French - let immigrants int your homes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen to the pps above
Can't we all admit it's a grey area? It's not black and white. One side is trying to depict many of us as unfeeling monsters.
But the grey area is that we don't know certainly that all we are bringing in to the west are OK. All but a few are in need of help. I feel for them. If it were black and white, I'd say bring as many as we can.
Many Americans want to protect what we have. Let's help them get re-settled, but not inside US borders.

We have this same conversation over and over. The US has helped create the refugee problem by supplying weapons to those involved in fighting and participating in the fighting itself. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to help resolve it. We cannot expect other countries to accept refugees if we refuse. That is the price of leadership and the price of our foreign wars. The refugees that we are considering brining to the US have been in camps for years. There are plenty of them, allowing us to select only those who can be vetted.

No ISIS terrorist is going to sit around in a camp for years hoping to be selected to come to the US. The go to Europe because it does not require waiting in a camp. Comparing the situation in Europe to the situation in the US is apples and oranges.

You can claim not to see things in black and white as many times as you wish, but if your only solution is to not accept refugees, that is a black and white solution. There are plenty of compromise between no refugees and open doors.

Great point! Hillary should be held accountable!

don't forget pence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen to the pps above
Can't we all admit it's a grey area? It's not black and white. One side is trying to depict many of us as unfeeling monsters.
But the grey area is that we don't know certainly that all we are bringing in to the west are OK. All but a few are in need of help. I feel for them. If it were black and white, I'd say bring as many as we can.
Many Americans want to protect what we have. Let's help them get re-settled, but not inside US borders.

We have this same conversation over and over. The US has helped create the refugee problem by supplying weapons to those involved in fighting and participating in the fighting itself. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to help resolve it. We cannot expect other countries to accept refugees if we refuse. That is the price of leadership and the price of our foreign wars. The refugees that we are considering brining to the US have been in camps for years. There are plenty of them, allowing us to select only those who can be vetted.

No ISIS terrorist is going to sit around in a camp for years hoping to be selected to come to the US. The go to Europe because it does not require waiting in a camp. Comparing the situation in Europe to the situation in the US is apples and oranges.

You can claim not to see things in black and white as many times as you wish, but if your only solution is to not accept refugees, that is a black and white solution. There are plenty of compromise between no refugees and open doors.

Incorrect, he said until we can figure out who is coming in.

By the ^PPs own words, we can't figure out who is coming. Will we ever? So, the "until" would be when? Never?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen to the pps above
Can't we all admit it's a grey area? It's not black and white. One side is trying to depict many of us as unfeeling monsters.
But the grey area is that we don't know certainly that all we are bringing in to the west are OK. All but a few are in need of help. I feel for them. If it were black and white, I'd say bring as many as we can.
Many Americans want to protect what we have. Let's help them get re-settled, but not inside US borders.

We have this same conversation over and over. The US has helped create the refugee problem by supplying weapons to those involved in fighting and participating in the fighting itself. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to help resolve it. We cannot expect other countries to accept refugees if we refuse. That is the price of leadership and the price of our foreign wars. The refugees that we are considering brining to the US have been in camps for years. There are plenty of them, allowing us to select only those who can be vetted.

No ISIS terrorist is going to sit around in a camp for years hoping to be selected to come to the US. The go to Europe because it does not require waiting in a camp. Comparing the situation in Europe to the situation in the US is apples and oranges.

You can claim not to see things in black and white as many times as you wish, but if your only solution is to not accept refugees, that is a black and white solution. There are plenty of compromise between no refugees and open doors.

Incorrect, he said until we can figure out who is coming in.

See the bold. The person to whom I was replying is pretty clear about no resettlement in the US. That is about as black and white as you can get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen to the pps above
Can't we all admit it's a grey area? It's not black and white. One side is trying to depict many of us as unfeeling monsters.
But the grey area is that we don't know certainly that all we are bringing in to the west are OK. All but a few are in need of help. I feel for them. If it were black and white, I'd say bring as many as we can.
Many Americans want to protect what we have. Let's help them get re-settled, but not inside US borders.

