Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Maxperson]

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.

The vast majority of those coming over the southern border are unskilled labor. Unskilled labor doesn't pay taxes. They get refunds. Even if you legalized them all, they would pay little into the system and take a lot more than they put in. They'd increase the burden, not relieve it.

 

[Kramodlog]

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.

Trudeau as such beautiful hair.

I kid, so far I have to agree with his stance on refugees and stopping the bombings in Syria.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

Studies are often wrong and/or biased. When a study is cited in a disreputable source like The Hill, I'm not even going to look at it. Extremely biased sources like The Hill, FOX News, and others are a waste of my time in the vast majority of instances and I value my time. Does that mean that I will miss the rare gem of truth in such a source? Sure. That's a risk that I'm willing to take so that I don't waste a portion of my life reading through biased sludge.

If you have that study quoted in a reputable source, though, I'd be happy to look at it.

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.)

Sorry for being unclear. I was talking about the scope of the conflict. In WWII, Germany made it so that you really couldn't go to a neighboring country. Almost all of them were in the conflict.

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.

We don't know whether the lack of attack was because no terrorists have tried, or whether they have succeeded in coming and are sleeping until time. A dozen so far have been caught, so they are succeeding in getting through the system. We don't know the numbers.

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.

Nice Strawman. I wasn't talking about how the 9/11 highjackers got into America. You made the claim that I was being paranoid about a dozen terrorists. My argument was purely about numbers. Less than a dozen terrorists took down the twin towers. That makes numbers that low a serious concern. We don't need for there to be hundreds of terrorists coming into the country via the refugee program in order for it to become a serious and valid concern.

 

[Maxperson]

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

More of your misleading posting. That article included the recession where those illegals left. Since the recession ended, more are coming over than are leaving. While it may still technically be a net loss, it won't be for long and hasn't been a net loss if you look at the last 2-3 years.

 

[El Mahdi]

Stephen Colbert recently had something to say about the Syrian refugee issue...

Plenty of humor of course, but some good points also.

[video=youtube;lkRpAK3OtqQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkRpAK3OtqQ[/video]

 

[Kramodlog]

Since the recession ended, more are coming over than are leaving.

Truthiness to the rescue!

 

[MechaPilot]

The vast majority of those coming over the southern border are unskilled labor. Unskilled labor doesn't pay taxes. They get refunds. Even if you legalized them all, they would pay little into the system and take a lot more than they put in. They'd increase the burden, not relieve it.

That is not correct, for a few reasons.

First, more people creates more demand for certain services: food, housing, utilities, tax return preparation, etc. The businesses that provide those services earn more revenue for themselves, which in turn generates tax revenue.

Secondly, while it is true that most low-income taxpayers get refunds for federal income tax withheld from their checks, they do not get their social security and medicare withholding refunded.

Thirdly, the tax burden of refunds to low-income taxpayers pales in comparison to situations like GE paying no taxes at all, and corporations avoiding taxes by keeping their profits overseas.

Fourthly, many low-income taxpayers who receive refunds are retired persons who are the ones social security and medicare were intended to help in the first place.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

On the validity of the study:

It actually is just one of the latest in a host of scholarly research papers (by him and others) that basically say the same thing.

See the work of Megan Spencer, Daniel J. Milton, Cameron Harris, Kenneth Rogerson Justin Conrad, William Berry and Matt Golder, to name a few, in peer reviewed publications like The Journal of Politics, The Journal of Human Rights, International Interactions, the Journal of Information Technology and Politics, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, etc.

Essentially, keeping the refugees close to Syria is akin to storing your firewood & propane next to your bonfire.

The International Security and Defense Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community recently presented similar data to the Office of the Secretary of Defense in a report by William Young, David Stebbins, Bryan A. Frederick and Omar Al-Shahery.

The paper presents a number of factors increasing the likelihood of refugee radicalization and the spread of open warfare to neighbors countries:

1) several of those countries sponsor terrorist groups or are otherwise engaged in efforts to destabilize their neighbors.

