Let's not help refugees because some may be terorrists

[Elixir]

Better oysters. But that's about it.

And toast. Don't forget about toast.

 

[barbos]

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.

True, and you are getting unlucky ..... with all these "refugees" coming in

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I already knew that Canada has let in a lot of Syrian refugees, and I take no issue with that. Today I learned that there is Refugee Health Insurance paid for by the government for them, and that it is more comprehensive than what the rest of us tax payers get (OHIP etc). They get eyeglasses and dental paid for. The rest of us don't. Seems a little odd that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I already knew that Canada has let in a lot of Syrian refugees, and I take no issue with that. Today I learned that there is Refugee Health Insurance paid for by the government for them, and that it is more comprehensive than what the rest of us tax payers get (OHIP etc). They get eyeglasses and dental paid for. The rest of us don't. Seems a little odd that.

So fairness is an issue? How about a trade? How about your hometown getting bombed to oblivion, you're forced to live in a country you don't speak the language and in return you get free specs and braces? Where's your sense of perspective, I wonder?

 

[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 The message is outdated.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?

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.

Naw!! Blue Point Long Island, NY has the best oysters in the world.
"Blue Points" are highly desired worldwide.
Forget Oyster Bay, Long Island NY... Nantucket and those other New England oysters are just OK.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I already knew that Canada has let in a lot of Syrian refugees, and I take no issue with that. Today I learned that there is Refugee Health Insurance paid for by the government for them, and that it is more comprehensive than what the rest of us tax payers get (OHIP etc). They get eyeglasses and dental paid for. The rest of us don't. Seems a little odd that.

So fairness is an issue? How about a trade? How about your hometown getting bombed to oblivion, you're forced to live in a country you don't speak the language and in return you get free specs and braces? Where's your sense of perspective, I wonder?

If my home town was being bombed into oblivion, I would be very thankful to any foreign country that would take me in, so I could survive. If they gave me free dental and eyeglasses, and treated me better than their own population, I would be rather shocked.

 

[arkirk]

So fairness is an issue? How about a trade? How about your hometown getting bombed to oblivion, you're forced to live in a country you don't speak the language and in return you get free specs and braces? Where's your sense of perspective, I wonder?

If my home town was being bombed into oblivion, I would be very thankful to any foreign country that would take me in, so I could survive. If they gave me free dental and eyeglasses, and treated me better than their own population, I would be rather shocked.

There is a maggot in the soup here....the country you run to is the country that is sending all the bombs to your country that is having the shit bombed out of it. You have cousins back home. You enjoy the eyeglasses and the free schooling...but cousin Omar just died in his school from an American bomb. This issue cannot simply be resolved. I think we owe refugees shelter from our own bombs. They on the other hand do not owe us. Us giving them charitable treatment is not actually charity. It remains a cold and heartless exchange. What makes it all well? We stop sending our bombs and arms over there...and our troops and planes etc. You want to stop terrorism? You allow people in other parts of the world the same safety you have in your own environment. You can only guarantee safety from YOUR BOMBS, not all the bombs in the world.

Watching our world leaders talk to each other, it is clear why this problem is not resolving. A prime example is the biggest kid in the sandbox syndrome for world leaders. They all are truculent and blustering and all enjoy "reviewing" their troops. We have laws against war crimes, yet our leaders and our people are always preparing to commit them. Today, if there is a current categorical imperative it is regarding nuclear weapons. There need to be eliminated, along with the gateway weapons that lead to nuclear holocaust. What we need are adults with a sense of responsibility to those they govern. That is NOT what we have.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If my home town was being bombed into oblivion, I would be very thankful to any foreign country that would take me in, so I could survive. If they gave me free dental and eyeglasses, and treated me better than their own population, I would be rather shocked.

