List the reasons we should bring muslim "refugees" to the US

This is astonishingly naïve. Not to mention incredibly arrogant.

These people will NEVER stand with white America. It's funny that you almost demand that they do, though. As though you're a superior being, and they're just waiting to emulate you.

 

You are not exercising good will towards men when you ask for government intervention and that is precisely what you are doing. You are not asking right wingers to take in refugees you are asking government to use the tax dollars of all americans to bring them into the nation when there are many good reasons not to do so.

 

You know...there are many other types of crimes going on in the US. Why tolerate the Church when some pastors sexually abuse children. Get rid of the whole thing. Why tolerate soldiers when some rape other women...or men? Get rid of the whole thing. Guns killed kids in mass-shootings. Get rid of all guns. Or, wait. Maybe it was the kids with the guns who killed other kids. So remove all kids from school grounds. Only way to be safe...

Fear makes you do stupid things... Fear-politics makes everyone do stupid things.

 

Do you have something besides your "experience in the area" to back this up? You are, let's face facts, just one person, and your experience could easily be distorted somehow. It flies in the face of reason to say that people thrown out of their homes are not going to be anxious to do something to the people that expelled them. It's just not the "human nature" that you conservatives always claim to be such experts on, is it?

 

Let 'em in, what could possibly go wrong?..-

 

Apparently they do because the question wasn't about allowing Islamic terrorists into the country but instead about allowing Muslim refugees into the country.

What we do know is that the vetting process for political refugees is the most rigorous and intensive of any vetting process to obtain a visa to enter the United States. The process for Syrian refugees takes at least 18 months and can easily run in to two years or more because they won't receive the visa until US officials are sure that they're not a radical Muslim that would commit acts of terrorism. Because the vetting process is the most rigorous of all visa vetting processes, that continues indefinately until US officials are sure about the applicant, it's the least likely choice for any radical Muslim to attempt. Their chance of being identified through the interrogation process that goes on for months is way too high and there are other visas that are far easier to obtain.

As our government has stated that while it's hypothetically possible that a terrorist could sneak in as a refugee it's pragmatically impossible for that to happen. The simple historical fact that no Muslim given a political refugee visa has ever committed a terrorist act while those on student and tourist visas have reflects how robust and secure the vetting process is for political refugees.

There's a more compelling reason of course. You don't deny tens of thousands of people fleeing tyranny and terrorism sanctuary in the United States simply because there is a extremely remote possibility that one of them might commit a heinous criminal act in the future. What you do is create the best possible screening system to identify that one person that might commit a heinous criminal act in the future and bar them from entry.

The United States government is doing that when it comes to Muslim refugees fleeing from the tyranny and terrorism by radical Islamic Jihadists.

The only reason this whole issue exists, and why this thread exists, is because there are American Christians that hate Muslims. If these were Christian refugees fleeing from tyranny and terrorism then there would be no objection whatsoever even with the remote possibility that one of them might turn out to be a mass murder or serial killer in the future existed. Ironically it was the flight from religious tyranny that brought many of the early Christians to the American colonies to begin with but to some Christians the fact that it could be a Muslim fleeing Islamic tyranny is ignored because of religious intolerance by those Christians that hate Muslims.

 

That's actually the best reason I can think of for allowing the "Muslim" refugees into the United States because White (WASP) Supremacy/White WASP Nationalism has been the greatest barrier to us ever achieving the social and political ideology that the United States was founded upon as expressed in these two lines from the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (people) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable (natural) Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men (people), deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."​

I don't want them to be "White" Americans or to assimilate into our "White" culture but instead I want them to fulfill the original National Motto of:

E Pluribus Unum​

"From many, one" where they bring with them their culture, religion, and ethnic heritage to the United States and unite as one people under the social and political ideology as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. That social and political ideology has been opposed by the White (WASP) Supremacists/White (WASP) Nationalists since our nation was founded and that is what prevents us from ever achieving that ideological goal. It's not that I'm superior but that our social and political ideology is superior to any other in the world.

I don't want them to "learn to be white" but instead I want them to "learn to be American" and that's something that many "natural born Americans" (social conservatives) refuse to do.

It is for this reason that I'm a Progressive Libertarian today and why I condemn the Republican Party that is carrying the banner of White (WASP) Supremacy/White (WASP) Nationalism with Donald Trump as their standard bearer. As David Duke, the former KKK Grand Wizard and one of the foremost advocates for White (WASP) Supremacy/ White (WASP) Nationalism put it, “I’m overjoyed to see Donald Trump and most Americans embrace most of the issues (White Supremacy/White Nationalism) I’ve championed for years.”

