French - let immigrants int your homes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And they want to leave their war torn countries and not live in a refugee wants... duh.

[jsteele]

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

Really? Do you really mean that? The individual refugees want to get out of camps, they want to get out of their worn-torn homeland. Are you now willing to a accept individual refugees that want to come to the US? That is a radical change in your position.

I assume that the PP's mother could have stayed in the camp in which she lived for 5 years. Or, she could have returned to the country from which she fled, but she wanted to come to the US instead. Why should would deny that opportunity to those who now share the fate her mother once had is difficult to understand.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I did state that there are economic refugees from places like Pakistan. And, these people are vetted, despite what you may think. Europe's vetting process can determine who is a Pakistani economic refugee vs one from Syria escaping starvation and war. They do send the economic refugees back. I think you missed that part in the news.

[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!

Forgot to mention... I don't live in NW DC either. Oh, and I'm actually not a liberal, used to be Republican, and I am a Christian. That must just blow your mind.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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.

Where are we allowed to ask people to adopt our culture? The only countries I have heard doing this are France (Burka / Burkini ban), some parts of Germany (education classes) and I think Sweden (video on nude sunbathing shown to immigrants). If we did any of these there would be a hue and outcry. A well known politician recently got slammed for suggesting folks who want sharia should not move here. How, pray tell, do you propose this culture litmus test which I am totally fine with but does not sound anything like the identity politics America we now lie in where students in the UC system are allowed to advertise for only "POC' roomates. Doesn't seem anyone is interesting in adopting anyone's culture these days. It's a free for all and lots of people willing to defend people's individual 'rights' over the general welfare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Forgot to mention... I don't live in NW DC either. Oh, and I'm actually not a liberal, used to be Republican, and I am a Christian. That must just blow your mind.

My grandparents were not immediately accepted--they lived in a camp for many, many years. The camp was well run. The women and children came first after a long time in the camp . The grandfather (male) came after. They would have all gone back had the opportunity existed. Yes, I think that we should first try to stabilize Syria and its best hope is having a population that abhors ISIS and Assad go back to resettle once that has been resolved. Once people are here, we all know they are not going back. You keep calling me a hypocrite which I find fascinating because I keep telling you my grandparents did not want to come here. Most true political refugees would much rather live safely in their homeland and would give anything to invest themselves in it. Which is more cost effective--resettling every refugee in the West with proper vetting and support or no fly zones, proper well run camps and encouraging a home grown solution to the problems they are fleeing. Additionally, can the West absorb every person who wants to come here? How is this picking and choosing fair??

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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

Really? Do you really mean that? The individual refugees want to get out of camps, they want to get out of their worn-torn homeland. Are you now willing to a accept individual refugees that want to come to the US? That is a radical change in your position.

I assume that the PP's mother could have stayed in the camp in which she lived for 5 years. Or, she could have returned to the country from which she fled, but she wanted to come to the US instead. Why should would deny that opportunity to those who now share the fate her mother once had is difficult to understand.

I am not writing that off. It seems a bit early to just write off Syria to the garbage dump of history as a land of no return. My grandparents (and the world) waited around a lot longer and finally came as refugees when the camps closed and the country was firmly established as a place of no return. I have nothing against refugees and I am aware there are worthy political refugees from across the entire world and we have a process for this. However, a whole population fleeing a conflict zone is hopefully a temporary situation. It was a very well established country and it is sad to see people like you giving up on it, instead of driving a political/military process that will get these people back to their homes/farms/livlihoods which I guarantee they would prefer.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I did state that there are economic refugees from places like Pakistan. And, these people are vetted, despite what you may think. Europe's vetting process can determine who is a Pakistani economic refugee vs one from Syria escaping starvation and war. They do send the economic refugees back. I think you missed that part in the news.

I'm guessing you all are supporting "economic refugees" from Mexico, but not from Pakistan? If I ask one thing, it's look at your positions and be consistent. Then think all the way through the ramifications and consequences.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I did state that there are economic refugees from places like Pakistan. And, these people are vetted, despite what you may think. Europe's vetting process can determine who is a Pakistani economic refugee vs one from Syria escaping starvation and war. They do send the economic refugees back. I think you missed that part in the news.

I'm guessing you all are supporting "economic refugees" from Mexico, but not from Pakistan? If I ask one thing, it's look at your positions and be consistent. Then think all the way through the ramifications and consequences.

