Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » 26 US Republican Governors (and 1 Democratic Gov) give ISIS exactly what they want (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: 26 US Republican Governors (and 1 Democratic Gov) give ISIS exactly what they want
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just about any terrorist with ~$100K can buy fake papers, fly into the US, buy a few assault weapons, and kill 20-30 people in any crowded place such as a shopping mall, school, etc.

There's no need to hide in a group of refugees, and in fact that would be one of the hardest ways to sneak in.

I can't see how the level of risk is appreciably increased by a rational approach to accepting refugees. Even if the (unconfirmed) assertion that one of the Paris murderers came in with the refugees was true, is there any reason to believe that the terrorists would not have carried out their plans if there was only seven of them instead of eight?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:


But to deny safety to 10,000 innocent people because a handful might threaten us, that is cowardice. Of course we are taking a chance. But isn't the lives of the children we save (and you know that at least half will be children) worth taking a risk?


4 Things To Know About The Vetting Process For Syrian Refugees

quote:
The U.S. has admitted some 1,800 Syrian refugees in the past two years, and President Obama wants to allow 10,000 more. The administration says half of those who have been admitted are children and about a quarter of them are adults over 60. Officials say 2 percent are single males of combat age.

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
with torrents of anonymous people washing up on Europe's shores daily you seriously think that ISIL isn't going to exploit that to get their people in undetected?
Why would they need to?
On one hand, you're trying to suggest that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who mean us harm. On the other hand, you're saying that we need to worry about onesie-twosie attacks like Paris caused by people sneaking in and claiming to be refugees. But here's the thing: those two threats don't actually intersect.

*sigh* I absolutely cannot believe I'm having to argue against "ethnic cleansing" on this forum. It's disgusting.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom excuse me but barring immigrants isn't "ethnic cleansing". Buy a dictionary and use it.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
He doesn't say take dangerous people into your home where they can hurt your kids, Wayward.
Which is why we subject them to 5-6 levels of screening (and that's after the UN has already applied it's own screening processes) leaving them living in intermediate camps for about two years while we vet them so that we can be sure we're only taking in people who are not likely to be a threat.

I mean, sure, it's possible to sneak someone in that way, even given the screening process. But for the time, effort, and expense involved, they could have gotten in a dozen times over through any number of other methods.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
By the way on the subject of Paris - even if the attackers weren't refugees themselves (so far we don't know) with torrents of anonymous people washing up on Europe's shores daily you seriously think that ISIL isn't going to exploit that to get their people in undetected?
We do know, in fact. Exactly one was suspected of possibly being a refugee, and the papers that aroused that suspicion belong to a long dead syrian soldier, not to anyone involved in the attack.

And sure- batches of unidentified people are problematic- which is exactly why it's important to establish a good formal way for them to enter. So that they're coming in through controlled channels and not being forced to jump into unsafe boats and force the issue. Again, it's the reluctance to accept refugees that's causing the unsafe situation you point out. The measures they have to take to get into the pipe to be properly processed, screened, and settled because there isn't an upfront acceptance that allows them to safely ask to be moved somewhere safe and go through the process of being verified without having to jump in a boat and hope they can force the issues if they survive to the other end.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tom excuse me but barring immigrants isn't "ethnic cleansing".
You yourself have observed that the issue isn't refugees but existing populations. How would you resolve that issue?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Tom excuse me but barring immigrants isn't "ethnic cleansing".
You yourself have observed that the issue isn't refugees but existing populations. How would you resolve that issue?
It can't be resolved. As I mentioned earlier, years of stupid immigration policy have left Europe with a choice between ethnic cleansing and learning to live with endemic terrorism.

If things get really bad you could end up with really nasty people getting into power or even grassroots uprising / pogroms. The right is already on the rise in Europe. When theatres and cafes are blowing up, there are certain inevitable consequenes. Think about that before you're so quick to invite this lunacy into North America with open arms.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
France doesn't have a problem with immigration. It has a problem with ethnocentrism and a problem with its huge dispossessed population - a population that now spans multiple generations of natural born citizens.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Tom excuse me but barring immigrants isn't "ethnic cleansing". Buy a dictionary and use it.

I would perhaps call it ethnic partitioning. The problem is that the growth and success of western civilization is pretty much based on the migration and mixing of populations. You'd be rolling back the clock by hundreds of years to base those movements on ethnic, religious or racial characteristics or propensities.

