Also guns kills more people then immigrants/refugees, so why allow the former but not the latter? (I am sure you all know what thread I am hinting at)

Guns don't kill jack. they are used to kill.

Xapy, you can add points for the pros, if you want.

I am not particularly interested into a an argument on whether guns are used to kill, or leads to murder simply by their nature of being easy to fire.

Either way, taking away guns (like assault rifles, high cap mag and other WAR equipment) will result in fewer lives lost. Wouldn't you love to live in a place where you can trust the Police, and they do not need to carry guns.

Please let get rid of legal army guns on the street (by both civilians and police) then we can discuss the other guns later.

Also if the gun provides safety argument is true, clearly US should welcome refugees. Were else could they be more safe?

Edited 11/20/2015 03:25:43

Ah, but it's not true. The pro-gun laws were established to protect the people from their government, as well as from invading nations, should the military need some help. There is nothing to protect the people from themselves, though, which is unfortunate. But, the US can't turn back now.

Back to the topic, a gun can't protect you from something you don't know is there. Any terrorist that is integrated into the migrants don't show it until the last moments, when they pull out a gun, or just blow themselves up.

Man, this thread might not even last long enough for us to spam it on Genghis day.

I've said my words about this some times, but for now, here are some improvements.

I think this should be this:

-Help Europe, yo! European countries are taking them; why shouldn't the US?
-> Keep solidarity with the rest of NATO, and ease off the load on the European allies. America has much more modern experience with mass scale migration.

-The US is a nation of immigrants. It is hypocritical of the US to not take them when they have in the past, and shows a sense of Islamophobia.
-> Just remove this totally, this is not really a valid argument. It's ironic, but it's no argument.

+No longer letting folk in statistically likely to murder folk, not solely based on national origin. The biggest "terrorist" attack on American land was September 11 attacks, which killed 2,000. ~15,000 die each year from murder.

-Where's your humanity!? These people are running away from the conflict. Why do you think they want to do you harm?
-> Should a clinic turn 10,000 away folk (over some years) who are afflicted with illness A, on the chance 1 in 500,000 that they actually do not have illness A, but are conquering their fears of physicians?

-It's only 10,000 people, come on, man.
-> It's just about 0.003% current America population, or 355 times a smaller problem than the murderous Puerto Ricans.

-They are supposed to be fixing the vetting process.
-> How does this even mean?

- Obama ~ "Are you scared of widows and three-year old orphans?"
-> Another invalid argument

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jxMZRK3ufY

The only reason why France, Central European and Balkan states accepted migrants in the first place is because of the failed "European Experiment" which is controlled by the US through it's spiked tentacles of ideological and cultural imperialism thereby putting pressure on states and causing them to put the interests of the US foreign policy over the interests of themselves.

France doesn't have a foreign policy. When's the last time they opposed the US on a single issue. The UK only just got away with cosying-up to China a couple months ago. France is to the US what Kazakhstan is to Russia. America no.2.

France is the most colonised state in the world. It's culture, apart from it's horrible language and tendencies to eat the most disgusting things, has beem completely eroded away and replaced by a pseudo-American culture. Any nation that resists the methodical erosion of it's culture by imperial America is "dealt with". We only ever see what 'Murica wants us to see. We only hear what 'Murica wants us to hear. Anyone who tries to explain anything in a manner opposed to the mainstream media's story is dubbed as a "conspiracy theorist nut".

This colonisation has been going on since post-WW2. This was how they did it:
Step 1- End all European superpowers and make them minions of mother-Murica.
Step 2- Oops! Russians have got the same idea as us! Best put a wall between us and them somewhere.
Step 3- Erode all culture on our side of the wall.
Step 4- Break down the wall by enticing populations on the other side to violence.
Step 5- Erode, nation by nation, every culture on the other side of the wall until we erode the culture of mother-Russia herself. (This was going to plan until Putin arrived.)

The only way we can end this tragedy of the human race is to use the same strategy the US uses against others to it's disadvantage. The people of Texas are being oppressed **wink**. The democratic will of Alaska is being repressed to favour East Coast states **wink**. These peoples must throw off their reigns of oppression and fight for independence. **wink**wink**wink**

While I'm at it, I'll talk to some other points.

-If Europe can't help itself, then that shows we shouldn't place ourselves in their situation.