Hopefully in November we'll find out that "most Americans" don't support racism in the United States by coming out to vote and defeating Donald Trump. The only downside to that is that Hillary Clinton would become president but at least she supports the ideology that America was founded upon while Donald Trump and the Republicans oppose it.

So yes, allowing these "Non-WASP" Muslims victims of Islamic tyranny and terrorism into the United States where they would bring their heritage with them while adopting the core social and political ideology of America from the Declaration of Independence would certainly help over-come the historical White (WASP) Supremacy/White (WASP) Nationalism that has plagued this nation since it's founding and prevented us from ever becoming the nation the founders envisioned.

These Muslim refugees can join the "Hispanic Whites" (Mexicans) that Republicans also hate because they threated the White (WASP) Supremacy/White (WASP) Nationalism that the Republican Party is trying to nefariously retain in the United States today.

 

Compassion, humanity, moral responsibility, trustworthiness? I appreciate you might find these to be difficult concepts but you should be able to look them up in any good dictionary.

 

Garbage analogies.

Did we voluntarily import these pastors into this country? Did we import those bad soldiers into this country voluntarily? Did we import the guns used in mass killings? Did we import the children who used guns?

There are relevant analogies and then there are ones like these, used to push an agenda.

------------------------------

There is a common theme in virtually all the lefty posts in this thread. They assume the refugees will not contain terrorists or people who wish to do harm, specifically, to americans. This is total BS and not supported by anything substantial.

Stop with the BS about 'good will' and 'doing the right thing'. It IS NOT the right thing to do for the government of a country to knowingly put it's people at undue risk. That's not even to go into the financial strains it would place on this country.

This thread has shown how lefties can't come up with a single legitimate reason for doing this.

 

No it isn't the best weapon we have. Bringing in that many refugees at this time would make it far to easy for radical Islamists to slip in ones that are our enemies at this time. They will just have to wait until we get our vetting system under better control before making a decision like this. If we don't we are just inviting problems into our society.

 

And turning your head on the more problems being invited into our country is even more stupid.

 

Well...if they had compassion, humanity, moral responsibility, trustworthiness then you would think they could ban together and take control of the country they are in. Since they are just running it looks like they are just looking for a place to hide.

 

Just dont get a mayor like this one who seems to have the attitude that
citizens just have to suck it up and accept terrorism...of course he's a muslim, just like Obama....
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/09/...attacks-part-and-parcel-of-life-in-a-big-city

 

The concern is that some Radical Islamists will sneak in along with the refugees. Deep down, no one has a problem with legitimate victims of Islamic tyranny being allowed in our country, the problem is that we do not have a reliable means of telling them apart from the radicals.

You obviously believe the Obama narrative that they have this wonderful vetting process. I do not. Syria amounts to a 3rd world nation. There are not any reliable records that come from a 3rd world nation. So you think that the chances of a radical Islamist, taking advantage of the lack of records from that country and being able to sneak in, are "pragmatically impossible" ?

I am a reasonable person and typically able to see at least some shred of both sides in any debate. To call the chances of an ISIS terrorist sneaking in with the refugees "pragmatically impossible", especially when ISIS has stated that as their goal, is just nonsensical. To point to the fact that no one ever given a political refugee visa has committed a terrorist act, while ignoring that this is the first time that political refugees have been fleeing an oppressor that has stated their desire to use the refugees as cover to export terror abroad, is just nonsensical. It seems that you have spent a great deal of time memorizing the talking points surrounding this issue, but haven't really spent any time pondering what is actually being said. To call that possibility "pragmatically IMPOSSIBLE", is about as partisanly blind as it gets. If you want to say that the humanitarian aspect is worth the risk, that is fine, but don't sit here and try to pass this off as a virtual impossibility. You aren't fooling anyone, other than perhaps yourself.

 

I do. The "victims" of tyranny are just the losers. If they were the winners, the current tyrants would be the refugees.

There are no "good guys" in the ME Muslim world.

Bring enough Muslims in and parts of the US will resemble Syria.

 

Those were characteristics for the people accepting refugees but in general people with those characteristics can't take control of countries they're living in (especially when they're a minority), which is why we have refugees and why we have so much resistance to accepting any of them.

