Jewish Refugees vs Syrian Refugees

  • Thread starter Thread starter RunMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not sure what you mean by “infiltrating.” To the extent that they do recruiting all over the world and online, they’re “infiltrating” everybody. I would say that it’s critical to national security to learn more about their recruitment tactics and what makes people vulnerable to recruitment. But I have seen zero evidence that this phenomenon is refugee-specific.
 
blackforest said:
women & children.

Can you provide evidence that these camps are “filled with” these young men? The 18-35 year old men are rarely alone, except when their families have been slaughtered. Young men in Syrian culture typically live with their families until marriage.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of videos showing the young men.

My point is simple. The men 18 to 40 should stay in Syria. Women, children, and grandfathers should be other only ones allowed to leave. Grandfathers should be allowed to go with their families to provide the male leadership. But the younger men (single or married) should stay in Syria so the families have a home to return to.

The men should say in Syria so they can rebuild the nation once the war is over, and to limit ISIS infiltration.
 
RunMan said:
So there are a lot of people who support banning all immigrants from places like Syria, Iraq, and other war-torn countries. Most of these people are in desperate need of refuge and help. Does the US have a moral obligation to help these people out? Would these same people have supported banning all Jewish immigrants from Germany and Eastern Europe during World War II and the late 30’s? Are these two issues connected or the same at all and how do you not compare the two? Just a question I was having trouble answering and thinking about.
Click to expand...
First, there’s a difference between Refugees and Immigrants. Refugees are fleeing for their lives. Personally, I think the entire world is responsible for helping them. Honestly, I think it would be preferable if the countries closest to the Refugee’s home country could be the go to country helping. Not because I don’t want them to come to the US, but because the cultures are usually the most similar and the upheaval the refugee might feel would possibly be less. Having said that, my city, St. Louis MO, opened our city to Bosnian refugees in the 1990’s and what a blessing they have been to our communities.

The immigration issue in the US is different. Our borders are porous and people come here illegally. That is what needs to be addressed. I don’t have a problem with immigration, I have a problem with illegal immigration.

Historically speaking, we turned away Jewish refugees before WWII and it was wrong in hindsight. However, Hindsight is 20/20 as they say. How could we have known that what was happening, was happening to the degree that it was. There were inklings of the camps, but it was so horrific that people believed it couldn’t possibly be correct, that the stories were hyperbolic. We know that they weren’t, but…
I don’t know for a fact that the reason we said no to them was because they were Jewish, although there’s probably some component of that. There were Jews in the US prior to WWII, and they were successful members of society. I think perhaps the state of the economy at the time was a determining factor as well to taking on any more refugees. How were we supposed to help them when we had current citizens in such dire straits.
 
RunMan said:
Are these two issues connected or the same at all and how do you not compare the two? Just a question I was having trouble answering and thinking about.
Click to expand...
There are some distinct differences. In the Jewish case, there was no Jewish homeland at the time for Jews to naturally return to.

This is not the case for the Syria, as there are several Arab and Kurdish nations and regions that would be the first level of aid or resettlement.

A more equivalent analogy would be the Angola Civil War of the 1970’s and 80s. What obligation would the Western powers have had then to accept refugees from Angola?
 
thephilosopher6 said:
The simple fact of the matter is is that each nation has the right to decide, and there is no moral obligation for countries to have to open their borders to these people who could potentially cause many problems within a country perhaps unless there is systematic genocide.
Click to expand...
Obligation? It’s actually becoming a scandal underneath all of the good feelings and emotions.

We literally now have a return to slavery in Europe, the mafia has new playmates and some of these folks are plotting the destruction of the West with our internal enemies.

The best solution is to have them stay in the region with no-fly zone cover and allow aid workers to come help them.
CoeurRempli said:
They do not fit into our culture, they can cause problems, take our jobs, leech off of society.
Click to expand...
All some of these folks and the people who claim to help them want is money. Also, a lot of people see the refugees as free votes for left-wing political parties.
JamalChristophr said:
I think we can do it. 🙂 I don’t know about the details,
Click to expand...
If you don’t know about the details, how does that give you any standing to think we can do it?
 
blackforest said:
Please tell me which specific component of the federal vetting process is falling short in your eyes.
Click to expand...
The part where we imported a master and his slaves in Texas. Not to mention all of the VISA marriage scams that get approved.

Oh, then there was the whole Boston Marathon bombing.
blackforest said:
Please tell me which specific component of the federal vetting process is falling short in your eyes.

Your arguments about assimilation were used against your and everybody else’s ancestors. Somehow our survived foreigners coming in. We always will.
Click to expand...
So I guess this means the Pilgrims and white settlers were refugees and didn’t steal land from the Natives.

