Liberals, tell me why the U.S should be accepting Syrian refugees.

[LikeABosh]

It just doesn't make sense, from a logistics standpoint. Forget the talk of Islam, terrorism, etc. Is there no room in the Persian Gulf? Why the **** should refugees be chartered across the world into the U.S when countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, have taken in virtually no refugees?

[The.Juice]

Because Arabs are racist.

[The.Juice]

I know most Syrian refugees are in Muslim countries.
Turkey,Jordan,Lebanon.
So Im pretty sure the countries near Syria are doing their part.

[LikeABosh]

No vacancy here I guess.

http://www.islamiclandmarks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/mina.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/12/09/article-0-02BEF969000005DC-772_634x372_popup.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mina,_Saudi_Arabia

[Nick Young]

Tell me why we should be turning away Yazidis and Christian Syrians (http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/obama-refuses-to-allow-yazidi-christians-fleeing-isis-to-enter-united-states/)and only accept Muslim ones. Surely USA should accept all refuges regardless of religion:confusedshrug:

[LikeABosh]

I know most Syrian refugees are in Muslim countries.
Turkey,Jordan,Lebanon.
So Im pretty sure the countries near Syria are doing their part.
Yea, besides the countries I mentioned, as well as countries like Iran. But no, send em across the world to the U.S

[GIF REACTION]

I agree OP,

I'd like to extend an invitation out to you to join the ISH Realist party

Running for InsideHoops presidency

[poido123]

It just doesn't make sense, from a logistics standpoint. Forget the talk of Islam, terrorism, etc. Is there no room in the Persian Gulf? Why the **** should refugees be chartered across the world into the U.S when countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, have taken in virtually no refugees?


Because it's a systematic ethnic cleansing. These gulf countries know that ISIS have carefully organised operatives among these migrants to breed out and destroy Europe from the inside out.


The Saudi did offer to build Germany 20 mosques though. There's that. :oldlol:

[Patrick Chewing]

Liberals will claim that it's on the Statue of Liberty. That we should allow everyone to come in. And then when one of these refugees actually turns out to be a terrorist, they'll blame Republican leadership for not properly vetting them, or because of our involvement in the Middle East to begin with. Or, you know, oil and....and...Bush!

You see, the Liberal mind is a mind with out fault or fallacy. It's a perfect mind.

[Nastradamus]

It just doesn't make sense, from a logistics standpoint. Forget the talk of Islam, terrorism, etc. Is there no room in the Persian Gulf? Why the **** should refugees be chartered across the world into the U.S when countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, have taken in virtually no refugees?

Because its one of the very principles we were founded on. Its who we are and/or what we strive to be.

[GIF REACTION]

Liberals will claim that it's on the Statue of Liberty. That we should allow everyone to come in. And then when one of these refugees actually turns out to be a terrorist, they'll blame Republican leadership for not properly vetting them, or because of our involvement in the Middle East to begin with. Or, you know, oil and....and...Bush!

You see, the Liberal mind is a mind with out fault or fallacy. It's a perfect mind.
And such a deluded, out of touch with reality mind. A liberal utopia. Where everyone gets a trophy. But if everyone gets one, really no one gets one.

[Nastradamus]

Liberals will claim that it's on the Statue of Liberty. That we should allow everyone to come in. And then when one of these refugees actually turns out to be a terrorist, they'll blame Republican leadership for not properly vetting them, or because of our involvement in the Middle East to begin with. Or, you know, oil and....and...Bush!

You see, the Liberal mind is a mind with out fault or fallacy. It's a perfect mind.

We've let in 750K refugees since 9/11, none arrested for domestic terrorism. I think we'll be ok here.

[GIF REACTION]

We've let in 750K refugees since 9/11, none arrested for domestic terrorism. I think we'll be ok here.
Are they assimilating doe?

[Dresta]

Because its one of the very principles we were founded on. Its who we are and/or what we strive to be.
It certainly was not, and there's really no evidence for such an assertion. If you'd like to prove otherwise please point me to the article of the Constitution, or the part of a Federalist or Anti-Federalist essays, the speech at the Constitutional convention or from any of the state ratification conventions, that mentions the subject of refugees - if not, then stop lying.

