Right, because the organization that within the past couple weeks has blown up a passenger jet, engaged in the deadliest bombings Beirut has seen in many years, and killed hundreds in Paris…will be quiet for the next year. ORLY?
I’m one of those “lefty Bernie Sanders” supporters and I fanatically and militantly believe in the absolute extermination of the so-called Islamic State and that it is as necessary as the destruction of the Third Reich and Imperial Japan. I applaud the fact that Hollande and Valls have responded to the bloody attacks on Paris with republican zeal worthy of the defence of the nation in the Wars of the Revolution. Nonetheless, I find it absurd that the masculine portion of the refugee population should be denied entry on the basis of a infinitsimal security risk. The United States with a population of some 300 million and a far better track record of assimilating aliens than the Euros should be taking in vastly more people then they are now-reasonably on the order of a 250,000-500,000 in the spaceof a few years.
In other words, your argument is another form of bigotry. You really think you can win over the populace by discriminating against men?
And all for pure theatrics, since you’re actually proposing to make things more dangerous by reducing background checks, since your bigotry leads you to believe that women can’t be terrorists. We accept women, and ISIS really did want to use refugees to attack us, then obviously ISIS would use women. (Not that ISIS is currently using refugees at all–that’s the whole point.) Or even children! So there’s no way we could be any more lax.
The Democrats already have their winning talking point. All they have to do is point out that not accepting the refugees is letting ISIS win. Hell, I’m already pushing for tolerance of Muslims based on not letting ISIS win, and getting some headway.
And what you fail to understand is that, if we did live in a world where your sexism is the only way the Democrats can win, then it’s better for them to lose. Bigotry is not something you can change your mind on because it’s not convenient, any more than you can rape or murder because it’s convenient.
Of course, I don’t think so poorly of the American people to think that a majority are all bigots. Only the most conservative of my friends say “no refugees.” Every moderate-to-liberal person I know says otherwise. And I live in the fucking Bible Belt in fucking Arkansas.
And you want to lose people? Go bigoted, and have at least one candidate from a different party stay unbigotted. You’d lose my vote in a heartbeat, even if that guy was a Republican.
If people are getting freaked out, this is because people are idiots. On any given day, you are at far greater risk of being killed in a traffic accident or shot during commission of a crime, than you are of being killed in a terrorist attack. It would seem that males are responsible for a majority of these events.
Clearly, the only solution is to ban access by males to guns and vehicles.
That’s adorable that you think this is a winning talking point. How about “Don’t worry about what the FBI director says, it’s all good and we Democrats know better.” That’ll get 'em stampeding to the polls to vote for us. :rolleyes:
“Governor Stevenson, all thinking people are for you!”
“That’s not enough. I need a majority.”
One of the main reasons I am ardently against nominating Bernie Sanders, even though I agree with him the most on policy, is that I do want that majority. And the same principle (or some of you might call it unprincipled) applies here.
But again: is the FBI director an idiot?* And how is it not suicidal politically to campaign on that platform?
*For that matter, is it really tenable to claim that NPR’s political correspondents are idiots?
Argument from authority much?
I’m not sure who you think this is supposed to appeal to. Conservatives aren’t going to believe anything that comes from a federal official appointed by Obama, and liberals aren’t going to change their mind about admitting refugees just because a federal bureaucrat has concerns about the screening process.
Don’t worry, Sanders isn’t going to win anyways so its best for individuals to support him in order 1) to push Clinton in a more economically populist direction and 2) to build a new populist political coalition based on “bread and butter” issues not cultural ones.
OK. People need to first stop comparing the Syrian plight to the Jews. The Jews were targeted in the late 1930s solely on account of their ethnoreligious grouping (ethnoreligious being the correct term to describe Jews, as being Jewish is an ethicity AND a religion). That is not the case of Muslim Syrians. It is only the case with Yazidis (also an ethnoreligion) and Kurds (a marginalized ethnic group who practices Islam but gets along with America and Israel). The comparison is insulting to the Jews, whose world population was cut by a third and European population cut by 70%. The Arab Muslim population (Syrians, Iraqi, Saudi etc. “Arabs” all consider themselves Arab and not based on their nation-states) has not been subject to such a fate. Only the Yazidis and Kurds risk such a fate. Only they should be let in.
