NO more migrants

[ProdigalHorn]

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.

No argument here. But for the most part (although that's changing), those people and their particular "value set" aren't attempting to make sure that their lifestyle is forced upon everyone else. The lack of morals that allow society to degrade into lying, cheating and general depravity aren't typically the ones that we're talking about when we mean shared values. We're talking about values on which the country was founded, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, republicanism, etc... I suspect you knew that

Frankly it's pretty hard for me to argue with a Muslim who considers our country decadent and corrupted. I'd pretty much say I'm in agreement with that.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[ShAArk92]

Frankly, I can see both sides on this issue. Someone who is fleeing Assad and ISIS is a worthy cause for help.

I think, at this point ... the answer now requires a thumping.

Establish "ISIS/ASSAD free havens/camps, whatever, OVER THERE ... then roll the mighty machine, even if it's a shell of its former self. then let those folks return home and start over.

Bringing them here means they'll never go back ... and for the 2% who are legitimate refugees, that's not necessarily a problem, but that 98% are not exactly innocent (muslim 'refugees') ... eh ... naw.

But it doesn't matter. making appropriations for another few hundred thousand muslims in this country is what Obama is all about ... to close-out his term. Perfect! (from his POV)

 

[NJlonghorn]

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.

For centuries, immigrants to the US have not assimilated. Most waves of immigrants have moved into ethic neighborhoods, spoken their native languages, eaten their traditional diets, and established a local mini-economy. The immigrants themselves identify with their original culture, and just happen to live in the US. The immigrants' kids grow up with the ethic culture but partly assimilate into the US culture as well. They typically identify as _____-Americans. The grandkids grow up as Americans, and identify as Americans.

The same thing will undoubtedly happen with Syrian immigrants. Yes, the immigrants themselves will by and large retain their Syrian culture. They will live in Syrian neighborhoods, eat Syrian food, shop at Syrian stores, speak Arabic, etc. They will identify as Syrians who happen to live in the US. Their kids will grow up eating Syrian foods, will learn Arabic at home, etc., but they will go to US schools, have US friends, watch US television, etc. They will identify as Syrian-Americans. The grandkids will be Americans, through and through.

The security concerns are real (or at least it's too early to be confident they aren't real), and for that reason alone I'm skittish about letting in Syrian refugees. But the "they won't assimilate" argument is bogus at best, xenophobic at worst.

 

[Larry T Spider]

I think, at this point ... the answer now requires a thumping.

Establish "ISIS/ASSAD free havens/camps, whatever, OVER THERE ... then roll the mighty machine, even if it's a shell of its former self. then let those folks return home and start over.

Bringing them here means they'll never go back ... and for the 2% who are legitimate refugees, that's not necessarily a problem, but that 98% are not exactly innocent (muslim 'refugees') ... eh ... naw.

But it doesn't matter. making appropriations for another few hundred thousand muslims in this country is what Obama is all about ... to close-out his term. Perfect! (from his POV)

I would reverse your numbers. I think 98% are legitimate. The problem is that if 2% aren't and you let 100,000 in, you have major problems.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

But the "they won't assimilate" argument is bogus at best, xenophobic at worst.

Brussels, Sweden and the UK might disagree with you on that.

 

[ShAArk92]

maybe ... I know this isn't ABC, but according to that story, 2% of the Syrians fleeing the country who are here in the States declare themselves to be Christians. Given that is the group being persecuted, I find that makes them legitimate.

AFA "legitimate" muslim refugees, that number is probably higher ... that's harder to discern, though. However, I'd consider any muslim male 20-50 as highly suspect and that accounted for 80% of those in "holding areas" over in Europe ... recall the photos of the diaper bags being left everywhere ... no babies.

 

[Larry T Spider]

maybe ... I know this isn't ABC, but according to that story, 2% of the Syrians fleeing the country who are here in the States declare themselves to be Christians. Given that is the group being persecuted, I find that makes them legitimate.