Shouldn't is a strong word. Don't have to is more suitable, and America doesn't have to do anything, really. Most European governments willingly placed themselves in a very helper role, notably Germany and Holland. It's like willingly doing a maths problem: it's complicated, it's tedious, but you get smarter from doing it and it's choice.

It's part of helping an international problem, this is a rather selfish outlook on it, I think.

-The US is, indeed, a nation of immigrants, but not of refugees from a state sponsor of terrorism, the very first country added on the list.

Are you kidding me? America is a state sponsor of terrorism. In Libya, in Mexico, in Sudan, and all this: ongoing! They've, at one point or other (in the last 15 years) funded each side in the Syrian Civil War: the Syrian government, various "freedom fighters", other "terrorists", and Kurdistan. Have you not seen that picture of some American parlaiment members with their "friends", who fight against the tyrannic government in order to establish a fair, Islamic State?

This is a load of hypocrisy.

-Not all Muslims are terrorists, but with the crap-tier vetting system, there is no way to pick out the bad apples. We already have extremist sympathizers in our borders.

Statistic analysis, I don't really know what the "vetting" system is. There are many ways to pick out "bad apples", though. F.E. put secret police surveillance on all them.

These people are running from conflict. A conflict we had a part in, and not for the better. It is guaranteed that a few of them are actually hostile towards the US, because we don't exactly have a good track record with Syria. Tensions will be high, and eventually, the rope would snap.

If they're hostile to America, they won't come. How powerful is a rope snap anyway with a population of 2,000?

10,000 is still a big number. It doesn't change the fact that we are taking a risk.

It's all relative. And risks are worth taking, after all, if it weren't for those courageous Americans that took the risk of treason against the British Empire, why hell, we'd be speaking German now.

-The vetting process for Syrians will suck indefinitely. They can only be checked with the information we have, and since Syria and the US haven't cooperated with each other for decades, and since the country is in turmoil, it does not suffice. There is too great a risk.

What is a vetting process? Anyhow, the process can be changed to something better, that solves that problem.

Before the Sochi Olympics, there was a new sensation sweeping the Russian nation called, "Black Widows." These are women who have sworn a life of revenge for their (Muslim) husbands being killed. The US has some Syrian blood on its hands through its actions, and lack thereof.

How many wars on its own land has America waged against Muslims who feel culturally separate from America (and begin their own country, later invading America)? Things work differently from country environment. This I think is the most valid point to make, but if they already can come into America. Forge a British passport, maybe, get to American base and say that you're a British reporter on the vileness of the Levant, getting a Muslim prospect as well, and have them ship you eventually to America.

-There are young children being trained by ISIS as we type.

There are young children being being trained by the Americans as we type, so what?

There is too great a risk that people who are hostile towards the US are being let in, and as a nation, your own people should come first.

Too great a risk? It's small, and it's considerably less risky than Mexican immigration/the whole thing, or Puerto Rico. And being nationalist is nothing good.

France took in refugees, and now it has closed borders after being attacked at its capital. At least two of the terrorists have been confirmed to have been foreign-born.

The Paris attacks are really anecdotal evidence of a kind. France had many Algeriens coming in after the great wars there; I think the most relative Muslim immigration in Europe, but not much terrorism, although both sides were very violent and hated each others' guts.

One of the passports used a name that matches that of another that was detained in Turkey. Even more evidence that we don't know who we would be letting in.

Goes along with above.

Berdan thanks to correct me (also Eklipse no point on repeting what he said, I understood my error once I read berdan's comment).

I of course meant people of Muslim culture/background. I consider myself a French of Christian Catholic background, because I was raised in a Christian environment (as I told you in another thread, my grand parents were very pious persons, my parents werent that religious but for them and other members of my family I had to achieve each of the Catholic blessed sacrament from Baptism to Confirmation), nevertheless now I am no longer religious and consider myself close to Agnoticism or Atheism : this is what I meant about the Muslims, I know people that were also raised with a Muslim education with both parents being Muslims, some were born in the Maghreb, or Africa.
I hope things are clear now.

Edited 11/20/2015 11:24:12

Panda, I live in the state with the highest amount of middle eastern population in the U.S.

Dearborne, Michigan has Sharia Law. Like dude, comeone, what the fuck. They aren't fucking assimilating, they're trying to turn my own state into New Afghanistan.


And realistically, we don't even take care of our Veterans, why should we take care of 10,000 refugees?