2) the region is the base of operations of numerous terrorist groups who can operate with impunity. With the region's porous borders, jihadists may freely travel to and from battlefields and refugee camps.

3) the resources allocated to help refugees in surrounding countries are already near breaking points, and the demands of supporting those camps are seen as being in conflict with meeting daily needs of their own citizens

Example: Jordan has 6.7M citizens, and they have accepted 670,000 refugees- IOW, @ 1/10th of their population. They don't have adequate resources to clothe, feed, house and- key to this discussion- check out & monitor all of those people. Hizbollah, Iran’s Quds Force and agents of Damascus are known to have carried out attacks in Jordan. They have also tried to radicalize the refugees. With easy access to the refugees, terrorists have large and receptive recruitment pool.

Lebanon, with a population of 4.5M has taken in @1M refugees, face the same issues of jihadist operations, have even fewer resources...and is more politically unstable.

The RAND report thus predicts a high probability of Jordan & Lebanon becoming new fronts in open hostilities if the Syrian crisis isn't resolved soon. At no point in the study do they take seriously the notion that giving "more aid over there" will be a major factor to stem the tide of radicalization. Instead, they conclude:

Policy measures that are focused solely on the effects of the spill- over (such as helping Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan deal with the flow of refugees within their borders) are unlikely to be sufficient—like a doctor treating only the visible symptoms of an infectious disease: The patient and others standing nearby will continue to be at risk.

IOW, that study's assertion is pretty non-controversial stuff; it is the mainstream position in the community of experts and administrators dealing with refugees.

 

[El Mahdi]

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

This is true, especially if you count the sudden drop off due to the recession; but doing so is a bit misleading. However, it's currently about even; contrary to Maxperson's claim.

More of your misleading posting. That article included the recession where those illegals left. Since the recession ended, more are coming over than are leaving. While it may still technically be a net loss, it won't be for long and hasn't been a net loss if you look at the last 2-3 years.

His post is a bit misleading, but yours is entirely incorrect.

If you look at the actual Pew Research data (not just the BBC story), you'll see that the population of unauthorized Mexican immigrants has declined and then stabilized over the last 2-3 years.

2010: 6.2 million
2011: 6.2 million
2012: 5.9 million
2013: 5.6 million
2014: 5.6 million

For the last three years, that's a net loss of about 300,000. For the last two years it's practically dead even.

The overall trend of illegal immigrants from all nationalities is pretty close also.

2009: 11.3 million
2010: 11.4 million
2011: 11.5 million
2012: 11.2 million
2013: 11.3 million
2014: 11.3 million

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/19/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...mmigrant-population-stable-for-half-a-decade/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/

Truthiness to the rescue!

Nope. Not truth. Not rescued.

 

[Maxperson]

First, more people creates more demand for certain services: food, housing, utilities, tax return preparation, etc. The businesses that provide those services earn more revenue for themselves, which in turn generates tax revenue.

Some responses to those statements.

First, that amount of increased taxes won't even make a dent in what is needed for social security to be solvent. Secondly, that money doesn't go towards social security and it never will, so it has no bearing on a discussion about paying for social security.

Secondly, while it is true that most low-income taxpayers get refunds for federal income tax withheld from their checks, they do not get their social security and medicare withholding refunded.

The money withheld from such workers is a pittance and won't even come remotely close to making a difference.

Thirdly, the tax burden of refunds to low-income taxpayers pales in comparison to situations like GE paying no taxes at all, and corporations avoiding taxes by keeping their profits overseas.

This is entirely irrelevant. The taxes that companies like GE avoid paying doesn't go towards social security and never will.

Fourthly, many low-income taxpayers who receive refunds are retired persons who are the ones social security and medicare were intended to help in the first place.

And? Virtually all illegals are low income "taxpayers" and that includes them at all ages.