# “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 3, 2015)

*“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”*

But keep the Syrians the hell out of here.

It seems Texas is suing the federal government to stop it from re-settling six Syrian refugees. Texas isn't the only state that doesn't want any Syrian refugees, either. There are quite a few, mostly run by republican governors. I'm sure that's a surprise to everyone since republicans have always been so welcoming to immigrants.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 3, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> But keep the Syrians the hell out of here.
> 
> It seems Texas is suing the federal government to stop it from re-settling six Syrian refugees. Texas isn't the only state that doesn't want any Syrian refugees, either. There are quite a few, mostly run by republican governors. I'm sure that's a surprise to everyone since republicans have always been so welcoming to immigrants.




They've had enough tired and poor coming for decades.  Allow them some skilled and middle class or better for a change


----------



## Janx (Dec 3, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> They've had enough tired and poor coming for decades.  Allow them some skilled and middle class or better for a change




There's a reasonable chance that refuges from Syria are professionals etc.  More so than what our odds of such from Mexico are. So that argument is moot.

Additionally, it's a lot of effort to block 6 measly immigrants.  We lose more mexicans in the back of trailer trucks parked in the heat.  If there's some kind of quota of unwanted people, they could easily find 6 and deport them to account for the unwanted influx and TX would improve the quality of its residency.

Much like somebody I know tried to argue to me that Separation of Church and State isn't actually a law, the quote on the Statue of Liberty isn't either.

But they sure are defining statements of how America is supposed to work and how we are supposed to be.


We are supposed to welcome people whose lives suck and be the chance for them to get on their feet.  Yeah, that sometimes floods the workforce with cheap labor. And sometimes bad guys take advantage of the system, like they do any system.  We could spend more time working on finding the bad guys, like the bankers who screwed America, and the nutjobs who keep going postal, a bit less time worrying about a bunch of people who statistically, haven't been much of a problem.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 3, 2015)

Janx said:


> There's a reasonable chance that refuges from Syria are professionals etc.  More so than what our odds of such from Mexico are. So that argument is moot.




It's really only moot if it's guaranteed that they are skilled and middle class or better.



> Much like somebody I know tried to argue to me that Separation of Church and State isn't actually a law, the quote on the Statue of Liberty isn't either.




The separation of church and state isn't written in the Constitution.  It's an invention based on the portion of the Constitution that says that the government can't make laws with respect to establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.  Saying a prayer in school isn't a law, so it doesn't qualify.  The Supreme Court apparently couldn't figure out what was or was not a law, so they just separated it completely with some bench legislation. 



> We are supposed to welcome people whose lives suck and be the chance for them to get on their feet.  Yeah, that sometimes floods the workforce with cheap labor. And sometimes bad guys take advantage of the system, like they do any system.  We could spend more time working on finding the bad guys, like the bankers who screwed America, and the nutjobs who keep going postal, a bit less time worrying about a bunch of people who statistically, haven't been much of a problem.




There was a time when we had plenty of room and resources to welcome all the poor who wanted to come here.  That time no longer exists.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 3, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> There was a time when we had plenty of room and resources to welcome all the poor who wanted to come here.  That time no longer exists.




Syrian refugees do not pose a significant resource burden.  The bulk of the cost of resettling them is already handled by a handful of private organizations.  

Beyond that, the resources actually exist.  We would just prefer those resources stay allocated to a small number of very rich people and corporations.


----------



## Janx (Dec 3, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> It's really only moot if it's guaranteed that they are skilled and middle class or better.




Middle class or better only happens if you have a job at the time.  Nobody coming into the US as a refuge has a job yet.

Given that I was poor until I got my first job at a Fortune 20 company and instantly became upper middle class, the only key attribute that may matter in your argument is being skilled.  Which I was.


There are no guarrantees in life.  Only statistics.  I can easily guess that statistically, the distribution of skillsets and backgrounds is likely higher for people coming from Syria, than from Mexico.  So we're going to get more unskilled labor from Mexico than Syria where folks normal middle class lives were destroyed and they used all their resources to escape.

So statistically, odds are better that 6 Syrian refugees are going to be skilled compared to 6 illegal mexican immigrants because anybody who has skilled in Mexico likely has a stable gig.  Where in Syria, the entire country is unstable, driving everybody out (in fact, people with means are more likely to escape as they have the resources to make the desperate trek in the first place).

In any case, I didn't realize that we didn't have the resources (that private parties have already ponied up per Umbran).  Clearly we live in two different realities.  Yours where we are all crowded elbow to elbow eating scraps, and the one the rest of us live in where somebody is physically holding the resources they intend to hand over to the new comer.  

Which is it?  The man holding the stuff or your delusion that the man's hand is empty?


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 3, 2015)

"Sure, we want immigrants, but not the Scots."

"Sure, we want immigrants, but not the Irish."

"Sure, we want immigrants, but not the Italians."

"Sure, we want immigrants, but not the East Indians."

"Sure, we want immigrants, but not the Syrians."

Every group of immigrants wants to be the last, once they've gotten in. That is true right back to the first group of immigrants. For Canada, at least, the Syrian refugees who the government is proposing to bring in have been in refugee camps for up to 5 years. They are in need and present virtually no chance of being a danger.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 3, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> They've had enough tired and poor coming for decades.  Allow them some skilled and middle class or better for a change



I doubt you, or one of these mostly republican governors, would take the time to determine who is middle class or skilled. The argument these governors are using is that some terrorist is going to sneak in, so all Syrians must be stopped from coming in. They're assuming that all Syrians are potentially terrorist. It would be the same regarding the skill level and socioeconomic status. They'd just assume all immigrants are poor and unskilled.


----------



## Janx (Dec 3, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I doubt you, or one of these mostly republican governors, would take the time to determine who is middle class or skilled. The argument these governors are using is that some terrorist is going to sneak in, so all Syrians must be stopped from coming in. They're assuming that all Syrians are potentially terrorist. It would be the same regarding the skill level and socioeconomic status. They'd just assume all immigrants are poor and unskilled.




I would in fact suspect that people who are stuck in crappyland will begin to feel marginalized and become terrorists.  Our best cure for terrorism is prevention by enabling a better life for those people.


Yeah, I reckon three of those guys might take my job someday because they're better at it than me.  Or that two of those people might need some more help that costs a bit more in taxes.  Or that one of those guys might go nuts.

But it's not like we don't have locals going nuts, so what's one more?


----------



## was (Dec 3, 2015)

Over 4 million people have fled from the conflict in that small middle eastern country.  What happens to Syria when there are not enough Syrians left there to fight for it?


----------



## Janx (Dec 3, 2015)

was said:


> Over 4 million people have fled from the conflict in that small middle eastern country.  What happens to Syria when there are not enough Syrians left there to fight for it?




I'l like to think that they'd then stop fighting since there'd then be so much land per person that surely every remaining person could be happy.

But instead, what's more likely is somebody else will move in to take over, oppress the remaining Syrians and then we'll have a resistance movement with terrorism for the oppressed Syrians to be free.


----------



## was (Dec 3, 2015)

Janx said:


> I'd like to think that they'd then stop fighting since there'd then be so much land per person that surely every remaining person could be happy.
> 
> But instead, what's more likely is somebody else will move in to take over, oppress the remaining Syrians and then we'll have a resistance movement with terrorism for the oppressed Syrians to be free.




..I don't think that ISIS would be content with just Syria.  It's like when the world hoped Hitler would be content with taking just Poland.


----------



## was (Dec 3, 2015)

...The question to me of whether or not to take these immmigrants is not a moral one.  It's more of a logistical one.  We are talking about a struggling economic system where those who receive benefits from it are nearly equal those who pay into it.    

1. The U.S. national debt is approaching $19 trillion (#1 in total amount).  Each citizen's share of this debt is over $58 thousand.

2. The U.S. national population is over 320 million (#3 in the world).

3. Over 35% of the U.S. population is on welfare.

4. Over 49% of the U.S. population receive some form of government assistance.
.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/11/the-2013-index-of-dependence-on-government
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/15/152751116/why-so-many-ph-d-s-are-on-food-stamps
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/santorums-distorted-dependency-claims/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...-households-government-benefits_n_996990.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...eps-128-million-people-on-government-programs


----------



## Morrus (Dec 3, 2015)

was said:


> ...The question to me of whether or not to take these immmigrants is not a moral one.  It's more of a logistical one.  We are talking about a struggling economic system where those who receive benefits from it are nearly equal those who pay into it.




Doing the right thing often hurts.


----------



## was (Dec 3, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Doing the right thing often hurts. The rest of the world has these problems, too. We all should do our part. Hell, France announced it was taking more refugees the day after being attacked.




..I am taking a risk in assuming that your idea of 'doing the right thing' arises a moral perspective rather than an economic one.  

...Not that I am disagreeing with you, but morals differ greatly based upon the culture and the individual.  I am quite sure that there are some very moral folks in both France, and now in San Bernardino, California who disagree that taking in Muslim immigrants is the 'right' thing to do.  

..France's decision to accept these immigrants is laudable, but greatly influenced by the fact that they have the largest Muslim population in western Europe.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/01/09/map-frances-growing-muslim-population/ 

...The argument of 'doing the right thing' falls flat when you are looking at an overburdened economic system on the verge of collapse.  I teach students  every day who are on free breakfast and lunch programs because their parents can't afford to feed them.  I volunteer 2-3 times a month at a local church food kitchen feeding the 'economically challenged' and homeless.  There just never seems to be enough resources to take care of everyone who needs help. 

...Adding another 100,000 people to an already struggling economy makes little sense to me.  Is it morally 'wrong' then to want scarce resources that would be spent in resettling and supporting immigrants to go to the feeding and care of people already struggling to survive in the U.S.?  Should the care of previous waves of immigration (Iraqi, Somalian, Nigerian etc..) suffer for the care of a newer one?

...Please don't think that I am trying to be belligerent.  There just doesn't seem to be any really good answers or solutions.  Dealing with poverty and suffering is overwhelming.  Regardless of how hard it is fought, it never seems to end.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 3, 2015)

was said:


> There just never seems to be enough resources to take care of everyone who needs help.



Oh, there is enough money out there. Its just not being taxed.


----------



## was (Dec 4, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Oh, there is enough money out there. Its just not being taxed.




...and what is taxed, is trapped in a bloated bureaucracy which makes you file 100 forms for every penny and then takes years to approve them.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 4, 2015)

was said:


> ...and what is taxed, is trapped in a bloated bureaucracy which makes you file 100 forms for every penny and then takes years to approve them.




What I get from you moving the goal post is that you agree that the resources are there and aren't being taxed.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 4, 2015)

was said:


> ..I am taking a risk in assuming that your idea of 'doing the right thing' arises a moral perspective rather than an economic one.
> 
> ...Not that I am disagreeing with you, but morals differ greatly based upon the culture and the individual.  I am quite sure that there are some very moral folks in both France, and now in San Bernardino, California who disagree that taking in Muslim immigrants is the 'right' thing to do.
> 
> ...




It is the right thing to do, both morally and economically. In the Western World our demographics are slipping toward greater age. We are not replacing ourselves, as our birth rates are down. Our support systems for old age are predicated upon the current working generation paying for the one that has just retired. In Canada, specifically, our system of health care also operates on this principle. There are fewer in the working generation, now, who must pay for an ever increasing number of older people. Why do you think that France has such a large population of immigrants from the Middle East?

Adding another 100,000 people isn't just the right thing to do; it's a necessity. Add another million. Two million. Demographically speaking, immigrants tend to work harder than domestic workers. They take jobs that domestic workers no longer will. Simply put, they contribute. They build the economy both by working to improve it and spending to support it. Make those new immigrants refugees and they have even more reason to be grateful for the chance, while similarly minimizing the chance that they might be a danger to their new home.


----------



## was (Dec 4, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Sure, and hyperboles make great rebuttals.




..An exaggeration certainly, though a pointed one drawn from personal experiences and those of colleagues.  Obtaining funds from the U.S. government for charitable programs is a nightmare.


----------



## was (Dec 4, 2015)

goldomark said:


> What I get from you moving the goal post is that you agree that the resources are there and aren't being taxed.




..I am expressing a second problem that exacerbates the situation.  First, not enough is taxed.  Second, what is taxed doesn't make it to those in need.


----------



## was (Dec 4, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Adding another 100,000 people isn't just the right thing to do; it's a necessity. Add another million. Two million. Demographically speaking, immigrants tend to work harder than domestic workers. They take jobs that domestic workers no longer will. Simply put, they contribute. They build the economy both by working to improve it and spending to support it. Make those new immigrants refugees and they have even more reason to be grateful for the chance, while similarly minimizing the chance that they might be a danger to their new home.




.. I agree that immigrants do work hard and add value to an economy, WHEN they have employment.  Speaking only from experiences in my area of the U.S., most refugees have had problems securing steady employment.  There's a teacher down the hall from me who immigrated from Iraq.  She teaches eighth-grade Algebra. She's continually telling me about refugees from her community who are unable to find work.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 4, 2015)

was said:


> ...Adding another 100,000 people to an already struggling economy makes little sense to me.




Well, note that in a population of 320 million, 100,000 comes up to be an addition of 0.03%.  That's *three one-hudredths of one percent*.  The economy, as a whole, won't notice their presence.  We are creating something like 100,000 jobs _each month_ at the moment.