No, I'm not. I'm wholly against illegal immigration. Fact is, we have our own citizens in need - feed, clothe, and help them first.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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

Really? Do you really mean that? The individual refugees want to get out of camps, they want to get out of their worn-torn homeland. Are you now willing to a accept individual refugees that want to come to the US? That is a radical change in your position.

I assume that the PP's mother could have stayed in the camp in which she lived for 5 years. Or, she could have returned to the country from which she fled, but she wanted to come to the US instead. Why should would deny that opportunity to those who now share the fate her mother once had is difficult to understand.

I was responding to the PP, not to you. Restore my thread, and we can have a discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Forgot to mention... I don't live in NW DC either. Oh, and I'm actually not a liberal, used to be Republican, and I am a Christian. That must just blow your mind.

My grandparents were not immediately accepted--they lived in a camp for many, many years. The camp was well run. The women and children came first after a long time in the camp . The grandfather (male) came after. They would have all gone back had the opportunity existed. Yes, I think that we should first try to stabilize Syria and its best hope is having a population that abhors ISIS and Assad go back to resettle once that has been resolved. Once people are here, we all know they are not going back. You keep calling me a hypocrite which I find fascinating because I keep telling you my grandparents did not want to come here. Most true political refugees would much rather live safely in their homeland and would give anything to invest themselves in it. Which is more cost effective--resettling every refugee in the West with proper vetting and support or no fly zones, proper well run camps and encouraging a home grown solution to the problems they are fleeing. Additionally, can the West absorb every person who wants to come here? How is this picking and choosing fair??

I'm very confused. First you painted a "rosy" picture of a camp.. with shops, and everything; then you stated how horrible it was with diseases, etc... and now you state how well run these camps were. Regardless, however "well run" the camp was your grandparents obviously didn't stay there. Why didn't they just stay there until they could go back? Why did they eventually come into the US if they didn't want to come?

Your grandparents wanted to go back but obviously couldn't so they lived in the camp for 5 yrs and then came here. How many lived in that camp? The size of the number of refugees right now coming out of the ME is staggering. It's nothing like the world has ever seen. Where do you suppose we put all these people in camps? You sound completely naive here. Do you watch the news? The US, Russia and the Syrian gov't are fighting not only each other but ISIS there as well. It's a freakin mess over there. You make it sound like the West could just snap there fingers and make Syria manageable. You must be taking a page out of the Trump's Foreign Policy playbook - snap my fingers and they'll do what I tell them to do.

You think they all want to live in a camp for years until their homeland is settled? I'm sure none of them wanted their homes bombed. Of course people would rather go back home if they could. Your grandparents didn't want to come here but eventually ended up settling here because they obviously couldn't go back even after five years. So yes, you are hypocrite for saying that we shouldn't let refugees in here even though your grandparents were let in eventually, regardless of the fact they wanted to stay in the US or not.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I am not writing that off. It seems a bit early to just write off Syria to the garbage dump of history as a land of no return. My grandparents (and the world) waited around a lot longer and finally came as refugees when the camps closed and the country was firmly established as a place of no return. I have nothing against refugees and I am aware there are worthy political refugees from across the entire world and we have a process for this. However, a whole population fleeing a conflict zone is hopefully a temporary situation. It was a very well established country and it is sad to see people like you giving up on it, instead of driving a political/military process that will get these people back to their homes/farms/livlihoods which I guarantee they would prefer.

I feel like you may not be well-informed about the situation in Syria. The war has already been going longer than five years. It shows no sign of stopping. It is a war with essentially three, if not four, major sides. Internal factions have support from the US, the Gulf Arabs, and Russia. Funding and weapons are not a problem. Both Russia and NATO are directly involved in the fighting. I would love to see peace prevail and I agree whole-heartedly that refugees would like nothing better than to return to peace and prosperity in their own country. But, as your own family's experience demonstrate, things don't always work out that way. There is little indication that it will happen in Syria.

I fully support a reconciliation process leading to a situation that allows for the refugees to return. I am not sure what I can do to "drive" that as you suggest. At the moment, I can't even vote for my own Senator or Representative, let alone set our Middle East policy. But, while we wait for peace to return to Syria, we can't really abandon our role in the world by closing our doors to refugees. We didn't do that for your grandparents and we shouldn't do that now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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

Really? Do you really mean that? The individual refugees want to get out of camps, they want to get out of their worn-torn homeland. Are you now willing to a accept individual refugees that want to come to the US? That is a radical change in your position.

I assume that the PP's mother could have stayed in the camp in which she lived for 5 years. Or, she could have returned to the country from which she fled, but she wanted to come to the US instead. Why should would deny that opportunity to those who now share the fate her mother once had is difficult to understand.