There is a maggot in the soup here....the country you run to is the country that is sending all the bombs to your country that is having the shit bombed out of it. You have cousins back home. You enjoy the eyeglasses and the free schooling...but cousin Omar just died in his school from an American bomb. This issue cannot simply be resolved. I think we owe refugees shelter from our own bombs. They on the other hand do not owe us. Us giving them charitable treatment is not actually charity. It remains a cold and heartless exchange. What makes it all well? We stop sending our bombs and arms over there...and our troops and planes etc. You want to stop terrorism? You allow people in other parts of the world the same safety you have in your own environment. You can only guarantee safety from YOUR BOMBS, not all the bombs in the world.

Watching our world leaders talk to each other, it is clear why this problem is not resolving. A prime example is the biggest kid in the sandbox syndrome for world leaders. They all are truculent and blustering and all enjoy "reviewing" their troops. We have laws against war crimes, yet our leaders and our people are always preparing to commit them. Today, if there is a current categorical imperative it is regarding nuclear weapons. There need to be eliminated, along with the gateway weapons that lead to nuclear holocaust. What we need are adults with a sense of responsibility to those they govern. That is NOT what we have.

The main countries bombing Syria to bits are Syria and Russia. You're just determined to blame the US right or wrong.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So fairness is an issue? How about a trade? How about your hometown getting bombed to oblivion, you're forced to live in a country you don't speak the language and in return you get free specs and braces? Where's your sense of perspective, I wonder?

If my home town was being bombed into oblivion, I would be very thankful to any foreign country that would take me in, so I could survive. If they gave me free dental and eyeglasses, and treated me better than their own population, I would be rather shocked.

What do you mean treated better than their own population? These people have nothing. They left everything. Now they have specs and braces.

Are you constantly greatfull to your country that they're letting you stay?

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

Correct they must go through the system even if it is time consuming. There are talented people who enter Europe and the Middle East. One of my Palestinian friends is an entrepreneur and runs to companies. Another is a senior manager in Italy where his engineering background is an asset.

- - - Updated - - -

There is a maggot in the soup here....the country you run to is the country that is sending all the bombs to your country that is having the shit bombed out of it. You have cousins back home. You enjoy the eyeglasses and the free schooling...but cousin Omar just died in his school from an American bomb. This issue cannot simply be resolved. I think we owe refugees shelter from our own bombs. They on the other hand do not owe us. Us giving them charitable treatment is not actually charity. It remains a cold and heartless exchange. What makes it all well? We stop sending our bombs and arms over there...and our troops and planes etc. You want to stop terrorism? You allow people in other parts of the world the same safety you have in your own environment. You can only guarantee safety from YOUR BOMBS, not all the bombs in the world.

Watching our world leaders talk to each other, it is clear why this problem is not resolving. A prime example is the biggest kid in the sandbox syndrome for world leaders. They all are truculent and blustering and all enjoy "reviewing" their troops. We have laws against war crimes, yet our leaders and our people are always preparing to commit them. Today, if there is a current categorical imperative it is regarding nuclear weapons. There need to be eliminated, along with the gateway weapons that lead to nuclear holocaust. What we need are adults with a sense of responsibility to those they govern. That is NOT what we have.

The main countries bombing Syria to bits are Syria and Russia. You're just determined to blame the US right or wrong.

They are all bombing Syria in a war that need not have been started.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There is a maggot in the soup here....the country you run to is the country that is sending all the bombs to your country that is having the shit bombed out of it.

Wow really? As far as I am aware Canada hasn't been bombing Syria. Do you know something I do not? Or did you not actually read what I wrote above before jumping in and responding to something that wasn't addressed to you? Despite me writing so very clearly that I was talking about Canada giving better health care to refugees than to its home born citizens, you assumed I'm from the USA eh?

 

[DrZoidberg]

There is a maggot in the soup here....the country you run to is the country that is sending all the bombs to your country that is having the shit bombed out of it.

Wow really? As far as I am aware Canada hasn't been bombing Syria. Do you know something I do not? Or did you not actually read what I wrote above before jumping in and responding to something that wasn't addressed to you? Despite me writing so very clearly that I was talking about Canada giving better health care to refugees than to its home born citizens, you assumed I'm from the USA eh?