[imdaman99]

Are they assimilating doe?
Why do you assume they won't? Why is the word refugee such a negative? Is it because someone found a Syrian passport that was undamaged at a violent extremist shooting? Man... it's easy to cause an uproar. It doesn't take much to brainwash, the sheep in the middle east and the sheep in 1st world countries. I choose to think for myself.

[LikeABosh]

Because its one of the very principles we were founded on. Its who we are and/or what we strive to be.
That's a nice sentiment but doesn't answer the question.

[knickballer]

I don't mind accepting refugees tbh. I'd take people like them any day over spoiled, entitled college kids protesting about Halloween costumes

But that being said from a cost/benefit ratio it doesn't make sense. The government is going to have to spend a good chunk of money to accommodate and assimilate these refugees. That spending power can go a much longer way in the actual refugee camps where it can significantly help 5-10 people for the price of one in the US.

Same goes with the crisis in Europe and people aren't thinking logically. I think the figure to accommodate each migrant is something like 40k/yr.. For 40k that spending can help 10x the people in actual refugee camps. I think Germany will spend 10billion this year on refugees. You have to wonder what can 10 billion buy in the actual refugee camps? Instead of helping millions more opportunists are taking advantage of the generous welfare programs..

[Dresta]

Why do you assume they won't? Why is the word refugee such a negative? Is it because someone found a Syrian passport that was undamaged at a violent extremist shooting? Man... it's easy to cause an uproar. It doesn't take much to brainwash, the sheep in the middle east and the sheep in 1st world countries. I choose to think for myself.
It is because the term 'refugee' is being used as a smokescreen through which another wave of mass-immigration is being ushered in, the bulk of which are young males, the most troublesome demographic in any society. Accepting a small number of actual refugees isn't what people have a problems with here - most countries have been doing that for a long time. It is quite different to expect populations to welcome in with open arms a young and aggressive male populace from a region riddled with anti-American attitudes (and a terrorist problem, no less).

edit: not to mention the forcing onto people dramatic changes and alterations to their lives that they neither sanctioned or wanted (example of the German village with a population of 100 being forced to accommodate 700 'refugees' - that sort of thing is simply absurd, and no person should be expected to put up with it in silence).

[GIF REACTION]

It is because the term 'refugee' is being used as a smokescreen through which another wave of mass-immigration is being ushered in, the bulk of which are young males, the most troublesome demographic in any society. Accepting a small number of actual refugees isn't what people have a problems with here - most countries have been doing that for a long time. It is quite different to expect populations to welcome in with open arms a young and aggressive male populace from a region riddled with anti-American attitudes (and a terrorist problem, no less).
:applause:

[NumberSix]

I just find it interesting that Obama had no interest whatsoever in accepting Iraqi Christians as refugees even though they've been suffering ethnic cleansing/genocide across the region. Suddenly, he's giving smug lectures about compassion.

[Dresta]

I just find it interesting that Obama had no interest whatsoever in accepting Iraqi Christians as refugees even though they've been suffering ethnic cleansing/genocide across the region. Suddenly, he's giving smug lectures about compassion.
Caring about Christians just isn't trendy these days.

[poido123]

Caring about Christians just isn't trendy these days.


You know its bad when a christian can't even get safe haven as a migrant in favor of a fundamentalist muslim.


:oldlol:

[DeuceWallaces]

It certainly was not, and there's really no evidence for such an assertion. If you'd like to prove otherwise please point me to the article of the Constitution, or the part of a Federalist or Anti-Federalist essays, the speech at the Constitutional convention or from any of the state ratification conventions, that mentions the subject of refugees - if not, then stop lying.

The 3 waves of American immigration are a major contributing factor to America's multiculturalism and melting pot mentality that makes us great. We did not legally discriminate between refugee and immigrant until '48 (towards the end of the 3rd wave) so it's very difficult to ascertain how many before that were seeking political asylum or other refugee status. Hence, it would not be part of any federal doctrine pre-dating. Since then we've accepted several million.

