Should the US accept Syrian Refugees?

[William Tell]

It just hit me. Does "H" stand for "Hank"?

Of course. Took you long enough lol.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

US Taxpayers have given the state of Israhell $130 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBillion since 1949


War Criminal Bush granted Israhell an additional $30 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB in Military aid.

Add to that the Costs of the "War on Terror" aka The War Against the Islamofacists , aka the war against those who RETALIATE against the BIASED US foreign policy


Now , who is sticking too many meathook$ into tribal trea$ury wampum...?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

...you make mistake, kemo sabe!...tonto cut off all zionist dinkskinner$ in wampum trea$ury FIRST THING!..but two wrongs not make right...

 

[oyarde]

yes and my Lebanese friend says it is a shithole

Depends on how you look at it .There are worse . The ladies are pretty .LOL

 

[oyarde]

I think these questions are not worded correctly. It should be , more , oh .... How many refugees do you ( citizen whatever) wish to support ? I , myself , wish to pay for none.Not from any foreign country to include Chicago.

 

[Contumacious]

...you make mistake, kemo sabe!...tonto cut off all zionist dinkskinner$ in wampum trea$ury FIRST THING!..but two wrongs not make right...

There is ONLY one wrong:


Reason Magazine

Immigration Is Great


Health policy journal Health Affairs says in 2009 immigrants contributed $13.8 billion more to the Medicare Trust Fund than they collected in benefits. In the same year, native-born Americans took out $30.9 billion more than they paid in.

Beyond the financial arguments, let's not forget that immigrants bring us new ideas. They invent more things than native-born Americans. Immigrants gave us Google, YouTube, blenders, ATMs, basketball, shopping malls, blue jeans, hot dogs and more.

Ann Coulter told me, "that was then, those were European immigrants." But now we admit "brown people" who are turning America into "a Third World hellhole.


.

 

[tod evans]

Should the US accept Syrian Refugees?

Phrasing is important.

Should the federal government use tax dollars to bring refugees here from halfway around the world, place them in government housing where the local communities don't want them and then use more tax dollars to feed clothe and police them?

 

[Batman]

Yes, but there's nothing wrong with taking time to screen some of the arrivals. Also no one is helped by setting unrealistic quotas. I'd rather help 10 refugees than give false hope to 10000.

 

[timosman]

Jobs 'Muricans won't do?

 

[Cabal]

If you want to help refugees, I suggest you donate to a charity and stop supporting statist solutions.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

If you want to help refugees, I suggest you donate to a charity and stop supporting statist solutions.

One such solution could be to eliminate restrictions on hiring illegal immigrants, which would make it easier for refugees to enter the country and find work, housing, etc.

 

[jllundqu]

I'm curious to see what people here think. I'm ok with accepting refugees so I voted "yes", but I'm also fine with them being vetted more carefully than they already are. There seems to be a lot of fear-mongering.

Refugees have to go thru hell to get granted permission into the US. Once they are here, they get basic housing, food assistance, and assimilation training (English and basic job skill training). Non-profits then 'loan' them money while they find work and pay back what the Non profit put forward.

I think accepting Christian Refugees as well as some muslim families from a nation that our government is partly responsible for destroying is ethically and morally sound.

I vote yes. It is our duty as much as it is any nation's duty... I think Saudi Arabia should be footing most of the population, but the US can't just shut the door on those genuinely in need.

Furthermore, Syria is/was not a third world nation with uneducated masses living in poverty. Quite the contrary. Most of those requesting refugee status come from moderate average educated working class families... many of whom already speak English. I've been to Syria and can attest to this.

This 'knee jerk' "KICK OUT ALL THE REFUGEES!" bullshit is beneath us.

It can be done. There is a way to screen people coming in that keeps us safe and upholds our humanitarian values.

 

[timosman]

One such solution could be to eliminate restrictions on hiring illegal immigrants, which would make it easier for refugees to enter the country and find work, housing, etc.

Do you have a job that pays above the minimum wage?

 

[Cabal]

One such solution could be to eliminate restrictions on hiring illegal immigrants, which would make it easier for refugees to enter the country and find work, housing, etc.

And that isn't at all likely to happen in the foreseeable future, so long as we continue to have State borders. So, not very practical, and thus not much of a solution seeing as how the refugee issue is rather immediate.

Meanwhile, nearly 40% of people here are supporting a statist agenda instead of putting libertarianism into practice (i.e. rejecting the statist 'solution' and doing something themselves, as an individual, like donating to a charity or humanitarian organization working with the refugees), judging by the poll. And I'm willing to bet another significant portion of the 'no' votes are coming from a place of fear about potential terrorist refugees, or some such, rather than coming from a place of principle.

How unfortunate and yet not all that surprising.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

And that isn't at all likely to happen in the foreseeable future, so long as we continue to have State borders. So, not very practical, and thus not much of a solution seeing as how the refugee issue is rather immediate.

Meanwhile, nearly 40% of people here are supporting a statist agenda instead of putting libertarianism into practice (i.e. rejecting the statist 'solution' and doing something themselves, as an individual, like donating to a charity or humanitarian organization working with the refugees), judging by the poll. And I'm willing to bet another significant portion of the 'no' votes are coming from a place of fear about potential terrorist refugees, or some such, rather than coming from a place of principle.

How unfortunate and yet not all that surprising.