Des I did not heard about that, but if this is true, your state, need to show that the Republic and its laws shall prevail among anything else. Weak states will likely fall if they do not show their strength against fanatism. But not only Islamic fatanism, Im also talking about any fanatism, some are also Christians (sects or even recognized movements, such as the Mormons).

In France it is totally forbidden to preach in public, try to convert people (proselythism), or make any political party according to a religion, I heard there were a "Parti Islam" in Belgium now planning to make official the Sharia Law there, or the Islamic Political Party in Britain. Sometimes to guaratee freedom you nevertheless need to ban some excesses and abuses. I have my opinion about religions, nd I believe they should never meet the political sphere. Hence the importance of a secular state (I am not sure the US are truly secular, thats perhaps why as you told Des, that people can do what they want and initiate Sharia law in some cities/states).

Um, it's completely false that Dearborn, Michigan has Sharia law.

cf. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/02/dearborn-mi-where-muslims-are-americans.html

Relevant quote from the above article:

Debunking Dearborn myths takes a lot of the mayor’s time: When Jones first came to town, [Mayor] O’Reilly says, he received 6,000 emails. He responded to each; several hundred wrote back thanking him. After Angle’s faux pas, O’Reilly sent a letter inviting her to visit.

“The people who perpetuate it use it for their own gain,” O’Reilly said. “There are certain sites and individuals who like to perpetuate fear of Muslims—the people who like to suggest Muslims shouldn’t remain in the U.S.”

Edited 11/20/2015 14:42:19

What is disgusting is that by random chance each of the Republican governor's individually came up to their opinion that Syrian refugees should not be permitted in their states.

But alas, that's not what happened. Somehow, the plight of refugees has become a political bargaining chip to further separate the country between red and blue states.

That is actually more disgusting.

Edited 11/20/2015 14:50:57

plight:
plīt
noun
a dangerous, difficult, or otherwise unfortunate situation.

@The Goblin, a nice try, or just proper use of English.

Next time you try to troll, don't make yourself look so ignorant.

What is a vetting process? Anyhow, the process can be changed to something better, that solves that problem.

investigate (someone) thoroughly, especially in order to ensure that they are suitable for a job requiring secrecy, loyalty, or trustworthiness.

In this case, vetting is the process of investigating refugees' backgrounds.

I can't see this process being improved. The best we could do to improve it is... I don't know. Ask more questions? We don't have much information to confirm the truth of many answers.

what do you expect from the party of fear mongering?

here's a cold logical reason for allowing in refugees:

breaking the cycle of terror recruitment

our islamaphobia is a great recruitment tool for isis. and when we shun moderate muslims who are fleeing crisis those moderates will be killed or converted to extremism.

the big reason europe opened it's doors to refugees (and btw, france is still taking refugees) is because those refugees were going to be in europe anyway. if strong countries like france and germany refused them then they would just go to places like greece and spain, who don't have the resources to keep them out and are at greater risk of becoming destabilized because of them.

also, keeping out refugees in no way makes us safer. terrorists are more likely to recruit american citizens or travel here from "safe" countries. they are not dummies. they know we will be paying more attention to syrian refugees than our own citizens or well-to-do muslim tourists.

Albeit true or false, its still a serious thing that its even considered.

Des - it is considered only by people willing to believe things that are easily shown to be false. In this case, Sharia law in Dearborn was first reported by nationalreport.net, a satirical newspaper:
http://nationalreport.net/city-michigan-first-fully-implement-sharia-law/

http://nationalreport.net/disclaimer/

National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news.

Indeed, this is the first link on Google that comes up if you search for the story.

That's right - it's satire, a trick story meant to make Republicans look stupid.

I think it's working.


Edit: if you have any doubt that the story was designed specifically to make fun of Republicans, you should check other stories on the front page of the National Review:

Sarah Palin Will Teach American English College Course

‘A Kindler, Gentler Sharia': John Kasich Explains His Proposed Department of Christianity

Leftists Secretly Gathering for History Book Conference

etc.

Edited 11/20/2015 18:33:06

The poster above me is an idiotic troll

Edited 11/20/2015 22:08:58

here's a cold logical reason for allowing in refugees:

breaking the cycle of terror recruitment

our islamaphobia is a great recruitment tool for isis. and when we shun moderate muslims who are fleeing crisis those moderates will be killed or converted to extremism.

THIS.

+1