French - let immigrants int your homes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm French, and I would gladly pay extra taxes - on top of the very heavy ones we already pay, far more than in the US - to open up more refugee centers and more importantly, invest in all these families which emigrated from the middle east years ago and were never integrated properly and are now a potential terrorist hotbed.

But I am not letting anybody into my home, point a la ligne.

You don't see how hypocritical this is?

Your home has walls just as your country has borders. The same concerns that make you uncomfortable letting someone into your home should also make you pause before letting them into your country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do they really show videos of nude sunbathers to Muslim immigrants in Sweden? That's hilarious. I would love to see a clip of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm French, and I would gladly pay extra taxes - on top of the very heavy ones we already pay, far more than in the US - to open up more refugee centers and more importantly, invest in all these families which emigrated from the middle east years ago and were never integrated properly and are now a potential terrorist hotbed.

But I am not letting anybody into my home, point a la ligne.

You don't see how hypocritical this is?

Your home has walls just as your country has borders. The same concerns that make you uncomfortable letting someone into your home should also make you pause before letting them into your country.

It's not hypocritical. It's like saying you believe in adoption over abortion, therefore the government should hand you a couple of babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Must be someone else. I did not state it was horrible with diseases. And that was then. I have seen a documentary on a Syrian refugee camp in Jordan and it is perfectly run with women's collectives, schools and shops. I agree theJordanians should not bear the brunt. We should all be donating and contributing to better camps on the Syrian border, medical care and no fly. However, do recall, the Syrians began a Civil War. I am not saying that's bad--and I would love to see both Isis and Assad gone. But someone needs to be around to rebuild the country. And no I am not a hypocrite. How long has this situation in Syria been developing? You haven't even given it five years or given these encampments a proper chance. You are encouraging everyone to flee without looking back. Every single Syrian? What then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do they really show videos of nude sunbathers to Muslim immigrants in Sweden? That's hilarious. I would love to see a clip of that.

Yes, they actually started it long ago with people who were properly immigrating from countries that took a far more traditional view on these things. And sorry, it's Holland (see link below). Ironically, liberals in America would never allow our more liberal way of life to be promoted in such a way. They would call it "oppression". I am not sure there is any plan or program for 'integrating' refugees much less immigrants to America. Do you know of any besides our fairly random citizenship test for those who don't simply stick with a green card?

Sadly, even with these efforts Scandinavia and Germany and France are just more reviled by some immigrants, have a massive rape/touching problem and of course the recent terroristic attacks. So much for asking people nicely to adopt or be open to your culture.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/14185/dutch-immigration-kit-offers-a-revealing-view

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do they really show videos of nude sunbathers to Muslim immigrants in Sweden? That's hilarious. I would love to see a clip of that.

Yes, they actually started it long ago with people who were properly immigrating from countries that took a far more traditional view on these things. And sorry, it's Holland (see link below). Ironically, liberals in America would never allow our more liberal way of life to be promoted in such a way. They would call it "oppression". I am not sure there is any plan or program for 'integrating' refugees much less immigrants to America. Do you know of any besides our fairly random citizenship test for those who don't simply stick with a green card?

Sadly, even with these efforts Scandinavia and Germany and France are just more reviled by some immigrants, have a massive rape/touching problem and of course the recent terroristic attacks. So much for asking people nicely to adopt or be open to your culture.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/14185/dutch-immigration-kit-offers-a-revealing-view

We don't show videos about American culture to immigrants because we are actually successful at integrating immigrants into our culture, not because liberals would ban it. Those videos are a too-little-too-late effort on the part of countries that have failed at creating an inclusive society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. My mom participated in heavy advocacy and demonstrations in Washington, joined community groups, met with representatives and even the president. There is plenty you can do. And eventually her homeland found its footing. Of course, having grown up in America and with American kids--she was never going back except to visit. The worst thing you can do, if you actually care about Syria, is encourage this massive diaspora. Then it truly will be left to the gang from the Star Wars bar to carve up, and the few innocent people left in the crossfire are going to have a heck of a time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do they really show videos of nude sunbathers to Muslim immigrants in Sweden? That's hilarious. I would love to see a clip of that.

Yes, they actually started it long ago with people who were properly immigrating from countries that took a far more traditional view on these things. And sorry, it's Holland (see link below). Ironically, liberals in America would never allow our more liberal way of life to be promoted in such a way. They would call it "oppression". I am not sure there is any plan or program for 'integrating' refugees much less immigrants to America. Do you know of any besides our fairly random citizenship test for those who don't simply stick with a green card?

Sadly, even with these efforts Scandinavia and Germany and France are just more reviled by some immigrants, have a massive rape/touching problem and of course the recent terroristic attacks. So much for asking people nicely to adopt or be open to your culture.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/14185/dutch-immigration-kit-offers-a-revealing-view

We don't show videos about American culture to immigrants because we are actually successful at integrating immigrants into our culture, not because liberals would ban it. Those videos are a too-little-too-late effort on the part of countries that have failed at creating an inclusive society.

