WTF?

[dakshdar]

But what exactly are we behind other than our own expectations? Aren't we way ahead of other countries in terms of how we handle our internal projects?

Isn't some of the reason we're so far ahead of other countries in terms of national progress because we have the most external interaction with other countries vs having an isolationist approach?

(No one will read it but: http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... Conclusion)

It's funny how some political parties in this country will grandstand all day on how we can't change our policies on guns because it is "what the country was founded on" but they'll rapidly backtrack on international policies when it suits their parties interest in opposing the other party regardless of "what the country was founded on".

[DRiccio21]

i'm with Joe on just about all of this.

most of our perceptions are built off fear and ignorance.

[Seeitsaveit13]

It's funny how some political parties in this country will grandstand all day on how we can't change our policies on guns because it is "what the country was founded on" but they'll rapidly backtrack on international policies when it suits their parties interest in opposing the other party regardless of "what the country was founded on".

This.

I honestly do not care who we have as president, or senator, etc anymore. I just want them to stop all the constant bullshit and just work together to "make american great again" (sorry, I like the line even if the man is a little nutso). Just find a solution, and work on it.

It won't happen, but it would be nice.

I'll try to read your article after lunch.

[packsyd2284]

i'm with Joe on just about all of this.

most of our perceptions are built off fear and ignorance.

Bingo.

[GeorgesGoons]

most of our perceptions are built off fear and ignorance.

Bingo.

100% agree

[ReignOnU]

I'm not sure that anyone has said that we should be complete isolationists (maybe if Rand Paul posted here). I'm specifically saying we shouldn't be involved in this situation to the point that we are bringing refugees in. It's the wrong call.

@Dak, bravo, this is a common example of why I don't get involved in many debates on politics... people like to take sensationalist views instead of understanding that the right answer is often somewhere in-between. (see previously stated view that we should be open to funding refugees in another country that is willing to host them) Beyond that outrageous idea of shutting down 10+ branches of government, you failed to address much of anything that I said.

[dakshdar]

10,000 refugees is nothing. We admit 70,000-80,000 a year every year. So the resources and the time and effort is a drop in the bucket. We have the infrastructure and the network already in place. It is unlikely, in my opinion, that there are many other countries that could do a better job taking in refugees.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-f ... fact-sheet

There are millions (3+) refugees right now from Syria that have fled into other countries. At 10,000 you're talking less than 0.5% of the total being re-located into the US.

The fact that we're not taking more is already the compromising or in-between answer to me. We've already sent billions ($4.5b by one estimate) since 2011 to help Syrians overseas. Sure, we could send the money we'd spend on 10,000 refugees over instead, but does that do any more over there than $4.5 billion hasn't already done? Relocation of those people is immeasurably more impactful to their lives than additional money so they can stay in a refugee camp in Turkey another 6 months.

[nick]

France gets attacked - allows 30 000 refugees in
US doesnt get attacked - multiple states crying over 10k refugees or about 200/state (for 50 states).

[ReignOnU]

10,000 refugees is nothing. We admit 70,000-80,000 a year every year. So the resources and the time and effort is a drop in the bucket. We have the infrastructure and the network already in place. It is unlikely, in my opinion, that there are many other countries that could do a better job taking in refugees.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-f ... fact-sheet

There are millions (3+) refugees right now from Syria that have fled into other countries. At 10,000 you're talking less than 0.5% of the total being re-located into the US.

The fact that we're not taking more is already the compromising or in-between answer to me. We've already sent billions ($4.5b by one estimate) since 2011 to help Syrians overseas. Sure, we could send the money we'd spend on 10,000 refugees over instead, but does that do any more over there than $4.5 billion hasn't already done? Relocation of those people is immeasurably more impactful to their lives than additional money so they can stay in a refugee camp in Turkey another 6 months.

