Paris attacks

[BigRedBuster]

 

Well, in my opinion, reality on what should be done is somewhere in the middle. We obviously can't leave the true refugees there to die, starve, be brutalized...etc. That is not the humane thing to do.

 

We also need to do everything we can to make sure militants are not let into other countries to do what militants did in Paris.

 

So, honestly, my mind keeps going back to the reasonable thing to do is to figure out some place these people can go to be taken care of while we figure out who they are and where they should go.

 

That place might be exactly where they are but bring in enough protection, infrastructure, housing, humanitarian aid...etc. to allow them to be as comfortable and safe as possible.

I personally would be willing to support our government giving very large amounts of money and support for this effort.

 

This would do a lot of things. It would prevent this from being an entry point for Muslim extremists into our countries. It would give needed help to these people who need it desperately. It would show the good people there that the rest of the world cares about them and will go to great lengths to help them...etc.

 

Once we know who these people are, I have no problem opening up our country to these people to find a better life.

I'm in agreement as far as something needs to be done to help these people but realistically, I'm not sure what. Why does America have to be the one's at the forefront to help? Why can't a well developed European country such as Germany step in and help out? Do you not think we should be focusing on the people in our own country who need help first and foremost?

 

Well, I'm pretty sure Europe has been taking in or working towards taking in large numbers of refugees.

 

LINK

[Landlord]

 

 

I'm in agreement as far as something needs to be done to help these people but realistically, I'm not sure what. Why does America have to be the one's at the forefront to help? Why can't a well developed European country such as Germany step in and help out? Do you not think we should be focusing on the people in our own country who need help first and foremost?

 

 

 

There's been about 600,000 refugees taken in to different European countries all over, and should be noted that many of them are completely overwhelmed trying to aid in the relief.

[RedSavage]

 

 

I'm in agreement as far as something needs to be done to help these people but realistically, I'm not sure what. Why does America have to be the one's at the forefront to help? Why can't a well developed European country such as Germany step in and help out? Do you not think we should be focusing on the people in our own country who need help first and foremost?

 

 

 

There's been about 600,000 refugees taken in to different European countries all over, and should be noted that many of them are completely overwhelmed trying to aid in the relief.

 

I should have said that better. I realize Europe is providing more relief than us, and IMO that's how it should be, mainly bc of proximity. What I should have said is why is so much expected from us in this situation. I know as a world power we need to at least do something for our part in helping. I just get somewhat tired of us always bailing everyone else out, instead of bailing out ourselves. There are plenty of people in this country that need just as much help as these refugees. I stated this above as well but if this same situation happened in South America, how much would we expect Europe to help us/how much would they help us? Would European countries be welcoming South American refugees with open arms?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

I'm in agreement as far as something needs to be done to help these people but realistically, I'm not sure what. Why does America have to be the one's at the forefront to help? Why can't a well developed European country such as Germany step in and help out? Do you not think we should be focusing on the people in our own country who need help first and foremost?

 

 

 

There's been about 600,000 refugees taken in to different European countries all over, and should be noted that many of them are completely overwhelmed trying to aid in the relief.

 

I should have said that better. I realize Europe is providing more relief than us, and IMO that's how it should be, mainly bc of proximity. What I should have said is why is so much expected from us in this situation. I know as a world power we need to at least do something for our part in helping. I just get somewhat tired of us always bailing everyone else out, instead of bailing out ourselves. There are plenty of people in this country that need just as much help as these refugees. I stated this above as well but if this same situation happened in South America, how much would we expect Europe to help us/how much would they help us? Would European countries be welcoming South American refugees with open arms?

 

It's a world effort in a horrible crisis.

 

I personally feel we need to be showing peaceful people from that area as much love as possible. We are the richest country in the world. YES, I am with you in that I get very very tired of constantly sending our money, support and troops to fix everything when others don't and all they do is sit back and criticize what we do. However, in this situation, everyone else is and we aren't (as much as they are).

 

I think it is important to be a part of this. I understand people being frustrated in constantly having to help others out. And, I agree Europe needs to be a MAJOR part in this effort (probably the biggest part).

 

At this point, if troops are to be deployed to fight, I want European troops playing the major part. One thing that may come out of the horrible situation in Paris is that they are going to be much more motivated to participate in any military action needed instead of constantly just sitting back and bitching about everything we do.

[Moiraine]

Here's something I haven't seen discussed. (I don't think I've read this thread word for word so forgive me if someone's mentioned it).

