French - let immigrants int your homes

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

This is not "Sharia law". This is an ignorant person's idea of Sharia law. It is the sort of thing a person learns on a website called "www.billionbibles.org". There is no one thing that can be called "Sharia law." There are nearly as many ideas of what "Sharia law" is as there are Muslims. Wherever Sharia is observed, it is observed differently. Moreover, why would people who are fleeing radical Islamic groups want to implement extreme and corrupted versions of Sharia anyway? That is what they are fleeing.

What are those many ideas? How is it observerd differently? Why would a family in a patriarchal society want to change when the law favors the man? They are fleeing because they have nothing left due to the war and the economy is in shambles

In most countries in which some form of "Sharia law" is observed, it is only in matters of personal status such as marriage and divorce. Moreover, in most cases, the laws are said to be "drawn from Sharia" or "based on Sharia" or something somewhat vague in that manner. They simply can't "implement Sharia" because there is no agreement about what actually constitutes "Sharia".

The US has historically been a patriarchal society. Why did we change? Syria and Iraq have been two of the most advanced Arab countries where women's rights are concerned. Unfortunately, one legacy of the US invasion of Iraq was a tremendous setback of those rights. Certainly most in those countries have a significantly different view of the role of women than ISIS which draws its ideas from the Wahhabis of the Gulf rather than the locally-observed traditions.

Do you deny that women are treated as second hand citizens in traditional Muslim communities that follow viewpoints such as those above, and that boys are subject to being raised with warped views of the treatment of women like their own sisters or wive, which in itself constitutes abuse? Even in Pakistan a brother just honor killed his blogger sister, 'the Kim Kardashian of Pakistan' for bringing 'shame' on the family with her popular posts. Do you, host of this site, deny this widespread toxic mistreatment?

I deny that you can make blanket statements about millions of people. Of course some Muslims are raised with abhorrent views towards women. Some are raised with views that are different than mine, but still defensible, and some are raised with views very similar to mine. Several Muslim countries have been led by women, while in America we are only on the verge of such an achievement. Interestingly, American Muslims -- this group that you seem to suspect sees women as second class citizens -- is almost entirely supporting a woman for President.

[Anonymous]

Yes, Benazir Bhutto ran Pakistan. So what? However in the overwhelmingly Muslim country many parts are not friendly to women or minorities today and the courts and political system and family structure and sharia councils have a long way to go towards ensuring fair, respectful and healthy treatment. Its not just who runs it, its how its run. Bad example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that the vast majority are single men, not families. I personally would not take that risk.

So you take in a family with a father and son and expect them not to act like single men when they are coming from a patriarchal society hmm

That's the point. They I've w backward culture that isn't compatible with liberalized western values

This is such BS and I am really tired of seeing it repeated ad nauseam. Are you suggesting that Khizr Khan has a backward culture that isn't compatible with liberalized western values?

Jeff, I generally agree with you on Middle Eastern issues, but comparing Khzir Khan's beliefs to that of a Syrian refugee is not ideal. Khan and his wife -- like many Pakistanis and Indians of their generation --- made a decision to be educated in their countries so that would be more attractive as emigres to the US. Khan is a lawyer and may hold some traditional Islamic values but he is very westernized. I suspect the Khan's children are like the typical second generation Pakistanis and Indians who post on DCUM about the same first world concerns as Americans whose families have been here for a few more generations.

I believe what you are saying is that Khan does not fit the stereotype of a "culturally backwards" Muslim. If so, you are correct about that. However, it is similarly wrong to suggest that Syrian refugees fit that stereotype simply by virtue of being refugees. Educated and progressive people also become refugees. There are doctors and lawyers among the refugees. There are women who are university graduates. It is impossible to make blanket statements about the cultural values held by these individuals and certainly wrong to allege that none of them have values compatible with US society.

You sound like a person who never been at the Syrian refugee camp and who get all his information from mass media.