The utter paranoia and fear about this topic that only arises after an isolated event is pathetic, as if populist anxiety is the complement of titillation. It seems like we are turning into our own worst fears, a society and even a culture that betrays every principle and belief it claims to espouse at the first threat. What about freedom and being the last remaining and greatest super power in the history of the world? Ow, owwww, I have a splinter!

[ November 18, 2015, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> Wayward Son

> The main reason people don't want any Muslim refugees is pure cowardice. They are cowards who would rather see innocent women and children starve than to feel 1 percent more threatened than they do today. They should just hide under their beds where's it safe, instead of trying to lead this nation. They don't deserve the honor or the responsibility.

It's just precious and heart warming to see how brave all these people who never served in the military, like Obama, suddenly are when it comes to volunteering everyone else to be victims of terrorism so they can feel good about themselves.
Not being suicidal or reckless with the lives of other American citizens is not the same thing as cowardice.

There is also a false dilemma here between us sending all of these refugees back to ISIS so they can be killed or letting them come to America where the terrorists among them and the ones who grow up to be terrorists in the next generation can easily murder American victims.

I just heard on the radio today, and the liberal channel too, that it takes over ten times as much money and resources to resettle refugees in America as it does to resettle them somewhere safe over there.

http://thedianerehmshow.org/

Of course for the refugees who do get to come to America their life will be much better but for every one of them there are ten more we could have helped but didn't. The analogy made was that we can save one person and put them on a very comfortable yacht or we can throw ten or more people life jackets.

So there is no reason whatsoever why we can't be both compassionate to refugees while at the same time keeping America safe. We just help them over there and we help ten times more of them to boot.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not all Organic Jew's are fundies like Lisa. Modern Orthodox don't look forward to r wimple men ting the stoning law,

Second, the judeofundy fantasy is limited to classic Israel geography as under King David while islamifundies want to take over the whole world.

Third, the scope of islamofundy atrocities is over 100 times as broad as mere Lilli g of apostates.

With that said, I see no objection in the letter or spirit of the constitution from restricting immigration from non citizen jews who share Lisa's more homicidal views.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
cherry, I was unaware of a magical anti-terrorism shield for liberals. Everyone advocating for bringing them here is exposed to the same risk of terrorism as anyone else.

If you're worried about terrorists in the next generation, why are you dead set on treating Muslims in a fashion guaranteed to make them?

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, and by the way, just out of curiosity, how many Kurdish refugees are we taking in compared to Syrians and Iraqis and Afghans and Somalis?

Just like with Asians being the model minorities I would have to say that the Kurdish people are the model Muslims. For the most part, they are staying over there and fighting for themselves. Sure they may be engaging in terrorism against Turkey which to some extent was helping ISIS but I've never heard of one terrorist against the West being a Kurd. So like the white guy who has a black friend and therefore can't legitimately be called a racist I'm going to say that I really like and respect the Kurdish Muslims as do a whole lot of Americans who have given it any thought so calling us all Islamophobes will miss the mark. It all depends on the Muslim.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"
So there is no reason whatsoever why we can't be both compassionate to refugees while at the same time keeping America safe"

That depends. If the refugee has the views publications and agenda of Ayatollah Khomeini, or thinks that he or people like him are "holy men", I think there is a very good reason to bar the old goat ****er from safe haven.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm all for bringing in Muslim groups who have a history of shunning the Islamist agenda. Kurds. Ismalis. Northern Alliance types. That mountain tribe in Syria that Beanie's Baath party dominates.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well liberals insist on gun free zones that are completely ineffective and get themselves killed all the time along with the law abiding conservatives who let themselves be disarmed so basically the suicidal nature of liberal policies has been well established. I never intended to imply that liberals would be immune to the terrorism they brought upon us all. I suppose in its way perhaps it is courageous to be willing to die for what you believe in whether that is having unprotected sex with multiple partners in gay bath houses and picking up the AIDS, sharing needles to do the same, insisting on gun free zones that make everyone in them sitting ducks, allowing Ebola into the country for purposes of political correctness, leaving our border spread wide open while throwing down the red carpet for illegals, and a host of other policies that get people killed but make them feel good about themselves in the process.

As for the terrorists who will become that way because of wanting to keep them out of America, I've long since given up on worrying about what is going to set off some Muslim. If you are going to do that are you going to ban free speech like what set them off against Charlie Hebdo? Are you going to make women dress more conservatively? Are you going to go along with their policy of death fatwas for apostasy? If you start worrying about what is going to make an Islamist so hopping mad he's ready to kill the infidels then you'll be up all night trying to convince a brown spotted sand flea in the middle of the Arabian desert not to pass gas into the hot desert wind because that's all it takes to set one of these guys off.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm going to treat them with the same respect and consideration due any other person. I'm certainly not going to compare them to a plague or accuse them of being potential mass murderers.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The utter paranoia and fear about this topic that only arises after an isolated
If you're referring to the Paris attack you are simply wrong. People have been aware of this problem in Europe for years. These kinds of attacks were predicted since before Charlie Habdo. Right wing anti immigrant parties have been on the steady rise.

Calling this "paranoia" is to eschew all logic and reason. Multiculturalism failed. The Europeans have admitted this (I believe Merkel herself has). The reality is if the Europeans could go back in time and curb Muslim immigration they'd do it - it would be an absolute no brainer. But they can't and now they are stuck with the demographic bomb they allowed to plant under their feet.

[ November 18, 2015, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I'm going to treat them with the same respect and consideration due any other person. I'm certainly not going to compare them to a plague or accuse them of being potential mass murderers.

People who carry a plague are people too, no.

Declining to let someone in your house until you know more about them isn't an accusation.

So when someone has concerns for their life,actual fear for their life, you resolve that by shaming them? How's that work out for you?

[ November 18, 2015, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
The utter paranoia and fear about this topic that only arises after an isolated
If you're referring to the Paris attack you are simply wrong. People have been aware of this problem in Europe for years. These kinds of attacks were predicted since before Charlie Habdo. Right wing anti immigrant parties have been on the steady rise.

Calling this "paranoia" is to eschew all logic and reason. Multiculturalism failed. The Europeans have admitted this (I believe Merkel herself has). The reality is if the Europeans could go back in time and curb Muslim immigration they'd do it - it would be an absolute no brainer. But they can't and now they are stuck with the demographic bomb they allowed to plant under their feet.

So you're saying that the outcry over Syrian refugees in particular and all refugees in general was as strident a week, month or year ago?

You continue to ring that bell in your response...

Cherry:
quote:
I just heard on the radio today, and the liberal channel too, that it takes over ten times as much money and resources to resettle refugees in America as it does to resettle them somewhere safe over there.
Yes, I heard it, too. I also heard the person on the panel who responded that said that the refugees live in absolute misery in urban slums, trading food for rent, no schooling for their children and no hope of ever becoming a member of the society in the country where they are housed. The second comment directly followed the first. Why didn't you hear it, too? Listen to both sides, not just the one that reinforces what you already think.

[ November 18, 2015, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Calling this "paranoia" is to eschew all logic and reason. Multiculturalism failed. The Europeans have admitted this (I believe Merkel herself has). The reality is if the Europeans could go back in time and curb Muslim immigration they'd do it - it would be an absolute no brainer. But they can't and now they are stuck with the demographic bomb they allowed to plant under their feet.
Are you under the impression that Europeans actually tried multiculturalism? It's a lot more than just letting in to work.
quote:
People who carry a plague are people too, no.

Declining to let someone in your house until you know more about them isn't an accusation.

True, but that's not what cherry was saying.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes I heard that too, Al. I'm glad you brought it up. That may have been a bit of "lawyering" on my part that I railed against earlier. It's covered a little bit by the analogy of throwing ten people a life jacket or one person a yacht.

So how about we do something to help more of those refugees have a better standard of living over there? Surely we aren't taking them all in, right? For every one we do take in and provide a life of luxury on the yacht aren't we leaving ten or more stuck in misery, without even a life jacket? Maybe we should try to help them all out a little bit more over there then. Provide incentives to the host countries to let them integrate more into their already Muslim societies.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We already spend about $4B/yr on humanitarian aid to refugees displaced within Syria. Thinking about foreign aid (not state department operations) in the larger context, the US budget allocates less than 1% annually for FA. In a recent study only about 5% knew that, and the average expectation was that it is about 26%. Even when told the right answer, 28% still think we spend too much.

I have all kinds of problems with hypocritical posturing about how the US does too much in helping people in other countries and spends too little on military engagements that would lead to the death of many of those same people.

IMO, if you want to eradicate ISIS and all other forms of Islamic extremism, you'll have to kill all those currently involved, all those sympathetic, all those who will read about the genocide later, and then millions more just to be sure. Which leg of liberty and freedom will you then have left to stand on, especially when the final tally is made it will turn out that 99% of the victims were among their fellow countrymen, and ethnic and religious cohort?

