Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

accepting refugees


Just_Seeking

Recommended Posts

Would it be wrong of the United States of America to only accept women and children? For starters the men should have that mentality anyway. The men should also be willing to die for there country.

Also most terrorist attacks have been done by males.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Just_Seeking said:

Would it be wrong of the United States of America to only accept women and children? For starters the men should have that mentality anyway. The men should also be willing to die for there country.

Also most terrorist attacks have been done by males.

why should only men be willing to die for their country? Why shouldn't families become refugees? Why should you split up families?

just playing devil's avocado.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lord Fedorable said:

why should only men be willing to die for their country? Why shouldn't families become refugees? Why should you split up families?

just playing devil's avocado.

We can accept the men, only after they undergo a painful series of gender reassignment surgeries, hormonal treatments and training in classical 'merican tartness.

I for one constantly lament at the dangerously low levels of Muslim transvestites that live in my nation and wish for the greater cultural enrichment offered by their presence.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Lord Fedorable said:

why should only men be willing to die for their country? Why shouldn't families become refugees? Why should you split up families?

just playing devil's avocado.

To be fair, the vast majority of the men won't be coming with a family if the refugees statistics are anything like Europe's.  A lot of 18-50 aged men will be claiming they're minors though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, aztek said:

lets not hurt anyone's feelings, lets refuse entry to all.

This is the correct answer.  

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They must be seriously vetted. Brennan says that they likely are infiltrated by ISIS members. What does he know since he's just the head of the CIA? One wonders why some politicians care nothing about safety and security.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a novel idea... how about America and Russia call a cease fire and ALL refugees return home and the issue goes away?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Silver_Lyre said:

Here's a novel idea... how about America and Russia call a cease fire and ALL refugees return home and the issue goes away?

No, it would not. Would you want to live in a war zone?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We shouldn't accept any refugees from third world countries that are terrorist hotbeds, they can't be vetted.  Not worth American lives to find out which ones are safe and which ones are going to try to blow us up.  Even most Americans against this yet Obama does it anyway.  Help them but in their own country.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/22/dhs-memo-admits-refugee-fraud-easy-commit/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/20/poll-74-voters-reject-obamas-middle-east-refugee-plan/

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ashotep said:

We shouldn't accept any refugees from third world countries that are terrorist hotbeds, they can't be vetted.  Not worth American lives to find out which ones are safe and which ones are going to try to blow us up.  Even most Americans against this yet Obama does it anyway.  Help them but in their own country.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/22/dhs-memo-admits-refugee-fraud-easy-commit/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/20/poll-74-voters-reject-obamas-middle-east-refugee-plan/

But, but, but....we're too stupid, bigoted and ignorant to know what's truly good for us....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, skliss said:

But, but, but....we're too stupid, bigoted and ignorant to know what's truly good for us....

So they think.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skliss said:

But, but, but....we're too stupid, bigoted and ignorant to know what's truly good for us....

We'll see just how stupid the "deplorables" are when we lose the grid. The "elite" will beg them for help.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

They must be seriously vetted. Brennan says that they likely are infiltrated by ISIS members. What does he know since he's just the head of the CIA? One wonders why some politicians care nothing about safety and security.

But how do you seriously vet people? There will be no foolproof method to weed out those with a socio-political agenda against their host country.

I believe there is a genuine humanitarian motive to support the admission of refugees. But politicians ignore the wishes of the people at their peril. Cameron in the UK is the prime example of this. It drove the Brits to reject Europe, and will drive the rest of Europe and America into voting in far right politicians who many of them wouldn't really want to see in power.

The other side of this is that most recent acts that could be termed terrorism have been carried out by people who were already citizens of the country they attacked. And most of them were known to authorities and should have sent up the flags. Tightening the net, so fewer of them slip through would go some way to reducing the damage they do.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ninjadude said:

No, it would not. Would you want to live in a war zone?