And they'll be driving taxis and doing menial labor here lime my grandparents, because they e brought nothing with them, they get a very small stipend for one year, and those degrees do not transfer at all. Who will be providing medical services when Syria rebuilds pray tell? The largest group of refugees in modern times is on the march and the plan is for the west to permanently absorb them all? A poor plan.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, Benazir Bhutto ran Pakistan. So what? However in the overwhelmingly Muslim country many parts are not friendly to women or minorities today and the courts and political system and family structure and sharia councils have a long way to go towards ensuring fair, respectful and healthy treatment. Its not just who runs it, its how its run. Bad example.

Pakistan is not the only example. I'm not arguing that Muslims countries are perfect -- most have many problems beyond the treatment of women -- but a lot more than religion is to blame. However, it is simply wrong to make universal statements about women being oppressed by Islam.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:And they'll be driving taxis and doing menial labor here lime my grandparents, because they e brought nothing with them, they get a very small stipend for one year, and those degrees do not transfer at all. Who will be providing medical services when Syria rebuilds pray tell? The largest group of refugees in modern times is on the march and the plan is for the west to permanently absorb them all? A poor plan.

Well, yes, our entire involvement in the Middle East has been one giant poor plan. People flee from warfare. That has been true from time immemorial. Sadly, I don't see Syria rebuilding anytime soon. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is systematically destroying Yemen. Soon, we will be shocked by Yemeni refugees, but how many will connect the US arms sales approved this week to those future migrants? Yes, we are left with the results of a poor plan and our choices of how to address it are a series of poor options. If there were true justice in this world, those being asked to house refugees would not be those who support accepting refugees, but those who benefit from arms sales and military action. Let the CEOs of arms manufacturers house the refugees using the profits gained from helping create the refugees in the first place.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that the vast majority are single men, not families. I personally would not take that risk.

So you take in a family with a father and son and expect them not to act like single men when they are coming from a patriarchal society hmm

That's the point. They I've w backward culture that isn't compatible with liberalized western values

This is such BS and I am really tired of seeing it repeated ad nauseam. Are you suggesting that Khizr Khan has a backward culture that isn't compatible with liberalized western values?

Jeff, I generally agree with you on Middle Eastern issues, but comparing Khzir Khan's beliefs to that of a Syrian refugee is not ideal. Khan and his wife -- like many Pakistanis and Indians of their generation --- made a decision to be educated in their countries so that would be more attractive as emigres to the US. Khan is a lawyer and may hold some traditional Islamic values but he is very westernized. I suspect the Khan's children are like the typical second generation Pakistanis and Indians who post on DCUM about the same first world concerns as Americans whose families have been here for a few more generations.

I believe what you are saying is that Khan does not fit the stereotype of a "culturally backwards" Muslim. If so, you are correct about that. However, it is similarly wrong to suggest that Syrian refugees fit that stereotype simply by virtue of being refugees. Educated and progressive people also become refugees. There are doctors and lawyers among the refugees. There are women who are university graduates. It is impossible to make blanket statements about the cultural values held by these individuals and certainly wrong to allege that none of them have values compatible with US society.

No I am not saying that Mr. Khan fits the stereotype of a "culturally backwards" Muslim. I don't stereotype people, partcularly Muslims, because I lived in Muslim countries and know the many variations of people who are followers of Islam. My point is that the Khans made a decision to come to the States and understood they would likely adapt some aspects of western culture that the would not have followed had they remained in Pakistan. The Syrian refugees are being forced from their country by a civil war and did not necessarily want to come to the west or adapt to our culture. I understand the educational levels of the Syrians I knew in Damascus, so I do not think the refugees are backward or uneducated in western culture and values. In fact, a large number of them had a least some of their education in the west. However, not all of the Syrians are ready to adapt the culture being forced on them by their relocation to the west.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that the vast majority are single men, not families. I personally would not take that risk.

So you take in a family with a father and son and expect them not to act like single men when they are coming from a patriarchal society hmm

That's the point. They I've w backward culture that isn't compatible with liberalized western values

This is such BS and I am really tired of seeing it repeated ad nauseam. Are you suggesting that Khizr Khan has a backward culture that isn't compatible with liberalized western values?

