Trump Jr.'s Skittles Photo Taken By Former Refugee — And Used Without Permission

[Al_Moritz]

The United States House of Representatives:

judiciary.house.gov/press-release/goodlatte-why-does-the-president-ignore-concerns-about-syrian-refugees/

They didn’t say that, in your words, that refugees are “not vetted at all”. Yes, there are substantial concerns with the vetting process, but it is quite extensive.

Here is the conservative Heritage Foundation detailing it:

heritage.org/research/commentary/2015/12/how-the-refugee-vetting-process-works

From the link (2015 status):

After an average of 12-18 months, this process ends with entry into the U.S. According to the Department of Homeland Security, of the approximately 23,000 Syrian referrals made by the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees to the U.S., only about 2,000 have been accepted. The U.S. refugee system can be, should be, and is being picky at who we allow to enter the U.S. as a refugee.

Can the process be improved? Probably. Will it ever be perfect? No. Nothing is ever perfect. That doesn’t mean we should not allow any Syrian refugees into our country.

So far there hasn’t been a single terrorist attack by a Syrian refugee in the US.

 

[Theo520]

They don’t speak English, have zero interest in assimilating, and are being thrown into, for them, an alien culture.

The best approach according to the United Nations refugee experts is to house them in safe zones within one country away from their homes. Which means safe areas in Syria itself or in Turkey.

Saudi Arabia has four million air conditioned tents, used for their annual Haj, which are unoccupied the rest of the year. They are a Muslim culture and have plenty of money available and are fairly close to Syria. Yet they have not brought in ANY refugees.

Yes, our involvement should be giving Turkey additional resources to manage the load, and helping to end the conflict. Everyone seems to have forgotten the well considered UN agreement on refugees, it’s the right approach when it is supported.

 

[7_Sorrows]

LOL, their is no need for any risk.

We can provide our help per the UN agreement on refugees, which is aid near the site of the conflict, and work to end the conflict so they can return home.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

They didn’t say that, in your words, that refugees are “not vetted at all”. Yes, there are substantial concerns with the vetting process, but it is quite extensive.

Here is the conservative Heritage Foundation detailing it:

heritage.org/research/commentary/2015/12/how-the-refugee-vetting-process-works

From the link (2015 status):

After an average of 12-18 months, this process ends with entry into the U.S. According to the Department of Homeland Security, of the approximately 23,000 Syrian referrals made by the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees to the U.S., only about 2,000 have been accepted. The U.S. refugee system can be, should be, and is being picky at who we allow to enter the U.S. as a refugee.

Can the process be improved? Probably. Will it ever be perfect? No. Nothing is ever perfect. That doesn’t mean we should not allow any Syrian refugees into our country.

So far there hasn’t been a single terrorist attack by a Syrian refugee in the US.

“Substantial concerns” … yes!

 

[Al_Moritz]

“Substantial concerns” … yes!

Your post is a very graphic example how you guys blow everything out of proportion.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

They don’t speak English, have zero interest in assimilating, and are being thrown into, for them, an alien culture.

The best approach according to the United Nations refugee experts is to house them in safe zones within one country away from their homes. Which means safe areas in Syria itself or in Turkey.

Saudi Arabia has four million air conditioned tents, used for their annual Haj, which are unoccupied the rest of the year. They are a Muslim culture and have plenty of money available and are fairly close to Syria. Yet they have not brought in ANY refugees.

First of all, they are refugees. Some speak English. But they never planned on having to flee Syria. English is something they can learn. Of course many want to assimilate, but they won’t be able if most people have the same attitudes as you. Do not generalise an entire group of people.

Saudi Arabia is a disgrace in more ways than one, as a country it has no interest in helping. But to be fair if I was a Syrian woman I wouldn’t want to go there either.

You solution is not practical; no one country can bear the burden of the refugees. Countries like Jordan are at breaking point. And you do realise “house is safe zones” means millions of Syrians living in, effectively, a massive prison with a tent to live in and the clothes on their back and no facilities? I’m sorry, but that is inhuman.

The USA has taken a disgracefully low number of refugees and ought to be ashamed.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Your post is a very graphic example how you guys blow everything out of proportion.

" … you guys …"

???

[excuse me???!!!]

… “you guys” … ]

 

[Al_Moritz]

All those who are so heartlessly and un-Christian-like opposed to Syrian refugees should watch the video down below in this link:

bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37437386

(A Syrian family adjusting to a life in Canada experience an emotional reunion.)