- The current limit is by law is 70k. It went up to 80k from 08-12. Of those 70k, roughly 30k-35k from the NESA, which includes among others, India, Iraq, Iran and connecting line across northern Africa.
- The number we take as a relationship to all refugees is irrelevant. It's not our responsibility to meet a quota.
- You're certainly entitled to your opinion, as I am mine. You're answer seems to be to cut funding of our military to fund social ventures like this. So be it. I personally don't like the idea of additional spending, but I also recognize that we have aspects of our social services system that are over-funded. I'm ok with using that over-funding in social services to fund aid internationally.
- Yes, sending the money that we would spend on 10k refugees does do more than the 4.5b that we've already spent. It's a direct increase to the funding. So of course it does.
- I don't disagree that it has a much larger impact on their lives, but sending the equivalent funding is going to go further for more people. These are people living in dire straits, the goal isn't to make them lower class US citizens, the goal should be to achieve safety and bare necessities for as many as possible.
- I don't think either of us have the numbers on it, but I'm pretty sure that the funding to integrate 10k refugees in the US far exceeds 6 months in a refugee camp in Turkey for them. Again, back to the crazy sensational examples.

[jsence2]

Account of the end of the fighting last night/this morning

One eyewitness, Christian, 20, gave an account to Le Parisien newspaper. He said: “During a 10 or 15 minute lull in the shooting I heard a woman shouting: ‘Help, help, help me!’ The police asked her to identify herself and to show herself. She showed her hands but she didn’t reveal her face. She withdrew them and then put them up again several times. They shouted at her: ‘Keep your hands in the air!’ They told her: ‘We’re going to shoot.’

“The shooting resumed. The police were firing from the roof of the building opposite. Suddenly there was an enormous explosion [from the window, inside the flat]. It was probably the woman who blew herself up. The windows shattered. Lots of objects from the apartment were thrown into the street, pieces of human flesh as well. They are still there. You can see a bit of the head, of skin, of ribs.”

They're saying over 5,000 rounds of ammunition discharged in the fight, plus grenades, flashbangs, etc. The fighting lasted over two hours.

They also said it's the first female suicide bomber in the history of western Europe

[Seeitsaveit13]

France gets attacked - allows 30 000 refugees in
US doesnt get attacked - multiple states crying over 10k refugees or about 200/state (for 50 states).

How many has Canada brought in (serious question, as I have no clue)?

[nick]

100 billion

[ReignOnU]

France gets attacked - allows 30 000 refugees in
US doesnt get attacked - multiple states crying over 10k refugees or about 200/state (for 50 states).

How many has Canada brought in (serious question, as I have no clue)?

Roughly... 0.

(Edit: just over 3k... of which 1.5k were privately sponsored)

They have a plan to bring in 10k by the end of next summer. Trudeau wants to rush it and bring in something like 25k in a much shorter span, but it's being met with strong opposition.

[nick]

you see how the media has everyone programmed. Its kinda scary. Worrying about hypothetical terrorist attacks that could kill say, 1 to 200 people, and forget that every year theres 12 000 murders in america. Forget that Chicagos ghettos are rivaling Iraq, hence the fucking name Chiraq. Forget about all that stuff and worry about maybe 1 day 1 bad seed being bad.

Also whats funny is, america has terrorist groups. The KKK, the retards at the Baptist church. the Black panthers.

Terrorism is defined as "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." and the KKK and Westboro 100% do that, but no one really cares about the white terrorist groups..

[packsyd2284]

It's a terrible, awful place where we live nick. Be sure to stay as far away from it as possible please.

[jsence2]

George, thoughts? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/n ... tleblowers

As for relocating refugees...I'm torn. I really am. The Christian in me wants to see the people who need the help, genuinely need the help, get helped. The Constitutionalist in me wants to see this done in a way that is legal and just.

The problem is, ISIS and other groups will find loopholes, they will sneak people in, they will reach out (as we now see) to women to use their small children to get into the country and then abandon their children to fight. Is it all of the refugees that would need to be stopped? Of course not. But what happens if we let one get through? There ARE radicals living in America, sleepers, etc. All it will take is one ISIS agent getting through and giving them a link.

That is what these leaders have to face. Their primary goal is the American people. They are sworn to protect American citizens. If you have this great of a risk, how do you balance that responsibility with the humanitarian side of all of this?

I understand both sides of the argument and I honestly don't know how to solve the problem.

