French - let immigrants int your homes

[Anonymous]

^^^ That's met not me

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, you can't just say we have zero problem with integration when we've had a spate of incidents like second generation terrorists (san Bernardino, Orlando, Boston). Sorry to you. These are just other examples of places where there are tensions occurring. And since we can see the issues Europe is having, why wouldn't we discuss how to not have the same issues?

Three terrorist attacks over a course of several years is a "spate?" If this is your standard, then we have a much larger problem with white male terrorists in this country.

No politician is ever going to say it, but Islamic terrorism is part of our lives now. This is part of living in a globalized society. The threat from ISIS is diffuse and will not go away anytime soon. We can talk about issues in Islamic countries, but we have to do so in a polite, diplomatic manner. We have 3 million Muslims in our country, and to alienate them will lead more people to ISIS. Talking shit about someone else's religion is never a smart idea, and it is especially not smart for an entire country to take it as an official stance.

Muslims in America are well-integrated. And they may be the reformers who lead to a more modern version of Islam becoming the norm.

And no one has suggested that Americans let Syrians in without vetting. The people against the refugees say that it is basically impossible to vet them, which makes no sense. If it is impossible to vet the refugees than it is impossible to vet anybody.

So we are scared of "alienating" the Muslims here? They are that fragile that you think anything but polite talk will drive them to Isis? And in the same breath you say support a wider welcome mat?

You are the one coming from a place of fear. And it is that fear that leads to stupid decisions and hateful speech. Why wouldn't we talk politely about Islam? Is politeness automatically associated with being a stupid wimp now? Being polite and humane is strength, not weakness. It is unwise and stupid to alienate a vulnerable minority. I don't even think Islam is a good religion but I'm able to recognize that we can't wall ourselves off from these types of problems. We can't be afraid.

The PP was very specific. He/she is asking whether or not talking poorly about Islam drives these people to ISIS - that seems to be the general consensus here. If that's the case, we are not talking about a stable population, as PP further states. I agree. People insult me all the time. They insult Jews all the time as well. It has never once incited me to violence.

Your little 'be nice' speech doesn't address any of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's equally hypocritical to tell women they should carry their babies to term, and then not offer those babies a life in your home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's equally hypocritical to tell women they should carry their babies to term, and then not offer those babies a life in your home.

Are you implying that the woman have to have equal feelings to the child that she carried under her heart for 9 month, her blood and flesh to the foreign country refugee? It is very strange comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's equally hypocritical to tell women they should carry their babies to term, and then not offer those babies a life in your home.

Are you implying that the woman have to have equal feelings to the child that she carried under her heart for 9 month, her blood and flesh to the foreign country refugee? It is very strange comparison.

+1. I couldn't even figure out what that poster meant - couldn't see what abortion rights have to do with the Syrian refugees. Quite a stretch!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, you can't just say we have zero problem with integration when we've had a spate of incidents like second generation terrorists (san Bernardino, Orlando, Boston). Sorry to you. These are just other examples of places where there are tensions occurring. And since we can see the issues Europe is having, why wouldn't we discuss how to not have the same issues?

Three terrorist attacks over a course of several years is a "spate?" If this is your standard, then we have a much larger problem with white male terrorists in this country.

No politician is ever going to say it, but Islamic terrorism is part of our lives now. This is part of living in a globalized society. The threat from ISIS is diffuse and will not go away anytime soon. We can talk about issues in Islamic countries, but we have to do so in a polite, diplomatic manner. We have 3 million Muslims in our country, and to alienate them will lead more people to ISIS. Talking shit about someone else's religion is never a smart idea, and it is especially not smart for an entire country to take it as an official stance.

Muslims in America are well-integrated. And they may be the reformers who lead to a more modern version of Islam becoming the norm.

And no one has suggested that Americans let Syrians in without vetting. The people against the refugees say that it is basically impossible to vet them, which makes no sense. If it is impossible to vet the refugees than it is impossible to vet anybody.

In other words, you are willing to sacrifice my family or anyone else's family so long as the goal of a globalized society is me. What quota seems fair to you - how many per year? How many murders? How many rapes?