Oh really?

http://www.labornotes.org/2008/10/muslim-workers-demand-time-prayer-meatpacking-plants

https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Clash_of_cultures:_Somali_and_Latino_workers_at_U.S._meat_packing_plants
"
"Plant worker Fidencio Sandoval, a naturalized United States citizen who was born in Mexico, had polite reservations. "I kind of admire all the effort they make to follow that religion, but sometimes you have to adapt to the workplace." An immigrant from El Salvador was less sympathetic. "They used to go to the bathroom," said José Amaya, "but actually they're praying and the rest of us have to do their work." Raul A. García, a 73-year-old Mexican meat packer, told The New York Times, “The Latino is very humble, but they [the Somalis] are arrogant... They act like the United States owes them.”"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-violence-women-honourkillings-idUSKBN0OY2UK20150618

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. My mom participated in heavy advocacy and demonstrations in Washington, joined community groups, met with representatives and even the president. There is plenty you can do. And eventually her homeland found its footing. Of course, having grown up in America and with American kids--she was never going back except to visit. The worst thing you can do, if you actually care about Syria, is encourage this massive diaspora. Then it truly will be left to the gang from the Star Wars bar to carve up, and the few innocent people left in the crossfire are going to have a heck of a time.

The refugees fled Syria without any encouragement from me or anyone else. Civilians flee wars. That has always been true. It is why posters in this thread had family members in camps. Your parents and grandparents didn't flee because an American told them to, but because they were escaping war. Now that the Syrians have fled, there is an issue about what to do with them. Some of you would warehouse them in camps ad infinitum. I wish Ryan Crocker the best of luck, but I have studied the Middle East long enough to know not to hold my breath in situations like this. There are still camps full of Palestinians waiting to return home. We are planning to take 10,000 Syrian refugees. That is not enough to change our country and not enough to save Syria.

Let me ask you this, if five years of war is not enough to convince you that camps are not a solution, when do we reach that point? Do we have to wait another five years? Another 10? At which point to Syrians qualify for the the treatment your parents and grandparents received?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Must be someone else. I did not state it was horrible with diseases. And that was then. I have seen a documentary on a Syrian refugee camp in Jordan and it is perfectly run with women's collectives, schools and shops. I agree theJordanians should not bear the brunt. We should all be donating and contributing to better camps on the Syrian border, medical care and no fly. However, do recall, the Syrians began a Civil War. I am not saying that's bad--and I would love to see both Isis and Assad gone. But someone needs to be around to rebuild the country. And no I am not a hypocrite. How long has this situation in Syria been developing? You haven't even given it five years or given these encampments a proper chance. You are encouraging everyone to flee without looking back. Every single Syrian? What then?

Again, how many refugees do those Jordanian camps hold? Did you see the link I provided that showed millions of Syrians are fleeing? Give it 5 years? The civil war started in March of 2011. It has been more than 5 years.

I am not encouraging anybody to flee. Where did you read that in my post? I'm saying that I don't blame the refugees for wanting to come here or Europe, and that you are hypocritical to say that we shouldn't allow them in even though we eventually allowed in your grandparents, *regardless* of the fact that they wanted to come or not. Again, these people obviously would rather flee than live in refugee camps that are over crowded. I saw those camps, too. It initially opened for 100 families. It now houses over 100,000 refugees. The Jordanian gov't is asking the West to take more refugees. Oh, and Russia is bombing some of those refugee camps.

I think you are very confused and/or naive.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36781770
-------

"More than 4.5 million people have fled Syria since the start of the conflict, most of them women and children. Neighbouring Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey have struggled to cope with one of the largest refugee exoduses in recent history. About 10% of Syrian refugees have sought safety in Europe, sowing political divisions as countries argue over sharing the burden.
A further 6.5 million people are internally displaced inside Syria, 1.2 million were driven from their homes in 2015 alone."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26116868

-----------------
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/syrian-refugees-leaving-jordan-arriving/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Must be someone else. I did not state it was horrible with diseases. And that was then. I have seen a documentary on a Syrian refugee camp in Jordan and it is perfectly run with women's collectives, schools and shops. I agree theJordanians should not bear the brunt. We should all be donating and contributing to better camps on the Syrian border, medical care and no fly. However, do recall, the Syrians began a Civil War. I am not saying that's bad--and I would love to see both Isis and Assad gone. But someone needs to be around to rebuild the country. And no I am not a hypocrite. How long has this situation in Syria been developing? You haven't even given it five years or given these encampments a proper chance. You are encouraging everyone to flee without looking back. Every single Syrian? What then?

Again, how many refugees do those Jordanian camps hold? Did you see the link I provided that showed millions of Syrians are fleeing? Give it 5 years? The civil war started in March of 2011. It has been more than 5 years.