...if there is no more fighting then it isn't a war zone. Point is that if the country was divided into safe zones everyone could start to rebuild their lives in their own nation. You think its better for these people to live in refugee camps on some Greek Island?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Arbenol said:

But how do you seriously vet people? There will be no foolproof method to weed out those with a socio-political agenda against their host country.

I believe there is a genuine humanitarian motive to support the admission of refugees. But politicians ignore the wishes of the people at their peril. Cameron in the UK is the prime example of this. It drove the Brits to reject Europe, and will drive the rest of Europe and America into voting in far right politicians who many of them wouldn't really want to see in power.

The other side of this is that most recent acts that could be termed terrorism have been carried out by people who were already citizens of the country they attacked. And most of them were known to authorities and should have sent up the flags. Tightening the net, so fewer of them slip through would go some way to reducing the damage they do.

It can be done. If it can't be done, it might be wise to limit entry to women and children. That may sound harsh, but I believe in self defense based on common sense. Look at the dismal situation in Europe.

As a rule, I support humanitarian efforts in which victims of conflicts and wars are allowed to come here on a fast track. This is the exception to that rule. My country comes first. I don't care if our horrible president does not share my sentiment.

It's true that there are domestic terrorists here. Most or some of them have concrete or emotional links to groups in other countries. Why make a bad situation worse by bringing in more of the same? The events in Europe show why we must draw a line in the sand.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/23/2016 at 5:46 PM, Paranormal Panther said:

It can be done. If it can't be done, it might be wise to limit entry to women and children. That may sound harsh, but I believe in self defense based on common sense. Look at the dismal situation in Europe.

As a rule, I support humanitarian efforts in which victims of conflicts and wars are allowed to come here on a fast track. This is the exception to that rule. My country comes first. I don't care if our horrible president does not share my sentiment.

It's true that there are domestic terrorists here. Most or some of them have concrete or emotional links to groups in other countries. Why make a bad situation worse by bringing in more of the same? The events in Europe show why we must draw a line in the sand.

I agree with most of what you said but women support terrorism as well and push their views off on kids.  I think we should stop taking any refugees.  Can't vet them.  Can't expect terrorists to admit they are on the questionnaire and you can't rely on government records or their papers.  I don't think we should go for bringing them here temporarily either.  There is no such thing as a temporary refugee in a country where your children will be given citizenship upon birth.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a nation we rely on charitable donations through dedicated walks and races to raise money to fight disease.  We fund educational field trips through bake sales and car washes.  We depend on Goodwill and other charities to help our veterans.  Yet we can spend millions from the federal coffers to bring in thousands of refugees, many of whom openly profess to hate us and who have a recent history of violence and social disruption in countries that have taken them in.  Since taking in refugees is in itself a charitable act I think we should reverse our priorities in the above situations.  We owe it to ourselves to fight disease.  A healthy country is a strong country.  If our students benefit from field trips we should send them.  We owe our veterans more than we can repay.  We must erase the words "homeless veterans" from our language.  Let our tax dollars go for these worthy causes.  Then let's bring in as many refugees as we can fund through bakes sales.  Let's hold 5 k races to benefit Syrians.  When Goodwill has sold enough old toasters and VCRs to bring in another family, bring them in.  But until we can do it right we shouldn't do anything at all.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ashotep said:

I agree with most of what you said but women support terrorism as well and push their views off on kids.  I think we should stop taking any refugees.  Can't vet them.  Can't expect terrorists to admit they are on the questionnaire and you can't rely on government records or their papers.  I don't think we should go for bringing them here temporarily either.  There is no such thing as a temporary refugee in a country where your children will be given citizenship upon birth.