----------



## was (Dec 4, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Well, note that in a population of 320 million, 100,000 comes up to be an addition of 0.03%.  That's *three one-hudredths of one percent*.  The economy, as a whole, won't notice their presence.




...We're arguing macro vs. microeconomics here.  If they are resettled in a large urban area, with a large population and a lot of resources, than they are unlikely to make an impact on the area.  If they are relocated to a smaller population area, with fewer people, job opportunities and resources, than their addition becomes a very noticeable drain on the local economy.

...The argument is kind of moot though since the OP was about Dallas.  Dallas should be big enough to take a handful of refugee families, not just these six, without risking economic collapse


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I doubt you, or one of these mostly republican governors, would take the time to determine who is middle class or skilled. The argument these governors are using is that some terrorist is going to sneak in, so all Syrians must be stopped from coming in. They're assuming that all Syrians are potentially terrorist. It would be the same regarding the skill level and socioeconomic status. They'd just assume all immigrants are poor and unskilled.




The governors have a much better chance of determining who is skilled than Obama has of properly vetting them.  Still, the chances of one being a terrorist, while not 0, are still slim.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Well, note that in a population of 320 million, 100,000 comes up to be an addition of 0.03%.  That's *three one-hudredths of one percent*.  The economy, as a whole, won't notice their presence.  We are creating something like 100,000 jobs _each month_ at the moment.




And 5.5% unemployment.  5.5% of 320 million is 17,600,000.  So at 100,000 jobs a month, we will have jobs for these immigrants in, oh, 14.66 years.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 4, 2015)

was said:


> ..An exaggeration certainly, though a pointed one drawn from personal experiences and those of colleagues. Obtaining funds from the U.S. government for charitable programs is a nightmare.



I wasn't talking about charities. They shouldn't get a dime from collective moeny. That money can be more useful in programs.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 4, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> The governors have a *much better chance* of determining who is skilled than Obama has of properly vetting them.



Nope, that's incorrect. Obama is at least trying to determine if they are a security risk, where as the governors haven't bothered to determine if any of these Syrians are skilled or not. Chance of Obama vetting them properly is greater than zero. Chance of these governors determining who is skilled is zero. Greater than zero is a much better than zero. 


> Still, the chances of one being a terrorist, while not 0, are still slim.



Exactly. I'm glad you agree that this is just fear mongering by republicans.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 4, 2015)

was said:


> ..I am expressing a second problem that exacerbates the situation. First, not enough is taxed. Second, what is taxed doesn't make it to those in need.




Lets start with the first one and then we can deal with the hypotheticals afterwards.


----------



## was (Dec 4, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I wasn't talking about charities.




...There may be some confusion about the discussion.  I see that you are posting from Canada.  Let me clarify that I am discussing the U.S. government.  I have no experience with the Canadian government and none of my arguments pertain to it.  If you thought I was commenting about the Canadian government and was offended, then I apologize.

...I am not talking about just charities, though it's surprising how many 'charities' are currently taking  care of people the government let drop through cracks.  The fact is that money, from taxes, set aside by the government to help people often never makes it to those who need it.  

...I am talking about people, both veterans and civilians, having to hire lawyers because the government won't recognize their disabilities or lost their disability payments.

...I am talking about people hiring lawyers because the multiple agencies working for the government 'lost' their student loan payments.

...I am talking about veteran's hospitals being denied access to congressional funds supposedly set aside to pay physicians and upgrade their facilities.  

...I am talking about reservations unable to gain access to their own money through the BIA government red tape to build schools.

...Finally, I am talking about schools struggling to access funds supposedly set aside by the government to fund special programs used for such things such as feeding needy school children.

...The second problem is in no way 'hypothetical' and needs solving first.  More money is great, but doesn't do much good if the government cannot get it to those who need it.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 4, 2015)

was said:


> ...We're arguing macro vs. microeconomics here.




With respect, you were the one who brought up national statistics - you can't argue micro from that.  



> If they are resettled in a large urban area, with a large population and a lot of resources, than they are unlikely to make an impact on the area.  If they are relocated to a smaller population area, with fewer people, job opportunities and resources, than their addition becomes a very noticeable drain on the local economy.




It isn't like they dump then all in just a couple of places, by the thousands.  It's a handful here or there.  They come with support of a sponsor, and support of organizations helping them.  It isn't like they get dropped at the bus stop with a blanket and told to fend for themselves.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 4, 2015)

was said:


> If they are relocated to a smaller population area, with fewer people, job opportunities and resources, than their addition becomes a very noticeable drain on the local economy.



How small of a town does it have to be for 6 people will crush the local economy? Why wouldn't refugees be able to contribute to the local economy? They come in with funds given to them by the fed, and possibly by charities, which can be spent in the local economy. Additionally, the funds that are used to help people aren't limited to funds the local community has. Those funds come from the state and the federal governments. Even if it was a town of only 50 people, they would not be the ones paying for the 6 new residents.


----------



## was (Dec 4, 2015)

Umbran said:


> With respect, you were the one who brought up national statistics - you can't argue micro from that.




..My apologies, I think that I actually argued both but I got my conversation with you mixed up with another one that I was having.  Sorry to be contradictory.  It wasn't intentional.


----------



## was (Dec 4, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> How small of a town does it have to be for 6 people will crush the local economy? Why wouldn't refugees be able to contribute to the local economy? They come in with funds given to them by the fed, and possibly by charities, which can be spent in the local economy. Additionally, the funds that are used to help people aren't limited to funds the local community has. Those funds come from the state and the federal governments. Even if it was a town of only 50 people, they would not be the ones paying for the 6 new residents.




...Was referring to the planned 100,000 immigrants not just the six in Dallas.

...Refugees without employment do not contribute. 

...Applying for and receiving federal aid is a slow process and it isn't very much.  Refugees don't come in with a ton of federal money to support them.  They apply once here.  That leaves them reliant upon local charities and organizations which sponsored them until the federal aid comes through.  Most of whom are churches.  If a church sponsors them, people in the community are taking care of them until the federal aid comes through.  That leaves the people the church usually supports holding the short end of the stick in a small community.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 4, 2015)

was said:


> ...There may be some confusion about the discussion.  I see that you are posting from Canada.  Let me clarify that I am discussing the U.S. government.  I have no experience with the Canadian government and none of my arguments pertain to it.  If you thought I was commenting about the Canadian government and was offended, then I apologize.
> 
> ...I am not talking about just charities, though it's surprising how many 'charities' are currently taking  care of people the government let drop through cracks.  The fact is that money, from taxes, set aside by the government to help people often never makes it to those who need it.
> 
> ...



Blame those who claim to be fiscally responsable and in the name of fiscal responsability put up all sort of hurdles for the needy.


----------



## was (Dec 4, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Blame those who claim to be fiscally responsable and in the name of fiscal responsability put up all sort of hurdles for the needy.




...heh, maybe a fiscally responsible politician is an oxymoron.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 4, 2015)

was said:


> ...That argument was made when we were talking about 100,000 immigrants not six.



Then your argument makes even less sense. The government isn't going to bring in 100,000 immigrants into any city/town, much less a small one. Immigrants and refugees are very different from a status point. 



> ...Refugees without employment do not contribute.



Neither do citizens without employment.



> ...Applying for and receiving federal aid is a slow process and it isn't very much.  Refugees don't come in with a ton of federal money to support them.  They apply once here.  That leaves them reliant upon local charities and organizations which sponsored them until the federal aid comes through.  Most of whom are churches.  If a church sponsors them, people in the community are taking care of them until the federal aid comes through. That leaves the people the church usually supports holding the short end of the stick in a small community.



Are you referring to 6 refugees or 100,000 immigrants that the federal government is dumping in a small town and changing laws to fit your argument? Seriously, pick one and stick with it. with the 6 refugees, the church has made arrangements ahead of time. This isn't something being dumped on their lap out of nowhere. With 100,000 immigrants, you have to call out the church for being run by a bunch of morons that decided to try and provide for more people than their backwater town has.


----------



## was (Dec 4, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Then your argument makes even less sense. The government isn't going to bring in 100,000 immigrants into any city/town, much less a small one. Immigrants and refugees are very different from a status point.
> 
> Neither do citizens without employment.
> 
> Are you referring to 6 refugees or 100,000 immigrants that the federal government is dumping in a small town and changing laws to fit your argument? Seriously, pick one and stick with it. with the 6 refugees, the church has made arrangements ahead of time. This isn't something being dumped on their lap out of nowhere. With 100,000 immigrants, you have to call out the church for being run by a bunch of morons that decided to try and provide for more people than their backwater town has.




...Let's keep the discussion a bit more 'civil' please.  I am a registered Independent, not one of the conservative Republicans you are intent on rabidly attacking in your posts.

...I was engaged in multiple conversations over several pages.  Attempting to wrap all the comments into one argument, will not provide clarity.  To recap, these discussions included:  

...Postulating what would become of Syria with so many of it's people having fled to other countries.
...The fact that a large portion of the wealthy populace avoids paying the taxes needed to improve the current economic crisis.
...The current economic struggles in the U.S. and the inability of the government to get money to the needy.
...The *total *number of refugees the government was planning to bring in, *as well as*, the six mentioned in the article.  
...The impact, in general, of refugees upon small vs. large economies.  
...The inability of refugees to gain meaningful employment.
...The fact that, no, churches *do not* always make the proper arrangements ahead of time. 

...Comments on unemployed citizens does not support accepting unemployed refugees, which would add to the existing economic burden faced by the country.

..I have nothing against accepting the refugees.  I do, however, like to thorougly examine both sides of an issue with an objective eye before making a decision.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 4, 2015)

was said:


> ...You need to realize that I was having multiple conversations.



I'd argue that you need to realize you were having multiple conversations, and the one you were having with me was not the same as the ones you were having with others. I'd like to think that you knew you were having multiple conversations and you obviously recognized you were having multiple conversations, but you gave me responses that included responses related to the 6 refugees and 100,000 immigrants without identifying which was which or why you were doing so.



> ...Postulating what would become of Syria with so many of it's people having fled to other countries.



Not something I was discussing with you. It's pretty obvious if you read our exchanges. 



> ...The fact that a large portion of the wealthy populace avoids the taxes needed to improve the current economic crisis.



Again, not something we were discussing. The responses you gave me had nothing to do with this.



> ...The current economic struggles in the U.S. and the inability of the government to get money to the needy.



This we can discuss as it relates to our conversation. The fact that the government is not able to get money to the people that need it can make it difficult for refugees to be able to come to the U.S. However, refugees don't get to come into the U.S. without some form of preparation, which includes financial preparation. What's actually worse than the government not being able to get money to the people that need it, is that sometimes the government doesn't want to get money to those that need it. That, unfortunately, is something that happens far too often. 



> ...The total number of refugees the government was planning to bring in, as well as, the six mentioned in the article.



You do realize that the 6 are part of the total number the government is planning on bringing in, right?   



> ...The impact, in general, of refugees upon small vs. large economies.



Interesting. When I asked you how small a town would have to be for 6 refugees to disrupt its economy, you said you were referring to 100,000 _immigrants_, which as I pointed out are not the same as immigrants. If you want to discuss how refugees would impact a small vs large economies, you should stick to refugees and not confuse them with immigrants, which as I said, come with a variety of difference.



> ...The inability of refugees to gain meaningful employment.



That's a baseless assumption. There is no reason to believe that refugees would not be able to get jobs. They have a different legal status than other immigrants, and they are able to to legally work.



> ...The fact that, no, churches do not always make the proper arrangements ahead of time.



It's part of the refugee process. If it's not a church, it's some other charity or organization. Some refugees can avoid this if they have family that is willing to sign an affidavit that they will be responsible for the refugees.



> ...Stating that the unemployed do not contribute either is not a conversation point, it's being argumentative.  It also undercuts your position by pointing out that additional refugees would only add to the existing welfare burden.



It seems you keep confusing refugee with immigrants, and most likely illegal immigrants. There is a difference.


----------



## was (Dec 4, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> pretty obvious if you read our exchanges




...What is obvious, is the fact that you are passionate about this issue.  It's also clearly apparent that you have no intention of actually having an open conversation about it.  Since you are determined to take my comments out of context, in order to be derisive and argumentative, I'll terminate my participation in this discussion.

...Good night


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 4, 2015)

was said:


> ...What is obvious, is the fact that you are passionate about this issue.



Passionate? I guess, but not really. Knowledgeable? Yes.


> It's also clearly apparent that you have no intention of actually having an open conversation about it.  Since you are determined to take my comments out of context, in order to be derisive and argumentative, I'll terminate my participation in this discussion.



Not true. I've given you information regarding differences between refugees and immigrants. It seems that you have decided this information is somehow an attack on you. I'm not sure why. 



> ...Good night



Peace out, homie.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 4, 2015)

was said:


> .. I agree that immigrants do work hard and add value to an economy, WHEN they have employment.  Speaking only from experiences in my area of the U.S., most refugees have had problems securing steady employment.  There's a teacher down the hall from me who immigrated from Iraq.  She teaches eighth-grade Algebra. She's continually telling me about refugees from her community who are unable to find work.




Then maybe your area is a poor choice for settlement? Or maybe it's that they are specifically looking for jobs in fields that do not require additional workforce at this time? Or maybe, just maybe, the people having trouble finding work are a representative percentage of the workforce, as a whole, who are having difficulty finding work? There are many explanations for that, which don't support your premise. That's the problem with anecdotal evidence.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 4, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> This we can discuss as it relates to our conversation. The fact that the government is not able to get money to the people that need it can make it difficult for refugees to be able to come to the U.S. However, refugees don't get to come into the U.S. without some form of preparation, which includes financial preparation. What's actually worse than the government not being able to get money to the people that need it, is that sometimes the government doesn't want to get money to those that need it. That, unfortunately, is something that happens far too often.