The New Colossus is emblazoned on the Statue of Liberty. It's a core part of who we are as a nation dating back many years, and a good policy to maintain moving forward.

[Patrick Chewing]

Obama is without a shadow of a doubt, a huge Muslim sympathizer. Who could blame him though? His father was a Muslim, and he probably grew up under the guise that Islam was this grand, peaceful religion, when it is clear that it's the religion with the most strife and conflict and has been since its inception.

I think he honestly thinks that he would be insulting his father's legacy if he admits that Islam has a huge problem with fundamentalism. He doesn't want to go against what he learned about Islam as a youth. He doesn't want to be seen as a traitor I suppose. That's why he's always lecturing Americans on how we should be ashamed for lumping in all Muslims with radical Muslims when no one is saying that. He's a robot.

[NumberSix]

The 3 waves of American immigration are a major contributing factor to America's multiculturalism and melting pot mentality that makes us great. We did not legally discriminate between refugee and immigrant until '48 (towards the end of the 3rd wave) so it's very difficult to ascertain how many before that were seeking political asylum or other refugee status. Hence, it would not be part of any federal doctrine pre-dating. Since then we've accepted several million.

The New Colossus is emblazoned on the Statue of Liberty. It's a core part of who we are as a nation dating back many years, and a good policy to maintain moving forward.
:facepalm

Multiculturalism is the opposite of a melting pot.

[DeuceWallaces]

:facepalm

Multiculturalism is the opposite of a melting pot.

They can, and do, coexist you dipshit. In fact, one feeds into the other.

[fiddy]

Because of U.S. foreign policy, its your fault, Europe doesnt have to deal with the bullshit of your politics.

[UK2K]

Leftists are all about feelings.

Generally, they only care about their own feelings.

But while it makes sense you don't want to invite thousands upon thousands of people we know nothing about to live next to us, a leftist will tell you its the moral thing to do and then give you a sob story to tug at your heart strings.

When we figure out how to feed and provide shelter for our 40,000 homeless veterans, then we can worry about being Mr. Friendly.

[NumberSix]

They can, and do, coexist you dipshit. In fact, one feeds into the other.
:facepalm

"Melting pot" means people of different backgrounds assimilating. "Multiculturalism" means people not assimilating.


This is the problem with this stupid word. People hear "multiculturalism" and think it simply means people of different cultural backgrounds living together. It doesn't.

[BoutPractice]

Adding a few tens of thousands of new people - with proper vetting, of course - won't destroy America.

What would undeniably change it for the worse, though, is to abandon the very idea that has led to American greatness: taking in desperate, hungry people from all over the globe, desperate to start their lives afresh.

Without it the United States is nothing. Your superpower status, you largely owe to your openness to foreigners and a culture centered on typical immigrant values and ideas like optimism, hope, thankfulness for opportunities, hard work and entrepreneurship.

If there is any truth to American exceptionalism, the centrality of immigration is where you'll find it.

[DonDadda59]

Because Freedom. :cry:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

https://lisparc.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/new-york-statue-of-liberty-new-york-city-nyc003.jpg

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130620011842/revengeristsconsortium/images/a/a8/American_Flag_%26_Crying_Bald_Eagle_Patriotic.jpg

[Akrazotile]

Adding a few tens of thousands of new people - with proper vetting, of course - won't destroy America.

What would undeniably change it for the worse, though, is to abandon the very idea that has led to American greatness: taking in desperate, hungry people from all over the globe, desperate to start their lives afresh.

Without it the United States is nothing. Your superpower status, you largely owe to your openness to foreigners and a culture centered on typical immigrant values and ideas like optimism, hope, thankfulness for opportunities, hard work and entrepreneurship.

If there is any truth to American exceptionalism, the centrality of immigration is where you'll find it.


Theres truth to this but it's also a different economic landscape now.

Ellis Island immigrants could show up and work in factories. They could start a lil mom and pop tailoring shop or a deli.

