Should Syrian refugees be allowed into the US

You naive bleeding heart libs need to try using common sense every once in a while. I realize it's a foreign concept (common sense) to you lefties but the safety of our own citizens comes first. That's not rocket science, for Christ sake. Just because Europe ****ed-up doesn't mean we have to as well.

Originally posted by Bardock42
"This has been a bad week for the United States, folks. France was directly attacked by terrorists and its response was to promise to house 30,000 Syrian refugees; we weren’t and one branch of our government fell over itself to put the brakes on accepting a third of that number. France is defying the very organization that attacked it while we, on the other hand, are doing exactly what that organization hoped we would do. We’re being the cowardly bigots they hoped we would be, and as loudly as possible."

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/11/...rough-life-son/

Pretty well said.

just a manipulation tactic. "terrorists want us to not accept the syrian refugees... therefore they win!"

you don't get to say what terrorists want. i'm sure they can use us not taking the refugees as political fodder. they've also demonstrated that they can use western countries taking the refugees as an access point for infiltration by hiding among their ranks. terrorist groups tend to be pretty adaptable... they will use either response to their advantage as best they can.

so the question isn't what do the terrorists want.. it's what do we want? how will this affect our country? and how has it affected the european countries that have already experimented in importing large numbers of muslims into their multicultural societies? i realize these questions make us uncomfortable. but i think they are worth addressing.

How many confirmed cases of terrorists infiltrating a country by posing as a refugee has their been thus far?

i thought they found a syrian passport on one of the paris attackers... tbh i didn't factcheck that claim so if it's false then my bad

either way, isis has a definite presence in syria. how exactly can you "vet" a syrian refugee to make sure they aren't sympathetic to isis?

but my real point is we shouldn't be making our decisions based on "what the terrorists want." we should base it on what we want. trying to engage what the terrorists want by defying them is still engaging them and giving them a reaction that they can work with. it is foolish to think that there is anything you can do that they aren't going to try to use to their advantage. that's just part of the power dynamic when dealing with this sort of thing.

Determining that you want to fear any and all possible threats from these refugees to the point of barring their entry is... understandable. But a society ruled and guided by fear though is hardly a promising sign for its future or its soul.

Did anyone read the Cracked article where the author actually read each and every issue of the ISIS magazine? He got some intriguing insights into their mentality.

@red: None of the terrorists in Paris were Syrian refugees, they were all from the EU.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Determining that you want to fear any and all possible threats from these refugees to the point of barring their entry is... understandable. But a society ruled and guided by fear though is hardly a promising sign for its future or its soul.

Did anyone read the Cracked article where the author actually read each and every issue of the ISIS magazine? He got some intriguing insights into their mentality.

i'm also afraid that there will be a nationalist backlash as a result... which will only lead to further antagonism.. similar to the problem turkey is having

http://www.thenation.com/article/why-syrian-refugees-in-turkey-are-leaving-for-europe/

@mindset
alright, then i was mistaken. i thought one of the attackers was from syria.

He had a fake Syrian passport.

Containment and defeat are not the same thing though.

"Well, the good news is the fire has been contained, so people can go back into their burning houses"

Originally posted by Bardock42
Containment and defeat are not the same thing though.

"Well, the good news is the fire has been contained, so people can go back into their burning houses"

Right. Containment is used on a fire to stop it from spreading and going stronger. Then comes the work of actually putting it out and letting it burn out.

Also I'm fine with keeping people- even if things stabilize there, many of the refugee's homes and livelihoods have been destroyed, their friends and neighbors and communities killed. Even when it's safe, the reasons for living there are often gone.

I don't know if this is going on in other cities too, but I do know here in Illinois there has been some talk about trying to find ways to keep refugee's from coming to this state. Something to do with trying to exploit legal loop holes or something. I'm not sure if anything ever came of it.

I hope they all go to Illinois.

Outlaw Sharia law in the USA then invite them all over.

That should be a given to me if they are going to come they should follow the laws of the country. Surely no refugee would come and then demand things like sharia law so I doubt we have much to worry about, I don't anticipate any problems.

Sharia Law doesn't need to be outlawed, where it is in conflict with laws of a country it's already outlawed, where it isn't in conflict it falls under freedom of expression.

Yes, it most certainly does need to be outlawed. It's a threat to the safety of U.S. citizens.

Originally posted by Star428
Yes, it most certainly does need to be outlawed. It's a threat to the safety of U.S. citizens.

Which part? What needs to be outlawed?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sharia Law doesn't need to be outlawed, where it is in conflict with laws of a country it's already outlawed, where it isn't in conflict it falls under freedom of expression.

Call it a symbolic gesture so that cultures which embrace sharia are forced to acknowledge its not acceptable in any form.