AFA "legitimate" muslim refugees, that number is probably higher ... that's harder to discern, though. However, I'd consider any muslim male 20-50 as highly suspect and that accounted for 80% of those in "holding areas" over in Europe ... recall the photos of the diaper bags being left everywhere ... no babies.

I think the vast majority are muslims escaping a war torn country to try to save their own lives and give opportunity to their children. The overwhelming majority of muslims just want to live a normal life like the rest of us. They are most impacted by the radical elements of anybody.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Given that is the group being persecuted, I find that makes them legitimate.

That's not the only group being persecuted. Yazidis, Shiite Muslims, Athiests etc are all in the crosshairs.

 

[Clean]

but they will go to US schools, have US friends, watch US television, etc. They will identify as Syrian-Americans. The grandkids will be Americans, through and through.

As noted, it hasn't worked that way in Europe. I've heard that there are parts of London-istan that the unarmed Bobbies won't go into.

It won't happen here if they are allowed to practice Sharia Law, marry their females off as children, and attend radicalized mosques. These aren't the Irish. Their culture is older than ours and they won't give it up easily.

 

[Horn6721]

Clean
right, there are no go zones in many UK cities as well as France, and as mentioned above Belgium. Other countries like Denmark and Sweden are experiencing the same problems.
Parts of Minn/St Paul, Dearborn, Hammtrack(sp?).
These enclaves of muslims are different from ethnic conclaves of the past. To pretend otherwise is foolish.

BTW, for those so in favor of admitting more Syrians and so against, OH the HORROR, of putting them in safe areas nearer their country where exactly do you think potential refugees are being held now?

 

[NJlonghorn]

Clean
right, there are no go zones in many UK cities as well as France, and as mentioned above Belgium. Other countries like Denmark and Sweden are experiencing the same problems.
Parts of Minn/St Paul, Dearborn, Hammtrack(sp?).

This claim has floated around in conspiracy circles for years, and was aired by Fox in January 2015. It was so thoroughly debunked by this analysis on Snopes.com (an apolitical fact-checking website) that Fox issued an extensive on air apology for what it admitted was false. No-go zones simply do not exist in the US, UK, or France.

I have never seen any evidence that second-generation and/or third-generation Muslims are any less integrated into American culture than their counterparts from other ethnic or religious groups. I have seen plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

And by the way, it is "Hamtramck", pronounced "ham-TRAM-ik".

 

[Horn6721]

Thanks for the correct spelling. I could not take the time to google it before.

I did not say there were no go zones in USA. I said those areas as well as places in Denmark and Sweden are experiencing problems with large muslim populations.
Call it what you or snopes like but there are muslim controlled areas in certain cities where the government does not have control and where the police are hesitant if not out right afraid to go.
Here from the Foreign Minister of Belgium stated
"
“Belgian Minister Says Government Lacks Control Over Neighborhood Linked to Terror Plots,” wrote Kimiko De Freytas-Tamura and Milan Schreuer.

Jan Jambon, the Belgian home affairs minister, said that authorities do no “have control of the situation in Molenbeek.” Molenbeek is a Brussels borough that, according to the Guardian, is “becoming known as Europe’s jihadi central.” Two of the assailants from Friday night’s Paris attacks were French nationals who had resided in Molenbeek, prosecutors have said. Five arrests were made in Molenbeek in connection with the attacks, Reuters reported."

Think there are similar areas in Paris? London? anywhere?

 

[Larry T Spider]

For generations, Americans have had fears of immigrants failing to assimilate even after generations. For the most part, this has been untrue. People were so scared of Irish and Italian immigrants a century ago and now we couldn't pick them out of a crowd for the most part. They may have different family traditions or a certain skin tone, but for the most part they are everyday Americans.

