Here is what I don't understand about the Syrian refuge bill

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that we know that two of the people involved in the Paris attack are citizens of France and one is a citizen from Belgium. They have a Syrian passport for one of the people, but they have confirmed that it was stolen or a fake; thought they do know that this man entered Europe via Turkey and claimed to be a refugee.

So why are we trying to keep Syrians out when the wrong doers are citizens of France and Belgium. Even the "shoe bomber" was traveling on a British passport. If you are concerned about terrorists coming to America, isn't this legislation too narrow?

You have correctly identified my objection to importation of refugees. It's not that I think the refugees are terrorists, almost none of them are. It's the children of Muslim immigrants who are radicalized. I have zero desire to replicate the failure of Europe in absorbing large numbers of Muslims. And yes, I am aware how politically incorrect that sounds, and that it is only a small percentage of horrific apples ruining things for the vast majority of peaceful Muslims.

i was about to write the same thing, but not as articulately. we need to look at the long term consequences and not make rash decisions to grow a population thst will be very difficult to assimalate (sp).

I can only assume that those of you who believe Syrians will be hard to assimilate have never met an actual Syrian. These folks will assimilate quite easily, at least as long as they don't encounter a solid wall of prejudice, fear, and hatred.

How many Syrians have you met?

Probably 100s. Maybe even more. My earliest memory of meeting a Syrian was when I was introduced to my grandmother.

I thought you said she was Lebanese?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one of the refugees attacks a westerner without being provoked to do so.

No, that would not be our fault.

Then stop making blanket statements.

[Anonymous]

We have almost 1000 investigations in 50 states, according to the FBI. What MORE do you need to know? Islamic terrorists buy documents in Syria to come here. What the f*ck do you expect to vet?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one of the refugees attacks a westerner without being provoked to do so.

No, that would not be our fault.

Then stop making blanket statements.

I didn't make any.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that we know that two of the people involved in the Paris attack are citizens of France and one is a citizen from Belgium. They have a Syrian passport for one of the people, but they have confirmed that it was stolen or a fake; thought they do know that this man entered Europe via Turkey and claimed to be a refugee.

So why are we trying to keep Syrians out when the wrong doers are citizens of France and Belgium. Even the "shoe bomber" was traveling on a British passport. If you are concerned about terrorists coming to America, isn't this legislation too narrow?

You have correctly identified my objection to importation of refugees. It's not that I think the refugees are terrorists, almost none of them are. It's the children of Muslim immigrants who are radicalized. I have zero desire to replicate the failure of Europe in absorbing large numbers of Muslims. And yes, I am aware how politically incorrect that sounds, and that it is only a small percentage of horrific apples ruining things for the vast majority of peaceful Muslims.

i was about to write the same thing, but not as articulately. we need to look at the long term consequences and not make rash decisions to grow a population thst will be very difficult to assimalate (sp).

I can only assume that those of you who believe Syrians will be hard to assimilate have never met an actual Syrian. These folks will assimilate quite easily, at least as long as they don't encounter a solid wall of prejudice, fear, and hatred.

How many Syrians have you met?

Not a pp, but a met some. In the camps near Petra and Jerash. i also what they left after themselves in Hungary. Scary.

Jeff cites credible sources that claim those people are mostly academics

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one of the refugees attacks a westerner without being provoked to do so.

No, that would not be our fault.

Then stop making blanket statements.

I didn't make any.

"These folks will assimilate quite easily, at least as long as they don't encounter a solid wall of prejudice, fear, and hatred. "

Blanket statement - if Syrians don't assimilate, it will be because they have encountered a solid wall of prejudice, fear and hatred, which implies it's directly the fault of Americans, French, etc, not the Syrians themselves.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one of the refugees attacks a westerner without being provoked to do so.

No, that would not be our fault.

Then stop making blanket statements.

I didn't make any.

"These folks will assimilate quite easily, at least as long as they don't encounter a solid wall of prejudice, fear, and hatred. "

Blanket statement - if Syrians don't assimilate, it will be because they have encountered a solid wall of prejudice, fear and hatred, which implies it's directly the fault of Americans, French, etc, not the Syrians themselves.

I'm sorry that you have trouble comprehending simple English. "Not assimilate" is not the only alternative to "assimilate quite easily". Do you believe that a solid wall of prejudice, fear, and hatred leads to easy assimilation? Come on. Even you must know better than that.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one of the refugees attacks a westerner without being provoked to do so.

No, that would not be our fault.

Then stop making blanket statements.

I didn't make any.

"These folks will assimilate quite easily, at least as long as they don't encounter a solid wall of prejudice, fear, and hatred. "

Blanket statement - if Syrians don't assimilate, it will be because they have encountered a solid wall of prejudice, fear and hatred, which implies it's directly the fault of Americans, French, etc, not the Syrians themselves.

I'm sorry that you have trouble comprehending simple English. "Not assimilate" is not the only alternative to "assimilate quite easily". Do you believe that a solid wall of prejudice, fear, and hatred leads to easy assimilation? Come on. Even you must know better than that.

I don't believe there is a solid wall of prejudice, fear and hatred. That's where we differ.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one of the refugees attacks a westerner without being provoked to do so.

No, that would not be our fault.

Then stop making blanket statements.

I didn't make any.

"These folks will assimilate quite easily, at least as long as they don't encounter a solid wall of prejudice, fear, and hatred. "

Blanket statement - if Syrians don't assimilate, it will be because they have encountered a solid wall of prejudice, fear and hatred, which implies it's directly the fault of Americans, French, etc, not the Syrians themselves.

