OK lets talk about refugees here (1 Viewer)

[DrStrange]

Let's not contaminate the thread about the horror in Paris with political talk. This is a better, contained place to discuss and debate.

I'd like to stipulate some "facts" as a starting point. No telling if they are accurate - offer alternates if you have reputable sources.

There are roughly 9 million displaced people due to the conflict in Syria.

There are roughly 3 million refugees fleeing the conflict(s), not all of them are Syrian and not all are fleeing the civil war there. Some will be Iraqi, others will be displaced by one of the various conflicts in the middle east and North Africa.

There are over 700,000 documented "Syrian" refugees in Europe and a number of undocumented ones as well. Lets just call it a million though that might be a tad high for now.

There is no telling how many refugees are in the hinderlands of Turkey - - though part of Europe, Turkey's problems are different from the rest of Europe.

A small number of refugees are affiliated with Islamic terrorist groups. This is likely a minuscule number but it only takes a handful to cause trouble.

The USA has the luxury of an ocean to keep these masses of humanity at bay. When the USA takes in displaced people it gets to conduct a degree of inspection that the Europeans can not replicate.

The more aggressively "the West" protects against the onslaught of refuges, the more difficult and dangerous it becomes for the refugees.

Disease, climate, starvation and violence will take a heavy toll on refugees. The West can mitigate this or make it worse.

Questions to ponder:

Are we going to advocate refugee camps where everyone just is held in place?

Are we going to attempt a forced resettlement back?

How aggressively should European nations guard their borders?

Should a nation undertake the expulsion of previously settled minorities - i.e. people who entered Europe prior to 2014?

How many dead refugees are worth one dead terrorist victim? In some ways this is the bottom line question. I'd be mindful that a bad choice on the "safe" side could create a new, different wave of terrorism.

It isn't going to be easy -=- DrStrange

 

[Anthony Martino]

It's definitely a difficult topic with pros and cons on each side. What I find most disturbing is my facebook feed being blown up by people who advocate against ALL Arabic or Islamic people. They just paint with wide strokes and label EVERYONE from a specific religion or ethnicity as these vile evil people.

They preach that you don't see Christians waging war on others or committing acts of terrorism, but they are blinded by "the eye of the beholder". People see what they want to see, and ignore what they don't want to acknowledge.

If they stopped for a minute to consider the other side of the equation. Put themselves in the shoes of Arabs or Muslims living in Iraq or Afghanistan, and here comes an international force comprised mostly of Westerners that are Christian, surely they view that as Christians waging war upon them, or committing acts of terror.

And please don't start with the "we are fighting for freedom and democracy" line, because if you believe that god help you. Our boots are put on the ground for the economic greed and power/control of corporations and special interests. There are PLENTY of horrific things going on all across the world that we never even hear about or get involved in because there is no strategic or economic benefit to us.

Years ago my own Mother told me "all Arabs are suicide bombers!" because she "sees it on the news". It's unfortunate that people want to only use white and black paint for conflicts and fail to understand there is a LOT of grey.

Now that I've gone on a long-winded tangent, this doesn't excuse the horrific acts in France, or make them in any way acceptable. It's unfortunate that so many innocent people are made to suffer in these conflicts. But I suppose the people fighting us view it as the best way, wear down the common population of a nation until it clamors for its government to withdraw from the conflict. Or fire up the other side of the conflict and generate more recruits for their army as anti-Muslim sentiment grows, forcing more Muslims into their ranks to fuel their jihad.

I don't think shutting the door to refugees is the right move, but there certainly does have to be care taken with the process. Unfortunately nothing is fool-proof. It's like gun control, imo. You can take away the guns, but the only people abiding by that are law-abiding citizens, not the criminals. If the criminals want to obtain a gun or commit some criminal act they will find a way.

Likewise, shutting borders, refusing refugees, etc. won't stop terrorism. The terrorists will find ways to commit their acts. I suppose people want to feel like they're 100% safe and secure, but that's just unrealistic, whether it's dealing with terrorism or crossing the street.

 

[pltrgyst]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

" It's like gun control, imo. You can take away the guns, but the only people abiding by that are law-abiding citizens, not the criminals. If the criminals want to obtain a gun or commit some criminal act they will find a way."

Bull shit, Anthony. I get really sick of hearing this patented NRA line.