Also, nice touch with the vague “somehow” while asking Red Betta to provide specifics.
We always will.
Click to expand...
There’s a new Native Americans who would dispute that.

Also, could someone please tell me which Jewish rabbis advocated for conquering the West through demographics and demanded blasphemy laws against Yahweh be passed? Anyone? Bueller…Bueller…
 
This is probably a too controversial subject for me to delve into, so I’m not going to comment further, but I think we could at least take in a small number of refugees. I have no idea how many families and individuals have already been takien in by the U.S.

I do believe a nation does need to take a very pragmatic approach towards immigration.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I misread the first word of your message as why. I would say we try are best to discern whether they are actual refugees and not just economic migrants. And screen them for terrorist associations, you know, the usual.
 
blackforest said:
What about Muslim families who were targeted by ISIS? One Muslim family I work with nearly lost their 6-year-old when a mortar went off in their living room. Does his life value less than a Christian’s? Remember, this is a thread referencing the Holocaust, a time when lives of different people were considered expendable.
Click to expand...
This is something I don’t know enough about.

I know that ISIS is killing the Christians for being Christian (similarly to what the Nazis did to the Jews). But when ISIS is killing other Muslims, I’m a little more fuzzy on that.

I THINK they are killing them for being political enemies, not for being infidels. Regardless, killing civilians is wrong.

HOWEVER, I was NOT implying that Muslim women and children cannot be evacuated from Syria.

What I mean was this: The MAJORITY of the refugees have been relocated inside Syria (which is a good thing). I’m simply saying all Muslims should be relativity safe in refugee camps inside safe zones within Syria or other Middle East countries. But Christians and other non-Muslims are afraid to go to the refugee camps because they are afraid of the some people who will bully them there. So that’s why non-Muslims should be towards the top of the list to be evacuated from Syria.
 
blackforest said:
Videos aren’t data, and I don’t see how breaking up these families is going to help them assimilate in a new country.
Click to expand...
but they are not supposed to assimilate. They are supposed to go home. Refugees are not immigrants.

If the men leave the country too, who will rebuild the houses for the women and children to return to?
 
The differences between these groups might not be as many as people might hope. Americans had genuine fears of Jews in much the same way they have fears of Syrian refugees today. Then, Jews were viewed as potential communists and/or spies, as people who would take jobs from Americans, the economy can’t take the stain they’ll place on it, etc. These really aren’t dissimilar to attitudes taken toward Syrian refugees today: they’re terrorists, they’ll take jobs away from Americans, we can’t afford to admit them, etc. Americans at one time, while sympathizing with the Jewish plight, still resisted accepting them.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Keep in mind this is all before the plan to exterminate all Jews of Europe was set into motion by the Nazis. We resisted accepting refugees still the same.)

Look at something like the story of the St. Louis to see how Jewish refugees were viewed: Voyage of the St. Louis | Holocaust Encyclopedia

And read something like the following to see how frightening the parallels really are: Opinion | Anne Frank Today Is a Syrian Girl - The New York Times
 
Last edited:
It also depends on our capacity to take them in. And they should not be plopped anywhere without the residents of that area’s consent. An already existing ethnic neighborhood would probably work best, but work should be done to integrate them with wider American society to avoid ghettoization.

Also, it should not be solely the United States’ responsibility.
 
redbetta said:
It also depends on our capacity to take them in. And they should not be plopped anywhere without the residents of that area’s consent. An already existing ethnic neighborhood would probably work best, but work should be done to integrate them with wider American society to avoid ghettoization.

Also, it should not be solely the United States’ responsibility.
Click to expand...
The US has accepted a pretty paltry number of refugees from Syria. I don’t think we’re in any danger of becoming the sole entity responsible for this crisis.
 
We also have a massive undocumented population to keep track of and continuing illegal immigration. And we still have populations that are not thoroughly integrated. Something to keep in mind.
 
blackforest said:
I’m not sure what you mean by “infiltrating.” To the extent that they do recruiting all over the world and online, they’re “infiltrating” everybody. I would say that it’s critical to national security to learn more about their recruitment tactics and what makes people vulnerable to recruitment. But I have seen zero evidence that this phenomenon is refugee-specific.
Click to expand...
What I mean by “infiltrating” is when terrorists sleepers and Islamists from other countries, who are not Syrian go to Syria and pretend to be refugees. ISIS has placed a number of people in there. How many? No idea. But ISIS (and other Islamist / Jihadist groups) told the world they were doing that and they authorities have caught some, but no where near all of them.

The United States has been far better about vetting, but a lot of Europe was stuck with Refuges just walking across the continent, with no idea who was there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top