Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Maxperson]

Granted, that's why the response to WWII and ISIS should vary in scope. However, accepting more refugees is a step up from current policy: it recognizes that ISIS is a real threat to the stability of the region, it focuses on the humanitarian crisis, and it doesn't accelerate us straight to WWIII like ground-invasion would (which, sadly, is a thing that I've seen news clips of people suggesting we should do).

Well, to be fair, a ground invasion wouldn't be anything like WWIII. If it was, we'd be talking about WWVII or something. There have been a lot of ground wars since WWII. I don't support a ground invasion, but neither do I think that ISIS will be taken out by the locals or by air strikes.

 

[Staffan]

They have no business being here. It's not our job to take in everyone fleeing some world crisis. There is always a crisis of some sort somewhere. There are many surrounding countries that should be taking the Syrian refugees in locally so that they can go home when the crisis is over.

Hans Rosling, could you please explain to this person where the Syrian refugees are?
[video=youtube_share;0_QrIapiNOw]http://youtu.be/0_QrIapiNOw[/video]

Statistically, accidental deaths from cars dwarfs the number of deaths from even 9/11, so I guess we should just stop security altogether. It doesn't matter if someone else is a bigger threat, you still need to take care of the small threats when you can.

We shouldn't stop security altogether, but dialing back the mass surveillance state and the immense amount of security theater that has grown up in the Western world over the last 10-15 years would be a very good idea. The idea that I can't bring a coke bottle on a plane because someone once tried and failed to smuggle in explosives that way is ridiculous.

 

[Maxperson]

I'll repost this, since you seem to have missed it:

The farther away you can remove refugees from the conflict they are fleeing, the lower their chance of becoming radicalized. IOW, just looking at the issue through the lens of the goal of reducing odds of particular refugees becoming radicalized, we're better off with helping them here than we are trying to help them there.

The data they're using goes back decades: Arabic refugees from the conflicts between Arab nations and Israel who went into the refugee camps in the adjacent nations (they were not allowed to resettle, but had to remain in the camps) were far more likely to join the litany of anti-Israeli groups than those refugees who resettled in Europe or the USA.

Do you have something from a less biased and more reputable source?

See also US history repeating itself:

Apples and oranges. The scope again makes this a completely different situation.

Certainly they can, but attempting to enter the USA via the refugee process, which takes 18-24 months and subjects you to the highest level of scrutiny is asking to fail. It is literally the path of greatest resistance. They're far more likely to gain entry via our student visa program, our guest worker programs, or the various paths of illegal immigration.

Probably why so few have tried it, but they do try it. A dozen of those how have tried it have been caught. Who knows how many more weren't caught.

That is just paranoid. If I were to follow that kind of logic, I should be demanding the exile of all white people and NRA members.

Less than a dozen took out the twin towers.

 

[Maxperson]

Hans Rosling, could you please explain to this person where the Syrian refugees are?

Then the rest could go to Turkey, Iran or other countries in the area.

We shouldn't stop security altogether, but dialing back the mass surveillance state and the immense amount of security theater that has grown up in the Western world over the last 10-15 years would be a very good idea. The idea that I can't bring a coke bottle on a plane because someone once tried and failed to smuggle in explosives that way is ridiculous.

I agree. Pre-911 levels of security were plenty sufficient. 9/11 didn't happen because security levels weren't good enough. It happened because agencies didn't talk to each other. The info was there. Some changes were warranted, such as no box cutters on planes and adding more air marshals to flights, as well as checking shoes after the shoe bomber thing. Those are minor changes, though. The scanners, which constantly fail tests and have yet to catch anything, the Patriot Act, and the NSA are all over the top and should be gotten rid of entirely or radically changed.

 

[Ryujin]

So in a representatie democracy, should elected officials act according to what the population wants and believes, even if it is wrong, or should they act according to what is true and best? Probably defined by intellectual elites in various areas of expertice.

I can only speak to my own beliefs on this rather than some global, all-encompassing "should." I want to vote for people who are smarter and better informed than am I. I want to elect people who will do the right thing, rather than the popular thing. I want people in charge who can explain to me why my opinion is wrong and make me see the logic of it, when I really am wrong. I want people in charge who can put reality ahead of their partisan views.

Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be how democracy operates.

Yes it is. It's everybody's job. Your country, my country, all the countries. That's what makes us not evil. We help people in need. We give to those less fortunate than ourselves. It is humanity's duty.

The whole world is doing it. Everyone is doing what they can.

Just like during WW2 when people fled the Nazi persecution. That enriched your country, particularly. Not that the benefit is why it should be done.

To have so much and deny it to those is desperate need is wrong.

Unfortunately, prior to WWII, my country and many others did not have a stellar record where harbouring the vulnerable is concerned. We screwed the pooch. Badly. We turned back people who would later die in concentration camps.

We need to be better than that.

There are literally millions of displaced people in camps. Canada is looking at bringing in some 25,000 of them, some of whom have been in those camps for as long as 4 years, but many are worried that this will possibly result in the importation of radicals, who will commit terrorist acts. If they could put 'sleepers' in place and wait that long, with the possibility that such agents could be shipped out anywhere or nowhere, then ISIL is far more capable than any government on the planet. They are not a danger to us. Quite the opposite; they are in danger.

 

[Umbran]

They have no business being here.

Let's just be clear that this argument is a non-starter. Humans are not native to this continent. More historically, the United States was formed in significant part by folks fleeing oppression in Europe. Our borders were filled with folks who desperately needed a better place to go. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," has ever been this nation's modus operandi. They have as much business being here as anyone else.

And, personally - I am the son of refugees. My parents, as children, were given refuge from the Soviets by this nation.

