So, you admit that they haven’t done anything yet, but you are absolutely certain that they are going to, because…?
See, I feel like there should be a thunder crash or at least a scare chord at the end there. But all I hear’s a sad trombone.
And yet they have done nothing. Kinda pokes a hole in your argument.
Are you at all aware that followers of ISIS apparently consider any muslim who has not pledged allegiance to them to be an apostate?
Or a record scratch.
I never said I was certain. No one can be certain even the ones who offer up the US.
And you know what Timothy Veigh, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Hitler all had in common? Christianity. Maybe we should prevent Christians from immigrating.
Muslims are not bad-SF clones. They are not all alike. You’re condemning the whole orchard because of a very few bad apples.
I know but I think we should do more. In regards to those translators still in Afghanistan and Iraq waiting for this process, I tell the U.S to freaking get the phuck on it! My God admit them in already!
Also another reason we should bring in refugees is that ISIS is better off recruiting nationals in Europe. More so when a national of one EU nation(Belgium) can easily cross into another(France). Much easier for terrorists than relying on Syrian refugees.
Syrian youth are far more likely to be radicalized in a refugee camp, where they have nothing to do and insufficient basic necessities, where radical elements have easy access and they can see that the West is doing nothing to help resolve situation than they are in an American high school.
Count me in with agreeing with you and Up-the-Junction in that Assad is a major problem in all this. Too bad many fail to see all this because they are only focused on ISIS. Ultimately Assad himself will find that despite Western nations and Russia going after ISIS, he will come to the bitter realization that no amount alliance with any outside force will defeat the rebellion against his rule.
Yip. It’s one of the most clear cut cases I’ve seen. There’s not even a religious counterargument. Even the libertarian position is that we should accept refugees.
And I do not agree that the risk will noticeably increase. People seem to think that we just accept them without vetting them, when we have a process that can take quite a while. And, once they get here, it’s not like we’ll stop watching.
There has not been a single case of the U.S. accepting refugees who then went on to commit an act of terror. And we’ve accepted refugees for quite a long time. This isn’t our first rodeo.
Of course we should. There is zero benefit to the USA for accepting Syrian “refugees.” American immigration policy should be designed to benefit Americans, not people from other countries.
You realize that immigration policy is different than refugee policy?
Funny, that’s what they said about the Irish too. And the Italians. Oh, and the Poles, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Cubans, the Jews…
Turns out it’s cheap workforce, small business owners and taxpayers all the way down.
Loose the scare quotes.
And stop ignoring the fact that, aside from the tiny minority of surviving Natives, everyone in America is, originally, “people from other countries”.
Not to mention thousands of Belgians and Frenchmen - the very people who shot up Paris !
I don’t believe “they” said it nearly as much as cultural leftists are constantly asserting, but to the extent that “they” did, they were basically right.
I’ve always wondered why Native Americans get a pass from leftists on the accusation that one isn’t really “from” here if one has ancestors who were not from here. We’re told that Native Americans’ ancestors migrated from Asia around 15,000 years ago, so I guess they are, originally, “people from other countries” too. Or is there some magic reason why 15,000 years “counts,” but 250 years doesn’t?
They’re “from here” because they were the first here. Hence the term “First Nations” heard up north of the US.
Of course, this sort of ignores the fact that the history of North America has had plenty of instances of one group displacing another - the exact group at any one point when the Europeans arrived may or may not have been truly the first group there.
Basically, the Natives are assumed to have moved into empty territory, not displaced other people.
If you want to exclude moving into virgin territory, then everyone in the two Americans, Australia, Asia, and Europe are also “from other countries” - basically from Africa, which is the native home of the human race.
I’m not the one who wants to exclude that. That would be leftists, who want to delegitimize white America.
Our scare quotes will blot out the sun.
Then we shall debate in the shade.