Random Pish-Posh And Dribblety-Poop #12

Then what were you implying?

Or even what are you implying has 0 correlation?

The fact that the refugees from Syria have been known to rape and mistreat women in the countries that are taking them in droves?

Germany and Sweden are doing everything in their power to cover up anything related to the Syrian refugees and their oppression of women.


Are suggesting we accept refugees and then "Americanize" them and teach them to have some of the same core values we have? Otherwise we are exposing our citizens to rape and other activities that are deemed appropriate for their culture.

Looks like you are already went to conclusions and are not interested in a discussion. Good night.

I'm not denying that.

Doesn't matter.

Look at the logistical aspect of it.

All those refugees will need homes. Most of them cannot speak English, so they cannot communicate to other citizens in America. During the time it would take to educate them in English, and then educate them to survive on their own, you still have to feed them, take care of their utilities, take care of their clothing, so on, so forth.

Housing a thousand refugees will cost the US taxpayers millions, possibly close to a billion during that time. And they are talking about letting tens of thousands of refugees in. And we still aren't even taking care of our own, and now people want to let foreigners who mostly will not be productive citizens into the country?

Talk about a huge waste of money! Then again, it's the federal government, which is known to waste money by the trillions.

Because asking questions is forming conclusions.

Good night.

If I've learned one thing from Simpsons/Seinfeld is to never argue with a woman. You never win.

Don't bother with her, she doesn't want to debate anyway.

Maybe because the number of white Christian males outnumber Syrian Muslim refugees by 100,000/1?

Did that come across as a possibility?

Financially, we are definitely looking at spending a good chunk of our tax money to take them.

Which, honestly, wouldn't be much of an issue is their culture didn't clash with ours so much.

Or we can expand on that.

You are more likely to be raped by a cigar smoker than you are by a Klingon. Let's arrest all cigar smokers then!

This is the kind of argument I can get behind when somebody is against taking in refugees. It doesn't appear to be "keep them out because they are scary", instead presenting it as we can't even take care of our own citizens, and now we want to put priority on non-citizens.

But maybe that just comes from my feelings on foreign relations. I feel we no right to go into other countries and tell them what to do until we get our own house in order.

That's why I don't agree with Trump's wall. Mexicans, legal or illegal, at least can be productive citizens within a very short amount of time (if any). Almost all of them are good, honest (or near honest) people who are trying to earn a better living than the one they were having before, and not only do I respect that, I welcome them with open arms (at least they are trying to better their lives). Sure there are some people with ill intentions towards America, but that's everyone, not limited to one group of people.

Syrian refugees, while trying to make their lives better, require a lot more effort and work, and there's little cause to think that they will acclimate to our society easy, if at all. I don't care about the social aspect of the issue, but what I do care is how much it's going to cost. And if they are resistant to change? That cost is going to skyrocket!

Refugees in general have not historically shown to be open to change, mainly because they have been forced out of their society instead of volunteering to leave on their own (and are more open minded).

Call me heartless all you want, but you cannot squeeze blood from a stone, and we don't have the wherewithal to support outsiders if we cannot even support ourselves!

Some people cannot comprehend the concept of normalizing data with rates, even when we've been over this before.

That wasn't my argument. There's nothing wrong with enforcing immigration laws with regard to illegals.

Withholding aid during a humanitarian crisis because it doesn't directly benefit us is a major turd move.

What if that aid when towards domestic affairs, such as Social Security or Medicare?

Would that still be a turd move?

What if it went to disadvantaged, gay, paraplegic kittens?

What if you answered the question? Just imagine the possibilities!

While I dont find fault with your logic...except anyone who was of the opinion that Syrian refugees were responsible for the destruction of their cities and are a threat shouldn't be taken seriously.

Not like Russia, Turkey and the US military bare any blame for their displacement.

Sometimes it would be nice if some of you're comrades here actually read the content to see that there was a joke before running around painting people as villains and themselves the victims.

It's hard to agree when a jokes being made and it's context and tone is taken seriously.

Because your hypothetical has nothing to do with anything unless you're trying to imply that aid would have otherwise gone to social welfare. In that case, lol.

You can make any excuse not to help others. Syria is a massive hellhole filled with people who had no part in its making and with nowhere to go. Being a non-shitty person sometimes comes with a burden because help can have a price. This is among the least we can do for that region.

In a perfect world, with an efficient government, that would be ideal. But we both know that such thing will never exist.

Any aid that were to go towards foreign nationals during their time of crisis would best suit those to domestic citizens during our time of crisis.

Or are you saying that we should screw our own people in favor for those who don't even live here or do not want to live here?

No, I'm saying that, you cannot give one thing to one person and the exact same item to another. Aid is limited by the resources we have as a nation. Your choice is to either give it to your neighbor down the street, or some schmoe across the world. Which will you choose?

I will agree with you that we have done wrong with Syria. However, it is not wholly our fault. Are you suggesting that we wholly take on the burden, or should others who share in said fault take their share of the responsibility?

And remember, any part of that responsibility paid is taking away from those domestically in need (probably).

In other words, it's better to not be involved in making other countries ***than it is to support other countries's citizens due to our meddling.

And that is not a xenophobic ideal.

We're not in a crisis. We're not using domestic aid to help refugees. My neighbors will be exactly the same with or without refugees here, and multiple countries are currently taking in refugees.

The xenophobic part comes from using refugees as boogeymen, which I realize that isn't what you're doing but it was the original point I was replying to.

So, are you saying that we have no poverty, no Social Security issues, no welfare frauds or misappropriations of funds, or any of the other issues we are currently having regarding social services?

I'm not going to defend Trump's words. But having open borders, and letting everyone in, when we aren't in a situation where we are stable ourselves across the country isn't exactly a solution either.

And the vesting done by INS isn't foolproof either. Or did you forget Homeland Security's latest ball-dropping event?

I don't think understanding how their culture will effect ours makes people xenophobes either.

As KN pointed out, there are other sound reasons as to why people would want to refuse refugees that go beyond a moral scope.




Anyone who bases their opinions of the Syrian refugees because of their plight are ill-informed and potentially xenophobic.

Anyone who bases their opinion based on stories of what Syrian refugess are known for particularly in Germany and Sweden are most likely not xenophobic.

Xenophobia implies that there is either an intense or irrational fear.

Don't forget France.

Like I said, any excuse.
There's actually a harsher term for people who base an entire culture based on negative perceptions.

Just say you have a non-answer next time, ok?

Yeah, it's called democrat.

My eyes are in danger of rolling out from their sockets whenever you start a question with the phrase "So are saying...". Try arguing against my actual words instead of the ones you conjure up. None of those you listed could be considered a crisis compared to Syria by any meaning of the word.