Another Attack in France (Nice)

PJ_Soul said:

bootlegger10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

bootlegger10 said:

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.

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

bootlegger10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

bootlegger10 said:

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.

PJ_Soul said:

bootlegger10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

bootlegger10 said:

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.

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

bootlegger10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

bootlegger10 said:

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.

PJ_Soul said:

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.

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3696410/Man-attacks-21-people-AXE-train-Germany-shot-police.html

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.

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3696410/Man-attacks-21-people-AXE-train-Germany-shot-police.html

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?

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3696410/Man-attacks-21-people-AXE-train-Germany-shot-police.html

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?