Not to affirm or refute the quoted text, but as a hook for my reply ...

Cost is a fine approach. But you have to take a wide view when estimating the cost or benefit of a response.

When looking at cost, not bringing in refugees has a cost, too.  Straining foreign relations.  Or making foreigners less likely to help against terrorism, or perhaps encouraging radicalism.

A tragedy of terrorism is that it provokes responses that are self injurious.  The issue wth respect to refugees seems to be a very good example of this.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> It seems you keep confusing refugee with immigrants, and most likely illegal immigrants. There is a difference.




Yeah.  That difference is in why they left their county and our inability to deport them.  

http://www.ssi.org.au/faqs/refugee-faqs/148-what-is-the-difference-between-a-refugee-and-a-migrant

http://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/world/what-is-difference-migrants-refugees/

http://www.unhcr.org/55df0e556.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/world/migrants-refugees-europe-syria.html?_r=0


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> When looking at cost, not bringing in refugees has a cost, too.  Straining foreign relations.  Or making foreigners less likely to help against terrorism, or perhaps encouraging radicalism.




Going into a country and toppling its government promotes radicalism.  However, allowing radicals to take over the middle east also promotes radicalism.  Not taking in refugees does not promote radicalism.  That region already hates us and allowing some refugees in doesn't change that.  With regard to Syria, there really aren't any relations to strain.  With regard to help with terrorism, that region outside of Israel generally only pays lip service with their help anyway.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 4, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Going into a country and toppling its government promotes radicalism.




This I mostly agree with.  In theory, I can see removing a despotic government as a positive, but in practice it doesn't seem to work out.  Removing a representative government certain would promote radicalism.



> However, allowing radicals to take over the middle east also promotes radicalism.




Agreed, but, this statement is nearly meaningless.  "Allowing" implies that a step could be taken to prevent the outcome.  Without comparison to that step, there isn't much to say.



> Not taking in refugees does not promote radicalism.




This I wholly disagree with.  Especially when we convey ourselves as helpful.  Also, making friends with a community would rather seem to improve our effectiveness in working against radicalism (and against terrorism on the whole).



> That region already hates us and allowing some refugees in doesn't change that.




I dunno about that.  Certainly lots of folks in the world are unhappy with us.  But generalizing that to the region seems a stretch.



> With regard to Syria, there really aren't any relations to strain.  With regard to help with terrorism, that region outside of Israel generally only pays lip service with their help anyway.




Also, I wholly disagree with this.  Relations aren't just with Syria the country, but with many different groups in and about Syria, and with other countries all over the world.  Russia and China, the EU, &etc.  There is a whole tapestry of relations to consider.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Valador (Dec 4, 2015)

As a veteran and a Texan, I do not feel we should allow any "refugees" in when we have tons of homeless civilians and even worse, homeless veterans living on the streets with very little support. These people fought for their country and are living on the streets, meanwhile we're giving handouts to people who fled their country rather than fight for it. Screw that.

You see photos of all these refugees and 95% of them are fighting age men. Where are the women and children? Fight for your damn country.

I'm tired of the USA trying to wipe everyones butt and change their diapers. Stop trying to be big brother and world police. We need to focus on making our nation great again.

This is coming from someone who experiences dealing with tons of immigrants. I've also served in the US Army and have seen a big chunk of our world and it's people. You would be amazed at how much money and support we give to our "allies" and yet there's really nothing given in return from a lot of them, i.e. a lot of these poor Eastern European countries that look like a Soviet version of Fallout 3. Half the people we're allied with I wouldn't even want fighting beside us, as they would be more of a hindrance.

But, it's not my call... Every time someone gets hit by a tsunami we're going to send them a ton of money. Any time people refuse to fight for their own people and country we're going to baby them. Any time two idiot countries fight we're going to provide weapons to them, creating terrorist cells in the process, all while trying to take the guns away from our people here at home. I never see countries lining up to help out the USA in hard times...

The USA has fallen a long way, especially now with all of the mess revolving around Islamic extremist. I know here locally where I live people are trying to establish Sharia courts... GTFO of here...

End rant...


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 4, 2015)

You see, this is the sort of rant that sets me off. When Hurricane Katrina hit, there were non American rescue workers on-site. More than one thousand Canadian emergency workers, Coast Guard, and military personnel were there. Vancouver's HUSAR team was there before the US Federal Government's response. When the towers fell, hundreds of Canadian emergency workers jumped in cars, buses, fire trucks... whatever came to hand, and responded. Regular citizens in Newfoundland put up hundreds of Americans who were stuck when flights were grounded after the attacks. Canadians helped rebuild in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. When America needs help, they get it.

As to the "disarming of America" it wouldn't be necessary to change the way that you think about firearms, if you weren't killing each other with them in ridiculously high numbers.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 4, 2015)

> You see photos of all these refugees and 95% of them are fighting age men. Where are the women and children? Fight for your damn country.




95% are fighting age men?  What? And you're basing all this on a couple of photographs you saw? There are LOTS of women and children refugees. Where are you imagining they disappeared to? Are the 95% fighting age men hiding them in suitcases?



> You would be amazed at how much money and support we give to our "allies" and yet there's really nothing given in return from a lot of them,




Guess what, us "allies" (scare quotes? what's that about?) have assisted you, come to your aid, and fought in your wars for you. And this is how you respond?  Really?



> But, it's not my call... Every time someone gets hit by a tsunami we're going to send them a ton of money. Any time people refuse to fight for their own people and country we're going to baby them. Any time two idiot countries fight we're going to provide weapons to them, creating terrorist cells in the process, all while trying to take the guns away from our people here at home. I never see countries lining up to help out the USA in hard times...




You never see countries lining up to help out the USA in hard times? Really? _Really?_ You'd have to try *very* hard not to see all the aid you were given after Katrina, after 9/11, how we've all supported your wars. Money, food, manpower, military aid, the works; not to mention the regular folks like me who gave charitable donations to help you, although that's just small potatoes to what plenty did to help you.

And you saw none of this? And you saw no women and children in any refugee photographs, so therefore there aren't any? And you refer to us, your allies, as "allies" in sarcastic scare quotes?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 4, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Not taking in refugees does not promote radicalism.




Says the man who has not been displaced from his life and job by war, and spent years living in tent cities and/or as an indigent, while people drop bombs back on the homeland that each cost the equivalent of several years of your income...

As if that kind of life wouldn't, over *years* not make someone rather angry?  Really?


----------



## Valador (Dec 4, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> As to the "disarming of America" it wouldn't be necessary to change the way that you think about firearms, if you weren't killing each other with them in ridiculously high numbers.




Because banning or restricting something really makes it impossible for people to obtain said things. Tell me how well that has worked out for the people in Paris. You know what stops a bad guy with a gun? A good guy with a gun. Not laws taking away their guns, because people will still get them illegally. 

A person could take their car for a spin and drive over dozens of people if they so desired. Should we start banning cars now too? Should we ban the sale of every day household items that in proper combination create bombs? While we're at it, let's ban the internet for teaching us how to create weapons. I have never seen a gun grow legs and go around killing people on its own. I own weapons for personal protection and the ability to protect my family in our home. This is my constitutional right.

The REAL problem is not gun access. The real problem is that people are crazy. Since the beginning of time until the end of time. You cannot hope to successfully control the majority because of the actions of a few. Take guns away and people will find other ways to murder people. Whether that's on a smaller or larger scale will simply depend on that persons commitment.


----------



## Valador (Dec 4, 2015)

I can tell a lot of people here have never been shot at or had dealings with REAL people from these troubled parts of the world. Also all of the non-Americans here apparently have masters degrees on all things relating to the USA. Maybe the next time a war rolls around in your backyard America won't be there to come save the day, since you know we're all too busy fighting ourselves while sending our money to people who have no right to it. 

No one likes America until they need help.

As much as I'd love to waste my work break arguing, I really need to go do something productive, which as you may find surprising, is not senselessly shooting people.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 4, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Says the man who has not been displaced from his life and job by war, and spent years living in tent cities and/or as an indigent, while people drop bombs back on the homeland that each cost the equivalent of several years of your income...
> 
> As if that kind of life wouldn't, over *years* not make someone rather angry?  Really?




I think it's a tad disingenuous to claim that those effects are solely because the US didn't take you in as a refugee.

I think we should take the refugees.  I also think that, by doing so, we will expose ourselves to increased risk, so there are valid arguments on the other side that shouldn't be dismissed casually.  I think that the advocates of bringing in refugees are doing themselves an active disservice by being dismissive and insulting of people who have legitimate, even if unlikely, fears.  A better approach would be to do what's reasonable and necessary to assuage those fears while still bringing in refugees.  I think the Administration's approach of simultaneously admitting that they cannot vet the refugees thoroughly, admitting that ISIS will likely infiltrate the refugee population to some extent, and then treating people that are upset over those two facts as hateful and stupid is counterproductive.  Instead they should be advertising their focus on how they're improving the vetting methods, how refugees will be added to the country, working with governors that have issues to solve them rather than railroad them, and be as open as possible that the need to accept the refugees is central to a combine and rational set of policies for defeating ISIS and solving the issues of radical Islam.  Of course, that would also involve a plan to deal with ISIS, which I think the administration was avoiding while hoping ISIS would solve their Assad problem, but that ship has sailed and they need to get to it.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 4, 2015)

Valador said:


> Because banning or restricting something really makes it impossible for people to obtain said things. Tell me how well that has worked out for the people in Paris. You know what stops a bad guy with a gun? A good guy with a gun. Not laws taking away their guns, because people will still get them illegally.
> 
> A person could take their car for a spin and drive over dozens of people if they so desired. Should we start banning cars now too? Should we ban the sale of every day household items that in proper combination create bombs? While we're at it, let's ban the internet for teaching us how to create weapons. I have never seen a gun grow legs and go around killing people on its own. I own weapons for personal protection and the ability to protect my family in our home. This is my constitutional right.
> 
> The REAL problem is not gun access. The real problem is that people are crazy. Since the beginning of time until the end of time. You cannot hope to successfully control the majority because of the actions of a few. Take guns away and people will find other ways to murder people. Whether that's on a smaller or larger scale will simply depend on that persons commitment.




Let me first state that I am a firearm owner (two rifles and a pistol), under Canadian law.

Ah, yes. The oft repeated meme of "the good guy with a gun." The only problem is that, in practice, this does not actually occur except in a tiny minority of cases. How do you really stop the bad guy with a gun? Perhaps by doing some basic checks to see if he's a bad guy, before he can get a gun? Background checks? When I was in grade 5, back in 1975, a kid named Michael Slobodian went to a school just a couple of miles away and opened up with the guns he had brought to school in a guitar case. Canada's response? Basic checks on people who wanted to buy firearms. America's response to similar issues? "More guns!" Which way seems to have worked better?

Sure, a person can jump into their car and start driving over people, just 'cause. It even happens once in a while. We haven't seen a radical rise in people driving over someone who they want to kill, because that person couldn't get a gun instead. We haven't seen a huge rise in kitchen knife murders as a result of our basic controls on firearms. People aren't cooking up bathtub explosives because the corner gun shop wouldn't sell them a Glock. That logic is demonstrably fallacious.

If the real problem is that people are crazy, stop allowing the sale of firearms to crazy people. Seems like a no-brainer to me.



Valador said:


> I can tell a lot of people here have never been shot at or had dealings with REAL people from these troubled parts of the world. Also all of the non-Americans here apparently have masters degrees on all things relating to the USA. Maybe the next time a war rolls around in your backyard America won't be there to come save the day, since you know we're all too busy fighting ourselves while sending our money to people who have no right to it.
> 
> No one likes America until they need help.
> 
> As much as I'd love to waste my work break arguing, I really need to go do something productive, which as you may find surprising, is not senselessly shooting people.




It has nothing to do with "a masters degrees on all things relating to the USA." It has everything to do with having experience with things that are not based on American stereotypes, that have actually worked elsewhere.


----------



## Valador (Dec 4, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> If the real problem is that people are crazy, stop allowing the sale of firearms to crazy people. Seems like a no-brainer to me.




One more before I take off... 

I fully agree, to an extent. It's HARD to tell who's crazy. Can you walk around Wal Mart and successfully identify every person who is crazy that you walk past? A lot of "crazy" people have no criminal records nor have they shown any extreme warning signs. I fully agree that guns should be heavily regulated, but it's not going to stop people obtaining guns illegally. It's not going to stop the guy from the movie "Falling Down" who just loses his mind one day and goes on a rampage. It's not going to stop the bullied kid who breaks into his dads gun cabinet/safe and goes and shoots up all the people who picked on him at school.

Without profiling or blatant discrimination, you can't really deny someone because they could POSSIBLY turn crazy some point in life.

I don't think we have the best means available right now to regulate illegal gun usage. Hopefully in the sci-fi future we have some kind of smart gun with a computer in it to regulate situations, have a remote kill switch, etc. Something to physically disable a gun that's being used illegally. Even then, people will find a way around it.

Guns are deeply embedded in American law/culture. I cannot see a feasible near future where there are no guns.

