Should Syrian refugees be allowed into the US
Following the revelation that at least one of the Paris terrorists posed as a refugee, the imminent question of the safety of harboring immigrants has become more prominent than ever. Is the idea of averting refugee access to the US intelligent or Islamophobic?
Originally posted by Surtur
All those countries in Europe, why do they need to come here?
Because we're awesome, have *tons* of space, it's the right thing to do, and it's easier for everyone if the burden is spread.
Also:
Originally posted by Surtur
Seems like they want us to do everything. Fight ISIS, take in these people, etc.Though I will admit some ignorance about this, how does this process work? Since I thought you had to take tests and stuff to become a citizen. Do these people go through all that?
lol
Germany is expecting 1.5 million migrants this year alone. The international community is asking the US to take a mere 65 thousand.
The claim that "they" want the US to fight ISIS is also incorrect. A lot of countries fight ISIS, the US is not the most involved.
Originally posted by Surtur
Those numbers are all fine, but is Germany the only country in Europe?You also didn't answer my question, what do they have to go through to get here?
Germany is not the only country in Europe. Why do you think Europe should be the only place to take in refugees of war?
The refugees that would come to the US are first screened by the UNHCR, if they are found to be legit and have a true claim for asylum status (i.e. they do fear for their life in the country they have fled) they are referred to the US where another screening process takes place that takes about 18 months.
"After the UNHCR refers a refugee applicant to the United States, the application is processed by a federally funded Resettlement Support Center, which gathers information about the candidate to prepare for an intensive screening process, which includes an interview, a medical evaluation and an interagency security screening process aimed at ensuring the refugee does not pose a threat to the United States."
"Several federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are involved in the process, which Deputy State Department Spokesman Mark Toner recently called, "the most stringent security process for anyone entering the United States."
These agencies use biographical and biometric information about applicants to conduct a background check and make sure applicants really are who they say they are."
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/16/politics/syrian-refugees-u-s-applicants-explainer/index.html
Again though, why is your stance that the US should not do it's duty as a first world nation and protect those persecuted in their countries to the extend that they have to flee? Particularly because there's a very strong case to be made that these Syrian refugees only have to flee because of foreign policy decision (particular the war in Iraq) that the US has made?
Originally posted by Surtur
My stance is send them here if every other country in Europe is already overcrowded with refugee's and can't take anymore.Or cast a magic spell and stop all illegals from Mexico from entering, then send your refugee's. End our problems with people coming here illegally, then send them.
So why Europe first? Why should the US, in your opinion, not do its part?
The net immigration from Mexico to the US has been neutral, btw.
Originally posted by Surtur
Because why send people over a friggin ocean when you have a shitload of countries all around you?
Because it is a humanitarian crisis that the capable countries should work to fix together. That includes the US, which was once a beacon of moral integrity, but has far fallen since then. Again, it is also a humanitarian crisis pretty directly caused by the US.
I also assume you didn't read a word of the info I posted, given your short, ill informed replies.
Send em all to Russia. They have WAY more space then either The U.S and Europe combined. That and Pooty is a way better humanitarian Leader then anything they got in either U.S or Europe too.
And if they have to come to the U.S. I say put them all in Wash D.C. Plenty of room to put up tents on the White House Lawn.
Let Obama open his heart for once.
Originally posted by Surtur
Your info answered one of my questions to you, so there was no reason to address it further.All there is left to say is we can agree to disagree on if people should be brought in.
So I did answer your question. Could you do me the same courtesy and answer mine? Why do you think that the US should not do an equal part in mitigating this humanitarian crisis (which US foreign policy is partly at fault for causing)?