No, it is a simple fact that everything in life involves risk. There are risks in America abandoning its responsibilities. Believe me, the risks of allowing a few thousand refugees into the US pale in comparison to the risk of allowing people like you to own guns. You and your fellow gun-owners comprise an exponentially greater and more dangerous risk, not only to my family, but to yours as well. How many children do you sacrifice annually in order to own guns?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, you can't just say we have zero problem with integration when we've had a spate of incidents like second generation terrorists (san Bernardino, Orlando, Boston). Sorry to you. These are just other examples of places where there are tensions occurring. And since we can see the issues Europe is having, why wouldn't we discuss how to not have the same issues?

Three terrorist attacks over a course of several years is a "spate?" If this is your standard, then we have a much larger problem with white male terrorists in this country.

No politician is ever going to say it, but Islamic terrorism is part of our lives now. This is part of living in a globalized society. The threat from ISIS is diffuse and will not go away anytime soon. We can talk about issues in Islamic countries, but we have to do so in a polite, diplomatic manner. We have 3 million Muslims in our country, and to alienate them will lead more people to ISIS. Talking shit about someone else's religion is never a smart idea, and it is especially not smart for an entire country to take it as an official stance.

Muslims in America are well-integrated. And they may be the reformers who lead to a more modern version of Islam becoming the norm.

And no one has suggested that Americans let Syrians in without vetting. The people against the refugees say that it is basically impossible to vet them, which makes no sense. If it is impossible to vet the refugees than it is impossible to vet anybody.

In other words, you are willing to sacrifice my family or anyone else's family so long as the goal of a globalized society is me. What quota seems fair to you - how many per year? How many murders? How many rapes?

No, it is a simple fact that everything in life involves risk. There are risks in America abandoning its responsibilities. Believe me, the risks of allowing a few thousand refugees into the US pale in comparison to the risk of allowing people like you to own guns. You and your fellow gun-owners comprise an exponentially greater and more dangerous risk, not only to my family, but to yours as well. How many children do you sacrifice annually in order to own guns?

+1 Amen to that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would gladly take a family. We have a big house and plenty to share.

I have good news for you: You're in luck! There are refugee families and others in need of room and board in this country right now! You can probably have another family living in your home a lot sooner than you think if you just put forth a little minimum effort!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would gladly take a family. We have a big house and plenty to share.

I don't think they want your walk out basement apartment or 1-2 bedrooms and a shared kitchen. Tuition/housing/free flights-like adopting a grown up or supporting a college student or adult that doesn't live in your residence:
http://cis.org/rush/white-house-recruits-private-sector-increase-refugee-admissions

This isn't like people opening up their homes when a community is hit by a tornado etc.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, you can't just say we have zero problem with integration when we've had a spate of incidents like second generation terrorists (san Bernardino, Orlando, Boston). Sorry to you. These are just other examples of places where there are tensions occurring. And since we can see the issues Europe is having, why wouldn't we discuss how to not have the same issues?

Three terrorist attacks over a course of several years is a "spate?" If this is your standard, then we have a much larger problem with white male terrorists in this country.

No politician is ever going to say it, but Islamic terrorism is part of our lives now. This is part of living in a globalized society. The threat from ISIS is diffuse and will not go away anytime soon. We can talk about issues in Islamic countries, but we have to do so in a polite, diplomatic manner. We have 3 million Muslims in our country, and to alienate them will lead more people to ISIS. Talking shit about someone else's religion is never a smart idea, and it is especially not smart for an entire country to take it as an official stance.

Muslims in America are well-integrated. And they may be the reformers who lead to a more modern version of Islam becoming the norm.

And no one has suggested that Americans let Syrians in without vetting. The people against the refugees say that it is basically impossible to vet them, which makes no sense. If it is impossible to vet the refugees than it is impossible to vet anybody.

In other words, you are willing to sacrifice my family or anyone else's family so long as the goal of a globalized society is me. What quota seems fair to you - how many per year? How many murders? How many rapes?

No, it is a simple fact that everything in life involves risk. There are risks in America abandoning its responsibilities. Believe me, the risks of allowing a few thousand refugees into the US pale in comparison to the risk of allowing people like you to own guns. You and your fellow gun-owners comprise an exponentially greater and more dangerous risk, not only to my family, but to yours as well. How many children do you sacrifice annually in order to own guns?

