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?

 

Other than sales taxes, no.

 

A military base is the last place that I would put these people.  Face reality.  People from that region are known to attack by any means, including "non-conventional" means.  Do you really want these people right next to military airfields, ship ports or facilities that house weapons?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

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.

 

Does it shock you much that what you describe is very close to Marco Rubio's immigration plan?  What is Hillary's plan?  How about Bernie Sanders?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Does it shock you much that what you describe is very close to Marco Rubio's immigration plan?  What is Hillary's plan?  How about Bernie Sanders?

Not at all, actually. Believe it or not, Rubio and I do agree on a few things here and there.

 

Clinton's plan is essentially amnesty. Sanders' plan is quite literally amnesty.

---

Other than sales taxes, no.

 

A military base is the last place that I would put these people.  Face reality.  People from that region are known to attack by any means, including "non-conventional" means.  Do you really want these people right next to military airfields, ship ports or facilities that house weapons?

Good point. Did not think about it that way. 

---

Other than sales taxes, no.

 

A military base is the last place that I would put these people.  Face reality.  People from that region are known to attack by any means, including "non-conventional" means.  Do you really want these people right next to military airfields, ship ports or facilities that house weapons?

 

Wouldn't you want your friends close, your enemies closer?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

The US and the UK should be taking more than their fair share in due to being big architects of the current trouble from the Iraq war.


Also what's with the fear of terrorism? Nobody seems that bothered by the recent gun murders by non immigrants so why be concerned by a few murders by immigrants if they happen?

---

On one hand as a Christian I feel we have an obligation to help the most needy, but this should really be done by neighboring countries and not America.


That is one of the problems with our Country we are way too involved in affairs of other countries that don't even border ours, and the constant debate is America can't fall back into isolation like it did in WW2 as the world needs us to be the world police. 


We have too many problems of our own, and we need to stop giving out money to all these countries when we owe the world (mainly China) trillions of dollars.  That is like your friend constantly borrowing money from you and then handing it out to the bullies at school.  It doesn't get those bullies to really love America, and it only creates a bigger problem by not being able to pay back those that lent the money.


As Donald Trump said we have too many problems of our own to address.

---

The US and the UK should be taking more than their fair share in due to being big architects of the current trouble from the Iraq war.


Also what's with the fear of terrorism? Nobody seems that bothered by the recent gun murders by non immigrants so why be concerned by a few murders by immigrants if they happen?

 

Really dumb comment. So because an extremely small portion, less than .01%, of our population is murdered by guns, we should allow radical islamic terorrists into the country?

 

Really, really dumb.

---

Really dumb comment. So because an extremely small portion, less than .01%, of our population is murdered by guns, we should allow radical islamic terorrists into the country?

 

Really, really dumb.

Presuming refugees are terrorists just because, is really really dumb. 

---

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.

 

The thing nobody seems to want to talk about with this situation is the fact that these "refugees" could have just as easily gone to other wealthy Arab countries in the region, but they didn't even see that as an option.  Why do you think that is? 

 

The bleeding hearts are going to say we need to take in as many of these "refugees" as we can.  Be careful what you wish for.

 

People see the march to Europe and they are only human to feel sympathy for the people, but the host countries that they are targeting are BEING targeted because of their generous social welfare programs.  They're marching through countries who don't have the wealth in order to get to those that do, and they're NOT going to wealthy Arab nations, but the more stable European countries. 

 

I know our friends on the left will try to debunk this, but could it be that this is simply another brand of jihad?  One of the things that radicals have said for years is that part of their jihad is to squeeze countries for welfare benefits to the point of bankruptcy.  It's actually referred to as a "Jihadi Allowance."  The "refugees" gain asylum in a wealthy country that provides ample social benefits, and they manipulate the system to get the max amount possible while not lifting a finger to do any work.  Meanwhile, they're radicalizing more and more Muslims, and breeding themselves into numbers that are going to be difficult for any country to contain. 