PS - To the OP, I apologize for getting off topic. I'll stay on topic now.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 4, 2015)

Valador said:


> I can tell a lot of people here have never been shot at or had dealings with REAL people from these troubled parts of the world. Also all of the non-Americans here apparently have masters degrees on all things relating to the USA. Maybe the next time a war rolls around in your backyard America won't be there to come save the day, since you know we're all too busy fighting ourselves while sending our money to people who have no right to it.
> 
> No one likes America until they need help.
> 
> As much as I'd love to waste my work break arguing, I really need to go do something productive, which as you may find surprising, is not senselessly shooting people.




Address the argument, not the personality of the poster, please.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 4, 2015)

Valador said:


> One more before I take off...
> 
> I fully agree, to an extent. It's HARD to tell who's crazy. Can you walk around Wal Mart and successfully identify every person who is crazy that you walk past? A lot of "crazy" people have no criminal records nor have they shown any extreme warning signs. I fully agree that guns should be heavily regulated, but it's not going to stop people obtaining guns illegally. It's not going to stop the guy from the movie "Falling Down" who just loses his mind one day and goes on a rampage. It's not going to stop the bullied kid who breaks into his dads gun cabinet/safe and goes and shoots up all the people who picked on him at school.
> 
> ...




Generally speaking if someone spends more than 30 minutes in a Wal-Mart, I'm going to assume that they're crazy. I think that the  RCMP background checks and the conversation I was required to have with my local Firearms Officer, who was a highly trained and experienced member of my local police department, has a much better chance of determining if I might be lococookoo, or prone to violence. It works. America needs to realize that it's the Culture of the Gun, that enables the ability of criminals to obtain firearms so easily. We have guns. We have basic controls. As a result we have a fraction of your per capita murder rate (and not just from gun crime).

Our biggest issue up here is with illegal firearms, most frequently in the hands of gang members who have brought them up from the US. Some were legally owned firearms that are stolen from their owners, but smuggling from the US is a larger concern.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 4, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Yeah.  That difference is in why they left their county and our inability to deport them.



Great OTTering up, brosef. The links you posted are fairly good at showing the differences between immigrants and refugees. I guess you'd rather make provocative statements rather than reading the articles you linked and understanding the differences.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 4, 2015)

Valador said:


> I can tell a lot of people here have never been shot at or had dealings with REAL people from these troubled parts of the world. Also all of the non-Americans here apparently have masters degrees on all things relating to the USA. Maybe the next time a war rolls around in your backyard America won't be there to come save the day, since you know we're all too busy fighting ourselves while sending our money to people who have no right to it.
> 
> No one likes America until they need help.
> 
> As much as I'd love to waste my work break arguing, I really need to go do something productive, which as you may find surprising, is not senselessly shooting people.




After thinking about it, starting an argument by posting a xenophobic screed, followed by a post insulting and disparaging half the people in the thread, and then running off claiming you're too busy to argue is not debate; it's pretty much the definition of a drive-by trolling. Do not post in this thread again, please. 

Everyone else, please do not respond to those posts. Move on with the conversation.  Thanks.


----------



## Nagol (Dec 4, 2015)

*edit post removed -- started before Morrus' request, posted after.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 4, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> I think it's a tad disingenuous to claim that those effects are solely because the US didn't take you in as a refugee.




Who said *solely*?  Because, guess what, it wasn't me!  Please don't over-simplify what folks say - these topics are difficult enough to get through without having to spend effort knocking down strawmen.



> I think we should take the refugees.  I also think that, by doing so, we will expose ourselves to increased risk, so there are valid arguments on the other side that shouldn't be dismissed casually.




Statistically speaking, as has already been discussed, the evidence is that refugees are *less* likely - *half as likely!* -  to be terrorists than our own male citizens.  And, using the refugee-path, with its long-timescale, risk of being caught in vetting, and indeterminate destination (the refugee doesn't get to pick where they go), is a pretty nonsensical route for terrorists planning something.  

Be that as it may, consider this:  Leaving people in harsh circumstances promotes radicalism, despite Maxperson's assertions otherwise.  That increases risk.  If the risk of bringing some in is less than the risk of leaving them in place, then taking on refugees is, in fact, the less risky path!



> I think that the advocates of bringing in refugees are doing themselves an active disservice by being dismissive and insulting of people who have legitimate, even if unlikely, fears.




As far as data shows, these fears are legitimate only in the sense that phobias are legitimate - the person is actually experiencing the emotion of fear.  That is, if their objection is actually rooted in fear, as opposed to racism, which has more roots in disgust than it does in fear.  

We've presented reasoned arguments that the fear is hyperbolic.  That's not being dismissive, that's actually trying to address the concerns.  



> A better approach would be to do what's reasonable and necessary to assuage those fears while still bringing in refugees.




Problem - with an unreasonable fear, you probably don't assuage it with reasonable action.  That's kind of the definition of unreasonable fear.

Ultimately, real policy should be based on evidence, not on imagined risks.  Assuaging unreasonable fears is, honestly, security theater - it has proven expensive, both in terms of money, and imposition on our freedoms, and should not be undertaken when it gets in the way of actually reducing security.  The TSA at airports are a fine example - with their extra measures and complications, they make is *easier* to slip contraband past than earlier, simpler processes did.


----------



## Janx (Dec 4, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Doing the right thing often hurts.




I was going to say something like this awhile back in this topic.  I'm glad you said it.

As I said way back on this topic.  

America is Separation of Church and State.  At all levels.  Even Businesses.  Somebody in authority over you must not have the power to force their religious beliefs and restrictions on you (looking at you Hobby Lobby).

America is Generosity and New Beginnings.  As this thread's title says, we welcome everybody and give them a chance to join us.  It's on a statue because it embodies a core idea.

America is Fair.  We hold these truths to be self evident.  We don't quibble over Person vs. Citizen.  Everybody gets to vote.  Everybody gets to marry who they love.  Everybody gets a fair and timely trial instead of waiting for a decade to be charged in our court.


Holding to these principals is not convenient.  It never is.  Every time we stray from them, we stumble and tarnish our nation's dignity.

That means yes, we let refugees in.  And yes, one of them might be a bad guy.  Just like we also let our people have weapons.  And one of them might be a bad guy.  Because bad guys are bad.  And bad guys do bad things.  

Surely, we can take some precautions, but we must never be afraid to do the right thing by the principals our nation was founded on.  We must always strive to choose to do the hard thing if it is just.

That's what it is to be an American.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 4, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Who said *solely*?  Because, guess what, it wasn't me!  Please don't over-simplify what folks say - these topics are difficult enough to get through without having to spend effort knocking down strawmen.



Like you did when you made the statement regarding lack of additional radicalization if not accepted as refugees?  Clearly your intent was to counter that statement, and you did so by explaining how horrible other people made it for refugees over there with the clear implication that by not rescuing them, we're contributing to their radicalization on a non-trivial basis?  Yeah, I think I was being perfectly fair in my characterization of your post.  If you'd like to give a more detailed and nuanced version instead of complaining I took your drive-by incorrectly, I'll be glad to listen and reconsider.




> Statistically speaking, as has already been discussed, the evidence is that refugees are *less* likely - *half as likely!* -  to be terrorists than our own male citizens.  And, using the refugee-path, with its long-timescale, risk of being caught in vetting, and indeterminate destination (the refugee doesn't get to pick where they go), is a pretty nonsensical route for terrorists planning something.



This is essentially saying 'well, if we guess these things, then we can show you a model with these guesses and it will say that you're probably, maybe, most likely but not quite, a little bit wrong."  Statistical analysis doesn't remove the possibility, nor does it have any ability to correct anything.  The threat still exists, and it's rational to be concerned about it.  The proper response to people being concerned about a real threat, however unlikely, is not to do a statistical analysis and tell them they're wrong because of your guesses.

And the ideology we're discussing has already shown that it doesn't mind waiting for a payoff.  It's very patient and doesn't think like you do.   So thinking that you'd not take that route as its not very efficient doesn't mean they don't think otherwise.  They think like a nation-state -- the long run.  Getting agents in with covers given to them by the target state is optimal.   Waiting two years and doing some work to get that isn't much of a concern -- it's just one arrow, not the whole plan.



> Be that as it may, consider this:  Leaving people in harsh circumstances promotes radicalism, despite Maxperson's assertions otherwise.  That increases risk.  If the risk of bringing some in is less than the risk of leaving them in place, then taking on refugees is, in fact, the less risky path!



People in non-harsh circumstances are being radicalized as well, though, so I don't think that's a winner of an argument.




> As far as data shows, these fears are legitimate only in the sense that phobias are legitimate - the person is actually experiencing the emotion of fear.  That is, if their objection is actually rooted in fear, as opposed to racism, which has more roots in disgust than it does in fear.
> 
> We've presented reasoned arguments that the fear is hyperbolic.  That's not being dismissive, that's actually trying to address the concerns.



This is exactly why people aren't listening to you -- medicalizing people's fears is not a useful way to change minds.  This leads me to believe that the desire isn't to change minds and reach a workable solution for everyone, but rather to make fun of people that don't think like you be treating them as if they're defective.  You're not looking for a solution, you're looking to say your right and those people are crazy.





> Problem - with an unreasonable fear, you probably don't assuage it with reasonable action.  That's kind of the definition of unreasonable fear.



You're the person that's said the fear is reasonable.  I happen to think it's very reasonable -- that area is controlled, in part, by an ideology that wants to do people in this country as much harm as possible.  Those people have said that they will use the refugees as a way to inflict that harm.  They have recently shown that they can, in fact, inflict harm on others, both in France and now in California.  That those persons weren't refugees is beside the point -- it's rational to be concerned about a process that has admitted holes and an inability vet refugees that will let refugees into the country with possible terror minded inflitrators in place.

I don't share that fear, mostly because I recognize that it's a small risk with a large enough benefit to offset it, but I also recognize that I might be wrong about that.  I hope I'm not, but I can see that there's a rational fear of that out there.  My response to that, even as I disagree with it, is to find ways to make that fear less rather than tell people that are afraid that they're crazy and are unamerican.  



> Ultimately, real policy should be based on evidence, not on imagined risks.  Assuaging unreasonable fears is, honestly, security theater - it has proven expensive, both in terms of money, and imposition on our freedoms, and should not be undertaken when it gets in the way of actually reducing security.  The TSA at airports are a fine example - with their extra measures and complications, they make is *easier* to slip contraband past than earlier, simpler processes did.



_All _risks are imagined until they occur.  And asserting that the only way to assuage fears over a system that is barely functional and has many holes, like our vetting process, is to engage in security theater is a justification to continue on your chosen route of insulting people that disagree with your preferred policy options for no better reason than they disagree with you.  

And I make that statement because you're here, explaining to me why I'm wrong, not because I disagree with your policy choice, but because my method actually treats people who disagree as having worthwhile complaints that should be addressed respectfully.  Instead you've decided they're unreasonable and should just be pushed to the side in the pursuit of the proper course of action.  I advocate treating them with respect and discussion, and you say 'no, not worth it, they're crazy and won't change.'  Yeah.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 4, 2015)

was said:


> ...heh, maybe a fiscally responsible politician is an oxymoron.




Only when what is considered fiscally responsable is just ideology and not actual economics.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 4, 2015)

> Ultimately, real policy should be based on evidence, not on imagined risks. Assuaging unreasonable fears is, honestly, security theater - it has proven expensive, both in terms of money, and imposition on our freedoms, and should not be undertaken when it gets in the way of actually reducing security. The TSA at airports are a fine example - with their extra measures and complications, they make is *easier* to slip contraband past than earlier, simpler processes did.






Ovinomancer said:


> _All _risks are imagined until they occur.  And asserting that the only way to assuage fears over a system that is barely functional and has many holes, like our vetting process, is to engage in security theater is a justification to continue on your chosen route of insulting people that disagree with your preferred policy options for no better reason than they disagree with you.




Language police here.  "Imagined" in the first quote is in the sense of "imaginary", or "made up".

"Imagined" in the second is mis-applied.  "Risk" is an abstract concept, and never "occurs".  Risk (in the current context) is "risk of harm", or, say, "risk of a terrorist shooting".  The think that is envisioned and not real until it occurs is the harm (say, a terrorist shooting).  But to say that an envisioned thing is not real until it happens doesn't say hardly anything.

Also, the sense that "risk" is not, in a sense, a very measurable and "real" thing is false.  As applied to a population, say, the risk of contracting cancer as a member of a risk group, can be a very real thing which should be heeded.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> You see, this is the sort of rant that sets me off. When Hurricane Katrina hit, there were non American rescue workers on-site. More than one thousand Canadian emergency workers, Coast Guard, and military personnel were there. Vancouver's HUSAR team was there before the US Federal Government's response. When the towers fell, hundreds of Canadian emergency workers jumped in cars, buses, fire trucks... whatever came to hand, and responded. Regular citizens in Newfoundland put up hundreds of Americans who were stuck when flights were grounded after the attacks. Canadians helped rebuild in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. When America needs help, they get it.
> 
> As to the "disarming of America" it wouldn't be necessary to change the way that you think about firearms, if you weren't killing each other with them in ridiculously high numbers.




