Afraid of backlash against Muslims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American citizens are right to hault the Syrian refugees without knowing more about vetting. However, the genie is out of the bottle now. Europeans can freely enter our country, and they were the attackers in Paris.

We've had 300 killed and injured in mass shooter incidents this year in the U.S. Of those, four deaths and three injuries were caused by Muslims. Draw Muhammad and the Chatanooga Navy recruitment center. Statistically, we are most at risk by run-of-the-mill young, white, non-Muslim men. Based on 2015 stats, we each have about a 0.000002% risk of being killed or injured by an Islamic terrorist. Fewer than 20 Americans are killed worldwide by terrorists each year, and that includes in war zones. Is it really worth shutting down an existing refugee program that has a 2 year vetting process because of such an almost-insignificant risk?

Crunch your numbers for those OUTSIDE of the US. Are the stats higher, lower or the same.

just curious, as I'm NOT a numbers person

I don't know the number of Americans outside the country at any given time. But I think it's important to realize fewer than 20 Americans total are the victims of Islamic terrorist anywhere in the world each year. We have 320 million Americans total. The risk is overwhelmingly low. I realize ISIS is scary and sick. They are. But 30,000 Americans die each year in car accidents. Another 30,000 die from guns. Another 25,000 die from flu.

Yes, but we can be proactive about driving deaths and the flu - and even, to some extent, about guns. We cannot be proactive about ISIS - or other terrorists - as they're not easy to track. That's the goal - to create terror and to strike when it's least expected.

By inviting more people in, however, you increase the chances, yes? Statistics will show you that, I'm sure.

I think back to the sniper. People didn't want to live in fear of this homegrown terrorist. We went about our business - getting gas, driving to work, taking the metro into DC. But think of the 13 people harmed in our area; only three survived.

why? jihad against the US

10 people whose lives - based on your post - are meaningless, right? I don't care if "fewer than 20 Americans are killed." These are husbands, sisters, mothers, uncles, you name it.

Why add more people to the guest list?

I never said any life is meaningless. That's really not fair. I wonder why we compromise our values as a nation for minuscule risk. There is a difference. As people have pointed out multiple times on this forum, we are more at risk from terrorists who hold European passports and who can just buy a ticket and be here tomorrow. No visa, no background check, no nothing. The refugees pose extremely little risk.

There are several motives stated by the DC snipers for doing what they did. One, the DC sniper was terrorizing and ultimately killing his ex-wife, with the cover being she was just one of many random victims. He, by all accounts, snapped when he lost his children in a custody battle. Two, Malvo had talked about Muhammad trying to start a race war and then building an all-black community in Canada. And three, Muhammad wrote fondly of Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, while in jail. Not so simple to call it jihad.

No offense, but the logical response to your post is to screen Europeans. Yes, let's get started.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American citizens are right to hault the Syrian refugees without knowing more about vetting. However, the genie is out of the bottle now. Europeans can freely enter our country, and they were the attackers in Paris.

We've had 300 killed and injured in mass shooter incidents this year in the U.S. Of those, four deaths and three injuries were caused by Muslims. Draw Muhammad and the Chatanooga Navy recruitment center. Statistically, we are most at risk by run-of-the-mill young, white, non-Muslim men. Based on 2015 stats, we each have about a 0.000002% risk of being killed or injured by an Islamic terrorist. Fewer than 20 Americans are killed worldwide by terrorists each year, and that includes in war zones. Is it really worth shutting down an existing refugee program that has a 2 year vetting process because of such an almost-insignificant risk?

Crunch your numbers for those OUTSIDE of the US. Are the stats higher, lower or the same.

just curious, as I'm NOT a numbers person

I don't know the number of Americans outside the country at any given time. But I think it's important to realize fewer than 20 Americans total are the victims of Islamic terrorist anywhere in the world each year. We have 320 million Americans total. The risk is overwhelmingly low. I realize ISIS is scary and sick. They are. But 30,000 Americans die each year in car accidents. Another 30,000 die from guns. Another 25,000 die from flu.

Yes, but we can be proactive about driving deaths and the flu - and even, to some extent, about guns. We cannot be proactive about ISIS - or other terrorists - as they're not easy to track. That's the goal - to create terror and to strike when it's least expected.

By inviting more people in, however, you increase the chances, yes? Statistics will show you that, I'm sure.

I think back to the sniper. People didn't want to live in fear of this homegrown terrorist. We went about our business - getting gas, driving to work, taking the metro into DC. But think of the 13 people harmed in our area; only three survived.

why? jihad against the US

10 people whose lives - based on your post - are meaningless, right? I don't care if "fewer than 20 Americans are killed." These are husbands, sisters, mothers, uncles, you name it.

Why add more people to the guest list?

I never said any life is meaningless. That's really not fair. I wonder why we compromise our values as a nation for minuscule risk. There is a difference. As people have pointed out multiple times on this forum, we are more at risk from terrorists who hold European passports and who can just buy a ticket and be here tomorrow. No visa, no background check, no nothing. The refugees pose extremely little risk.

There are several motives stated by the DC snipers for doing what they did. One, the DC sniper was terrorizing and ultimately killing his ex-wife, with the cover being she was just one of many random victims. He, by all accounts, snapped when he lost his children in a custody battle. Two, Malvo had talked about Muhammad trying to start a race war and then building an all-black community in Canada. And three, Muhammad wrote fondly of Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, while in jail. Not so simple to call it jihad.

fine

But crazy is crazy, right?

If the US couldn't handle a homegrown threat, it certainly can't fight off threats from more and more people entering the US. We've had gang issues all along - Crips who are "made in the USA - and MS 13 from El Salvador. They are destroying neighborhoods and schools.

Sadly, the kids most vulnerable are those who are poor, illiterate and neglected.

Again, we can't seem to care for "our own." How will adding more vulnerable kids to the mix make our society safer?

It's so easy to be a bleeding heart, but if you spend one day in an inner city school you'll see how many kids - "homegrown" and new to this country - become victims themselves.

the people posting on this board to help the refugees don't actually live in those neighborhoods, send their kids to those schools.

[Anonymous]

20 Americans a year killed in terrorist incidents.

100 American children a year drowning in bath tubs.

Where is the outrage against bath tubs?

[Anonymous]

People are entitled to revenge. There is not changing human nature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:20 Americans a year killed in terrorist incidents.

100 American children a year drowning in bath tubs.

Where is the outrage against bath tubs?

Oh well my goodness, thank you for clearing all this up. I guess terrorism is not so bad after all. Phew, I feel so much better now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All religions are essentially political entities and if a religion is going to be in such an identity crisis between its internal branches of the faith then what is needed is a reformation, ala:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/27/heretic-islam-reformation-ayaan-hirsi-ali-highlights-scale-of-the-task[url]

Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, Islam does not currently have one commonly respected leadership to lead the way, such as Vatican II, under Pope John Paul and the Cardinals

You do realize Christianity and Roman Catholic are two different things

Roman Catholic are Christians, you bigot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:20 Americans a year killed in terrorist incidents.

100 American children a year drowning in bath tubs.

Where is the outrage against bath tubs?

Where's the outrage against idiots like you posting bullshit?

Sadly, we can't screen you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American citizens are right to hault the Syrian refugees without knowing more about vetting. However, the genie is out of the bottle now. Europeans can freely enter our country, and they were the attackers in Paris.

We've had 300 killed and injured in mass shooter incidents this year in the U.S. Of those, four deaths and three injuries were caused by Muslims. Draw Muhammad and the Chatanooga Navy recruitment center. Statistically, we are most at risk by run-of-the-mill young, white, non-Muslim men. Based on 2015 stats, we each have about a 0.000002% risk of being killed or injured by an Islamic terrorist. Fewer than 20 Americans are killed worldwide by terrorists each year, and that includes in war zones. Is it really worth shutting down an existing refugee program that has a 2 year vetting process because of such an almost-insignificant risk?

Crunch your numbers for those OUTSIDE of the US. Are the stats higher, lower or the same.

just curious, as I'm NOT a numbers person

I don't know the number of Americans outside the country at any given time. But I think it's important to realize fewer than 20 Americans total are the victims of Islamic terrorist anywhere in the world each year. We have 320 million Americans total. The risk is overwhelmingly low. I realize ISIS is scary and sick. They are. But 30,000 Americans die each year in car accidents. Another 30,000 die from guns. Another 25,000 die from flu.

Yes, but we can be proactive about driving deaths and the flu - and even, to some extent, about guns. We cannot be proactive about ISIS - or other terrorists - as they're not easy to track. That's the goal - to create terror and to strike when it's least expected.

By inviting more people in, however, you increase the chances, yes? Statistics will show you that, I'm sure.

