6 Reasons to Welcome Refugees after Paris

[PierzStyx]

"After the attacks on Paris, many politicians — including (so far) the governors of Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, and Texas — have called for stopping refugee flows to the United States from the Middle East, claiming that the refugee process poses a major threat to America’s security.

Here are six reasons why ending US refugee resettlement is a mistaken and reactionary approach:

1. The Paris attackers were not refugees.

Assuming that the user of a fake Syrian passport found near the body of an attacker belonged to the attacker, which isn’t clear, he exploited the flow of people into Europe, but he was not a refugee. He did not receive refugee designation from the United Nations or vetting from intelligence agencies. He was never approved for refugee status in any country.

To become a refugee in the United States, you undergo a multi-stage vetting process and only after receiving UN designation by trained officers in the field. The United States can vet refugees prior to admission, which means we can weed out terrorists and those most likely to become involved in terrorism, accepting only the most vulnerable. Europe cannot do the same. What happened in Paris is not applicable to the US refugee process.

2. US refugees don’t become terrorists.

The history of the US refugee program demonstrates that the lengthy and extensive vetting that all refugees must undergo is an effective deterrent for terrorists. Since 1980, the United States has invited in millions of refugees, including hundreds of thousands from the Middle East. Not one has committed an act of terrorism in the United States.† Traditional law enforcement and security screening processes have a proven record of handling the threat from terrorist posing as refugees.

3. Other migration channels are easier to exploit than the refugee process.

The previous point can also be made another way. Non-refugees have carried out all foreign terrorist attacks over the past 35 years. That means they used other means to arrive in the United States. All of the 9/11 hijackers used student or tourist visas. These visas are much easier and faster to obtain than refugee status, which takes up to two years and requires a multi-stage vetting process and UN referral. Refugee status is the single most difficult way to come to the United States. It makes no sense for a terrorist to try to use the resettlement process for an attack.

4. ISIS sees Syrian refugees as traitors.

According to ISIS, Syrian Muslim refugees are traitors to the radical Islamic cause. “It is correct for Muslims to leave the lands of the infidel for the lands of Islam, but not vice versa,” one ISIS video said in September. Here are several other examples of similar condemnation from this year.

Nearly 90 percent of displaced Syrians in Turkey have no sympathy for ISIS at all, even though ISIS is fighting the person who most refugees see as their main enemy: Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Kurdish and Christian refugees see ISIS as their main threat. Some have speculated that the attacker in Paris intentionally left the fake Syrian passport near his body to help turn the West against Syrian refugees. Turning away Syrian refugees plays into ISIS’s hands.

5. Turning away allies will make us less safe.

Callous disregard for the fate of refugees — our potential allies in the war against ISIS — will drive them back into the hands of the person they are fleeing: Bashar al-Assad, the hated Syrian dictator. This will lead some refugees to see ISIS as their only remaining ally and safeguard against Assad. The evidence in the academic literature is that keeping refugees penned-up in camps near the zone of conflict increases terrorism in those areas, but resettling them outside of those areas does not.

During the Cold War, we used refugee resettlement to gain foreign policy assets, spies, allies, and spokesmen to refute the enemy’s propaganda. In the fight against ISIS, allies gained from aiding refugees will be as important as any weapon we have.

6. America should demonstrate moral courage.

During World War II, the United States turned away Jews due to security concerns. We sent shiploads back to the camps because we were scared that Nazi spies could hide in their midst — which was not an entirely unfounded concern.

The lesson of the Holocaust is that we must deal with threats without rejecting our ethical obligations. We must not send those fleeing persecution back to their persecutors. The definition of moral courage is to refuse to allow fear to overwhelm our humanity.

† The Tsarnaev brothers, who attacked the Boston Marathon in 2013, were not refugees: they were children of an ayslee. In 2002, they were brought to United States by their father, at ages 8 and 15, on a tourist visa. After entering the US, their father applied for asylum, which is a different and distinct process from overseas refugee vetting. His children received derivative status, allowing them to stay with him, but they did not go through either the asylum or refugee process themselves. (There is no indication, then or now, that their father was ever involved with terrorism.)"

The original article is from FEE and can be found here: http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/6-reasons-to-welcome-refugees-after-paris/ as well as a variety of links showing evidence for the claims above that were embedded in the text that I did not copy over.

[Todd]

I agree with most all of that. Except that were broke. How many more times will the US bleed itself with aid to others? The counterargument is that "we broke it"(Syria)...."we owe them". I can see that side of it...but at some point we have to stop.

I don't have any issue with individual charity and resources to help any world crises. But I don't want one more red dime of tax payer money world welfare.

[timosman]

We should stop bombing them first. This entire discussion is a distraction.

[helmuth_hubener]

None of these people have been invited here, Pierz. None have been hired. None have been accepted as renters in any apartment complex. None have local sponsors. None have even paid for their own plane ticket! Not a one has paid for his own plane ticket!

They are shameless government moochers, already on the dole before they even set foot in the country. If they could pay their own way, show some pride and self-respect and self-reliance, they might get a little more sympathy from me (and other sensible people).

[puppetmaster]

1 reason, we don't need them

[Cabal]

1. The Paris attackers were not refugees.
2. US refugees don’t become terrorists.
3. Other migration channels are easier to exploit than the refugee process.
4. ISIS sees Syrian refugees as traitors.
5. Turning away allies will make us less safe.
6. America should demonstrate moral courage.

And none of these addresses the real issue--the cost, efficiency, and practicality. All the terrorist talk about refugees is largely a red herring, and beside the point.

[Feeding the Abscess]

None of these people have been invited here, Pierz. None have been hired. None have been accepted as renters in any apartment complex. None have local sponsors. None have even paid for their own plane ticket! Not a one has paid for his own plane ticket!

They are shameless government moochers, already on the dole before they even set foot in the country. If they could pay their own way, show some pride and self-respect and self-reliance, they might get a little more sympathy from me (and other sensible people).

Unless the people wishing to enter the country are applying for refugee status, they'll be considered illegal immigrants if they enter the country. It's illegal to hire illegal immigrants, and if a person is considered an illegal immigrant and has no income, it's extremely unlikely that they will be accepted as a renter.

Thanks, government.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Mao recognized the ONE asset that China had despite being poor. PEOPLE! People are the reason that China has become the monster that it has. People DO things. People create wealth.

Refugees are people and most of them, I believe, are trying to make a life for themselves. I'd be willing to bet that most of their children will not even follow the Muslim religion if they are raised in the West. While I don't see the "Muslim religion" itself to be a threat to peaceful people, I do recognize that the radical Muslims are a real threat. My guess is that most of these refugees are fleeing to get away from the radicals... These people can achieve something in a free society. We do have to eliminate goonerment handouts though. All charity needs to be private.

[EBounding]

It's strange that people are focusing on how one guy used France's refugee system to get into the country but ignoring how all the other attackers got there.

[timosman]

We do have to eliminate goonerment handouts though.

Call me when it happens, for now GTFO. I will not be holding my breath.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Call me when it happens, for now GTFO. I will not be holding my breath.

Wow, why so hostile? The goonerment handout ARE coming to an end and soon. The money is running out...

[Ender]

HERE is the real way a refugee is admitted to the US and it is contrary to what most people think.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/cosmostheinlost/2015/11/19/exclusive-longtime-immigration-lawyer-pastor-explains-the-refugee-process/


Most of my friends know I practice immigration law. As such, I have worked with the refugee community for over two decades. This post is long, but if you want actual information about the process, keep reading.