Yep.  They donated about 20-30 million in cash and sent some supplies.  Big whoop.  The U.S. and U.S. organizations gave 3.16 billion for the Tsunami relief for the 2004 tsunami.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 4, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Language police here.  "Imagined" in the first quote is in the sense of "imaginary", or "made up".
> 
> "Imagined" in the second is mis-applied.  "Risk" is an abstract concept, and never "occurs".  Risk (in the current context) is "risk of harm", or, say, "risk of a terrorist shooting".  The think that is envisioned and not real until it occurs is the harm (say, a terrorist shooting).  But to say that an envisioned thing is not real until it happens doesn't say hardly anything.
> 
> ...




Disagree, the risk remains in imaginary space.  Getting cancer happens in real space and has no causal link to the risk of getting cancer, only to the actual causes of your cancer.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 4, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Like you did when you made the statement regarding lack of additional radicalization if not accepted as refugees?




Um, no.  Look again at what I was responding to:  



			
				Maxperson said:
			
		

> Not taking in refugees does not promote radicalism.




That's flat, absolute, as presented in the text.  There's no qualifiers, no wiggle room.   He didn't say, "doesn't strongly promote," or "rarely promotes".   It is a complete rejection, as written.  Very difficult to oversimplify, given it's extreme simplicity.  Please, inform us on how I oversimplified or otherwise mis-characterized this very simple statement.  

All I did was paint a picture that might suggest to someone who has a little empathy that perhaps it isn't so absolute.   I did not say this was the *only* contributor, or that the US was the *only* country on the hook for dealing with it.  Nor did I assert any other absolute in my response.

But, you turned that into *solely* anyway.  



> Clearly your intent was to counter that statement




Yes.  But, the counter to an absolute does not need to be another absolute - all it requires is a single case.  Recognition that these things aren't all-or-nothing would allow us to quibble over how much each issue contributes to radicalization, and how cost-effective each preventive measure is.  

I recognize that countering an absolute with another is common on the internet, but it did not happen here.  Until such time as you recognize that, your position is a strawman, and does not otherwise call for rebuttal.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 4, 2015)

*“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”*



Maxperson said:


> Yep.  They donated about 20-30 million in cash and sent some supplies.  Big whoop.




How ungrateful.


----------



## darjr (Dec 4, 2015)

He doesn't represent me. I was never the recipient of any aid but I'm grateful for all of it.


----------



## Cor Azer (Dec 5, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Yep.  They donated about 20-30 million in cash and sent some supplies.  Big whoop.  The U.S. and U.S. organizations gave 3.16 billion for the Tsunami relief for the 2004 tsunami.




I'm not an economist by any means, but I don't think it's a poor assumption that the US has a slightly larger GDP (or whatever metric is used to measure the size of an economy) than even some other first world countries like Canada and the UK; sometimes looking at percentages is more telling than the absolute numbers.

There's an old parable about who's more generous - the man with a million dollars who donates $200, or the beggar with $100 to his name but donates it all?


----------



## Nagol (Dec 5, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Yep.  They donated about 20-30 million in cash and sent some supplies.  Big whoop.  The U.S. and U.S. organizations gave 3.16 billion for the Tsunami relief for the 2004 tsunami.




Actually about $850 million was pledged.  About half that was collected by the U.S. and those figures do not include the emergency relief manpower sent in the immediate aftermath or aid collected by non-government agencies.



			
				Wikipedia: International response to Hurricane Katrina said:
			
		

> An article in the April 29, 2007 Washington Post claimed that of the $854 million offered by foreign countries, whom the article dubs "allies," to the US Government, only $40 million of the funds had been spent "for disaster victims or reconstruction" as of the date of publication (less than 5%).[57]
> 
> Additionally, a large portion of the $854 million in aid offered went uncollected, including over $400 million in oil (almost 50%).[57]


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 5, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Says the man who has not been displaced from his life and job by war, and spent years living in tent cities and/or as an indigent, while people drop bombs back on the homeland that each cost the equivalent of several years of your income...
> 
> As if that kind of life wouldn't, over *years* not make someone rather angry?  Really?




There's a big difference between a few people being that bitter and something that actually promotes radicalism.  The existence of Cherios can cause some people to buy it.  Ads about Cherios promote it.  Our refusal would not be a promotion of radicalism.  It just wouldn't.  Would a few already mentally unstable people go radical and blame us instead of the multiple other countries refusing to take them in?  Sure.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 5, 2015)

Morrus said:


> How ungrateful.




Let me backpedal a bit.  I was responding to a post that implied that the aid sent to us was somehow equal to what we send.  It isn't even remotely close.  As a comparison, the amount we received amounted to a "big whoop."  It was in that context that I responded.  

Of course I appreciate and am grateful for help, no matter the amount.  That said, I do believe that we need to take care of our own homeless and impoverished before we take care of those from other countries.  We have the ability to do both, but it would mean we do less (not nothing) for others.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 5, 2015)

Nagol said:


> Actually about $850 million was pledged.  About half that was collected by the U.S. and those figures do not include the emergency relief manpower sent in the immediate aftermath or aid collected by non-government agencies.






> An article in the April 29, 2007 Washington Post claimed that of the $854 million offered by foreign countries, whom the article dubs "allies," to the US Government, only $40 million of the funds had been spent "for disaster victims or reconstruction" as of the date of publication (less than 5%).[57]
> 
> Additionally, a large portion of the $854 million in aid offered went uncollected, including over $400 million in oil (almost 50%).[57]




So 40 million was spent on recovery over three years.  Did that article say why the money wasn't collected?


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 5, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> There's a big difference between a few people being that bitter and something that actually promotes radicalism.  The existence of Cherios can cause some people to buy it.  Ads about Cherios promote it.  Our refusal would not be a promotion of radicalism.  It just wouldn't.  Would a few already mentally unstable people go radical and blame us instead of the multiple other countries refusing to take them in?  Sure.




There is another way to think about what you wrote.  Instead of looking at whether not taking refugees promotes radicalism, look at whether taking them in undercuts it, then whether not taking them in is a failure to undercut radicalism.  That may seem awfully picky about word choice, since the measurable outcome may be the same, but the meanings are very different.

Thx
TomB


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 5, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> There is another way to think about what you wrote.  Instead of looking at whether not taking refugees promotes radicalism, look at whether taking them in undercuts it, then whether not taking them in is a failure to undercut radicalism.  That may seem awfully picky about word choice, since the measurable outcome may be the same, but the meanings are very different.
> 
> Thx
> TomB




This is the way I see it.   Russia has refused Syrian refugees.  Israel has refused to take Syrian refugees.  If someone will be radicalized by a refusal to take refugees, it's going to happen anyway and Israel is a bigger focal point of hatred than even the U.S.  If they aren't going to be radicalized by a refusal by any country, but only a refusal by the U.S., then their hatred is already set and they'll most likely radicalize anyway.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 5, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> This is the way I see it.   Russia has refused Syrian refugees.  Israel has refused to take Syrian refugees.  If someone will be radicalized by a refusal to take refugees, it's going to happen anyway and Israel is a bigger focal point of hatred than even the U.S.  If they aren't going to be radicalized by a refusal by any country, but only a refusal by the U.S., then their hatred is already set and they'll most likely radicalize anyway.




What if the the effect of radicalism happens without our doing anything?  There are lots of actors who are not the US promoting it.  We could do things to promote it, but let's say we aren't doing any such things.

Then what if we could do things to undercut it?  And what if taking in refugees is one such thing?

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Jester David (Dec 5, 2015)

The refugee issue makes me sad. This has been repeated time and time again, and history is never favourable to turning a blind eye to human suffering. We don't need to look back too far to see the horror that often happens from refusing aid, with the most famous reminder being that Anne Frank and her family were refused entry into the US:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-annefrank-letters-idUSN1430569220070214

How many Anne Franks are we turning away this time?



Maxperson said:


> That said, I do believe that we need to take care of our own homeless and impoverished before we take care of those from other countries.  We have the ability to do both, but it would mean we do less (not nothing) for others.



I hate that argument/ talking point. 

As you say, it's possible to do both. Amazing things could be done domestically to help the homeless for a few hundred million. 
But most of the time it's just a dismissal. If something were done locally it'd be different, but too often there's no follow through or attempt to actually help the disenfranchised. ("Yeah, I _could_ wash the dishes. But why should I do the dishes when I'm haven't vacuumed? I should do the vacuuming before I do the dishes. So off to Netflix I guess.")

Also, it's really, really insulting. Super insulting. It's effectively equating the two problems, and thus comparing refugees to the homeless. 
That's super problematic as the two groups are very different. The homeless issue is incredibly complex and "fixing" it involves touching on a whole lot of problems including treating mental illness, addiction, social support systems, rent programs, employment programs, and so many other factors. It's really hard for a federal government to fix when so much involves many different departments, state/provincial groups, and local cooperation.
Meanwhile, the refugee problem is much simpler. The why they have no homes and jobs is apparent. And making progress on fixing the issue can be handled federally or more locally. 

Also, refugees are brave people. They're giving up everything to leave their homes and travel across the world in the hopes of a better life. They're dedicated, driven, and ambitious. That's the kind of people you need and want in your countries. The kind of people who aren't going to just sit and accept a bad life but actively try to improve their situation. 
(Which might be why, historically, following an influx of refugees a county's economic situation has generally improved.)

They're also pretty anti-ISIS and terror. If they were pro-terror the easy way to improve their life would have been to stay home and join a local militia or cell. But they chose the opposite route. They actively chose a different path. Again, those are people you want to support.


----------



## Nagol (Dec 5, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> So 40 million was spent on recovery over three years.  Did that article say why the money wasn't collected?




Seemingly multiple hundreds of millions received and 40 million spent by the article's publication, yes.

Not specifically stated, but there a bunch  of typical reasons:

1) the pledge can't be delivered without running afoul of other laws.  Part of Britain's pledge was pre-packaged meals which couldn't be imported because of Mad Cow importation restrictions, for example.
2) political shifts in the pledging country between when the pledge is made and the time to deliver
3) materials pledged are effectively worthless to the receiver, for example some African aid over the years was clothing made for a western European climate and culture.  Dress shoes, particularly high heels, offered little value to the recipients.
4) the pledge comes with triggers or  conditions which didn't occur / weren't acceptable
5) the receiving country makes no effort to receive the aid because of pride or political appearances -- taking aid from an enemy, appearing weak, etc.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 5, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> How many Anne Franks are we turning away this time?




Far fewer than the number of needy Americans turned away daily.



> I hate that argument/ talking point.
> 
> As you say, it's possible to do both. Amazing things could be done domestically to help the homeless for a few hundred million.
> But most of the time it's just a dismissal. If something were done locally it'd be different, but too often there's no follow through or attempt to actually help the disenfranchised. ("Yeah, I _could_ wash the dishes. But why should I do the dishes when I'm haven't vacuumed? I should do the vacuuming before I do the dishes. So off to Netflix I guess.")




Follow through by who?  I don't have the money for it.  The government has to do it and I'm not responsible for their lack of follow through.  They should be taking care of Americans, but they don't.



> Also, it's really, really insulting. Super insulting. It's effectively equating the two problems, and thus comparing refugees to the homeless.




You have created that on your own and then become insulted by it.  I never made any comparison and I don't think they are the same.  That lack of difference is irrelevant, though.  It doesn't matter why anyone else is needy.  Needy Americans need to come first and then we can take care of the others with their various needs.



> That's super problematic as the two groups are very different. The homeless issue is incredibly complex and "fixing" it involves touching on a whole lot of problems including treating mental illness, addiction, social support systems, rent programs, employment programs, and so many other factors. It's really hard for a federal government to fix when so much involves many different departments, state/provincial groups, and local cooperation.




Yes it does.  It should still be done before any help goes to anyone else. 



> Meanwhile, the refugee problem is much simpler. The why they have no homes and jobs is apparent. And making progress on fixing the issue can be handled federally or more locally.




And this just allows the Americans in need to be swept under the rug.  As soon as you start doing the easier things before the harder things, the harder things never get done.  There are always easier things to do.



> Also, refugees are brave people. They're giving up everything to leave their homes and travel across the world in the hopes of a better life. They're dedicated, driven, and ambitious. That's the kind of people you need and want in your countries. The kind of people who aren't going to just sit and accept a bad life but actively try to improve their situation.




Bravery doesn't make them more important than the Americans we have.  Nor does dedication, drive or ambition.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 5, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> What if the the effect of radicalism happens without our doing anything?  There are lots of actors who are not the US promoting it.  We could do things to promote it, but let's say we aren't doing any such things.
> 
> Then what if we could do things to undercut it?  And what if taking in refugees is one such thing?
> 
> ...




How would it undercut it.  The ones who hate America are not *generally* going to come here, and the ones that do* probably* aren't going to trust the tricks of the great satan and change their views.  Those that come here are going to* mainly* be the ones who wouldn't radicalize in the first place.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 5, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> > Far fewer than the number of needy Americans turned away daily.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It always makes me laugh when I hear this argument that we have to take care of need group X in America before we can help group Y outside of America. It's funny because conservatives, who happen to be the ones against helping these Syrians, are also the same ones against helping the needy in America. They are always trying to defund programs that help the needy. So in effect, they can always claim that some group of needy people in the U.S. needs to be helped before they can help those outside the U.S. because they have manufactured their own needy group. 



> Bravery doesn't make them more important than the Americans we have.  Nor does dedication, drive or ambition.



