If they can speak English and have skills that our country could do with, and they're not terrorists or anything, I'd be happy and proud to have them here. If not, they can go back home. Our government shouldn't help foreigners no matter what their situation is: we should put British people first.
I've talked to several Syrian refugees. They appear to be very typical human beings. As a reminder I would like to point out that the war in Syria has been going on for more than four years, but only since last year we have seen an increase in refugees fleeing to Europe. Most of them are/were from Syria, but also there are many from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc., who are trying to use the situation for their own benefit. I can't blame them, though. If I were in their place I would have tried to do the same thing. TL.-DR; It is understandable that stronger mechanisms should be in place so as to prevent cheaters and terrorists from going through the cracks, but an outright ban on all Syrian refugees is simply ridiculous and absurd. Syria, in fact, is one of the few middle Eastern countries that has had strong separation between state and religion since its founding, they're more secular than the French.
I've noticed this trend as well. Of course, it is by no means universal, and it is all anecdotal. However, it's also my experience that atheists and other non-believers are more concerned with the humanitarian crisis and want to do whatever is possible to help, while most Christians I know are ready to shut and bar the doors. I wonder if other people are experiencing something similar from their social groups.
The massive freakout over refugees is nothing more than fear and panic. Yesterday Dinald a Trump announced he wanted to require all American Muslims to register in a national database. I'm sorry, I thought this was America, where people came to escape religious persecution. And now John Kasich, who Republicans say is the sanest candidate in the current clown show, wants to create a federal Department of Christian Values®. But never underestimate the power that hate and fear has on American politics. During World War II, 70% of Americans supported prohibiting Jewish refugees from Germany who were fleeing the Nazis from entering. Because Communism.
Can you clarify what your moms fiance means by that? What does the fiancee think they are supposed to do instead of fleeing? I know plenty of people who don't think the US should take in Syrian refugees, but I've only heard one person who has said that they're doing something wrong by leaving. The general consensus among that group is they should flee to a Middle Eastern country instead. The one person who said they should stay basically said they should stay and fight back, as if many of the refugees even could fight back effectively right now, or with what weapons. The closest that guys been to combat is Call of Duty or watching Hollywood movies :rolle:
Saudi Arabia should help - but given they're more interested in funding ISIS, it's not surprising that Syrian refugees are looking elsewhere. The situation at refugee camps in places like Jordan and Lebanon is pretty dire too. I believe we have an obligation to help people who face persecution if they 'go home' - if we send these innocent people back in the knowledge that they will die, be raped, tortured or turned into slaves, we're not much better than the people committing these heinous acts. Everyone should place themselves in their situation, particularly if they have children - you don't trek thousands of miles just to get a few government freebies. These people are unbelievably desperate and will do anything to get away from what is happening to their homelands.
That is so sad, because he has been up to this point the least offensive of the Repub candidates. His response on the refugee program was at least a reasoned response, even though I disagreed with some of it. He was one of the few candidates that didn't sound like an insane lunatic. My mother absolutely hates him, saying there's no difference between him and Hillary. I guess he's proved her wrong now. Even if he's just saying it to go up in the repub polls it's still wrong.
I'm not sure how I feel! I want to help the innocent people who are victims of the war in their home country. However, it is true that there could be some people associated with ISIS sneaking in and it wouldn't be unlikely for them to sieze the opportunity. I believe it's our government's job to protect its own peoples' lives first, so I can see why some government officials are against it. On the other hand.... We should help them.... Wonder if there is a way to do both. It's one of those issues of risk and reward thats hard to balance.
What about a compromise? We "resettle" the (10,000 or so) Syrian refugees we were going to admit into other countries, but give the host country a generous stipend to care for their needs and assimilate them?
