from doing that seem pretty minor, all things considered. It could have been a lot worse. I think it was and is being handled pretty well overall. I'm just glad all those people are safe and that the initiative served as a good example of what can be done when people just fucking do it instead of just talking about it and arguing about it indefinitely.
Well let's hope that the next axe attacker doesn't emergency from this group of 25000.
Let's hope that no axe attacker emerges from any group of any size. If one or a dozen or 100 of the 25,000 refugees do something bad, that will not change my opinion. They are still human beings, and I think the potential risks are reasonable when weighed with the benefits. These are human beings who desperately needed help. Children included. The chances of even one of them turning into a terrorist are slim, but if one or three or ten do, then we deal with it (and, better, work hard to fix the things that grow terrorists). 25,000 people were still saved, which is righteous.
A small price to pay! And the odds are it won't be you paying the price so no big whoop?
I'm not sure that's necessarily the correct attitude. If you bought food from some store that issued a recall of that food for the remote possibility it might be tainted... would you eat the food anyways?
It doesn't matter if I personally pay the price or not. If I or someone I love is ever killed in a Muslim terrorist attack that is a direct or indirect result from saving those refugees, my attitude about humanitarian initiatives like this one wouldn't change. I still wouldn't blame all of those refugees. I would blame the terrorist alone and whatever conditions that lead to that person doing such a thing. To me, to be thinking "well what if one of the refugee's kid or grandkid turns into a terrorist??" seems a bit insane, frankly. I don't think you can compare a tainted lettuce recall to saving the lives of 25,000 people who are suffering on a daily basis.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
All white males shouldn't be allowed to rent a moving truck because one of them might build a truck bomb. And yet senator Tom "Hear Me Roar I'm A Warrior" Cotton voted against banning those on the no fly list and on the terrorist watch list from legally buying firearms. Meanwhile the republican lead congress refuses to hold confirmation hearings on Obama's appointment to the treasury department who investigates and prosecutes terror funding. Maybe we should get our own house in order before we criticize what others are doing to alleviate or contribute to the problem?
You clearly don't understand the differences between the refugee programs
You can't screen for the next generation that are largely committing the attacks in Europe.
So you are saying they get radicalized after they get here if we are talking about second generation? None of the people committing the attacks in Europe would be admitted to the US.
You clearly don't understand the differences between the refugee programs
You can't screen for the next generation that are largely committing the attacks in Europe.
So you are saying they get radicalized after they get here if we are talking about second generation? None of the people committing the attacks in Europe would be admitted to the US.
Yes. Some are. If the next generations are not assimilating well there are multiple issues to consider: potential radicalization, poverty, crime, costs for provide health services, political unrest etc.... This is happening in Europe . Brexit is a perfect example of a byproduct of uncontrolled immigration and lack of assimilation. It started before the refugee crisis even. Several years ago France had large riots a few years in a row due to lack of jobs. There were large riots outside of Stockholm several years ago. French/Belgium nationals (next generation) committed the terrorist attacks in Paris last November. The San Bernardino, Boston Bombing, and Orlando attacks were all next generation or children at the time they came to the US.
You clearly don't understand the differences between the refugee programs
You can't screen for the next generation that are largely committing the attacks in Europe.
So you are saying they get radicalized after they get here if we are talking about second generation? None of the people committing the attacks in Europe would be admitted to the US.
Yes. Some are. If the next generations are not assimilating well there are multiple issues to consider: potential radicalization, poverty, crime, costs for provide health services, political unrest etc.... This is happening in Europe . Brexit is a perfect example of a byproduct of uncontrolled immigration and lack of assimilation. It started before the refugee crisis even. Several years ago France had large riots a few years in a row due to lack of jobs. There were large riots outside of Stockholm several years ago. French/Belgium nationals (next generation) committed the terrorist attacks in Paris last November. The San Bernardino, Boston Bombing, and Orlando attacks were all next generation or children at the time they came to the US.
So you really just want to just ban an entire religion from coming to the U.S forever? If that's the case, there's no point in having a debate about this.
Who has ever recommended uncontrolled immigration?
Again, you do not understand the differences between the Europe refugee situation and the U.S refugee guidelines and how many people are admitted. If you did understand it, you would be using the word immigration rather than refugee.
If only Germany had more help from the international community in handling all those refugees. This would probably be preventable if everyone would step up and lighten the load for Germany.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
If only Germany had more help from the international community in handling all those refugees. This would probably be preventable if everyone would step up and lighten the load for Germany.
I'm not too sure how these attacks would be 'prevented'?
Do you mean spread out the attacks so not just Germany's people are getting blown up?
If only Germany had more help from the international community in handling all those refugees. This would probably be preventable if everyone would step up and lighten the load for Germany.
I'm not too sure how these attacks would be 'prevented'?
Do you mean spread out the attacks so not just Germany's people are getting blown up?
Lol, no. I mean that if the region had real help from the international community they would be able to have much better control over who crosses the borders or walks into the country from the beach. It is just the sheer numbers of refugees entering that is making it impossible for them to have any kind of meaningful security checks happening with the refugees.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/19/mother-and-three-daughters-stabbed-in-french-resort-for-being-scantily-dressed-6016072/
Germany just brought in enough migrants in 2015 to fill the city of Houston. I think the largest companies in Germany hired 26 migrants last year. So what they have done is bring in 2.1 million people who will struggle to find work and where there is a history of a small minority turning to terrorism when they are disenfranchised.
Countries in Europe are closing their borders for the first time in 40+ years because of this. Can you at least recognize that people who are against bringing migrants over are not racist but at the end of the day having a practical outlook based on what they see happening in the world?
HOWEVER, the Syrian refugees COULD NOT WAIT. They really needed to leave the conditions they were in immediately, and I think it would be inhumane and immoral to deny them safety just because we're worried about things not being perfectly prepared for their arrival. I think that some temporary inconveniences are well worth it in the case of refugees in dire need. There is a humanitarian crisis going on, and I think saying we should hold off on saving the lives of innocent people just because we don't want to be inconvenienced by the lack of perfect preparation is a pretty sick idea.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3696410/Man-attacks-21-people-AXE-train-Germany-shot-police.html
You stated that obviously disenfranchised second generation Muslims will turn to extremism... but then say helping refugees does not lead to terrorism.
I'm not following you here?
I'm not sure that's necessarily the correct attitude. If you bought food from some store that issued a recall of that food for the remote possibility it might be tainted... would you eat the food anyways?
I don't think you can compare a tainted lettuce recall to saving the lives of 25,000 people who are suffering on a daily basis.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Who has ever recommended uncontrolled immigration?
Again, you do not understand the differences between the Europe refugee situation and the U.S refugee guidelines and how many people are admitted. If you did understand it, you would be using the word immigration rather than refugee.
Just a way of life now it seems.
Do you mean spread out the attacks so not just Germany's people are getting blown up?