Let's not help refugees because some may be terorrists

[Jolly_Penguin]

Curse those refugees for starting a war and putting themselves in mortal danger just so they can get refugee status and drink maple syrup....

Jayjay's argument works for illegal immigrants. Not so much for refugees.

 

[Jayjay]

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.

The current rules don't force refugees to travel, they merely incentivize illegal immigration. Some of those illegal immigrants taking advantage of the loopholes may happen to be refugees, but most are not.

 

[Jayjay]

Curse those refugees for starting a war and putting themselves in mortal danger just so they can get refugee status and drink maple syrup....

Jayjay's argument works for illegal immigrants. Not so much for refugees.

From the maple syrup reference I presume you are thinking of Canada, which has practically no refugees entering the country illegally. The quota that Canada accepts could be higher of course but the mechanism by which they are admitted is exactly what I wish we could have in Europe.

 

[Derec]

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.

It is a fallacy that the primary or only way to help refugees is to resettle them by the millions in Europe and US. Primary responsibility for refugees of wars and conflicts should be regional but Europe and US can help with local camps. Resettlement should be limited in number to a sustainable levels (i.e. the opposite of what Europe is doing, taking in millions in a single year) and limited to those with a reasonably secular mindset (again, opposite of what Europe is doing, taking everybody without checking).
Potential terrorists are a big problem but that does not mean that Islamists who are not terrorists are somehow benign.
Also most of these mass migrants into Europe are not refugees at all, but economic migrants.

Not refugees!

 

[Derec]

Curse those refugees for starting a war and putting themselves in mortal danger just so they can get refugee status and drink maple syrup....

Jayjay's argument works for illegal immigrants. Not so much for refugees.

But most people entering Europe by the millions are not refugees, but economic migrants.

And even for bona fide refugees, why should they all be resettled in Europe, US etc. without regard to numbers or who these people are and how well they would integrate into western societies?

When you have 'refugees' refuse to follow rules of their host counties and demand that the rules of Islam be followed by Europeans, then you know that these people should never have been let in in the first place.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And even for bona fide refugees, why should they all be resettled in Europe, US etc. without regard to numbers or who these people are and how well they would integrate into western societies?

Would you turn away 200 people who will otherwise die just because 1 or 2 of them may cause some problems? By all means have some diligence and vet them for terrorists etc, but don't use your not vetting them as an excuse not to rescue them or to deny most of them entry.

Once they are in your country, you can then push them to assimilate, etc.

 

[Derec]

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.

Country shopping, Islamist "refugee" style ...

Is it any wonder that some people are finally getting pissed off?

 

[Derec]

Would you turn away 200 people who will otherwise die just because 1 or 2 of them may cause some problems? By all means have some diligence and vet them for terrorists etc, but don't use your not vetting them as an excuse not to rescue them or to deny most of them entry.

Once they are in your country, you can then push them to assimilate, etc.

Again, you are falling for the fallacy that the only alternatives for them are either death or resettlement in the West. That is not so, the primary responsibility should be in the region the crisis is taking place, where the refugees have cultural, religious, ethnic and/or linguistic connection with the host countries. The West can help regional countries take in these refugees if necessary, but primary responsibility should be regional. The West just cannot sustain taking in everybody who wants to come to the West from every crisis area in the World.

And there are far more than .5-1% of Islamists in this migrant stream.

 

[Derec]

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.

I am not aware that many (if any) Syrian refugees are running to Russia. Do you have a citation for this?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Again, you are falling for the fallacy that the only alternatives for them are either death or resettlement in the West. That is not so, the primary responsibility should be in the region the crisis is taking place, where the refugees have cultural, religious, ethnic and/or linguistic connection with the host countries. The West can help regional countries take in these refugees if necessary, but primary responsibility should be regional.

So do something about that on a nation to nation level. It isn't like the west, especially the US, doesn't have some economic sway over countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Could you not very easily force their hand?

And if these countries still don't accept in the refugees, what then? Don't bring them here because those countries won't bring them there? You just want the refugees to die?

 

[Derec]

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

With France being majority Muslim in a few decades even French wine varieties will not be allowed to be grown there.

 

[Derec]

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.

Let Saudi Arabia take them in. They have space. They have money. They already have an Islamic culture and they speak Arabic. Also, the climate is closer to what you have in Syria and it's much closer.

Instead, these migrants are hell-bent on colonizing and Islamicizing Europe.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Look at it the other way around. These Muslim folks face big pressure to assimilate, and you can ramp that up further. You are then converting people away from islamism much faster than you would if they were left in the echo chamber they came from. I suppose your perspective will vary depending on whether you look at this from a local or global level.

