| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
On November 19 2015 12:09 Acrofales wrote: Mhm, Im sure all those families you're proposing to split in half see it your way too. Yeah I'm pretty sure parents coming from third world war zones would not mind being separated from their son or daughter if it means their child can live a life in the US. Please think for just 5 seconds. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1097 Posts
On November 19 2015 12:10 bo1b wrote: They don't seem to mind, 70% of the people going to Europe are men. 15% women, 15% children. Such a family! Thanks! Now I don't have to reply to Acrofales. However, I would also point out that there shouldn't be any political issue of getting a family of refugees out of America and into Europe to reunite with a father/brother/husband who has established himself there. Certainly no harder than getting them out of Syria or a refugee camp in Turkey/Jordan/other. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On November 19 2015 11:54 xDaunt wrote: I'll be honest. I really hope that democrats continue with this idiotic line of thought. Even Mother Jones gets it: Source. This is actually a really good point. It's fun to get angry and yell at people on the internet, but if we want to change hearts and mind about refugees or Muslims in general, it would probably help to acknowledge their concerns even if they aren't very logical. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
It's infinitely easier to force 10,000 refugees through an intensive screening and interview process than everyone entering the country, after all, so we get way more information on them than Joe Q. flying in from Dubai. Should we just not let any men into the country at all if they're from a region with religious extremists? And no, this is not a straw man, this is a logical extension of the argument against letting in any male Syrian refugees. + Show Spoiler + Incidentally, Christie is a coward as evinced by his borderline-insane handling of Ebola (alongside Cuomo), where they flew directly in the face of all scientific evidence, so anything he says is not going to be very representative or useful. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 19 2015 12:10 bo1b wrote: They don't seem to mind, 70% of the people going to Europe are men. 15% women, 15% children. Such a family! You do realize they are traveling to the EU ahead of their families and will send for them when they get refugee status, right? That the journey is so dangerous that women and children avoid it, specifically children. That during the journey and child could be kidnapped and the family would have no police to go to. And that is a totally reasonable fear. | ||
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
| ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On November 19 2015 12:21 Plansix wrote: You do realize they are traveling to the EU ahead of their families and will send for them when they get refugee status, right? That the journey is so dangerous that women and children avoid it, specifically children. That during the journey and child could be kidnapped and the family would have no police to go to. And that is a totally reasonable fear. Absolutely reasonable, it explains why there are more child refugees then women. Another salient point Plansix. Apparently I misspoke, for this month, only 62% of the refugees were male. http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 19 2015 12:21 Falling wrote: I can't help but think that keeping immigrant families together would a better protection against radicalization then letting just the children and mothers in without their fathers/ husbands. But maybe I'm a little old fashioned. Are you saying that a child raised away from his father for years might grow to resent the government that passed the law due to irrational fears that his father might be a terrorist, even though there is zero evidence? I find your theory to be shockingly logical. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On November 19 2015 12:25 Rassy wrote: American foreign policy has failed so hard. For the past 15 years or so. Is there realy no one in the usa that realizes this? Russia today is pretty low hanging fruit. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
Now if they could do it competently then of course refugees and immigrants in general should be screened, to say otherwise is dumb. Also want to point out that the 'problem' with Islam is more than just the radical adherents. When the vast majority of Muslims think that apostates should be punished, that certain images are so blasphemous that they must not be allowed, that wives are to obey and be subservient to their husbands, that homosexuality is a punishable 'offence'. The problem is with the entire backwards thinking, not just a select few who take it a bit further than most. But I think this about every such idealogy, just Islam happens to be the most relevant at this point in time. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 19 2015 12:14 Mercy13 wrote: This is actually a really good point. It's fun to get angry and yell at people on the internet, but if we want to change hearts and mind about refugees or Muslims in general, it would probably help to acknowledge their concerns even if they aren't very logical. Do you know who's laughing all of the way to the political bank right now? Donald Trump. This refugee issue is right in the wheelhouse of his immigration narrative. More importantly, it's an issue on which Trump is going to receive popular support. Between the evolution of the immigration debate in America and the development of rabid anti-political establishment sentiments in the electorate, I'm starting to wonder whether it is Trump's destiny to be president. Regardless of whether its due to serendipity of true political acumen, Trump has been at the cutting edge of these issues, which has fueled his success so far. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On November 19 2015 12:33 Kickstart wrote: I have little faith in the government to 'screen' anything. Hell, how long has it been since 9/11? And yet, they still don't have a working system to get the information on potential terrorists to airports. How hard can it be to give pictures and names of potential threats, and how incompetent that almost 15 years after 9/11 the best we have is making people take off their shoes and get molested in airports. Now if they could do it competently then of course refugees and immigrants in general should be screened, to say otherwise is dumb. Also want to point out that the 'problem' with Islam is more than just the radical adherents. When the vast majority of Muslims think that apostates should be punished, that certain images are so blasphemous that they must not be allowed, that wives are to obey and be subservient to their husbands, that homosexuality is a punishable 'offence'. The problem is with the entire backwards thinking, not just a select few who take it a bit further than most. But I think this about every such idealogy, just Islam happens to be the most relevant at this point in time. Don't bring up the disgusting sexism and homophobia rampant in the middle east, it will leave every sjw with such cognitive dissonance they won't know how to act. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On November 19 2015 12:25 Rassy wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbZDyr2LkdI&feature=youtu.be American foreign policy has failed so hard. For the past 15 years or so. Is there realy no one in the usa that realizes this? Oh please, spare me the tears about the political climate in Middle East, Putin. The U.S. definitely helped foster the climate in the Middle East that led to ISIS, but wasn't there, like, a nine-year war the Soviet Union participated in that further stoked the fires of resentment in the region and drove tens of thousands of mujahideen to organize into terrorist cells that formed the genesis of Al Qaeda and the blueprint for ISIS? That region is a clusterfuck because everyone wanted to flex their geopolitical muscles there to secure resources and/or allies in the latter half of the 20th century, not just the U.S. + Show Spoiler + Well, the mujahideen were armed by the U.S. to be fair, but still, executing a military coup on the president of the country was no bueno On November 19 2015 12:33 Kickstart wrote: I have little faith in the government to 'screen' anything. Hell, how long has it been since 9/11? And yet, they still don't have a working system to get the information on potential terrorists to airports. How hard can it be to give pictures and names of potential threats, and how incompetent that almost 15 years after 9/11 the best we have is making people take off their shoes and get molested in airports. Now if they could do it competently then of course refugees and immigrants in general should be screened, to say otherwise is dumb. Also want to point out that the 'problem' with Islam is more than just the radical adherents. When the vast majority of Muslims think that apostates should be punished, that certain images are so blasphemous that they must not be allowed, that wives are to obey and be subservient to their husbands, that homosexuality is a punishable 'offence'. The problem is with the entire backwards thinking, not just a select few who take it a bit further than most. But I think this about every such idealogy, just Islam happens to be the most relevant at this point in time. Why do you have little faith in the government's screening procedures when the only terrorist plot since 9/11 that actually worked domestically was the Boston Marathon bombings, which involved individuals completely unconnected to outside terrorist groups? Do you just think there haven't been any (which is possible I suppose)? Wikipedia lists 29, but they could be wrong I suppose. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
