The morality of allowing Syrian refugees into the USA

[St_Francis]

Well, that was just a metaphor for the creation of a safe haven over there as opposed to bringing them over here.

OK, now I understand what you were saying.

 

[JimmyG88]

Did you read what I wrote?

Do you mean that they guy that you referr to was a radical or a psychotic weed head.

 

[St_Francis]

I seem to recall reading that there was the same suspicion of another man from the Middle East. But the European invaders put him to death

Yes, Pilate thought Christ was a terrorist and the powers-that-be in the Temple had nothing to do with His death.

Did you read the quote from Aquinas earlier in the thread?

 

[JimmyG88]

There is way too much xenophobia on this site. It’s distasteful to me.

 

[Rau]

Bitterhope’s point, I thought, was that the numbers of single men among the refugees is way out of proportion to the number we would expect if “entire families” were fleeing as one.

That was her statement, albeit unsubstantiated. Some will draw the conclusion that the refugee camps are “full” of “undercover terrorists”, and while I would not be surprised if there are some, it would be a mistake (IMHO) to think that accounted for a significant proportion.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

This might be true if it were not for the fact that now ISIS is using the “fleeing” of refugees as a cover for exporting the violence into the countries that are accepting refugees. The question is, “To what extent is ISIS doing this?”

Do you have an answer to that question? I would suppose you don’t. And neither do the political elites that are championing the cause of refugees over the safety of the countries they bear responsibility for.

In the video I cited a few posts back, the speaker - a former Moslem - explains that Moslems are permitted to lie and deceive in order to establish both the house of war and the house of peace. Four different kinds of deception are permitted when at war and one when at peace. The one permitted while at peace is the breaking of oaths or treaties. Did Obama not know this when he signed the nuclear deal with Iran? Do our leaders not know this when they accept refugees from Syria or Turkey when radical Islamists who are treating western countries as their enemies of war are permitted four kinds of deliberate deception and are intimidating and killing legitimate refugees in order to secure their own places as refugees?

Twenty to thirty-five percent of Moslems are radicalized or jihadist. That very likely means that for every 1000 refugees that are Moslem between 200 and 350 are radical in their determination to bring about the “conversion” of infidels by whatever means necessary, including killing.

The question still remains as to why Christian refugees are not given priority status since these are the most persecuted groups and those being systematically eradicated in the genocides that are taking place. Ask your local politician.

Most of the claimed four so called exceptions for lying are mental reservation.

Where are your sources for 20-35% of Muslims are radicalised or Jihadist?

We do have an obligation to help. We do *not *have an obligation to bring them here (US) or to let them in.

As to the bag of Skittles thing, imagine there is a pound of Skittles, one of which might kill. Would parents who allowed or forced their children to eat them not be condemned? Why is that? Is it not because of their obligation to protect the children?

In the same way, our government has a duty to protect us.

If everyone agrees that we do have an obligation to help the refugees, which seems to be the case, the question then becomes where and how. What is the best way to help?

But the thing is that the statistical odds are much lower than a Skittle in a pound of them.

What happened to the Jews was bad. They had a place to go (what is now called Israel) but the British (who at the point held the mandate) would not let them go there, and we would not let them come here.

However, there are several differences: 1. the Syrian refugees have places to go, and would have more places to go if the nearby nations did what they ought to do–the Jews in WW2 had no place to go; 2. ISIS has said that they were sending terrorists using the refugees as a smokescreen–this did not happen with the Jews in WW2; and 3. the Jews were more demographically in need: women and children formed an appropriate amount of those seeking refuge, while we now have huge numbers mostly consisting of young men, many of whom are not actually from the war zone.**

• Of the over 830,000 who arrived in Europe by sea (Mediterrenean), 75% were young men. [as of either September or November–unable to see full page)

** Out of over 210,000 refugees entering in the 2nd quarter 2015, only 44,000 are from Syria

They didn’t have a place to go, they didn’t actually have a right to Palestine any more than the English have a right to Frisia.

I assume you are aware of the millions that have been taken in by Germany,Italy and Sweden? A refugee crisis is global responsibility. Not just nearby nations. Particularly nations involved in military action in the Levant. I understand why young men choose to flee ISIS I would! Their gender or youth should preclude assistance. Having the correct demographic balance isn’t a prerequisite to fulfilling legal land moral responsibilities. I know only a few Syrians but have always found them quite charming

If they stay they are drafted into ISIS and are therefore terrorists, if they flee they are assumed by other countries to be probable terrorists, must be fun to be a young Muslim male refugee.

