NO more migrants

H

Horn6721

Hook'em
period, for awhile.
The list of Govs who will not accept Syrian migrants is growing by the hour.
What we really should do though is not accept ANY 'migrants" for now.
Fake docs are so easy to get , we say no Syrians so the new fake docs are Iraqi or even a latin country.
Just accept none for now.
send money instead.
 
I have read that the US has allowed 750,000 refugees into the country with no domestic terrorism incidents. But it's the internet so it could be bs.

I am fine with restricting the amount (or just not taking any) people from certain countries that produce a lot of terrorists. But, I don't really see the need to stop people from places like Australia, Peru, Canada, etc from being able to move here.
 
larryT
"But, I don't really see the need to stop people from places like Australia, Peru, Canada"

Are you saying the USA admitted Australians and Canadians as refugees? Peruvians maybe.

Maybe I used the wrong term of "migrant". I was using the term migrant as has been used to describe the people flooding into Europe. perhaps the right term is refugee/ asylum seeker.
Stopping all refugees for a time would allow us to get a better vetting system in place. Since we are borrowing money to give these people benefits isn't it in OUR best interests ( novel thought, what might be best for know with certainty who exactly we are allowing in to enjoy our benefits.) I can't think of a country whose people are seeking to get US to let them in as refugees that I would consider the information provided as credible.
Interesting suggestion by some Pol. The money we will spend to take care of a few thousand refugees from Syria Iraq etc etc would provide care food and shelter for many many thousands more in a country nearer those countries like maybe Saudi Arabia? Qatar? UAE? The point was made that since 70% of the 'migrants" are able bodied men the money we spend here would take care of those able bodied men's families they left behind in those horrid conditions, conditions so horrid they had to take their iphones, lace up their nikes and leave families behind.

Our history allowing angry muslims in hasn't been sterling.

People immigrating from countries like Australia and Canada should have better credentials that we can vet.I don't know , do we allow many Peruvian refugees?
 
If by migrant you mean Muslim refugees, then I am inclined to agree. I just don't see how we can thoroughly look into the backgrounds of these people. I feel for them because they have seen some of the worst crap that exists on this planet and have likely lost family members. But turning our own country into a terrorist haven in the process of saving them really isn't feasible.
 
A Syrian refugee in Paris... on CNN at a 3:25 am EDT segment with CNN reporter Sakher Edris talking to this Syrian refugee... in a street interview ...showing his passport explaining how easy it is to get a fake Syrian passport. Can get one for about 700 euros. Said in one city ISIS got 5,000 original Syrian passports without names... saying can you imagine what that means... then spoke alarmingly as he explained how easy it is to get a fake passport. And saying this is not being talked about anywhere. The clip ended and the program resumed back with the CNN hosts and they then related that a journalist paid $300 and got a passport issued with the face of a US politician on it.

I hope that segment makes the rounds tomorrow. Morning Joe would love to air it, and probably will.
 
Frankly, I can see both sides on this issue. Someone who is fleeing Assad and ISIS is a worthy cause for help. However, those who fear that some bad apples will get in and murder people have a very understandable and justifiable reason to oppose the admission of refugees.

This is an issue in need of a policy solution that serves both interests, and I don't see why that's so hard to come up with. There is a middle ground between tell them all to **** off and letting them come in and run wild as they see fit. However, just like with most issues, if someone advocates such a solution, he'll be demonized as a sellout by the armchair quarterbacks who rant a lot but don't have any solutions of their own.
 
Last edited:
well THAT didn't take long.
One of the Syrian refugees that just arrived in La went missing.
http://thehayride.com/2015/11/breaking-syrian-refugee-already-missing-in-baton-rouge-area/
"At least one Syrian refugee that was in the process of resettling in the Baton Rouge area has already gone missing."


But thank goodness after Gov Jindal raised hell State said they knew where he was and that " he was placed with another family or Catholic Charities out of state".

La's loss is another lucky state's gain.



Oh yea this all will end well.:rolleyes1:
 
Mr. Deez said:
Frankly, I can see both sides on this issue. Someone who is fleeing Assad and ISIS is a worthy cause for help. However, those who fear that some bad apples will get in and murder people have a very understandable and justifiable reason to oppose the admission of refugees.