Those types of solutions are going to become even more remote and unlikely if those among us, who would typically be the ones calling for ending statism, instead endorse anti-immigration actions on the basis of realism, practicality, or expediency.

If practicality and expediency are the standards, freedom isn't a possibility, as that's not a palatable solution at this time.

 

[Cabal]

Those types of solutions are going to become even more remote and unlikely if those among us, who would typically be the ones calling for ending statism, instead endorse anti-immigration actions on the basis of realism, practicality, or expediency.

If practicality and expediency are the standards, freedom isn't a possibility, as that's not a palatable solution at this time.

Wtf are you even talking about?

How is my position for statism when it is explicitly rejecting the State's solution and agenda; when it is explicitly rejecting further State intervention, welfarism, and spending (and thus debt, and theft)?

How is being for the State's agenda and solution of importing hordes of refugees and handing them all a welfare care package an endorsement of anti-statism? Further still, how does this improve immigration policy in general at all? How is expecting everyone else to shoulder the fiscal burden you'd have the State force upon them to satisfy your preferences the position aligned with libertarianism and anti-statism?

Go ahead, tell me. This should be rich.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Those types of solutions are going to become even more remote and unlikely if those among us, who would typically be the ones calling for ending statism, instead endorse anti-immigration actions on the basis of realism, practicality, or expediency.

If practicality and expediency are the standards, freedom isn't a possibility, as that's not a palatable solution at this time.

Wtf are you even talking about?

How is my position for statism when it is explicitly rejecting the State's solution and agenda; when it is explicitly rejecting further State intervention, welfarism, and spending (and thus debt, and theft)?

How is being for the State's agenda and solution of importing hordes of refugees and handing them all a welfare care package an endorsement of anti-statism? Further still, how does this improve immigration policy in general at all? How is expecting everyone else to shoulder the fiscal burden you'd have the State force upon them to satisfy your preferences the position aligned with libertarianism and anti-statism?

Go ahead, tell me. This should be rich.

If you aren't endorsing State-enforced immigration controls, then you aren't part of what I posited in the bolded section of my post. There are libertarians and even anarchists who are endorsing such State action on the basis that it is more realistic or practical than ending welfare, minimum wages, and other economic interventions.

My position, from earlier in this thread:

Zero.

The greatest preference would be we do nothing at all - no bombing, warring, or regime change, which would likely lessen the outreach of the consequences of the war there, and no active refusal of refugees wanting to come here.

It'd be the market at work, and it would be wonderful.

Feel free to add no positive obligations to bring people here in order to complete my position (I've been operating under idea that this was assumed).

 

[Contumacious]

And that isn't at all likely to happen in the foreseeable future, so long as we continue to have State borders. So, not very practical, and thus not much of a solution seeing as how the refugee issue is rather immediate.

Meanwhile, nearly 40% of people here are supporting a statist agenda instead of putting libertarianism into practice (i.e. rejecting the statist 'solution' and doing something themselves, as an individual, like donating to a charity or humanitarian organization working with the refugees), judging by the poll. And I'm willing to bet another significant portion of the 'no' votes are coming from a place of fear about potential terrorist refugees, or some such, rather than coming from a place of principle.

How unfortunate and yet not all that surprising.

WRONG AGAIN, VERN.

THE CORPORATE ENTITY KNOWN AS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS LIABLE , RESPONSIBLE BY LAW, ACCOUNTABLE, BECAUSE IT SINGLE HANDEDLY DESTROYED SYRIA. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHARITY . NO IFS, BUTS OR HOWEVER. IT CAN RELOCATE THOSE PEOPLE INTO FEDERAL LANDS OR THOSE STATES WHICH DO NOT OBJECT.


.


.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

THE CORPORATE ENTITY KNOWN AS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS LIABLE , RESPONSIBLE BY LAW, ACCOUNTABLE, BECAUSE IT SINGLE HANDEDLY DESTROYED SYRIA.



...tonto say, 'fallacy of reification,' white eyes...'the united states' is concept/label...concepts and labels not 'responsible' and 'accountable'...only real people 'responsible' and 'accountable'....corporate white man speak with twisted forked tongue and bad spirit...

 

[Contumacious]

THE CORPORATE ENTITY KNOWN AS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS LIABLE , RESPONSIBLE BY LAW, ACCOUNTABLE, BECAUSE IT SINGLE HANDEDLY DESTROYED SYRIA.



...tonto say, 'fallacy of reification,' white eyes...'the united states' is concept/label...concepts and labels not 'responsible' and 'accountable'...only real people 'responsible' and 'accountable'....corporate white man speak with twisted forked tongue and bad spirit...

Here chief


for your dancing pleasure and edification

Read:




VICARIOUS AND CORPORATE CIVIL LIABILITY
Reinier H. Kraakman
Professor of Law, Harvard Law School


By the way, is your real name "two dogs fucking"?


.

 

[Cabal]

WRONG AGAIN, VERN.

THE CORPORATE ENTITY KNOWN AS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS LIABLE , RESPONSIBLE BY LAW, ACCOUNTABLE, BECAUSE IT SINGLE HANDEDLY DESTROYED SYRIA. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHARITY . NO IFS, BUTS OR HOWEVER. IT CAN RELOCATE THOSE PEOPLE INTO FEDERAL LANDS OR THOSE STATES WHICH DO NOT OBJECT.

You're an embarrassment.