What is your feeling on refugees?

[Tabby]

These are confusing times. Those Syrian refugees are escaping a horror I can't even imagine. I was sickened by our former PM who essentially blocked them from coming. We let in 9 - which is not only pitiful for a first-world country, but given the amount of space we have here - it's down right disgusting. Especially given that our bombs have killed far more civilians in their country than that. We can do better. One of the promises our new PM made was to bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees by the end of the year. It sounded pretty good in October. Ambitious, yet doable. But now things have changed. As much as I want to help as many refugees as I can, I think that many by year's end is too many. I know the grand majority of them are genuinely fleeing for their lives - probably fewer than 1 in a million might be ISIS spies. But it is still scary. I kind of wish my government would just slow down a little. It wouldn't be a blatant promise-break if it took them until March to bring in that many. Given that most political promises are broken anyway. This wouldn't really be a broken promise - just a delay. Given the latest circumstances. Am I a cold hearted bitch to feel this way? I am glad my government is moving forward on this but I wouldn't be disappointed if they couldn't make the deadlines. I wish there was a better way to help.

[boots-aregard]

I'm worried about winter. A 3 month delay during the summer, when crops are growing and people can sleep rough, OK. But in winter? Children outside sleeping rough in winter? That's wrong.

I wish we could set up a children's train, like they did in Britain during the war. Send the kids away to safe homes. Give the parents a chance to find a place to land without having to worry about little Sala and little Mohamed, then send for Sala and Mohamed when they have settled? I can fully understand the reluctance of ANY parent to go ahead with that -- so maybe it wouldn't work. But the conditions they are facing are so dire at the moment I think there would be takers. People were handing their children across fences into the hands of strangers to try to save them... (muslim strangers, yes).

I'd take in a woman and her children.

It would be very hard on the children, of course, particularly if they have no English. Horrible. Probably wouldn't work. But so many are going to die in the camps and from exposure while our politicians juggle for space in front of microphones.

[stella]

The USA has areas that need population. Refugees need a place to land. It makes so much sense to me. Bring them in. It's inhumane not to. It could be very mutually beneficial.

[MaggieMae]

What areas of the USA NEED population?

[heddylamar]

I don't know about you, but my ancestors were immigrants and refugees. Albert Einstein was a refugee.

It's rather xenophobic and antithetical to deny several million Syrians safe refuge on account of a few.

[Spiritpaws]

I think the recent paranoia about Syrian refugees plays right into ISIS's hands. It serves ISIS to have the western countries go into panic and fear about these immigrants, builds a deeper divide between Islam and Christianity; may even increase the numbers of new ISIS recruits.

MM, the major of Detroit wants to take in several thousand refugees to help rebuild and repopulate the city.

I am disgusted by the tone of these governors, refusing refugees. Imagine if it was us...we had to get out of our home country, we had to travel thousands of miles on foot, in flimsy rafts, to get to a place we have a chance of a better life. What would we think of a country who said, "sorry, you are Christians, some of you might be evangelicals and too radical, so you can't stay here." I am way less worried about an ISIS operative than I am about some disenfranchised American boy with a gun who wants to make a name for himself by killing kids in schools.

[carpevita]

I wonder how to help too. I get that people are scared, but who is more scared than those people fleeing for their lives?
Who is the enemy? Is it us? Or them?
I'm reading about the Saudi government and am disgusted we are in bed with them.

[angela9823]

I knew I could come here and hear voices of reason. I don't know how I married into the family I'm in. Very intolerant people and hearing/reading their posts makes me sick. My mother in law is from Germany. She was born into a nation/religion that at the time was killing those of another religion just for their religion. Her family members were not those people (that we know about anyway) and yet this same family can so quickly judge millions of other people because they are a different religion. I told one the other day that maybe religious persecution is just bred into them. At this point, I may not be allowed to the Christmas party or may bow out on my own. My comment about Jesus not being born in America and he wouldn't find refuge in America today either did not sit well... I do leave DH out because he just keeps quiet about it all. He's not religious and he's not for closing the borders.

I know and grew up with many Muslims. I also know many that converted to Christianity. One said recently that he may convert back simply because he is seeing no tolerance in Christianity these days. I feel like Spiritpaws does...I'm disgusted that so many governors are refusing refugees. I'm disgusted that America so quickly wants to close its borders and yet so many of us from ancestors that did the same thing - sought refuge from an oppressive nation and wanted better.

