Let's not help refugees because some may be terorrists

[DrZoidberg]

Here's Penn Jillete saying clever things on that topic. It's interesting because he's coming to it, not from the lefty angle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh5XrZJkJxc

He also says that Donald Trump looks like he has cotton candy hair made from piss. I think that is funny.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Here's Penn Jillete saying clever things on that topic. It's interesting because he's coming to it, not from the lefty angle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh5XrZJkJxc

He also says that Donald Trump looks like he has cotton candy hair made from piss. I think that is funny.

There is no problem with refugees. There is a chance a very few may be radicals of retreating ISIS soldiers etc but most are not. Illegal refugees are the problem

 

[Harry Bosch]

Here's Penn Jillete saying clever things on that topic. It's interesting because he's coming to it, not from the lefty angle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh5XrZJkJxc

He also says that Donald Trump looks like he has cotton candy hair made from piss. I think that is funny.

There is no problem with refugees. There is a chance a very few may be radicals of retreating ISIS soldiers etc but most are not. Illegal refugees are the problem

What is an illegal refugee?

 

[whichphilosophy]

There is no problem with refugees. There is a chance a very few may be radicals of retreating ISIS soldiers etc but most are not. Illegal refugees are the problem

What is an illegal refugee?

Yes that was a bit stupid it should be illegal migrant or illegal entrant. A refugee is acceptable of course and per their status they may come to process their asylum application.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What is an illegal refugee?

Yes that was a bit stupid it should be illegal migrant or illegal entrant. A refugee is acceptable of course and per their status they may come to process their asylum application.

Gotcha. You probably mean legal refugees are those that go through the 2-year vetting system? If so, I agree with your statement. The vetting system should result in less terrorists entering the country.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's Penn Jillete saying clever things on that topic. It's interesting because he's coming to it, not from the lefty angle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh5XrZJkJxc

He also says that Donald Trump looks like he has cotton candy hair made from piss. I think that is funny.

There is no problem with refugees. There is a chance a very few may be radicals of retreating ISIS soldiers etc but most are not. Illegal refugees are the problem

But if the only way of getting into a country is by illegal means... then what are you saying? You've put yourself on a moral high-horse where you're saying to yourself that you're helping people when you're doing jack shit. That's even worse than doing nothing.

 

[Tigers!]

There is no problem with refugees. There is a chance a very few may be radicals of retreating ISIS soldiers etc but most are not. Illegal refugees are the problem

But if the only way of getting into a country is by illegal means... then what are you saying? You've put yourself on a moral high-horse where you're saying to yourself that you're helping people when you're doing jack shit. That's even worse than doing nothing.

What he is saying is just because you have reached country x that does not mean you are automatically a refugee. a vetting process is stil/may be required first.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But if the only way of getting into a country is by illegal means... then what are you saying? You've put yourself on a moral high-horse where you're saying to yourself that you're helping people when you're doing jack shit. That's even worse than doing nothing.

What he is saying is just because you have reached country x that does not mean you are automatically a refugee. a vetting process is stil/may be required first.

But that's not the rules of refuggeing. The rules state that first you enter a country, and then apply for refugee status. You have to get into the country somehow. If you hold a passport from a country at war the ONLY option is to enter the country illegally. Yes, it happens that representatives from nations go to the refugee camps in the countries surrounding Syria and fetch people. How many? Look at the statistics. It's almost none of the refugees. All those are picked for show. It's barely helping at all.

All whichphilosophy is saying is that he's more than willing to welcome refugees with open arms as long as they first bring him some cheese from the Moon (which it is made of). He's created a rule system for himself that nobody can live up to.

edit: the USA has taken in a couple of thousand Syrian refugees out of an estimated 4 000 000 in need of resettlement. Those 4 000 000 aren't just going to sit there nicely and slowly die.

 

[fast]

If you hold a passport from a country at war the ONLY option is to enter the country illegally.

How do you figure that?

 

[DrZoidberg]

If you hold a passport from a country at war the ONLY option is to enter the country illegally.

How do you figure that?

I expand on that further down in the same post. This is true for most refugees.

 

[Jayjay]

I think the whole US political discourse about the refugees is silly. You have the Atlantic Ocean between whoever might want to come to the country and have the luxury of choosing who gets in via legal routes, so what are you whining about?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think the whole US political discourse about the refugees is silly. You have the Atlantic Ocean between whoever might want to come to the country and have the luxury of choosing who gets in via legal routes, so what are you whining about?

