Syrian refugees

[Albatross]

I don't really see how a state vote helps here? If the concern is that terrorists will come in with the refugees then how does this help? Let's say New York let's refugees in, and Virginia chooses not to. If a terrorist comes in they will just migrate to whatever state they wanna do their thing in. As long as one state is accepting refugees none of the other states are any safer for choosing not to. All that will happen is that terrorists will come in anyway, but much fewer refugees will because there's fewer states taking them. This is really something we're just gonna have to decide together as a country on for better or worse.

 

It won't help with that concern, but it will allow the states to decide as they see fit and as they should. If they all decide it is a security risk, they won't allow it. They have to be able to have the choice to decide, as state rights intended. The country can't make that kind of decision for the states.

 

edit

 

If the president starts to decide state rights and sovereignty means shit to him or that states no longer have those rights against the whole of the country, he needs to be removed from office.

[Tmt97]

It won't help with that concern, but it will allow the states to decide as they see fit and as they should. If they all decide it is a security risk, they won't allow it. They have to be able to have the choice to decide, as state rights intended. The country can't make that kind of decision for the states.

How does allowing the states to decide as they see fit help in any way? Normally I'm all for allowing individual states to make their own choices, but sometimes when you have a decision that's affecting everyone in the country we need to have solidarity.

Also how do you think individual states are gonna keep refugees out if there's even one state letting them in? You see the thing is they can just walk/drive to whatever state they want to go to. Unless you pull a Trump and build a wall around every state you want to keep them out of.

[stconquest]

I have nothing against peaceful Muslims. But the "old koran" as far as I know, teaches all infidels should die. I understand some Muslims don't believe in that particular part of the koran, and im fine with those guys.  But I would rather not get into the age old debate between religion. This is a tech forum, off topic or not, so I'm going to retire to a glass of water.

 

Cheers.

 

Maybe this will help:  there is absolutely no religious solution to our situation of violence on earth.  Religion, as it functions on our planet, is divisive in all observable circumstances.  The world is a much smaller place than it was two thousand years ago... we have outgrown religious cohesion amongst select populations... sorry to break the news to you. 

 

If you want to hold on to a religion in a very personal way, that is fine.  If you think any particular lord and savior(or whatever deity) will solve problems or induces communal harmony, you will eventually find that it only causes a tear between you and many large portions of your fellow man.

 

I meant this in the most sincere way and compassionate way I know.

[Albatross]

How does allowing the states to decide as they see fit help in any way? Normally I'm all for allowing individual states to make their own choices, but sometimes when you have a decision that's affecting everyone in the country we need to have solidarity.

 

Well, it could stop terrorists or security risks from infiltrating each state to systematically cripple the nation, and allows individual state rights the ability to protect their own interests and stability, as well as their own civilians. If it were to happen, I would rather it be concentrated in a single place instead across the country, harming more and further destroying the nation as a whole.  That's not how this country works either, and changing it starts a shitstorm that also harms our American values and rights. There is no exceptions, because exceptions being made is what opens the door to bigger problems.

[Tmt97]

Maybe this will help: there is absolutely no religious solution to our situation of violence on earth. Religion, as it functions on our planet, is divisive in all observable circumstances. The world is a much smaller place than it was two thousand years ago... we have outgrown religious cohesion amongst select populations... sorry to break the news to you.

If you want to hold on to a religion in a very personal way, that is fine. If you think any particular lord and savior(or whatever deity) will solve problems or induces communal harmony, you will eventually find that it only causes a tear between you and many large portions of your fellow man.

I meant this in the most sincere way and compassionate way I know.

Well I wasn't gonna say it, glad someone had the balls though.

Edit:

Well, it could stop terrorists or security risks from infiltrating each state to systematically cripple the nation, and allows individual state rights the ability to protect their own interests and stability, as well as their own civilians. If it were to happen, I would rather it be concentrated in a single place instead across the country, harming more and further destroying the nation as a whole.  That's not how this country works either, and changing it starts a shitstorm that also harms our American values and rights. There is no exceptions, because exceptions being made is what opens the door to bigger problems.

That's just the thing though. It won't be a concentrated problem. Your forgetting terrorists have legs, and can gain access to vehicles. They will attack wherever they want to attack, not just wherever they first land here. And if you wanna talk about creating a shitstorm, how about the shitstorm caused by trying to build walls or whatever around every single state that refuses refugees, because that's pretty much what you would have to do to keep it concentrated as you say, in the states that allow them.

[iamdarkyoshi]

Very good discussion, I am proud of you guys. 7 pages in, and the thread is still going. Wow.

[Tmt97]

Very good discussion, I am proud of you guys. 7 pages in, and the thread is still going. Wow.