This is an issue in need of a policy solution that serves both interests, and I don't see why that's so hard to come up with. There is a middle ground between tell them all to **** off and letting them come in and run wild as they see fit. However, just like with most issues, if someone advocates such a solution, he'll be demonized by a sellout by the armchair quarterbacks who rant a lot but don't have any solutions of their own.
Click to expand...
Completely 100% agree.

Maybe some of it may be unfair initially...as in the immigration/State Dept. official denied their request over nothing more than they just got a bad vibe from the person during the interview. Or some refugees will have something akin to a parole officer/transition officer that they must check in with every week.
 
MrD?
Who is saying F-off to them?
There have been several who have suggested creating areas in the ME that are safe
for people. Areas closer without the dangers of travel and with cultures closer to what they know. The money WE are spending per person could create safer life for so many more.
And Hey! since the vast majority are able bodied young men maybe they would be willing to go back to their country and fight.


2000?
just asking. Does Syria or Iraq have parole offices with verifiable records?
 
Horn6721 said:
MrD?
Who is saying F-off to them?
There have been several who have suggested creating areas in the ME that are safe
for people. Areas closer without the dangers of travel and with cultures closer to what they know. The money WE are spending per person could create safer life for so many more.
And Hey! since the vast majority are able bodied young men maybe they would be willing to go back to their country and fight.


2000?
just asking. Does Syria or Iraq have parole offices with verifiable records?
Click to expand...
6721, probably not. I was just throwing things on the wall while the coffee is brewing. I admit, this isn't my most thoughtful post. Maybe we make all the men wear tracking devices. Maybe they all have to take a polygraph before coming in. On the refugee spectrum of Donald Trump/Cruz to Obama, I'm much closer to Trump/Cruz. But the no refugees at all position isn't a good policy.

It's like flying after 9-11. We can A) stop flying all together or B) continue on with how've been doing, because gosh darn it, we won't let those terrorists win. The answer of course is neither. It's C) we put up with a lot of inconvenience, including the surrender of some civil liberties, to keep flying.

Here's one thing I know for sure. Saudi Arabia, The Emirates...they need to be taking the vast majority of these refugees.
 
Last edited:
2000
I agree. But I don't think stopping all refugees for a time, in order to get better procedures in place is a mean spirited idea
At the least we should stop letting in "refugees" from areas like Syria.
The incident in La is a testament for that.
No one has explained why keeping them closer to their own countries is a bad idea. There was that Egyptian billionaire who offered to buy a small island in IIRC the Mediterranean. surely the money we would spend to bring some here coupled with the money many of the Euros are spending could build and support facilities for a large number.
And then as you point out there are countries in the ME who can and should take some in.
would it be better for the refugees to be in a country/ area similar to their home country? Might not their wish be to go back to their country when it can be made safer?

Of course there is the distinction between a refugee escaping war and those seeking the life places like Germany and even USA will provide in benefits.
 
Here is facebook posting (won't attribute for privacy reasons) from a wonderful Baptist friend of mine.
My heart is again broken...
because many of those in my state, my country and - most disturbing- my faith have chosen fear/hate.
We are to love our neighbors as ourselves and yet there are those who are letting FEAR win bowing to the will of the terrorists-- letting the evil/inhumanity win.
...
I know you are scared but either you believe in humanity, love, God or you don't
Please don't let them win and take our basic values. Your true self comes out when your basic beliefs are most tested.
My Syrian neighbors- you are welcome in my home.
I believe we are to those who are innocent and running for their lives should be loved on, comforted and sheltered.
I'm deeply ashamed of my American brothers/sisters and my Christian brothers/sisters who will celebrate Christmas and yet spit on our values and on God/Jesus.
My. Prayer: God please change the fear in our hearts to love. Please forgive those who putting fear above you. Show them the light. May the ministers in our community have the fortitude to stand up for you and call out and convict their flocks. ...That we truly answer the question "what would Jesus do" as we celebrate his birth. Amen
Click to expand...
 