I get your point about women. It's quite valid, and I go back and forth on it. My heart says that they should be allowed to come here, but my mind says that they shouldn't. Our Middle Eastern allies (cough, cough) should be forced to take more of them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Big Jim said:

As a nation we rely on charitable donations through dedicated walks and races to raise money to fight disease.  We fund educational field trips through bake sales and car washes.  We depend on Goodwill and other charities to help our veterans.  Yet we can spend millions from the federal coffers to bring in thousands of refugees, many of whom openly profess to hate us and who have a recent history of violence and social disruption in countries that have taken them in.  Since taking in refugees is in itself a charitable act I think we should reverse our priorities in the above situations.  We owe it to ourselves to fight disease.  A healthy country is a strong country.  If our students benefit from field trips we should send them.  We owe our veterans more than we can repay.  We must erase the words "homeless veterans" from our language.  Let our tax dollars go for these worthy causes.  Then let's bring in as many refugees as we can fund through bakes sales.  Let's hold 5 k races to benefit Syrians.  When Goodwill has sold enough old toasters and VCRs to bring in another family, bring them in.  But until we can do it right we shouldn't do anything at all.

We spend billions on these refugees every year, not only to organizations that resettle them but for incarceration, welfare, education, housing and medical.  Illegals too yet we can't take care of our citizens that are homeless, some of which are vets, and are pretty much refugees in their own country.  We have elderly that have to chose between food, medicine and heat which shouldn't be happening.

Quote

The financial backers of the rally include most of the big political players in the lucrative refugee resettlement industry, where government funded “voluntary agencies” [VOLAGs] receive more than $1 billion from taxpayers annually to resettle on average 70,000 refugees each year in the United States.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/16/refugee-resettlement-industrys-propaganda-campaign-accelerates-with-d-c-rally/
 

Quote

 

The data, released by Senator Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), adds that these, “refugees have instant access to federal welfare and entitlements, along with local benefits and education services; these costs are not offset.”

 

 

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/25/680000-green-cards-given-immigrants-muslim-countries/

Edited by Ashotep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

I get your point about women. It's quite valid, and I go back and forth on it. My heart says that they should be allowed to come here, but my mind says that they shouldn't. Our Middle Eastern allies (cough, cough) should be forced to take more of them.

I know what you mean, its hard not to feel sorry for them and want to help but sometimes you have think with your head and not your heart.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2016 at 5:17 PM, Just_Seeking said:

Would it be wrong of the United States of America to only accept women and children?

Not at all.  But that should include the sick and helpless as well, regardless of age or sex.

Quote

For starters the men should have that mentality anyway. The men should also be willing to die for there country.

The men should be there trying to fix their problems, instead of fleeing, I agree.  Not all of them are capable of that, however, and I accept that.  However, fleeing to better places just because they're either too scared to do what's right back home or are taking advantage of another country's hospitality is wrong.  Those should be turned back....shipped back to their place of origin and unceremoniously dumped on the beaches with a parting "good luck, have fun".

However, blocking them all, regardless of age or sex or intention, is the safest rout to take for a potential host country.  Any refugees allowed in must be vetted, especially coming from areas of radical islamist terrorist infestations, but if that's not possible (for whatever reason) then perhaps all should just blocked outright.  The safety of one's own country and citizens should always come before the welfare of others.

Edited by Thorvir Hrothgaard
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand this from either side.  It makes no sense for us to take in potential undercover enemies, at great financial and social expense.  But from the refugees side, why would a desert living people want to be resettled in places where the climate is not to their liking?  No matter which way you look at it there is a clash, Economically, culturally, and religion and climate.  It would seem to be much better for all involved to resettle them in another desert country, among their own kind where their religion is the law.  Unless the goal is to destabilize the US and the refugees are mere pawns.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

I don't understand this from either side.  It makes no sense for us to take in potential undercover enemies, at great financial and social expense.  But from the refugees side, why would a desert living people want to be resettled in places where the climate is not to their liking?  No matter which way you look at it there is a clash, Economically, culturally, and religion and climate.  It would seem to be much better for all involved to resettle them in another desert country, among their own kind where their religion is the law.  Unless the goal is to destabilize the US and the refugees are mere pawns.

Their own kind?  It's not like they are District 9 aliens.  It's not like they have to have a specific climate to live in.

It makes sense to me.  We give Syrian rebels guns and weaponry, tell them to fight Assad, and then make sure their families are someplace that won't get barrel bombed. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.