I can not tell you how frustrating it is to see the misinformation and outright lies that are being perpetuated about the refugee process and the Syrian refugees. So, here is a bit of information from the real world of someone who actually works and deals with this issue.

The refugee screening process is multi-layered and is very difficult to get through. Most people languish in temporary camps for months to years while their story is evaluated and checked.

First, you do not get to choose what country you might be resettled into. If you already have family (legal) in a country, that makes it more likely that you will go there to be with family, but other than that it is random. So, you can not simply walk into a refugee camp, show a document, and say, I want to go to America. Instead, the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees) works with the local authorities to try to take care of basic needs. Once the person/family is registered to receive basic necessities, they can be processed for resettlement. Many people are not interested in resettlement as they hope to return to their country and are hoping that the turmoil they fled will be resolved soon. In fact, most refugees in refugee events never resettle to a third country. Those that do want to resettle have to go through an extensive process.

Resettlement in the U.S. is a long process and takes many steps. The Refugee Admissions Program is jointly administered by the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) in the Department of State, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and offices within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) within DHS conducts refugee interviews and determines individual eligibility for refugee status in the United States.

We evaluate refugees on a tiered system with three levels of priority.

First Priority are people who have suffered compelling persecution or for whom no other durable solution exists. These individuals are referred to the United States by UNHCR, or they are identified by the U.S. embassy or a non-governmental organization (NGO).

Second priority are groups of “special concern” to the United States. The Department of State determines these groups, with input from USCIS, UNHCR, and designated NGOs. At present, we prioritize certain persons from the former Soviet Union, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Iran, Burma, and Bhutan.

Third priority are relatives of refugees (parents, spouses, and unmarried children under 21) who are already settled in the United States may be admitted as refugees. The U.S.-based relative must file an Affidavit of Relationship (AOR) and must be processed by DHS.

Before being allowed to come to the United States, each refugee must undergo an extensive interviewing, screening, and security clearance process conducted by Regional Refugee Coordinators and overseas Resettlement Support Centers (RSCs). Individuals generally must not already be firmly resettled (a legal term of art that would be a separate article). Just because one falls into the three priorities above does not guarantee admission to the United States.

The Immigration laws require that the individuals prove that they have a “well-founded fear,” (another legal term which would be a book.) This fear must be proved regardless of the person’s country, circumstance, or classification in a priority category. There are multiple interviews and people are challenged on discrepancies. I had a client who was not telling the truth on her age and the agency challenged her on it. Refugees are not simply admitted because they have a well founded fear. They still must show that they are not subject to exclusion under Section 212(a) of the INA. These grounds include serious health matters, moral or criminal matters, as well as security issues. In addition, they can be excluded for such things as polygamy, misrepresentation of facts on visa applications, smuggling, or previous deportations. Under some circumstances, the person may be eligible to have the ground waived.

At this point, a refugee can be conditionally accepted for resettlement. Then, the RSC sends a request for assurance of placement to the United States, and the Refugee Processing Center (RPC) works with private voluntary agencies (VOLAG) to determine where the refugee will live. If the refugee does have family in the U.S., efforts will be made to resettle close to that family.

Every person accepted as a refugee for planned admission to the United States is conditional upon passing a medical examination and passing all security checks. Frankly, there is more screening of refugees than ever happens to get on an airplane. Of course, yes, no system can be 100% foolproof. But if that is your standard, then you better shut down the entire airline industry, close the borders, and stop all international commerce and shipping. Every one of those has been the source of entry of people and are much easier ways to gain access to the U.S. Only upon passing all of these checks (which involve basically every agency of the government involved in terrorist identification) can the person actually be approved to travel.

Before departing, refugees sign a promissory note to repay the United States for their travel costs. This travel loan is an interest-free loan that refugees begin to pay back six months after arriving in the country.

Once the VOLAG is notified of the travel plans, it must arrange for the reception of refugees at the airport and transportation to their housing at their final destination.

This process from start to finish averages 18 to 24 months, but I have seen it take years.

The reality is that about half of the refugees are children, another quarter are elderly. Almost all of the adults are either moms or couples coming with children. Each year the President, in consultation with Congress, determines the numerical ceiling for refugee admissions. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, the proposed ceiling is 85,000. We have been averaging about 70,000 a year for the last number of years. (Source: Refugee Processing Center)

Over one-third of all refugee arrivals (35.1 percent, or 24,579) in FY 2015 came from the Near East/South Asia—a region that includes Iraq, Iran, Bhutan, and Afghanistan.
Another third of all refugee arrivals (32.1 percent, or 22,472) in FY 2015 came from Africa.
Over a quarter of all refugee arrivals (26.4 percent, or 18,469) in FY 2015 came from East Asia — a region that includes China, Vietnam, and Indonesia. (Source: Refugee Processing Center)

Finally, the process in Europe is different. I would be much more concerned that terrorists are infiltrating the European system because they are not nearly so extensive and thorough in their process.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Call me when it happens, for now GTFO. I will not be holding my breath.

It's never going to happen if you never demand it. Your solution is like wanting a 10k raise and opening dialogue with your boss by asking for 1k.

[timosman]

Wow, why so hostile? The goonerment handout ARE coming to an end and soon. The money is running out...

The money is not running out. The plan is to do negative interest rates and increase the speed of the treadmill. Thanks for trying though.

[timosman]

It's never going to happen if you never demand it. Your solution is like wanting a 10k raise and opening dialogue with your boss by asking for 1k.

To clarify, you are responding to CA? :cool:

[timosman]

HERE is the real way a refugee is admitted to the US and it is contrary to what most people think.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/cosmostheinlost/2015/11/19/exclusive-longtime-immigration-lawyer-pastor-explains-the-refugee-process/

Explain over 1 milion people getting in every year legally if this is sooooo hard.

[Feeding the Abscess]

To clarify, you are responding to CA? :cool:

No.

[morfeeis]

How about we just don't because we are broke....

[Ender]

Explain over 1 milion people getting in every year legally if this is sooooo hard.

Try reading.

Refugees go through a very long and drawn out process, as apposed to immigrants. Totally different criteria AND they do not get to choose the country they want to go to.

[timosman]

Try reading.

Refugees go through a very long and drawn out process, as apposed to immigrants. Totally different criteria AND they do not get to choose the country they want to go to.

Semantics.

[Cabal]

AND they do not get to choose the country they want to go to.

Not necessarily, but they may express an interest in particular countries at the UN refugee camp where they apply for resettlement. This doesn't necessarily mean they will get to go to those countries, of course, but it can help to get them resettled to those countries.

[timosman]

Not necessarily, but they may express an interest in particular countries at the UN refugee camp where they apply for resettlement. This doesn't necessarily mean they will get to go to those countries, of course, but it can help to get them resettled to those countries.

That's not how it works. You are told, hey there is an opening in Canada, wanna go? You apply if you want or you wait until the country you are interested in has an opening. The story about not having control of your destination is BS.

[AngryCanadian]

How about we just don't because we are broke....

yeah sure if your broke why do u keep on with bombing other nations? and still are trying to do regime changes? which always fire back?

[fisharmor]

I work with a couple refugees from Bhutan. I didn't know they were refugees - or even that they knew each other - until I was having what I thought was an innocent conversation with one about what he was doing on a holiday weekend. Getting together with family.
Oh? You get together with family often?
Oh all the time.
What? How much of your family is in the US?
All of it.

Not just his family, but the families of at least three other people I've met. They all spent four years in a refugee camp together.
They all got to the same country.
When they got here, they had their own support group who watched out for each other, the same way they did in the camp. All the ones I met went on to become talented and successful IT engineers.

