Syrian Refugee Opinion Poll

[mcts]

Let 'em in. If the bad guys are going to come in, they're not going to wait for the months long process, where they may or may not actually get approved. They're just going to come in. 

[Didacus]

The only reason many of us are open to allowing large numbers of islamists amongst us is that we have never known islam amongst us when islam is strong or the majority. 

[Winchester]

Of the means of access,  the refugee route makes the least sense of all for terrorists. Sitting in a camp for a year or more with little assurance of being sent to the US. 

 

5) UNHCR data showing high number of refugees are men.

http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php
 

 

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

The numbers shared by the KOC show 850,571 refugees and include only sea arrivals. The numbers in the link I've provided to the KOC time and again show 4,289,792. Males do make up a "large number" of refugees in the larger sample, but not apparently not large enough to suit the KOC.

 

 

[Credo in Deum]

Help those in need. Send back those who abuse the help. 

[bardegaulois]

I must admit that I don't like the choices here at all because they don't count for all the possible nuances. I selected Christians only, but it's far more complicated than that. Of course Christians and any other group that would face hardship and potential violence in a refugee camp should have first billing, as should unaccompanied women and children, the elderly, and so forth.

As for all the young non-Christian men attempting to emigrate (the majority, I understand), their reason for emigration will have to be determined: are they genuine refugees or merely migrants of convenience? Also, not all of these migrants are even Syrian; we must determine who isn't and if they're just taking advantage of an open-door policy. Lastly, we're going to have to assess if there's even work available for them; as we in the US have seen with Mexicans and other Hispanics, allowing (well, tolerating) a large population to immigrate during a period of deindustrialization has poor consequences for labor all across the board, native and immigrant alike, and is actually in many ways an incubator of racism and nativism. Look at the Trump phenomenon of last summer if you don't believe me. And all of this isn't even addressing the matter of background screening for domestic security purposes.

So it's hard to say it's a cut-and-dry issue that can be delineated into three choices.

[Winchester]

10 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

Help those in need. Send back those who abuse the help. 

That would be quite the police state, there. I don't think you know what you're advocating.

[KnightofChrist]

On 11/22/2015, 9:55:04, Winchester said:

Of the means of access,  the refugee route makes the least sense of all for terrorists. Sitting in a camp for a year or more with little assurance of being sent to the US. 

And yet terrorist have used the refugee route to come to the Untied States or refugees have gone the terrorist route after coming to the United States. Either way a reason to be concerned. Just because it's hard, just because ISIS looks down on the refugees doesn't mean terrorists don't use the route.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322649/The-enemy-Nearly-SEVENTY-arrested-America-ISIS-plots-include-refugees-given-safe-haven-turned-terror.html

On 11/22/2015, 9:55:04, Winchester said:

 

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

The numbers shared by the KOC show 850,571 refugees and include only sea arrivals. The numbers in the link I've provided to the KOC time and again show 4,289,792. Males do make up a "large number" of refugees in the larger sample, but not apparently not large enough to suit the KOC.

 

 

I may be wrong but I only recall having one prior conversion with you about the Refugee crisis. I don't recall you sharing 'this time and time again' link, I do recall you being verbally nasty lol so I then ignored most of what you said after that. If I missed the link it's due to the fact that I don't recall, never noticed it, or I ignored the post(s) in was in due to some nasty nonsense. More than likely it was due to nastiness. You're a friend and when you talk like that I just ignore it so it doesn't anger me.
 

But thank you for the link, I stand corrected one that point. For now at least. However why ignore the other points? I put the refugee numbers last because it was least important.

[Winchester]

4 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

And yet terrorist have used the refugee route to come to the Untied States or refugees have gone the terrorist route after coming to the United States. Either way a reason to be concerned. Just because it's hard, just because ISIS looks down on the refugees doesn't mean terrorists don't use the route.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322649/The-enemy-Nearly-SEVENTY-arrested-America-ISIS-plots-include-refugees-given-safe-haven-turned-terror.html

I may be wrong but I only recall having one prior conversion with you about the Refugee crisis. I don't recall you sharing 'this time and time again' link, I do recall you being verbally nasty lol so I then ignored most of what you said after that. If I missed the link it's due to the fact that I don't recall, never noticed it, or I ignored the post(s) in was in due to some nasty nonsense. More than likely it was due to nastiness. You're a friend and when you talk like that I just ignore it so it doesn't anger me.
 