Jeff, I generally agree with you on Middle Eastern issues, but comparing Khzir Khan's beliefs to that of a Syrian refugee is not ideal. Khan and his wife -- like many Pakistanis and Indians of their generation --- made a decision to be educated in their countries so that would be more attractive as emigres to the US. Khan is a lawyer and may hold some traditional Islamic values but he is very westernized. I suspect the Khan's children are like the typical second generation Pakistanis and Indians who post on DCUM about the same first world concerns as Americans whose families have been here for a few more generations.

I believe what you are saying is that Khan does not fit the stereotype of a "culturally backwards" Muslim. If so, you are correct about that. However, it is similarly wrong to suggest that Syrian refugees fit that stereotype simply by virtue of being refugees. Educated and progressive people also become refugees. There are doctors and lawyers among the refugees. There are women who are university graduates. It is impossible to make blanket statements about the cultural values held by these individuals and certainly wrong to allege that none of them have values compatible with US society.

No I am not saying that Mr. Khan fits the stereotype of a "culturally backwards" Muslim. I don't stereotype people, partcularly Muslims, because I lived in Muslim countries and know the many variations of people who are followers of Islam. My point is that the Khans made a decision to come to the States and understood they would likely adapt some aspects of western culture that the would not have followed had they remained in Pakistan. The Syrian refugees are being forced from their country by a civil war and did not necessarily want to come to the west or adapt to our culture. I understand the educational levels of the Syrians I knew in Damascus, so I do not think the refugees are backward or uneducated in western culture and values. In fact, a large number of them had a least some of their education in the west. However, not all of the Syrians are ready to adapt the culture being forced on them by their relocation to the west.

Yes, I agree completely. That is more or less the same argument that I've been making but from another side. Some here seem to believe that none of the refugees are ready to adopt our culture. As you say, that is not true. But, I agree with you that it is similarly not true that all of them are. However, we don't plan to accept all of them and part of a successful relocation program would involve filtering out those who aren't and finding a more appropriate options for them.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen to the pps above
Can't we all admit it's a grey area? It's not black and white. One side is trying to depict many of us as unfeeling monsters.
But the grey area is that we don't know certainly that all we are bringing in to the west are OK. All but a few are in need of help. I feel for them. If it were black and white, I'd say bring as many as we can.
Many Americans want to protect what we have. Let's help them get re-settled, but not inside US borders.

We have this same conversation over and over. The US has helped create the refugee problem by supplying weapons to those involved in fighting and participating in the fighting itself. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to help resolve it. We cannot expect other countries to accept refugees if we refuse. That is the price of leadership and the price of our foreign wars. The refugees that we are considering brining to the US have been in camps for years. There are plenty of them, allowing us to select only those who can be vetted.

No ISIS terrorist is going to sit around in a camp for years hoping to be selected to come to the US. The go to Europe because it does not require waiting in a camp. Comparing the situation in Europe to the situation in the US is apples and oranges.

You can claim not to see things in black and white as many times as you wish, but if your only solution is to not accept refugees, that is a black and white solution. There are plenty of compromise between no refugees and open doors.

Incorrect, he said until we can figure out who is coming in.

By the ^PPs own words, we can't figure out who is coming. Will we ever? So, the "until" would be when? Never?

Until a systems is in place. Can't argue a counter factual.

There is already a system in place. We vet ALL immigrants and refugees.

No we don't, when the DHS, FBI and such were asked, they said they don't have a system.

“We can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database til the cows come home, but … there’ll be nothing show up, because we have no record on that person,” - James Comey.

“You can only query what you’ve collected,”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93hud8EVpDU

What do you mean they don't have a system. Of course they have a system. Comey is saying that he can't guarantee that the system is perfect. Here is a very good overview of the vetting process written by a conservative source:

http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2015/12/how-the-refugee-vetting-process-works

Note that Comey only speaks for the FBI which is only one of several agencies involved in vetting.

No vetting system can be guaranteed to be perfect. Nobody is making that argument. But, the threat is not near the level that it is being made out to be.

