Well, ISIS isn’t helping.
Cite.
Regards,
Shodan
Those people are not “fleeing ISIS” either. As before, they are getting the hell out of a war zone:
Just move on.
Sure. Assad and not ISIS is mostly responsible for the refugee crisis.
Indeed. Assad started this war. Assad has killed more Syrians than anyone. It is incredible to me that some Americans want to ally with him, or to include him in an attempted “peace” plan. There will be no peace in (the former) Syria as long as Assad involved, nor should be.
Well, sure, it’s great if they CHOOSE to return, but I am a descendant of refugees, and while the Irish in the family might have wanted to return neither the German nor the Russians in my family had any desire to go back “home” - Don’t know what German grandpa’s beef was (he died before I was born, and apparently wasn’t willing to talk about it anyway) but the Russian side of the family was very, very clear on the notion they would rather be in America than anywhere else in the world.
There seems to be an assumption that most of them will, after escaping war and living years abroad, want to go back. I’m not sure that will always be the case and I can’t help but think in some cases it may be wishful thinking that “those people” would just go away.
And you seem to assume they don’t want to return because your grandpa had a beef with the Kaiser or something. According to that U.N. link I gave you, the majority of refugees they deal with would prefer to go home if possible.
More that my other grandparents had a beef with the Tsar, followed later by a beef with the Bolsheviks.
I’ve known a few refugees who split their time between the US and their country of origin, rather than moving back to one place.
Just don’t think we should make too many assumptions about folks - we should ask them what they prefer, as individuals.
From the article:
“The think-tank found that 4% expressed a positive opinion of the Islamic State (ISIS) and another 9% expressed a “somewhat positive” opinion of the terrorist group. Another 10% only view the group negatively “to some extent.””
Let’s see those questions before saying they “support ISIS.”
Well, sure, and the guy who shot up a school in Connecticut was a child of a single mother.
I’m NOT convinced there’s additional security risk here, no. Terrorists are usually homegrown and home-radicalized, and when they need importing good old-fashioned methods like “buy an airplane ticket and say you’re a tourist” work just fine, as in the case of 9/11.
Sending terrorists as refugees strikes me as a stupid way of exporting terrorism, actually. It’s far less reliable a way of getting the terrorists to their targets than just flying Lufthansa or recruiting local “talent.”
I agree. What is happening in Syria a humanitarian crisis on an epic scale. Everything you do in life has some risks to it, and you have to weigh the risk/benefit. The risk seems rather low and the upside is huge. Retreating inside our shell when confronted with challenges should not be the American way.
Voluntary repatriation, in safety and dignity, is the preferred “durable solutions.” It’s the only one that can accommodate extremely large groups of people, and it provides the most stability and least disruption for everyone.
The problem, of course, is that you can only be repatriated safely to someplace that is safe, and that’s unlikely to happen for some time.
So the other two options for a durable solution are local integration, and resettlement to a third country. Resettlement is and always will be a limited solutions, which only accommodates a small number of refugees. Local integration is likewise a tough sell.
Which leaves the non-solution: permanent refugee camps. This is the worst option of all, and leads to infinite problems for everyone.
There is no good answer to a major, long lasting refugee crisis. But there are definitely bad answers.
So while you are not wrong, the proper seeking resettlement are often different than the people looking for repatriation.
I agree with this generally. I think the reason people tend to downplay obvious data points like the increased risk of immigrants from the middle east and Syria is an insecurity. That if they allow that point to take hold in their mind it will undermine their larger desire to shelter the larger number of decent Syrians that need genuine help.
But that does not follow, people need to learn to be more flexible with their arguments, do a better job self analyzing exactly WHY they are for or against something, and ask whether their being for something would change if it was true what their opposition said about x or y was correct?
If it would not change their outlook, then clearly there is something other/deeper motivating them, and they need to ask why that is a higher value to them.
I’ve listened to conservative talk radio today in the US, and the host was going on and on about it being silly to take in Syria refugees, maybe some Christians, but no one else. Someone called him out on it by repeating Obamas charge of it being a religious test. His deflection was to say that privileging Christian Syrians was not about religion, but focusing on a group that is in greater danger in the region. Curiously he left out secular Syrians, who presumably not even having the thin aegis of being considered people of the book are even MORE at risk than Christians. It’s obvious that is not what’s really motivating him or others, some greater triage of concern over giving preferential treatment to more marginalized groups, it is PRIMARILY a function of being more afraid of muslims. I just wish people would stop lying or engaging in self deception, trying to white wash their own views. Just come out and say they are worried about large populations of muslims coming over and turning this country into the same sorts of sh*tholes that infest the middle east with the rampant dark age ideas.
I agree with them that there is a reason to be worried, but at the end of the day, my desire to shelter the decent outweighs my fears for personal safety… but even I would not go so far as to letting any and everyone come over. I’m willing to take in some, but not an unlimited number.
The people opposing Syrian refugees also often act like there is no screening whatsoever when in fact Syrians under more strenuous screening than almost anyone else.
As hard as it is to get in already, I don’t think we need to make it even harder.
Well, lets recap. Who is causing the unrest in the world? Who are the terrorist? Who wants to push the delete button on the United States as well as most of the western world? It’s not the Methodist, or the Catholics. It’s not even the atheists. Why would we be stupid enough to import more of them? If they are not direct terrorists, they can very well be sympathizers among them.
When Muslims immigrate to non-Muslim countries, it almost always ends badly. Muslims used to do pretty well in the US because only the best-educated and hardest-working ones came here, but when we started taking Somalis and others who weren’t so highly filtered, things went to hell.
There’s lots of open space in rich ME oil sheikdoms. When those countries have taken in their fill of their co-religionists, then maybe we can think about accepting our share.
Some questions for those who want to halt the flow of Syrian refugees.
Suppose it was the nineteen-thirties. What would be your policy towards Jewish refugees fleeing Germany?
Would you say they should stay in Germany and accept whatever the Nazis do to them? Would you say they’re only using Nazi persecution as an excuse to come to America for jobs? Would you say other countries should take them? Would you turn away Jewish refugees because some of them might be secret Nazi agents sneaking in among the crowd? Would you say that we’re a Christian nation and non-Christians won’t fit in? Would you say that Jews and Nazis are all Germans, so why should we distinguish between them?
You sure wouldn’t want these terrorists running loose:
tbf, there were Nazi concentration camps in the 30s. I doubt many believed it could actually happen.
However, we all know about Assad’s genocide, and even his tactics: the public, western politicians and obv. Syrians.
FTR, that’s exactly what the US did, historically.
There was also a common fear that Jews all had ties to anarchists/radical socialists and would do their level best to disrupt US society as part of a global plot to bring about [del]the Caliphate[/del]Marxist revolution, instigate strikes, throw bombs…
I’m not sayin’, I’m just sayin’.
FFS, this stupid keyboard. Should read: