French - let immigrants int your homes

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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.

What are those many ideas? How is it observerd differently? Why would a family in a patriarchal society want to change when the law favors the man? They are fleeing because they have nothing left due to the war and the economy is in shambles

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

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

The problem with relying on an article written in 2008 is that there has been plenty of time for it to be debunked. As it happens, that one was debunked almost immediately:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/lawreports/joshuarozenberg/2957692/What-can-sharia-courts-do-in-Britain.html

The report produces no evidence to suggest that the Government has sanctioned any powers for sharia judges at all, quietly or otherwise. And a sharia court in Britain has no power to grant a divorce that is valid in English law.

Divorce is a matter of personal status. There is a fundamental difference between questions of status — which are for the state to decide — and disputes between individuals, which they may resolve as they wish.

If individuals or companies are unable to settle their differences and do not wish to begin legal proceedings, they can agree to have their disputes resolved by an arbitrator, a sort of private judge.

Unless there are procedural irregularities, the arbitrator’s decision — known as an award — will be enforced in the same way as a court ruling.

A woman, it explains, can “get a divorce in the civil courts but her husband may continue to deny her the religious divorce. As a result she may feel unable to re-marry because the community still regard her as being married”.

The same problem can arise under Jewish law, where the woman is known as an agunah —meaning “chained” or “anchored” wife.

These so-called MATs are variations of the Sharia Council idea. They are simply an alternative means of arbitration or mediation for civil disputes and personal family issues.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

What are those many ideas? How is it observerd differently? Why would a family in a patriarchal society want to change when the law favors the man? They are fleeing because they have nothing left due to the war and the economy is in shambles

In most countries in which some form of "Sharia law" is observed, it is only in matters of personal status such as marriage and divorce. Moreover, in most cases, the laws are said to be "drawn from Sharia" or "based on Sharia" or something somewhat vague in that manner. They simply can't "implement Sharia" because there is no agreement about what actually constitutes "Sharia".

The US has historically been a patriarchal society. Why did we change? Syria and Iraq have been two of the most advanced Arab countries where women's rights are concerned. Unfortunately, one legacy of the US invasion of Iraq was a tremendous setback of those rights. Certainly most in those countries have a significantly different view of the role of women than ISIS which draws its ideas from the Wahhabis of the Gulf rather than the locally-observed traditions.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

So you take in a family with a father and son and expect them not to act like single men when they are coming from a patriarchal society hmm

That's the point. They I've w backward culture that isn't compatible with liberalized western values

This is such BS and I am really tired of seeing it repeated ad nauseam. Are you suggesting that Khizr Khan has a backward culture that isn't compatible with liberalized western values?

Jeff, I generally agree with you on Middle Eastern issues, but comparing Khzir Khan's beliefs to that of a Syrian refugee is not ideal. Khan and his wife -- like many Pakistanis and Indians of their generation --- made a decision to be educated in their countries so that would be more attractive as emigres to the US. Khan is a lawyer and may hold some traditional Islamic values but he is very westernized. I suspect the Khan's children are like the typical second generation Pakistanis and Indians who post on DCUM about the same first world concerns as Americans whose families have been here for a few more generations.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

So you take in a family with a father and son and expect them not to act like single men when they are coming from a patriarchal society hmm

That's the point. They I've w backward culture that isn't compatible with liberalized western values

This is such BS and I am really tired of seeing it repeated ad nauseam. Are you suggesting that Khizr Khan has a backward culture that isn't compatible with liberalized western values?

Jeff, I generally agree with you on Middle Eastern issues, but comparing Khzir Khan's beliefs to that of a Syrian refugee is not ideal. Khan and his wife -- like many Pakistanis and Indians of their generation --- made a decision to be educated in their countries so that would be more attractive as emigres to the US. Khan is a lawyer and may hold some traditional Islamic values but he is very westernized. I suspect the Khan's children are like the typical second generation Pakistanis and Indians who post on DCUM about the same first world concerns as Americans whose families have been here for a few more generations.

I believe what you are saying is that Khan does not fit the stereotype of a "culturally backwards" Muslim. If so, you are correct about that. However, it is similarly wrong to suggest that Syrian refugees fit that stereotype simply by virtue of being refugees. Educated and progressive people also become refugees. There are doctors and lawyers among the refugees. There are women who are university graduates. It is impossible to make blanket statements about the cultural values held by these individuals and certainly wrong to allege that none of them have values compatible with US society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was an article in the new york times a couple of weeks ago about how a lot of Canadians are very enthusiastically taking in Syrian refugees.