The economy is much more corporate and service oriented now. We're not adding new small-time shops and stores. We're actually closing them up in favor of big chains and e-retailers. And there are very few factory jobs left. It's not the same economic climate immigrants showed up to New York City in during the 1800s and 1900s. Also bc basically a whole bunch of cultures were immigratig simultaneously, everyone was starting on a similar foot. But these people will be at a big disadvantage. Most of them will be poor and that will be a challenge for them and for us.

Where are all these men without an education or the ability to speak english gonna work?

[Dresta]

Adding a few tens of thousands of new people - with proper vetting, of course - won't destroy America.

What would undeniably change it for the worse, though, is to abandon the very idea that has led to American greatness: taking in desperate, hungry people from all over the globe, desperate to start their lives afresh.

Without it the United States is nothing. Your superpower status, you largely owe to your openness to foreigners and a culture centered on typical immigrant values and ideas like optimism, hope, thankfulness for opportunities, hard work and entrepreneurship.

If there is any truth to American exceptionalism, the centrality of immigration is where you'll find it.
Jeezus - what are they teaching you kids these days? You're so certain about what you say, but if you thought about it for just a second, you'd realise it makes no logical sense whatsoever.

There is nothing exceptional about opening your borders: plenty of countries will have no need for strict immigration restrictions because nobody wants to go there. What is exceptional is what drove the people to immigrate and seek opportunity in the first place, not the immigration in and of itself. If there hadn't been something great or exceptional about America at the time (or even now) then you wouldn't have had (and have) millions wanting to go there.

With its laws, institutions, social mores and geographical location, America was destined to become a superpower, as most of the founders and politicians of the early Republic well recognised (as did visitors such as De Tocqueville) - large amounts of immigration made its growth more rapid and chaotic (and therefore unpleasant for the people living it). The too drastic immigrant numbers of the 1840s played a large part in the political turmoil of the 1850s, for example.

And America isn't founded on 'immigrant' values, but English ones, and the revolutionary war was fought to restore the rights of chartered englishmen - you are just so far off base with that nonsense, i don't even know where to start. Nor can there even be such a thing as 'immigrant values' considering immigrants are as heterogenous a group as the human race taken in its entirety.

[StephHamann]

Jeezus - what are they teaching you kids these days? You're so certain about what you say, but if you thought about it for just a second, you'd realise it makes no logical sense whatsoever.

There is nothing exceptional about opening your borders: plenty of countries will have no need for strict immigration restrictions because nobody wants to go there. What is exceptional is what drove the people to immigrate and seek opportunity in the first place, not the immigration in and of itself. If there hadn't been something great or exceptional about America at the time (or even now) then you wouldn't have had (and have) millions wanting to go there.

With its laws, institutions, social mores and geographical location, America was destined to become a superpower, as most of the founders and politicians of the early Republic well recognised (as did visitors such as De Tocqueville) - large amounts of immigration made its growth more rapid and chaotic (and therefore unpleasant for the people living it). The too drastic immigrant numbers of the 1840s played a large part in the political turmoil of the 1850s, for example.

And America isn't founded on 'immigrant' values, but English ones, and the revolutionary war was fought to restore the rights of chartered englishmen - you are just so far off base with that nonsense, i don't even know where to start. Nor can there even be such a thing as 'immigrant values' considering immigrants are as heterogenous a group as the human race taken in its entirety.

:lebronamazed: :lebronamazed: :lebronamazed:

[BoutPractice]

Dresta > I'm French... over there you're brainwashed to be anti-american, if anything. This is my own opinion, not something I was taught. (That a Frenchman could be something of an American exceptionalist - as well as a French exceptionalist - tells you a lot about the link between America and universalism)

And drop the condescension, will you? I bet you haven't even read Tocqueville beyond selected bits from Democracy in America from your freshman days (I would encourage you to read L'Ancien R

[DeuceWallaces]

:facepalm

"Melting pot" means people of different backgrounds assimilating. "Multiculturalism" means people not assimilating.


This is the problem with this stupid word. People hear "multiculturalism" and think it simply means people of different cultural backgrounds living together. It doesn't.

You have no concept of immigration, multiculturalism, the melting pot theory, and how they operate together in America. Read a ****ing book before you open your mouth for once.