It's not our job to take in everyone fleeing some world crisis.

Nobody is saying you have to take everyone. Just that you should take some.

There is always a crisis of some sort somewhere.

Yep. And, historically, we're always bringing in some - about three-quarters of a million of them in the past 15 years or so.

There are many surrounding countries that should be taking the Syrian refugees in locally so that they can go home when the crisis is over.

You're not up on the news, are you. The surrounding countries are taking them in - and are swamped. Turkey and Greece can't handle any more. And "when the crisis is over" will be years from now, and it has been going for years already. Those people need someplace to actually make a life, not a tent.

You don't think that they plan things years in advance?

The UN only sends a small percentage of the people our way even to be considered. When you only have a 1% chance to even begin a year's long process, that's not a viable plan. If they do plan years ahead, this would be a bad one.

Or that they would try several different avenues to get into the country?

Exactly, and when *every other avenue* is easier, there's no cause to use this one, which is extra hard.

American Conservatives are often fast to say, "Laws won't stop criminals." Usually this is trotted out about guns, but it fits here, too. Refugee status is for getting in law-abiding folks. Terrorists, who are quite willing and able to break the law, just don't need to wait through the process.

Statistically, accidental deaths from cars dwarfs the number of deaths from even 9/11, so I guess we should just stop security altogether.

Most of the "security" enacted since 9/11 is better termed "security theater" - it is a show, and not terribly effective at stopping bad guys, but good at inconveniencing and putting the freedoms of law abiding citizens at risk. Shall we pull out how effective the TSA is at actually stopping people from getting contraband on planes as an example?

It doesn't matter if someone else is a bigger threat, you still need to take care of the small threats when you can.

A few million Syrians left with no real life are a far larger threat - if yo uare worried about radicals, imagine how radical they'll become left in tent cities in the cold and heat with no prospects for years.

 

[Maxperson]

Let's just be clear that this argument is a non-starter. Humans are not native to this continent. More historically, the United States was formed in significant part by folks fleeing oppression in Europe. Our borders were filled with folks who desperately needed a better place to go. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," has ever been this nation's modus operandi. They have as much business being here as anyone else.

We have to set limits. We already have far too many flowing over the southern border.

And, personally - I am the son of refugees. My parents, as children, were given refuge from the Soviets by this nation.

My great grandparents came from Russia after the revolution and subsequent turn towards communism. 7 of them anyway. The last was from Romania. They came through normal legal immigration, though, and not from a country with many people who wanted to come kill us.

You're not up on the news, are you. The surrounding countries are taking them in - and are swamped. Turkey and Greece can't handle any more. And "when the crisis is over" will be years from now, and it has been going for years already. Those people need someplace to actually make a life, not a tent.

There's still Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia

American Conservatives are often fast to say, "Laws won't stop criminals." Usually this is trotted out about guns, but it fits here, too. Refugee status is for getting in law-abiding folks. Terrorists, who are quite willing and able to break the law, just don't need to wait through the process.

Legitimacy is worth a lot. Don't sell it short. They don't.

Most of the "security" enacted since 9/11 is better termed "security theater" - it is a show, and not terribly effective at stopping bad guys, but good at inconveniencing and putting the freedoms of law abiding citizens at risk. Shall we pull out how effective the TSA is at actually stopping people from getting contraband on planes as an example?

That's very different from stopping security measures altogether, so it's not really a response to what I said. I will agree with you about the results of the "security measures" enacted since 9/11, though.

A few million Syrians left with no real life are a far larger threat - if yo uare worried about radicals, imagine how radical they'll become left in tent cities in the cold and heat with no prospects for years.

Why would they radicalize against the U.S.? We didn't do it to them and they know it.

 

[MechaPilot]

We have to set limits. We already have far too many flowing over the southern border.

Depends on how you define too many. Part of the reason that Social Security is at risk is because the current generation of taxpayers doesn't have enough numbers to support the retiring generation. More immigrants could actually be a potential fix for social security.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Do you have something from a less biased and more reputable source?

What, more reputable than a peer reviewed study by Univerity professors & PhD candidates? You're probably not going to find one.
http://www.michael-findley.com/files/theme/mike_cv.pdf

Or is your response here a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that said research is cited by The Hill?

Apples and oranges. The scope again makes this a completely different situation.

It seems to me the scope is identical- taking in 10,000 refugees (and only after many months of investigation). That is all that has been proposed by the executive branch. (Some in the legislative branches have bandied larger numbers about.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/w...ion-to-accept-10000-syrian-refugees.html?_r=0

Welcoming numbers larger than that have been trotted out by Catholic Bishops and Evangelical leaders, though:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/17/politics/catholics-evangelicals-refugees/

Probably why so few have tried it, but they do try it. A dozen of those how have tried it have been caught. Who knows how many more weren't caught.

Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman entered the USA IN 1990.
Mir Aimal Kansi murdered two CIA employees in 1993
Ramzi Yousef, was sentenced to death for masterminding the first attack on the World Trade Center.

All three DID enter the USA via our asylum-seeking/refugee program while their cases were pending...pre-9/11. Since then, the regs have gotten tighter- including preventing asylum seekers/refugees in other countries from entering the USA out of the country until their process is completed. As noted, the refugee vetting process can take as long as 2 years, and no major terrorist operation involving a refugee has occurred since.

Less than a dozen took out the twin towers.

Talk about apples and oranges- the WTC bombers were not refugees.. Every last one of the September 11 hijackers entered the country using nonimmigrant visas (also called temporary visas), which follow completely different, lesser investigative standards.

 

[Kramodlog]

We have to set limits. We already have far too many flowing over the southern border.

Actually, more are leaving than entering. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34874315