Seriously, you guys sound like the "If you don't like America GTFO" people. Yeah, like I'm gonna lightheartedly pick up stakes, divorce myself from both my family and my wife's, tell my kids they're probably never going to see their grandparents or aunts or uncles or cousins again, and head out to some place where I don't know the language.

That's what some of you are saying: you want to be a refugee? Fine, take your pick, but say goodbye to everyone you know and love.

I was actually kind of happy when I met these guys to hear that the United States was not quite as fucked up as you'd need to be to intentionally break up extended families. Besides being fucking heartless, it's also doing the exact thing you guys are bitching about: putting an extra strain on social programs.

If you don't want them using social programs, stop acting like you want to make it all but inevitable. They have to come in groups in order for that not to happen.

[puppetmaster]

Wow, why so hostile? The goonerment handout ARE coming to an end and soon. The money is running out... The fewer people on welfare and here in this country when the money runs out the better. Less people I have to shoot when the rioting happens.

[Contumacious]

6 Reasons to Welcome Refugees after Paris


r.

1- Liability

2- Accountability

3- Responsibility

4- Legally answerable

5- blameworthy

6-culpable

.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's strange that people are focusing on how one guy used France's refugee system to get into the country but ignoring how all the other attackers got there.

All via immigration.

[RonPaulMall]

Explain over 1 milion people getting in every year legally if this is sooooo hard.

Or alternatively, explain how the Tsarnaev family (who were, btw Terrorists) got in to the US despite the fact they are part of Chechnya's ruling elite. Not only does the system allow terrorists in, it can't even discern between refugees and the people who are "oppressing" them.

But rather than ask "why not" how about we start asking "why?". Give me one reason why the US should admit even a single immigrant from Africa or the Middle East? These are not fertile breeding grounds for productive citizens even if they aren't terrorists. Default position of the US government should be no Arab or African migration unless the applicant demonstrates some sort of exceptional ability. The problem with Cosmotarians is that they believe we should be asking what the US can do for migrants rather than what the migrants can provide the US.

[PierzStyx]

Or alternatively, explain how the Tsarnaev family (who were, btw Terrorists) got in to the US despite the fact they are part of Chechnya's ruling elite. Not only does the system allow terrorists in, it can't even discern between refugees and the people who are "oppressing" them.

But rather than ask "why not" how about we start asking "why?". Give me one reason why the US should admit even a single immigrant from Africa or the Middle East? These are not fertile breeding grounds for productive citizens even if they aren't terrorists. Default position of the US government should be no Arab or African migration unless the applicant demonstrates some sort of exceptional ability. The problem with Cosmotarians is that they believe we should be asking what the US can do for migrants rather than what the migrants can provide the US.

Someone really should read the article before they open their mouth. The Tsarnevs were NEVER refugees.

[PierzStyx]

"EBounding
It's strange that people are focusing on how one guy used France's refugee system to get into the country but ignoring how all the other attackers got there."



All via immigration.

The Paris Terrorists were second generation Europeans! They didn't come from Syria, but effin Belgium! That is like having Canadians as terrorists! They weren't refugees. One of them was even a naturalized citizen of France. Which is why Rand's anti-liberty proposal is stupid, by the way.

[PierzStyx]

It's strange that people are focusing on how one guy used France's refugee system to get into the country but ignoring how all the other attackers got there.

Yes, by immigrating from Belgium. Not Syria, not Iraq, not Iran. Belgium. Further, they were second generation Europeans. One was even a fully naturalized French citizen.

Also:

"Assuming that the user of a fake Syrian passport found near the body of an attacker belonged to the attacker, which isn’t clear, he exploited the flow of people into Europe, but he was not a refugee. He did not receive refugee designation from the United Nations or vetting from intelligence agencies. He was never approved for refugee status in any country."

[PierzStyx]

How about we just don't because we are broke....

That is a reason to bring in refugees! Workers produce wealth. It is basic economics. And though it may conflict with the biases of many on here, refugees aren't suckling on the government tit. They come to work and provide a home for their families.

[Occam's Banana]

1. The Paris attackers were not refugees.

2. US refugees don’t become terrorists.

3. Other migration channels are easier to exploit than the refugee process.

4. ISIS sees Syrian refugees as traitors.

5. Turning away allies will make us less safe.

6. America should demonstrate moral courage.

Regardless of whether you are "pro" or "anti" on this issue (or just indifferent, like myself) - and assuming that all 6 points are correct for the sake of argument - none of these constitute a positive reason to "welcome refugees," with the exception of #5. (For example, how does the fact that the Paris attackers were not refugees serve as any kind of evidence that those who actually are refugees should therefore be "welcomed?") At best, they merely serve as rebuttals to reasons that only might be offered for not doing so, which is not the same thing. (And #6 even begs the question outright by asserting the equivalence of "demonstrat[ing] moral courage" on the one hand and "welcoming refugees" on the other - when the issue of whether such an equivalence actually holds is the very thing under contention).

[PierzStyx]

1 reason, we don't need them

Who is this "we"? You don't speak for me. I need them. And unless you're willing to use state force to violently impose your opinion onto me through law, then you have no reason to restrict refugees from coming here. Just don't associate with them if you don't need them.

[PierzStyx]

I agree with most all of that. Except that were broke. How many more times will the US bleed itself with aid to others? The counterargument is that "we broke it"(Syria)...."we owe them". I can see that side of it...but at some point we have to stop.

I don't have any issue with individual charity and resources to help any world crises. But I don't want one more red dime of tax payer money world welfare.

If we've got the money to destroy their homes with billions of dollars of missiles, we've got enough money to let them come here and make their life anew.

[PierzStyx]

Regardless of whether you are "pro" or "anti" on this issue (or just indifferent, like myself) - and assuming that all 6 points are correct for the sake of argument - none of these constitute a positive reason to "welcome refugees," with the exception of #5. (For example, how does the fact that the Paris attackers were not refugees serve as evidence that those who actually are refugees should therefore be "welcomed?" :confused:)

At best, they merely serve as rebuttals to reasons that only might be offered for not doing so, which is not the same thing. (And #6 outright begs the question by asserting the equivalence of "demonstrat[ing] moral courage" on the one hand and "welcoming refugees" on the other - when the issue of whether that equivalence actually holds is the very thing under contention).

No, but they argue against the reasons not to bring them in or allow them in.

[timosman]

That is a reason to bring in refugees! Workers produce wealth. It is basic economics.

I have had just enough with the basic economics here. If this is true why not leave them where they are to produce more wealth? (I have a feeling somebody already answered this today, deja vu?)

[PierzStyx]

None of these people have been invited here, Pierz. None have been hired. None have been accepted as renters in any apartment complex. None have local sponsors. None have even paid for their own plane ticket! Not a one has paid for his own plane ticket!

They are shameless government moochers, already on the dole before they even set foot in the country. If they could pay their own way, show some pride and self-respect and self-reliance, they might get a little more sympathy from me (and other sensible people).

1. And they never will if you don't let them. Complaining about them not having a job because we blew up their country and they aren't in this one yet is like complaining about how a legless guy can't walk after you chopped off their legs. The key is that they want to do so, they want to work and be productive.

2. They aren't shameless, what they are is crippled and broken, reduced to begging from the countries that have slaughtered their families and destroyed their country. If libertarians were on their A game they'd be all for welcoming them and immediately get into drawing them into the anti-government, liberation ideology of libertarianism. After all, they all know the results of the evils of American foreign policy already.