So it sounds to me, that you are wiling to accept rapes and deaths of our own citizens as collateral damage?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen to the pps above
Can't we all admit it's a grey area? It's not black and white. One side is trying to depict many of us as unfeeling monsters.
But the grey area is that we don't know certainly that all we are bringing in to the west are OK. All but a few are in need of help. I feel for them. If it were black and white, I'd say bring as many as we can.
Many Americans want to protect what we have. Let's help them get re-settled, but not inside US borders.

We have this same conversation over and over. The US has helped create the refugee problem by supplying weapons to those involved in fighting and participating in the fighting itself. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to help resolve it. We cannot expect other countries to accept refugees if we refuse. That is the price of leadership and the price of our foreign wars. The refugees that we are considering brining to the US have been in camps for years. There are plenty of them, allowing us to select only those who can be vetted.

No ISIS terrorist is going to sit around in a camp for years hoping to be selected to come to the US. The go to Europe because it does not require waiting in a camp. Comparing the situation in Europe to the situation in the US is apples and oranges.

You can claim not to see things in black and white as many times as you wish, but if your only solution is to not accept refugees, that is a black and white solution. There are plenty of compromise between no refugees and open doors.

No, we do not have a moral obligation to sacrifice our own citizens to help others. We simply don't. I find it interesting that the Nazarene Fund has had tremendous success resettling Christian refugees, who have not caused one ounce of trouble in the areas where they are resettled, yet there are many documented issues with Muslim refugees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^why are you listing sharia laws? They will never be implemented here. You are paranoid.

I don't think its being paranoid. As their numbers increase, so will their power. In the name of being politically correct, we will continue to make it easier and easier for them to live here without having to integrate into society. The US will become a country with no identity. As it is now, I i live in a community that is primarily Hispanic and the people my age do not speak English. We are cordial and say hello, but we don't hang out due to the language barrier. My sister lives in an area with many Muslims. Similar issue - no sense of community since they are not interested in deeper relationships with those outside of their faith. The kids do not play with the other kids in the neighborhood and frankly my sister is happy for that - she is very uncomfortable when large groups of them walk through the neighborhood dressed in their clothing. You can't help but stare and wonder what's going on.
I don't know why people are afraid to agree that sometimes, integration does not work!

The bolded is 100% correct. At some point, if this continues, we will not have a choice.

I understand your sister's point. I felt very uncomfortable in Tysons Corner mall the other day for the same reasons, and was frankly glad I had forgotten to put on my Star of David.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mother lived in a refugee camp for her first 5+ years. When it was clear her home country was not stabilized/safe, she was properly processed with her family into the US for which we are ever grateful. I am not sure why people think the situation in Syria cannot be turned around and people go home to their farms and businesses. Camps can be orderly, well run places with grocery stores, community events, schools, etc. Is it ideal? No. Should it be permanent like the Burmese in Thailand? No. But most of these people are economic refugees, much like the illegal immigrants who come to the US for economic purposes. Pakistanis, Afghans, etc. unless they are fleeing a specific threat--ie they are from a minority religious group being targeted--should stay and invest in the countries. People from true conflict zones should be in protected no-fly camps until they can return home and rebuild. The true travesty is that the refugee camps for Syrians appear to be far safer/more stable than the UN "protected' camps in Africa. Why not opening homes to South Sudanese etc?
The solution is not open borders. It is safe haven camps that are truly protected, and political and economic and military investment in stabilizing the regions so people can return home to their cultures, communities and livlihoods.

Do you think the Syrian refugee camps are like this? They are not. Plus, they don't see the Syrian conflict getting resolved anytime soon. All you have to do is read the news. You cannot be this naive. ISIS is all over Syria.

There are UN soldiers who have raped women and children in refugee camps. Those camps are not safe. You are very naive.

So, you think they should wait it out in the camps? If I were in their shoes, especially with young kids, I wouldn't wait it out. I would want a chance for my kids.

Your mother lived in a refugee camp and then immigrated to the US, but you are saying these people shouldn't be able to immigrate like your mother did. Why not?