[KathyK]

I think the recent paranoia about Syrian refugees plays right into ISIS's hands. It serves ISIS to have the western countries go into panic and fear about these immigrants, builds a deeper divide between Islam and Christianity; may even increase the numbers of new ISIS recruits.

This is a real problem. Young Muslims who increasingly feel they will never be able to practice their religion comfortably in the U.S., France, Belgium, wherever, are feeling the very real lure of ISIS, a place where they are welcome and feel included. ISIS is counting on this.

An interesting video and article about this very subject:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/23/world/isi ... esterners/

[Chancellor]

While I am very sad for the plight of the refugees, I'm more worried about the people of our own country. Homeless veterans in particular. I'd like to see this country start by taking care of those of us who have fought for this country.

[KathyK]

It's not one or the other. There's plenty of money, but Congress, Republicans in particular, block the bills that would help veterans. Write your congressional representatives and TELL THEM to stop blocking bills that will fund programs to help veterans.

[Chisamba]

If I am honest, I have mixed feelings. I was jumped on previously when I expressed the view point that we should be making their home safe for them, rather than having to help them start over in new countries under horrible circumstances.

I felt like it is a time where the united Nations should be a forum to provide a united front to address the rising problem. People are afraid of the UN. As if it is some conspiracy to overpower the USA, it would take some strong leadership and political co operation, but I feel it could be done.

With home lands safer the moderate majority, which is being made irrelevant by the active extremists, would be more relevant and be able to maintain stability.

This would solve both the disenfranchised fertile grounds for more fundamentalism, and the horrible circumstances the refugees find themselves in.

In the meantime, create opportunities, provide options, this will also take co operation annoying Nations.

[Chancellor]

It's not one or the other. There's plenty of money, but Congress, Republicans in particular, block the bills that would help veterans. Write your congressional representatives and TELL THEM to stop blocking bills that will fund programs to help veterans.

Unfortunately at this point, I DO think it is one or the other.

As for the Republicans blocking bills, unfortunately, the whole politics as usual is the problem....not the Republicans. The Republicans MAY be blocking bills that help the veterans. But there is fault on both sides because the Democrats put items into bills that need blocking that have NOTHING to do with veterans. I'd have to look up the specifics and unfortunately, there is little time for me today for Definitely Dressage until I get some serious database crap done at work.
The problem is with politics as usual not one side or the other.

[M&M]

My feelings about the refugees are also complicated. I would like to see the discussion - nationally, not here - based on facts. In the past 2 years, 22,000 Syrian refugees were referred to the US for immigration. It takes two years to process them. 7,000 made it past the initial screening, and 2,000 were admitted.

http://www.vox.com/explainers/2015/11/1 ... es-us-isis (Not the only place I have heard or read these numbers.)

Now, we have 31 governors saying "Not in my state", including Massachusetts. I like our Republican governor. But we, as a nation, are letting Greece, already on the brink of financial ruin, take on the burden of thousands upon thousands of these refugees, and we're saying "Not in my back yard."

Yes, it is fraught. But a lot of these refugees are fleeing from ISIS, and fleeing from a hell that very, very few of us, if any, can imagine. And as has been pointed out by newscasters, these people can't arrive on our shores by inflatable raft, or by crossing the border on foot. We have far more control over them being here than does Turkey, or Greece, or France.

I think we need to balance serious caution with humanity, but I really hope we don't shut and bar the door.

And, Chancellor, if I agreed that it was one or the other, I would agree to take care of our vets. How we treat them, or rather, don't treat them, is horrifying. I don't pretend to have an educated opinion on whether or not it is one or the other.

[WheresMyWhite]

and yet this same family can so quickly judge millions of other people because they are a different religion

And yet, I see some of this judgmental behavior in this country from the "Christians". True not all Christians are judgmental but many are and intolerant of others for many reasons... religion, race, sexual preferences...

[boots-aregard]

If I am honest, I have mixed feelings. I was jumped on previously when I expressed the view point that we should be making their home safe for them, rather than having to help them start over in new countries under horrible circumstances.

I felt like it is a time where the united Nations should be a forum to provide a united front to address the rising problem. People are afraid of the UN. As if it is some conspiracy to overpower the USA, it would take some strong leadership and political co operation, but I feel it could be done.

With home lands safer the moderate majority, which is being made irrelevant by the active extremists, would be more relevant and be able to maintain stability.

