Currently, Europe is facing an enormous immigration crisis with thousands of refugees (African and Middle Eastern) forcing their way into countries such as Hungary, Germany, France, GB, and other European nations. The EU is currently asking members to take in thousands of these refugees regardless of how their populace may feel.
http://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2015/09/07/...-a-glance/
Demographically this could have a very large, lasting effect on the EU members and its existing population. Also, the monetary cost for many of these nations to place these refugees on welfare can be very taxing.
While I think it is sad that many of these refugees have been displaced due to war and terrorism (partly due to western interventionism), I don't think the solution is to open the borders and allow millions of them into Europe, especially when many of the refugees are leaving for the wrong reasons. Despite what the media portrays, most of these refugees are young men with moderate wealth (enough for them to pay the human smugglers at least). Many are also simply abandoning their spouse(s) and children to seek European welfare. Rather then open the border, I think the west should seek to rebuild these floundering nations.
This video provides a good, simplified explanation on how open immigration into the West isn't actually benefiting anyone except an extremely small minority, and actually hiders development of the nation migrants are leaving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
Not my problem don't send them aid don't send our troops I don't care let Europe deal with it.
Part of my new foreign policy, the worlds burning our response [BLEEP] it let it burn.
Europe brought this upon themselves and now they're going to have to suffer the consequences for it. I just hope that we don't open our borders to these "refugees", but knowing how this government operates now, it wouldn't surprise me if they went ahead and did it anyway.
It's a tough issue. These people will probably wind up in ghettos, on welfare, and some of them will become home-grown terrorists.
On the other hand, right before WWII, the United States refused to accept a shipload of European Jews. The ship was returned to Europe and most of them wound up dying in the Holocaust.
So don't think this is an easy call, to say, we're not going to accept these people, that we are going to send them back to die in their homeland, or that we are going to tow their boats back to Africa or the Middle East.
Quote:Not my problem don't send them aid don't send our troops I don't care let Europe deal with it.
Part of my new foreign policy, the worlds burning our response [BAD WORD REMOVED] it let it burn.
My preferred solution as well. However, when it comes down to it, the West is always the "savior". So, if we have to do something, I would prefer to send foreign aid or military intervention rather than open the borders.
Quote:Is that a satirical article?
The South Carolina Republican said “we should take the Statue of Liberty and tear it down”
What?
I am not sure what you are getting at. It's an article, quoting what the man said.
It's kind of humorous you find that quote as satirical yet support the over the top quotes from trump.
Quote:I am not sure what you are getting at. It's an article, quoting what the man said.
It's kind of humorous you find that quote as satirical yet support the over the top quotes from trump.
I just thought it was kind of an unbelievable thing to say. Something you would hear out of The Onion. I don't think he meant it literally though.
I also don't think Trump has said anything over the top, but that is just me. I don't consider the truth outlandish.
Quote:I am not sure what you are getting at. It's an article, quoting what the man said.
It's kind of humorous you find that quote as satirical yet support the over the top quotes from trump.
When dealing with Trump, you expect comments that border on self-parody.
While Lindsey Graham certainly isn't the most stable of Republican Presidential candidates, it's not something I'd expect to see come out of his mouth.
I believe we should accept Syrian refugees without question, but they should be restricted to government housing facilities (on military bases, for example) until their backgrounds can be vetted. Any that have any ties to known terror groups or known, extensive criminal histories should be sent back. I might even err on the side of caution and assume that people who literally have no history are concealing their true identity, and strongly consider sending them back, too. Once they're cleared, they're issued visas to stay in the US for a set amount of time. Those visas can be extended, and they could even be considered part of a path to citizenship.
Once the government housing facilities are full, no more refugees are accepted until enough space opens for another plane full of them to take up residence. It's a little spartan, yeah, but when you're talking about taking in potentially a million or more people from Syria, the possibility of a few of them taking advantage of the US' generosity to sneak in terror group operatives is nonzero, and has to be taken into consideration.
Quote:I just thought it was kind of an unbelievable thing to say. Something you would hear out of The Onion. I don't think he meant it literally though.
I also don't think Trump has said anything over the top, but that is just me. I don't consider the truth outlandish.
Most people think Trump is the living embodiment of an Onion article.
Quote:When dealing with Trump, you expect comments that border on self-parody.
While Lindsey Graham certainly isn't the most stable of Republican Presidential candidates, it's not something I'd expect to see come out of his mouth.
I believe we should accept Syrian refugees without question, but they should be restricted to government housing facilities (on military bases, for example) until their backgrounds can be vetted. Any that have any ties to known terror groups or known, extensive criminal histories should be sent back. I might even err on the side of caution and assume that people who literally have no history are concealing their true identity, and strongly consider sending them back, too. Once they're cleared, they're issued visas to stay in the US for a set amount of time. Those visas can be extended, and they could even be considered part of a path to citizenship.
Once the government housing facilities are full, no more refugees are accepted until enough space opens for another plane full of them to take up residence. It's a little spartan, yeah, but when you're talking about taking in potentially a million or more people from Syria, the possibility of a few of them taking advantage of the US' generosity to sneak in terror group operatives is nonzero, and has to be taken into consideration.