I think back to the sniper. People didn't want to live in fear of this homegrown terrorist. We went about our business - getting gas, driving to work, taking the metro into DC. But think of the 13 people harmed in our area; only three survived.

why? jihad against the US

10 people whose lives - based on your post - are meaningless, right? I don't care if "fewer than 20 Americans are killed." These are husbands, sisters, mothers, uncles, you name it.

Why add more people to the guest list?

I never said any life is meaningless. That's really not fair. I wonder why we compromise our values as a nation for minuscule risk. There is a difference. As people have pointed out multiple times on this forum, we are more at risk from terrorists who hold European passports and who can just buy a ticket and be here tomorrow. No visa, no background check, no nothing. The refugees pose extremely little risk.

There are several motives stated by the DC snipers for doing what they did. One, the DC sniper was terrorizing and ultimately killing his ex-wife, with the cover being she was just one of many random victims. He, by all accounts, snapped when he lost his children in a custody battle. Two, Malvo had talked about Muhammad trying to start a race war and then building an all-black community in Canada. And three, Muhammad wrote fondly of Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, while in jail. Not so simple to call it jihad.

fine

But crazy is crazy, right?

If the US couldn't handle a homegrown threat, it certainly can't fight off threats from more and more people entering the US. We've had gang issues all along - Crips who are "made in the USA - and MS 13 from El Salvador. They are destroying neighborhoods and schools.

Sadly, the kids most vulnerable are those who are poor, illiterate and neglected.

Again, we can't seem to care for "our own." How will adding more vulnerable kids to the mix make our society safer?

It's so easy to be a bleeding heart, but if you spend one day in an inner city school you'll see how many kids - "homegrown" and new to this country - become victims themselves.

the people posting on this board to help the refugees don't actually live in those neighborhoods, send their kids to those schools.

You're absolutely right. I don't live in those neighborhood either. So my own kids don't attend challenging schools. However, I work in school that absorbed some of the "border" kids and the number of territorial fights that occurred inside and outside of our school was alarming.

People don't get it.

Poverty and neglect are connected to criminal activity. Kids who are neglected will join gangs. Without the resources to re-engage these kids, we lose them to a life of crime and alternative school settings.

Taking in more poor people will not create stability in this country - one that's already bursting at the seams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All religions are essentially political entities and if a religion is going to be in such an identity crisis between its internal branches of the faith then what is needed is a reformation, ala:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/27/heretic-islam-reformation-ayaan-hirsi-ali-highlights-scale-of-the-task[url]

Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, Islam does not currently have one commonly respected leadership to lead the way, such as Vatican II, under Pope John Paul and the Cardinals

She is spot on with her assessment that Islam teachings desperately need reform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20 Americans a year killed in terrorist incidents.

100 American children a year drowning in bath tubs.

Where is the outrage against bath tubs?

Where's the outrage against idiots like you posting bullshit?

Sadly, we can't screen you.

So self righteous and self seriousness in your belief that such an infinitesmal risk of dying from terrorism poses significant imminent danger to the American people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American citizens are right to hault the Syrian refugees without knowing more about vetting. However, the genie is out of the bottle now. Europeans can freely enter our country, and they were the attackers in Paris.

We've had 300 killed and injured in mass shooter incidents this year in the U.S. Of those, four deaths and three injuries were caused by Muslims. Draw Muhammad and the Chatanooga Navy recruitment center. Statistically, we are most at risk by run-of-the-mill young, white, non-Muslim men. Based on 2015 stats, we each have about a 0.000002% risk of being killed or injured by an Islamic terrorist. Fewer than 20 Americans are killed worldwide by terrorists each year, and that includes in war zones. Is it really worth shutting down an existing refugee program that has a 2 year vetting process because of such an almost-insignificant risk?

Crunch your numbers for those OUTSIDE of the US. Are the stats higher, lower or the same.

just curious, as I'm NOT a numbers person

I don't know the number of Americans outside the country at any given time. But I think it's important to realize fewer than 20 Americans total are the victims of Islamic terrorist anywhere in the world each year. We have 320 million Americans total. The risk is overwhelmingly low. I realize ISIS is scary and sick. They are. But 30,000 Americans die each year in car accidents. Another 30,000 die from guns. Another 25,000 die from flu.

Yes, but we can be proactive about driving deaths and the flu - and even, to some extent, about guns. We cannot be proactive about ISIS - or other terrorists - as they're not easy to track. That's the goal - to create terror and to strike when it's least expected.

By inviting more people in, however, you increase the chances, yes? Statistics will show you that, I'm sure.