[PierzStyx]

I have had just enough with the basic economics here. If this is true why not leave them where they are to produce more wealth? (I have a feeling somebody already answered this today, deja vu?)

Hard to do when we've destroyed the basic infrastructure of their country and wrecked their homes. Hard to work when bombs are falling on your head.

[timosman]

Hard to do when we've destroyed the basic infrastructure of their country and wrecked their homes. Hard to work when bombs are falling on your head.

I already said that in post #3 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?485575-6-Reasons-to-Welcome-Refugees-after-Paris&p=6048844&viewfull=1#post6048844).

[RJB]

I'm sure Constantine XI, Charles Martel, and Charlamagne would consider this discussion to be naive.

[Occam's Banana]

No, but they argue against the reasons not to bring them in or allow them in. I already said that:
At best, they merely serve as rebuttals to reasons that only might be offered for not doing so, which is not the same thing.

[fisharmor]

I think we all agree we are going to keep saying these things until someone other than us starts to listen.

[helmuth_hubener]

And though it may conflict with the biases of many on here, refugees aren't suckling on the government tit. They come to work and provide a home for their families.
If you had just stated a fact, that would be one thing.

But, as it turns out, immigrants are suckling on the government's unlimited udder. The statistics on this are pretty unequivocal. Pretty conclusive. And refugees in particular are ripping us off, accepting free handouts before they even arrive. From Day One. Day Negative One! To me, that shows a lack of character. It makes me a whole lot less inclined to want to help them. Because, they are clearly showing that they don't give a hoot whether I want to help or not -- they have no qualms about just taking my help by force.

Sorry. I'm anti-parasite. Parasites get no love from me.

[helmuth_hubener]

1. And they never will if you don't let them. Complaining about them not having a job because we blew up their country and they aren't in this one yet is like complaining about how a legless guy can't walk after you chopped off their legs. The key is that they want to do so, they want to work and be productive. I didn't chop off anyone's legs. And so I don't care one bit about some obnoxious, greedy, grasping paraplegic with an entitlement complex.

Actually, I do care: I don't like him! Get off my lawn, you gimpy bum!

Look, the US totally messed up Somalia, too. But that is no reason to let 100,000 Somalis resettle in Minnesota. You can thank those Somalis and their habit of illegally, fraudulently voting for ObamaCare. Thanks, refugees! Not. These are two separate issues. Just because my government did one stupid evil thing doesn't mean they should do another. Does not compute.

And let me be clear: Stealing my money to pay, to pay!, for thousands of certain-to-be big-government voters, almost-certain to be chronic life-long dole-abusers, and even, most outrageous and nonsensical of all, some, perhaps dozens of, likely terrorists who will massacre Americans, paying for them to come here, that is evil! So, I oppose it. Simple.

Evil is bad. That is my position. Feel free to try to convince me otherwise.


2. They aren't shameless, what they are is crippled and broken, reduced to begging from the countries that have slaughtered their families and destroyed their country. If libertarians were on their A game they'd be all for welcoming them and immediately get into drawing them into the anti-government, liberation ideology of libertarianism. After all, they all know the results of the evils of American foreign policy already. They will not be drawn in to any such thing. You can't possibly be so delusional to seriously think this is a realistic plan. You just haven't thought this through in a serious way. Look at the Somalis. Here's some people whose country was majorly messed up, and the American State is even more clearly, directly, and unequivocally responsible for that disaster than Syria by a long shot (I agree with you that America is largely responsible for the mess in Syria, but there is a whole lot more complication and entangling mitigating factors there than in Somalia, IMO). What's more, Somalis have a long, ancient tradition of anarchy, best classified as kritarchy. See The Law of the Somalis, written by the libertarian Micheal van Notten.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51QZNHRR3NL._SX321_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/The-Law-Somalis-Foundation-Development/dp/156902250X)
So they've got some libertarianish institutions and traditions -- whole lot more than Syria -- and they've got a big, huge, honking reason to loathe the US State and particularly the US military -- again, more than the Syrians, IMO. Conditions are perfect! And here comes Ron Paul to tell them not once but twice in 2008 and 2012 all about liberty in an extremely inclusive, pro-foreigner and anti-US-military way. Not just Ron, but legions of supporters. The Rally for the Republic was in Minnesota. And then in 2012 Minnesota was one of Ron's strongest states. We killed it in Minnesota! The Force was strong with those frozen chosen. But you know how many Somalis showed up and voted for Ron Paul in their precinct meetings, in their caucuses, in their county conventions? Care to venture a guess?

Not a single stinking one. Not one.

Now you know who did help Ron Paul a lot in Minnesota? Matt Collins. So if you hate Matt Collins, you are morally and logically obligated to hate the Somalian refugees more.

Chew on dem apples.

[Brian4Liberty]

The Paris Terrorists were second generation Europeans! They didn't come from Syria, but effin Belgium! That is like having Canadians as terrorists! They weren't refugees. One of them was even a naturalized citizen of France. Which is why Rand's anti-liberty proposal is stupid, by the way.

Immigrants, children of immigrants. The relevant point being that they were Muslim, they felt that was their heritage/culture, and they were radicalized.

[Brian4Liberty]

Someone really should read the article before they open their mouth. The Tsarnevs were NEVER refugees.

Refugee status, political asylum, what difference does it make? ;)


Semantics.

Oh.

[enhanced_deficit]

If I'm going to be arm twisted into supporting freedom welcome for more humans from Iraq/Syria into the heartland of land of the free, they must be settled around the houses/streets of people who supported invasion of Iraqi freedom based on lies. Only 70% of American humans supoorted that freedom for arab lands that could lead to their children dating children of same arabs they sprinkled freedom on.

[Southron]

Take all the refugees you want. Just let my state secede from your Utopia.

[puppetmaster]

That is a reason to bring in refugees! Workers produce wealth. It is basic economics. And though it may conflict with the biases of many on here, refugees aren't suckling on the government tit. They come to work and provide ame for their families. opinions only, facts speak otherwise where I live. Not all have the same motives.

[puppetmaster]

Who is this "we"? You don't speak for me. I need them. And unless you're willing to use state force to violently impose your opinion onto me through law, then you have no reason to restrict refugees from coming here. Just don't associate with them if you don't need them. do tell....what do you need them for?

[puppetmaster]

If we've got the money to destroy their homes with billions of dollars of missiles, we've got enough money to let them come here and make their life anew. WE....? You are your own worst nightmare. Remember your own rant...."YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR ME"....you are a joke. Now as for making their lives "anew". They don't need to come here for that.


"anew"

[paleocon1]

These so called 'refugees' gain nothing for the native born American people. There is no reason to go to the expense and bother of letting them into this Country.

[paleocon1]

That is a reason to bring in refugees! Workers produce wealth. It is basic economics. .....................

These people are very unlikely to produce more than they consume. They will simply add to the already too large USA parasite population.

[PierzStyx]

I'm sure Constantine XI, Charles Martel, and Charlamagne would consider this discussion to be naive.

Having to resort to the authority of absolute monarchs who didn't care one wit about personal freedom kind of proves the point of how anti-liberty the anti-refugee and anti-immigration argument is.

[PierzStyx]

WE....? You are your own worst nightmare. Remember your own rant...."YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR ME"....you are a joke. Now as for making their lives "anew". They don't need to come here for that.


"anew"

Fair enough point. But at the end of the day it doesn't refute the main point: That it is impossible for them to build up a life or produce anything of value where in a country that the USA is bombing and funding the absolute destruction of.

As for "anew," should I be sorry your vocabulary is different from mine?

[PierzStyx]

do tell....what do you need them for?