 

A guy I worked with who is from India told me several years ago.  He warned me that what is happening today in Europe was eventually going to happen there, and here in the United States.  He had the perspective of seeing this first hand as Muslims came into India, starting out as a small population, and then proceeded to breed and immigrate themselves into a bigger population while also squeezing the already taxed welfare system there.  He referred to them as parasites, or a cancer that imbeds itself and then metastasizes over the years.  Europe has already seen this happening in France and other countries.  It's only going to get worse.

 

The fact that these "refugees" are heading to Europe instead of wealthy Arab nations speaks volumes about the bigger picture here.  This isn't about seeking a better life, IMO.  This is about spreading that cancer. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Presuming refugees are terrorists just because, is really really dumb. 

They don't need to be terrorists.  Jihad can come in many forms.  It doesn't necessarily require an IED or another weapon to have an impact. To think otherwise is naive.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I know our friends on the left will try to debunk this, but could it be that this is simply another brand of jihad?  One of the things that radicals have said for years is that part of their jihad is to squeeze countries for welfare benefits to the point of bankruptcy.  It's actually referred to as a "Jihadi Allowance."  The "refugees" gain asylum in a wealthy country that provides ample social benefits, and they manipulate the system to get the max amount possible while not lifting a finger to do any work.  Meanwhile, they're radicalizing more and more Muslims, and breeding themselves into numbers that are going to be difficult for any country to contain. 

 

The fact that these "refugees" are heading to Europe instead of wealthy Arab nations speaks volumes about the bigger picture here.  This isn't about seeking a better life, IMO.  This is about spreading that cancer. 

Ah, good to see the mad dog of the right is back with us. We missed you!

---

Ah, good to see the mad dog of the right is back with us. We missed you!

Good to see you're still keeping your head buried deeply in the sand.  Make sure you wear ear plugs. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Good to see you're still keeping your head buried deeply in the sand.  Make sure you wear ear plugs. 

I just find it hard to believe that radical Muslims have staged a civil war in a predominantly Islamic country, killing almost a quarter of a million civilians (again, most of them Muslim) in order to "spread a cancer" to the rest of the world. That's almost as ridiculous an assertion as claiming that the US staged 9/11 to gain greater control of its own populace through fear and hate, maybe even a little more so.

---

Presuming refugees are terrorists just because, is really really dumb. 

 

ISIS themselves have claimed they use the unguarded Mexican border to infiltrate the US. Surely they wouldn't try and hide among the refugees :no:.

 

Also, there are already reports that ISIS is slipping into Europe among the refugees. Debatable source, but not unbelievable.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/5554...e-Refugees

 

Regardless, watch the video in the original post. Support their country, don't open the border.

---

I just find it hard to believe that radical Muslims have staged a civil war in a predominantly Islamic country, killing almost a quarter of a million civilians (again, most of them Muslim) in order to "spread a cancer" to the rest of the world. That's almost as ridiculous an assertion as claiming that the US staged 9/11 to gain greater control of its own populace through fear and hate, maybe even a little more so.

 

Sunni and Shia Muslims have been killing each other for well over a thousand years.  Long before Syria and Iraq were created

---

The thing nobody seems to want to talk about with this situation is the fact that these "refugees" could have just as easily gone to other wealthy Arab countries in the region, but they didn't even see that as an option.  Why do you think that is? 

I'd also like to point a few numbers out to you:

 

The US has taken in 1,500 Syrian refugees.

 

Turkey, which is between Europe and the Middle East and shares a border with Syria, has taken in almost two million. Lebanon, a Middle Eastern nation that shares a border with Syria, has taken in over one million. Jordan has taken in over 600,000. Iraq 250,000, almost certainly including some of those ISIS boogeymen you love to blab about jihading the world or whatever. Egypt has taken in over 100,000. The United Arab Emirates, one of those "wealthy Arab nations" you brought up, has taken in 250,000 refugees.

 

So, please, carry on about how all the Syrian refugees are headed to Europe and the US as a form of jihad. Ignore the fact that other Middle Eastern countries continue to take in the bulk of them. Whatever backs your "Islam vs. the world" agenda, right?

