French - let immigrants int your homes

[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.

Why won't you let them into your home if you trust them?

'

She didn't say she personally trusts them, she is saying that the refugees need a chance to have normal lives. These are regular people.

If they need help though and have problems integrating what better way to do it than take them in your home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I didn't live in a one-bedroom apt/had more $ I'd welcome a family of refugees. I think it's important to give not only of our money, but of our time, me our hearts.

You do that:

http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.2821/german-member-of-refugees-welcome-raped-by-afghan-tenant.html

[Anonymous]

I think all these people, especially the rich politicians who can afford private security, should pony up. Offer some rooms in those nice houses of yours and take them in. I'd feel safer when they're your responsibility. The government can't even be bothered to track down the illegals already here nor are they able to find the wife of the Orlando terrorist. What makes me think they can track 10s of thousands of people we have no background data on?

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why didn't you let the Mauritians, Algerians, Moroccans, and Tunisians integrate into your cultural properly? Why did you treat the Maghrebis as less than equals?

This! The sheer hypocrisy of acting like you'll let people into your homes when you won't even let people into your country. The situation at the French borders is inhumane. Let it be the other countries' problem so it doesn't become yours? The "unity" in the EU is incredible! /end sarcasm.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

You are 100% correct. The Nazarene Fund is doing just this with Christian refugees from the Middle-East. Australia is the latest country to agree to take these refugees. Some are being re-located in Northern Iraq, where they are safe from ISIS, into lovely apartments fully renovated by the fund. They also are set up with jobs and given free rent for a year until they get on their feet. The people at first did not trust those running the program, screamed "Why should we trust you when you forgot us?" This included some of the priests. When told they were not forgotten, they were setting up and needed a bit of time, the priests and people are breaking down in tears, realizing they never were forgotten from the hearts and minds of people around the world. The stories are truly touching.

The fund fully vets these people and not ONE Christian relocated to date has ever given anyone an ounce of trouble. The churches in the host countries/areas take these people in as their own. It's truly amazing, what is being accomplished.

I'm so glad that your family has survived and is now safe.

http://mercuryone.org/updated-faqs-for-nazarene-fund/

[Anonymous]

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.

Agree with this. We are just getting economic refugees who may or may not have good intentions no way to know.

[Anonymous]

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?

[jsteele]

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.

I hope that you see the irony in the fact that your mother would not have been allowed into the US if views such as yours had prevailed at that time. It is sad that you don't have more empathy for those in a plight similar to what your mother experienced.

[Anonymous]

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.

Agree with this. We are just getting economic refugees who may or may not have good intentions no way to know.

? People fleeing Syria are not economic refugees. Do you people watch/read the news? Have you seen the malnutrioned bodies of Syrian children?

I won't post the actual image because it is quite disturbing, but please click the link to see it:

http://syrianfreedomls.tumblr.com/post/68263461637/is-malnutrition-syrias-next-epidemic

[Anonymous]

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?

Yes, the PP whose mother spent years in a refugee camp is just incomprehensibly more
naive than you, O Wise One

[Anonymous]

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

[jsteele]

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?