Doesn't matter, unless you're thinking you have some right to restrict and control my freedom of association based on your opinion of the validity of my desires. But you aren't that sort of anti-liberty statist, are you?

[PierzStyx]

Refugee status, political asylum, what difference does it make? ;)



Oh.

Quite a bit of difference if you study up about them.

[timosman]

Doesn't matter, unless you're thinking you have some right to restrict and control my freedom of association based on your opinion of the validity of my desires. But you aren't that sort of anti-liberty statist, are you?

So you want to associate with 100,000 refugees? Get a grip, dude.

[RJB]

Having to resort to the authority of absolute monarchs who didn't care one wit about personal freedom kind of proves the point of how anti-liberty the anti-refugee and anti-immigration argument is.

Are you saying Charles Martel should have invited the them into Tours? Do you think that Asia Minor is better off now than when it had a Greek/Christian culture?

From a historical context, can you name a western culture that improved after a mass influx of Muslim migration? Can you name one that didn't fall into civil war to force them out or suffered mass genocide as Islam became the dominant religion of +90% of the populace?

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[RJB]

http://lounge.obviousmag.org/arquitetura_do_sagrado/imagens/5352745-789357%20(1).jpg

[RJB]

Shut the Fuck Up.
LOL


Among , many , the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc.
LOL

[Ender]

Are you saying Charles Martel should have invited the them into Tours? Do you think that Asia Minor is better off now than when it had a Greek/Christian culture?

From a historical context, can you name a western culture that improved after a mass influx of Muslim migration? Can you name one that didn't fall into civil war to force them out or suffered mass genocide as Islam became the dominant religion of +90% of the populace?

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Your history is faulty.

Can you name an eastern country that improved after the massive take-over by the west? The last "Muslim migration" was the Ottoman Empire which was the USA of the Middle Ages.

As far as mass genocide, what religion, exactly, are the droners? I believe they come from Christian nations.

[RJB]

Good. A serious and polite reply.

I somewhat agree with most of what you've posted. I've been against the atrocities that have been committed over there in our name for years. I've said that the MIC makes money taxing us to bomb them, but when they make more money taxing them to bomb us, we're screwed. That may not be far off.


Your history is faulty.

Can you name an eastern country that improved after the massive take-over by the west? They became more modernized. I wouldn't necessarily call that an improvement.



The last "Muslim migration" was the Ottoman Empire which was the USA of the Middle Ages. I'd take the Byzantine over the Ottoman Empire. BTW what happened to the Greek and Armenian Christians who lived there?


As far as mass genocide, what religion, exactly, are the droners? I believe they come from Christian nations. You will not find me defending that policy.

[fisharmor]

http://lounge.obviousmag.org/arquitetura_do_sagrado/imagens/5352745-789357%20(1).jpg

Why is Afghanistan suddenly coming into this?

[RJB]

Why is Afghanistan suddenly coming into this?

France's future?

http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/70/7072/K6RL100Z/posters/paris-france-saint-vincent-of-paul-church-statue-of-mary-holding-baby-jesus.jpg

[fisharmor]

There are almost a thousand miles between Syria and Afghanistan. They're different ethnic groups with different languages.
So what does Afghanistan have to do with the conversation?

[fisharmor]

Also, the statues were destroyed by state decree.
If the state has the power to keep people from crossing imaginary lines in the sand, of course it has the power to destroy ancient monuments.

[RJB]

There are almost a thousand miles between Syria and Afghanistan. They're different ethnic groups with different languages.
So what does Afghanistan have to do with the conversation?

History repeats itself. Where are the offspring of the Buddhist who built that?

This is how I'm seeing it. I've never known a Muslim as a close friend-- not because I don't want Muslim friends, I just haven't been around any. A good portion of my knowledge comes from what I see on the MSM. I know, I know, but that is one thing I have to base my judgement. I've also known soldiers who spent time over there-- again I admit not a good source.

Another part is history. There have been too many instances where a Christian, Buddhist, Hindu culture has been completely reversed by force. This worries me.

Radical Islam is a danger and the west has done it's damnedest to radicalize them. If I were a Syrian Refugee, and my family was displaced by the US, I would be pissed at the US, and I don't blame them. However it does give me worry that we may be importing a bunch of people pissed off at us.

And if they aren't pissed off at us, you still have a crapload of neocons ready to go full nazi retard at the mere mention of a false flag. I'm as worried about neocon reaction as muslims.

I may be wrong and I hope I'm wrong, but I see nothing good coming from a mass migration at this point. This is my opinion at this time and it is subject to change.

[puppetmaster]

Fair enough point. But at the end of the day it doesn't refute the main point: That it is impossible for them to build up a life or produce anything of value where in a country that the USA is bombing and funding the absolute destruction of.

As for "anew," should I be sorry your vocabulary is different from mine? it is not impossible to live there as millions do just that. I am done discussing with you this topic due to you passing out negative reps for disagreeing with your opinions. You sound like a liberal....intolerant of others difference in opinion

[kahless]

I wonder how PierzStyx and a few others here have come to the belief that limited government means funding the cost of immigrants to come here and then supporting them once they get here through welfare programs.

[helmuth_hubener]

I wonder how PierzStyx and a few others here have come to the belief that limited government means funding the cost of immigrants to come here and then supporting them once they get here through welfare programs.

And then have the temerity to call stopping the free plane rides and free housing and free goodies for life, to call stopping that "socialism". We are socialists for not wanting to rob our neighbors to pay for handout programs? Sounds.... backwards. Is that just me?

[Ender]

And then have the temerity to call stopping the free plane rides and free housing and free goodies for life, to call stopping that "socialism". We are socialists for not wanting to rob our neighbors to pay for handout programs? Sounds.... backwards. Is that just me?

We've bombed their country; we've destroyed their homes; we've created ISIS and other radicals to take over their country, their wealth, their oil, whatever. The refugees are held in camps and could be there for years.

Your "neighbors" paid for all that.

Welcome to freedom and our great Christian nation. :(

[RJB]

I am done discussing with you this topic due to you passing out negative reps for disagreeing with your opinions.

+ rep back.

[Brian4Liberty]

There are almost a thousand miles between Syria and Afghanistan. They're different ethnic groups with different languages.
So what does Afghanistan have to do with the conversation?

They have Salafi jihadism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_jihadism) in common.

[Brian4Liberty]

This is how I'm seeing it. I've never known a Muslim as a close friend-- not because I don't want Muslim friends, I just haven't been around any. A good portion of my knowledge comes from what I see on the MSM. I know, I know, but that is one thing I have to base my judgement. I've also known soldiers who spent time over there-- again I admit not a good source.


Many Muslims are good, friendly, salt of the earth, average people. That is my experience with Muslims from South Asia. Muslims from the Middle East tend to be less friendly, and more of what you would probably call hostile Muslims. Everyone is an individual. Your mileage will vary.

[RJB]

Many Muslims are good, friendly, salt of the earth, average people. That is my experience with Muslims from South Asia. Muslims from the Middle East tend to be less friendly, and more of what you would probably call hostile Muslims. Everyone is an individual. Your mileage will vary.

I met a few in passing and got along. I met two sufis who impressed me.

[puppetmaster]

+ rep back.thanks.

[puppetmaster]

We've bombed their country; we've destroyed their homes; we've created ISIS and other radicals to take over their country, their wealth, their oil, whatever. The refugees are held in camps and could be there for years.

Your "neighbors" paid for all that.