Agreed. A very practical and reasonable approach to an awful situation. I get the feeling a lot of people will spit fire and brimstone disagreeing though.
Quote:Is that a satirical article?
The South Carolina Republican said “we should take the Statue of Liberty and tear it down”
What?
How about putting things into context?
The South Carolina Republican said “we should take the Statue of Liberty and tear it down”
if the United States continues its current, limited policies on admitting refugees from the ongoing conflict in the Middle East
.
I understand his point in that it embodies one of the inscriptions on the statue. "
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
I do agree with Marco Rubio to some extent.
From the article.
Quote:
Marco Rubio, another Republican presidential contender, told reporters on Tuesday he is “open” to allowing more refugees into the United States – reiterating an answer he first provided in a radio interview on Monday.
“I don’t know what the right number is, but we want to be careful terrorists don’t take advantage ... to infiltrate themselves among the very innocent people that would also be coming,” Rubio, a senator from Florida, said after a campaign event in Keene, New Hampshire.
He added that Europe would nonetheless face the brunt of the refugee crisis and said the US should lend support to its allies.
“We should be able to offer them them assistance, in creating some places and camps where people can live and be safe while this thing works itself out,” Rubio said.
This situation is actually very serious, and one that people should pay attention to.
Quote:How about putting things into context?
The South Carolina Republican said “we should take the Statue of Liberty and tear it down” if the United States continues its current, limited policies on admitting refugees from the ongoing conflict in the Middle East
.
I understand his point in that it embodies one of the inscriptions on the statue. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
I do agree with Marco Rubio to some extent.
From the article.
This situation is actually very serious, and one that people should pay attention to.
Indeed it is. Finding the balance between security, compassion, and the American spirit is tough in situations like this. I like TJ's response to the whole thing above. What are your thoughts on it?
Quote:When dealing with Trump, you expect comments that border on self-parody.
While Lindsey Graham certainly isn't the most stable of Republican Presidential candidates, it's not something I'd expect to see come out of his mouth.
I believe we should accept Syrian refugees without question, but they should be restricted to government housing facilities (on military bases, for example) until their backgrounds can be vetted. Any that have any ties to known terror groups or known, extensive criminal histories should be sent back. I might even err on the side of caution and assume that people who literally have no history are concealing their true identity, and strongly consider sending them back, too. Once they're cleared, they're issued visas to stay in the US for a set amount of time. Those visas can be extended, and they could even be considered part of a path to citizenship.
Once the government housing facilities are full, no more refugees are accepted until enough space opens for another plane full of them to take up residence. It's a little spartan, yeah, but when you're talking about taking in potentially a million or more people from Syria, the possibility of a few of them taking advantage of the US' generosity to sneak in terror group operatives is nonzero, and has to be taken into consideration.
Russia is indirectly backing Iran and Asad... why aren't they being asked to take in some of these people. What about China. These are the lefts treasured partner in our Surrender of the region. Where's this international collaboration that we were supposed to look forward to?
In all seriousness, i completely understand where you are coming from TJ, but last time i checked Hamas Hezbollah and Isis were still working out the final details of networking with our terrorist E-VERIFY program.
The idea of taking military aged males from that part of the world inside American borders is borderline suicidal. All it takes is one backpack suitcase or shoe bomb for there to be a catastrophe and right now as we speak we still don't have a handle on the chemical weapons used by Syria and Isis has already used chemical weapons
left over by sadaam,
In reality, true refugees may cross a border into safety, when people start pigeon holing the countries with more liberal immigration laws and generous welfare benefits you are talking about something else.
Quote:Russia is indirectly backing Iran and Asad... why aren't they being asked to take in some of these people. What about China. These are the lefts treasured partner in our Surrender of the region. Where's this international collaboration that we were supposed to look forward to?
In all seriousness, i completely understand where you are coming from TJ, but last time i checked Hamas Hezbollah and Isis were still working out the final details of networking with our terrorist E-VERIFY program.
The idea of taking military aged males from that part of the world inside American borders is borderline suicidal. All it takes is one backpack suitcase or shoe bomb for there to be a catastrophe and right now as we speak we still don't have a handle on the chemical weapons used by Syria and Isis has already used chemical weapons left over by sadaam,
In reality, true refugees may cross a border into safety, when people start pigeon holing the countries with more liberal immigration laws and generous welfare benefits you are talking about something else.
You're just hard-wired to assume the worst of anyone from the Middle East, aren't you? Russia's actions surrounding Syria should have no bearing on ours, as this is a matter of humanitarianism, not politics. I'm just going to ignore your e-Verify comment and remind you that one of my stipulations was that if someone has no or very little verifiable history, they are refused entry into the US.
If you really believe that someone could sneak a suitcase bomb, a backpack pressure cooker or (lolololol) nuclear material through involuntary internment while background details and suitability for US integration are worked out, I've got some oceanfront property to sell you. In Kansas.