For Muslim immigrants, I am not too worried about how "American" their grandchildren will be, although I do think the process will take longer with many of them. There are so many values that are the complete opposite of American values. But, my reasoning for not wanting more to come doesn't have anything to do with assimilation or what their children will be like. It has to do with a number of them that want to come here and kill as many of us as possible. Its a problem that we don't have with other groups. You could allow 10 million Mexicans to come here and I doubt we would get a single terrorist out of all of them. If you let 1,000 Syrian refugees come here; my money is on a terrorist attack. I'm not for taking that chance considering our inability to properly look into their background. It absolutely sucks for most of them that just want a better life and would never dream of harming anybody. But, we just can't take the chance on attacks like those going on in Paris. If you let in large numbers, those attacks WILL happen here. Its simply an odds game.

 

[ShAArk92]

Think there are similar areas in Paris? London? anywhere?

Yes there are. I've been in London a dozen nights/so this year. Definitely places to not be with women who aren't hijab'd if you don't want an encounter with their "police"

That's not integrating.

Then there's the guy who things "the Shariah" is the best thing since sliced bread and "invites" all to join. The invitation isn't quite what one might get from a Christian sharing his faith.

 

[ShAArk92]

...It has to do with a number of them that want to come here and kill as many of us as possible. Its a problem that we don't have with other groups. You could allow 10 million Mexicans to come here and I doubt we would get a single terrorist out of all of them. If you let 1,000 Syrian refugees come here; my money is on a terrorist attack. I'm not for taking that chance considering our inability to properly look into their background. ....

you mean like the background check of this guy?

 

[ShAArk92]

...The overwhelming majority of muslims just want to live a normal life like the rest of us. They are most impacted by the radical elements of anybody.

It's hard work to be a revolutionary ... wears ya out. So, given we all have a bit of lazy in us (some more than others) ... that may be true. I think to the extent what you cite is true actually relates more to one of a couple of things: 1) "I'm muslim because I'm from the Middle East" (cultural identification) ... backslidden or not a practicing Muslim.

or Dos (the worst) ... "I am a sold-out agent of allah living among infidels, so my manifestation of my muslim identity will tempered until such time as it is profitable for the spread of islam" ... IOW Taqiyya.

In both cases, jihad isn't being overtly waged but for different reasons. Hence, only one of these conditions could be remotely considered "like the rest of us."

Fundamental Islam will result in the atrocities. It's what Mohammed practiced, it's what his followers seek.

I don't mean to offend any in the first group ... basically calling-out their declared religion. Even if they're not committed to it, I recognize that could still offend; not my intent ... only to tell the truth.

 

[Mr. Deez]

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.

I don't think you can create a "safe space," but I think you can create "safe spaces." Many countries will have to give up something to accommodate refugees. Personally, I think refugee camps should be a short-term solution - to provide relief for the people ISIS would otherwise behead next week (and therefore before any vetting can be done, which means access would have to be completely secure - like a benevolent prison). For the longer term, I think we (in cooperation with international organizations like the UN) should help establish humane facilities in communities where people can live long term. They wouldn't be completely locked down like the camps, but they'd have security that identifies who comes and goes - much like a military base.

Let's be clear, of the 8 original individuals involved in the Paris attacks, only 1 came in through the refugee route.

You do realize that 1 out of 8 is a significant percentage when we're talking about murdering people, right?

The rest were homegrown and may have traveled to the ISIS battlefield but were EU nationals thus didn't need to feign refugee status.

SH, this really isn't a good point for admitting the refugees. I don't remember any of these guys being ethnic French people. They weren't refugees, but they were people the EU admitted from Islamic countries or the children of such people. Even if they weren't refugees, they were the result of a willingness to admit people from Islamic countries - like Syria where the refugees will at least claim to be from.

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.

There's a very big distinction. There aren't large, well-funded organizations and states dedicated to encouraging and proclaiming a religious duty for Mexicans to go murder people and threatening to use Mexican immigration to carry out that purpose. The scenarios are extremely different. Also, who's calling for the deportation of all Muslims?