We have this same conversation over and over. The US has helped create the refugee problem by supplying weapons to those involved in fighting and participating in the fighting itself. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to help resolve it. We cannot expect other countries to accept refugees if we refuse. That is the price of leadership and the price of our foreign wars. The refugees that we are considering brining to the US have been in camps for years. There are plenty of them, allowing us to select only those who can be vetted.

No ISIS terrorist is going to sit around in a camp for years hoping to be selected to come to the US. The go to Europe because it does not require waiting in a camp. Comparing the situation in Europe to the situation in the US is apples and oranges.

You can claim not to see things in black and white as many times as you wish, but if your only solution is to not accept refugees, that is a black and white solution. There are plenty of compromise between no refugees and open doors.

Incorrect, he said until we can figure out who is coming in.

By the ^PPs own words, we can't figure out who is coming. Will we ever? So, the "until" would be when? Never?

Until a systems is in place. Can't argue a counter factual.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen to the pps above
Can't we all admit it's a grey area? It's not black and white. One side is trying to depict many of us as unfeeling monsters.
But the grey area is that we don't know certainly that all we are bringing in to the west are OK. All but a few are in need of help. I feel for them. If it were black and white, I'd say bring as many as we can.
Many Americans want to protect what we have. Let's help them get re-settled, but not inside US borders.

We have this same conversation over and over. The US has helped create the refugee problem by supplying weapons to those involved in fighting and participating in the fighting itself. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to help resolve it. We cannot expect other countries to accept refugees if we refuse. That is the price of leadership and the price of our foreign wars. The refugees that we are considering brining to the US have been in camps for years. There are plenty of them, allowing us to select only those who can be vetted.

No ISIS terrorist is going to sit around in a camp for years hoping to be selected to come to the US. The go to Europe because it does not require waiting in a camp. Comparing the situation in Europe to the situation in the US is apples and oranges.

You can claim not to see things in black and white as many times as you wish, but if your only solution is to not accept refugees, that is a black and white solution. There are plenty of compromise between no refugees and open doors.

Incorrect, he said until we can figure out who is coming in.

See the bold. The person to whom I was replying is pretty clear about no resettlement in the US. That is about as black and white as you can get.

Thought you meant Trump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen to the pps above
Can't we all admit it's a grey area? It's not black and white. One side is trying to depict many of us as unfeeling monsters.
But the grey area is that we don't know certainly that all we are bringing in to the west are OK. All but a few are in need of help. I feel for them. If it were black and white, I'd say bring as many as we can.
Many Americans want to protect what we have. Let's help them get re-settled, but not inside US borders.

We have this same conversation over and over. The US has helped create the refugee problem by supplying weapons to those involved in fighting and participating in the fighting itself. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to help resolve it. We cannot expect other countries to accept refugees if we refuse. That is the price of leadership and the price of our foreign wars. The refugees that we are considering brining to the US have been in camps for years. There are plenty of them, allowing us to select only those who can be vetted.

No ISIS terrorist is going to sit around in a camp for years hoping to be selected to come to the US. The go to Europe because it does not require waiting in a camp. Comparing the situation in Europe to the situation in the US is apples and oranges.

You can claim not to see things in black and white as many times as you wish, but if your only solution is to not accept refugees, that is a black and white solution. There are plenty of compromise between no refugees and open doors.

Great point! Hillary should be held accountable!

don't forget pence.

The Obama admin wanted it, congress voted based the current administrations request and intelligence. Hillary is accountable as is Obama

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen to the pps above
Can't we all admit it's a grey area? It's not black and white. One side is trying to depict many of us as unfeeling monsters.
But the grey area is that we don't know certainly that all we are bringing in to the west are OK. All but a few are in need of help. I feel for them. If it were black and white, I'd say bring as many as we can.
Many Americans want to protect what we have. Let's help them get re-settled, but not inside US borders.

We have this same conversation over and over. The US has helped create the refugee problem by supplying weapons to those involved in fighting and participating in the fighting itself. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to help resolve it. We cannot expect other countries to accept refugees if we refuse. That is the price of leadership and the price of our foreign wars. The refugees that we are considering brining to the US have been in camps for years. There are plenty of them, allowing us to select only those who can be vetted.