No, they shouldn't. She was in a camp for FIVE years and her parents always LONGED to go back. Their lives were utter crap in the US - hard work, died young. Some.of the second generation did better - some flailed and failed (do you know the toxic behaviors in the east coast ghettos in which they lived? Alcoholism. Abject poverty. Abuse. The camps should have far better support in both Syria and south Sudan, rather than your rose colored glasses of open the doors to a 1st world country without providing long term integration support (a measly one year by volunteers is what people here get) and tackling the issues that caused people to flee because you in your elite NW DC castle think everything is here is perfecto. Of course as a second generation American I love this country, and of course I think my family contributed, and I know I myself wouldn't be here had events not transpired as they did. But I'll tell you, had my grandma been able to return to her farm, piano teaching and books instead of life as a cleaning woman in the US cleaning up your grandparents office trash I'm betting she would have been very fulfilled.

All you 'do-gooders' need to listen to the above PP. Her posts speak volumes. It's not ABOUT YOU. It's about quality of life for refugees based on what THEY desire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen to the pps above
Can't we all admit it's a grey area? It's not black and white. One side is trying to depict many of us as unfeeling monsters.
But the grey area is that we don't know certainly that all we are bringing in to the west are OK. All but a few are in need of help. I feel for them. If it were black and white, I'd say bring as many as we can.
Many Americans want to protect what we have. Let's help them get re-settled, but not inside US borders.

We have this same conversation over and over. The US has helped create the refugee problem by supplying weapons to those involved in fighting and participating in the fighting itself. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to help resolve it. We cannot expect other countries to accept refugees if we refuse. That is the price of leadership and the price of our foreign wars. The refugees that we are considering brining to the US have been in camps for years. There are plenty of them, allowing us to select only those who can be vetted.

No ISIS terrorist is going to sit around in a camp for years hoping to be selected to come to the US. The go to Europe because it does not require waiting in a camp. Comparing the situation in Europe to the situation in the US is apples and oranges.

You can claim not to see things in black and white as many times as you wish, but if your only solution is to not accept refugees, that is a black and white solution. There are plenty of compromise between no refugees and open doors.

No, we do not have a moral obligation to sacrifice our own citizens to help others. We simply don't. I find it interesting that the Nazarene Fund has had tremendous success resettling Christian refugees, who have not caused one ounce of trouble in the areas where they are resettled, yet there are many documented issues with Muslim refugees.

volume, pure and simple. How many Christian refugees are there vs. how many Muslim ones, and not just from Syria. A couple of hundred vs (by some estimates) reaching a million. The fund has about $10mil. That's a lot of money per refugee.

Also, in the midst of all the refugees from the ME, there are mixed in there true economic migrants from places like Pakistan.

I find it interesting that you mention Christian and refugee in the same sentence, too. You know part of Christian teachings is to help people in need, and not just those that have the same faith or color of skin that you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mother lived in a refugee camp for her first 5+ years. When it was clear her home country was not stabilized/safe, she was properly processed with her family into the US for which we are ever grateful. I am not sure why people think the situation in Syria cannot be turned around and people go home to their farms and businesses. Camps can be orderly, well run places with grocery stores, community events, schools, etc. Is it ideal? No. Should it be permanent like the Burmese in Thailand? No. But most of these people are economic refugees, much like the illegal immigrants who come to the US for economic purposes. Pakistanis, Afghans, etc. unless they are fleeing a specific threat--ie they are from a minority religious group being targeted--should stay and invest in the countries. People from true conflict zones should be in protected no-fly camps until they can return home and rebuild. The true travesty is that the refugee camps for Syrians appear to be far safer/more stable than the UN "protected' camps in Africa. Why not opening homes to South Sudanese etc?
The solution is not open borders. It is safe haven camps that are truly protected, and political and economic and military investment in stabilizing the regions so people can return home to their cultures, communities and livlihoods.

Do you think the Syrian refugee camps are like this? They are not. Plus, they don't see the Syrian conflict getting resolved anytime soon. All you have to do is read the news. You cannot be this naive. ISIS is all over Syria.