This is actually true,. It's why we have homeless veterans that only get mentioned by conservatives when they want to point out that there is a group of Americans that need help before others can be helped. It's also why conservatives are so comfortable cutting programs to help the needy, including said brave homeless soldiers. Conservatives don't seem to care about a person's dedication, drive, or ambition.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 5, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> How would it undercut it.  The ones who hate America are not generally going to come here, and the ones that do probably aren't going to trust the tricks of the great satan and change their views.  Those that come here are going to mainly be the ones who wouldn't radicalize in the first place.



You know life doesn't actually work like an internet argument. People do change their minds, especially when they experience something different than what they've been told.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 6, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> It always makes me laugh when I hear this argument that we have to take care of need group X in America before we can help group Y outside of America. It's funny because conservatives, who happen to be the ones against helping these Syrians, are also the same ones against helping the needy in America. They are always trying to defund programs that help the needy. So in effect, they can always claim that some group of needy people in the U.S. needs to be helped before they can help those outside the U.S. because they have manufactured their own needy group.
> 
> This is actually true,. It's why we have homeless veterans that only get mentioned by conservatives when they want to point out that there is a group of Americans that need help before others can be helped. It's also why conservatives are so comfortable cutting programs to help the needy, including said brave homeless soldiers. Conservatives don't seem to care about a person's dedication, drive, or ambition.




You got that wrong.  It's not conservatives.  It's Republicans.  There's a difference.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 6, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> You know life doesn't actually work like an internet argument. People do change their minds, especially when they experience something different than what they've been told.




You missed a few words.  I went and bolded them in my post so you wouldn't miss them the second time around.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 6, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> You got that wrong.  It's not conservatives.  It's Republicans.  There's a difference.



That's right, I totally forgot that conservatives were the ones pushing to expand programs that help the poor and needy. Damn those republicans for giving conservatives a bad name.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 6, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> You missed a few words.  I went and bolded them in my post so you wouldn't miss them the second time around.



That's funny. It's funny that you think those bolded words actually make a difference.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 6, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That's right, I totally forgot that conservatives were the ones pushing to expand programs that help the poor and needy. Damn those republicans for giving conservatives a bad name.




All Republicans are conservatives, but not all conservatives are Republicans.  I am conservative and I am for helping the poor and needy.  Don't lump me in with Republicans.  I am not now, never have been, and never will be a Republican.  They are as useless as the Democrats (not liberals).  Both parties need to go away as they are both cause great and equal damage to this country, just in different ways.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 6, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That's funny. It's funny that you think those bolded words actually make a difference.




For people who understand those words, they acknowledge that some small number of people can change their minds.  For the most part, people don't, though.  Not when they have enough hate to radicalize.  It generally takes some intensive therapy and a desire to change for that much hate to go away.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 6, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> For people who understand those words, they acknowledge that some small number of people can change their minds.  For the most part, people don't, though.  Not when they have enough hate to radicalize.  It generally takes some intensive therapy and a desire to change for that much hate to go away.




Eh, are people born hateful, or do their lives mold them to be hateful?  If a person can be influenced to become more hateful, can they not also be influenced to be less?

Also, I am looking at folks who have not yet become hateful.  Are their no people who have scope still to be influenced?

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 6, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> All Republicans are conservatives, but not all conservatives are Republicans.  I am conservative and *I am for helping the poor and needy*.  Don't lump me in with Republicans.  I am not now, never have been, and never will be a Republican.  They are as useless as the Democrats (not liberals).  Both parties need to go away as they are both cause great and equal damage to this country, just in different ways.



Oh Maxy, that' some funny stuff right there. You want to help people... except for the Syrian refugees, immigrants coming to the U.S., poor people in the U.S. that need more access to healthcare and safety-net programs, teachers who are having their pay and jobs cut, families that would like to send their kids to university, people on Welfare, the elderly getting Social Security, and pretty much everyone else that is actually needy. If we didn't know each other for as long as we have, and I hadn't seen all the wonderful posts you've posted over the year, or read the posts you've made in this thread, I may have thought you were being serious. I know you well enough, though. Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 6, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Eh, are people born hateful, or do their lives mold them to be hateful?  If a person can be influenced to become more hateful, can they not also be influenced to be less?




Those lives are molded early.  By mid teens, they are pretty set in their ways.  There's not much influence you can have at that point unless they want to be influenced.  Therapy really only helps those who already want to be helped.



> Also, I am looking at folks who have not yet become hateful.  Are their no people who have scope still to be influenced?




Perhaps the children of refugees who come, but there's really no way to know if they are helped by coming here or not.  Most people in that region are not radicalized anyway.  Radicals are a small minority of muslims.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 6, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Oh Maxy, that' some funny stuff right there. You want to help people... except for the Syrian refugees, immigrants coming to the U.S., poor people in the U.S. that need more access to healthcare and safety-net programs, teachers who are having their pay and jobs cut, families that would like to send their kids to university, people on Welfare, the elderly getting Social Security, and pretty much everyone else that is actually needy. If we didn't know each other for as long as we have, and I hadn't seen all the wonderful posts you've posted over the year, or read the posts you've made in this thread, I may have thought you were being serious. I know you well enough, though. Thanks for the laugh.




I have always been for helping them.  I'm just not for handing out money indefinitely with nothing to show for it.  Help them out and at the same time pay for and require that they learn a useful skill so that they can transition into being a productive member of society.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 6, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> I have always been for helping them.  I'm just not for handing out money indefinitely with nothing to show for it.  Help them out and at the same time pay for and require that they learn a useful skill so that they can transition into being a productive member of society.



So tell me,, what program do you support for helping those in need? What would you do to help people?


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 6, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> So tell me,, what program do you support for helping those in need? What would you do to help people?




You need to be more specific.  What kind of need?  There are different kinds of needy people.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 6, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> You need to be more specific.  What kind of need?  There are different kinds of needy people.



Let's go with homelessness. You seem to like to bring that one up. If you'd like, you can just focus on homeless veterans since they're more American.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 7, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Let's go with homelessness. You seem to like to bring that one up. If you'd like, you can just focus on homeless veterans since they're more American.




Which type of homeless veteran?  There are different types.  Bad luck homeless veterans?  Crazy homeless veterans?  Disabled homeless veterans?  Other?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 7, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Which type of homeless veteran?  There are different types.  Bad luck homeless veterans?  Crazy homeless veterans?  Disabled homeless veterans?  Other?



Your choice. In fact, any other questions about what group, or what criteria a particular group needs to meet for this discussion is up to you. Jus let us know what parameters you've chosen to identify the group you are willing to help.


----------



## Orlax (Dec 7, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> I have always been for helping them.  I'm just not for handing out money indefinitely with nothing to show for it.  Help them out and at the same time pay for and require that they learn a useful skill so that they can transition into being a productive member of society.




The thing to show for it is a living human being where a twisted and starved corpse would be.  How that isn't enough to anyone makes no freaking sense to me


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 7, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Your choice. In fact, any other questions about what group, or what criteria a particular group needs to meet for this discussion is up to you. Jus let us know what parameters you've chosen to identify the group you are willing to help.




Just this once.  If you're going to question me, you get to do the work setting the parameters up. 

I'll go with the insane.  There are too many people who are homeless due to mental problems who should be in mental hospitals being cared for until they are well, or indefinitely if they can't get well.  Reagan screwed the pooch with that one and emptied tons of people onto the streets who couldn't care for themselves and it has just grown worse over time as the population has increased.  Reagan's actions need to be reversed and these people need to be collected off of the streets and be cared for.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 7, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Just this once.  If you're going to question me, you get to do the work setting the parameters up.



Why, so you could keep avoiding answering the question? 



> I'll go with the insane.  There are too many people who are homeless due to mental problems who should be in mental hospitals being cared for until they are well, or indefinitely if they can't get well.



Is that insane veterans you're referring to, or insane homeless people in general? By the way, you do know "insane" is just a legal term, right? There is no such classification as insane in the mental health field.   


> Reagan screwed the pooch with that one and emptied tons of people onto the streets who couldn't care for themselves and it has just grown worse over time as the population has increased.  Reagan's actions need to be reversed and these people need to be collected off of the streets and be cared for.



So what would you actually do? Reverse every single thing Reagan did to take away the help people with mental health issues were getting before? Would you just leave it at reversing what he did? Expand some of it? Add new benefits? Try to be a bit more specific. You're not a politician running for office. You're allowed to give a clear answer.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 7, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Is that insane veterans you're referring to, or insane homeless people in general? By the way, you do know "insane" is just a legal term, right? There is no such classification as insane in the mental health field.




Being a veteran and insane isn't any different than not being one and being insane, except perhaps for where the insanity comes from.  As for the classification, you know what I'm talking about so just let it go.



> So what would you actually do? Reverse every single thing Reagan did to take away the help people with mental health issues were getting before? Would you just leave it at reversing what he did? Expand some of it? Add new benefits? Try to be a bit more specific. You're not a politician running for office. You're allowed to give a clear answer.




I'd have it set up so that they were off the streets and taken care of.  If you want more than that, you'll have to talk to the experts I would hire to set it up.  I'm not an expert on setting such things up.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 7, 2015)

Orlax said:


> The thing to show for it is a living human being where a twisted and starved corpse would be.  How that isn't enough to anyone makes no freaking sense to me




It's a waste of money.  Sure the person is alive, but they are essentially a leech on society.  They take and take and take and give virtually nothing back.  If you spend a bit more money and train them to work, they become productive and give, rather than just take.  I'm all for helping those people, but only in ways that turn them productive.  That is excepting the disabled, insane, etc.  Those people just need to be cared for.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 7, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Being a veteran and insane isn't any different than not being one and being insane, except perhaps for where the insanity comes from.  As for the classification, you know what I'm talking about so just let it go.



But the classification is very important. If you're going to misclassify these veterans, what hope is there that you're going to even know what is wrong with them or the reasons that they are homeless? You might end up attempting some method to help them that is completely useless and a waste of money. Wouldn't you rather know who you are dealing with and what to target to make things better for these patriotic veterans? 

As to me knowing what you're talking about when you say "insanity," no, I don't know what you're talking about. In fact, you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not saying that to insult you, so don't get offended. You just wouldn't know what you're referring to when you say veteran X is insane and so is veteran Y. The two could easily have significantly different behaviors that qualify them for this insanity classification. 

If you'd like to use the term insanity, maybe you can be more clear about what you mean by "insane veteran."




> I'd have it set up so that they were off the streets and taken care of.



How would you fund that ind of treatment? 



> If you want more than that, you'll have to talk to the experts I would hire to set it up.  I'm not an expert on setting such things up.



What kind of people would you hire? What would their purpose be? What limitations would you place on them?


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 7, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> But the classification is very important. If you're going to misclassify these veterans, what hope is there that you're going to even know what is wrong with them or the reasons that they are homeless? You might end up attempting some method to help them that is completely useless and a waste of money. Wouldn't you rather know who you are dealing with and what to target to make things better for these patriotic veterans?
> 
> As to me knowing what you're talking about when you say "insanity," no, I don't know what you're talking about. In fact, you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not saying that to insult you, so don't get offended. You just wouldn't know what you're referring to when you say veteran X is insane and so is veteran Y. The two could easily have significantly different behaviors that qualify them for this insanity classification.
> 
> ...




No.  As you say, we've known each other for a long time and I'm not going to play these games with you here.  Here are the facts.

1) The government has money all over the place.  It can spend some on our needy instead of wasting it on other things.

2) The expertise to create working programs is also there.  They can hire the people to do it.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 7, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> No.  As you say, we've known each other for a long time and I'm not going to play these games with you here.



We have known each other for quite some time, haven't we? That's why I know you're playing games. 



> Here are the facts.
> 
> 1) The government has money all over the place.  It can spend some on our needy instead of wasting it on other things.



so it has money all over the place, but it doesn't have enough to spend some on our needy and some of the other needy people, like the Syrian refugees? that's interesting.



> 2) The expertise to create working programs is also there.  They can hire the people to do it.



I'm sure the government could hire people with expertise. My question was what kind of people would _you_ hire? Would you hire people with expertise in mental health? 

You also didn't answer how you would fund this? Would you just take the existing money? From our time knowing each other, you've always complained that the government doesn't have money to fund a lot of stuff. How can it not have the money to fun teachers, one of your least favorite people, but be able to fund "insane" patriotic veteran for the rest of his life in a psychiatric setting? You complain about teachers getting their retirement paid for. At least they are working in schools until they retire after 30 years. These veterans aren't even doing that. You're going to pay for their retirement in a psychiatric setting for the rest of their lives, and you're not going to complain about it?


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 7, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> so it has money all over the place, but it doesn't have enough to spend some on our needy and some of the other needy people, like the Syrian refugees? that's interesting.




It may very well have enough to take care of *all* of our needy people before starting with the needy people of other countries.  We should be finding out by taking care of all of our needy first.



> I'm sure the government could hire people with expertise. My question was what kind of people would _you_ hire? Would you hire people with expertise in mental health?




Experts. 



> You also didn't answer how you would fund this? Would you just take the existing money? From our time knowing each other, you've always complained that the government doesn't have money to fund a lot of stuff. How can it not have the money to fun teachers, one of your least favorite people, but be able to fund "insane" patriotic veteran for the rest of his life in a psychiatric setting? You complain about teachers getting their retirement paid for. At least they are working in schools until they retire after 30 years. These veterans aren't even doing that. You're going to pay for their retirement in a psychiatric setting for the rest of their lives, and you're not going to complain about it?




The government has plenty of money.  It just needs to spend it properly and not waste billions on crap.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 7, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> It may very well have enough to take care of *all* of our needy people before starting with the needy people of other countries.  We should be finding out by taking care of all of our needy first.