No ISIS terrorist is going to sit around in a camp for years hoping to be selected to come to the US. The go to Europe because it does not require waiting in a camp. Comparing the situation in Europe to the situation in the US is apples and oranges.

You can claim not to see things in black and white as many times as you wish, but if your only solution is to not accept refugees, that is a black and white solution. There are plenty of compromise between no refugees and open doors.

Great point! Hillary should be held accountable!

don't forget pence.

The Obama admin wanted it, congress voted based the current administrations request and intelligence. Hillary is accountable as is Obama

What is wrong with resettling them in their countries? Same with all the central american migrants that are continually deported for us crimes and come back. Help them in their countries. They may not be isis terrorists but they have different ideas that oppose the constitution.

Sharia law is the law of Islam. The Sharia (also spelled Shariah or Shari'a) law is cast from the actions and words of Muhammad, which are called "Sunnah," and the Quran, which he dictated. Sharia law itself cannot be altered but the interpretation of Sharia law, called "figh," by imams is given some latitude (see Hitler and Islam).

Shariah lawAs a legal system, Sharia law is exceptionally broad. While other legal codes regulate public behavior, Sharia law regulates public behavior, private behavior and even private beliefs. Of all legal systems in the world today, Sharia law is the most intrusive and restrictive, especially against women. According to Sharia law:

• Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above).
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
• Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah, the god of Islam is punishable by death.
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls' clitoris should be cut (Muhammad's words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
• A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.
• Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
• A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
• A woman's testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries ½ the weight of a man's.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
• A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
• Meat to eat must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be "Halal".
• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
• The list goes on (see Sharia law in America, UK, Europe and Saudi Arabia).

More. http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-law.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen to the pps above
Can't we all admit it's a grey area? It's not black and white. One side is trying to depict many of us as unfeeling monsters.
But the grey area is that we don't know certainly that all we are bringing in to the west are OK. All but a few are in need of help. I feel for them. If it were black and white, I'd say bring as many as we can.
Many Americans want to protect what we have. Let's help them get re-settled, but not inside US borders.

We have this same conversation over and over. The US has helped create the refugee problem by supplying weapons to those involved in fighting and participating in the fighting itself. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to help resolve it. We cannot expect other countries to accept refugees if we refuse. That is the price of leadership and the price of our foreign wars. The refugees that we are considering brining to the US have been in camps for years. There are plenty of them, allowing us to select only those who can be vetted.

No ISIS terrorist is going to sit around in a camp for years hoping to be selected to come to the US. The go to Europe because it does not require waiting in a camp. Comparing the situation in Europe to the situation in the US is apples and oranges.

You can claim not to see things in black and white as many times as you wish, but if your only solution is to not accept refugees, that is a black and white solution. There are plenty of compromise between no refugees and open doors.

Incorrect, he said until we can figure out who is coming in.

By the ^PPs own words, we can't figure out who is coming. Will we ever? So, the "until" would be when? Never?

Until a systems is in place. Can't argue a counter factual.

There is already a system in place. We vet ALL immigrants and refugees.

[Anonymous]

^why are you listing sharia laws? They will never be implemented here. You are paranoid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen to the pps above
Can't we all admit it's a grey area? It's not black and white. One side is trying to depict many of us as unfeeling monsters.
But the grey area is that we don't know certainly that all we are bringing in to the west are OK. All but a few are in need of help. I feel for them. If it were black and white, I'd say bring as many as we can.
Many Americans want to protect what we have. Let's help them get re-settled, but not inside US borders.

We have this same conversation over and over. The US has helped create the refugee problem by supplying weapons to those involved in fighting and participating in the fighting itself. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to help resolve it. We cannot expect other countries to accept refugees if we refuse. That is the price of leadership and the price of our foreign wars. The refugees that we are considering brining to the US have been in camps for years. There are plenty of them, allowing us to select only those who can be vetted.

No ISIS terrorist is going to sit around in a camp for years hoping to be selected to come to the US. The go to Europe because it does not require waiting in a camp. Comparing the situation in Europe to the situation in the US is apples and oranges.