I'm sorry that you have trouble comprehending simple English. "Not assimilate" is not the only alternative to "assimilate quite easily". Do you believe that a solid wall of prejudice, fear, and hatred leads to easy assimilation? Come on. Even you must know better than that.

I don't believe there is a solid wall of prejudice, fear and hatred. That's where we differ.

I didn't say there was either. You really do struggle with basic reading, don't you? Find someone to help you understand the concept of "as long as".

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one of the refugees attacks a westerner without being provoked to do so.

No, that would not be our fault.

Then stop making blanket statements.

I didn't make any.

"These folks will assimilate quite easily, at least as long as they don't encounter a solid wall of prejudice, fear, and hatred. "

Blanket statement - if Syrians don't assimilate, it will be because they have encountered a solid wall of prejudice, fear and hatred, which implies it's directly the fault of Americans, French, etc, not the Syrians themselves.

I'm sorry that you have trouble comprehending simple English. "Not assimilate" is not the only alternative to "assimilate quite easily". Do you believe that a solid wall of prejudice, fear, and hatred leads to easy assimilation? Come on. Even you must know better than that.

I don't believe there is a solid wall of prejudice, fear and hatred. That's where we differ.

I didn't say there was either. You really do struggle with basic reading, don't you? Find someone to help you understand the concept of "as long as".

I do indeed. I would not think to put that statement in unless, in fact, I thought it was possible. You do. There's where we differ - I have more faith in the American people than you do, and understand that difference between blind idiotic trust, and measured trust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that we know that two of the people involved in the Paris attack are citizens of France and one is a citizen from Belgium. They have a Syrian passport for one of the people, but they have confirmed that it was stolen or a fake; thought they do know that this man entered Europe via Turkey and claimed to be a refugee.

So why are we trying to keep Syrians out when the wrong doers are citizens of France and Belgium. Even the "shoe bomber" was traveling on a British passport. If you are concerned about terrorists coming to America, isn't this legislation too narrow?

You have correctly identified my objection to importation of refugees. It's not that I think the refugees are terrorists, almost none of them are. It's the children of Muslim immigrants who are radicalized. I have zero desire to replicate the failure of Europe in absorbing large numbers of Muslims. And yes, I am aware how politically incorrect that sounds, and that it is only a small percentage of horrific apples ruining things for the vast majority of peaceful Muslims.

Actually what you need to do is understand the difference between Europe and the United States. As troubled as we are in our race and ethnic relations, Muslims are actually much more integrated into our society while in France they are marginalized, endure residential segregation, and high unemployment. The United States is more enlightened in this matter which leads to less radicalization.

Okay that's my educated rational response addressing the core of your argument. My appalled emotional response is - are you saying that you really believe it's okay to keep people out based on what their children who haven't even been born yet might do?

Okay back to logic - anyway, based on your argument we shouldn't let any Muslims come to the United States refugee or not. Because who knows what their children will do. Do you really want to stand by that argument and defend it?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one of the refugees attacks a westerner without being provoked to do so.

No, that would not be our fault.

Then stop making blanket statements.

I didn't make any.

"These folks will assimilate quite easily, at least as long as they don't encounter a solid wall of prejudice, fear, and hatred. "

Blanket statement - if Syrians don't assimilate, it will be because they have encountered a solid wall of prejudice, fear and hatred, which implies it's directly the fault of Americans, French, etc, not the Syrians themselves.

I'm sorry that you have trouble comprehending simple English. "Not assimilate" is not the only alternative to "assimilate quite easily". Do you believe that a solid wall of prejudice, fear, and hatred leads to easy assimilation? Come on. Even you must know better than that.

I don't believe there is a solid wall of prejudice, fear and hatred. That's where we differ.

I didn't say there was either. You really do struggle with basic reading, don't you? Find someone to help you understand the concept of "as long as".

I do indeed. I would not think to put that statement in unless, in fact, I thought it was possible. You do. There's where we differ - I have more faith in the American people than you do, and understand that difference between blind idiotic trust, and measured trust.

Yesterday a family was turned away from Indiana. Also yesterday, the leader of the Tennessee Republican House caucus proposed using the National Guard to round up Syrian refugees. Today, Donald Trump suggested creating a database of Muslims. Also today, a Rhode Island state senator said that Syrian refugees to the US should be detained in camps. So, yes, I think it is entirely possible that the refugees will encounter walls of hatred. In fact, you yourself have made it quite clear that you would be a solid brick in that wall.

[Anonymous]

The biggest difference being - when other minority groups have trouble assimilating, they don't wage holy war on their host nation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that we know that two of the people involved in the Paris attack are citizens of France and one is a citizen from Belgium. They have a Syrian passport for one of the people, but they have confirmed that it was stolen or a fake; thought they do know that this man entered Europe via Turkey and claimed to be a refugee.

So why are we trying to keep Syrians out when the wrong doers are citizens of France and Belgium. Even the "shoe bomber" was traveling on a British passport. If you are concerned about terrorists coming to America, isn't this legislation too narrow?

Because blood is thicker than water. While citizenships are acquired and relinquished freely, the cultural background is the baggage that stays with you till death.

Haha, do you even know anything about the history of immigration in the US?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest difference being - when other minority groups have trouble assimilating, they don't wage holy war on their host nation.

So let's act like the United States and encourage assimilation instead of acting like France and marginalizing whole groups of people based on ethnicity.