 

[Theo520]

The vetting process only works when they have records to vet. Those records don’t exist for Syrian immigrants, everything they get is self disclosed, they can’t even validate the passport is real.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The vetting process only works when they have records to vet. Those records don’t exist for Syrian immigrants, everything they get is self disclosed, they can’t even validate the passport is real.

Even supposing the vetting process is as weak as you say, how do you proceed from there to conclude that the risk to US citizens of taking in refugees is sufficiently high when compared to the certain suffering now being experienced by refugees? I refer you to the “skittles math” in the article cited earlier in post #3.

 

[Theo520]

Even supposing the vetting process is as weak as you say, how do you proceed from there to conclude that the risk to US citizens of taking in refugees is sufficiently high when compared to the certain suffering now being experienced by refugees? I refer you to the “skittles math” in the article cited earlier in post #3.

You present a false dichotomy. Our UN responsibility is to assist in supplying a safe zone near the borders of conflict. In doing so we’ve alleviated the suffering they experienced ‘in-country’.

Our next responsibility is to assist in ending the conflict, so they can return and rebuild.

Moving them half way around the world is not part of the UN agreement of refugees, and is frankly DUMB.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You present a false dichotomy. Our UN responsibility is to assist in supplying a safe zone near the borders of conflict. In doing so we’ve alleviated the suffering they experienced ‘in-country’.

This is a fantasy. Where is this magical “safe zone” that is currently available? Oh, it’s in some other country that is not playing nice and offering it. I guess we nicely passed the buck, didn’t we? Why didn’t we do that in WWII instead of taking in refugees then? Same reason. This “safe zone” does not exist.

 

[Theo520]

This is a fantasy. Where is this magical “safe zone” that is currently available? Oh, it’s in some other country that is not playing nice and offering it. I guess we nicely passed the buck, didn’t we? Why didn’t we do that in WWII instead of taking in refugees then? Same reason. This “safe zone” does not exist.

Are you claiming ignorance on refugee response for the past 50 yrs?

We’ve always set up safe zones and refugee camps with basic resources. Our focus should be on doing this better. Much cheaper to do it well there than in camps all over Europe, or flying them to the USA.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Are you claiming ignorance on refugee response for the past 50 yrs?

We’ve always set up safe zones and refugee camps with basic resources. Our focus should be on doing this better. Much cheaper to do it well there than in camps all over Europe, or flying them to the USA.

You consider refugee camps safe? Would you like your children to spend their entire childhood in a refugee camp? That is not a life. It is a temporary warehouse for human flesh. Calling that a suitable replacement for allowing refugees to emigrate is shameful and a cop-out. The Syrian civil war has gone on now for 6 years, and it does not look like it is going to end any time soon. Families cannot put their lives on hold. Children only have a few years of childhood, which they should be spending in school. What sort of family structures can thrive in a camp where there is no economy or jobs except hand-outs? Refugee camps can serve a useful temporary purpose when there is hope for a speedy resolution (like emigrating). Telling them they have to wait out an indefinite war and then try to go back and pick up the pieces of a life they left years ago is inhumane. I’m sticking with my initial impression of your solution: a fantasy.

 

[Theo520]

You consider refugee camps safe? Would you like your children to spend their entire childhood in a refugee camp? That is not a life. It is a temporary warehouse for human flesh. Calling that a suitable replacement for allowing refugees to emigrate is shameful and a cop-out. The Syrian civil war has gone on now for 6 years, and it does not look like it is going to end any time soon. Families cannot put their lives on hold. Children only have a few years of childhood, which they should be spending in school. What sort of family structures can thrive in a camp where there is no economy or jobs except hand-outs? Refugee camps can serve a useful temporary purpose when there is hope for a speedy resolution (like emigrating). Telling them they have to wait out an indefinite war and then try to go back and pick up the pieces of a life they left years ago is inhumane. I’m sticking with my initial impression of your solution: a fantasy.

A resourced refugee camp has schools and is a safe environment, much better than the makeshift camps sprouting up around Europe where they have very little aid resources. Neither Europe nor the US is obligated to take all comers, but we do have an obligation to help (which is already agreed to in the UN agreement)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

A resourced refugee camp has schools and is a safe environment, much better than the makeshift camps sprouting up around Europe where they have very little aid resources.