I think it speaks volumes about the LTT community how civil we have managed to keep this discussion. On most other forums I'd imagine people would just be drawing swastikas or something by now.

[ericlee30]

I think people should look at it this way. Would you personally let random people that you did not know nothing about and could not ever get any info on them and could not speak ( communicate with ), stay in your own house? That is how the USA is looking at this and it is a very responsible thing to do for the safety of the people that live here in the United Sates.

[Albatross]

Well I wasn't gonna say it, glad someone had the balls though.

Edit:

That's just the thing though. It won't be a concentrated problem. Your forgetting terrorists have legs, and can gain access to vehicles. They will attack wherever they want to attack, not just wherever they first land here. And if you wanna talk about creating a shitstorm, how about the shitstorm caused by trying to build walls or whatever around every single state that refuses refugees, because that's pretty much what you would have to do to keep it concentrated as you say, in the states that allow them.

 

Well, yes, they have legs and can move along. But it would be a lot worse if the potential security risks were instantly dispersed across the nation. You still have to consider individual state's rights and rights to worry for its citizens, to not wish to accept something that could harm them. And actually, I don't see how walls will be a (comparable) shitstorm? It would just be a visible border.

 

 

 

I think people should look at it this way. Would you personally let random people that you did not know nothing about and could not ever get any info on them and could not speak ( communicate with ), stay in your own house? That is how the USA is looking at this and it is a very responsible thing to do for the safety of the people that live here in the United Sates.

 

Exactly. After Paris, we should be even more cautious. We can't just treat Americans' safety like it means nothing.

[Tmt97]

I think people should look at it this way. Would you personally let random people that you did not know nothing about and could not ever get any info on them and could not speak ( communicate with ), stay in your own house? That is how the USA is looking at this and it is a very responsible thing to do for the safety of the people that live here in the United Sates.

Happy to look at it that way, and yes. Yes I would. If your in a situation even half as bad as what the Syrians are in, feel free to come on over. My doors open lol.

[ericlee30]

Happy to look at it that way, and yes. Yes I would. If your in a situation even half as bad as what the Syrians are in, feel free to come on over. My doors open lol.

 

Lets just say "figuratively speaking" I was a terrorist and you let me in your home and could not communicate with me and knew absolutely nothing about me or my background and one night I killed everyone in your family but you, just so you could suffer the morn of the losses I just caused?

 

You have to look at it logically not rationally, I understand not all refugees are bad and just need help and support, but Im not gambling with my 2 kids and wife's lives on any refugee I know nothing about.

[Tmt97]

Lets just say "figuratively speaking" I was a terrorist and you let me in your home and could not communicate with me and knew absolutely nothing about me or my background and one night I killed everyone in your family but you, just so you could suffer the morn of the losses I just caused?

You have to look at it logically not rationally, I understand not all refugees are bad and just need help and support, but Im not betting my 2 kids and wife on any refugee I know nothing about.

That's your opinion I guess. Thing is, we're all going to die eventually. I'm not saying that to make light of it, but its a fact. Personally, I'd rather my death mean something. The people I care about feel the same way. If I'm gonna go, I'd rather go after an act of mercy in an attempt to save fellow human beings(failed or not), rather than dying of old age surrounded by my family having done nothing to try and make this world a better place.

Edit: Also not certain what you mean by rationally vs logically.

"Rational comes from the Latin word rationalis, meaning reasonable or logical. If you're rational, you do things based on logic, as opposed to impulse or whimsy."

They mean the same thing... I don't mean to turn this into semantics but I'm genuinely not sure where your going with that.

[ericlee30]

That's your opinion I guess. Thing is, we're all going to die eventually. I'm not saying that to make light of it, but its a fact. Personally, I'd rather my death mean something. The people I care about feel the same way. If I'm gonna go, I'd rather go after an act of mercy in an attempt to save fellow human beings(failed or not), rather than dying of old age surrounded by my family having done nothing to try and make this world a better place.

 

Yep, we all have one . I want to live long enough to see my kids grow up and see some of my grand kids, and since my daughter is about to turn 7 and my son is 13, its going to be a while before i fill my goal to want to even think about death.

 

Don't get me wrong now, I will protect my family no mater what, if that means I have to die to keep them alive I am willing to do that, but for most people, their own families are their first priority.

 

Trust me my life has been no cake walk and at one point I thought just like you ( tell I settled down and got a family ) Then your out look on things change alot.

[Albatross]

You can still help the refugees without risking yourself/yours or other innocent people, too.

[Tmt97]

Yep, we all have one . I want to live long enough to see my kids grow up and see some of my grand kids, and since my daughter is about to turn 7 and my son is 13, its going to be a while before i fill my goal to want to even think about death.

 

Don't get me wrong now, I will protect my family no mater what, if that means I have to die to keep them alive I am willing to do that, but for most people, their own families are their first priority.