Another post from Facebook, this from a stranger replying to my friend:
This from French Journalist Nicholas Henin, who spent 10 months in ISIS captivity: "It struck me forcefully how technologically connected they are; they follow the news obsessively, but everything they see goes through their own filter. They are totally indoctrinated, clinging to all manner of conspiracy theories, never acknowledging the contradictions. Everything convinces them that they are on the right path and, specifically, that there is a kind of apocalyptic process under way that will lead to a confrontation between an army of Muslims from all over the world and others, the crusaders, the Romans. They see everything as moving us down that road. Consequently, everything is a blessing from Allah.

With their news and social media interest, they will be noting everything that follows their murderous assault on Paris, and my guess is that right now the chant among them will be “We are winning”. They will be heartened by every sign of overreaction, of division, of fear, of racism, of xenophobia; they will be drawn to any examples of ugliness on social media.

Central to their world view is the belief that communities cannot live together with Muslims, and every day their antennae will be tuned towards finding supporting evidence. The pictures from Germany of people welcoming migrants will have been particularly troubling to them. Cohesion, tolerance – it is not what they want to see."
Click to expand...
 
Croc
Why do you think your friend feels that just because people don't want to let people come into USA who we do not know, people coming from an area full of islamists who have openly and repeatedly called for death and destruction to our country, that they are bowing to the will of the terrorists? That makes no sense>
It seems to me that allowing anyone in including islamisst would be bowing to the terrorists. Isn't that what You would think terrorists would want?
Maybe you could point that out to him AND remind him that most people are ok with sending money to help the refugees.
 
Her point is that Christ was courageous and would show love even when there was danger. Her point was not political. She doesn't identify with a party, nor does she identify with fear. Sure the terrorists killed a number of people in France, about half the number who typically die of homicides on an average week in the US. The west has no doubt killed several times as many Islamists in Syria, including a bunch of noncombatants since then. We are angry and frightened and the terrorist are glad. Unlike us, deaths don't freak them out.

As far as creating a safe zone in the Middle East I'm all for it, but it sounds to me like a nebulous, impractical dream. Give me an implementation plan and I'll raise money for it.
 
Crockett said:
Another post from Facebook, this from a stranger replying to my friend:
Click to expand...
I don't care if these folks are happy or see themselves accomplishing anything. My positions on ISIS and Syrian refugees are about who we are as Americans. Sometimes that's a compassionate America. And sometimes that's a "you just f%£#ed with the wrong cowboy" America. Honestly, they're one in the same.

As one of the victims of the Paris attack said, he doesn't have hate. "These are just cockroaches that need to be eliminated." Tres vraies.

One thing too, is that these little f&@ks talk a big game in their videos after pillaging a village of women and old men. And their religious delusion negates any hesitation about blowing themselves up...which is psychotic and not bravery by any warrior honor code. But when captured, these little p£*^^ies all of a sudden roll over like $€%*^s.

I've always emphasized the skill of empathy for our military and intelligence community. But not for these little $£*^%s. It doesn't matter what they feel or think.

Horn6721 said:
Why do you think your friend feels that just because people don't want to let people come into USA who we do not know, people coming from an area full of islamists who have openly and repeatedly called for death and destruction to our country, that they are bowing to the will of the terrorists? That makes no sense>
It seems to me that allowing anyone in including islamisst would be bowing to the terrorists. Isn't that what You would think terrorists would want?
Click to expand...
This.
 
Last edited:
I try to keep my Jesus and my politics separate. I do care for these people on a personal level. If I knew them, I would welcome them into my home and help them get on their feet. But, that doesn't change my stance for US policy taking a break from accepting more until we can get a handle on things. This is a position based on logic considering the facts on the ground, not emotion or hate of people different than me.
 
Horn6721 said:
MrD?
Who is saying F-off to them?
There have been several who have suggested creating areas in the ME that are safe
for people. Areas closer without the dangers of travel and with cultures closer to what they know. The money WE are spending per person could create safer life for so many more.
And Hey! since the vast majority are able bodied young men maybe they would be willing to go back to their country and fight.
Click to expand...

Plenty are saying f-off. If you are summarily dismissing them without a viable option for what to do with them, you are telling them to f-off.

I'm perfectly fine with establishing safe places in the Middle East to house them. However, how viable of an option is that? What country in the Middle East is willing to give up land for that? Are food and water really available? Who's going to provide security? Also that's going to take a lot of time to work out. The refugees who are real refugees are getting murdered by ISIS and/or Assad right now. Where do they go?