Do we absolutely need to be cautious of and vet all ME refugees? Absolutely.

How are you going to do that? What's in this vetting process? Does it take two years, because of its thoroughness or because of bureaucratic inefficiency? Are Syrian documents going to be presumed valid, or will they have to be corroborated? How will we know that the person with the Syrian passport is the person to whom the passport was issued? Who's going to keep tabs on these people after they're admitted? We need to know with definite language and certainty the answers to this kind of question, and nobody's providing that. Furthermore, people have reason to distrust the government on controlling who comes and goes. This is the same government that largely through incompetence and corruption has let 12 million people enter illegally. Their track record is laughably poor.

Also, I keep hearing this 2-year figure, who has two years to wait? We need to provide relief to people who really need help right now. They don't have two years to wait. They may not have two hours to wait. That's why a reasonable solution should be immediate but very secure.

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.

The 70 percent figure is bogus, but the 49 percent figure is not. That's still a lot of dudes - about as many as you'd get with a random sample of people who aren't refugees.

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.

Very sensible, but who in the political class is advocating that? I haven't heard anybody say we'd exclude single men. Frankly, I'm not happy with the extremists on both ends. I hear the Right offering very little or unrealistic ideas like free land in the Middle East, and on the Left, I hear "trust us we'll vet them, and you're a xenophobic ******* if you ask any questions." I'm pretty disgusted with both.

And I'll be honest. Proximity will impact one's sense of danger. Paris is an ocean away from you all, but it's right down the road from me - like the distance from Houston to Dallas. Furthermore, there have been scares, threats, and plots by Islamic nuts all over Europe since then including some in Germany. I don't care that I can't go to a soccer game because they found a bomb in Hanover, but I'd like to take Mrs. Deez amd Deez, Jr. to a big city Christmas Market this year (like Frankfurt's or Munich's). When I get on the plane to fly to Dallas next month, I want to do it without fear that it's going to blow up in the sky. I can't do either, because these freaks are on the warpath.

Like I said, I want to help the refugees and give them a place to go. It's a tiny percentage of the population that's actually dangerous, but it only takes one bad apple to cause a hell of a lot of damage, especially if you're the one getting blown up or shot. I think Horn6721 is off the mark with his suggestions, but he isn't a xenophobic prick for being afraid or worried. He's sane person for being afraid and worried.

 

[zork]

why not be a bit risk adverse as a country when discussing immigrants? why be risk inclined what do we gain from it? let the countries in their region handle all of it. they **** their own bed, let them clean it up.

 

[Mr. Deez]

why not be a bit risk adverse as a country when discussing immigrants? why be risk inclined what do we gain from it? let the countries in their region handle all of it. they **** their own bed, let them clean it up.

Two reasons. First, we have a conscience. If we can help a desperate people, we should. If you saw a drunk driver in a burning vehicle and had a chance to pull him out, would you do it, or would you leave him to die because he shat in his bed? Unless you're a monster, you'd help him and pray he learns his lesson.

Second, while they shat in their own bed, they didn't **** in it alone. The West has had its hand in Syria for a hell of a long time and hasn't always shown the smartest judgment. Furthermore, on the individual level, in what sense did any of these people **** in their beds? Most of them were just born in the wrong country.

 

[Horns11]

I'm too young to remember, but what was the Texan sentiment when over 100K Vietnamese refugees came in after 1975? Heck, Pres. Ford and Congress allocated nearly half a billion dollars ($1.8 billion in 2015 dollars) to come up with resettlement plans for them.

Was it encouraged because we "helped" them in Vietnam, so there was no risk because they owed us a debt of gratitude? Was it because they weren't Muslims? Or were Texans holding up "no refugees" signs in protest? I honestly don't know.

 

[Horn6721]

mrD
That was a thoughtful post.
I would ask which of MY suggestions you think are unreasonable?
I did not offer any personal suggestions but did offer what others have offered; 1.halting all refugees until we know our vetting process is safe OR at the least halting all refugees from that area. 2.creating safe areas over there and I did mention the Egyptian billionaire's offer to buy an island.