This would solve both the disenfranchised fertile grounds for more fundamentalism, and the horrible circumstances the refugees find themselves in.

In the meantime, create opportunities, provide options, this will also take co operation annoying Nations.

In some respects, I really agree with you. If the nations around the world just absorb the bulk of the Syrians that has the effect of leaving the land of Syria to the crazy people (which means it continues to be a he-- hole) and the civilized Syrians lose a homeland. Big costs for the welcoming countries, destruction "over there" (which at least means less destruction over here? Until the fester of the crazies in Syria expands.)

But how does one make a 'safe place' for the Syrians in Syria in the middle of an air and ground war? The towns have been battered into rubble, there are no 'homes', so it's still just tents for the people who stay behind. Any crops or food stores would be immediately a prime target for the crazies. I'm not sure how one does it.

[boots-aregard]

Now, we have 31 governors saying "Not in my state", including Massachusetts. I like our Republican governor. But we, as a nation, are letting Greece, already on the brink of financial ruin, take on the burden of thousands upon thousands of these refugees, and we're saying "Not in my back yard."

I wonder if the Syrian Refugee Crisis might be the saving of Greece? If the various nations saying "Not in my back yard" were to send enough aid, instead, perhaps there is a tipping point that puts more Greeks to work and revives their economy?

I'm not at all sure how the mysterious pieces of an economy really work, I'm afraid (and I did study the subject once. It's still a mystery to me.) So perhaps this is a ridiculous idea. I'm just thinking about transferring the wealth countries would have spent on refugee resettlement TO Greece and seeing if that helps make the machine work.

[carpevita]

This is where my thoughts run to as well.
I assume most Syrian refugees would prefer to return home, but how does the world keep them safe from the terrorists?
Also is it possible that the cost of returning them and keeping them safe while they rebuild will be similar to what each country will spend on resettling them in those host countries?

If I am honest, I have mixed feelings. I was jumped on previously when I expressed the view point that we should be making their home safe for them, rather than having to help them start over in new countries under horrible circumstances.

I felt like it is a time where the united Nations should be a forum to provide a united front to address the rising problem. People are afraid of the UN. As if it is some conspiracy to overpower the USA, it would take some strong leadership and political co operation, but I feel it could be done.

With home lands safer the moderate majority, which is being made irrelevant by the active extremists, would be more relevant and be able to maintain stability.

This would solve both the disenfranchised fertile grounds for more fundamentalism, and the horrible circumstances the refugees find themselves in.

In the meantime, create opportunities, provide options, this will also take co operation annoying Nations.

In some respects, I really agree with you. If the nations around the world just absorb the bulk of the Syrians that has the effect of leaving the land of Syria to the crazy people (which means it continues to be a he-- hole) and the civilized Syrians lose a homeland. Big costs for the welcoming countries, destruction "over there" (which at least means less destruction over here? Until the fester of the crazies in Syria expands.)

But how does one make a 'safe place' for the Syrians in Syria in the middle of an air and ground war? The towns have been battered into rubble, there are no 'homes', so it's still just tents for the people who stay behind. Any crops or food stores would be immediately a prime target for the crazies. I'm not sure how one does it.

[xhltsalute]

Little boy reacts to Paris attacks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRcevyjpLE8

"All Lives Matter"

[Don Giovanni]

Its such a horrible and complex situation. I hope our new PM holds to his promise, but I think the arbitrary year end deadline is too soon. There's no reason that I can think of that the process can't be started and even have some refugees settled by then, but the sheer logistics of finding/triage-ing/deciding upon who gets to come here, and resettling 25,000 refugees in 6 weeks is too much. Even our military who will play an enormous role in the transportation and probably initial housing of the refugees are saying it's too fast.
Regarding your NIMBY governors, this is a bit simplistic but there is a definite kernel of truth to be found here:

none of my business.jpg (36.45 KiB) Viewed 27962 times

[angela9823]

Don,
Don't you know Jesus was an American?

[KathyK]

With long blonde hair and soft blue eyes.

[stella]

What areas of the USA NEED population?

I can only reference my days as a staffing recruiter, but native Iowans were going to school and leaving for jobs in more lucrative states, so that's my example. There are states with diminishing populations. Iowa was one and I think Arkansas was another. I could be wrong about AR though.

We certainly have room here for more people.