Second: the fact is even if most or all of the refugees don’t like ISIS (not likely), there is a high chance many of these refugees hold views incompatible with the American way of life. How do so many liberals manage to be OK with Islam as a religion (not talking individuals who happy to practice it), even tho its way more conservative in culture than the conservative Christians they complain about in terms of current practice? This coming from a Democrat. Maybe a future former Democrat, but for now, kinda like a Ron Paul Repub: with my party on domestic issues, sharply moving away on foreign policy/worldview. Why should America expose itself to such a danger?
Opinion polls before Paris showed Americans broadly against it to the point where it had to cross party lines. If the next polls that come out show even stronger opposition, then HRC will have to change her tune, which I hope she does (and on “Islamic terror” as a term too, tho I’m happy she did use “jihadist” and “Islamism”), but then most Democratic governors will be out of touch with America.
I know Democrats are mad about the Iraq War. Its time to fucking get over it, and ditch the MoveOn.org/Michael Moore crowd’s view of the world and return to Scoop Jackson, JFK, and even Bill Clinton’s.
That is EXACTLY why Muslim Syrians are being targeted: because of their ethnicity and their religion.
And Slacker, your proposal is asinine. You’re correct that the FBI Director has said screening protocols may be insufficient. Why you cite his comments in support of your proposal to gut these protocols is completely unclear.
Of course women can be terrorist–have you not been paying attention? Tearing families apart is a fabulous way to remove the support systems that reinforce people against recruitment by death-cults like DAESH. How soon after your proposal do you think we’d see the first female suicide bomber in the US?
But of course it won’t happen, because it’s politically tone-deaf, satisfies nobody, and is foolish on its face. So no worries! 
This is ironic, because you are describing two groups of irrational people, and my answer is “it’s supposed to appeal to the rational people”, which you earlier (I believe) claimed were the ones who would not have any issues with the resettlement program.
This is what I (and Sam Harris, and Bill Maher, and clearly you as well) have been wondering for some time. It’s bizarre and frustrating to be sure.
Who are they afraid of? The refugees aren’t here yet.
I mean, why are they changing their behavior now?
Actually, over a thousand of them *are *here. I’d add that (as the refugee-backers would no doubt be happy to cosign) it is quite possible for ISIS to strike here without fake refugees, as they are good at making converts via social media.
So should we have stopped student visas for Muslim men after 9/11? You know, just for electoral politics?
So–discriminate by religion & gender to create bitter groups of male Muslim refugees barred from the US, separated from their families. And women & children, allowed in but without the support of their husbands, fathers & sons. (When dies a Muslim boy become a Muslim man–16, 18?) Yes, women can be terrorists.
Tell the FBI to get better at their jobs & stop whining.
Your concern for the future of the Democratic party is truly touching.
People often respond emotionally and irrationally … whether they are a “thinking person” or an idiot.
Vetting of refugees cannot be 100%. No question. Good yes, lots more secure than not having an ocean in the way, yes, but 100% no. And 100% vetting cannot provide the safety we desire.
The craven politicking of such a position would provide no security and would do so at great cost both to the victims of this war looking to escape and to our own ability to prosecute the war.
“Triangulating” by arguing to put only Japanese males in internment camps during WW2 would have made more sense as this version includes sending them to Japan to choose between death or joining the military against us instead.
You may have missed something in your cite the first time you perused it.
You want to know what’s incompatible with the American way of life? Turning away war refugees out of unfounded fears, that’s what’s incompatible with the American way of life. But you hold that unamerican view, and we’re not kicking you out. See how that works?
So where are the predominantly Muslim countries that are taking in Christians with open arms? Not the ones on the eastern Mediterranean where they have been living since Christianity was founded. I mean Muslim countries that were basically 0% Christian until not long ago, but have now settled a significant number of Christians and are fine with them building churches and so on. IOW why is it a one way street?
Also, I can’t believe I didn’t shine more of a spotlight on the ludicrous spin that the FBI Director is just some bureaucrat who knows nothing about counterterrorism or vetting people. The FBI DIRECTOR. Pffffft.
It’s not an unfounded fear. Even Mother Jones, not a conservative site, agrees.
From your link, Mother Jones just says we shouldn’t be mocking conservatives – MJ says we should take in refugees with tight screening.