So rally, what you're saying is that you don't know how much money the government has. It could have enough to help all of our needy people, plus enough to help needy people around the world. Why not help everyone?





> Experts.



Experts in what, though? Mental health? Religion? Oil drilling?





> The government has plenty of money.  It just needs to spend it properly and not waste billions on crap.



What would you say is a waste of government money? Teacher benefits and retirement? Welfare programs? Subsidies for health insurance?


----------



## Orlax (Dec 7, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> It's a waste of money.  Sure the person is alive, but they are essentially a leech on society.  They take and take and take and give virtually nothing back.  If you spend a bit more money and train them to work, they become productive and give, rather than just take.  I'm all for helping those people, but only in ways that turn them productive.  That is excepting the disabled, insane, etc.  Those people just need to be cared for.




There's still a margin in there where you are essentially totally fine with putting a gun to someone's head and pulling the trigger.  You just use the guns of dehydration and starvation, because you'd rather they die slow and undignified.  All because you deem them unworthy of help.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 7, 2015)

Orlax said:


> There's still a margin in there where you are essentially totally fine with putting a gun to someone's head and pulling the trigger.  You just use the guns of dehydration and starvation, because you'd rather they die slow and undignified.  All because you deem them unworthy of help.




What are you talking about?


----------



## megamania (Dec 7, 2015)

Is there really any way to answer these questions without offending a large group?

There is a lot of crap going on right now.    We (as a country) are doing more than anyone else to attempt to resolve an unsolvable situation.   Allow other countries closer to the lands in question accept some responsibility.

We have allowed literally millions into this country (legally and illegally) and many states are suffering for it.   Texas being one.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 7, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Far fewer than the number of needy Americans turned away daily.




I don't quite understand the impulse that, because we are failing some people, we need to fail even more.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 7, 2015)

megamania said:


> There is a lot of crap going on right now.    We (as a country) are doing more than anyone else to attempt to resolve an unsolvable situation.   Allow other countries closer to the lands in question accept some responsibility.




Are you talking about the Syrian refugees? Cause Turkey has received more refugees than any other country. It is sheltering more than 1 million refugees. And the US is really doing much less than many other countries. Less than Canada, Germany and Sweden to name a few.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Are you talking about the Syrian refugees? Cause Turkey has received more refugees than any other country. It is sheltering more than 1 million refugees. And the US is really doing much less than many other countries. Less than Canada, Germany and Sweden to name a few.




I suspect that the original comment has more to do with military action, than it does humanitarian aid. Even on that count I could argue that Russia is "doing more."


----------



## Orlax (Dec 7, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> What are you talking about?




You see a point where people should stop being helped, because they are a leech on resources.  In hat case you'd cut aid and leave them to fend for themselves even if they can't.  You are essentially setting them up for starvation (assuming they don't just commit a crime and end up in prison).  You might not be killing them with your own hand but you are effectively saying "I don't care of you die, you are completely useless go me", and then leaving them to die.  You make allowances for those with disabilities, but what about those that just can't hack it in the workforce?  You fine with them just dying?


----------



## megamania (Dec 7, 2015)

Everything.

Not just with the middle east.   Soon Spanish will be the most spoken language in the US.    We have people moving here or giving birth here but to live off of our system.   We seem to spear head every save the nation conflict out there.

Frustrating.

(and yes.... I know much of our "support" has greed thoughts behind it)

It is a no win situation and sometimes I feel like the world expects America to lead in every "rescue" mission of "good will" throughout the world.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 7, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> I suspect that the original comment has more to do with military action, than it does humanitarian aid. Even on that count I could argue that Russia is "doing more."




Military action helps ISIS recruit in the Middle East and contributes to the radicalization of Western citizens.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Military action helps ISIS recruit in the Middle East and contributes to the radicalization of Western citizens.




I wasn't supporting the idea; just stating it might be what was intended


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 7, 2015)

megamania said:


> Not just with the middle east.   Soon Spanish will be the most spoken language in the US.    We have people moving here or giving birth here but to live off of our system.



I love these opinions. As if immigrants do not contribute to the society and only siphon from it.   



> It is a no win situation and sometimes I feel like the world expects America to lead in every "rescue" mission of "good will" throughout the world.



It is your empire, your world order, so there are a lot pressures to intervine in the world to protect "your*" interests. 


*Economic and military elite.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 7, 2015)

billd91 said:


> I don't quite understand the impulse that, because we are failing some people, we need to fail even more.




I'm not saying that.  I'm saying we need to succeed with our own people before we succeed with others.  Nobody is saying that we should continue to fail and then fail more.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 7, 2015)

Orlax said:


> You see a point where people should stop being helped, because they are a leech on resources.  In hat case you'd cut aid and leave them to fend for themselves even if they can't.




Where have I said that?  I said help them become productive.



> You make allowances for those with disabilities, but what about those that just can't hack it in the workforce?  You fine with them just dying?




You mean those too lazy to work?


----------



## Orlax (Dec 7, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Where have I said that?  I said help them become productive.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean those too lazy to work?




Or can't stand up to the pressures of the current workforce (because we live in a world of damn near unreasonable expectations).  They have all the knowledge and training and can do the work, but can't do it quickly enough, and just don't meet the performance standards demanded at their level of the workforce.  Should those people be forced to starve because they just don't make good workers?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 7, 2015)

megamania said:


> We seem to spear head every save the nation conflict out there.
> 
> Frustrating.




Well, many of the those conflicts are directly in your own (oil-dependent) interests.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 7, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Um, no.  Look again at what I was responding to:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Oh, man, the irony.  This is a classical example of a tone argument:  "I don't like that you said that that way, so I don't have to address the rest of your unrelated to this arguments because you said mean things."  The fact that the rest of that post has nothing to do with the above means nothing so long as you can skate those arguments by getting offended over these.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 7, 2015)

Plot twist: refugees aren't an unwashed mass on the prowl for a welfare state.



> Only about 6.3 per cent of refugees contacted indicated they were interested in coming to Canada when the UN got in touch with them between Nov. 18 and 26. This was chiefly in Jordan but also in Lebanon.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...nada-immediately-ottawa-says/article27561756/

Ok, that might not be significant. It is Canada we are talking about.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 7, 2015)

megamania said:


> We have allowed literally millions into this country (legally and illegally) and many states are suffering for it.   Texas being one.



Just wanted to point out that we don't actually _allow_ illegal immigrants into this country. They get in without being _allowed_, which is why they are considered _illegal immigrants_. If we allowed them in, they would be able to get jobs in which they would pay taxes. This would actually help out states, like Texas.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 8, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Oh, man, the irony.  This is a classical example of a tone argument:  "I don't like that you said that that way, so I don't have to address the rest of your unrelated to this arguments because you said mean things."





It isn't a tone argument.  It has nothing to do with them being mean, or having a particular tone.  It has to do with how it was rhetorical weak sauce (which, I see, you don't deny).  

We all have better things to do with our time than deal with strawmen.  You have better things to do than put them up, I have better things to do than knock them down, and anyone else reading has better things to do than watch a series of such interactions.  Folks should go and, I dunno, maybe go play D&D or something, rather than read this.

Let's be honest.  It isn't like I'm going to change your mind.  And, with arguments like that, you certainly aren't going to change mine.  No major issues of the day will be resolved by the two of us arguing on a smallish website.  And, this far in, we aren't going to inform or influence anyone - the thread's way too long for it to have any new readers, and anyone sticking around this far has probably already been influenced as much as they are apt to be by our words.

So, the only reason to continue is because it is *entertaining*.  And, to be honest, your arguments are not entertaining.  I'm bored.  I've been reading for quite a while now, and you're not saying anything I haven't heard many times before.  You are not giving cites or references often at all, much less to stuff I haven't seen that I might learn from.  Once the discussion goes to the strawman stage, it is running down to having no real content.  It is of no value unless you happen to enjoy conflict for the sake of conflict.

Which I don't.  If you do, I hope you find someone else of like minds to butt heads with.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 8, 2015)

Orlax said:


> Or can't stand up to the pressures of the current workforce (because we live in a world of damn near unreasonable expectations).




If they can't stand up to the pressures due to mental problems, disability covers them.  If it's for other reasons, then they can get a new job.  If the don't want to get a new job, they are lazy and deserve whatever fate has in store for them. They should be given nothing.  If they choose to starve to death, that's on them.  Reality will have them getting a job, though.  When they get hungry enough even the lazy will get to work.



> They have all the knowledge and training and can do the work, but can't do it quickly enough, and just don't meet the performance standards demanded at their level of the workforce.  Should those people be forced to starve because they just don't make good workers?




No. They should starve because they're lazy.  People can meet the demands if they want to.


----------



## megamania (Dec 8, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I love these opinions. As if immigrants do not contribute to the society and only siphon from it.




Not all do.   But there is evidence to support the intake of certain groups have risen crime and welfare.

Cuba in the 80's    Texas currently.

And from there, there is no easy nor correct answer to these questions.   It is a mean and foul world we live in.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 8, 2015)

megamania said:


> But there is evidence to support the intake of certain groups have risen crime and welfare.



Certain groups. Nice code word 

Evidence? Like what? The one I have shows that first generation immigrants commit less crimes than the local population in the US. Second generation are just corrupt by USian culture and become as violent and criminally inclined. 




https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ld-trump-is-wrong-about-immigrants-and-crime/


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 8, 2015)

Umbran said:


> It isn't a tone argument.  It has nothing to do with them being mean, or having a particular tone.  It has to do with how it was rhetorical weak sauce (which, I see, you don't deny).
> 
> We all have better things to do with our time than deal with strawmen.  You have better things to do than put them up, I have better things to do than knock them down, and anyone else reading has better things to do than watch a series of such interactions.  Folks should go and, I dunno, maybe go play D&D or something, rather than read this.
> 
> ...




You chose to dismiss my entire post at the point in which you accuse me of inventing a strawman.  That consisted of a fraction of the post, the rest talking about a different thing altogether.  I didn't waste time on denying anything because you've already shown willingness to ignore the remainder based on your interpretation of that, so why bother?  That part wasn't the big beef of my post to begin with, and was a mildly entertaining side argument about your willingness to engage in things you chastise others for routinely.  

But the point is that you failed to address anything of my main point, on the failure of those favoring admitting the refugees to do anything but insult and demean those that disagree with them. You've chosen to hide behind an argument about a different point, a side discussion, for whatever reason, but that doesn't make it go away.  If you insist on following a path that leads you to think that those that disagree with your are worthy of your disdain and insult rather than your sincere efforts to acknowledge and address their valid points (I'm talking about that percentage you can never reach, but the big chunk in the middle that could be persuaded if you chose a rhetoric other than insults), then you should not be surprised when the situation doesn't get better and your favored path fails in large measure.

Seriously, insulting people just makes them less likely to agree with you, even if they might otherwise.  The biggest outcome of insulting people concerned about security risks from taking in the refugees isn't more people agreeing with you, it's more people voting Republican.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 8, 2015)

megamania said:


> Not all do.   But there is evidence to support the intake of certain groups have risen crime and welfare.




Well, we have to be careful about how we look at that.  Specifically, an absolute rise in the instances of crime is expected with any population growth.  More people means more crime.  

The real question is not the absolute, but the relative - is the per-capita rate of criminal action for these people higher than that of citizens on the same economic level as they are?   If not, then the issue isn't about immigration at all, but may be more about income inequality.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 8, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> You chose to dismiss my entire post at the point in which you accuse me of inventing a strawman.




Yep.  Note that I didn't say it was intentional.  It is a thing on the internet - a creep towards restating the opponents position just slightly more extreme than they actually are, to the point of creating strawmen.

I did not so much dismiss the rest, as ignore it.  The strawman was the thing that twigged me to the fact that the discussion was no longer useful, and so I stopped.



> That consisted of a fraction of the post, the rest talking about a different thing altogether.




So?  It isn't like there's some onus on anyone to address the entirety of what you write.  



> ... and was a mildly entertaining side argument about your willingness to engage in things you chastise others for routinely.




Ah, so you were trying to make the discussion in part about *me*, rather than about my points?    You start on the _ad hominem_ road, and when I recognize it and disengage, you... object?  Claim it as a bit of superiority on your part or your position, or something?  I see no point here worth the time you took to write it. 



> Seriously, insulting people just makes them less likely to agree with you, even if they might otherwise.




There was no insult to your person.  There was critique of your rhetorical form and content.  

I have never thought there was a significant chance of getting you to agree with me, and such was never one of my goals.  I am not here to convince anyone, I just like discussion.  When it was clear the discussion was no longer good, I stopped.  Very simple, really.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 8, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Yep.  Note that I didn't say it was intentional.  It is a thing on the internet - a creep towards restating the opponents position just slightly more extreme than they actually are, to the point of creating strawmen.
> 
> I did not so much dismiss the rest, as ignore it.  The strawman was the thing that twigged me to the fact that the discussion was no longer useful, and so I stopped.
> 
> ...




It's a general you.  I did not feel personally insulted, but if you can't see in insult in your (specific this time) choice of describing reasonable and addressable fears over security as irrational, I'm not sure we're speaking the same language.


----------



## megamania (Dec 8, 2015)

Fine.  You guys are smarter than me.   Run for president and fix things rather than just say what is wrong.   Fix them.


