the vast majority are young adult men who are obviously well fed and show no signs of enduring the hardships of war.

That is quite a claim. Can you tell us how you came to that conclusion?

factcheck.org disagrees.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/stretc ... -refugees/

Apparently, some conservative websites are posting data based solely on the numbers of refugees who have arrived in Europe by sea. Of those, upwards of 70% are young men. Naturally, young men are going to be the most likely to make a dangerous sea crossing. But the overall numbers tell of very different story.

Also, scrolling images of Syrian refugees is absolutely heart breaking. I'm certainly seeing "signs of enduring the hardships of war."

Considering the vetting process that goes on to get on the list, I expect that the fist bunch will be the displaced from Homs.

I'd like to remind the xenophobes that none of the 9/11 hijackers were refugees. The focus on "potential" terrorists slipping in with the rest of the refugees, while it is a concern, misses the point and is short sighted. Bad dudes could come here via tourist visa. I'd probably focus more on making sure our intelligence agencies are doing their jobs.

SailDesign wrote:

FiremanBob wrote:Why do you assume that the "refugees" are in fact all innocent women and children? What are the demographics of these refugees? If it's like Europe, the vast majority are young adult men who are obviously well fed and show no signs of enduring the hardships of war. Are you comfortable with the screening that our government does, or does not do, to ensure that each person being brought in is not a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer?

Srsly? "Show no signs of enduring the hardships of war?" What a load of BS.

I thought the photos of the infants and toddlers floating face down kind of covered this.
I guess we need to dust off the old "Irish need not apply", "no Swedes allowed", "Jews not allowed", and "Whites Only" signs we kept to remember the good old days. A little paint, a few letters, and good to go.

pdoggeth wrote:I'd like to remind the xenophobes that none of the 9/11 hijackers were refugees. The focus on "potential" terrorists slipping in with the rest of the refugees, while it is a concern, misses the point and is short sighted. Bad dudes could come here via tourist visa. I'd probably focus more on making sure our intelligence agencies are doing their jobs.

Indeed, the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia - a state with whom we had and have strong relations (yes, there's debate to be had there) - and were not from impoverished backgrounds. Security should absolutely be a concern, and refugees should go through a security process that is robust. I would count on those who would wish us ill to recognize that security will be focusing on refugees and thus decide to enter the country by other means, if they haven't done so already. I agree completely that the focus should be on our intelligence services working the way they should.

Being compassionate to these refugees in need will do more in the fight against terrorism than any airstrike in Syria.

FiremanBob wrote:Why do you assume that the "refugees" are in fact all innocent women and children? What are the demographics of these refugees? If it's like Europe, the vast majority are young adult men who are obviously well fed and show no signs of enduring the hardships of war. Are you comfortable with the screening that our government does, or does not do, to ensure that each person being brought in is not a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer?

I, for one, would not assume that all the refugees (which is what they are - no need to put them in quotes, unless you have been unaware of Syria's civil war over the past two years) are innocent, and it doesn't matter to me their age or gender; that's what a security process is for, to do our best to make sure that those who reasonably pose a threat don't enter the country.

Hardships of war? Leaving one's home with what you can carry because your neighborhood has been bombed is sufficient evidence to me of hardship. If your house or neighborhood was being bombed, if people around you were being killed, would you stay? Would you feel hardship? Your statement defies credulity, honestly.

Am I comfortable with our government's screening? Yes, I am. That's why I pay taxes. Is it perfect? No. Are there lapses? I'm fairly positive there are, if TSA performance at airports is any indication. I do think it's a strong system, however, and can certainly be beefed up to improve performance. It's my view that helping thousands - and making friends and supporters of our ideals and way of life in the process - is worth the small risk that we may miss a bad guy in the process. Right wing home grown extremists have posed a much greater threat than foreign terrorists in this country. Fact.

Dunce wrote:Being compassionate to these refugees in need will do more in the fight against terrorism than any airstrike in Syria.

I completely agree.

Bacchus wrote:

FiremanBob wrote:Why do you assume that the "refugees" are in fact all innocent women and children? What are the demographics of these refugees? If it's like Europe, the vast majority are young adult men who are obviously well fed and show no signs of enduring the hardships of war. Are you comfortable with the screening that our government does, or does not do, to ensure that each person being brought in is not a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer?

I, for one, would not assume that all the refugees (which is what they are - no need to put them in quotes, unless you have been unaware of Syria's civil war over the past two years) are innocent, and it doesn't matter to me their age or gender; that's what a security process is for, to do our best to make sure that those who reasonably pose a threat don't enter the country.

Hardships of war? Leaving one's home with what you can carry because your neighborhood has been bombed is sufficient evidence to me of hardship. If your house or neighborhood was being bombed, if people around you were being killed, would you stay? Would you feel hardship? Your statement defies credulity, honestly.

