Tell that to the Syrian "refugees" responsible for the attacks in Paris. Well, you'd have to tell it to them in Hell, because unlike our pussy of a President, France knows how to deal with terrorists.
Two of them came from Syria as refugees, the majority were actually European nationals. Two extremists out of a milllion refugees is pretty nominal.
And if somebody handed you a basket of cookies and told you that one of them was poisoned, would you eat any of them? Even if none of them are terrorists, there's still the simple fact that they're not American citizens, and it's not the responsibility of the American government to take care of them. It's certainly not the responsibility of the American taxpayer.
If someone asked you to take in a half million homeless puppies, but told you one of them would turn rabid, would you leave them all on the street? America's a nation of immigrants, so saying they shouldn't be allowed in simply because they're not American goes against the entire identity of your country, at least in my opinion. They're families who've been literally bombed out of their homes as a result of a conflict which the US had at least some part in causing, and the vast majority of them just want to be allowed somewhere safe to live, work and rebuild their lives. Just for the record, I was originally only opposing your insinuation that many of the refugees were extremists, not that they shouldn't be allowed into the States, but I enjoy a good debate too much to not respond.
The problem is that there are already millions of American citizens living in third-world conditions right here in the States. I'm not saying that we shouldn't ever allow immigrants in, I'm just saying that our government needs to pull its head out of its ass and start taking care of its own people before taking on the burdens of others. I know that it's a rather heartless view, but these people are simply not our responsibility. ... Also, bringing puppies into this? You're playin' dirty, man.
I would argue that they are, at least morally, for the reasons I've just mentioned, but I see your point. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
well, that was a somewhat disheartening debate. empathy is really hard when you're just the average person.... anyway, muffins? *holds up a tray*
Empathy isn't hard at all. What's difficult is seeing people suffering and forcing yourself to ignore it because there's nothing you can do to help them.
Really sick and tired of people using that excuse. One, there's a limit to how many immigrants we can take. We've taken too slagging many as it is with no slow down for assimilation. Two they're refugees not immigrants. I'm sorry but why are they coming here when there are places in the middle east that are more than capable to giving them shelter. These refugees are a being given more rights that American Citizens, they're taking welfare, and lets face it, we have no way of safely screening them. I use California as an example. She came over on a fiance Visa, and look what she did. She came from a country with plenty of documentation, these refugees are coming from a country where we know the terrorist can print legitimate papers because they captured an office. So I say no to all further Syrian Refugees. We've taken more than enough, we don't *squee!*ing track the ones we have, I say there is no reason for us to risk something bigger than California.
Really you're comparing me to *squee!*ing Hitler? If that was a joke it wasn't funny in the least. I'm not saying wipe em all out, I'm saying that they don't need to travel half across the planet for shelter. Their care plenty of other countries in the region more than capable of supporting them. We can barely support our own citizens why the hell do we need to support them too.
You think WE have trouble supporting our citizens? Try India or China, who have about a billion people each (compared to the U.S., at a comparatively measly 320 million). Oh, and the "better countries in the region" thing doesn't hold much water, either. Have you even SEEN the Middle East? They don't even have indoor plumbing or civil rights for women. Perhaps THAT is why they want to come to America, and not some *squee!*hole third-world country.
Where, exactly? Half the Middle East is currently engaged in fighting Muslim extremists, repressive leaders, or existing conflicts, and yet despite that they've managed to take in nearly four million refugees. The US has taken in c. 1500. No-one's saying all refugees should be sent to the US, but it's not unreasonable to expect they share some of the burden that's currently falling on poorly equipped Middle Eastern countries (most refugees in places like Iraq and Iran are living in tents in huge refugee camps), and on European countries with far smaller populations. I don't know where you're getting that first part from, but I'd be interested to see your sources. As for screening... well you own Department of State would disagree with you there. I don't want to get into a gun control debate again, but that was just another in a long list of mass shooting by a pair of nutjobs, or at the very worst, a domestic terrorist attack. 'The FBI believed there was evidence that Farook and Malik were "self-radicalised" under "inspiration by foreign terrorist organisations", according to James Comey, the bureau's director. But Mr Comey added: "There's no indication that they are part of a network." ' Even besides which, the one perpetrator of those attacks who was not an American citizen was an immigrant, not a refugee, which renders it fairly irrelevant to this issue anyway, as screening for the two parties is very different. I'm not going to call you Hitler, Lio, but your view on this is pretty nationalist, so that's where the comparison's coming from, I imagine. And seeing as the Nazi's have already been brought up, I think it's interesting how the stance of countries has changed in the last 70 years: Current leader of Germany, Angela Merkel: "The fundamental right to asylum for the politically persecuted knows no upper limit; that also goes for refugees who come to us from the hell of a civil war." New Jersey governor and Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie has said his state will not take in any refugees – “not even orphans under the age of five”. It seems some have learned a lesson in humanity, where others have forgotten how to practice it.