 

There are 2.77 million Muslims in the U.S. and we're making a big deal about a few thousand coming here. Don't you think if it was your religion and you heard all of this stuff on the news lately and then heard one of the top presidential candidates suggest shutting down all of your religious buildings, you would be more likely to want to fight for your religion? Who wouldn't want to do that? If you're Christian imagine someone saying they're going to close down all of the churches because the KKK killed a bunch of people. That would put me on alert. I feel like the risk of attacks could increase because of this and not from refugees but from Muslims who are already here and who could have been peaceful. I'm thinking impressionable kids here who are teenagers right now and who have probably already dealt with plenty of bigotry before all of this.

[I AM FOOT FOOT]

Too bad there isn't some spare island somewhere, complete with shelters & wifi, that we could take these people to. Fix up their country, get rid of Daesh (the name for ISIS that ISIS hates) and Assad, then let them go back to rebuild and get on with their lives.

I must ask of all things you need to survive why wifi??? food water shelter.

[ZRod]

 

Too bad there isn't some spare island somewhere, complete with shelters & wifi, that we could take these people to. Fix up their country, get rid of Daesh (the name for ISIS that ISIS hates) and Assad, then let them go back to rebuild and get on with their lives.

 

I must ask of all things you need to survive why wifi??? food water shelter.

How are they going to know how to cook, filter water, or build a shelter without the Internet?

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

Too bad there isn't some spare island somewhere, complete with shelters & wifi, that we could take these people to. Fix up their country, get rid of Daesh (the name for ISIS that ISIS hates) and Assad, then let them go back to rebuild and get on with their lives.

Not an island but I hear we aren't using Iowa for anything productive these days!

[knapplc]

 

Too bad there isn't some spare island somewhere, complete with shelters & wifi, that we could take these people to. Fix up their country, get rid of Daesh (the name for ISIS that ISIS hates) and Assad, then let them go back to rebuild and get on with their lives.

Not an island but I hear we aren't using Iowa for anything productive these days!

 

It's where we store wind turbines.

[Lil' Red]

 

Despite the traction those arguments have gained, it makes little sense for an aspiring terrorist to apply to enter the United States as a refugee. Passing through the process often takes at least 18 months, and sometimes much longer. Applicants must pass background checks involving several U.S. government agencies, and many applicants are rejected. Overall, refugees are unlikely to be resettled at all -- the UN Refugee Agency says that only about 1 percent of the world's refugees end up being taken in permanently elsewhere.

Stephen Legomsky, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis and former chief counsel for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said in a news release that all these factors make it very unlikely that members of the Islamic State group planning to attack the U.S. would apply as refugees.

“[Refugees] are personally interviewed and thorough background checks are performed by Homeland Security and the FBI,” Legomsky said. “No competent terrorist would choose the U.S. refugee process as a preferred strategy for gaining entry into the U.S.”

Much of the concern about possibly admitting terrorists as refugees stems from the fact that one of the Paris attackers was found holding a Syrian passport that had been stamped at a Greek port of entry -- indicating that he’d traveled to Europe as part of the wave of hundreds of thousands of other migrants seeking refuge in Europe from violence in the Middle East and South Asia. But French authorities said Monday that the passport was forged, making it unclear whether the man, identified as Ahmad al-Mohammad, posed as a migrant to enter Europe or carried the faked passport to confuse authorities.

Whatever the case, the notion that admitting refugees increases the risk of terrorism rests on shaky foundations. The attackers who have been identified so far were from either France or Belgium, not Syria.

And if they had wanted to come to the United States, they wouldn't have had to do much more than buy a plane ticket. Only two of them would have been flagged by French authorities, according to CNN. Those who didn’t appear on European security watch lists and who held passports from countries included in the visa waiver program would have traveled straight to the U.S., like any other tourist. ISIS isn't short on fighters with European passports, either -- U.S. intelligence officials estimated earlier this year that 3,400 foreign fighters had joined the group from Western nations.

Link

Sounds like individuals on tourist visas pose a much greater threat than refugees.

[I AM FOOT FOOT]

 

 

Too bad there isn't some spare island somewhere, complete with shelters & wifi, that we could take these people to. Fix up their country, get rid of Daesh (the name for ISIS that ISIS hates) and Assad, then let them go back to rebuild and get on with their lives.

I must ask of all things you need to survive why wifi??? food water shelter.

How are they going to know how to cook, filter water, or build a shelter without the Internet?

 

doesn't Allah provide?????

[ZRod]

 

 

 

Too bad there isn't some spare island somewhere, complete with shelters & wifi, that we could take these people to. Fix up their country, get rid of Daesh (the name for ISIS that ISIS hates) and Assad, then let them go back to rebuild and get on with their lives.

 

I must ask of all things you need to survive why wifi??? food water shelter.

How are they going to know how to cook, filter water, or build a shelter without the Internet?

doesn't Allah provide?????

Idk, but the dude abides.