Politics should remain in Circus.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 8, 2015)

megamania said:


> Fine.  You guys are smarter than me.   Run for president and fix things rather than just say what is wrong.   Fix them.
> 
> 
> Politics should remain in Circus.




That opinion has been previously stated.  I'm on record saying that discussion of politics here cannot have any positive outcome.  Given that it's a handful of people who join these discussions, mostly interested in trolling and mostly from a single viewpoint, I'd say that the utility is negligible.


----------



## megamania (Dec 8, 2015)

I am sorry that my comment seems..... strong and defensive but this is politics.   Beliefs and values are as much from experience and beliefs as numbers.    Politics is about opinions.  There is no right and wrong.  It is about perspectives.   Not everyone sees things the same way.

Politics should though, remain in Circus.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 8, 2015)

megamania said:


> I am sorry that my comment seems..... strong and defensive but this is politics.   Beliefs and values are as much from experience and beliefs as numbers.    Politics is about opinions.  There is no right and wrong.  It is about perspectives.   Not everyone sees things the same way.




Politics do involve competing opinions, but the formation of competent public policy *depends* on numbers. And, in some instances, those must be used to cut through misconceptions derived from anecdotal experiences.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 8, 2015)

billd91 said:


> Politics do involve competing opinions, but the formation of competent public policy *depends* on numbers. And, in some instances, those must be used to cut through misconceptions derived from anecdotal experiences.




Ha!  As if the masses are actually a good tool to ferret out misconceptions or not act on anecdotal experience.


----------



## Istbor (Dec 8, 2015)

I don't know.  While I hope we provide ample help to these people in need. I am concerned that their reception in the US will be a rough one.  I feel like we would be inviting them to a world of hate. hate based on fear mongering and misconceptions. Some of it is potentially founded on legitimate reasons, not enough to damn them or warrant the type of responses fellow countrymen here have issued. 

We fought for this country, and part of what made America what it is, is the ideal that this land is a refuge for those fleeing oppression.  If we stray from that because of fear? We won't be what we claim to be any longer. 

I would be glad to do my part to help other fellow humans, who just want to live and let live.


----------



## Eltab (Dec 18, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Texas isn't the only state that doesn't want any Syrian refugees, either.



What we don't want is a mass of draft-dodging-age males who think the rest of the world owes them membership in the Luxury Class.

If some TRUE refugees (women, children, old folks, persecuted minorities) were to show up, we'd find a way to make room & board for them.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 18, 2015)

Eltab said:


> What we don't want is a mass of draft-dodging-age males who think the rest of the world owes them membership in the Luxury Class.
> 
> If some TRUE refugees (women, children, old folks, persecuted minorities) were to show up, we'd find a way to make room & board for them.



TRUE refugees? That's funny. Everyone knows there is no such thing as a TRUE Syrian refugee. The democrats are just trying to import some more illegal voters to help destroy this country and persecute TRUE-patriotic-Christian conservatives.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 22, 2015)

What's the first thing the new U.S. President must do after taking office? Stop the Syrian invasion!

You have to give the GOP candidates credit. They are all on the same page when it comes to justifying not taking in those in need.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 22, 2015)

The FBI admitted that it can't vet all the refugees that are coming.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 22, 2015)

What's your point?


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 22, 2015)

If they can't be vetted, they shouldn't come.  I mean the government just let a terrorist kill 14 people in San Bernardino because Obama was unwilling to let the authorities check internet media. A simple Facebook check would have caught Tashfeen Malik before she entered the country and stuck Sayed on the FBI radar.  If they aren't even going to check Facebook, they can't be vetting any of these people properly.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 22, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> If they can't be vetted, they shouldn't come.



Would you apply that to everyone?   


> I mean the government just let a terrorist kill 14 people in San Bernardino because Obama was unwilling to let the authorities check internet media.



That evil jerk. I'm pretty sure he is also responsible for cancer.



> A simple Facebook check would have caught Tashfeen Malik before she entered the country and stuck Sayed on the FBI radar.  If they aren't even going to check Facebook, they can't be vetting any of these people properly.



Not really. Those were private messages sent to a small group. That is, unless you are referring to the messages she posted during the shooting. In that case I'm going to blame the private sector for not having developed a time machine they could have sold to the government to stop Tashfeen Malik. Damn that lazy private sector.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 22, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Would you apply that to everyone?




Absolutely.  It doesn't matter where you are from.  If you can't be properly vetted, you should not be allowed into this country as an immigrant or refugee.



> Not really. Those were private messages sent to a small group.




Yes really.  They could have looked at the private posts.  There is no expectation of privacy for someone coming into this country, especially if you are from a place that is incredibly pro-terrorism.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 22, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Absolutely.  It doesn't matter where you are from.  If you can't be properly vetted, you should not be allowed into this country as an immigrant or refugee.



How about tourist?



> Yes really.  They could have looked at the private posts.



In this particular case, it may have made a difference. Of course, you'd have to get Facebook to agree to let the government do it. That would probably lead to the government getting to do the same to people here in the U.S., including citizens. I'm not sure you'd like that idea.
In any case, as I was saying, it may have helped in this particular case, but doing so for every single person coming into the U.S. would result in a big price tag.



> There is no expectation of privacy for someone coming into this country, especially if you are from a place that is incredibly pro-terrorism.



Well that's just incorrect.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 22, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> How about tourist?




Not so much.  They get searched coming in and don't typically stay long enough to plot and plan.  It's also not feasible to do in depth searches of tourists since there are so many more of them.  That said, I have no problem with them doing so for people coming from countries with terror ties.  The number of tourists from those countries is fairly minimal and the risks greater.



> In this particular case, it may have made a difference. Of course, you'd have to get Facebook to agree to let the government do it. That would probably lead to the government getting to do the same to people here in the U.S., including citizens. I'm not sure you'd like that idea.




Nah.  Searching the posts and messages of potential immigrants/refugees is not anywhere close to the same as searching through American posts and messages.  One does not equal the other.



> In any case, as I was saying, it may have helped in this particular case, but doing so for every single person coming into the U.S. would result in a big price tag.




To save lives?  It would be cheap.



> Well that's just incorrect.




No it isn't.  American privacy laws do not apply to people from other countries wanting to enter America.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 22, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Not so much.



How about people coming in on a work visa? Or how about those coming in on a investor visa? 







> They get searched coming in and don't typically stay long enough to plot and plan.



 Everybody gets searched coming in. Some better than others. Tourists can stay for a good amount of time. They could also plan things ahead of time. 



> It's also not feasible to do in depth searches of tourists since there are so many more of them.






> That said, I have no problem with them doing so for people coming from countries with terror ties.  The number of tourists from those countries is fairly minimal and the risks greater.



You'd be missing all the ones that became citizens of other countries that don't have "terror ties" and come over to the U.S. Or how about the ones born in countries with no "terror ties" and became radicalized. I mean, there have been several people in the U.S. that were radicalized that have fortunately been caught before they were able to do anything. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that in some non-terror country there are some people becoming radicalized and plotting to attack the U.S. Just think of all the scary people that could be coming into the U.S. pretending to be tourist when in fact they are just terrorist waiting to take your job and blow stuff up. 


> Nah.  Searching the posts and messages of potential immigrants/refugees is not anywhere close to the same as searching through American posts and messages.  One does not equal the other.



Didn't say one equals the other. One, however, can lead to the other.



> To save lives?  It would be cheap.



You're not from the U.S., are you? What commie terrorist country are you from?



> No it isn't.  American privacy laws do not apply to people from other countries wanting to enter America.



Fortunately for people, the U.S. doesn't have a monopoly on laws.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 22, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> How about people coming in on a work visa? Or how about those coming in on a investor visa?




Yep.  Any long term visit should involve vetting or you don't get in.



> You'd be missing all the ones that became citizens of other countries that don't have "terror ties" and come over to the U.S. Or how about the ones born in countries with no "terror ties" and became radicalized. I mean, there have been several people in the U.S. that were radicalized that have fortunately been caught before they were able to do anything. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that in some non-terror country there are some people becoming radicalized and plotting to attack the U.S. Just think of all the scary people that could be coming into the U.S. pretending to be tourist when in fact they are just terrorist waiting to take your job and blow stuff up.
> Didn't say one equals the other. One, however, can lead to the other.




You can't be perfect, but that doesn't mean you let the easy crap get by you like searching the internet and social media.



> Fortunately for people, the U.S. doesn't have a monopoly on laws.




Fortunately for the U.S., we control who gets in.  Can't vet them because of host country laws, sucks to be you.  You don't get in.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 22, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Yep.  Any long term visit should involve vetting or you don't get in.



So then I take it that you agree that Marco Rubio is a hell of a hypocrite, even for a republican?



> You can't be perfect, but that doesn't mean you let the easy crap get by you like searching the internet and social media.



So because vetting tourists takes a bit more effort, you're willing to ignore the giant hole where terrorist can get in? 



> Fortunately for the U.S., we control who gets in.  Can't vet them because of host country laws, sucks to be you.  You don't get in.



And yet, they still get in. They've gotten in for a log time. Even before Obama was President, but I'm sure you'll agree, it's still his fault that they got in before he was President.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 22, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> What's the first thing the new U.S. President must do after taking office? Stop the Syrian invasion!
> 
> You have to give the GOP candidates credit. They are all on the same page when it comes to justifying not taking in those in need.




With 25,000 Syrians coming to Canada and the porous boarder between the US and Canada, the US really needs to veet everyone that comes from the North at any moment.

On a more serious note, I'm all for taking in refugees, but we should be aware that a terrorist might slip by all the checks. It shouldn't deter nations from accepting refugees. It's just time to accept that terrorism happens. At least as long as we keep interferring in the Middle East. If 71 percent of Americans can believe that shootings are now a part of American life, it is time that the far less deadly acts of terrorism be accepted as part of everyday life.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 22, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> So then I take it that you agree that Marco Rubio is a hell of a hypocrite, even for a republican?




I'm not paying much attention to the Republicans until they're down to a field of 5.  What did he say?



> So because vetting tourists takes a bit more effort, you're willing to ignore the giant hole where terrorist can get in?




Eh, no.  Because it's utterly impossible to vet all tourists, we should concentrate on vetting those who come from the countries with the greatest ties to terror, including those from those countries who go to say England to come that way.



> And yet, they still get in. They've gotten in for a log time. Even before Obama was President, but I'm sure you'll agree, it's still his fault that they got in before he was President.




Not many hispanic terrorists, and those are like 90% of the illegals who get in.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 22, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> I'm not paying much attention to the Republicans until they're down to a field of 5.  What did he say?



It's in the article I linked which you replied to. 



> Eh, no.  Because it's utterly impossible to vet all tourists,



Something being impossible hasn't stopped conservatives from demanding it be done.


> we should concentrate on vetting those who come from the countries with the greatest ties to terror, including those from those countries who go to say England to come that way.






> Not many hispanic terrorists, and those are like 90% of the illegals who get in.



But that's still 10% that are terrorists. I thought you were all for safety regardless of cost? It's already happening. The southern border is the attack route for those dastardly terrorists. You should be afraid of that 10% that gets in. Very afraid.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 23, 2015)

goldomark said:


> With 25,000 Syrians coming to Canada and the porous boarder between the US and Canada, the US really needs to veet everyone that comes from the North at any moment.
> 
> On a more serious note, I'm all for taking in refugees, but we should be aware that a terrorist might slip by all the checks. It shouldn't deter nations from accepting refugees. It's just time to accept that terrorism happens. At least as long as we keep interferring in the Middle East. If 71 percent of Americans can believe that shootings are now a part of American life, it is time that the far less deadly acts of terrorism be accepted as part of everyday life.




Based on events since 9/11 there seems to be far more danger from both the radicalization of domestically born people and the fact that many, many people from foreign countries visit on a daily basis. Home grown terrorism is the biggest danger, of the two.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 23, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Something being impossible hasn't stopped conservatives from demanding it be done.




Correction.  It hasn't stopped some Republicans.  You're over generalizing and you shouldn't do that.



> But that's still 10% that are terrorists. I thought you were all for safety regardless of cost? It's already happening. The southern border is the attack route for those dastardly terrorists. You should be afraid of that 10% that gets in. Very afraid.



C'mon man.  90ish% of illegals are hispanic, so the other 10% are terrorists?  And you bring in FOX news instead of a reputable news source?  If you aren't going to debate in good faith, you should at least try to disguise the bad faith stuff better.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 23, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Correction.  It hasn't stopped some Republicans.  You're over generalizing and you shouldn't do that.



Not at all. There are republicans that know building a wall, fence, or whatever you want, is impossible. Conservatives, on the other hand, are pushing for a wall, fence, or whatever to completely block passage across the border. Republicans tend to be a bit more realistic. Unfortunately, they've been pandering to conservatives, who are making the republican party look crazy as hell.



> C'mon man.  90ish% of illegals are hispanic, so the other 10% are terrorists?



You're the one that came up with the 90% tatistic. You tell me. Are the other 10% terrorist? 


> And you bring in FOX news instead of a reputable news source?  If you aren't going to debate in good faith, you should at least try to disguise the bad faith stuff better.



In other words, you can't argue against the point I presented, so you attack the source. And you accuse me or not debating in good faith? That's rich.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 23, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Based on events since 9/11 there seems to be far more danger from both the radicalization of domestically born people and the fact that many, many people from foreign countries visit on a daily basis. Home grown terrorism is the biggest danger, of the two.




Absolutely.


----------