I was responding to the PP, not to you. Restore my thread, and we can have a discussion.

? Are you the PP with the refugee grandparents? Your posts are very confusing.

Are you saying that refugees should do what they want to do? If they don't want to go west as refugees that they shouldn't be forced to? That we should instead build a refugee camp somewhere (though, where that would be is a big question), manage it so that it is well run, while at the same time fix the mess that is Syria right now? No one is forcing these people to come here. Are you suggesting we are?

There are syrian refugee camps, but the volume of refugees is staggering.

https://www.mercycorps.org/articles/iraq-jordan-lebanon-syria-turkey/quick-facts-what-you-need-know-about-syria-crisis

"Syria’s civil war is the worst humanitarian crisis of our time. Half the country’s pre-war population — more than 11 million people — have been killed or forced to flee their homes.

Families are struggling to survive inside Syria, or make a new home in neighboring countries. Others are risking their lives on the way to Europe, hoping to find acceptance and opportunity. And harsh winters and hot summers make life as a refugee even more difficult. At times, the effects of the conflict can seem overwhelming.

But one fact is simple: millions of Syrians need our help. According to the U.N., it will take $7.7 billion to meet the urgent needs of the most vulnerable Syrians in 2016."

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Where are we allowed to ask people to adopt our culture? The only countries I have heard doing this are France (Burka / Burkini ban), some parts of Germany (education classes) and I think Sweden (video on nude sunbathing shown to immigrants). If we did any of these there would be a hue and outcry. A well known politician recently got slammed for suggesting folks who want sharia should not move here. How, pray tell, do you propose this culture litmus test which I am totally fine with but does not sound anything like the identity politics America we now lie in where students in the UC system are allowed to advertise for only "POC' roomates. Doesn't seem anyone is interesting in adopting anyone's culture these days. It's a free for all and lots of people willing to defend people's individual 'rights' over the general welfare.

I am not sure what is so complicated or revolutionary about what I said. There are hundreds of thousands of refugees. We plan to accept 10,000 at this point. All of those whom we might potentially accept have to go through a multi-staged process that includes interviews with specialists who have been given culturally-relevant training. Exponentially more are being weeded out than are being accepted. These specialists can, and probably do, consider a candidate's ability to adjust to life in the US as one of the factors in weighing approval. If a man shows up with four wives for instance, things are obviously not going to work out for him in the US. He should be redirected elsewhere while someone more compatible with our society can be considered instead. That is an extreme example, but the same sort of thinking is probably at work already, or at least should be, when it comes to selecting the refugee that come to the US. Everyone should want the refugees to succeed and such a limited number will be allowed to come here, we shouldn't select those who have no interest in becoming part of the fabric of our nation.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not writing that off. It seems a bit early to just write off Syria to the garbage dump of history as a land of no return. My grandparents (and the world) waited around a lot longer and finally came as refugees when the camps closed and the country was firmly established as a place of no return. I have nothing against refugees and I am aware there are worthy political refugees from across the entire world and we have a process for this. However, a whole population fleeing a conflict zone is hopefully a temporary situation. It was a very well established country and it is sad to see people like you giving up on it, instead of driving a political/military process that will get these people back to their homes/farms/livlihoods which I guarantee they would prefer.

I feel like you may not be well-informed about the situation in Syria. The war has already been going longer than five years. It shows no sign of stopping. It is a war with essentially three, if not four, major sides. Internal factions have support from the US, the Gulf Arabs, and Russia. Funding and weapons are not a problem. Both Russia and NATO are directly involved in the fighting. I would love to see peace prevail and I agree whole-heartedly that refugees would like nothing better than to return to peace and prosperity in their own country. But, as your own family's experience demonstrate, things don't always work out that way. There is little indication that it will happen in Syria.

I fully support a reconciliation process leading to a situation that allows for the refugees to return. I am not sure what I can do to "drive" that as you suggest. At the moment, I can't even vote for my own Senator or Representative, let alone set our Middle East policy. But, while we wait for peace to return to Syria, we can't really abandon our role in the world by closing our doors to refugees. We didn't do that for your grandparents and we shouldn't do that now.

There are efforts underway by people like Ambassador Ryan Crocker to try a diplomatic settlement in Syria. While there at least four parties with disparate interests involved, a diplomatic solution will eventually work. Meanwhile, the Syrian diaspora will have occurred, and Syria will be re-created by the few who return and those who were too powerful or too power-less to leave.