And the same article also explained the Canadians' frustrations because the refugees would not behave as they wanted. For example, one couple decided to skip English language classes and take their child to the park instead. The Canadians were lovely, extremely well-intentioned people, and the Syrians were educated and middle class. But they valued things differently. Nothing wrong with either, but there are many things to consider before welcoming people into your community much less your home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No we don't, when the DHS, FBI and such were asked, they said they don't have a system.

“We can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database til the cows come home, but … there’ll be nothing show up, because we have no record on that person,” - James Comey.

“You can only query what you’ve collected,”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93hud8EVpDU

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No we don't, when the DHS, FBI and such were asked, they said they don't have a system.

“We can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database til the cows come home, but … there’ll be nothing show up, because we have no record on that person,” - James Comey.

“You can only query what you’ve collected,”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93hud8EVpDU

Two different issues: system in place vs. not having enough data. The system is there; they just don't have a lot of data to go on. Two different things.

No system means that when an immigrant or refugee comes in, the people vetting them follow their own process, or no process at all.

System in place with very little data means that they are following the process, checking their systems, but there's not enough data there.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No we don't, when the DHS, FBI and such were asked, they said they don't have a system.

“We can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database til the cows come home, but … there’ll be nothing show up, because we have no record on that person,” - James Comey.

“You can only query what you’ve collected,”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93hud8EVpDU

What do you mean they don't have a system. Of course they have a system. Comey is saying that he can't guarantee that the system is perfect. Here is a very good overview of the vetting process written by a conservative source:

http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2015/12/how-the-refugee-vetting-process-works

Note that Comey only speaks for the FBI which is only one of several agencies involved in vetting.

No vetting system can be guaranteed to be perfect. Nobody is making that argument. But, the threat is not near the level that it is being made out to be.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

What are those many ideas? How is it observerd differently? Why would a family in a patriarchal society want to change when the law favors the man? They are fleeing because they have nothing left due to the war and the economy is in shambles

In most countries in which some form of "Sharia law" is observed, it is only in matters of personal status such as marriage and divorce. Moreover, in most cases, the laws are said to be "drawn from Sharia" or "based on Sharia" or something somewhat vague in that manner. They simply can't "implement Sharia" because there is no agreement about what actually constitutes "Sharia".

The US has historically been a patriarchal society. Why did we change? Syria and Iraq have been two of the most advanced Arab countries where women's rights are concerned. Unfortunately, one legacy of the US invasion of Iraq was a tremendous setback of those rights. Certainly most in those countries have a significantly different view of the role of women than ISIS which draws its ideas from the Wahhabis of the Gulf rather than the locally-observed traditions.

Do you deny that women are treated as second hand citizens in traditional Muslim communities that follow viewpoints such as those above, and that boys are subject to being raised with warped views of the treatment of women like their own sisters or wive, which in itself constitutes abuse? Even in Pakistan a brother just honor killed his blogger sister, 'the Kim Kardashian of Pakistan' for bringing 'shame' on the family with her popular posts. Do you, host of this site, deny this widespread toxic mistreatment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mother lived in a refugee camp for her first 5+ years. When it was clear her home country was not stabilized/safe, she was properly processed with her family into the US for which we are ever grateful. I am not sure why people think the situation in Syria cannot be turned around and people go home to their farms and businesses. Camps can be orderly, well run places with grocery stores, community events, schools, etc. Is it ideal? No. Should it be permanent like the Burmese in Thailand? No. But most of these people are economic refugees, much like the illegal immigrants who come to the US for economic purposes. Pakistanis, Afghans, etc. unless they are fleeing a specific threat--ie they are from a minority religious group being targeted--should stay and invest in the countries. People from true conflict zones should be in protected no-fly camps until they can return home and rebuild. The true travesty is that the refugee camps for Syrians appear to be far safer/more stable than the UN "protected' camps in Africa. Why not opening homes to South Sudanese etc?
The solution is not open borders. It is safe haven camps that are truly protected, and political and economic and military investment in stabilizing the regions so people can return home to their cultures, communities and livlihoods.

Do you think the Syrian refugee camps are like this? They are not. Plus, they don't see the Syrian conflict getting resolved anytime soon. All you have to do is read the news. You cannot be this naive. ISIS is all over Syria.

