Quote Originally Posted by El Kabong View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Greenbeanz View Post
I am in no way lumping you in with Brockton but the world does not come with Guarantees of no risk. Risk is part of liberty. Are you going to stop all immigration because there is a threat of criminals immigrating ? Are you going to stop American citizens owning guns because a small minority may go on a rampage and kill more than a terrorist? Of course not. Then how can you apply the same illogical rhetoric to refugees fleeing a regime that they have no arms to fight against ?

The Pilgrim fathers left from these shores only a couple of miles from where I am now, in search of religious freedom, and now you are suggesting that it is somehow Mentally disordered for anyone to believe in liberation from persecution?
Thank you, that is greatly appreciated.


You are correct in that there are no guarantees, and that liberty is a dangerous thing....but you can manage risk when it comes to accepting refugees into your nation. I do think that stopping immigration for a while should be looked at because if you keep flooding the nation with people who don't understand/respect the nation then eventually you have no nation. I think America needs time to assimilate some of it's new citizens.

That said Arab nations should be expected to take care of their people. Those fleeing Syria (and in reality there are some actually fleeing Syria, but a lot are just other immigrants) are Arab, and being Arab you'd figure that in a nice, peaceful religion like Islam (which is the main religion in these Arab nations) the religious brothers and sisters of these refugees would welcome them into their nations with open arms....this has not been the case and it certainly makes me worry more. What aren't we being told? Why wouldn't Arab nations help out? Why must America and Europe shoulder this burden alone? Wouldn't it be a better fit? Wouldn't there be LESS of a culture shock?

Beanz, why do you think Arab nations are refusing to open their doors to these refugees?



The Pilgrims left from a land where they were persecuted in order to start their own nation in a land that wasn't yet inhabited by Anglo-Saxons and where land was widely available. If the refugees are indeed looking for a place where they will not be persecuted, that's fine, but there's a price to pay for that (they have to follow our laws).

Many Arab nations are not helping because they have supported Assad and his regime and other vested arms interests which are served by escalating conflict. Despite this half are in Turkey because of it's border but Iran has not taken any which is no surprise considering they backed Assad. There are many in Jordan and Lebanon (Which is of course not Islamic/Arab only). The other reason is because they are more like US than Arabs. They are whiter, like Brockton, and so Europe is more appealing to them than many Arab countries where they fear further persecution. We have a few thousand here in the UK and yet the million plus in Turkey and Lebanon is not even remarked upon. The media focus on what suits their agenda.

Syrian refugees: Which countries welcome them - CNN.com

So the TRUTH is America and Europe are not shouldering the majority of the burden at all. 1/4 million have returned to Iraq and yet again you don't see that on the news. Like America the Syrian secular legal system and much of it's framework was based on french law and the republicanism which framed your constitution. Assad has used religion as a weapon but Syrians like the much used example of Steve Jobs are not surprisingly drawn to secular countries in which their education and expertise can be used fruitfully. So following your laws will not be a problem for them. (Not that you followed any of the Native Americans )

The real bogeyman is heading corrupt corporations and Government think tanks in your and my country, whilst profiting massively from an unjust war killing civilians rather than an enemy they armed. If the Turks stopped buying Oil from Isil and the UK and America stopped selling arms to the Saudis, the middle east would already become more stable and the factions could at least have decisive wars not infinitely prolonged by outside factors.