If you take away the weapons and ammunition, so that the only weapons and ammunition are in the hands of law enforcement and the military, then the bad guys have precisely three options: 1) Make their own weapons (not very likely); 2) Get their weapons from law enforcement or the military (not very likely); 3) Bring their weapons in from other countries (much more difficult than obtaining them in this country).

In all three cases, there would be far, far, far fewer weapons in this country that would be in, or could possibly fall into, the hands of bad guys.

And don't drag in red herrings like Chicago and DC, where people just drive ten miles to a neighboring jurisdiction and buy whatever they want.

Just look at the example of Australia.

(For the record, I got my first .22LR rifle when I was 11, by selling xmas cards. I'm ex-Army, a two-tour Vietnam company commander, and have many more weapons in the house than my wife would prefer. I'd give them up in a heartbeat if this nation ever came to its collective senses.)

-- Larry

 

[Ronoh]

It's like gun control, imo. You can take away the guns, but the only people abiding by that are law-abiding citizens, not the criminals. If the criminals want to obtain a gun or commit some criminal act they will find a way.

Bull shit, Anthony. I get really sick of hearing this patented NRA line.

If you take away the weapons and ammunition, so that the only weapons and ammunition are in the hands of law enforcement and the military, then the bad guys have precisely three options: 1) Make their own weapons (not very likely); 2) Get their weapons from law enforcement or the military (not very likely); 3) Bring their weapons in from other countries (much more difficult than obtaining them in this country).

I think part of Hell may be being forced to listen to the exact same debate on an endless loop (while listening to people chew). I'm on the edge of my seat, can't wait to see what happens next.

 

[pltrgyst]

I think part of Hell may be being forced to listen to the exact same debate on an endless loop (while listening to people chew). I'm on the edge of my seat, can't wait to see what happens next.

I can save you all that time. You could look at Australia, and see what has happened here and could happen in the US, or you can live out your life here, where nothing ever happens but a lot of gum-flapping, because even 70+% public consensus doesn't result in Congressional action. {shrug}

Maybe your grandchildren will do better.

(Which is why I made my original crack about angels...)

 

[Anthony Martino]

What's funny is I don't even own any guns. But, getting back to the topic at hand. I was just trying to make a point that closing borders and shunning refugees isn't going to be a magic fix to end terrorism.

 

[Ronoh]

(Which is why I made my original crack about angels...)

Frankly the angels crack was more powerful before you edited your post with the rest of it.

You could look at Australia, and see what has happened here and could happen in the US, or you can live out your life here, where nothing ever happens but a lot of gum-flapping, because even 70+% public consensus doesn't result in Congressional action. {shrug}

Yeah, that was pretty much my point.

 

[Anthony Martino]

So Larry, what are you saying in regards to the refugee situation then? Shut them out, let them in, something else?

 

[Phantom]

I abhor bullying, wanton violence and terrorism of any kind, particularly when waged against people who cannot defend themselves or are minding their own business, and not expecting such attack. Whether a child, man or woman in Beirut, Tel Aviv, Paris or Brisbane. My heart aches at the human misery caused by greed, stupidity and lust for power that people claim is in the name of religion.

ISIS are not freedom fighters, they are not fighting for a better world, they are not fighting for anything other than death. Their ideology is death. Join us or die. This leaves little option for Muslims, Christians or others in Syria or Iraq but to flee. ISIS are a cancer, a blight on all humanity that must be fought. Whatever Western motives may be alleged (money, control of oil etc...), surely none could argue that the Western powers have an obligation to stand up to ISIS for these people and perhaps reduce the need for them to flee their homeland.

I agree that other areas of the world are hurting and need attention ( I am sure all are disgusted with the actions of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and the genocide of thousands in east Africa to name a couple), but the Middle East has, and always will be, a focal point, regardless of your political or religious beliefs.

I have travelled the world and know that Australia is a blessed country. I was a serving Police Officer for 16 years and know the depths of human misery. I completely understand why people would want to live in Europe, Australia and USA. I have nothing against legitimate refugees wanting sanctuary, and know that assimilating into our countries will be traumatic and difficult for them. Logistically and even emotionally, this is difficult for those already living in these countries, and naturally, there is apprehension at such a rapid influx. I do not believe that everyone believes all muslim refugees are bad, but by the same token can understand they are fearful of the possibility that ISIS will infiltrate their borders under the guise of being refugees. People are afraid because their good nature could be taken advantage of and leave them and their children vulnerable. You will generally fear what is different, what you don't understand and what you don't know.