But thank you for the link, I stand corrected one that point. For now at least. However why ignore the other points? I put the refugee numbers last because it was least important.

You're comparing people who allegedly provided aid to people sent to carry out attacks. Someone with sympathies might well come here and then send money back. If they were previously involved with terror, there's a good chance they will be rejected. If they want to get to the US to carry out an attack, going through refugee processes are lengthy and there's no assurance of them getting sent to the US. A refugee might also come here and then "radicalize". I see these as different concerns, and the numbers don't say this is a serious threat, never mind common sense. The article you cited also speaks of natives joining ISIS. I saw two refugees mentioned in the article who provided aid, another who was born in a refugee camp. Others were immigrants or natives. The refugees were the minority.

 

I am often verbally nasty. It's a flaw, and I agree that it can really screw up whatever message I've decided is so important to deliver. The tone overwhelms content. Sorry about that.

 

The last point caught my eye as I was scrolling. I picked it because it's a bug I had up my butt about previous talks. So bug up my butt is the short version.

[PhuturePriest]

After learning more about the process and hearing all arguments, in the end I think I've come in favor of allowing Syrian refugees in. The process is incredibly scrupulous and long, and no terrorist with half a brain would ever choose it as a means of getting in the United States.

[KnightofChrist]

18 hours ago, Winchester said:

You're comparing people who allegedly provided aid to people sent to carry out attacks. Someone with sympathies might well come here and then send money back. If they were previously involved with terror, there's a good chance they will be rejected. If they want to get to the US to carry out an attack, going through refugee processes are lengthy and there's no assurance of them getting sent to the US. A refugee might also come here and then "radicalize". I see these as different concerns, and the numbers don't say this is a serious threat, never mind common sense. The article you cited also speaks of natives joining ISIS. I saw two refugees mentioned in the article who provided aid, another who was born in a refugee camp. Others were immigrants or natives. The refugees were the minority.

Yes, it's common to compare those that willfully pay for or fund the murder of others to those that actually murder others. 

I don't know what the actual data is on our "good chances" but Government has show it's utter incompetence many times, over many years, over many issues. So I don't really trust our chances to them. I know it's been repeated many times but this is the same Government that said ISIS was a JV team, that ISIS was contained just hours before the attack in Paris (for those that don't like those two examples there are plenty of other incompetent nonsense by Government) and now that Government pinky promises that they are rigorously vetting the refugees and that there's no need to be concerned.  Which may be true, I just don't trust that it is true.

Going through the lengthy and difficult process would in my opinion be a cunning move on part of ISIS or like minded groups. If they made it through the refugee process rather than for example the visa process there would be less suspicion and more protections for them from both the public and the Government. After all no one but those nasties on the right would dare question them.

Anyway, for me it all comes down to trust. I do not trust the United States Federal Government, I am not reassured by their words, I do not trust their words. 

 

 

18 hours ago, Winchester said:

I am often verbally nasty. It's a flaw, and I agree that it can really screw up whatever message I've decided is so important to deliver. The tone overwhelms content. Sorry about that.

 

The last point caught my eye as I was scrolling. I picked it because it's a bug I had up my butt about previous talks. So bug up my butt is the short version.

It's fine, I ignore it like I ignore ads or commercials. No  big deal.

[blazeingstar]

I'm all for letting Syrian refugees in.  But we are in desperate need to fix the lives of those on visas, immigrants and those who have overstayed or come without documentation.