I think back to the sniper. People didn't want to live in fear of this homegrown terrorist. We went about our business - getting gas, driving to work, taking the metro into DC. But think of the 13 people harmed in our area; only three survived.

why? jihad against the US

10 people whose lives - based on your post - are meaningless, right? I don't care if "fewer than 20 Americans are killed." These are husbands, sisters, mothers, uncles, you name it.

Why add more people to the guest list?

I never said any life is meaningless. That's really not fair. I wonder why we compromise our values as a nation for minuscule risk. There is a difference. As people have pointed out multiple times on this forum, we are more at risk from terrorists who hold European passports and who can just buy a ticket and be here tomorrow. No visa, no background check, no nothing. The refugees pose extremely little risk.

There are several motives stated by the DC snipers for doing what they did. One, the DC sniper was terrorizing and ultimately killing his ex-wife, with the cover being she was just one of many random victims. He, by all accounts, snapped when he lost his children in a custody battle. Two, Malvo had talked about Muhammad trying to start a race war and then building an all-black community in Canada. And three, Muhammad wrote fondly of Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, while in jail. Not so simple to call it jihad.

fine

But crazy is crazy, right?

If the US couldn't handle a homegrown threat, it certainly can't fight off threats from more and more people entering the US. We've had gang issues all along - Crips who are "made in the USA - and MS 13 from El Salvador. They are destroying neighborhoods and schools.

Sadly, the kids most vulnerable are those who are poor, illiterate and neglected.

Again, we can't seem to care for "our own." How will adding more vulnerable kids to the mix make our society safer?

It's so easy to be a bleeding heart, but if you spend one day in an inner city school you'll see how many kids - "homegrown" and new to this country - become victims themselves.

the people posting on this board to help the refugees don't actually live in those neighborhoods, send their kids to those schools.

You're absolutely right. I don't live in those neighborhood either. So my own kids don't attend challenging schools. However, I work in school that absorbed some of the "border" kids and the number of territorial fights that occurred inside and outside of our school was alarming.

People don't get it.

Poverty and neglect are connected to criminal activity. Kids who are neglected will join gangs. Without the resources to re-engage these kids, we lose them to a life of crime and alternative school settings.

Taking in more poor people will not create stability in this country - one that's already bursting at the seams.

I agree with you. But the people posting on this board dont go to the no go zones when they visit Paris, ans they don't go to the no go zones in dc. Yes, we need to get our house in order and focus on our poor and neglected as well as face this external threat. America does have room for refugees - in fact we have a refugee program that has been working for years. Keep it going and lets give asylum to the interpreters who helped us in Iraq and Afghanistan's. The Syrians need a safe zone established near Syria so they can go home and rebuild. Why are people giving up on that? Its like ww2 all over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American citizens are right to hault the Syrian refugees without knowing more about vetting. However, the genie is out of the bottle now. Europeans can freely enter our country, and they were the attackers in Paris.

We've had 300 killed and injured in mass shooter incidents this year in the U.S. Of those, four deaths and three injuries were caused by Muslims. Draw Muhammad and the Chatanooga Navy recruitment center. Statistically, we are most at risk by run-of-the-mill young, white, non-Muslim men. Based on 2015 stats, we each have about a 0.000002% risk of being killed or injured by an Islamic terrorist. Fewer than 20 Americans are killed worldwide by terrorists each year, and that includes in war zones. Is it really worth shutting down an existing refugee program that has a 2 year vetting process because of such an almost-insignificant risk?

Crunch your numbers for those OUTSIDE of the US. Are the stats higher, lower or the same.

just curious, as I'm NOT a numbers person

I don't know the number of Americans outside the country at any given time. But I think it's important to realize fewer than 20 Americans total are the victims of Islamic terrorist anywhere in the world each year. We have 320 million Americans total. The risk is overwhelmingly low. I realize ISIS is scary and sick. They are. But 30,000 Americans die each year in car accidents. Another 30,000 die from guns. Another 25,000 die from flu.

Yes, but we can be proactive about driving deaths and the flu - and even, to some extent, about guns. We cannot be proactive about ISIS - or other terrorists - as they're not easy to track. That's the goal - to create terror and to strike when it's least expected.

By inviting more people in, however, you increase the chances, yes? Statistics will show you that, I'm sure.