Welcome to freedom and our great Christian nation. :( none of us agree bombing, pillaging etc is right....but we don't solve it by asking for more trouble by bringing in likely problems. All that will do is keep empowering the government to save us from enemies within our borders. Bringing in these people certainly won't stop our government from doing more destruction around the world. So let's keep working on fixing crap here before we add to our problems. We did not do this, our rogue government did.

[Ender]

none of us agree bombing, pillaging etc is right....but we don't solve it by asking for more trouble by bringing in likely problems. All that will do is keep empowering the government to save us from enemies within our borders. Bringing in these people certainly won't stop our government from doing more destruction around the world. So let's keep working on fixing crap here before we add to our problems. We did not do this, our rogue government did.

I was answering this:


Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener
And then have the temerity to call stopping the free plane rides and free housing and free goodies for life, to call stopping that "socialism". We are socialists for not wanting to rob our neighbors to pay for handout programs? Sounds.... backwards. Is that just me?

I agree about fixing crap but your answer: "We did not do this, our rogue government did." is pretty much what the Germans said about their government. They still haven't been forgiven.

[puppetmaster]

I was answering this:



I agree about fixing crap but your answer: "We did not do this, our rogue government did." is pretty much what the Germans said about their government. They still haven't been forgiven. The Jews aren't blowing themselves up and killing civilians trying get to get even....at least I don't think know they are. I hope we can start in a direction of peace soon.

[Ender]

The Jews aren't blowing themselves up and killing civilians trying get to get even....at least I don't think know they are. I hope we can start in a direction of peace soon.

Actually they have. One of the first suicide bombings in modern times, was done in the 1940s by a female Jew. The House of Representatives was almost blown up in 1983 by a Jew.

There are several instances of Jewish bombers but the MSM doesn't tell the tale if they are Jewish.

BTW- I have no problem with Jews- just showing how the MSM favors them now. Of course the German Jews were refused entrance into the US just before WWII for the same reasons those here want to ban the Syrians today. They were untrustworthy and might be terrorists.

They were sent back to Germany to die.

[Contumacious]

We've bombed their country; we've destroyed their homes; we've created ISIS and other radicals to take over their country, their wealth, their oil, whatever. The refugees are held in camps and could be there for years.

Your "neighbors" paid for all that.

Welcome to freedom and our great Christian nation. :(

EXACTLY.

.

[helmuth_hubener]

And then have the temerity to call stopping the free plane rides and free housing and free goodies for life, to call stopping that "socialism". We are socialists for not wanting to rob our neighbors to pay for handout programs? Sounds.... backwards. Is that just me?
We've bombed their country; we've destroyed their homes; we've created ISIS and other radicals to take over their country, their wealth, their oil, whatever. The refugees are held in camps and could be there for years.

Your "neighbors" paid for all that.

Welcome to freedom and our great Christian nation. :(
So.... you're saying it is just me? You're one of those on-board with the idea that not giving out unlimited free stuff to unlimited third-world peasants from foreign countries as far away from us as geographically (and culturally) possible is socialism. That failing to steal money from my neighbor is actually the real socialism. That my refusal to call for and support the robbing of my neighbor in order to shovel out bucket-loads of his money to blanket the endless grasping hordes of Middle-Eastern loser scum abandoning their families and women, in a desperate attempt to cover over your military's sins, you think that my refusal to cheer for that is a moral failing. That you are somehow so much higher and better than me because you have the morality, the righteousness, to rob your neighbor to try to soothe your aching pinko conscience.

But you're not a socialist. Oh, no. I'm the socialist. Only socialists would call for not robbing people. Everyone knows that robbing people to do stupid, pinko commie things that will destroy and undermine your country is fine, nay, morally praiseworthy. Certainly Ender knows it. It's only robbing people to attempt to defend and secure your country and way of life that's evil. As long as the motive of your robbery program is to do things that will make your country more vulnerable and less secure, then it's morally outstanding! Because... altruism!

Nope, some of us are consistent. Some of us are against both bombing them and coddling them. Against both grand plans for invading and occupying their countries, and grand plans for embracing all their shiftless, worthless young men. Against both warfare and so-called welfare. Against mass, centralized plans for murder, and against mass, centralized plans for "humanitarianism and love" which both, by the way, amount to the same thing: senseless destruction, death, and tragedy, on a colossal scale. Just different motives. Maybe. Supposedly. But the same evil result.

Give us your shiftless, your worthless,
your deserters of their families,
yearning to swim in welfare-housing pools.
The angry ones with terrorist sympathy,
Send these, mosquitoes drawn to scent of blood,
Of loose white tramps to take; rape if need be.

[Ender]

So.... you're saying it is just me? You're one of those on-board with the idea that not giving out unlimited free stuff to unlimited third-world peasants from foreign countries as far away from us as geographically (and culturally) possible is socialism. That failing to steal money from my neighbor is actually the real socialism. That my refusal to call for and support the robbing of my neighbor in order to shovel out bucket-loads of his money to blanket the endless grasping hordes of Middle-Eastern loser scum abandoning their families and women, in a desperate attempt to cover over your military's sins, you think that my refusal to cheer for that is a moral failing. That you are somehow so much higher and better than me because you have the morality, the righteousness, to rob your neighbor to try to soothe your aching pinko conscience.

But you're not a socialist. Oh, no. I'm the socialist. Only socialists would call for not robbing people. Everyone knows that robbing people to do stupid, pinko commie things that will destroy and undermine your country is fine, nay, morally praiseworthy. Certainly Ender knows it. It's only robbing people to attempt to defend and secure your country and way of life that's evil. As long as the motive of your robbery program is to do things that will make your country more vulnerable and less secure, then it's morally outstanding! Because... altruism!

Nope, some of us are consistent. Some of us are against both bombing them and coddling them. Against both grand plans for invading and occupying their countries, and grand plans for embracing all their shiftless, worthless young men. Against both warfare and so-called welfare. Against mass, centralized plans for murder, and against mass, centralized plans for "humanitarianism and love" which both, by the way, amount to the same thing: senseless destruction, death, and tragedy, on a colossal scale. Just different motives. Maybe. Supposedly. But the same evil result.

Give us your shiftless, your worthless,
your deserters of their families,
yearning to swim in welfare-housing pools.
The angry ones with terrorist sympathy,
Send these, mosquitoes drawn to scent of blood,
Of loose white tramps to take; rape if need be.

Show where I have ever called YOU a socialist.

But, I must say, your deep prejudice and inability to see YOUR roll in the refugee situation is appalling. The US is responsible for the bombing and devastation of Syria. People on the forum say: Oh that wasn't me; that was the baaaad government. Got news the Nuremberg Trials said that's BS.

But it's those horrible brown people, right? We can bomb them all we want, destroy their countries, their families, their lives and if they need some help that's their problem because we all know that brown people, especially Muslims deserve what we give them. Besides we're busy creating ISIS and other terror groups to take people's eye off the truth.

Your POV is the same that the US had for the Jews before WWII- they were sent back to Germany to be exterminated.

And- if you bothered to read my post on the first page you would see the conditions that refugees go through. They are in camps from months to sometimes years. They DO NOT choose what country they can go to.

If your attitude is what America has become, we need to sink the Statue of Liberty because it is a complete farce.

[Ronin Truth]

Now, how about some of the ~10,000 reasons for not?