The problem is there is no way to assure that these people are really looking for refuge. The Christians are in much greater need, yet they are not the ones migrating in huge numbers. They are being slaughtered instead. They are wiping out Christians from the Middle East, and once that happens they will push to continue their manifest dynasty across the globe.

Non-Sunni Arabs are actually facing a greater threat, Christians are at least theoretically dhimmi, Shiites are heretics to be butchered

 

[Ridgerunner]

I seem to recall reading that there was the same suspicion of another man from the Middle East. But the European invaders put him to death

Actually those particular Europeans were invited in by the locals. Look it up.

Not that it’s an appropriate comparison anyway.

 

[Rau]

That’s the problem. They aren’t just going wherever they can. They are picking and choosing their final destination. They aren’t just fleeing to safety or for economic reasons.

Regrettably, the money available to the UN is insufficient to manage the number of refugees in an organised way. Few countries accept a material number of refugees from the UNHCR process. The demand exceeds the supply of refugee places. It is thus not surprising that refugees choose a ‘destination’ and then travel to that place and request ‘protection’ (under the refugee convention) - perceiving this to be a better option than 5+ years in a refugee camp.

This leads to serious problems. For example, some years ago, Australia adopted a quite ‘open’ position to receiving refugees. These people typically departed Indonesia (very often, having flown into Indonesia…they are not all poor) and travelled in leaky boats, courtesy of paid people smugglers, to Australia or its island territories. Thousands died at sea. Many thousands piled up in detention camps in Australia pending health and security checks and confirmation that they were indeed refugees and not economic migrants or criminals or such. The vast majority were found to be genuine and were settled in Australia.

Australia is a highly desirable country - amongst the most desirable destinations for refugees. You can see the calamity that can result from in adequate management of refugees at source and receptive destination countries.

Subsequent Australian governments have implemented a far stricter regime and largely stopped the flow of refugee-laden boats. But the fundamental problem - which is the lack of willingness from countries at large to accept refugees - is not addressed. And this problem precedes the fear of terrorists.

 

[Jeanne_S]

It is a dark and stormy night. You are home alone with your two children. You hear a knock on the door. You look thru the peephole, and you see a man standing outside. You ask him what he wants. He says his car has broken down and asks if he can come in to use the phone.

What would you do?

Make the phone call for him.

 

[Jeanne_S]

There is way too much xenophobia on this site. It’s distasteful to me.

That is a specious accusation.Here in America we are comprised of all different nationalities.This is what makes America unique.We are the least racist and most welcoming country there is.To have justified suspicion of a group who have shown they are barbaric and intent on destroying those who don’t agree with them is hardly xzenophobic.
A good analogy I just heard…there is a bowl of M& M on the table.Three of those M&M are poisionous,will kill whoever eats them.Would you dive in and take your chances?Even if only a few were a danger to you?

 

[St_Francis]

…But the thing is that the statistical odds are much lower than a Skittle in a pound of them.

The FBI estimates that 10% of mosques preach extremism, and polls show 1/4 young Moslems think that suicide bombing can be justified under certain circumstances.

It is the government’s job to work towards our safety.

They didn’t have a place to go, they didn’t actually have a right to Palestine any more than the English have a right to Frisia.

I’m sure this whole situation will be argued til the end of time at the rate it’s going, and it is certainly off-topic here and I don’t have anything that I haven’t said before ti say, and… I don’t have time to argue the question, so… whatever.

 

[Rau]

That is a specious accusation.Here in America we are comprised of all different nationalities.This is what makes America unique.We are the least racist and most welcoming country there is.To have justified suspicion of a group who have shown they are barbaric and intent on destroying those who don’t agree with them is hardly xzenophobic.
A good analogy I just heard…there is a bowl of M& M on the table.Three of those M&M are poisionous,will kill whoever eats them.Would you dive in and take your chances?Even if only a few were a danger to you?

The analogy has some merit but lacks these considerations:

• there is no testing process for the M&Ms; prior to eating (accepting);
• the bowl of M&Ms is probably not large enough to accurately reflect the small proportion of persons in refugee camps who are ‘undercover terrorists’;
• there is no certainly of success attached to the evil intentions of a would-be terrorist, whereas you are clear the bad M&Ms will kill;

 

[St_Francis]

Do you mean that they guy that you referr to was a radical or a psychotic weed head.

The disconnect between what I write and how you respond leads me to believe you are not interested in discussion.

Arrivederci…

 

[Rau]

The FBI estimates that 10% of mosques preach extremism, and polls show 1/4 young Moslems think that suicide bombing can be justified under certain circumstances.