[Spiritpaws]

If we as a country react to ISIS in fear....by closing our borders, by not allowing Syrian and Iraqi refugees in, then ISIS in a way wins. The free world wins when we take in the refugees, show them respect and kindness, and demonstrate that love and compassion always trumps (no pun intended) hate and violence.

I am not a Christian, but I can't imagine Jesus if he were on the planet today, would be teaching intolerance.

I have mixed feelings about veterans...before anyone tries to tell me I'm Anti American, I was married to a Vietnam vet, highly decorated helicopter pilot. Unlike the veterans today, most of the vets from Vietnam were DRAFTED. Very different from the well-paid armed services we have now. Should we make sure their medical, psychological needs are met: absolutely. But holding up promises made to veterans does not mean we have to turn away people who are fleeing war and destruction.

[musical comedy]

Assuming they have all been vetted safe, i still am against them coming in. Where are they going to live, who is going to finance all of this? Just more people to support. We don't need more people that need hand outs.

Is their situation sad? Of course. During the publicized Ebola scare we had in the US a while back, I started looking at photos of the slums of Africa and how those people were living. Talk about pitiful! There are pitiful situations all over the world. Children laying on filthy floors dying of disease. People that don't even have clean water. Should we take them all in? You won't see my point, I know. Why are these Syrians immigrants any more special that any other suffering people; people that are less likely to pose a terrorist threat?

Just this afternoon as I was checking out at the Wegman's super market, the checker asks did I want to contribute to the food bank. I did. But you see, when you are having food banks for needy Americans and Americans living in extreme poverty, then we don't need any more people that cannot contribute to the country in a positive way. That includes all incomers, not just these Syrians.

[Chancellor]

musical comedy's post is in line with what I was saying about our veterans. If we cannot support our veterans NOW, how will we support BOTH the veterans AND the refugees.

And, I might add that Mary and Joseph from the Bible were not refugees. They were going back to Bethlehem for a census and all of the "hotels" were full.

[KathyK]

Assuming they have all been vetted safe, i still am against them coming in. Where are they going to live, who is going to finance all of this? Just more people to support. We don't need more people that need hand outs.

Is their situation sad? Of course. During the publicized Ebola scare we had in the US a while back, I started looking at photos of the slums of Africa and how those people were living. Talk about pitiful! There are pitiful situations all over the world. Children laying on filthy floors dying of disease. People that don't even have clean water. Should we take them all in? You won't see my point, I know. Why are these Syrians immigrants any more special that any other suffering people; people that are less likely to pose a terrorist threat?

Just this afternoon as I was checking out at the Wegman's super market, the checker asks did I want to contribute to the food bank. I did. But you see, when you are having food banks for needy Americans and Americans living in extreme poverty, then we don't need any more people that cannot contribute to the country in a positive way. That includes all incomers, not just these Syrians.

Do you have any compassion, truly, in your heart? You have a few passing words about how sad life is for people in need, and give a dollar or two to the food bank; meanwhile you go about your business, riding your lovely horse, living a good life, happy, happy, happy. I'm flabbergasted by the lack of true compassion expressed by the conservatives in this country.

[musical comedy]

Do you have any compassion, truly, in your heart? You have a few passing words about how sad life is for people in need, and give a dollar or two to the food bank; meanwhile you go about your business, riding your lovely horse, living a good life, happy, happy, happy. I'm flabbergasted by the lack of true compassion expressed by the conservatives in this country.[/quote] You love to argue, don't you? I have no interest in discussing anything with you.

[KathyK]

I'm not surprised, because I don't think there's much you can say in response.

[KathyK]

musical comedy's post is in line with what I was saying about our veterans. If we cannot support our veterans NOW, how will we support BOTH the veterans AND the refugees.

You say "we" a lot. Are you doing anything to help support our veterans? I'm not asking in a challenging way, I really want to know.

[angela9823]

And, I might add that Mary and Joseph from the Bible were not refugees. They were going back to Bethlehem for a census and all of the "hotels" were full.

The point that those meme's are pointing out is that we could very well have a Jesus in the group of refugees and no one would know because there is no tolerance today. Christians especially believe that their Savior is to return, correct? How would you recognize him? Are MOST (not saying you!!) Christians any more tolerant than they were back then? If a Savior returned preaching tolerance of gays/ other races/ other religions, teaching to give refuge to ALL people and trying to win them over to Christianity, what would these Christians do? I think we are seeing it happen right now. What if this is those times?