I hope you never have to flee your country do to war. OTP: I'm fine with refugees, but I do agree that we should screen them to make sure no one's trying to sneak in. We already have terrorists in the states, ready to attack at ISIS's word. The GOP/conservative have easily used the attack on paris to brainwash more than half our country into rejecting syrian refugee. The hypocrisy is that they'll accept 'christian' ones...as if christians can't be terrorists lol
I'm deeply disappointed in the amount of people who are turning their backs on these refugees in their time of need because they're afraid of a radical coming over with them. Are people forgetting that the worst attacks that have happened in the US in the last five years have been by white Christian extremists, or are we just going to sweep that under the rug? All of this is pure paranoia and it's absurd. If every refugee must prove themselves, then every other person in the US should have to do the same thing--because for all we know, there's another Dylann Roof among us who is ready to shoot up another black church. I'm thankful that my governor is one of the few who is welcoming in refugees, while at least 25 states (could be more now) have turned their backs on them. You know who else we did that to? Jewish people during WW2. Do we really want to repeat the mistake we did back then? I hope not. I'm also not surprised that the majority of the people who are doing this are conservative Christians. I haven't seen so much disgusting hypocrisy in the longest time from religious people (excluding the wack jobs who tried to make it legal for gay people to be killed here). Here is what Jesus said about what makes you a true Christian: And this is what Jesus said about how you should treat foreigners and refugees; which Joseph, Mary, and Jesus were: It's kind of sad (and pathetic) that the people who cry out that they're "true Christians" and they're doing this for their god. How about instead of being hateful (whether or not you want to own up to it) and mistreating others, how about you act more like your Christ (in terms of the peaceful things he tried to promote, since he had some weird ideas).
You also have to realize that most people are driven by their fear. Islamophobia isn't new in the states, after 9/11 muslims were discriminated upon and some even beaten. While I dislike the religion (not that I favor any to say the least) I'm not one to condemn those in need. Still, I do wish Obama would compromise with these states and implement better security to get rid of any potential threat to the U.S (this way he would face less resistance) and I'd choose level headed and logical people than racist/conservative individuals because a vast majority wouldn't care and be bigots. There's nothing wrong with being careful, plus I'd favor this than outright ban of their entry. You should know by now that Christians cherry pick more than they care to admit. They only follow what's convenient for them and will choose what to enforce and what to ignore.
It's better to just take a stance that America does not want any refugees because the vetting process is already long and drawn out.
Christians in Canada are very open to inviting Syrian refugees. In fact, many church groups are sponsoring Syrian families. I'm not saying this to brag, but to point out that it isn't right to paint all Christians with the same brush. See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...h-to-support-syrian-refugees/article26322617/ I agree with you Daydreamer1. It's not at all Christian to turn back the poor, needy and oppressed. For the life of me, I do not understand the far right Christians in the USA. Jesus' teachings on loving your neighbour and even your enemies are very clear.
The US has so much space and an undeniable capacity to take in those refugees. Like Australia and Canada and unlike Austria or Lebanon, the US is just too perfect a place of resettlement in its ability to host refugees. Integration is easier in the US because of the ubiquitousness of the English language and America's enormous population, which lessens the cultural shock of large numbers of refugees. The US has everything but the political will to be a major host country for the current Syrian and growing Iraqi diaspora. This is no time for American exceptionalism. When a smaller, densely populated country like Germany has to take 800,000 refugees in a single hit, you can scarcely refuse to absorb even 10,000. With all due respect, I don't call that a compromise as much as political cowardice.
For a contrast between Canadian Christian vs atheists opinions on refugees, see this from the Globe & Mail published in Sept. Breaking down the Conservative responses along religious lines revealed different levels of support, however. When asked what approach the country should take if similar boatloads of migrants came to Canada’s shores, 48 per cent of practising Christian respondents who supported the Conservative party said Canada should be welcoming, while 35 per cent of non-practising Christians and only 28 per cent of those who said they had no religious identity agreed. The number of supporters of other religions was too small in the sample to be broken down.
I think every country should have to take refugees. I mean Germany for example is taking a lot, but they can't take everyone. Also it's so hard to integrate them in such a short time. So if every single country in Europe + America would take some, they could start to solve the main problem, which is the war and the exploiting by us (think about it, it's actually our fault, so we HAVE TO help). Sure, there's the chance of Terrorists coming into our countries as well, but I think we have to take the risk. That's life, isn't it? Also I guess, that's what the terrorists want. They want us to fear them and by not letting refugees in anymore, we show our fear and they have won.
No country is going to ever take the risk of hundreds of their civilians dying and say "That's life." Countries should take refugees, as much as they can, based on their ability to secure the safety of human life.
I had a Facebook friend post "The liberals want to take in refugees when we have millions of homeless vets starving. If you guys want to let in refugees let them into your homes" So I commented and asked how many homeless veterans he's going to let move in with him and he deleted me. I say let them in.
