Is anyone here actually opposed to taking in refugees in general?

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · March 23, 2016, 08:01:22 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

One Epic Phail · March 23, 2016, 08:02:27 PM

Most refugees are running from most of what we're all wanting to fight, so sure

Blonic the Fluxmeister · March 23, 2016, 08:23:22 PM

How about the people that want refugees can have them in their neighborhoods.

DAS B00T x2 · March 23, 2016, 08:27:36 PM

I'm kinda full out NIMBY on this. The cities and liberal havens can take them.

PSU · March 23, 2016, 08:39:22 PM

100% against it

Dan · March 23, 2016, 08:39:45 PM

Quote from: DAS B00T 2016 on March 23, 2016, 08:27:36 PM

I'm kinda full out NIMBY on this. The cities and liberal havens can take them.

I think it's funny how accepting victims of war is considered a "liberal" position.

ban me · March 23, 2016, 08:41:37 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

DAS B00T x2 · March 23, 2016, 08:51:15 PM

Quote from: Iberian Husky on March 23, 2016, 08:41:37 PM

Not really, so long as we give them strict background checks and keep them under surveillance for X amount of time after they get here. I know government surveillance is an incredibly slippery slope, but these aren't US citizens; they're refugees coming from a war-torn country filled with Islamic extremists that openly admit to smuggling their sleeper agents in with refugees. I know I'm being completely contradictory to my Libertarian ideals here, and I hate myself for it, but we can't give these people too much freedom. They've shown time and time again they can't be trusted with it.

Islam is turning me into an authoritarian, and I don't like it.

It is important to realize that libertarianism is not, nor is it intended to be, a complete moral theory. Much confusion will be prevented and many possible objections can be summarily deflected if this point is appreciated.- Gerard Casey

The appeal of nationalism and security of fascism naturally pulls white middle/working class individuals who identify as libertarians who dislike militant Islam to authoritarian doctrines and the alt-right as neoreactionaries.

Mordo · March 23, 2016, 08:57:59 PM

I think we should be pressuring countries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan to be pulling their weight more. So far they've done next to nothing in aiding the migrant crisis and yet Europe shoulders both the blame and responsibility for reasons beyond me, which I honestly think is beyond the pale bullshit.

I'm all for helping people who are in dire need of asylum but time and time again these people have proven that they cannot coexist with our value systems and customs. If it's a choice between denying people refuge and accepting those who think our way of life is literally worth killing for, then I'm going to choose the former, every single fucking time. I'm not going to apologize for it.

DAS B00T x2 · March 23, 2016, 09:15:27 PM

Quote from: Dan on March 23, 2016, 08:39:45 PM

Quote from: DAS B00T 2016 on March 23, 2016, 08:27:36 PM
I'm kinda full out NIMBY on this. The cities and liberal havens can take them.
I think it's funny how accepting victims of war is considered a "liberal" position.

meh

What makes them any different then the ones running from the cartels?

Word Wizard · March 23, 2016, 09:48:31 PM

From what I've read, the U.S. does exceptionally well at vetting refugees. We've been taking in around 80,000 a year for about 5 years and we haven't had any issues.

The problem seems to be that bleeding heart European leaders bit off more than they could chew and sacrificed quality inspection of whom they let in.

Principly, I don't have any issue with taking in refugees. I just think our national security takes precedence over others.

Korra · March 23, 2016, 10:02:56 PM

You mean refugees in general?

Sure, but there's obvious problems with the Syrian refugees that can't be overlooked and allowed to enter.

Mega Sceptile · March 23, 2016, 10:51:11 PM

I have 0 problems with bringing in refugees, BUT they need extensive background checks to make sure that you aren't letting whatever the refugees are running from into the country.

Azumarill · March 23, 2016, 11:56:33 PM

taking refugees en masse always causes issues but the first world cant just turn them away.

Mmmmm Napalm · March 24, 2016, 12:09:32 AM

1 - background checks; ensure no terrorist connections and that they're from Syria/other war torn areas,
2 - prioritize women and children; pretty sure around 76% of the migrants are males in their twenties (which is to say that many are econ. migrants, not refugees).
3 - Separate religious groups from one another. Everyone threw a hissy fit when (IIRC) Slovakia stated they would only take in Christians. I say let them. This way, we avoid violence breaking out between religious groups contained in the same area.
4 - when situation is resolved, go home.
5 - have neighboring Muslim countries take in Muslim immigrants
If the above measures are implemented I'd be perfectly fine with taking in refugees, as these measures would help ensure that we're receiving refugees, and not econ. migrants.

MyNameIsCharlie · March 24, 2016, 12:32:08 AM

I don't understand why the UN can't set up camps in Egypt or other closer countries. There's no reason why they need apartments and jobs. It's supposed to be a short term affair. Setting them up in host countries as citizens doesn't really help. There supposed to go home eventually.

On top of this it just opens up the host countries to terrorism and disease. Terrorism is self explanatory, but disease isn't. Let's face it, Syria doesn't have the healthcare system Europe does. They don't have the vaccinations Europeans do. They are bringing disease with them. Also, let's face it, they aren't from countries that are as liberal as Europe. There is bound to be culture shock which is as harmful to them as us.

Luciana · March 24, 2016, 02:18:29 AM

Quote from: Mordo on March 23, 2016, 08:57:59 PM

I think we should be pressuring countries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan to be pulling their weight more. So far they've done next to nothing in aiding the migrant crisis and yet Europe shoulders both the blame and responsibility for reasons beyond me

That's honestly for almost anything that involves the Middle East.

Genghis Khan · March 24, 2016, 03:30:46 AM

Totally against it.

challengerX · March 24, 2016, 04:17:32 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Mattie G Indahouse · March 24, 2016, 04:50:50 AM

I'm not against it but the problem is finding out which ones are safe to take in and which ones aren't like dangerous criminals or terrorist. You might end up saving 10,000 refugees one day but during that month there are terrorist attacks caused by some of them which kills a few hundred of your own people. Sure you saved many lives but you ended up costing your country the lives of it's own people. To me the only safe way of taking them in is by putting them in concentration camps until they're safe enough to be granted citizenship or for them to go back to their country.