Just read today's headlines, 2 more attacks in France. Muslims killing people in Bosnia, Jews killed apparently by muslims in Tel Aviv large cache of weapons and explosives found in Belguim
and here is USA?? the now 6 Syrians with fake passports caught in Honduras. 8 Syrians caught in Laredo, muslims caught on ohio turnpike, suspicious men being sought in Pentagon.
The beard men in Pentagon could turn out to be nothing more than a muslin parade. The men trying to sneak in with fake passports after another matter.

so yea call me xenophobic all you want ( not You MrD) but why not use common sense and put Americans first?


for those keep saying we can't create safe areas and people need help NOW where do you think the people who are already trying to get into USA as refugees are staying now? You know BO keeps assuring us these people are ok to come in since we spend 1.5 to 2 years vetting them. 2 YEARS doesn't that sorta make a joke out of the that we must do something NOW?

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Horn6721]

MrD
How close are you to Hannover?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/germany-terror-alert-ambulance-packed-6849876

French Intel alerted German police about this. is this a one off? or do you think there will be other attempts/attacks in Germany?
with the million or so Germany has let you it is reasonable to think there are bad guys among them. But they don't seem to have hate for Germany so maybe they will just use Germany as a staging/ planning ground.

 

[zork]

Two reasons. First, we have a conscience. If we can help a desperate people, we should. If you saw a drunk driver in a burning vehicle and had a chance to pull him out, would you do it, or would you leave him to die because he shat in his bed? Unless you're a monster, you'd help him and pray he learns his lesson.

Second, while they shat in their own bed, they didn't **** in it alone. The West has had its hand in Syria for a hell of a long time and hasn't always shown the smartest judgment. Furthermore, on the individual level, in what sense did any of these people **** in their beds? Most of them were just born in the wrong country.

If Hillary came upon the burning car I am guessing she would call 911 or drive on past. The last time I had a similar situation I came upon a person who ran out of gas. I drove up the road about 10 blocks(after telling him I'd be right back), bought a small gas can and filled it with gas and brought it back to the dude. He didn't refuse that gas, he didn't question my sincerity, he didn't throw the gas at my car since it was only a small can of gas, and I didn't ask for payment.(see refugee camps where they complain of the food, lack of TV, etc, etc)

Since it was late at night and I have two small children, as their dad I have learned to become much more risk adverse, I didn't allow the person in my car and I didn't get out of the car as I handed the dude the gas can. Our county needs to be more risk adverse as we approach 30 trillion dollars of debt by the end of the next President's term.(look at the Federal debt graph and project it on a logarithmic scale)

So in my opinion we can give them some aid but we should be smart about it. Now is the time to be smart about it since they are over there. Once they are allowed to be over here the rules change and it is harder to get them back over there.
This opinion has been formed by looking at the pictures of who the refugees are mostly. That population seems to be men, 20-35 demographic, and not women and children by and large.

They shat the bed because they are not turning in their crazy people.(extremist Islamic folks are crazy in my opinion) IF they were policing their own these terror events would not happen as often as they do. We should publicize the 1-800-narc numbers to turn in your terrorist neighbor more. Sure there is some lucky sperm effect in force since the unfortunates who are innocents are in with the bad.

The population who are terrorizing are using ambulances as bombs for goodness sake. We need to be more risk adverse, not less in dealing with these people. Just like we are being more risk adverse with the way access to public schools is being handled due to the identified increased risk. Just like the few brave shop owners who deal with the public in high crime areas don't allow the people in the store after hours and are working behind bullet proof glass as they hand you your munchies through the special access transition medium to accept money and give you your cigs or chips in relative safety. The Democrat governors are smart to accept these refugees because the can get X amount of Federal dollars and not have to have their kids go to public school with them since theirs generally go private.