 

link

---

I just find it hard to believe that radical Muslims have staged a civil war in a predominantly Islamic country, killing almost a quarter of a million civilians (again, most of them Muslim) in order to "spread a cancer" to the rest of the world. That's almost as ridiculous an assertion as claiming that the US staged 9/11 to gain greater control of its own populace through fear and hate, maybe even a little more so.

 

Well, it is in their holy scripture to immigrate and perform jihad.



 

According to Hadith no. 2863 Kitab al Amthael reported by Timri, also reported by Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbel as Hadith no 17344 Mohammad said:



 
I charge you five of what Allah has charged me with: to assemble, to listen, to obey, to immigrate and to wage jihad for the sake Allah.


 
According to this wording it is implied that migration for the purpose of jihad is not only Ok, it is commissioned by the prophet of Islam. But is this the only citation of such a statement?

• Sura 2:218  “Surely those who believed and those who emigrated and performed jihad.”
  
  
  
• Sura 8:72    “Surely those who believed and those who emigrated and performed jihad with their money and their lives for the sake Allah, and those who gave asylum…”
  
  
  
• Sura 8:74    “And those who believed and emigrated and performed jihad for the sake of Allah, and those who gave asylum and help [gave you victory], those are the true believers, they will receive forgiveness and generous provisions.
  
  
  
• Sura 8:75   ““And those who believed afterward and emigrated and performed jihad with you, so those are of you.
  
  
  

http://paulsutliff.blogspot.com/2015/03/...ne-of.html

---

They don't need to be terrorists. Jihad can come in many forms. It doesn't necessarily require an IED or another weapon to have an impact. To think otherwise is naive.

True enough and I agree with your previous reply about why they are choang countries as they are. It's common sense.. But still, terrorists are not the same thing as what you are describing.

---

Well, it is in their holy scripture to immigrate and perform jihad.



 

According to Hadith no. 2863 Kitab al Amthael reported by Timri, also reported by Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbel as Hadith no 17344 Mohammad said:



<div style="margin-left:.5in;"> 
I charge you five of what Allah has charged me with: to assemble, to listen, to obey, to immigrate and to wage jihad for the sake Allah.


 
According to this wording it is implied that migration for the purpose of jihad is not only Ok, it is commissioned by the prophet of Islam. But is this the only citation of such a statement?

• Sura 2:218  “Surely those who believed and those who emigrated and performed jihad.”
  
  
  
• Sura 8:72    “Surely those who believed and those who emigrated and performed jihad with their money and their lives for the sake Allah, and those who gave asylum…”
  
  
  
• Sura 8:74    “And those who believed and emigrated and performed jihad for the sake of Allah, and those who gave asylum and help [gave you victory], those are the true believers, they will receive forgiveness and generous provisions.
  
  
  
• Sura 8:75   ““And those who believed afterward and emigrated and performed jihad with you, so those are of you.
  
  
  

http://paulsutliff.blogspot.com/2015/03/...ne-of.html

</div>

Don't confuse people with facts...

 

I'd also like to point a few numbers out to you:

 

The US has taken in 1,500 Syrian refugees.

 

Turkey, which is between Europe and the Middle East and shares a border with Syria, has taken in almost two million. Lebanon, a Middle Eastern nation that shares a border with Syria, has taken in over one million. Jordan has taken in over 600,000. Iraq 250,000, almost certainly including some of those ISIS boogeymen you love to blab about jihading the world or whatever. Egypt has taken in over 100,000. The United Arab Emirates, one of those "wealthy Arab nations" you brought up, has taken in 250,000 refugees.

 

So, please, carry on about how all the Syrian refugees are headed to Europe and the US as a form of jihad. Ignore the fact that other Middle Eastern countries continue to take in the bulk of them. Whatever backs your "Islam vs. the world" agenda, right?

 

link

Here's a place we can send them all...

 

http://www.amusingplanet.com/2014/08/min...s.html?m=1

 

White house wants 10,000 Syrians in the next year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0n7z5KYujw

 

That we get to pay for with money we don't have. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...od-stamps/

---