America has no responsibility to put non-citizens ahead of citizens. In fact, the Constitution allows for protection of sovereign borders, and Obama ignoring immigration law (i.e. picking and choosing) is a breach of our laws.

The Constitution also has a second amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would gladly take a family. We have a big house and plenty to share.

I have good news for you: You're in luck! There are refugee families and others in need of room and board in this country right now! You can probably have another family living in your home a lot sooner than you think if you just put forth a little minimum effort!

The funny thing is PP could have already gone to the corner and taken in a homeless individual. She could also have approached an illegal family and offered them room and board. Probably has not done either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would gladly take a family. We have a big house and plenty to share.

I don't think they want your walk out basement apartment or 1-2 bedrooms and a shared kitchen. Tuition/housing/free flights-like adopting a grown up or supporting a college student or adult that doesn't live in your residence:
http://cis.org/rush/white-house-recruits-private-sector-increase-refugee-admissions

This isn't like people opening up their homes when a community is hit by a tornado etc.

Yikes. So Obama is trying to organize efforts to help fund college expenses for these refugees? What about all the U.S. citizens who can't afford tuition?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, you can't just say we have zero problem with integration when we've had a spate of incidents like second generation terrorists (san Bernardino, Orlando, Boston). Sorry to you. These are just other examples of places where there are tensions occurring. And since we can see the issues Europe is having, why wouldn't we discuss how to not have the same issues?

Three terrorist attacks over a course of several years is a "spate?" If this is your standard, then we have a much larger problem with white male terrorists in this country.

No politician is ever going to say it, but Islamic terrorism is part of our lives now. This is part of living in a globalized society. The threat from ISIS is diffuse and will not go away anytime soon. We can talk about issues in Islamic countries, but we have to do so in a polite, diplomatic manner. We have 3 million Muslims in our country, and to alienate them will lead more people to ISIS. Talking shit about someone else's religion is never a smart idea, and it is especially not smart for an entire country to take it as an official stance.

Muslims in America are well-integrated. And they may be the reformers who lead to a more modern version of Islam becoming the norm.

And no one has suggested that Americans let Syrians in without vetting. The people against the refugees say that it is basically impossible to vet them, which makes no sense. If it is impossible to vet the refugees than it is impossible to vet anybody.

In other words, you are willing to sacrifice my family or anyone else's family so long as the goal of a globalized society is me. What quota seems fair to you - how many per year? How many murders? How many rapes?

No, it is a simple fact that everything in life involves risk. There are risks in America abandoning its responsibilities. Believe me, the risks of allowing a few thousand refugees into the US pale in comparison to the risk of allowing people like you to own guns. You and your fellow gun-owners comprise an exponentially greater and more dangerous risk, not only to my family, but to yours as well. How many children do you sacrifice annually in order to own guns?

And yes, it does sound like you feel it is our responsibility to take in refugees, even if it results in situations like what's occurring in Germany and Sweden. You don't mind a few dead Americans and raped/molested women and children - collateral damage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would gladly take a family. We have a big house and plenty to share.

I don't think they want your walk out basement apartment or 1-2 bedrooms and a shared kitchen. Tuition/housing/free flights-like adopting a grown up or supporting a college student or adult that doesn't live in your residence:
http://cis.org/rush/white-house-recruits-private-sector-increase-refugee-admissions

This isn't like people opening up their homes when a community is hit by a tornado etc.

Yikes. So Obama is trying to organize efforts to help fund college expenses for these refugees? What about all the U.S. citizens who can't afford tuition?

If I were a poor African American, I would be PISSED OFF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would gladly take a family. We have a big house and plenty to share.

I don't think they want your walk out basement apartment or 1-2 bedrooms and a shared kitchen. Tuition/housing/free flights-like adopting a grown up or supporting a college student or adult that doesn't live in your residence:
http://cis.org/rush/white-house-recruits-private-sector-increase-refugee-admissions

This isn't like people opening up their homes when a community is hit by a tornado etc.

Yikes. So Obama is trying to organize efforts to help fund college expenses for these refugees? What about all the U.S. citizens who can't afford tuition?

If I were a poor African American, I would be PISSED OFF.

...or a poor ANYBODY. Why is it more important to see that refugees get an education (to have a successful life) than our own people? BTW, I also object to in-state tuition for illegals.