I think back to the sniper. People didn't want to live in fear of this homegrown terrorist. We went about our business - getting gas, driving to work, taking the metro into DC. But think of the 13 people harmed in our area; only three survived.

why? jihad against the US

10 people whose lives - based on your post - are meaningless, right? I don't care if "fewer than 20 Americans are killed." These are husbands, sisters, mothers, uncles, you name it.

Why add more people to the guest list?

I never said any life is meaningless. That's really not fair. I wonder why we compromise our values as a nation for minuscule risk. There is a difference. As people have pointed out multiple times on this forum, we are more at risk from terrorists who hold European passports and who can just buy a ticket and be here tomorrow. No visa, no background check, no nothing. The refugees pose extremely little risk.

There are several motives stated by the DC snipers for doing what they did. One, the DC sniper was terrorizing and ultimately killing his ex-wife, with the cover being she was just one of many random victims. He, by all accounts, snapped when he lost his children in a custody battle. Two, Malvo had talked about Muhammad trying to start a race war and then building an all-black community in Canada. And three, Muhammad wrote fondly of Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, while in jail. Not so simple to call it jihad.

fine

But crazy is crazy, right?

If the US couldn't handle a homegrown threat, it certainly can't fight off threats from more and more people entering the US. We've had gang issues all along - Crips who are "made in the USA - and MS 13 from El Salvador. They are destroying neighborhoods and schools.

Sadly, the kids most vulnerable are those who are poor, illiterate and neglected.

Again, we can't seem to care for "our own." How will adding more vulnerable kids to the mix make our society safer?

It's so easy to be a bleeding heart, but if you spend one day in an inner city school you'll see how many kids - "homegrown" and new to this country - become victims themselves.

the people posting on this board to help the refugees don't actually live in those neighborhoods, send their kids to those schools.

You're absolutely right. I don't live in those neighborhood either. So my own kids don't attend challenging schools. However, I work in school that absorbed some of the "border" kids and the number of territorial fights that occurred inside and outside of our school was alarming.

People don't get it.

Poverty and neglect are connected to criminal activity. Kids who are neglected will join gangs. Without the resources to re-engage these kids, we lose them to a life of crime and alternative school settings.

Taking in more poor people will not create stability in this country - one that's already bursting at the seams.

Syrians weren't per se poor until the revolution. They were doctors and teachers and store owners and farmers. Everything we are, so were they. Their literacy rate is good. Kids learn English and French beginning in 1st grade. They have a fairly good vo tech educational program in high school. And colleges are free. Is it as good as the US? No. Are there poor people there? Of course. But broadly speaking, a large portion of them could assimilate pretty easily into the U.S.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American citizens are right to hault the Syrian refugees without knowing more about vetting. However, the genie is out of the bottle now. Europeans can freely enter our country, and they were the attackers in Paris.

We've had 300 killed and injured in mass shooter incidents this year in the U.S. Of those, four deaths and three injuries were caused by Muslims. Draw Muhammad and the Chatanooga Navy recruitment center. Statistically, we are most at risk by run-of-the-mill young, white, non-Muslim men. Based on 2015 stats, we each have about a 0.000002% risk of being killed or injured by an Islamic terrorist. Fewer than 20 Americans are killed worldwide by terrorists each year, and that includes in war zones. Is it really worth shutting down an existing refugee program that has a 2 year vetting process because of such an almost-insignificant risk?

Crunch your numbers for those OUTSIDE of the US. Are the stats higher, lower or the same.

just curious, as I'm NOT a numbers person

I don't know the number of Americans outside the country at any given time. But I think it's important to realize fewer than 20 Americans total are the victims of Islamic terrorist anywhere in the world each year. We have 320 million Americans total. The risk is overwhelmingly low. I realize ISIS is scary and sick. They are. But 30,000 Americans die each year in car accidents. Another 30,000 die from guns. Another 25,000 die from flu.

Yes, but we can be proactive about driving deaths and the flu - and even, to some extent, about guns. We cannot be proactive about ISIS - or other terrorists - as they're not easy to track. That's the goal - to create terror and to strike when it's least expected.

By inviting more people in, however, you increase the chances, yes? Statistics will show you that, I'm sure.

I think back to the sniper. People didn't want to live in fear of this homegrown terrorist. We went about our business - getting gas, driving to work, taking the metro into DC. But think of the 13 people harmed in our area; only three survived.

why? jihad against the US

10 people whose lives - based on your post - are meaningless, right? I don't care if "fewer than 20 Americans are killed." These are husbands, sisters, mothers, uncles, you name it.

Why add more people to the guest list?