In the US, is inciting violence not a crime? Is it allowed as free speech?

 

[Jeanne_S]

The analogy has some merit but lacks these considerations:

• there is no testing process for the M&Ms; prior to eating (accepting);
• the bowl of M&Ms is probably not large enough to accurately reflect the small proportion of persons in refugee camps who are ‘undercover terrorists’;
• there is no certainly of success attached to the evil intentions of a would-be terrorist, whereas you are clear the bad M&Ms will kill;

Your points are well taken,however simplistic the M&M analogy,it does get to the basic issue of risk taking,when there is a known fact.As others have mentioned,the first responsibility of our gov’t. Is to protect it’s citizens.If that means turning away a majority of people in need of our assistance on the off chance that a few of them could mean us harm,so be it.

 

[Rau]

Your points are well taken,however simplistic the M&M analogy,it does get to the basic issue of risk taking,when there is a known fact.As others have mentioned,the first responsibility of our gov’t. Is to protect it’s citizens.If that means turning away a majority of people in need of our assistance on the off chance that a few of them could mean us harm,so be it.

It is indeed surprising that the Good Samaritan took the risks - risks of the unknown - that he did!

Certainly, risks must be sensibly assessed and precautions taken.

 

[Jeanne_S]

It is indeed surprising that the Good Samaritan took the risks - risks of the unknown - that he did!

Certainly, risks must be sensibly assessed and precautions taken.

I don’t trust this Administration to throughly vet these refugees.Obama made some snarky comments today re the Republicans being scared of widows and small children.Heh,a woman just today blew herself up for the cause.I just think Obsma is so idilogically driven,he can’t see beyond that.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

We are not violating anybody’s freedom, rights, or otherwise by acting in a way as to defend and protect the people of this country and the Constitution. The fact that someone might come from a country or territory ravaged by war does not by itself qualify one as an asylum candidate.

To qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a ‘refugee’ as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , US Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s religion: The term ‘refugee’ means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion (among other things).

Asylum is a discretionary national act of compassion directed by law, not a whim to address persecution.

Nowhere does the law say we must put ourselves at risk in order to exercise this compassion. Nowhere does it say anywhere in American statutory law or in American precedent that we must throw our values overboard in order to be compassionate.

There is no right to emigrate to the United States of America. Therefore, – we – by maintaining our standards as established by law, protecting our national security and sovereignty are not violating anybody’s rights by standing up for our own.

 

[St_Francis]

In the US, is inciting violence not a crime? Is it allowed as free speech?

Inciting violence is a crime. Catching people doing it in a language few of us know, probably exhorting in very guarded terms which are more fully spelled out once one has someone on the hook*, is very difficult. Moreover, it is made even more difficult because suspicious of Moslems are considered racist.

TBH, my main point on this thread is that a nation has the right not to accept refugees, using the US as an example; however, a nation does have an obligation to help. And by help, I mean help in a helpful way, not just tossing money or dropping bombs. There has to be a plan.

There are 4 million people in refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon, and a couple of other nations in the ME, Estimates as of September are that there are 7.6 displaced persons within the two nations. That’s close to 12 million people. How are we going to care for, vet, transport, and settle all these people even if we find nations in which to put alll of them? It seems to me to make more sense to work on restoring the homeland of all these people so that they can resume their lives rather than end up in strange places where they will find it difficult to make their way and potentially have some of them become radicalized against their new lands.

• ETA: In private, possibly even under the guise of religious counsel, which is legally protected

 

[Peter_Plato]

Where are your sources for 20-35% of Muslims are radicalised or Jihadist?

I’ve heard the claim made numerous times in many articles.

This is one
youtu.be/ASUnosseuEI
Start about the 46 minute mark.

Though you may want to watch the entire video to get a glimpse into what could very well be foundational to this discussion.

Here is the main concern, however…

To be “radicalized” means that the basic teachings of a religion or belief system are taken to their extreme. How would these look if we “radicalize” Christianity as opposed to “radicalize” Islam?

In Christianity, “radicalization” would look like the ascetic monks who took to the deserts of Egypt or Palestine in the early centuries of the Church or took to monastaries or convents in later periods. To radicalize the essential teachings of Christianity is a far different matter than to radicalize the essential teachings of Islam.

Look at the life of Muhammad and where his own early words, prescriptions and message took him as THE sole prophet of Islam in terms of how he dealt with the people around him and structured the behaviour of his followers in the most early and formative days of Islam. In a very important sense, radicalized Islam is very close to the version that took its essential form in the time of Muhammad when he, as its only prophet, had a direct hand in shaping the teachings and expectations of the religion.