Oh, those sneaky Canadians. Bombing in secret.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

Europe at one time seems to have abandoned any differentiation between legal and illegal entrants. It seems the public in general is now calling for secured borders.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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

How do you figure that?

If the US embassy has been bombed or evacuated, there could be a problem for those going to the US. However they can still enter and make a claim for asylum. It hasn't been a problem for those who entered like this. Then technically they entered legally if they went through this route and were processed.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I already knew that Canada has let in a lot of Syrian refugees, and I take no issue with that. Today I learned that there is Refugee Health Insurance paid for by the government for them, and that it is more comprehensive than what the rest of us tax payers get (OHIP etc). They get eyeglasses and dental paid for. The rest of us don't. Seems a little odd that.

So fairness is an issue? How about a trade? How about your hometown getting bombed to oblivion, you're forced to live in a country you don't speak the language and in return you get free specs and braces? Where's your sense of perspective, I wonder?

With the state some of those third world homes are it sounds like a bargain swap. However, I wonder how a Westerner would act if Arabs flattened his hometown including his house then gave him a pair of glasses and some braces (whether for his trousers or his teeth).

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

Europe at one time seems to have abandoned any differentiation between legal and illegal entrants. It seems the public in general is now calling for secured borders.

I don't think you, or Tigers!, is appreciating the realities of being a refugee. The route you're talking about is only open to a couple few lucky ones. You'd have to be a total idiot if you're counting to be one of those. For a refugee it makes way better sense to first pick a country, travel your way there illegally, enter it illegally and then once their apply for the refugee status (as defined by the UNHCR charter).

Here's a tip, before deciding on which rules to use, first make sure they're applicable. Right now we have a situation where all parties (yes, everybody is guilty of this) of putting stupid rules in place, who's only real job is to keep people out, while also allowing the countries to delude themselves into believing they're little saints. It's horrible what we're doing. We need to come up a plan that works and starts treating these people as humans. Right now they're seen as problem packets. It's horrendous. I took a day volunteering in a refugee shelter. I recommend it. It'll put things in perspective.

 

[Tigers!]

Europe at one time seems to have abandoned any differentiation between legal and illegal entrants. It seems the public in general is now calling for secured borders.

I don't think you, or Tigers!, is appreciating the realities of being a refugee. The route you're talking about is only open to a couple few lucky ones. You'd have to be a total idiot if you're counting to be one of those. For a refugee it makes way better sense to first pick a country, travel your way there illegally, enter it illegally and then once their apply for the refugee status (as defined by the UNHCR charter).

Last time I looked the country where you eventually end up is under no obligation to accept your claim of refugee status at face value. They are allowed to , and indeed should, have a from of vetting. If you pass through many countries, where you will be safe, on the way to your country of choice it is harder to maintain that you are a refugee. It begins to look like country shopping.

Here's a tip, before deciding on which rules to use, first make sure they're applicable.

Here's a tip - when you are sure a rule is applicable you have already decide which rule to use.

Right now we have a situation where all parties (yes, everybody is guilty of this) of putting stupid rules in place, who's only real job is to keep people out, while also allowing the countries to delude themselves into believing they're little saints. It's horrible what we're doing. We need to come up a plan that works and starts treating these people as humans. Right now they're seen as problem packets. It's horrendous. I took a day volunteering in a refugee shelter. I recommend it. It'll put things in perspective.

Not disputing that we need to do better and more for refugees.

 

[Jayjay]

Europe at one time seems to have abandoned any differentiation between legal and illegal entrants. It seems the public in general is now calling for secured borders.

I don't think you, or Tigers!, is appreciating the realities of being a refugee. The route you're talking about is only open to a couple few lucky ones. You'd have to be a total idiot if you're counting to be one of those. For a refugee it makes way better sense to first pick a country, travel your way there illegally, enter it illegally and then once their apply for the refugee status (as defined by the UNHCR charter).