Contrary to your belief, not everyone from the Middle East is out to blow up America. Opening our borders to refugees is the right thing to do, so long as we can protect US citizens and interests in the process. I believe that can be done.
Quote:Russia is indirectly backing Iran and Asad... why aren't they being asked to take in some of these people. What about China. These are the lefts treasured partner in our Surrender of the region. Where's this international collaboration that we were supposed to look forward to?
In all seriousness, i completely understand where you are coming from TJ, but last time i checked Hamas Hezbollah and Isis were still working out the final details of networking with our terrorist E-VERIFY program.
The idea of taking military aged males from that part of the world inside American borders is borderline suicidal. All it takes is one backpack suitcase or shoe bomb for there to be a catastrophe and right now as we speak we still don't have a handle on the chemical weapons used by Syria and Isis has already used chemical weapons left over by sadaam,
In reality, true refugees may cross a border into safety, when people start pigeon holing the countries with more liberal immigration laws and generous welfare benefits you are talking about something else.
I see you utilized your short break from this forum to get nice and stocked back up on your anger, fear, paranoia and seems you even added a touch of xenophobia to the mix. Welcome back.
Quote:Indeed it is. Finding the balance between security, compassion, and the American spirit is tough in situations like this. I like TJ's response to the whole thing above. What are your thoughts on it?
I somewhat agree with TJ as far as how to handle immigrants coming into the U.S. from that region. I'll break it down by quoting his post and entering my thoughts.
Quote:When dealing with Trump, you expect comments that border on self-parody.
While Lindsey Graham certainly isn't the most stable of Republican Presidential candidates, it's not something I'd expect to see come out of his mouth.
I believe we should accept Syrian refugees without question, but they should be restricted to government housing facilities (on military bases, for example) until their backgrounds can be vetted. Any that have any ties to known terror groups or known, extensive criminal histories should be sent back. I might even err on the side of caution and assume that people who literally have no history are concealing their true identity, and strongly consider sending them back, too. Once they're cleared, they're issued visas to stay in the US for a set amount of time. Those visas can be extended, and they could even be considered part of a path to citizenship.
Regarding the first bold statement, I believe that we should be very careful regarding allowing people from Syria and other countries specifically from the region into the U.S.. There is a very fine line between a potential "refugee" and a terrorist.
Regarding the second statement in bold, I would keep these people far away from any important places, military bases included.
I agree with the next part of the statement regarding the vetting and background of these people.
Regarding the third bold statement, the only thing that I would add to that is that they must "check in" regularly, and if they violate that they are immediately sent back. Also, as far as it being a part of a path to citizenship, they go to the "back of the line" so to speak. I would also add that while they are here under a visa, they can not break any laws, and they must pay taxes. They are not eligible for food stamps, welfare, etc.
Once the government housing facilities are full, no more refugees are accepted until enough space opens for another plane full of them to take up residence. It's a little spartan, yeah, but when you're talking about taking in potentially a million or more people from Syria, the possibility of a few of them taking advantage of the US' generosity to sneak in terror group operatives is nonzero, and has to be taken into consideration.
Quote:I somewhat agree with TJ as far as how to handle immigrants coming into the U.S. from that region. I'll break it down by quoting his post and entering my thoughts.
Do refugees pay taxes?
What place could be safer then a military base to keep tabs on the refugees while their future is in balance?
JIB, again, I believe that vetting of backgrounds and involuntary internment for an extended period of time would make weeding out those with ill intent and those who are lying about their identity an infinitely more reliable prospect than simply opening the doors of JFK and letting them flood onto the streets of New York.
The military base idea was thrown out simply because I'm having a hard time coming up with other suitable locations where refugees could be humanely housed (not that prisons are an option anyway, given how overcrowded they are) while restricting their movements to a certain area. If you've got an alternative, I'm certainly open to it.
I agree with you on the requirement that they check in, and my thoughts on extendable visas kind of fits in with that. I'm envisioning something like a three-month visa, not even a one-year visa. Regarding citizenship, I'm all in agreement that they should be placed at the back of the line, and not even when they arrive. I'd say after a year (at least) of living under the restrictions of their refugee visas, they would be inserted into the citizenship queue at the very back, subject to the restrictions of their visas until they leave the country or citizenship is granted.
Paying taxes is a given, and while I wouldn't deport someone over a parking ticket or a gram of pot, any felony is an instant deportation, probably along with certain misdemeanors, and multiple misdemeanors for the same general category of offense triggers removal from the country as well.
I'd argue that they should be eligible for some government assistance, including either a "starting-off" grant or limited welfare, access to food stamps and housing assistance, for the first 30-60 days after receiving their visas. They should also be given priority in government job-assistance programs to find employment. Many of these people speak little English, and are certainly not fluent, and they will need help finding jobs to sustain themselves right out of the gate. I'd even be open to considering benefits on a case-by-case basis afterwards, but they would be limited to specific circumstances in which the applicant can prove that despite continued employment and their best efforts, they are unable to provide for their family.