This was a really thought provoking article given to me by a Christian: http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/01/reli ... platitude/ The article is correct...the religion is not one of peace and yet so many in that religion are TRYING to make it about peace. Here is a group of people reaching out for help; it seems to me this is a critical time that Christians could win these people over to their religion. And what do they do? Turn them away. Look at the states that are reporting the most people saying no to allowing in the refuges - the Bible belt states. My issue is that this same group of people use the Veterans and homeless as an excuse as to why not to allow the refuges in. So what are they doing individually to help the veterans or homeless? My sister's company is asking for people to donate canned goods for the homeless so they can have a nice Thanksgiving week. The only people that have donated are the employees! How many of these people talking about homeless are donating items (or even generating ideas) to actually help the homeless? We have states that are not as religious building shelters for the homeless and yet the most Christian states continue to do nothing.

Please note, I'm not directing this to ANYONE on this board. You guys may do everything you can to donate etc. But I know the people on my FB account and they don't donate; they don't volunteer. Instead, they sit behind a computer saying they are die hard Christians spewing venom about blacks, illegals, gays, refuges, how horrible Obama has been - let's impeach him, etc.

[musical comedy]

I'm not surprised, because I don't think there's much you can say in response.

I won't respond to you because you are one of a couple posters I don't care to discuss things with. Therefore, if you respond to my posts, you won't get a reply.

[KathyK]

The point that those meme's are pointing out is that we could very well have a Jesus in the group of refugees and no one would know because there is no tolerance today. Christians especially believe that their Savior is to return, correct? How would you recognize him? Are MOST (not saying you!!) Christians any more tolerant than they were back then? If a Savior returned preaching tolerance of gays/ other races/ other religions, teaching to give refuge to ALL people and trying to win them over to Christianity, what would these Christians do? I think we are seeing it happen right now. What if this is those times?

Exactly. I imagine most Christians are expecting some light-skinned guy with blue eyes and flowing hair, dressed in biblical garb.

[WheresMyWhite]

Do you have any compassion, truly, in your heart? You have a few passing words about how sad life is for people in need, and give a dollar or two to the food bank; meanwhile you go about your business, riding your lovely horse, living a good life, happy, happy, happy. I'm flabbergasted by the lack of true compassion expressed by the conservatives in this country.[/quote]

I am not musical comedy so I won't speak for her. Having said that, this comment about no compassion is about as silly as the anti-gun-control people being accused of not caring about the lives of children.

In my case, yes, I have compassion for the Syrians and other refugees. Just because the US has land to put these people on doesn't mean, in my opinion, that I think taking them in is a good idea. Someone somewhere will need to set up their infrastructure (housing, food, medical), teach them at least some level of rudimentary English, find jobs they can do. I am sure some of these refugees are very smart and/or skilled at some occupation or trade. Would they be able to be even remotely productive on day 1 of their life in a new country? Probably not. So the taxpayers get to support this influx of people along with all the current residents of this country (legal and illegal in some cases, residents).

In my opinion, we have challenges here at home with managing the social programs we already have in place for people that are already in place. Some would say to stop spending $$ on the military. Not sure that I agree that would be a good idea as the US is often expected to bail out countries with less robust military.

It's wonderful to say open our borders to accept all these refugees with open arms but I'm wondering if that is a bit of a rose-colored glasses view of the world or not looking at a larger big picture...

And if we accept the Syrians with open arms, why not open the US - Mexico border and accept those people as well???

And a last question... who is going to pay for all these refugees???? You and me. Maybe you want to but I am sure there are many that would not be happy with raised taxes or the US more in debt that it already is.

Oh, and to satisfy some of the readers... this is all IN MY OPINION and not facts

[M&M]

I'm not surprised, because I don't think there's much you can say in response.

I won't respond to you because you are one of a couple posters I don't care to discuss things with. Therefore, if you respond to my posts, you won't get a reply.

So stop replying. I'm not trying to poke the bear, I'm just saying.

I think it is an awfully broad statement to say that these people will never contribute to our society.

When DH and I owned a restaurant, we planned to only hire people that were legal to work in this country. We needed dishwashers. We advertised with our local unemployment office. Nothing. Nada. Not one single person was interested. We paid $1 an hour more than the going rate for dishwashers in our area.

All of our employees supplied us with social security numbers, and some of them we knew damned well were fake. A few of them we knew were real. But we could either hire them, or not have a dishwasher. Restaurants would have a really difficult time surviving without immigrants, legal or otherwise.