What I wouldn't mind seeing are temporary, secured (meaning they can't leave and are immediately returned to Syria if they try) camps wherever possible, including in the United States. Once a longer term solution is found and established (perhaps in the Middle East), they can be removed from the temporary camps to the safe spots. And of course, if and when Syria is stabilized, they should be sent home.

Frankly, this is an area in which the UN could make itself useful if it wasn't so corrupt. It could coordinate the delivery of food and medical services and install peacekeepers and security forces at the safe spots.
 
I do not think anyone in a position to do anything is telling them to f'off.

"The refugees who are real refugees are getting murdered by ISIS and/or Assad right now"
?? If they are refugees how are Assad and ISIS killing them?

Is finding 'safe" places for them in the ME easy? NO but as you pointed out maybe it is time for the nations to put pressure on the UN. It appears that there are several nations whoare at least willing to consider and research the idea.
The money we alone spend could make a comfortable safe life for many more there instead of here.

Knowing some of the islamists involved in the Paris plot were "refugees" and a newly arrived in USA"vetted" refugee was easily able to leave his assigned place and make it to Washington DC( what? He wanted to visit the Smithsonian)
and reading this article from Daily Mail makes me more in favor of 1. NOT letting any Syrians in for now and 2. get serious about a safe place for them far far from here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-refugees-given-safe-haven-turned-terror.html


and NO BO we are not afraid of 3 y o children. I am pretty sure none of the "vetted refugees" mentioned in the link are kids. Neither is the highly vetted refugees who made his way from Baton Rouge to DC.
When will BO put Americans first?
 
Last edited:
Horn6721 said:
"The refugees who are real refugees are getting murdered by ISIS and/or Assad right now"
?? If they are refugees how are Assad and ISIS killing them?
Click to expand...

That warrants some explanation. When I say "real refugees," I'm distinguishing people who are actually leaving to escape the war as opposed to migrants who are attempting to enter the US or the EU for other reasons. All refugees are migrants, but not all migrants are refugees.

Horn6721 said:
Is finding 'safe" places for them in the ME easy? NO but as you pointed out maybe it is time for the nations to put pressure on the UN. It appears that there are several nations whoare at least willing to consider and research the idea.
The money we alone spend could make a comfortable safe life for many more there instead of here.
Click to expand...

I have not heard that any Middle Eastern nation is offering up land to accommodate Syrian refugees on a long term basis. If they are, that's great. However, that process (as well as the so-called "vetting" process that I think we both would agree is bogus and wholly inadequate) is going to take months or even years. It doesn't do much for those who are going to have their heads cut off by ISIS next month. That's why I think some kind of high-security camps are needed to provide more immediate help.

Horn6721 said:
Knowing some of the islamists involved in the Paris plot were "refugees" and a newly arrived in USA"vetted" refugee was easily able to leave his assigned place and make it to Washington DC( what? He wanted to visit the Smithsonian)
and reading this article from Daily Mail makes me more in favor of 1. NOT letting any Syrians in for now and 2. get serious about a safe place for them far far from here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-refugees-given-safe-haven-turned-terror.html
Click to expand...

And this is the problem with the other end of the spectrum. They act as though the Right's concern is nothing more than irrational xenophobia and fear mongering, and that's not the case. Though most of the refugees aren't dangerous, some of them are, and it doesn't take many bad apples to create another Paris scenario.

Horn6721 said:
and NO BO we are not afraid of 3 y o children. I am pretty sure none of the "vetted refugees" mentioned in the link are kids. Neither is the highly vetted refugees who made his way from Baton Rouge to DC.
When will BO put Americans first?
Click to expand...

The PC thing to do is to put Americans last, and that's what's being pushed now.
 
MrD
Safe camps are a good idea. Where would you locate them?
NOT here!

Remember when we set up hotel like camps( costing us hundreds of millions) for mothers and children supposedly fleeing for their lives from Mexico El Salvador etc some people said keeping them in these places was cruel and violated their civil rights. Others sued the gov't.


I still wonder why no one looked into that offer from a Egyptian billionaire to buy uninhabited islands to house refugees.
 
Surprisingly, I can agree with something Chris Matthews said.

"Single young men cannot enter. If folks wants us to send our troops over there to fight...you have to turn around and fight for your country."