Am I comfortable with our government's screening? Yes, I am. That's why I pay taxes. Is it perfect? No. Are there lapses? I'm fairly positive there are, if TSA performance at airports is any indication. I do think it's a strong system, however, and can certainly be beefed up to improve performance. It's my view that helping thousands - and making friends and supporters of our ideals and way of life in the process - is worth the small risk that we may miss a bad guy in the process. Right wing home grown extremists have posed a much greater threat than foreign terrorists in this country. Fact.

Hear, hear!

The thing that drives me nuts is that this response (rejection of refugees) serves the goals of the people who actually carried out the attacks.

That and the fact that the people that carried out these attacks are the same people from which these refugees are trying to escape in the first place.

It's just mind numbingly stupid...

So those of you in states with governors saying they'd reject Syrians, are any of you going to write them? This is not a call out or putting anyone on the spot. I looked and CO is one of the few saying we will take them so I'm probably just going to send an email of support to the governors office.

I have to admit though, at first I was somewhat skeptical because we're at about 1% vacancy in the greater Denver area so I didn't think we'd have room for them, but then I remembered all the room down south! (anyone else looking to relocate to Colorado should check out the link too!)

http://www.area93.com/media/podcast-ner ... -26389613/

Disclaimer: While I'm trying to bring some levity to the discussion here, I'm not doing so to minimalize the plight of the Syrian refugees. I do hope this keeps the conversation going though. The biggest problem I see is the one I posted earlier. Those opposed to the refugees out of their own cowardice will raise a huge stink in protest of taking refugees, but the vast VAST majority of others are too indifferent to do anything to the contrary.

Hardships of war? Leaving one's home with what you can carry because your neighborhood has been bombed is sufficient evidence to me of hardship. If your house or neighborhood was being bombed, if people around you were being killed, would you stay? Would you feel hardship?

This.

Your statement defies credulity, honestly.

Yep. It also carries a healthy smattering of good old fashion disgustingness.

Irony

Thy father is Ted Cruz

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/cnn-rep ... out-of-us/

Thy mother is the Texas GOP

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/texas-g ... -gun-here/

REDONE wrote:So those of you in states with governors saying they'd reject Syrians, are any of you going to write them? This is not a call out or putting anyone on the spot. I looked and CO is one of the few saying we will take them so I'm probably just going to send an email of support to the governors office.

I have to admit though, at first I was somewhat skeptical because we're at about 1% vacancy in the greater Denver area so I didn't think we'd have room for them, but then I remembered all the room down south! (anyone else looking to relocate to Colorado should check out the link too!)

http://www.area93.com/media/podcast-ner ... -26389613/

Disclaimer: While I'm trying to bring some levity to the discussion here, I'm not doing so to minimalize the plight of the Syrian refugees. I do hope this keeps the conversation going though. The biggest problem I see is the one I posted earlier. Those opposed to the refugees out of their own cowardice will raise a huge stink in protest of taking refugees, but the vast VAST majority of others are too indifferent to do anything to the contrary.

I made the joke to my wife yesterday about Hickenlooper saying the refugees where welcome here, the same day most of the state is under a blizzard warning.

Refugee status is earned. Many of refugees in Europe have had to lie their way in. Apparantly now being a draft dodger or a deserter from the Syrian army doesn't count anymore. At the very least if the Saudis could spend some money for the refugee camps in Turkey and Lebanon so they can be properly taken care of while waiting for a host country it could go a long way toward making the process more peaceful. In stead they build more wahabi madrassas all over Europe.

eelj wrote:Refugee status is earned. Many of refugees in Europe have had to lie their way in. Apparantly now being a draft dodger or a deserter from the Syrian army doesn't count anymore. At the very least if the Saudis could spend some money for the refugee camps in Turkey and Lebanon so they can be properly taken care of while waiting for a host country it could go a long way toward making the process more peaceful. In stead they build more wahabi madrassas all over Europe.

But But Saudi and Israel are our BFF over there and would never do anything to hurt another. The House of Saud is creating more refugees in Yemen with its bombing using American supplied cluster bombs and airplanes.

The GOP has gotten its marching orders for the Syrian Refugees coming to the US, Fox News CEO Rupert "Sith Lord" Murdoch has said the only refugees that should be allowed in should be " Proven" Christians.

Obama facing enormous opposition in accepting refugees. Maybe make special exception for proven Christians.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rup ... 6751355684

I want to know what is a "Proven" Christian? Down here is the Heart of the Bible Belt if you don't go to my brand of Christianity church your not a Christian. Even if you are of my brand of Christian and don't go to my church you still very suspect of Heresy.

One things for certain the fact that one of the dead terrorists finger prints match an asylum seeker from the Isle of Lesbos a couple of months ago is going to have an impact on Europes immigrant policy in the future. As to murdoch and his christians only I say fuck them too, restrict it to atheists only.

pdoggeth wrote:I'd like to remind the xenophobes that none of the 9/11 hijackers were refugees. The focus on "potential" terrorists slipping in with the rest of the refugees, while it is a concern, misses the point and is short sighted. Bad dudes could come here via tourist visa. I'd probably focus more on making sure our intelligence agencies are doing their jobs.