I also think it's shirking responsibility. There's millions of refugees flooding out of that country. The countries around it are being over-whelmed. And the entire west has done their best in keeping these people out. That's uncool on so many levels.

There's a saying in showbiz. Be nice on people on the way up. You'll need it on the way down. I think this also applies in international politics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's Penn Jillete saying clever things on that topic. It's interesting because he's coming to it, not from the lefty angle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh5XrZJkJxc

He also says that Donald Trump looks like he has cotton candy hair made from piss. I think that is funny.

He says there is no answer and then gives an answer anyway. Stick to magic!

- - - Updated - - -

Yes that was a bit stupid it should be illegal migrant or illegal entrant. A refugee is acceptable of course and per their status they may come to process their asylum application.

Gotcha. You probably mean legal refugees are those that go through the 2-year vetting system? If so, I agree with your statement. The vetting system should result in less terrorists entering the country.

The problem is that it's pretty much meaningless in the case of Syria. There's no way to actually vet them.

 

[Valjean]

There is no problem with refugees. There is a chance a very few may be radicals of retreating ISIS soldiers etc but most are not. Illegal refugees are the problem

How are "illegal refugees" (immigrants) a problem?
The "Mexican criminals and rapists" meme is mostly a right wing diversion tactic.

Whatever happened to the Home of the Brave? We're a nation of frightened, xenophobic children.

 

[Bomb#20]

He says there is no answer and then gives an answer anyway. Stick to magic!

Penn also says Islam is an idea, and Islamophobia is not racism. And then he goes on to say we've got to stop judging people by the color of their skin. Penn is blatantly buying into the dishonorable trumped-up slanderous PC accusation that Islamophobes are reacting to what Muslims look like rather than to how they think, even though he clearly knows better.

Penn also says the Pakistani atheist at the beginning of his video told him if his atheism became known, "My mom and dad would disown me and never speak to me again. It's likely someone in my community would kill me." Penn says he knew the guy wasn't bluffing. And then at the end of the video Penn says "We have to remember that people are good. If you look at the 7 billion people on this planet, just about 7 billion of them are really good. We can really trust them. ... The odds are always on someone being good. ... The chances are overwhelming that that person will be good."

No! Wrong! If just about 7 billion of them were good then that young man's parents wouldn't disown him for being an atheist! Duh! Moreover, murder is an extreme -- it's the visible tip of the oppression iceberg. For every someone in that guy's community who'd kill him for being an atheist, there are surely a hundred who would beat him up, or jail him, or censor him. So what Penn is in effect saying is "Just because you'd disown your son or beat up your neighbor for being an atheist doesn't make you a bad person." Yes, it does! What the hell does Penn think the word "good" means?!? When Penn insists, against all evidence, that the odds are overwhelming that a randomly chosen Pakistani or Egyptian or Afghan is good, he is not doing math and he is not doing moral philosophy. He is reciting PC wishful thinking. He is de facto redefining "Good" to mean "Not a terrorist", or "Someone I feel sorry for and want to help", or "Someone in a group high in the PC protected-group stack." Those are not sane criteria for judging whether it's wise for a country to take in a would-be immigrant.

So yes, in that video Penn really dropped the rationalism ball.

 

[Bomb#20]

I think the whole US political discourse about the refugees is silly. You have the Atlantic Ocean between whoever might want to come to the country and have the luxury of choosing who gets in via legal routes, so what are you whining about?

The whole European "lefty angle" political discourse about the refugees is silly. Equating refusing to take in refugees with "let's not help refugees" is deceptive propaganda. You have Turkey between you and whoever might want to come to the country, and you have the luxury of choosing where you spend your "help refugees" budget. It costs Sweden $50,000 to support a refugee for a year in Sweden and $50,000 to support thirty refugees in "the world's nicest refugee camp" in Turkey; I expect Finland's costs would be pretty much the same as Sweden's.

I also think it's shirking responsibility. There's millions of refugees flooding out of that country. The countries around it are being over-whelmed. And the entire west has done their best in keeping these people out.