I never said any life is meaningless. That's really not fair. I wonder why we compromise our values as a nation for minuscule risk. There is a difference. As people have pointed out multiple times on this forum, we are more at risk from terrorists who hold European passports and who can just buy a ticket and be here tomorrow. No visa, no background check, no nothing. The refugees pose extremely little risk.

There are several motives stated by the DC snipers for doing what they did. One, the DC sniper was terrorizing and ultimately killing his ex-wife, with the cover being she was just one of many random victims. He, by all accounts, snapped when he lost his children in a custody battle. Two, Malvo had talked about Muhammad trying to start a race war and then building an all-black community in Canada. And three, Muhammad wrote fondly of Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, while in jail. Not so simple to call it jihad.

fine

But crazy is crazy, right?

If the US couldn't handle a homegrown threat, it certainly can't fight off threats from more and more people entering the US. We've had gang issues all along - Crips who are "made in the USA - and MS 13 from El Salvador. They are destroying neighborhoods and schools.

Sadly, the kids most vulnerable are those who are poor, illiterate and neglected.

Again, we can't seem to care for "our own." How will adding more vulnerable kids to the mix make our society safer?

It's so easy to be a bleeding heart, but if you spend one day in an inner city school you'll see how many kids - "homegrown" and new to this country - become victims themselves.

the people posting on this board to help the refugees don't actually live in those neighborhoods, send their kids to those schools.

You're absolutely right. I don't live in those neighborhood either. So my own kids don't attend challenging schools. However, I work in school that absorbed some of the "border" kids and the number of territorial fights that occurred inside and outside of our school was alarming.

People don't get it.

Poverty and neglect are connected to criminal activity. Kids who are neglected will join gangs. Without the resources to re-engage these kids, we lose them to a life of crime and alternative school settings.

Taking in more poor people will not create stability in this country - one that's already bursting at the seams.

Syrians weren't per se poor until the revolution. They were doctors and teachers and store owners and farmers. Everything we are, so were they. Their literacy rate is good. Kids learn English and French beginning in 1st grade. They have a fairly good vo tech educational program in high school. And colleges are free. Is it as good as the US? No. Are there poor people there? Of course. But broadly speaking, a large portion of them could assimilate pretty easily into the U.S.

reciprocity with medical degree? I know of two people from other countries who have had to jump through hoops to practice. Even teaching is difficult to break into. People will be poor for many many years before rebuilding their lives. Do you honestly think that this isn't a drain on the system?

And kids entering will have suffered through interruptions in education. translation - taking on more ESOL students . . . And we simply don't have the resources to handle more. Not all areas will be affected, I know. However, those already bursting at the seams will be the schools to take them in - again, not McLean or Chevy Chase or Potomac or Bethesda.

While it's admirable to think with your hearts, once you see the effects of that decision, the decision will bite us all in the ass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American citizens are right to hault the Syrian refugees without knowing more about vetting. However, the genie is out of the bottle now. Europeans can freely enter our country, and they were the attackers in Paris.

We've had 300 killed and injured in mass shooter incidents this year in the U.S. Of those, four deaths and three injuries were caused by Muslims. Draw Muhammad and the Chatanooga Navy recruitment center. Statistically, we are most at risk by run-of-the-mill young, white, non-Muslim men. Based on 2015 stats, we each have about a 0.000002% risk of being killed or injured by an Islamic terrorist. Fewer than 20 Americans are killed worldwide by terrorists each year, and that includes in war zones. Is it really worth shutting down an existing refugee program that has a 2 year vetting process because of such an almost-insignificant risk?

Crunch your numbers for those OUTSIDE of the US. Are the stats higher, lower or the same.

just curious, as I'm NOT a numbers person

I don't know the number of Americans outside the country at any given time. But I think it's important to realize fewer than 20 Americans total are the victims of Islamic terrorist anywhere in the world each year. We have 320 million Americans total. The risk is overwhelmingly low. I realize ISIS is scary and sick. They are. But 30,000 Americans die each year in car accidents. Another 30,000 die from guns. Another 25,000 die from flu.

Yes, but we can be proactive about driving deaths and the flu - and even, to some extent, about guns. We cannot be proactive about ISIS - or other terrorists - as they're not easy to track. That's the goal - to create terror and to strike when it's least expected.

By inviting more people in, however, you increase the chances, yes? Statistics will show you that, I'm sure.