[Contumacious]

So.... you're saying it is just me? You're one of those on-board with the idea that not giving out unlimited free stuff to unlimited third-world peasants from foreign countries as far away from us as geographically (and culturally) possible is socialism. That failing to steal money from my neighbor is actually the real socialism. That my refusal to call for and support the robbing of my neighbor in order to shovel out bucket-loads of his money to blanket the endless grasping hordes of Middle-Eastern loser scum abandoning their families and women, in a desperate attempt to cover over your military's sins, you think that my refusal to cheer for that is a moral failing. That you are somehow so much higher and better than me because you have the morality, the righteousness, to rob your neighbor to try to soothe your aching pinko conscience.

But you're not a socialist. Oh, no. I'm the socialist. Only socialists would call for not robbing people. Everyone knows that robbing people to do stupid, pinko commie things that will destroy and undermine your country is fine, nay, morally praiseworthy. Certainly Ender knows it. It's only robbing people to attempt to defend and secure your country and way of life that's evil. As long as the motive of your robbery program is to do things that will make your country more vulnerable and less secure, then it's morally outstanding! Because... altruism!

Nope, some of us are consistent. Some of us are against both bombing them and coddling them. Against both grand plans for invading and occupying their countries, and grand plans for embracing all their shiftless, worthless young men. Against both warfare and so-called welfare. Against mass, centralized plans for murder, and against mass, centralized plans for "humanitarianism and love" which both, by the way, amount to the same thing: senseless destruction, death, and tragedy, on a colossal scale. Just different motives. Maybe. Supposedly. But the same evil result.

Give us your shiftless, your worthless,
your deserters of their families,
yearning to swim in welfare-housing pools.
The angry ones with terrorist sympathy,
Send these, mosquitoes drawn to scent of blood,
Of loose white tramps to take; rape if need be.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

char·i·ty
ˈCHerədē/
noun
noun: charity; plural noun: charities

1.
the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.


li·a·bil·i·ty
ˌlīəˈbilədē/
noun
noun: liability

1.
the state of being responsible for something, especially by law.


We OWE the Syrians because the US has fucked up their country


NOT because we want to help them out of the goodness of our hearts


Capisce?

[PierzStyx]

So you want to associate with 100,000 refugees? Get a grip, dude.

Perhaps not all of them, but how is that even relevant? There are obviously many people here who would happily associate with these refugees.

[timosman]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

char·i·ty
ˈCHerədē/
noun
noun: charity; plural noun: charities

1.
the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.


li·a·bil·i·ty
ˌlīəˈbilədē/
noun
noun: liability

1.
the state of being responsible for something, especially by law.


We OWE the Syrians because the US has fucked up their country


NOT because we want to help them out of the goodness of our hearts


Capisce?

https://tborash.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/cart-before-horse-slice-scaled500.jpg

[Contumacious]

https://tborash.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/cart-before-horse-slice-scaled500.jpg

It goes something like this:

What is cognitive impairment?

Cognitive impairment occurs when problems with thought processes occur. It can include loss of higher reasoning, forgetfulness, learning disabilities, concentration difficulties, decreased intelligence, and other reductions in mental functions. Cognitive impairment may be present at birth or can occur at any point in a person’s lifespan.

.

[Ronin Truth]

We've bombed their country; we've destroyed their homes; we've created ISIS and other radicals to take over their country, their wealth, their oil, whatever. The refugees are held in camps and could be there for years.

Your "neighbors" paid for all that.

Welcome to freedom and our great Christian nation. :(

Who's this 'we' you're talking about? Do you happen to have a mouse in your pocket?

[PierzStyx]

Are you saying Charles Martel should have invited the them into Tours? Do you think that Asia Minor is better off now than when it had a Greek/Christian culture?

First off, Asia Minor still has a huge Greek/Christian culture. Istanbul, the capital of Asia Minor, is still the seat of one of the most influential Orthodox Patriarchies. So this cut and dry image you seem to have is mostly ignorance.

From a historical context, can you name a western culture that improved after a mass influx of Muslim migration? Can you name one that didn't fall into civil war to force them out or suffered mass genocide as Islam became the dominant religion of +90% of the populace?

Almost all of them. Just about everywhere Islam touched in the West improved. While Christian Europe was still spreading goat shit on open source Muslim Europe was advancing science, founding universities, making incredible strides in astronomy (it was a Muslim, Nasir al-Din Tunsi, who first figured out the Earth revolved around the sun! As well as postulating the existence of nebula and much more), inventing algebra, and advancing medicine far beyond anything in Europe.

Honestly, you want to see the difference? Compare Muslim Spain, which Charles Martel left untouched and which endured for a thousand years, nearly, to fractious Europe. The idea that Muslims massacred minority populations is simply untrue and you can see it in Spain, which had a robust population of Muslims, Jews, and Christians all living together. It wasn't until Catholic powers dominated Spain again and the Inquisition began that minority faiths started being massacred.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

True. But you haven't learned from history.



Answers in bold. I suggest you read Islamic Science and the Making of the European Renaissance (Transformations: Studies in the History of Science and Technology) Paperback for an education expansion and to learn about just how advanced Muslim societies really were.

[ChristianAnarchist]

We've bombed their country; we've destroyed their homes; we've created ISIS and other radicals to take over their country, their wealth, their oil, whatever. The refugees are held in camps and could be there for years.

Your "neighbors" paid for all that.

Welcome to freedom and our great Christian nation. :(

"we"?? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?? I certainly did not bomb them. I don't even KNOW anyone who has bombed them. While it's true that money is extorted from me by the goons and the goons use that money to pay hired killers to do the bombing, I certainly had nothing to do with it...

[PierzStyx]

And then have the temerity to call stopping the free plane rides and free housing and free goodies for life, to call stopping that "socialism". We are socialists for not wanting to rob our neighbors to pay for handout programs? Sounds.... backwards. Is that just me?

No you're socialist for putting the powers of the state above the freedom of people to enter this country, for putting an imaginary line on a map and being willing to imprison, starve, and kill people for exercising their basic human rights to move and associate as they choose. You're socialist for inventing the concept of public property, literally a socialist concept where the state communally owns land for "the people," and then being willing to kill to protect your "rights" to "public property."

And for the record, I don't support welfare spending. But that money is going to get spent by the state. And every dime spent helping someone is better than a dime spent murdering people, which is the next biggest expenditure in the government and which that money will most likely go towards. This is a lesson I learned from Dr. Ron Paul in his explanation of why he voted for funding he would normally oppose.

Further, I'm perfectly willing to have no welfare spending or warfare spending and to let people immigrate here of their own free will and ability. Are you willing to allow them? Or will you cling to the socialist idea of "public property" and argue you have a right to prevent someone from entering property that you do not own and therefore have no right to regulate?

[Ender]

Who's this 'we' you're talking about? Do you happen to have a mouse in your pocket?

So- who exactly is the US of A?

And who exactly is responsible for it's actions?

And who exactly stopped the bombing of ME countries and waging war?

America is supposed to be WE, THE PEOPLE. IF .gov is not complying with the people's wishes, WHO, exactly is supposed to fix that?

And, if nobody but an occasional Ron Paul tries to stop illegal wars etc, WHO'S to blame?

[Ender]

"we"?? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?? I certainly did not bomb them. I don't even KNOW anyone who has bombed them. While it's true that money is extorted from me by the goons and the goons use that money to pay hired killers to do the bombing, I certainly had nothing to do with it...

Rinse and Repeat:

So- who exactly is the US of A?

And who exactly is responsible for it's actions?

And who exactly stopped the bombing of ME countries and waging war?

America is supposed to be WE, THE PEOPLE. IF .gov is not complying with the people's wishes, WHO, exactly is supposed to fix that?

And, if nobody but an occasional Ron Paul tries to stop illegal wars etc, WHO'S to blame?

[Cabal]

So- who exactly is the US of A?