Yes, bad dudes coming here can enter the country a number of ways. However, I'm of the mind that the Syrian refugees should first be granted refuge in the wealthy Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, UAE for example). Those countries are not taking them in. Why the heck not? I'll allow that maybe those countries have other concerns other than security that don't apply to the U.S. I just don't know what they are.

I'm not flat out opposed to allowing these refugees in the U.S. I'm just not confident that the risks have been fully assessed. How is our intelligence supposed to vet people who are strangers, and without a reliable database to check?

However, the problem is that the Syrian refugees don't have the luxury of waiting around for us to decide. If we let them in, I just want to be sure we are doing it with our eyes open, and fully understand the risks and the limitations of a vetting process without either overstating or understating it. I will admit, I have a concern about Islamic fundamentalism. Maybe I read too much Sam Harris.

Sucks, but the Zarinev brothers were Chechen refugees. So are some of the Somali teenagers who have disappeared to points unknown.

We have had far more issues with homegrown bad guys, outliers are not the issue.

What's bad, is the crap the Right Wing is spewing out, without thinking how it plays into the propaganda of the militants.

Quick facts about these refugees, 50% get their application denied after an 18-24 month period of interviews, background checks and biometric scans. Before they can apply they must either be in the US already, or have access to an American embassy.

Refugees who are accepted into the US are placed by multiple NGOs. They're placed in locations that meet certain criteria: current refugee population, low housing cost, available jobs and available social services.

The goal is that the refugees will be self-sufficient after about a year. Which is why they're placed in areas that already have refugee populations. Older refugees can help the newer refugees cope with and adapt to their new circumstances.

And I will call these people xenophobes, because that is what they are. They're hateful towards and scared of those who are different.

Christian groups break with GOP over Syrian refugees

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/r ... z3rroI7ahe

Evangelical Christians, as well as Christians more broadly, are a core group in the Republican electoral base and are among the most passionate advocates for aiding refugees.

A push by Republican presidential candidates to ban Syrian refugees "does not reflect what we've been hearing from our constituencies, which are evangelical churches across the country," said Jenny Yang, vice president for advocacy at World Relief, an evangelical organization that helps resettle refugees. "Most of the people have been saying we want to continue to work with refugees, that what happened in Paris ... doesn’t reflect who refugees are."

World Relief is one of nine groups, several of them faith-based, that help the U.S. resettle up to 70,000 refugees from around the world in the United States each year. Others include the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, and the Church World Service. Many other faith-based groups, including evangelical Christian organizations, also perform aid work overseas specifically aimed at refugees fleeing conflicts.

P.S. - I want to take this opportunity to protest the rule that we can't quote the entire article, and I refute that we would get in any trouble for doing so, as long as we provide the source. I've been doing it for years on another board and there's never been a hint of trouble. Anyway, click the link to read the full story [/rant]

MayhemVI wrote:Christian groups break with GOP over Syrian refugees

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/r ... z3rroI7ahe

Evangelical Christians, as well as Christians more broadly, are a core group in the Republican electoral base and are among the most passionate advocates for aiding refugees.

A push by Republican presidential candidates to ban Syrian refugees "does not reflect what we've been hearing from our constituencies, which are evangelical churches across the country," said Jenny Yang, vice president for advocacy at World Relief, an evangelical organization that helps resettle refugees. "Most of the people have been saying we want to continue to work with refugees, that what happened in Paris ... doesn’t reflect who refugees are."

World Relief is one of nine groups, several of them faith-based, that help the U.S. resettle up to 70,000 refugees from around the world in the United States each year. Others include the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, and the Church World Service. Many other faith-based groups, including evangelical Christian organizations, also perform aid work overseas specifically aimed at refugees fleeing conflicts.

P.S. - I want to take this opportunity to protest the rule that we can't quote the entire article, and I refute that we would get in any trouble for doing so, as long as we provide the source. I've been doing it for years on another board and there's never been a hint of trouble. Anyway, click the link to read the full story [/rant]

That is encouraging news. Many people who I've met and spoken with in other countries view Americans as generous and welcoming; those with negative views usually take pains to explain that their issue is with US policies, not with us as individuals.

KnightsFan: Good information. I read somewhere recently that immigrant populations in European countries do not acclimate as well to their surrounding society as they do here, meaning that it is more difficult and takes longer for the immigrant to identify as German, or French than it is for their respective communities here to identify as American. One might think it would be easier to settle there, as the net of social services is arguably stronger and more comprehensive than it is here. Could be that we've always been more heterogeneous in general, in spite of instances of making newcomers feel unwelcome. I just find that interesting.

I would definitely attribute the problems to Europe's homogenous nature. That and the fact that as a whole Europe has its own problem with racism. Different than the US' but still dangerous.

Europeans have xenophobia too.
http://news.yahoo.com/teens-facebook-ph ... 13244.html

Teen’s Facebook Photo Leads to ‘Mass Exodus’ at School

No statements of intent, no history of violence, just brown with gun in a facebook picture.