That's what we've come to folks...ISIS is so f'd up, that even Chris Matthews is saying stuff that makes sense.
 
Crockett said:
As far as creating a safe zone in the Middle East I'm all for it, but it sounds to me like a nebulous, impractical dream. Give me an implementation plan and I'll raise money for it.
Click to expand...

Is it any more nebulous than bringing in a large group of uneducated, unassimilated people from cultures that do not share our values on life, mutual respect and democracy, putting them in a situation where their best chance to thrive will be to build their own communities with their fellow refugees, where those differences in culture will continue to fester and turn into what we see in Europe and even in some parts of the U.S.?

I think we have this naive dream that just like the European and Asian immigrants of the 1800s, these people will melt right into our society. Some probably will. But there's not the same shared culture. These people aren't coming because they like American values. They're coming because a. they're being persecuted, b. their country is being destroyed by war, and c. they don't really have a lot of other options. (That's not counting the small number who are absolutely coming because they want to commit terrorist acts in the U.S.) None of those options reflects a group that's going to come to this country and assimilate.

It just seems to me like our only priority is "just get them in and we'll figure the rest out." Only we never get to that last part.

Mr. Deez said:
What I wouldn't mind seeing are temporary, secured (meaning they can't leave and are immediately returned to Syria if they try) camps wherever possible, including in the United States. Once a longer term solution is found and established (perhaps in the Middle East), they can be removed from the temporary camps to the safe spots. And of course, if and when Syria is stabilized, they should be sent home.
Click to expand...

I feel like this is the hardest solution but the one we need to figure out. The global community does not work when we decide that the solution to an unlivable country is to let all its citizens move somewhere else. If we're determined that these people's plight is our problem, then we have real work to do in order to help them have a safe home where they live now.

The problem is that their neighbors don't want them. The people who ought to care the most about them - and in many cases the countries from which some of the "Syrian refugees" are actually coming from - don't seem that interested in helping out.
 
Any idea that we can create a "safe place" for the refugees is pure fantasy. We already have million(s) of refugees in camps bursting at the seems. There isn't a country that will give up land permanently to these refugees. It's ludicrous to even contemplate that idea and serves only to mask xenophobia.

Let's be clear, of the 8 original individuals involved in the Paris attacks, only 1 came in through the refugee route. The rest were homegrown and may have traveled to the ISIS battlefield but were EU nationals thus didn't need to feign refugee status. Using the 1 as a justification to shut all borders to refugees is a slight of hand tactic similar to saying deport all Mexicans because of the San Francisco murder. The "liberals" are critical of the massive broad brush leveraged by the far right.

Do we absolutely need to be cautious of and vet all ME refugees? Absolutely. We're not talking a refugee landing on the Greek shore and suddenly having access to all of the EU. In the US, it's a 2yr background check process. Is that process challenging especially given the breakdown in governments in Syria and Iraq? Yes. That's partly why only 1,200 refugees have been resettled so far. Does that mean we can't help women and children? BTW, the 70% men figure being thrown around is illogical, bogus and evidence of xenophobia.

I'd advocate that we be extra restrictive of able bodied men ages 10-50 in the refugees. It's OK to say to a family, we'll allow your wife and children to be refugees but the father can't get in. Single Men would be an automatic disqualification.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
Is it any more nebulous than bringing in a large group of uneducated
Click to expand...

You do realize that Syrians are some of the most educated citizens in the ME, right? I believe education level or contribution to society is a factor in acceptance as a refugee. It's not like we seeking the dregs of their society to allow into the US.
 
I don't understand why we have to import them over here. They aren't wanted and won't assimilate into our culture. Why can't the U.S./U.N./whoever set up safe havens in Syria? We could protect those areas and they'd still be in their country and could, perhaps, return home someday.
 
Is it any more nebulous than bringing in a large group of uneducated, unassimilated people from cultures that do not share our values on life, mutual respect and democracy,
Click to expand...

Cetainly I'd hope any refugees we bring here would either be on a path to assimilate or return home when the shooting stops.

As far as sharing a country with people of different culture, evey once in a while as I channel surf thorugh Jerry Springer, Maury Povich or Cheaters, I realize I live in a coutry with people with value systems I pretty much find dispicable and dangerous to our society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top