[ November 18, 2015, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The most humanitarian thing the West can do is to stop arming terrorists and rebels and trying to bring down governments. The entire refugee crisis only exists because of the unwillingness to allow Assad to defend his borders. Things are the way they are now because they've been allowed to become this way. It didn't have to go down like this.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are you under the impression that Europeans actually tried multiculturalism? It's a lot more than just letting in to work.
Ahh yes the good old no true Scotsman variant. Just because all of Europe tried it and miserably failed doesn't mean it really failed - it just means they didn't do it right! It wasn't *true* multiculturalism

Seriously though, answer me this: What would a"failed" multiculturalist project look like and how would you distinguish it from present reality in Europe? Or do I take your comment to mean that by definition, multiculturalism never fails?

I'll tell you what - when you discover the secret to integrating millions of third world Muslims into a first liberal world democracy with no dispossession, marginalization and ghettoization, please let us know. The Europeans would love to know that secret sauce.

And by the way it was Merkel who called multiculturalism an utter failure.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't care about eradicating "all forms of extremism"

You watch too much Fox News.

The disease of this hour is Islamism. In the 1930s and 40s it was institutional new age fascism. 800 years ago it was Christendom. Why does it strain the leftist brain that we can focus on the groups currently committing mass murder enslavement and systematic rape?

Yes, it's discrimination. Let's discriminate our heads from our assessment and focus on the crazy groups that actually pose a threat, not on crazies who seem for the moment relatively harmless.

[ November 18, 2015, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And by the way it was Merkel who called multiculturalism an utter failure.
And who was she blaming for the failure? Hint, not the immigrants.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
And by the way it was Merkel who called multiculturalism an utter failure.
And who was she blaming for the failure? Hint, not the immigrants.
Did I suggest the immigrants were to blame?
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, but the correlation would be that the citizens of Germany failed to incorporate the immigrants into their society. They weren't welcome, in other words. That's what sounds familiar when people argue that multiculturalism is a failure in the US. A growing number of conservatives are becoming overtly xenophobic and are being pushed by the GOP candidates who they will vote for to become increasingly so.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
No, but the correlation would be that the citizens of Germany failed to incorporate the immigrants into their society. They weren't welcome, in other words. That's what sounds familiar when people argue that multiculturalism is a failure in the US. A growing number of conservatives are becoming overtly xenophobic and are being pushed by the GOP candidates who they will vote for to become increasingly so.

This is neither a fair reading of what jasonr said, nor is it a balanced guess as to why multiculturalism in this instance might fail.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The US doesn't seem to have a problem, nor does Canada. Broadly speaking, an expansive national identity and inclusive cultural ideals go a long way.

A failed multicultural society would have marginalized groups falling out of the mainstream and isolating themselves after having previously been integrated. It would be as if the Irish and Italians returned to the ghettos of New York. If they descended from the middle class to the lower class as a group. If they developed an identity that excluded themselves from the mainstream.

None of this applies to Europe because European countries made little effort to assimilate their immigrant Muslim populations. They faced substantial barriers to entering the middle class. There was little incentive to de-segregate and enter into mainstream society. IIRC a lot of them never got recognized as full citizens with the right to vote. They were never recognized allowed to identify soley as French or German or Belgian but were forced into remaining Algerian or Turkish or wherever.

You say all of Europe tried multiculturalism but I see no evidence of it. As I said, just letting them in doesn't count.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I just heard on the radio today, and the liberal channel too, that it takes over ten times as much money and resources to resettle refugees in America as it does to resettle them somewhere safe over there.

That's not what you heard. You heard that it costs 12x as much to bring in a refugee than it does to provide basic support to someone in the middle of a war zone.

Which includes leaving them in the middle of a war zone, just with, essentially, some extra food and bandages.

You also heard a false dilemma put forth, as if we had to choose one or the other and weren't already putting a huge amount of resources into supporting people that chose to stay there, but still needing to also support those that simply couldn't stay anymore.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is neither a fair reading of what jasonr said, nor is it a balanced guess as to why multiculturalism in this instance might fail.
'Splain me.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
The US doesn't seem to have a problem, nor does Canada. Broadly speaking, an expansive national identity and inclusive cultural ideals go a long way.

A failed multicultural society would have marginalized groups falling out of the mainstream and isolating themselves after having previously been integrated. It would be as if the Irish and Italians returned to the ghettos of New York. If they descended from the middle class to the lower class as a group. If they developed an identity that excluded themselves from the mainstream.