The USA is not a who, it is a what. Depending on context, it may be in reference to a specific landmass, or the State. In either case, it is not an individual that can be characterized as a who.

[helmuth_hubener]

No you're socialist for putting the powers of the state above the freedom of people to enter this country, for putting an imaginary line on a map and being willing to imprison, starve, and kill people for exercising their basic human rights to move and associate as they choose. Nobody, literally nobody, is calling for any of that to be done to the Syrian deadbeat dads, whoops I mean terrorist army, whoops I mean... what was I supposed to call them to be politically correct, again? Anyway, whoever they are, nobody wants to impede their freedom one hair. Why? Because they are on the other side of the Planet Earth! They have no means whatsoever, no hope of ever getting here. All we have to do in regards to them is follow the First Great Libertarian Commandment.

Do you know what that is?

Let me tell you:

Leave them alone!

I just want to leave them alone. Is that so hard to understand? Should that really be so controversial? Should you, one who is a libertarian and understands the principles of liberty very well, should you really be opposed to simply leaving these people alone?

Of course you shouldn't! I think you just haven't thought this through. I think you are so over-the-top emotional on this issue that all reason and rationality has gone whoosh! -- out the window.


You're socialist for inventing the concept of public property, literally a socialist concept where the state communally owns land for "the people," and then being willing to kill to protect your "rights" to "public property." I am pretty sure I didn't invent that concept. I think I'd remember if I had.

I am also pretty sure that you are not aware at all of what my position on immigration is. You have no understanding of it. I also have a hunch that you don't really care. You are, as I mentioned, extremely emotional about this. You are 1000% sure that you are totally right about immigration and know everything there is to know about it and that there is literally nothing else that anyone else could possibly say about the matter of any interest whatsoever.

So I can't talk to you when you're like that. If anything I say about a topic is certain to be stupid, even before I say it, then no sense in saying anything, eh?


And for the record, I don't support welfare spending. And neither do I. So what's the problem? Consistency! Let's just be consistent! Let's just follow our principles! As opposed to going through mental loop-de-loops trying to justify why "oh, this particular handout of stolen money isn't all that bad." Even if you think it's not all that bad, is that any reason to have conniption fits against anyone calling for its end? Come on! You agree it's bad. It should be ended. Shoveling stolen blood money to Syrian deadbeats is an abomination that ought not to occur. We agree. That's it. That should be all there is to it.


Further, I'm perfectly willing to have no welfare spending or warfare spending So what's the problem? So why go postal on the sensible, moderate people who simply want to follow libertarian principle and stop handing out free intercontinental airplane rides? The right to health care does not exist. The right to free intercontinental airplane rides? Does. Not. Exist.

[helmuth_hubener]

"we"?? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?? I certainly did not bomb them. I don't even KNOW anyone who has bombed them. While it's true that money is extorted from me by the goons and the goons use that money to pay hired killers to do the bombing, I certainly had nothing to do with it...
Nuremberg proved it is all your fault. Fess up. Pay up. Stop dodging responsibility.



;)

[helmuth_hubener]

We OWE the Syrians because the US has fucked up their country Excellent summation of the Ender/PierStyx/Sola_Fide take on things.

I disagree.

I say I don't owe them any bombs, and I don't owe them any of my money. That's my hard-earned savings. I worked very hard for that money. They didn't.

We don't owe them bombs. We don't owe them money. We "owe" them instead one simple thing (lack of a thing, really). That is:

Leave them alone!

[helmuth_hubener]

Show where I have ever called YOU a socialist. OK, then would you be kind enough to admit that I am not? If so, that would certainly be a show of class. Thanks.


But, I must say, your deep prejudice and inability to see YOUR roll in the refugee situation is appalling. I am appalled! Shocked and Appalled, I tell you!

What are they doing with one of my rolls, that's what I want to know.


If your attitude is what America has become, we need to sink the Statue of Liberty because it is a complete farce. My attitude is what America has always been! Namely: freedom for all, handouts for none! Rugged self-reliance. Personal responsibility. Respect for rule of law. Courage to defend liberty.

The Deadbeat Dad Army men show precisely zip of any of those attributes. They do not belong in America, plain and simple. There is nothing American about them.

[Contumacious]

Rinse and Repeat:

So- who exactly is the US of A?

And who exactly is responsible for it's actions?

And who exactly stopped the bombing of ME countries and waging war?

America is supposed to be WE, THE PEOPLE. IF .gov is not complying with the people's wishes, WHO, exactly is supposed to fix that?

And, if nobody but an occasional Ron Paul tries to stop illegal wars etc, WHO'S to blame?

Correctomundo.

KEYWORD: TACIT APPROVAL

.

[Ronin Truth]

Rinse and Repeat:

So- who exactly is the US of A?

And who exactly is responsible for it's actions?

And who exactly stopped the bombing of ME countries and waging war?

America is supposed to be WE, THE PEOPLE. IF .gov is not complying with the people's wishes, WHO, exactly is supposed to fix that?

And, if nobody but an occasional Ron Paul tries to stop illegal wars etc, WHO'S to blame?

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against the government." -- Edward Abbey

[Ender]

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against the government." -- Edward Abbey

Exactly.

[Ender]

.

My attitude is what America has always been! Namely: freedom for all, handouts for none! Rugged self-reliance. Personal responsibility. Respect for rule of law. Courage to defend liberty.



Agree.

So, why do you want more government action?

I am totally against the welfare/warfare state- let's get rid of both; problem solved.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Rinse and Repeat:

So- who exactly is the US of A?

And who exactly is responsible for it's actions?

And who exactly stopped the bombing of ME countries and waging war?

America is supposed to be WE, THE PEOPLE. IF .gov is not complying with the people's wishes, WHO, exactly is supposed to fix that?

And, if nobody but an occasional Ron Paul tries to stop illegal wars etc, WHO'S to blame?

The U. S. of A. is not a "who". It's a "legal fiction". It is an "idea". When people BELIEVE in an idea that gives it legs and arms (but only figuratively). The fiction is nothing and can do nothing. Only PEOPLE who believe in this fiction can act and kill and steal. Those PEOPLE who believe are brainwashed into thinking that this non-entity gives them something that mere mortals don't have - the "authority" to do things that are just plain wrong (like killing and stealing). It's those fooled people who commit the atrocities and they can be held accountable for their actions if enough other PEOPLE wake up...

[Ender]

The U. S. of A. is not a "who". It's a "legal fiction". It is an "idea". When people BELIEVE in an idea that gives it legs and arms (but only figuratively). The fiction is nothing and can do nothing. Only PEOPLE who believe in this fiction can act and kill and steal. Those PEOPLE who believe are brainwashed into thinking that this non-entity gives them something that mere mortals don't have - the "authority" to do things that are just plain wrong (like killing and stealing). It's those fooled people who commit the atrocities and they can be held accountable for their actions if enough other PEOPLE wake up...

Correct- so are you part of The Machine or are you waking people up?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9p8LXD5UDs

[alucard13mm]

I think they will import those tens of thousands of Syrians as a way to increase government size. How? Out of tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, you can bet the government will miss a few hidden gems within the group.

Then those few hidden gems will plan out their attacks and do something. Guess what? when they start blowing or shooting people, the government will come down on it and issue more draconian and intrusive laws to "prevent" further attacks.

It will also require money to transport these people over to USA, hire employees and security to screen these people, then hire employees to keep an eye on a few of those hidden gems (keep an eye on, not stopping them if they do something), oh yes.. probably more people hired to process welfare checks for at least a few years if not more.