America Will Still Take Refugees

Reddie

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
220
The U.S according to an Obama aide will continue to take in Syrian refugees although conservative lawmakers have been calling on the Obama administration to halt the refugee program. Syrian refugees coming to the U.S will be vetted by the national Counterterrorism Center and the Department of Homeland Security.

Despite those assurances though there's no telling if a terrorist could get through but considering the fact that anyone who has been radicalized could be used to carry out terrorist attacks, maybe what intelligence agencies must attend to first is the propaganda being spread on social media by ISIS supporters. Kill the ideology and dealing with the terrorists who have to sneak in will be relatively easier.
 
Werbung:
The UK like the US will take refugees directly from Syria and with enhanced checks. The problem lies afterwards with issues like the Boston bombers. They arrived as refugees, but then turned as they grew into adults. How can you stop that?

In the UK most of the terrorists were British born; their parents being the refugees or asylum seekers. You can't stop people when there is freedom to practice their cultural religion and to some extent their laws. Many of these laws have been hidden away and dealt with, but there is always a culture clash that is inevitable when refugees and immigrants settle into a new country.
 
Why do some end up hating their new home country? Emwazi, allegedly, initially never was a terrorist but when British intelligence labeled him so, he decided to become one.

Maybe what really needs to change is how Muslims are treated. If almost everyone [Islamophobia is on the rise] thinks every one of them might be a terrorist they'll feel like outsiders. They'll start hating their hosts. They'll want payback for being mistreated . . . and when some terrorist reminds them they live amongst "enemies" they won't hesitate to do anything they are told to do.
 
They have the power to change how the are percieved. Do they have the will ?
They want what the new country has so why is it difficult to appreciate what's offered ?
Have you read how unappreciated they have been ?
They are earning their reputations.
 
What exactly does "vetted by the national Counterterrorism Center and the Department of Homeland Security" mean? The simple fact is we don't know anything about almost all of these people. Running them through another database that doesn't have any information is a meaningless gesture.

People always treat immigrants poorly. The Chinese were treated horribly, the Irish were treated horribly...I am not sure what "treating them differently" really means. You cannot mandate that someone like someone else.
 
Not all Muslims are BAD..

There are over a billion Muslims, reports say there are between 15-25% that may be radicalized
So, common sense tells us there are hundreds of millions (out of more than a billion) Muslims who want to kill us.

Muslims have established beachheads in every Western country, usually receiving welfare and other benefits to subsidize their emerging Fifth Column. And to be sure, liberals nurture them in the anti-intellectual belief that a Muslim victory is theirs. Liberals will be among the first to join.

Are we winning? In the 1970s, Muslims dressed Western. Today, westerners are going Muslim.

We called 9/11 our generation's Pearl Harbor.

Less than four years after the real Pearl Harbor, Imperial Japan was obliterated, along with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

Now, 14 years after 9/11, Muslim terrorism is greater than any time since the Crusades. Something to think about..
 
I'm also not going along with the argument that not all Muslims are bad.

While I agree that they're not all bad and there are decent Muslims, if 25% of them are radical and are open to terrorist activities to get their way, how are we to know who to trust and who not to?

Can we take that chance and let them in and hope we've let the right ones in? I'd rather go the opposite route and let none of them in.
 
I'm also not going along with the argument that not all Muslims are bad.

While I agree that they're not all bad and there are decent Muslims, if 25% of them are radical and are open to terrorist activities to get their way, how are we to know who to trust and who not to?

Can we take that chance and let them in and hope we've let the right ones in? I'd rather go the opposite route and let none of them in.

I agree. Of course not all people in any group are bad. It's just too easy for people to turn a negative eye when they see negative aspects within a group.

Still, I have to agree with you as well on the point about knowing exactly who we are letting in, or let no one in.
 
While I don't claim to have the answer, I'm not sure anybody does to be honest, or even if there is one, but surely protecting our own people is a priority, and if that means closing the borders to everyone, then so be it.
 
Closing borders won't make any country safer IMHO. The terrorists we all should fear are those who live amongst us not those who might slip in. Nonetheless we can't be too careful anymore. As long as there is a possibility that people with bad intentions may want to get in as refugees then refusing to accept refugees could be a wise decision. Syrian neighbors should help the refugees more.
 
Taking in refugees is always going to be down to who gets chosen. People that pose less risk will stand a better chance, but that doesn't stop terrorism, but can help control who can gain access.

No state should be forced to accept refugees, but once they are settled, what will prevent them from moving to another state?
 
One of the terrorists was a woman who pledged allegiance to ISIS-- became the wife of Farook. And both carried out their trechearous murder in San Bernardino, CA. So, anyone--man, woman, child can be a jihadist. For crying out loud, let's reject PCness in this times of trouble. For heaven's sake, terrorism has to be destroyed. Climate change or global warming as Obama asserts to be more important than protecting U.S. of the American people. (PJ Media John Phillips: Global Warming Gasbag!) (Fox News Insider)
 
Closing borders won't make any country safer IMHO. The terrorists we all should fear are those who live amongst us not those who might slip in. Nonetheless we can't be too careful anymore. As long as there is a possibility that people with bad intentions may want to get in as refugees then refusing to accept refugees could be a wise decision. Syrian neighbors should help the refugees more.

The surrounding countries should do more, but the problem were facing in Europe is that the refugees can't be forced to stay in one particular country.

That's what makes me doubtful as to the intentions of a lot of them, and if they was simply fleeing a war torn country, the nearest safe haven would be fine. These people aren't happy with just that.
 
The surrounding countries should do more, but the problem were facing in Europe is that the refugees can't be forced to stay in one particular country.

That's what makes me doubtful as to the intentions of a lot of them, and if they was simply fleeing a war torn country, the nearest safe haven would be fine. These people aren't happy with just that.
They seek a better life in Western Europe? That would be a good excuse I believe but as some politician said, some of them could be ISIS fighters who want a foothold in Western Europe. Their intention being to radicalize and recruit young Muslims.

Maybe this could be the answer to the refugee crisis:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/sirajdatoo/uk-should-train-syrian-refugees-to-fight-against-isis-says-f
Sir Richard Dannatt said the UK should consider “holding” young men trying to escape the civil war in refugee camps – where they should be trained to take part in military combat alongside local forces.

". . . we should be holding them in the area of the refugee camps, training them, putting them into units, reinforcing local forces so that they can fight for their own peace, their own freedom, their villages, their own towns.
Sounds like a good strategy.
 
Werbung:
That is how a lot of the ISIS fighters are getting in to the different countries, under the disguise of being refugees, that's what I'm saying, if countries closed their borders, not opened them up like they have recently done, it will be a lot harder for them to get in.

It would also be harder for the legitimate refugees also, but unfortunately that's something we have to live with because if we can't tell the difference then isn't it safer to let none in than try and figure out who's a risk and who isn't and put people in danger again?
 
Back
Top