[nick]

It's a terrible, awful place where we live nick. Be sure to stay as far away from it as possible please.

next time youre in toronto give me a shout.

[Crowes]

- We can go on and on with other broke systems... like how about the fact that over 100m+ are on welfare, basically more than the population of Russia. We spend over $130b on welfare programs each year. You say that we should cut military spending to fund the VA. Why not ration some of the $130b+ to fund it? Considering we have a welfare system that pays more than an $8 hr job in 39 states and more than a $12 hr job in 6 (as of 2012). Here's a fun fact... welfare benefits pay more than the average salary of a teacher in 8 states. Seems to me that we have some excess spending here.

Im sorry but that is untrue based on what I've read. I've read the same articles and researched them more in depth and their "welfare recipient" that they use to get those figures is someone who qualifies for every single government assistance program the state offers and gets the max benefit. The overwhelming majority of people on government assistance do not get anywhere near that much.

While there is excess in government assistance programs have you looked and the waste that gets thrown out in the military budget? Not the money that goes to rank and file military but what goes to contractors. Start with the Trillions that is unaccounted for since the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the 42 million dollar gas station we just built over there that should have cost 500 grand max. I just haven't squared that circle yet to blame the poor people instead of big corporations getting rich off my tax dollars.

[dakshdar]

George, thoughts? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/n ... tleblowers

As for relocating refugees...I'm torn. I really am. The Christian in me wants to see the people who need the help, genuinely need the help, get helped. The Constitutionalist in me wants to see this done in a way that is legal and just.

The problem is, ISIS and other groups will find loopholes, they will sneak people in, they will reach out (as we now see) to women to use their small children to get into the country and then abandon their children to fight. Is it all of the refugees that would need to be stopped? Of course not. But what happens if we let one get through? There ARE radicals living in America, sleepers, etc. All it will take is one ISIS agent getting through and giving them a link.

That is what these leaders have to face. Their primary goal is the American people. They are sworn to protect American citizens. If you have this great of a risk, how do you balance that responsibility with the humanitarian side of all of this?

I understand both sides of the argument and I honestly don't know how to solve the problem.

ISIS is trying to get in one way or the other. Considering they know that we know that they would try to use the refugee system to their advantage, wouldn't that make it a bad way to go for them as they'd be much more likely to be caught than if they tried to circumvent the system another way by, say, sneaking across the border somewhere that we've shown we can't truly control? Seriously. If we're being told it is the single most intensive screening/vetting process of any individuals entering the US in any way (and it takes 18-24 months to complete the process) does that sound like a path someone that doesn't want to get caught coming in would take?

http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees ... g-process/

[jsence2]

George, thoughts? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/n ... tleblowers

As for relocating refugees...I'm torn. I really am. The Christian in me wants to see the people who need the help, genuinely need the help, get helped. The Constitutionalist in me wants to see this done in a way that is legal and just.

The problem is, ISIS and other groups will find loopholes, they will sneak people in, they will reach out (as we now see) to women to use their small children to get into the country and then abandon their children to fight. Is it all of the refugees that would need to be stopped? Of course not. But what happens if we let one get through? There ARE radicals living in America, sleepers, etc. All it will take is one ISIS agent getting through and giving them a link.

That is what these leaders have to face. Their primary goal is the American people. They are sworn to protect American citizens. If you have this great of a risk, how do you balance that responsibility with the humanitarian side of all of this?

I understand both sides of the argument and I honestly don't know how to solve the problem.

ISIS is trying to get in one way or the other. Considering they know that we know that they would try to use the refugee system to their advantage, wouldn't that make it a bad way to go for them as they'd be much more likely to be caught than if they tried to circumvent the system another way by, say, sneaking across the border somewhere that we've shown we can't truly control? Seriously. If we're being told it is the single most intensive screening/vetting process of any individuals entering the US in any way (and it takes 18-24 months to complete the process) does that sound like a path someone that doesn't want to get caught coming in would take?

http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees ... g-process/

But that's my point. I don't think the people who are already ISIS members would try. I am worried they will find people who are applying, infiltrate their families (possibly either by converting them, or maybe even by holding a member of their family hostage), and get in that way.