There are UN soldiers who have raped women and children in refugee camps. Those camps are not safe. You are very naive.

So, you think they should wait it out in the camps? If I were in their shoes, especially with young kids, I wouldn't wait it out. I would want a chance for my kids.

Your mother lived in a refugee camp and then immigrated to the US, but you are saying these people shouldn't be able to immigrate like your mother did. Why not?

No, they shouldn't. She was in a camp for FIVE years and her parents always LONGED to go back. Their lives were utter crap in the US - hard work, died young. Some.of the second generation did better - some flailed and failed (do you know the toxic behaviors in the east coast ghettos in which they lived? Alcoholism. Abject poverty. Abuse. The camps should have far better support in both Syria and south Sudan, rather than your rose colored glasses of open the doors to a 1st world country without providing long term integration support (a measly one year by volunteers is what people here get) and tackling the issues that caused people to flee because you in your elite NW DC castle think everything is here is perfecto. Of course as a second generation American I love this country, and of course I think my family contributed, and I know I myself wouldn't be here had events not transpired as they did. But I'll tell you, had my grandma been able to return to her farm, piano teaching and books instead of life as a cleaning woman in the US cleaning up your grandparents office trash I'm betting she would have been very fulfilled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

What are those many ideas? How is it observerd differently? Why would a family in a patriarchal society want to change when the law favors the man? They are fleeing because they have nothing left due to the war and the economy is in shambles

In most countries in which some form of "Sharia law" is observed, it is only in matters of personal status such as marriage and divorce. Moreover, in most cases, the laws are said to be "drawn from Sharia" or "based on Sharia" or something somewhat vague in that manner. They simply can't "implement Sharia" because there is no agreement about what actually constitutes "Sharia".

The US has historically been a patriarchal society. Why did we change? Syria and Iraq have been two of the most advanced Arab countries where women's rights are concerned. Unfortunately, one legacy of the US invasion of Iraq was a tremendous setback of those rights. Certainly most in those countries have a significantly different view of the role of women than ISIS which draws its ideas from the Wahhabis of the Gulf rather than the locally-observed traditions.

Do you deny that women are treated as second hand citizens in traditional Muslim communities that follow viewpoints such as those above, and that boys are subject to being raised with warped views of the treatment of women like their own sisters or wive, which in itself constitutes abuse? Even in Pakistan a brother just honor killed his blogger sister, 'the Kim Kardashian of Pakistan' for bringing 'shame' on the family with her popular posts. Do you, host of this site, deny this widespread toxic mistreatment?

+1000

[Anonymous]

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.

Well, at this point the US government admitted that they have no reliable procedure to vet them. There are thousands of people in camps who are undocumented or with false documents. There are no legitimate way to find out if they came to the camp a week ago or four years ago.

Now, speaking about moral obligations: I think US government first and foremost obligationsl shall be to its citizens. Government has obligations striclty defined by US Constitution and US law. There are no such thing as moral obligations of the goverment.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

So you take in a family with a father and son and expect them not to act like single men when they are coming from a patriarchal society hmm

That's the point. They I've w backward culture that isn't compatible with liberalized western values

This is such BS and I am really tired of seeing it repeated ad nauseam. Are you suggesting that Khizr Khan has a backward culture that isn't compatible with liberalized western values?

Jeff, I generally agree with you on Middle Eastern issues, but comparing Khzir Khan's beliefs to that of a Syrian refugee is not ideal. Khan and his wife -- like many Pakistanis and Indians of their generation --- made a decision to be educated in their countries so that would be more attractive as emigres to the US. Khan is a lawyer and may hold some traditional Islamic values but he is very westernized. I suspect the Khan's children are like the typical second generation Pakistanis and Indians who post on DCUM about the same first world concerns as Americans whose families have been here for a few more generations.

I believe what you are saying is that Khan does not fit the stereotype of a "culturally backwards" Muslim. If so, you are correct about that. However, it is similarly wrong to suggest that Syrian refugees fit that stereotype simply by virtue of being refugees. Educated and progressive people also become refugees. There are doctors and lawyers among the refugees. There are women who are university graduates. It is impossible to make blanket statements about the cultural values held by these individuals and certainly wrong to allege that none of them have values compatible with US society.

You sound like a person who never been at the Syrian refugee camp and who get all his information from mass media.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:You sound like a person who never been at the Syrian refugee camp and who get all his information from mass media.

Well, your sources of information are probably even less credible than that.