And you know what happens to the social security withholdings from illegal aliens? They stay in Social Security's holdings, because these people can't file tax returns.

If people born on US soil wanted jobs held by immigrants and illegal aliens, I would be pissed to see them not get them. But this scenario, specifically dishwashers in restaurants, is something I have been seeing for at least 20 years.

So in a few years we'd have Syrian dishwashers instead of South Americans. And some of them would be well educated. I guarantee you, these people will not all be a permanent drain on our society.

[Chancellor]

musical comedy's post is in line with what I was saying about our veterans. If we cannot support our veterans NOW, how will we support BOTH the veterans AND the refugees.

You say "we" a lot. Are you doing anything to help support our veterans? I'm not asking in a challenging way, I really want to know.

Not that it is any of your business really. But yes. I do support veterans. In many different ways. I also support pit bulls' rescue groups.

In my opinion, we (the USA) needs to take care of those who have fought for our country. Until such time as THAT is taken care of, I don't think we need to take on more charity cases.

[boots-aregard]

musical comedy's post is in line with what I was saying about our veterans. If we cannot support our veterans NOW, how will we support BOTH the veterans AND the refugees.

Is it that we _cannot_ support our veterans, or that we _will not_ support our veterans?

To me, the problem veterans have in this country is POLITICAL.

[Chancellor]

musical comedy's post is in line with what I was saying about our veterans. If we cannot support our veterans NOW, how will we support BOTH the veterans AND the refugees.

Is it that we _cannot_ support our veterans, or that we _will not_ support our veterans?

To me, the problem veterans have in this country is POLITICAL.

That's a very good question. And one I don't necessarily know the answer to.

[boots-aregard]

It's wonderful to say open our borders to accept all these refugees with open arms but I'm wondering if that is a bit of a rose-colored glasses view of the world or not looking at a larger big picture...

If we look at the larger big picture, we're looking at America in its historic context. Your comment about whether or not Syrians will contribute is the same question asked about the imported Irish, Polish, Chinese back in the day.

The answer was, in the long term: of course they contributed.

[WheresMyWhite]

The answer was, in the long term: of course they contributed.

And in the short term???

And who is to know that once we have expended $$ (time, effort, labor, etc) to train or re-skill them they won't want to go back to their native country. Face it, many reader here have expressed that they don't like living in the US - why do we assume all these refugees would like it better once their country of origin is more habitable?

Travel is today's age is much more fluid. People are not as bound as they once where to live in the country they fled to...

IN MY OPINION.

[boots-aregard]

The answer was, in the long term: of course they contributed.

And in the short term???

And who is to know that once we have expended $$ (time, effort, labor, etc) to train or re-skill them they won't want to go back to their native country. Face it, many reader here have expressed that they don't like living in the US - why do we assume all these refugees would like it better once their country of origin is more habitable?

Travel is today's age is much more fluid. People are not as bound as they once where to live in the country they fled to...

IN MY OPINION.

Depends, I guess, in large part on what you think the short term is. Refugees coming to the U.S. get about 180 days of declining aid. Then they are on their own. To some, 180 days is UNTHINKABLE. To others, it's half a year, and a declining amount at that.

Given that some can't see their way clear to 180 days of aid for women with troubled pregnancies or new babies -- US Citizens! -- or vets who need assistance, or homeless who need shelter, I'm sure that 180 days is still unthinkable.

To others, who see that compassion and the American Dream are still possible, it's not a big deal. Or, even, it's an investment.

We can "what about?" til the cows come home. Populations are fluid. Some people go back to their homelands. Some people come here after their homelands are stable. Some U.S. Citizens decide to live elsewhere. There are stats if you want to check into them, for the big picture. For the smaller picture, it's individual.

[angela9823]

WMW, you and Chisamba are posing questions and thoughts that are different than those I'm complaining about. They are legitimate questions/concerns. I agree with the others answers. It would be FABULOUS if the UN could get together and just help fix the broken nation. But the majority of Syrians do not want to leave, correct? So that means that the majority do not see an issue. Instead, the refugees are people that see hope in other nations. No one is requiring them to move. Them being a refugee and moving to a country IMO is an extended hand asking to get out of the oppression.