The media must share responsibility for how the public react to these tragedies, and how they feed fear with their sensationalism. The average person can generally only form an opinion based on what they are fed, or read on facebook (which must be true). If we are fed images and information that always involves Arab/Iraqui/Muslim-type persons, shooting, blowing themselves and others up, how are the average person supposed to view those types of people when they come to your country. Fearfully I imagine.

The leaders of each country are expected, within reason, to protect and ensure the safety of their citizens. They can only do so much to detect terrorist activity given the stringent laws that protect privacy. If closing borders is a means by which they can regain some level of control, albeit temporary, that may be an option. While I do not advocate lengthy detention of refugees awaiting confirmation of their refugee status, I believe that it is necessary in order to ensure they are genuine and pose, little or no known threat to the safety of the country. I think that is reasonable. However, the sheer numbers makes this and just about any solution extremely difficult and may not be solved any time soon.

I just don't think we can simply say that "All muslims are terrorists" or "the West are only interested in the region because of XYZ". I believe that bullies need to be stood up to, and the weak protected. the means by which this effected will depend on the nature of the situation. Nor do I believe that an 'open-door' policy is the answer, as that could create a raft of social problems that no country is prepared for. Obviously some regulation is needed, and that takes time.

Definitely a major problem and definitely not a quick fix.

My 2c.

 

[Anthony Martino]

The media must share responsibility for how the public react to these tragedies, and how they feed fear with their sensationalism. The average person can generally only form an opinion based on what they are fed, or read on facebook (which must be true). If we are fed images and information that always involves Arab/Iraqui/Muslim-type persons, shooting, blowing themselves and others up, how are the average person supposed to view those types of people when they come to your country. Fearfully I imagine.

Unfortunately the reality is that the media represent businesses that have a vested interest in turning a profit, not in promoting harmony. They schill what gets peoples eyeballs on them, and unfortunately that appears to be sensationalism. I mean, it still blows my mind how people made the Kardashians multi-millionaires, but it happened. Likewise, reporting meant to invoke fear, anger, outrage, etc. seems to be the primary focus as that garners more eyeballs and user engagement. News that doesn't suck just doesn't seem to have the same pull, I can only surmise, or all the news companies would be sharing feel-good stories as the majority of their broadcasts.

While I can't disagree with you regarding needing to vet incoming refugees, I think the problem is that the influx is so great and it's overwhelming to the services in place to address it. Keeping refugees detained in camps brings along its own headaches (food, water, plumbing, space, disease, assaults and rapes, etc).

 

[Phantom]

Absolutely.

Nor do I believe that an 'open-door' policy is the answer, as that could create a raft of social problems that no country is prepared for. Obviously some regulation is needed, and that takes time.

Definitely a major problem and definitely not a quick fix.

My 2c.

 

[DrStrange]

So . . . what will it be? Lots of froth but little commitment to a point of view.

A) Business as usual. Some times risks are unavoidable when we do the "right" thing. Sure that means there will be a high degree of risk of further terrorism but the benefits are worth the cost.

B) Wait a minute. We might not want to set up concentration camps and all that but those Middle Eastern people are crazy and don't belong in the West. If that means tens of thousands or even more have to die crammed into refugee camps, well that is unpleasant but unavoidable.

C) Whoa there! Europe isn't able to handle the Muslims it has now, much less the horde coming now. Not only aren't we taking more of them but even the ones we already took are going back somewhere - at gun point if needed.

D) The only thing these folks understand is force. Push all the Muslims back, even those who have been in Europe a lifetime - if they aren't a true citizen they need to go no exceptions. Yes that will make for ugly TV for a while but Europe will be better for it in the end. And if that means hundreds of thousands are going to die, well that is on the leaders of the Islamic world. They have all that money, let those countries pay the price not us.

I appreciate these are hard choices. There aren't good options to pick between - it seems almost certain that every option is going to bring death and destruction to some groups (and perhaps all of us.)

As for me? I'll take business as usual. Even though the compassionate choice is going to cause domestic troubles and likely further terrorism related death, this is likely the lowest death total and the most likely way to avoid catastrophe. And I include the USA in the mix. We can easily accommodate our share of the unwashed masses. Be brave, do the right thing. Go read which ever Holy Book you hold sacred and I have no doubt your secret heart will know the answer.