On November 19 2015 12:35 bo1b wrote: Don't bring up the disgusting sexism and homophobia rampant in the middle east, it will leave every sjw with such cognitive dissonance they won't know how to act. And yet I still personally think we should let in immigrants and refugees. It's just that we should encourage assimilation as best we can and of course screen to keep everyone safe. What we don't want is a situation that always happens where the groups stick with themselves and don't adopt the values of their new country. This happens anyways, even here in the US minority groups tend to stick to themselves and in their own communities. How we do this is a rather complicated problem but vilifying the entire population or not letting any in seem to not be good solutions at all. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 19 2015 12:38 Kickstart wrote: And yet I still personally think we should let in immigrants and refugees. It's just that we should encourage assimilation as best we can and of course screen to keep everyone safe. What we don't want is a situation that always happens where the groups stick with themselves and don't adopt the values of their new country. This happens anyways, even here in the US minority groups tend to stick to themselves and in their own communities. How we do this is a rather complicated problem but vilifying the entire population or not letting any in seem to not be good solutions at all. Do you feel comfortable parroting the language used to deny the Jews refugee status in 1938? Screening for terrorists is fine and should be done, but the failure to assimilate and staying int there own communities is the exactly language used to stereotype the Jews. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
On November 19 2015 12:42 Plansix wrote: Do you feel comfortable parrorting the langauge used to deny the Jews refugee status in 1938? Screening for terrorists is fine, but You are going to have to be more specific. This comparing everything to Hitler and the Nazis thing happens so much I'm not sure what you are getting at or what in my statement is similar. I think everything I've said is quite logical and objectively true. *edit after you completed the post* Yet they do. You yourself described the community you live by as a 'muslim community'. Here in my city we have quite a large Bosnian community, they stick themselves, live in the same part of town, go to Bosnian Doctors, and all the rest of it. This isn't healthy, especially when, as I outlined before, their values and the values of our country are quite different and often at odds. *edit to say a bit more* The problem I have with your line of thinking, and the line of thinking of the SJW (forgive me for using the term, it just happens to sum up the type of person I'm explaining and everyone will immediately know what I mean) is that you too often conflate what ought to be in a perfect world with the reality of the world as it is. Would it be nice if anyone and everyone could easily assimilate into a new society that is quite different from their native one? Yes. Does this happen often? No it doesn't. I was merely saying that this is an issue that we need to take into account when we let people in. Notice how I still advocate for allowing people into the country, but I think more effort should be made in assimilation and inclusion so that everyone feels like they are a part of the country, not so they feel like 'muslims living in the US', or 'insert group here living in the US'. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24342 Posts
On November 19 2015 12:35 xDaunt wrote: Do you know who's laughing all of the way to the political bank right now? Donald Trump. This refugee issue is right in the wheelhouse of his immigration narrative. More importantly, it's an issue on which Trump is going to receive popular support. Between the evolution of the immigration debate in America and the development of rabid anti-political establishment sentiments in the electorate, I'm starting to wonder whether it is Trump's destiny to be president. Regardless of whether its due to serendipity of true political acumen, Trump has been at the cutting edge of these issues, which has fueled his success so far. It won't last, but you're right his consistent appeals to fear and bigotry will make him essentially untouchable in the primary. Hope you like Trump as he's probably going to win the Republican nomination. Would be a shame if 6 months from now we are hearing about how if only Republicans had nominated a "real conservative" (as if their constant refusal to nominate one isn't indicative that "conservatives" have little-no sway in the Republican party) they wouldn't be getting trounced nationally. As if the faults highlighted over a general wouldn't have been easily knowable prior, but republicans just didn't care. EDIT: Just a friendly reminder, Bernie Sanders is already beating Trump in a heads up race. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On November 19 2015 12:51 TheTenthDoc wrote: I can't wait until we decide not to let people into the country from the Middle East at all because they get even less screening than these refugees. Better not let in people that look Middle Eastern, either, since they could be terrorists too; even if they were born in the U.S., they might have radicalized. Then we'll have great legs to stand on when it comes to negotiating deals, right Donald? Deals with what? No nation in the world is going to turn down the spending power of the U.S. "We were going to buy billion of dollars of shit off you but not anymore." Get real. | ||
| ||
|
|
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs JyJ
Soulkey vs hero
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Shinee
Shine vs EffOrt
GSL
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
KCM Race Survival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