There are UN soldiers who have raped women and children in refugee camps. Those camps are not safe. You are very naive.

So, you think they should wait it out in the camps? If I were in their shoes, especially with young kids, I wouldn't wait it out. I would want a chance for my kids.

Your mother lived in a refugee camp and then immigrated to the US, but you are saying these people shouldn't be able to immigrate like your mother did. Why not?

No, they shouldn't. She was in a camp for FIVE years and her parents always LONGED to go back. Their lives were utter crap in the US - hard work, died young. Some.of the second generation did better - some flailed and failed (do you know the toxic behaviors in the east coast ghettos in which they lived? Alcoholism. Abject poverty. Abuse. The camps should have far better support in both Syria and south Sudan, rather than your rose colored glasses of open the doors to a 1st world country without providing long term integration support (a measly one year by volunteers is what people here get) and tackling the issues that caused people to flee because you in your elite NW DC castle think everything is here is perfecto. Of course as a second generation American I love this country, and of course I think my family contributed, and I know I myself wouldn't be here had events not transpired as they did. But I'll tell you, had my grandma been able to return to her farm, piano teaching and books instead of life as a cleaning woman in the US cleaning up your grandparents office trash I'm betting she would have been very fulfilled.

All you 'do-gooders' need to listen to the above PP. Her posts speak volumes. It's not ABOUT YOU. It's about quality of life for refugees based on what THEY desire.

And you think the refugees desire to be fleeing their countries? You think they would have a great quality of life in a refugee camp?

So, the PP knows that refugee camps are horrible, yet she thinks refugees should still be forced to live there because her mother and grandmother did?

You PP know nothing about me. We are immigrants. My parents worked menial, back breaking jobs. I don't see the world through rose colored glasses because I know what it's like to be dirt poor. My parents didn't speak the language, and us kids were very young. They had a hard life, but you know what, they don't regret coming here *at all* because their lives and our lives here are ultimately better than what our lives would've been from where they left.

That PP's grandparent longed to go back. That's fine for her. \So we shouldn't accept refugees because she thinks their lives here would be utter crap .. compared to what? A refugee camp? You have to be kidding. That PP is a hypocrite for saying it was fine for her parents to be accepted here as refugees, even if it is temporary, but we shouldn't accept others. HYPOCRITE!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen to the pps above
Can't we all admit it's a grey area? It's not black and white. One side is trying to depict many of us as unfeeling monsters.
But the grey area is that we don't know certainly that all we are bringing in to the west are OK. All but a few are in need of help. I feel for them. If it were black and white, I'd say bring as many as we can.
Many Americans want to protect what we have. Let's help them get re-settled, but not inside US borders.

We have this same conversation over and over. The US has helped create the refugee problem by supplying weapons to those involved in fighting and participating in the fighting itself. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to help resolve it. We cannot expect other countries to accept refugees if we refuse. That is the price of leadership and the price of our foreign wars. The refugees that we are considering brining to the US have been in camps for years. There are plenty of them, allowing us to select only those who can be vetted.

No ISIS terrorist is going to sit around in a camp for years hoping to be selected to come to the US. The go to Europe because it does not require waiting in a camp. Comparing the situation in Europe to the situation in the US is apples and oranges.

You can claim not to see things in black and white as many times as you wish, but if your only solution is to not accept refugees, that is a black and white solution. There are plenty of compromise between no refugees and open doors.

No, we do not have a moral obligation to sacrifice our own citizens to help others. We simply don't. I find it interesting that the Nazarene Fund has had tremendous success resettling Christian refugees, who have not caused one ounce of trouble in the areas where they are resettled, yet there are many documented issues with Muslim refugees.

volume, pure and simple. How many Christian refugees are there vs. how many Muslim ones, and not just from Syria. A couple of hundred vs (by some estimates) reaching a million. The fund has about $10mil. That's a lot of money per refugee.

Also, in the midst of all the refugees from the ME, there are mixed in there true economic migrants from places like Pakistan.

