I appreciate what is clearly a decent, good-hearted, well-intentioned position on your part. The risk is just to great.
The risk is enormous and I've echoed that in this thread, but these ideas are resonating with me now. To destroy ISIS, you have to kill their ideas about how the world views the West and America specifically. These refugees are leaving Syria because it ISL does NOT represent the religion they believe in. To deny the refugees would be a massive gain for ISIS recruiters and only compounds the problem
Liberalism is a mental disorder....you just gotta learn to ignore most of the garbage you see on FB and twitter...I saw a few cartoons this morning that were ridiculous campaigning for refugees
The point you seemed to have missed is that immigration is a very small part of the issues we are facing. It plays into the right wing world view, to be sure, us against them and all that. But you ignore how there are also issues involving ideology (theirs is also right wing if more extreme), gun control, the necessity of federal government action, and putting aside past neocon approaches to global challenges. But go on talking only about what comforts you and confirms your worldview.
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/11/18/3723440/france-refugees/ If this article is legit, France is pledging to take in 30,000 more immigrants. No fear. If you give into fear, you give into what these extremists want. The credibility of the Syrian passport that was said to have been on an attacker that passed through Greece is still in question. Would seem that it was a propaganda tool to influence xenophobia and make people fearful of the migrants. And based on the reactions of people on this board, it has worked.
I know liberals very well, and I have a theory why this is the case. I don't think liberals have any predisposition to favor Islam, but the way it challenges them leads to some very odd positions and contorted explanations. It boils down essentially to moral relativism, but influenced by a skepticism (hardlyl exclusive to liberals) about the virtues of military options and actions. that of course in more overt manifestations veers into pacifism (which btw I get the impression is not very popular in France right now). For argument's sake one must acknowledge it is not as if there is no basis to moral relativism, in the sense that no one and nothing, no people and no basic political or economic set of principles, and here no religion as practiced by fallible humans, is perfect. (In fact without citing chapter and verse here is documented in Scriptures as well - as in Jesus actually getting violent in the temple with the pharisees, but I digress). But taken beyond a certain point, moral relativism becomes a form of cynicism, and cynicism becomes an excuse for inaction. Which ties in with pacifism. So, especially for atheists but also the secularly inclined in general, who start out with a moral relativism about religion, along comes Islam with its offshoots of obnoxious challenges that we all know about. But what to do about it? In such a situation as this, moral relativism combined with something of a pacificist pov ends up leading to the kind of thing you are describing. I think that's pretty much it.
The Reformation basically ended the practice of having the Church rule over the laity without recourse. It was a war against coercive violence by the Church against the laity, of which the Inquisition was the most recent and obvious abuse.
Yeah, I've heard the president say this. So much nonsense. This is the leftward slant on the ". . . or the terrorists win" trope. Everything we do seems to fall into one of two categories: we're either "doing exactly what they want us to do," or pissing them off and "giving them another recruiting tool." Know what I think would work really well? Making the down-side of being and sympathizing with Islamic terrorists about as down as you can get. As grim a future as you could imagine. No comfortable days. No safe haven. No promising tomorrows. No hugs.
in terms of accepting refugees to the US, i have direct and indirect concerns: the direct concerns are the obvious ones being widely discussed. extremists can take advantage of our humanitarian efforts, and directly infiltrate the US by masking as a refugee. the indirect concern i have is in regards to the future. how many recent terrorists attacks on western soil were from muslims legally in those countries? Several of the Paris terrorists were French. same with a recent incident in Denmark. the Boston Marathon was from the descendants of Chechnyans seeking asylum here. it has happened in Germany and the UK as well. i just can't get behind allowing tens of thousands of war torn muslim refugees settling here, as that has brought many of their homeland problems right to western soil (including our own) in the past. it's just a matter of time before some of them radicalize here, maybe even a generation removed, and those are the contacts the middle eastern jihadists need. no thanks. let the Arab world start taking more in as a temporary measure, and when we remove ISIS and stabilize Syria, it will be easy for them to return to their homeland. maybe we take in a very small number of well vetted refugees for appearances sake, while helping those Arab nations take in more. we shouldn't be taking in mass numbers here.
If you sympathize with terrorists here you go to jail. Or you get deported. So you don't want to offer safe haven to women and children who clearly do not sympathize with terrorists because they are leaving the "Islamic paradise" of Syria? Would you have sent back the SS St. Louis to Europe in 1939?
I think you're missing the point here. I don't think Muslim radicals are the biggest problem. They can be defeated, or at least subdued. ISIS is nothing but a blip in the much bigger picture. If we allow more of these people in, we'll eventually end up like Europe. It's not going to happen tomorrow but, as I said before, considering Muslim reproduction and immigration rates (if the current trend does not stop) USA will eventually become a Muslim country. If this is the country that you want your grandchildren to live in, then by all means....
how do you know they clearly don't sympathize with terrorists? perhaps they just don't sympathize with these particular terrorists, but do sympathize with other extremist efforts who are at odds with ISIS (Hezbollah, al-queda, sfa, etc)? perhaps they blame the West for what has ultimately transpired in their homeland.
Hmm hmm I do say Lord Blockington, do not take my jest at the state of our immigration policies as a dismissal of the ideological is-she-ews facing the crown this age. Indeed! Only nobles should be granted access to black powder and Her Majesties guard should surely take care of rounding up these pesky neoconservative rebels that infiltrate the parliament. As for comforts... PEEPERS! CHOP CHOP! Bring me my smoking jacket and fetch a batch of some fine Caribbean tobacco.
700,000 refugees since 2001 have come into the US... Many from the Iraq war and yet I still don't feel like this is a Muslim country. Even without them at the rate we are going half population will be bilingual by 2050 I believe. Not sure I see anything wrong with that