You can claim not to see things in black and white as many times as you wish, but if your only solution is to not accept refugees, that is a black and white solution. There are plenty of compromise between no refugees and open doors.

Great point! Hillary should be held accountable!

don't forget pence.

The Obama admin wanted it, congress voted based the current administrations request and intelligence. Hillary is accountable as is Obama

? That PP is saying HRC is accountable for creating this mess via voting for the Iraq war. That's a meme now a days. I'm saying Pence is just as accountable in helping to create the mess that started it all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^why are you listing sharia laws? They will never be implemented here. You are paranoid.

There are already sharia courts in the UK. And i didnt say anywhere they will be implemented here though i have no doubt that is what those who follow these ideas/laws really want to happen in the US

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^why are you listing sharia laws? They will never be implemented here. You are paranoid.

I don't think its being paranoid. As their numbers increase, so will their power. In the name of being politically correct, we will continue to make it easier and easier for them to live here without having to integrate into society. The US will become a country with no identity. As it is now, I i live in a community that is primarily Hispanic and the people my age do not speak English. We are cordial and say hello, but we don't hang out due to the language barrier. My sister lives in an area with many Muslims. Similar issue - no sense of community since they are not interested in deeper relationships with those outside of their faith. The kids do not play with the other kids in the neighborhood and frankly my sister is happy for that - she is very uncomfortable when large groups of them walk through the neighborhood dressed in their clothing. You can't help but stare and wonder what's going on.
I don't know why people are afraid to agree that sometimes, integration does not work!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^why are you listing sharia laws? They will never be implemented here. You are paranoid.

There are already sharia courts in the UK. And i didnt say anywhere they will be implemented here though i have no doubt that is what those who follow these ideas/laws really want to happen in the US

There are not sharia courts in the UK. Are you the same poster who spread this lie in an earlier thread? There are "Sharia Councils" that offer family mediation and arbitration and have no ability to make legal rulings. We have similar services in the US offered by other religions.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with resettling them in their countries? Same with all the central american migrants that are continually deported for us crimes and come back. Help them in their countries. They may not be isis terrorists but they have different ideas that oppose the constitution.

Sharia law is the law of Islam. The Sharia (also spelled Shariah or Shari'a) law is cast from the actions and words of Muhammad, which are called "Sunnah," and the Quran, which he dictated. Sharia law itself cannot be altered but the interpretation of Sharia law, called "figh," by imams is given some latitude (see Hitler and Islam).

Shariah lawAs a legal system, Sharia law is exceptionally broad. While other legal codes regulate public behavior, Sharia law regulates public behavior, private behavior and even private beliefs. Of all legal systems in the world today, Sharia law is the most intrusive and restrictive, especially against women. According to Sharia law:

• Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above).
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
• Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah, the god of Islam is punishable by death.
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls' clitoris should be cut (Muhammad's words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
• A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.
• Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
• A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
• A woman's testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries ½ the weight of a man's.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
• A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
• Meat to eat must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be "Halal".
• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
• The list goes on (see Sharia law in America, UK, Europe and Saudi Arabia).

More. http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-law.html

This is not "Sharia law". This is an ignorant person's idea of Sharia law. It is the sort of thing a person learns on a website called "www.billionbibles.org". There is no one thing that can be called "Sharia law." There are nearly as many ideas of what "Sharia law" is as there are Muslims. Wherever Sharia is observed, it is observed differently. Moreover, why would people who are fleeing radical Islamic groups want to implement extreme and corrupted versions of Sharia anyway? That is what they are fleeing.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^why are you listing sharia laws? They will never be implemented here. You are paranoid.

There are already sharia courts in the UK. And i didnt say anywhere they will be implemented here though i have no doubt that is what those who follow these ideas/laws really want to happen in the US

There are not sharia courts in the UK. Are you the same poster who spread this lie in an earlier thread? There are "Sharia Councils" that offer family mediation and arbitration and have no ability to make legal rulings. We have similar services in the US offered by other religions.

Tribunals enforced by the courts in the UK

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network's headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/Migration/article235989.ece