I think back to the sniper. People didn't want to live in fear of this homegrown terrorist. We went about our business - getting gas, driving to work, taking the metro into DC. But think of the 13 people harmed in our area; only three survived.

why? jihad against the US

10 people whose lives - based on your post - are meaningless, right? I don't care if "fewer than 20 Americans are killed." These are husbands, sisters, mothers, uncles, you name it.

Why add more people to the guest list?

I never said any life is meaningless. That's really not fair. I wonder why we compromise our values as a nation for minuscule risk. There is a difference. As people have pointed out multiple times on this forum, we are more at risk from terrorists who hold European passports and who can just buy a ticket and be here tomorrow. No visa, no background check, no nothing. The refugees pose extremely little risk.

There are several motives stated by the DC snipers for doing what they did. One, the DC sniper was terrorizing and ultimately killing his ex-wife, with the cover being she was just one of many random victims. He, by all accounts, snapped when he lost his children in a custody battle. Two, Malvo had talked about Muhammad trying to start a race war and then building an all-black community in Canada. And three, Muhammad wrote fondly of Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, while in jail. Not so simple to call it jihad.

fine

But crazy is crazy, right?

If the US couldn't handle a homegrown threat, it certainly can't fight off threats from more and more people entering the US. We've had gang issues all along - Crips who are "made in the USA - and MS 13 from El Salvador. They are destroying neighborhoods and schools.

Sadly, the kids most vulnerable are those who are poor, illiterate and neglected.

Again, we can't seem to care for "our own." How will adding more vulnerable kids to the mix make our society safer?

It's so easy to be a bleeding heart, but if you spend one day in an inner city school you'll see how many kids - "homegrown" and new to this country - become victims themselves.

the people posting on this board to help the refugees don't actually live in those neighborhoods, send their kids to those schools.

You're absolutely right. I don't live in those neighborhood either. So my own kids don't attend challenging schools. However, I work in school that absorbed some of the "border" kids and the number of territorial fights that occurred inside and outside of our school was alarming.

People don't get it.

Poverty and neglect are connected to criminal activity. Kids who are neglected will join gangs. Without the resources to re-engage these kids, we lose them to a life of crime and alternative school settings.

Taking in more poor people will not create stability in this country - one that's already bursting at the seams.

Syrians weren't per se poor until the revolution. They were doctors and teachers and store owners and farmers. Everything we are, so were they. Their literacy rate is good. Kids learn English and French beginning in 1st grade. They have a fairly good vo tech educational program in high school. And colleges are free. Is it as good as the US? No. Are there poor people there? Of course. But broadly speaking, a large portion of them could assimilate pretty easily into the U.S.

reciprocity with medical degree? I know of two people from other countries who have had to jump through hoops to practice. Even teaching is difficult to break into. People will be poor for many many years before rebuilding their lives. Do you honestly think that this isn't a drain on the system?

And kids entering will have suffered through interruptions in education. translation - taking on more ESOL students . . . And we simply don't have the resources to handle more. Not all areas will be affected, I know. However, those already bursting at the seams will be the schools to take them in - again, not McLean or Chevy Chase or Potomac or Bethesda.

While it's admirable to think with your hearts, once you see the effects of that decision, the decision will bite us all in the ass.

I didn't say anything about reciprocity. I said they are not all poor. There are many well educated people in Syria. I have MANY friends from the middle east who are much more educated than the average American. And no, they can't translate it profession for profession. Most doctors didn't become doctors here, but some did. Many are working in pharmaceutical sales making great money. Many are selling home owners and car insurance, again making good money. Many work in finance. They aren't making salaries that are good enough to live in Potomac, but they sure do live just fine in Gaithersburg. Paying taxes, contributing to society, just like everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American citizens are right to hault the Syrian refugees without knowing more about vetting. However, the genie is out of the bottle now. Europeans can freely enter our country, and they were the attackers in Paris.

We've had 300 killed and injured in mass shooter incidents this year in the U.S. Of those, four deaths and three injuries were caused by Muslims. Draw Muhammad and the Chatanooga Navy recruitment center. Statistically, we are most at risk by run-of-the-mill young, white, non-Muslim men. Based on 2015 stats, we each have about a 0.000002% risk of being killed or injured by an Islamic terrorist. Fewer than 20 Americans are killed worldwide by terrorists each year, and that includes in war zones. Is it really worth shutting down an existing refugee program that has a 2 year vetting process because of such an almost-insignificant risk?