The population of people committing the real terror events is coming from the Islamic community from foreign lands or from Muslim neighborhoods that have isolated themselves for instance in Paris.(commonality largely is from Islamic community) We need to profile that a bit, or more than a bit, to protect the greater good.

If that makes Hillary a monster for calling 911 above we already knew that before the call. #DemocratLimousineLiberalsAreMonstersForNotStopping

 

[Seattle Husker]

This opinion has been formed by looking at the pictures of who the refugees are mostly. That population seems to be men, 20-35 demographic, and not women and children by and large.

That's the problem. This article was posted yesterday that outlines who the refugees are: http://mashable.com/2015/11/18/syrian-refugees-facts/#zNaAx8ol6PqX

Here are some key passages:

Women and children dominate refugee population
While many may think of young, single men when they think of refugees, most of those who have fled are families. Among them, more than 75% of the Syrian refugee population are women and children, said Boian.

Young men are more likely to be found among those who are making the dangerous journeys to Europe, where they can seek asylum, said Susan Fratzke, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. They are a different group than the millions living in refugee camps and Syria's neighboring countries.

Less than 1% of refugees are considered for resettlement
There are 14.4 million refugees globally, but less than 144,000 are considered for resettlement — where a refugee is relocated to another country. Resettlement is often the last option.

As part of resettlement, refugees have to go through a long screening process that involves multiple interviews and background checks. For refugees who are referred to the U.S., a Department of Homeland Security officer is the one who makes the final decision on whether someone qualifies for resettlement.

Syrian refugees have not flooded the U.S.
Out of the more than 4 million Syrian refugees, only 2,144 of them have resettled in the U.S. since 2012. For comparison, the United States took in a total of about 70,000 refugees last year. President Barack Obama's announcement to increase the refugee quota in 2016 will only bring in an additional 10,000 Syrian refugees if the quota is met in its entirety.

 

[zork]

"Help me, Help me" as she tried to lure in the police officers to then blow herself up.

The world has changed. We would be wise to change with it.

More has now begun to emerge about the 26-year-old who blew herself up as police stormed the flat where she was holed up with six fellow Islamic State terrorists.

The other terrorist killed in the siege was thought to be her cousin Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the mastermind of last Friday’s attacks in Paris which left 129 dead.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...elp-me-to-police-during-Saint-Denis-raid.html

Please, no more people from this type of population allowed to immigrate till reasonableness arrives within their community. Dealing with the community already here will be enough and provide enough charity for the current population of citizens beyond normalcy.

Let them get their charity from their neighbors who share their mores and values.

BTW, check out these "MONSTERS" : http://thehill.com/homenews/house/260782-house-defies-obama-approves-bill-halting-syrian-refugees

 

[Seattle Husker]

The world has changed. We would be wise to change with it.

Yikes. Do you feel lonely void of any compassion? What's church like on Sundays for you?

 

[zork]

Why are you making this personal? The government is helping more people than ever already if you look at the food stamp numbers, etc. Can we afford to help everyone?

There are plenty of people to help. Not everyone can be helped. When you are 20 trillion in debt it is time to think carefully about spending the money of other people. Let the people of Turkey, the Saudis, the Iranians, the Yemenis, the Egyptians, the people of Iraq, etc, etc, take care of their people.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Why are you making this personal? The government is helping more people than ever already if you look at the food stamp numbers, etc. Can we afford to help everyone?

There are plenty of people to help. Not everyone can be helped. When you are 20 trillion in debt it is time to think carefully about spending the money of other people. Let the people of Turkey, the Saudis, the Iranians, the Yemenis, the Egyptians, the people of Iraq, etc, etc, take care of their people.

Sorry about that. An emotional reaction from your response.

The next argument you are advancing is more convincing. Still, the countries you mention aren't remotely capable of helping those which is why Europe is stepping up. Even in the face of these attacks France's President Hollande still says they'll accept 30k refugees.