None of this applies to Europe because European countries made little effort to assimilate their immigrant Muslim populations. They faced substantial barriers to entering the middle class. There was little incentive to de-segregate and enter into mainstream society. IIRC a lot of them never got recognized as full citizens with the right to vote. They were never recognized allowed to identify soley as French or German or Belgian but were forced into remaining Algerian or Turkish or wherever.

You say all of Europe tried multiculturalism but I see no evidence of it. As I said, just letting them in doesn't count.

The USA and Canada assimilated successfully a much richer, more educated immigrant population than the Europeans which explains to a large degree why they had such an easier time of it. If you get the cream of the immigrant crop obviously that is easier to deal with than people with no skills, no support. If your ideanof succesful multiculturalism is "pick and choose better who you let in!" then on that point I agree.

But incidentally, speaking from some experience, many of the recent immigrants here in Canada fill our social housing projects living off the state. Hardly a stirring success story but an improvement over people trying to blow us up I will grant you.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My understanding was that they were resettled in a safe country like Jordan and that costs over ten times less than bringing them to America. Sure you are correct that the countries they are brought to don't treat them well so that should be our focus. It's also my understanding that most of them already live in those countries out of the war zones for months and even years so there is no great hurry to bring them to America especially when it costs so much more and helps tens times less of them as it does to help them over there. The rep on the show specifically said they were out of the war zones and out of immediate danger in that regard though he did confess that of course their lives were still miserable in the camps or wherever they were.
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, you're confusing that with a separate part of the discussion where he was talking about refugees in transitional camps, waiting to be screened and put in the pipeline for a host country, and suggested, effective,y, that we just leave them in the transitional camps, because he didn't consider them refugees any more at that point.

Something that's kind of absurd, because those camps aren't designed to be long term residences, and because they're already overloaded trying to keep up with the influx while dealing with how long it takes to find permanent locations for those who've passed the initial screening and are trying to be fit with a proper host. Those are not the people that the in-place support spending he was talking about earlier; those are people already starting to rack up the higher cost of being handled as refugees.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How a refugee gets to America, explained by an actual refugee
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I may not have heard the whole broadcast but it still seems like it would be much cheaper to resettle them over there meaning we could help many more of them. Give the Sunnis to the Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia and the Shia to the Shia countries like Iran. Help them with logistics like transportation as well as humanitarian aid. That's compassionate. Compassionate enough anyway.

Those countries are all rich enough to take care of their own. They have the resources even without the help we offer them but we'll offer them help anyway. If they are worried about the new immigrants being terrorist security threats then we should be worried about the same thing many times over.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
This is neither a fair reading of what jasonr said, nor is it a balanced guess as to why multiculturalism in this instance might fail.
'Splain me.
Your reading of jasonr's point was that multiculturalism failed because the population didn't assimilate, and you added in that's because they weren't welcome. I can't speak for him but it seems to me he didn't specify a reason why multiculturalism failed, and more to the point he definitely didn't blame the immigrants for it (as he reminded you). Your suggest that it's because they weren't welcome may be part of it, but I doubt it's the whole story if true. It doesn't make much sense to compare Islamic refugees to the European immigrants that came to American over the years. First of all Europe had Christianity as a cultural common ground (even though within that there were deep divides in sect), and second of all European cultures are probably more similar to each other than they are to an Islamic culture in the mid-East.

In short, even with open arms it would be much harder to assimilate Islamic refugees or immigrants than it was to assimilate American immigrants. Gang of New York taught me that assimilation wasn't so straightforward as we now like to think anyhow. People didn't get along so well at the turn of the century. In certain parts of America it probably would have been more correct to say that there was no dominant majority culture than to say that immigrants were integrating into such a culture. But now things are different and there is such a thing as "American culture", perhaps in large part a result of streamlining through TV and film, and galvanizing from WWII and the Cold War.

I also think it's probably fair to say that the Islamic religion isn't geared towards co-mingling with non-Muslims that well. A given Muslim certainly can do so, but the religion itself isn't oriented towards working towards common cause with infidels. Contrast with Christianity where at least its theoretical premise is precisely loving your enemies and having a caretaker's approach to those who are different from you. This is a much more gregarious outlook, even to the point of excess where militant Christendom was reaching out to others with an iron fist instead of an open hand.

It's also possible that there just hasn't been enough time for real assimilation to happen. I think it takes two generations until that really kicks in. Realistically we could expect the grandchildren to grow up in the new environment and not be too restricted by the outlook of the grandparents.

There is lots more that can be said, but your reading of jasonr's comment that reduced it to the evil-sounding "they weren't welcome" was about as uncharitable a reading as you could have made for his statement.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1