In case we forget - - - there is a mighty statute in the harbor of New York City inscribed with this:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

It isn't easy to do the right thing -=- DrStrange

 

[stocky]

Debates like these are a double edge sword. No matter which way you go there's a chance you'll be cut. You can take in take them in a run the risk of bringing extremist into your country. Or you can close your doors which can breed resentment for your country for standing by and doing nothing which MAY grow to terrorism acts towards your country.

Out of the Drs option I go for A. IMO we need to change the way the young and impressionable in these nations view our countries otherwise we are just feeding into the propaganda that we will only care when the result will be beneficial to us.

 

[Phantom]

for a simple response from the options presented, I would say I was alluding to A.

 

[Anthony Martino]

Out of the options given by Doc A seems to be the obvious answer. And to play devils advocate, the options are pretty much written in a manner that makes it obvious Docs choice and demonizes any of the other choices (not that I was picking them, but just pointing it out)

 

[DrStrange]

People have to have courage in their convictions. I see no reason to soft peddle or diminish the consequences of our options, there will be consequences from our actions. Our collective societies have often chosen paths that lead to greater carnage for others to gain less for ourselves - and I can't say we were always wrong. But at least we should proceed with eyes open.

DrStrange

 

[Quicksilver-75]

Moved from other thread:
This too is my concern. Our new PM here in Canada wants to remove our planes from the anti-isis bombing mission. He wants to remain in the theatre but as instructors only. More alarming, to me at least is that he is insistent that Canada WILL BE accepting 25000 Syrian refugees.....before the new year. 6 weeks is hardly enough time to do proper background checks, health inspections and move 25000 people. Like said above it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the bunch.
My second biggest fear is not that Canada will be attacked but because of a poor commitment and lack of over-sight that terror cells will be able to operate, organize and recruit within Canada to operate elsewhere in the world. I can still remember 9/12, the morning after, being openly accused by the US as being a "terrorist state" and falsely accused of promoting and allowing extremists to live in Canada.
I'm all for taking refugees. Hell, take 50000! But it needs to be done properly with all safeguards in place.

 

[Nbk]

Please watch

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1115245698503335

 

[jbutler]

The conversation between Bill Maher and Chrystia Freeland on this week's Real Time encapsulates the disagreement well-meaning liberals are having in trying to discuss the problem of Islamic terrorism. I think it's pretty obvious whose understanding is more accurate.

 

[Meddler2]

we need to change the way the young and impressionable in these nations view our countries

If only this ^^ had any degree of measurable success of actually happening. Maybe after several generations but one difference between immigrants of generations ago and the ones of today is general refusal or genuine attempt of assimilation. Many Muslims in Europe have been fortunate enough to take advantage of all the entitlements offered but a crazed handful born and raised in the EU still find a reason to commit mass murder. The reason is of course they want everybody to either follow their strict bastardized version of their religion or die. It's that simple.

A country should have the right to control their immigration as they see fit and choose to limit or temporarily suspend their immigration policies.
Social dynamics of Europe will be changing within the next several years based on birth rates alone so no sense blowing people up when you just need to show a little patience.

Bottom line is even if all the refugees were given citizenship and all the rights and privileges of whatever X country(s) and there are zero hidden terrorists within that refugee population, Islamic extremist of whatever flavor will still want us all dead. So no easy or perfect answers.

 

[Forest@Farmington]

After reading an immigration lawyer's comments on Facebook and what the refugees will be going through to arrive in the USA I say situation normal and do the job of background checks for everyone that is coming I am good. Once the refugees are here they really should be thankful for what they are receiving and not demand more as I have seen from posts and news in Europe. Not 100% positive that is happening. Be thankful for the country accepting you and be come part of the new country.

 

[jbutler]

The refugee issue is a barely relevant distraction from the broader question of our response to ISIS.

I'm honestly shocked I haven't seen more discussion of US immigration policy prior to and during World War II and its impact on the number of European Jews who were permitted to immigrate and permitted refugee status.

Here are a couple brief discussions of that topic that appear to be supported by the objective evidence available. At the very least we could have saved 1.18 million more people from the camps simply by admitting the number of refugees already permitted by law at that time without the need for further action. Instead, the number of refugees was limited to 10% of that permitted.

 

[bergs]

I would've thought that we would be more open to refugees during a declared war as opposed to this recent period of predominantly terrorist activity. At least when you declare war on a nation-state things are relatively clear cut - it's essentially very difficult to differentiate between a terrorist and someone that needs aslyum.