I live with 30 miles of one of the worst highschools in the country.  Over 75% of the children in the school are undocumented or children of immigrants without documentation.  Most of them fled unspeakable violence.  One highschool girl had 4 older sisters.  One by one around the age of 12 they were kidnapped and are likely part of the sex trafficking trade.  They had a decent life where they lived but they got a visa and have overstayed by many years making them undocumented.   After sister #3 was gone for a year the mother took her two remaining daughters ages 10 and 6 to America.  The 10yo died to a chronic illness (I believe asthma) on the journey. They live in fear.  The girl was celebrating her quincenera, something that caused her mother great joy and pain as she was the only daughter to reach that milestone.

I also know of immigrants from Indonesia who watched family being tortured for being Christian.  They were legal refugees yet it took them over 10 years to be able to know for sure they wouldn't be sent back.  It's sickening.  The mother (previously a prestigious lawyer) worked insanely hard at low wage factory jobs and the daughter was a straight A student, learning near perfect English in only 6 months.  They often barley got by and lived in a studio apartment, shared a bed, and it cost them $700 a month....and that wasn't even in a big city.

And there are many here on ever-extended HB1 visas who are pretty much an abused part of the tech workforce.  A young man I know married outside his cast in India and was supposed to be sentenced to death.  He got into America on an HB1.  He's been here for 15 years, has barley had a holiday or vacation, regularly works 70+ hours for pay below his American co-workers who do around 40 hours because he has no other choice.  His green card has been in process for 5 years, even with documentation of the death threats.

So while I am not against Syrians, we need to work out our refugee problems here before we invite more people over.  The promised full time $9-11 per hour jobs with 2-bedroom apt's at $950 don't exist for many Americans, never-mind for those who don't speak English.

And despite his promises their has been net negative migration in the US.  Many central Americans have raised their kids here and decided to return.  Their children are safe and they miss home.  There are other reasons with jobs drying up from both Americans willing to do things, overseas trade and automation.  But as one speaker on NPR commented despite Obama's promises and a mostly willing house and congress passing more laws in favor of immigration than ever, there's hardly been a worse time to be an migrant in America, documented or not.  With things being akin to "Irish need not apply" for Spanish, Moslem and in some regions Indian and Asian.

[Winchester]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

Yes, it's common to compare those that willfully pay for or fund the murder of others to those that actually murder others. 

I don't know what the actual data is on our "good chances" but Government has show it's utter incompetence many times, over many years, over many issues. So I don't really trust our chances to them. I know it's been repeated many times but this is the same Government that said ISIS was a JV team, that ISIS was contained just hours before the attack in Paris (for those that don't like those two examples there are plenty of other incompetent nonsense by Government) and now that Government pinky promises that they are rigorously vetting the refugees and that there's no need to be concerned.  Which may be true, I just don't trust that it is true.

Going through the lengthy and difficult process would in my opinion be a cunning move on part of ISIS or like minded groups. If they made it through the refugee process rather than for example the visa process there would be less suspicion and more protections for them from both the public and the Government. After all no one but those nasties on the right would dare question them.

Anyway, for me it all comes down to trust. I do not trust the United States Federal Government, I am not reassured by their words, I do not trust their words. 

 

 

It's fine, I ignore it like I ignore ads or commercials. No  big deal.

My point is that sending aid is quite different from carrying out an attack. You might be a sympathizer (like those who supported the IRA in the US, although the IRA was in the right, unlike ISIS) who goes through the process, but it makes no sense to have soldiers tied up for 2-3 years. A cunning move that costs you a soldier for 2 to 3 years without any assurance of his destination really doesn't seem cunning.

Whether one trusts the government or not is beside the point. The numbers show that refugees aren't a serious risk. You don't have to stop at soundbites, on this subject. The GOP line is designed to play on fear, and the fear is disproportionate to the actual danger. It's much like the rhetoric used by the gun control supporters.

 

 

[KnightofChrist]

13 hours ago, Winchester said:

My point is that sending aid is quite different from carrying out an attack. You might be a sympathizer (like those who supported the IRA in the US, although the IRA was in the right, unlike ISIS) who goes through the process, but it makes no sense to have soldiers tied up for 2-3 years. A cunning move that costs you a soldier for 2 to 3 years without any assurance of his destination really doesn't seem cunning.