No. The entire west has done a terrible job in keeping these people out. Spending $50,000 to take one in instead of paying Turkey $1700 to keep him in Turkey does not qualify as "doing their best in keeping these people out". Spending $50,000 to cover Turkey's costs for thirty refugees would relieve Turkey from being overwhelmed thirty times more than taking in a refugee does. There is no rational basis for thinking the west has a responsibility to accept Syrian refugees.

That's uncool on so many levels.

Creating ghettos of angry unemployed people is more uncool.

There's a saying in showbiz. Be nice on people on the way up. You'll need it on the way down. I think this also applies in international politics.

You're on the way down? You might want to think about reversing that process.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I also think it's shirking responsibility. There's millions of refugees flooding out of that country. The countries around it are being over-whelmed. And the entire west has done their best in keeping these people out.

No. The entire west has done a terrible job in keeping these people out. Spending $50,000 to take one in instead of paying Turkey $1700 to keep him in Turkey does not qualify as "doing their best in keeping these people out". Spending $50,000 to cover Turkey's costs for thirty refugees would relieve Turkey from being overwhelmed thirty times more than taking in a refugee does. There is no rational basis for thinking the west has a responsibility to accept Syrian refugees.

Remember that the refugees are people. They're losing years of their lives. We don't want them to just sit around doing nothing. It's better for everybody if we integrate these in functioning economies. Then it makes sense to spread them out. Even if it is higher costs, we will get that money back (if these people are put to work).

When a disaster strikes I don't think it's helpful pointing fingers, trying to find who did it. If the people who should fix it aren't then the rest of us need to do it instead. Punishing the responsible can be handled later. At this point it's a question of mitigating a humanitarian disaster. And at that point I'm thinking more like a doctor than a politician. It just needs to be done, and quibbling about who should fix it isn't fixing it.

That's uncool on so many levels.

Creating ghettos of angry unemployed people is more uncool.

That's just out of sight out of mind. How will these angry unemployed people be easier to manage when in refugee camps in the Middle-East? I'd say a better solution is to NOT concentrate them. Better spread them out.

There's a saying in showbiz. Be nice on people on the way up. You'll need it on the way down. I think this also applies in international politics.

You're on the way down? You might want to think about reversing that process.

That's not the point of the saying. The point of the saying is that nobody knows what will happen in the future. If we don't help other people now we're probably pretty fucked if we'd ever need help in the future.

Also, remember that the west economic dominance is mostly just down to dumb luck. Random events in history coalesced. If we can get lucky. We can also get unlucky.

 

[Jayjay]

The whole European "lefty angle" political discourse about the refugees is silly. Equating refusing to take in refugees with "let's not help refugees" is deceptive propaganda. You have Turkey between you and whoever might want to come to the country, and you have the luxury of choosing where you spend your "help refugees" budget. It costs Sweden $50,000 to support a refugee for a year in Sweden and $50,000 to support thirty refugees in "the world's nicest refugee camp" in Turkey; I expect Finland's costs would be pretty much the same as Sweden's.

It's hardly a choice. Besides the U.S. has the same choice to support the refugees in the camps (and I suspect she does, via various international organizations). As for having Turkey as a buffer similar to the Atlantic Ocean, that's a big joke. EU is basically trying to bribe Turkey not to let people through and it's not even working.

 

[Malintent]

I think the statue of liberty should be taken down. The message is outdated. We do not need nor desire your "retched poor". Work your own problems out in your own country. It's called a civil war. have one.

I don't see myself as responsible for the well being of strangers, just because I am an "American". Sure, I would never willfully cause undo harm to others, but I ("we", as in America) should not be the mommies and daddies of the rest of the world.

If a homeless person knocks on your door and asks if they can come live with you, what would you do?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think the statue of liberty should be taken down. The message is outdated. We do not need nor desire your "retched poor". Work your own problems out in your own country. It's called a civil war. have one.

I don't see myself as responsible for the well being of strangers, just because I am an "American". Sure, I would never willfully cause undo harm to others, but I ("we", as in America) should not be the mommies and daddies of the rest of the world.

If a homeless person knocks on your door and asks if they can come live with you, what would you do?

The "message" of the statue of independence is that France is superior to USA and that everything USA is thanks to France. That is why France gave it to USA. It's a reminder of this.

It was quite a long time since France was superior to USA. Better oysters. But that's about it.