Fixing their country would be the best option for all involved EXCEPT for those that don't believe there is an issue. Those will continue to fight and continue to harm the innocent people that just want to live a peaceful life. To turn our backs on the peaceful people because we have our own issues is selfish. My bigger worry is what happens in years to come when those people whom we've turned our backs on makes a different decision - "if you can't beat them, join them".

[boots-aregard]

It would be FABULOUS if the UN could get together and just help fix the broken nation. But the majority of Syrians do not want to leave, correct? So that means that the majority do not see an issue.

Wait, what? Uh, no. This equation does not make sense.

Thousands who didn't leave were _killed_. That's an issue. Many of those fleeing are people who have the means; which implies that many people don't have the means are left behind even though they do see an issue. Thousands ARE fighting Daesh, which pretty clearly says they have an issue!

Black is not white today.

[angela9823]

It would be FABULOUS if the UN could get together and just help fix the broken nation. But the majority of Syrians do not want to leave, correct? So that means that the majority do not see an issue.

Wait, what? Uh, no. This equation does not make sense.

Thousands who didn't leave were _killed_. That's an issue. Many of those fleeing are people who have the means; which implies that many people don't have the means are left behind even though they do see an issue. Thousands ARE fighting Daesh, which pretty clearly says they have an issue!

Black is not white today.

22 million people living there. 4.2 million displaced. 2 million left the area. That is still not the majority. I'm not saying I don't see an issue with it. I do. However, there are some that don't want to leave even when they have the means. My point was that is a LOT of people left to harm those that come in trying to help. You have no idea whose side those people are on. It would be extremely dangerous to go in and fight on the home turf if even 1/4 of that population would take offense at a Christian nation trying to come in and take control. Does that make better sense?

[Tabby]

There are a lot of good arguments on both sides of this issue. I find it hard to wrap my head around them all. But here are some random thoughts.

- We've had veterans, homeless, poor and sick citizens in our countries all along. In the absence of this Syrian crisis, the arguments against helping them were mostly political. It would be too socialist. Let them pick themselves up by their own boot straps. That sort of thing. We were probably not doing nearly enough then and though one could argue the costs involved, costs weren't' the primary reason.

-These Syrians are fleeing an immediate danger. They are being bombed for crying out loud. They desperately need to get to a safe place. We have a safe place here (both US and Canada).

-We (US, Canada and a few other western countries) are largely responsible for the war in their country right now. We did this to them. They are our collateral damage. Do we not have a responsibility to address this? They are civilian bystanders in a war we created on their soil.

-With all the chaos abounding in Europe because of this, it is extremely easy for terrorists to move among those seeking refuge. We know these terrorists are well organized. How do we flush them out of a bunch of people who have fled their bombed out homes with whatever they could carry? We can't even run a credit check with their bank or check a criminal record. And with the shear numbers escaping, most agencies processing refugees are overwhelmed. How do we help without compromising our own safety?

-There will be costs associated with accepting and settling refugees, no doubt. But I believe most of these will be up-front costs. Most of the people who have left already are those with the means to do so. By the time they arrive here, they'll probably be tapped out but these are people who are educated and/or have worked and been successful enough to have enough money to get as far as they did. I don't expect them to sit around accepting government or charity handouts for any longer than barely necessary. What is more important is to figure out exactly what type of assistance they need most. I read about a group of students who are volunteering to translate for new refugees. I also heard something on the radio that one of the biggest costs when a family first settles is public transportation - because they are going around trying to find jobs, going to ESL training or other type of retraining etc. They said that one of the best things to donate would be subway tokens so they have the means to get themselves employed and independent. These are people who WANT to be contributing members of society and they are doing everything they can to become that. Heck, by leaving their country in the first place they demonstrate their will to do so.

-There is far too much religious bigotry in the world. There always has been. Somebody in an earlier post suggested that Islam is not a peaceful religion like Christianity is. I suggest you read the bible and see for yourself. Also, there have been Christian terrorists even in our time. Google Irish Republican Army. The KKK probably qualifies as well. Any religion in its extreme can result in terrorism. We should have learned our lessons from the Holocaust. Let's not go back there.

I have more thoughts but it will take time to articulate them.

[angela9823]

-There is far too much religious bigotry in the world. There always has been. Somebody in an earlier post suggested that Islam is not a peaceful religion like Christianity is. I suggest you read the bible and see for yourself.