Crunch your numbers for those OUTSIDE of the US. Are the stats higher, lower or the same.

just curious, as I'm NOT a numbers person

I don't know the number of Americans outside the country at any given time. But I think it's important to realize fewer than 20 Americans total are the victims of Islamic terrorist anywhere in the world each year. We have 320 million Americans total. The risk is overwhelmingly low. I realize ISIS is scary and sick. They are. But 30,000 Americans die each year in car accidents. Another 30,000 die from guns. Another 25,000 die from flu.

Yes, but we can be proactive about driving deaths and the flu - and even, to some extent, about guns. We cannot be proactive about ISIS - or other terrorists - as they're not easy to track. That's the goal - to create terror and to strike when it's least expected.

By inviting more people in, however, you increase the chances, yes? Statistics will show you that, I'm sure.

I think back to the sniper. People didn't want to live in fear of this homegrown terrorist. We went about our business - getting gas, driving to work, taking the metro into DC. But think of the 13 people harmed in our area; only three survived.

why? jihad against the US

10 people whose lives - based on your post - are meaningless, right? I don't care if "fewer than 20 Americans are killed." These are husbands, sisters, mothers, uncles, you name it.

Why add more people to the guest list?

I never said any life is meaningless. That's really not fair. I wonder why we compromise our values as a nation for minuscule risk. There is a difference. As people have pointed out multiple times on this forum, we are more at risk from terrorists who hold European passports and who can just buy a ticket and be here tomorrow. No visa, no background check, no nothing. The refugees pose extremely little risk.

There are several motives stated by the DC snipers for doing what they did. One, the DC sniper was terrorizing and ultimately killing his ex-wife, with the cover being she was just one of many random victims. He, by all accounts, snapped when he lost his children in a custody battle. Two, Malvo had talked about Muhammad trying to start a race war and then building an all-black community in Canada. And three, Muhammad wrote fondly of Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, while in jail. Not so simple to call it jihad.

fine

But crazy is crazy, right?

If the US couldn't handle a homegrown threat, it certainly can't fight off threats from more and more people entering the US. We've had gang issues all along - Crips who are "made in the USA - and MS 13 from El Salvador. They are destroying neighborhoods and schools.

Sadly, the kids most vulnerable are those who are poor, illiterate and neglected.

Again, we can't seem to care for "our own." How will adding more vulnerable kids to the mix make our society safer?

It's so easy to be a bleeding heart, but if you spend one day in an inner city school you'll see how many kids - "homegrown" and new to this country - become victims themselves.

the people posting on this board to help the refugees don't actually live in those neighborhoods, send their kids to those schools.

You're absolutely right. I don't live in those neighborhood either. So my own kids don't attend challenging schools. However, I work in school that absorbed some of the "border" kids and the number of territorial fights that occurred inside and outside of our school was alarming.

People don't get it.

Poverty and neglect are connected to criminal activity. Kids who are neglected will join gangs. Without the resources to re-engage these kids, we lose them to a life of crime and alternative school settings.

Taking in more poor people will not create stability in this country - one that's already bursting at the seams.

Syrians weren't per se poor until the revolution. They were doctors and teachers and store owners and farmers. Everything we are, so were they. Their literacy rate is good. Kids learn English and French beginning in 1st grade. They have a fairly good vo tech educational program in high school. And colleges are free. Is it as good as the US? No. Are there poor people there? Of course. But broadly speaking, a large portion of them could assimilate pretty easily into the U.S.

reciprocity with medical degree? I know of two people from other countries who have had to jump through hoops to practice. Even teaching is difficult to break into. People will be poor for many many years before rebuilding their lives. Do you honestly think that this isn't a drain on the system?

And kids entering will have suffered through interruptions in education. translation - taking on more ESOL students . . . And we simply don't have the resources to handle more. Not all areas will be affected, I know. However, those already bursting at the seams will be the schools to take them in - again, not McLean or Chevy Chase or Potomac or Bethesda.

While it's admirable to think with your hearts, once you see the effects of that decision, the decision will bite us all in the ass.

I didn't say anything about reciprocity. I said they are not all poor. There are many well educated people in Syria. I have MANY friends from the middle east who are much more educated than the average American. And no, they can't translate it profession for profession. Most doctors didn't become doctors here, but some did. Many are working in pharmaceutical sales making great money. Many are selling home owners and car insurance, again making good money. Many work in finance. They aren't making salaries that are good enough to live in Potomac, but they sure do live just fine in Gaithersburg. Paying taxes, contributing to society, just like everyone else.

And they recently entered the country? right?