 

While some refugees may in fact simply be tyrants that are the losers, there are undoubtedly some legitimately innocent people that are refugees. When you spout this type of exaggeration/ gross overgeneralization, you hurt the cause that you are trying to help. When someone is trying to put forth a reasoned position as to why we should not allow Syrian refugees, you give the opposition ammunition by allowing them to paint the reasoned argument with the same broad brush as your brutish ramblings.

 

If a radical Islamic Jihadist wants to get inside the United States they're not going to try to do that based upon a refugee status visa. They'll come based upon a tourist or student visa that's are easier for them to obtain. The refugee visa is contingent upon the applicant going through the most extensive background check and interrogation process imaginable and a radical Islamic Jihadist would never be able to fool the interrogators during that 18 month to 2 year or longer process.

Simply check the facts. Islamic terrorist have been able to enter the United States on student and tourist visas and commit terrorist acts, one even obtained a visa as the spouse of an American citizen, but not a single one has ever managed to obtain a refugee visa and commit an act of terrorism.

The threat of a terrorist securing a refugee visa is pragmatically non-existent and we can't justify denying refugee immigration to tens of thousands of victims of Islamic tyranny and terrorism just because of an "imagined" threat and we couldn't even deny that immigration if an actual threat existed. We wouldn't deny immigration to tens of thousands of Christian refugees based upon an almost non-existent threat that one of them might turn out to be a mass murderer so why would we deny tens of thousands of Muslims refugees immigration based upon an almost non-existent threat that one of them might turn out to be a mass murderer?

This entire "deny Muslim refugees" political asylum is based upon Christian religious intolerance, racism, and general hatred of Muslims. Everything else is nothing more than an attempted rationalization for religious intolerance and racism but the rationalizations all fail.

 

Mine is a reasoned position, and borne out by the facts.

BTW, a survey finds that 13% of Syrian refugees have a positive or somewhat positive view of ISIS. Which is actually larger than the 11% of Sunnis who have a positive or somewhat positive view of ISIS.

http://english.dohainstitute.org/file/Get/40ebdf12-8960-4d18-8088-7c8a077e522e

(See figure 11. But the whole survey is, shall we say, eye opening.)

 

Actually we do have an excellent vetting process for those seeking political refugee status that involves a comprehensive background check and an interrogation process that lasts from 18 months to over two years and the political refugee visa is not issued until the government officials are sure that the applicant isn't a terrorist.

Denial by Republicans of the facts is well established because we also see that related to US border enforcement under the Obama Administration that's the best it's ever been in US history.

 

And based upon the vetting process we will assume that NONE OF THEM WOULD RECEIVE A POLITICAL REFUGEE VISA to the United States.

 

You CANNOT legitimately make such an all encompassing declaration and then say its "borne out by the facts". Some refugees are babies, and without question are innocent victims. THATS a fact. That fact alone refutes your all encompassing notion that every refugee is a tyrant that lost the battle. I am not here arguing for allowing Syrian refugees, we both think that it should not be allowed. I am taking a reasoned approach that looks at all sides, and you are taking the bombastic approach and incorrectly asserting that ALL of them are tyrants. Your bombastic approach is a hindrance to the cause.

I once heard a story about two wolves. One was a wise old wolf, and the other was a rambunctious youth. They were looking down into a valley where there were a bunch of cows. The young wolf says "hey lets RUN down there and f**k one of those cows". The older wiser wolf said "no, lets WALK down there and f**k them all."

You would be well advised to heed the advice of the older and wiser wolf.

 

What religion was Robert Dear, who shot up a clinic in Colorado Springs, CO?

 

Sounds like a pretty rash assumption to me.

And what about the chance that these "refugees" will become "radicalized" after admission. Or that their children will become radicalized?

Why take any chances?

 

Yes, I do fully realize that you have the talking points down pat, there is no need to keep repeating them. The truth of the matter is that the actual vetting process is rightfully secret, and we then have to rely upon the word of the administration. That 2 year thing is nonsense, and is NOT what is taking place. These people are not being held in a pen for 2 years prior to getting a visa, and they are not applying for a visa, roaming around in no mans land and returning 2 years later to see if they made it. That is an utter fabrication. Being a virtual 3rd world nation, there are not reliable records to vet. Garbage in/ garbage out. You can apply the most rigorous standards imaginable, and if the records are unreliable, the results of a rigorous vetting process are going to be equally unreliable. You are taking the word of the administration regarding this secret process, and I am not. Because the process is secret, we really do not know exactly what is being done. That leaves us with only common sense to be our guide. Common sense, in my mind, is that in the absence of reliable records, we have no way of properly vetting those refugees.