I find it interesting that you mention Christian and refugee in the same sentence, too. You know part of Christian teachings is to help people in need, and not just those that have the same faith or color of skin that you do.

10 million raised by private citizens and every dollar being put to good use. Vetting folks, negotiating with foreign governments. See how private charity works? While our government focuses only on Muslims, and ignore Christians, private individuals are stepping up and moving mountains for Christians. And doing it 10x better than government does.

If you believe every one of those Muslims are true refugees and not mixed with opportunists and terrorists, I have a bridge to sell you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mother lived in a refugee camp for her first 5+ years. When it was clear her home country was not stabilized/safe, she was properly processed with her family into the US for which we are ever grateful. I am not sure why people think the situation in Syria cannot be turned around and people go home to their farms and businesses. Camps can be orderly, well run places with grocery stores, community events, schools, etc. Is it ideal? No. Should it be permanent like the Burmese in Thailand? No. But most of these people are economic refugees, much like the illegal immigrants who come to the US for economic purposes. Pakistanis, Afghans, etc. unless they are fleeing a specific threat--ie they are from a minority religious group being targeted--should stay and invest in the countries. People from true conflict zones should be in protected no-fly camps until they can return home and rebuild. The true travesty is that the refugee camps for Syrians appear to be far safer/more stable than the UN "protected' camps in Africa. Why not opening homes to South Sudanese etc?
The solution is not open borders. It is safe haven camps that are truly protected, and political and economic and military investment in stabilizing the regions so people can return home to their cultures, communities and livlihoods.

Do you think the Syrian refugee camps are like this? They are not. Plus, they don't see the Syrian conflict getting resolved anytime soon. All you have to do is read the news. You cannot be this naive. ISIS is all over Syria.

There are UN soldiers who have raped women and children in refugee camps. Those camps are not safe. You are very naive.

So, you think they should wait it out in the camps? If I were in their shoes, especially with young kids, I wouldn't wait it out. I would want a chance for my kids.

Your mother lived in a refugee camp and then immigrated to the US, but you are saying these people shouldn't be able to immigrate like your mother did. Why not?

No, they shouldn't. She was in a camp for FIVE years and her parents always LONGED to go back. Their lives were utter crap in the US - hard work, died young. Some.of the second generation did better - some flailed and failed (do you know the toxic behaviors in the east coast ghettos in which they lived? Alcoholism. Abject poverty. Abuse. The camps should have far better support in both Syria and south Sudan, rather than your rose colored glasses of open the doors to a 1st world country without providing long term integration support (a measly one year by volunteers is what people here get) and tackling the issues that caused people to flee because you in your elite NW DC castle think everything is here is perfecto. Of course as a second generation American I love this country, and of course I think my family contributed, and I know I myself wouldn't be here had events not transpired as they did. But I'll tell you, had my grandma been able to return to her farm, piano teaching and books instead of life as a cleaning woman in the US cleaning up your grandparents office trash I'm betting she would have been very fulfilled.

All you 'do-gooders' need to listen to the above PP. Her posts speak volumes. It's not ABOUT YOU. It's about quality of life for refugees based on what THEY desire.

And you think the refugees desire to be fleeing their countries? You think they would have a great quality of life in a refugee camp?

So, the PP knows that refugee camps are horrible, yet she thinks refugees should still be forced to live there because her mother and grandmother did?

You PP know nothing about me. We are immigrants. My parents worked menial, back breaking jobs. I don't see the world through rose colored glasses because I know what it's like to be dirt poor. My parents didn't speak the language, and us kids were very young. They had a hard life, but you know what, they don't regret coming here *at all* because their lives and our lives here are ultimately better than what our lives would've been from where they left.

That PP's grandparent longed to go back. That's fine for her. \So we shouldn't accept refugees because she thinks their lives here would be utter crap .. compared to what? A refugee camp? You have to be kidding. That PP is a hypocrite for saying it was fine for her parents to be accepted here as refugees, even if it is temporary, but we shouldn't accept others. HYPOCRITE!

Again, it's not just about YOU. It's about what the individual refugee wants.