Imagine you are waiting in line at a bank. You picked the number 799, and you've been diligently waiting for an hour as the counter went up to #797. Soon it will be your turn. Then you notice, that a bunch of customers are not taking numbers, but are going straight to the counter, and are getting serviced before the ones who are waiting by the rules. How would you feel about that? Are you going just keep waiting? Or curse yourself for being "total idiot" for not doing the same thing?

In this situation, it's the bank's responsibility to enforce the rules so that everyone gets in based on when they arrived, not based on who can wrangle their way to the counter. It's the same with refugees, it's utterly immoral for countries to reward those who pay smugglers to cut in line, compared to those who don't. Everyone should get an equal chance, the same vetting, the same opportunities. If there is to be an express line, it should be for those who are most beneficial to their target country (i.e. trained professionals and the like) rather than those who can sneak in illegally. The latter is also very much harder road for women, children and other vulnerable groups.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't think you, or Tigers!, is appreciating the realities of being a refugee. The route you're talking about is only open to a couple few lucky ones. You'd have to be a total idiot if you're counting to be one of those. For a refugee it makes way better sense to first pick a country, travel your way there illegally, enter it illegally and then once their apply for the refugee status (as defined by the UNHCR charter).

Last time I looked the country where you eventually end up is under no obligation to accept your claim of refugee status at face value. They are allowed to , and indeed should, have a from of vetting. If you pass through many countries, where you will be safe, on the way to your country of choice it is harder to maintain that you are a refugee. It begins to look like country shopping.

What's wrong with country shopping? You do it when you do your grocery shopping? Do you go to stores with the most expensive food or the better value food? if you can answer that then you'll have your answer. And expecting refugees to do it any other way is having double standards. It's expecting refugees to behave differently than all other humans for no reason other than that you think so.

Here's a tip, before deciding on which rules to use, first make sure they're applicable.

Here's a tip - when you are sure a rule is applicable you have already decide which rule to use.

Wot?

Right now we have a situation where all parties (yes, everybody is guilty of this) of putting stupid rules in place, who's only real job is to keep people out, while also allowing the countries to delude themselves into believing they're little saints. It's horrible what we're doing. We need to come up a plan that works and starts treating these people as humans. Right now they're seen as problem packets. It's horrendous. I took a day volunteering in a refugee shelter. I recommend it. It'll put things in perspective.

Not disputing that we need to do better and more for refugees.

Good that we agree on that at least.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't think you, or Tigers!, is appreciating the realities of being a refugee. The route you're talking about is only open to a couple few lucky ones. You'd have to be a total idiot if you're counting to be one of those. For a refugee it makes way better sense to first pick a country, travel your way there illegally, enter it illegally and then once their apply for the refugee status (as defined by the UNHCR charter).

Imagine you are waiting in line at a bank. You picked the number 799, and you've been diligently waiting for an hour as the counter went up to #797. Soon it will be your turn. Then you notice, that a bunch of customers are not taking numbers, but are going straight to the counter, and are getting serviced before the ones who are waiting by the rules. How would you feel about that? Are you going just keep waiting? Or curse yourself for being "total idiot" for not doing the same thing?

In this situation, it's the bank's responsibility to enforce the rules so that everyone gets in based on when they arrived, not based on who can wrangle their way to the counter. It's the same with refugees, it's utterly immoral for countries to reward those who pay smugglers to cut in line, compared to those who don't. Everyone should get an equal chance, the same vetting, the same opportunities. If there is to be an express line, it should be for those who are most beneficial to their target country (i.e. trained professionals and the like) rather than those who can sneak in illegally. The latter is also very much harder road for women, children and other vulnerable groups.

In the rules for who gets refugee status each country has two lines. One in the country itself and one tiny one in the vicinity of the crisis. Those are the rules. They're just following the rules.

It's important to understand that the rules forces refugees to travel across countries illegally. At least if they want some distance between them and the conflict. Which they all do.