I looked it up to apply for refugee status in the U.S. or to get the process in motion they only need to talk to someone at UNHCR. It's my understanding that most of the refugee camps are run by the UNHCR. So again I remain unconvinced that it's as hard as you are lead to believe. Also, I'm not just concerned about America but other western nations, most of the refugees are sent to western nations. Most targets of ISIS are western nations.

13 hours ago, Winchester said:

Whether one trusts the government or not is beside the point. The numbers show that refugees aren't a serious risk. You don't have to stop at soundbites, on this subject.

I'm not stopping at soundbites on this subject, nor am I really starting with them. I just don't trust the State when it tells us "trust us citizen everything is fine." They release the numbers so I don't trust the numbers. The numbers may be correct, or they maybe like the unemployment numbers which are manipulated to favor Government. There are many so-called Globalists in many western governments who are financially and ideologically invested in 'open boarders' policies. It's not surprising that they would want to protect their interest.

13 hours ago, Winchester said:

The GOP line is designed to play on fear, and the fear is disproportionate to the actual danger. It's much like the rhetoric used by the gun control supporters.

That sounds a lot like a DNC sound bite, but it doesn't really hold up to reality because the GOP is widely split on the issue. Even those in the GOP who are against more intake of refugees are split in how they handle the issue. Sure some like politicians on all sides will use fear to gain power.

Anyway, I'm in favor of taking in refugees so long as they can be vetted and security concerns are met. I also think Christians and other highly persecuted people should be put at the front of the line.

[Anomaly]

I'm for taking in Syrian immigrants as long as we attempt to screen them.  Heck, who saw the Boston Bomber Brother's potential or Tim McVeigh's potential prior to their acts of Terrorism?

Overzealous political correctness trying not to offend anyone is the other-side of the xenophobic coin.  Come on over to USA and buy your generic red coffee cup from Starbucks or grab a Chik Fillet sandwich. It's all good in our 'hood. 

Really, more people would rather live here or like it's here than would rather see us destroyed.  The biggest US detractors are usually the ingrates eho were born here.   Fresh appreciation is a good thing. 

Edited November 25, 2015 by Anomaly

[Ice_nine]

Terrorism and violence is just a reality we have to contend with. Even if we turn away all refugees, that will not prevent murder or terror here , but it will definitely perpetuate it if we send needy desperate people back into warzones or refugee camps.

[Kia ora]

 

On 25/11/2015, 18:12:03, KnightofChrist said:

I looked it up to apply for refugee status in the U.S. or to get the process in motion they only need to talk to someone at UNHCR. It's my understanding that most of the refugee camps are run by the UNHCR. So again I remain unconvinced that it's as hard as you are lead to believe. Also, I'm not just concerned about America but other western nations, most of the refugees are sent to western nations. Most targets of ISIS are western nations.

How ignorant can you be. Do you know nothing (do you even care) about the people that daesh have murdered in the middle east. 

[Benedictus]

I disagree with all the poll options. People should be assessed on need, sincerity and on their merits as an individual or family. Would  Jesus have made it into the US? He was from the middle east afterall...

[Mercy me]

The first duty of the government is to keep us safe.  We have Isis who is on record saying that they will infiltrate the refugee population with the intent to get into the US to perpetrate terrorism.  Looking closer at the refugees I am not seeing a lot of women and children.  When in trouble our values are to protect the weakest.  Where are the children? Where are the women and elderly?  This doesn't look like any group of refugees I have ever seen.  My instinct is that something is not right here and to proceed with great caution.

[Gladius]

Immigrants should want to assimilate into American culture first.  Immigrants should also contribute to our society.  Under ordinary conditions, we should be seeking immigrants that are educated and able to serve as doctors, teachers, etc.  America should not be a global recycle bin for peasants and criminals.  Immigration is not a human right. It's time to drop the false compassion and look after our own interests.