I did say that it isn't a peaceful religion. However, I did not say that Christianity was. The article is worth the read in discussing the difference though. Did the Bible actually say to kill those that didn't believe in Christianity? I don't remember ever reading that but certainly I could be wrong.

[Spiritpaws]

When I saw what passed in the House yesterday re: Syrian and Iraqi immigrants, I have to admit I was ashamed to be an American. The US has taken in immigrants and refugees for 200 hundred years. This is the country of the "free and the brave". Well the legislation passed in the House is not about the free and the brave: it's about the dogma and the fear.

[WheresMyWhite]

This is the country of the "free and the brave".

Ummmm.... land of the free and home of the brave

When all those previous immigrants were allowed entry into this country, was there a concern about terrorists??? Given the circumstances in France where refugees ended up also being terrorists which killed many, I don't know that I think being cautious isn't a bad idea.

Additionally, it was only the House which has voted to suspect entry into the US. There were Democrats which crossed the aisle and also voted for the suspension. It now has to go to the Senate which may be a whole different ball game.

Entry is suspended which doesn't mean the door won't open again after possible security risks are assessed and addressed.

[Rhianon]

Me, too. I've struggled with this question because of my fears about cultural clashes. After my struggles, My opinion is that yes, we welcome them because it is the right thing to do.

Unless you are First Nations, most Canadians are or are descended from political refugees or economic migrants. Nationality should not stop us from doing the right thing--especially in our global era. Before all of this became the "big talking point" when the little boy's picture hit the media, DH and I had already begun finding out how we could help sponsor a family,

We found out that it takes a lot of support to help these people get established--financial and personal. But history shows that if we do a good job of providing that support, refugees are a boon to the economy and a leavening agent for culture. If we are suspicious, unwelcoming, and xenophobic, then that creates ghettos and resentment. This is an interesting article on that topic:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/syrian- ... -1.3324291

The risk of importing a terrorist? It's not like we're plunking a plane down in the desert and saying "hop on." Might a bad egg get in? Maybe. As said by others, if a bad egg wants in, they will find a way. Jordan and Lebanon have taken over a million refugees, add in Turkey and it becomes millions. What we are offering to take from Jordan and Lebanon is a drop in the bucket.

As for "our own need help more." Frankly, "our own" have since birth had advantages that the majority of Syrians have never had. Imagine trying to survive when you're being bombed by either your own government or a bunch of radical terrorists. There is no place to go. Much of this recent violence was kicked off by some Syrians simply asking for a few of the rights that we here take for granted.

Yes, I have concerns about some of the misogynistic culture values that may come with some of these people. In general, Syrians have historically been more liberal--Syrian women usually wear hijab rather than niqab. (Faith isn't such an issue for me--there are Syrians of many different faiths and sects--including Christian, FWIW.) But if the people are genuinely welcomed and included, I do believe this can be modified. I have personally seen this with friends and acquaintances from other cultures.

So. Am I certain? No, not in my heart--the fearful part that wants to hang on to *my* Canada. What I intend to do is become involved and help these people as much as I can. My heart tells me that as well.

[edited to correct a mis-typing that had the effect of saying the opposite of what I meant!]

[Chancellor]

So, those of you pointing out that we are a nation of immigrants etc...
The Southern part of the US was ALSO slave owning in the past, we also used to live in caves in the past.....etc etc etc.
Both GOOD and BAD things have happened in the past and I am not sure why pointing out only the GOOD things in the past makes it a reason to do something TODAY and assuming that that thing would ALSO be good based on the past.

The world is a very different place than when our ancestors emigrated to the US and Canada. We cannot simplify the argument that because it was a good thing to do in the past, we should do it now.

Rhianon you wrote:

Yes, I have concerns about some of the misogynistic culture values that may come with some of these people. In general, Syrians have historically been more liberal--Syrian women do not, for example, usually wear hijab. (Faith isn't such an issue for me--there are Syrians of many different faiths and sects--including Christian, FWIW.) But if the people are genuinely welcomed and included, I do believe this can be modified. I have personally seen this with friends and acquaintances from other cultures.

Why SHOULD they change their culture? When the Pilgrims came here, they expected the INDIANS to change their culture. So, why aren't we holding up THAT as an example of what could happen?

Please know that I am NOT suggesting that this will happen. I am simply pointing out a debate point only.

Your idea of sponsoring a family is an intriguing one though. Having Americans/Canadians who are more involved with the refugees MIGHT be a good way to sooth fears of bringing in a terrorist.