I am not encouraging anybody to flee. Where did you read that in my post? I'm saying that I don't blame the refugees for wanting to come here or Europe, and that you are hypocritical to say that we shouldn't allow them in even though we eventually allowed in your grandparents, *regardless* of the fact that they wanted to come or not. Again, these people obviously would rather flee than live in refugee camps that are over crowded. I saw those camps, too. It initially opened for 100 families. It now houses over 100,000 refugees. The Jordanian gov't is asking the West to take more refugees. Oh, and Russia is bombing some of those refugee camps.

I think you are very confused and/or naive.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36781770
-------

"More than 4.5 million people have fled Syria since the start of the conflict, most of them women and children. Neighbouring Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey have struggled to cope with one of the largest refugee exoduses in recent history. About 10% of Syrian refugees have sought safety in Europe, sowing political divisions as countries argue over sharing the burden.
A further 6.5 million people are internally displaced inside Syria, 1.2 million were driven from their homes in 2015 alone."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26116868

-----------------
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/syrian-refugees-leaving-jordan-arriving/

What's your long term vision for Syria? Where do you see it in ten years? Where do you see the other 90% of Syrians?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm French, and I would gladly pay extra taxes - on top of the very heavy ones we already pay, far more than in the US - to open up more refugee centers and more importantly, invest in all these families which emigrated from the middle east years ago and were never integrated properly and are now a potential terrorist hotbed.

But I am not letting anybody into my home, point a la ligne.

You don't see how hypocritical this is?

Your home has walls just as your country has borders. The same concerns that make you uncomfortable letting someone into your home should also make you pause before letting them into your country.

It's not hypocritical. It's like saying you believe in adoption over abortion, therefore the government should hand you a couple of babies.

Did you even read the posts you were replying to? I am saying that it's hypocritical for someone to say they want more free inflow of immigrants, yet will never let anyone into their home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do they really show videos of nude sunbathers to Muslim immigrants in Sweden? That's hilarious. I would love to see a clip of that.

Yes, they actually started it long ago with people who were properly immigrating from countries that took a far more traditional view on these things. And sorry, it's Holland (see link below). Ironically, liberals in America would never allow our more liberal way of life to be promoted in such a way. They would call it "oppression". I am not sure there is any plan or program for 'integrating' refugees much less immigrants to America. Do you know of any besides our fairly random citizenship test for those who don't simply stick with a green card?

Sadly, even with these efforts Scandinavia and Germany and France are just more reviled by some immigrants, have a massive rape/touching problem and of course the recent terroristic attacks. So much for asking people nicely to adopt or be open to your culture.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/14185/dutch-immigration-kit-offers-a-revealing-view

We don't show videos about American culture to immigrants because we are actually successful at integrating immigrants into our culture, not because liberals would ban it. Those videos are a too-little-too-late effort on the part of countries that have failed at creating an inclusive society.

Oh really?

http://www.labornotes.org/2008/10/muslim-workers-demand-time-prayer-meatpacking-plants

https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Clash_of_cultures:_Somali_and_Latino_workers_at_U.S._meat_packing_plants
"
"Plant worker Fidencio Sandoval, a naturalized United States citizen who was born in Mexico, had polite reservations. "I kind of admire all the effort they make to follow that religion, but sometimes you have to adapt to the workplace." An immigrant from El Salvador was less sympathetic. "They used to go to the bathroom," said José Amaya, "but actually they're praying and the rest of us have to do their work." Raul A. García, a 73-year-old Mexican meat packer, told The New York Times, “The Latino is very humble, but they [the Somalis] are arrogant... They act like the United States owes them.”"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-violence-women-honourkillings-idUSKBN0OY2UK20150618

Are you citing these stories as evidence of something? U.S. law requires reasonable accommodation of religion. Leave it to the courts to decide what is reasonable, just like we do for everything else. These workers can walk out and lose their jobs if they don't want to work with the employer. Again, what is your point?

[Anonymous]

Those in support of accepting refugees should lead the way by offering them a space in the homes. It seems like many don't want to put their money (homes) where their mouths are.

Live your values!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those in support of accepting refugees should lead the way by offering them a space in the homes. It seems like many don't want to put their money (homes) where their mouths are.

Live your values!

A lot of people are, at least in Canada:

Just across the border, however, the Canadian government can barely keep up with the demand to welcome them. Many volunteers felt called to action by the photograph of Alan Kurdi, the Syrian toddler whose body washed up last fall on a Turkish beach. He had only a slight connection to Canada — his aunt lived near Vancouver — but his death caused recrimination so strong it helped elect an idealistic, refugee-friendly prime minister, Justin Trudeau.

The Toronto Star greeted the first planeload by splashing “Welcome to Canada” in English and Arabic across its front page. Eager sponsors toured local Middle Eastern supermarkets to learn what to buy and cook and used a toll-free hotline for instant Arabic translation. Impatient would-be sponsors — “an angry mob of do-gooders,” The Star called them — have been seeking more families. The new government committed to taking in 25,000 Syrian refugees and then raised the total by tens of thousands.

“I can’t provide refugees fast enough for all the Canadians who want to sponsor them,” John McCallum, the country’s immigration minister, said in an interview.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/world/americas/canada-syrian-refugees.html