 

Trust me my life has been no cake walk and at one point I thought just like you ( tell I settled down and got a family ) Then your out look on things change alot.

Thats your priority, and thats fine but to try to discredit my opinion simply because you assumed(correctly however) that i dont have a wife and kids isn't really fair. Keep in mind that not everyone who has "settled down" as you say shares your opinion either. One obvious example is fhe number of people in the military with families back home who still risk their lives because they care about more than just themselves and their families. (not that i neccesarily agree with the military either). In a way i think that this prioritization of who we care about is what causes a lot of hatred and fear in the world. Not just with families, but then the prioritization of yout neighbors, then your state, then yoir country. Its time people realize were all really family in the end, and even if we dont like each other we all have to figure out how to share this planet. Afterall you cant choose your family, were all kinda stuck with each other.

[ericlee30]

 

Edit: Also not certain what you mean by rationally vs logically.

 

"Rational comes from the Latin word rationalis, meaning reasonable or logical. If you're rational, you do things based on logic, as opposed to impulse or whimsy."
They mean the same thing... I don't mean to turn this into semantics but I'm genuinely not sure where your going with that.

 

You are 100% correct, I apologize for that.

 

What I meant to say was logical and rational over impulse, even though most of us would love to help them, you have to think of all consequences that can come from it.

 

 

Thats your priority, and thats fine but to try to discredit my opinion simply because you assumed(correctly however) that i dont have a wife and kids isn't really fair. Keep in mind that not everyone who has "settled down" as you say shares your opinion either. One obvious example is fhe number of people in the military with families back home who still risk their lives because they care about more than just themselves and their families. (not that i neccesarily agree with the military either). In a way i think that this prioritization of who we care about is what causes a lot of hatred and fear in the world. Not just with families, but then the prioritization of yout neighbors, then your state, then yoir country. Its time people realize were all really family in the end, and even if we dont like each other we all have to figure out how to share this planet. Afterall you cant choose your family, were all kinda stuck with each other.

 

You are correct on this as well, I wanted to join the military when 9/11 happened but unfortunately they would not take me, at that time , I wanted to fight for my country and for all the insistent lives that were lost that day, stating from my previous post " trust me my life has been no cake walk and at one point I thought just like you ( tell I settled down and got a family ) Then your out look on things change alot. " Now its I will fight for my family then my country. Im not disagreeing with anything you are saying, Im just saying the older you get the more you care about the ones that you care about. I grow up in group homes my whole life " neither one of my parents wanted me" When I got older I found both my parents, I have forgave my mother but my father is a peace of work and Im glad that he was never around for me to get to know. Everything I have made for myself and accomplished is by me and me alone. I guess when all you grow up with is learning how to survive on your own, once you get something, in my case "a family" you will not gamble with their lives and will do anything to protect them first. I have helped the refugees in other ways though, I donated already $2500 to a refugee organization to help them.

[Shoob]

I usually refuse to comment on this topic, because I might get a warning...

Most of those aren't "Syrian" nor they are "refugees". They are illegal immigrants, throwing away their passports which show that they are not Syrian. They are assaulting women and stealing here. I'm sure there are some decent people among them, but most of them probably don't have good intentions.

 

I'll just leave this here.

[sgtcool]

Here in Slovenia they burned down their camp then, some migrant took a selfie infront of the flames

Also most of them are young men ~20 years old

 

also why would a single woman travel alone with a kid for hunderds of kilometers (walking)

[Craftsman_2222]

Im assuming theyd be hesitant for the same reason the USA would be?

but they're the same religion. Yes they have a chance still, but a lower one if that

[Swndlr]

but they're the same religion. Yes they have a chance still, but a lower one if that

But is that really a risk you take?

[Craftsman_2222]

But is that really a risk you take?

That's a risk some governors were willing to take.

[stconquest]

Some people here mentioned the "Paris Attack" like it changes something...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hollande-france-plans-to-take-in-30000-refugees-over-two-years_564c78bae4b06037734bb934

 

France is still planning on taking in refugees. Sounds like Americans are wimpy loudmouths.    

[Tmt97]

Some people here mentioned the "Paris Attack" like it changes something...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hollande-france-plans-to-take-in-30000-refugees-over-two-years_564c78bae4b06037734bb934

 

France is still planning on taking in refugees. Sounds like Americans are wimpy loudmouths.  

Or just cowards

[stconquest]

Or just cowards

 

I was trying to stay away from that word... The mock was a deflection from my anger at ignorance based policy.

[Tmt97]

I was trying to stay away from that word... The mock was a deflection from my anger at ignorance based policy.

Just stating my opinion. Coward is the best word to describe what I think of this fear of helping other human beings.