 

[jbutler]

I would've thought that we would be more open to refugees during a declared war as opposed to this recent period of predominantly terrorist activity. At least when you declare war on a nation-state things are relatively clear cut - it's essentially very difficult to differentiate between a terrorist and someone that needs aslyum.

I would've thought so too. Then again I would have also thought that a guy who calls a POW a pussy, calls Mexicans rapists, and defends creating a governmental database of Muslims would have been destroyed in the polls by now. But here we are nonetheless, giving into our basest inclinations.

 

[Anthony Martino]

I would've thought so too. Then again I would have also thought that a guy who calls a POW a pussy, calls Mexicans rapists, and defends creating a governmental database of Muslims would have been destroyed in the polls by now. But here we are nonetheless, giving into our basest inclinations.

It's all part of the distraction. I would wager that your chances of injury or death are far greater driving to and from work everyday than from an act of terrorism. But there is money to be made off of all the fear-mongering, votes to be swayed, etc.

The bottom line is that we the people are kept constantly distracted by this or that issue, Starbucks red cups, oh noooo! and whether someone says happy holidays or merry Christmas, we squabble over things that are relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of everything like a married couple fighting over who didn't close the Pepsi bottle tight enough and now it's gone flat. It distracts us from what the real issues facing our nation truly are, because the corporations controlling our government and media want it that way. They want us focused on relatively statistically insignificant concerns while they continue to pervert the system to their benefit.

 

[Quicksilver-75]

That distraction stuff is bullshit. Do you know how weak minded an entire population has to be to honestly be distracted. The fact is in this PC world there are safe topics - things like coffee cups that can be discussed around the water coolers and touchy topics like that idiot Trump, immigration, minority crime, police brutality ect. Nobody wants to addrees for fear of being labeled. But if you can say that you are distracted by coffee cups and the like you probably shouldn't be voting.

 

[DrStrange]

People are rarely rational about relative risks. We see this on every sort of issue - health decisions - and of course, at the poker table.

I spent over a decade of my work life trying to persuade well educated senior executives that their companies would be better served talking about moral threats / amazing opportunities rather than the best ways to buy office supplies or how to curtail misuse of the copier. I guess they qualify as 'weak minded' because they were almost always quite easily distracted no matter their six and seven figure compensation packages.

I think people gravitate to issues they think they understand {though often they don't} and then make very weak judgements based on one sided misinformation.

And sadly, come election day, those votes count the same as mine -=- DrStrange

 

[jbutler]

People are rarely rational about relative risks. We see this on every sort of issue - health decisions - and of course, at the poker table.

A timely article by Eric Posner on Slate from Friday: Why Are People So Scared of Syrian Refugees? Humans Often Fear the Wrong Things

 

[slisk250]

I've resisted making any comments here as I don't like to discuss politics often. I had a chat with an ex student of mine who came back to say hello so I'll share something about her. Layan is the sweetest person you could ever hope to meet. She is funny and bright with so much to offer society. She came with three friends and the Syrian topic was raised by one of us. Her friends were Sudanese so they all have very personal experiences with civil war. "Mr. Slick, You know I have three strikes against me in this world. My mother is Syrian, father is Palestinian, and I'm a woman. So many will never give me a chance." She talked about never getting to go places even though her parents are wealthy. They are intelligent. Because of some paperwork situation I don't begin to understand, she can't get a passport. They don't ever plan to go back to either place.

She is very correct in her judgement of many peoples around the world. She won't be given a chance by most. What a shame.

 

[Ronoh]

People are rarely rational about relative risks. We see this on every sort of issue - health decisions - and of course, at the poker table.

I spent over a decade of my work life trying to persuade well educated senior executives that their companies would be better served talking about moral threats / amazing opportunities rather than the best ways to buy office supplies or how to curtail misuse of the copier. I guess they qualify as 'weak minded' because they were almost always quite easily distracted no matter their six and seven figure compensation packages.

I think people gravitate to issues they think they understand {though often they don't} and then make very weak judgements based on one sided misinformation.

And sadly, come election day, those votes count the same as mine -=- DrStrange

From one of my favorite series of books.

Wizards First Rule

Rule #1:
People are stupid. They can be made to believe any lie because either they want to believe it's true or because they are afraid it's true.

Given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they're afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.