 

[Derec]

So do something about that on a nation to nation level. It isn't like the west, especially the US, doesn't have some economic sway over countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Could you not very easily force their hand?

I can not. Obama and Hillary probably could. They'd much rather take in half a million Syrians to go with all the Somalis that have been taken in and that refuse to take cab fares who carry alcohol or refuse to handle pork products as cashiers in grocery stores.
Of course these Muslim migrants become a reliable Democratic voting block. Muslims love Hillary - they even raise statues of her!

And if these countries still don't accept in the refugees, what then? Don't bring them here because those countries won't bring them there? You just want the refugees to die?

Don't accept people for resettlement who are unwilling to integrate and/or who may pose a terrorism problem. Easy as that. There are already refugee camps in places like Turkey and Jordan US and Europe can help fund to help refugees be safe. If they chose to leave safe countries like Turkey and Jordan to go to Europe or US, they are doing so for economic, not safety, reasons.
Again, it is not a choice between resettling everybody willy nilly and death for millions.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

Let Saudi Arabia take them in. They have space. They have money. They already have an Islamic culture and they speak Arabic. Also, the climate is closer to what you have in Syria and it's much closer.

Instead, these migrants are hell-bent on colonizing and Islamicizing Europe.

Saudi, the UAE and Qatar have a closed border policy and do not normally accept refugees and migrants of any sort.

 

[Derec]

Look at it the other way around. These Muslim folks face big pressure to assimilate, and you can ramp that up further. You are then converting people away from islamism much faster than you would if they were left in the echo chamber they came from. I suppose your perspective will vary depending on whether you look at this from a local or global level.

That may work if you have small numbers coming in. If you have mass migration it doesn't happen. If I drive through Clarkston, GA I can see many fully veiled women and men with long beards and crocheted skull caps. Since there are so many of them that came in they are able to create echo chambers as tight as if they were in Riyadh or Baghdad. The same is happening all around Europe, with many European cities having a European minority already.

 

[Derec]

Saudi, the UAE and Qatar have a closed border policy and do not normally accept refugees and migrants of any sort.

My point is that Muslim refugees in their back yard should be their responsibility, and not responsibility of Europe or US.


And US and Europe could use more closed borders where we control who is let in and who isn't.
Letting in millions of invaders just walk in is continental suicide!

It's like something out of the Walking Dead!

 

[ronburgundy]

Interesting that in this video , the staunch libertarian Penn says that while he supports Gary Johnson, he thinks people who live in states where Trump v Clinton result could be close, should vote Hillary. He said he didn't think there could be a worse president than Hillary until Trump. He worked with Trump on celebrity apprentice and had many conversations with him. He said "No matter how bad you think he is, you're wrong, he's worse." He says that he is not just crazy and racist (including in private conversations), but also just too ignorant and stupid to be president. He said that he is the only "successful" person he knows that in many hours of conversation has never said anything that Penn thought was new, interesting, or insightful. He noted that isn't likely true of Obama, Hillary, or just about any other candidate, regardless of how much he disagrees with their politics.

He points out that he sort of enjoys Trump for the reasons many support him, his uncensored "honesty" in expressing his own reactionary personal emotions and ideas. But he notes that is not actually a quality one wants in a president, that they need to be hesitant, reserved, and thoughtful in what they say and do, because of its potential impact on the lives of everyone. He also notes that despite this emotional honesty, Trump lies constantly to get what he wants. Penn says that the producers of celebrity apprentice told him that unless he says he would support Trump's for president, he wouldn't win. He said, "No" and lost to Trace Adkins who has been supportive of Trump.

 

[Jayjay]

And even for bona fide refugees, why should they all be resettled in Europe, US etc. without regard to numbers or who these people are and how well they would integrate into western societies?

Would you turn away 200 people who will otherwise die just because 1 or 2 of them may cause some problems? By all means have some diligence and vet them for terrorists etc, but don't use your not vetting them as an excuse not to rescue them or to deny most of them entry.

Once they are in your country, you can then push them to assimilate, etc.

They wouldn't "otherwise die". A few of them might, but that's basically a reverse of your argument: should 200 people who have no grounds for asylum be admitted just because 1 or 2 of them may die if they don't get in? Statistically some of those people will die even if they do get asylum, by illnesses, old age, accidents, violent crime, and so on.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You realize the war in Syria started with Assad being very brutal in putting down the Arab Spring?

This is the country responsible for the Hama Massacre--18,000 dead.