Not nearly as good as having a real home somewhere. And if you really think refugee camps are safe, read this. And this. And this. And this.

Neither Europe nor the US is obligated to take all comers.

Nor was the priest or the Levite obliged to help the man attacked by robbers on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho.

but we do have an obligation to help (which is already agreed to in the UN agreement)

The UN has no power to excuse the US from our moral duty. So if we take out the reference to the UN agreement, all we have is “we have an obligation to help”, but that help is not nearly what the refugees needs.

 

[Theo520]

Not nearly as good as having a real home somewhere. And if you really think refugee camps are safe, read this. And this. And this. And this.

Nor was the priest or the Levite obliged to help the man attacked by robbers on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho.

The UN has no power to excuse the US from our moral duty. So if we take out the reference to the UN agreement, all we have is “we have an obligation to help”, but that help is not nearly what the refugees needs.

Where official refugee camps are not safe, that is a call to action to remedy the situation, let’s put those UN troops to work!!!

However, you talk like it’s my Govt’s job to give everyone a safe home around the world?
We can’t give inner city youth a safe home, and they should be our priority.

Now to your links:

• sexual harassment was the mainstay in their home, before the crisis. We can’t hook their men up to a brain machine that immediately changes their culture, nor do we want to. Though separate rooms for men and women is certainly within UN capabilities. Looks like the UN lacks basic competency?
• the people in your PRI link aren’t in a refugee camp it appears, thus they are not near the services we are paying to provide. Send them to the official camps, better than squatting.
• agreed, there is no such thing as a perfect refugee camp.
  The official refugee camps are were both AID workers and NGOs can concentrate to provide services, and at the lowest cost vs squatter camps all over Europe.

 

[Theo520]

Leaf, the whole of the third world is ‘sexist’ by the standards in your link.

Thus, isn’t it highly disingenuous of the NGO asking those questions to pretend it’s shocking if third world citizens don’t meet our standards? It has zero to do with refugee status, and moving the men to Georgia won’t suddenly give them PC metrosexual cultural norms.

 

[Theo520]

Not nearly as good as having a real home somewhere. And if you really think refugee camps are safe, read this. And this. And this. And this.

Your asnwer doesn’t appear to be a solution either
Sweden So Violent, Migrants Consider Moving Back To War-Zone Homelands

Perhaps we are dealing with systemic cultural issues that come with the refugees, regardless of how we think they should behave.

Nor was the priest or the Levite obliged to help the man attacked by robbers on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho.

Turkey and other immediate neighbors are the Levite, our role is to provide the Levite with additional support.

Similarly, Turkey is not responsible for our immigration/border issues like we are.

The UN has no power to excuse the US from our moral duty. So if we take out the reference to the UN agreement, all we have is “we have an obligation to help”, but that help is not nearly what the refugees needs.

What are you talking about? The UN agreement on refugees defined our moral duty, we are to support the neighboring countries who are on the front line, we are to support the UN in their efforts to establish safe zones.

I have no desire to be excused from these obligations.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Your asnwer doesn’t appear to be a solution either
Sweden So Violent, Migrants Consider Moving Back To War-Zone Homelands

A Breitbart piece based on a single migrant? Really? For every immigrant like this who wants to go home, there are thousands of immigrants who are overwhelmingly grateful they were accepted. Sweden has taken a disproportionately large number of immigrants compared to their population, which was initially mostly a monoculture. On the other hand, the US was founded and still is a place where diverse cultures are the norm. We could do a much better job than Sweden. And the criticism of the lack of safety, especially for women and children, in the refugee camps remains unanswered. If it is our responsibility to provide refugee camps, we are not doing an adequate job of it.

Turkey and other immediate neighbors are the Levite, our role is to provide the Levite with additional support.

That’s just what was running through the mind of the Levite as he was passing the man beaten by robbers. “My role is the spiritual support of others who will take care of this man.”

What are you talking about? The UN agreement on refugees defined our moral duty, we are to support the neighboring countries who are on the front line, we are to support the UN in their efforts to establish safe zones.

I have no desire to be excused from these obligations.

The UN agreement has no moral power to** limit our responsibility.** If we made the agreement to offer material support for refugee camps, then we have a duty to honor that agreement. But that agreement says nothing about such support completely satisfying our moral duty to those who continue to suffer terribly.