No objection? Excuse me, didn’t I just say that I would object if we chose refugees by religion? I’m not the only one who thinks it’s a revolting idea to choose our immigrants by their religion.
But I’m not talking about you. And I’m not talking about Canada. Perhaps I should be more clear. There are states refusing to take the refugees. There are plenty of people objecting, and I think there would not be if they were Christians. I don’t think it’s that complicated, it’s just the situation.
Well, good news for the other Farook, Maliks and their strawmen buyers out there. Best way to arm the jihad is to keep those weapons legal and cheap.
@busdriver11, do you see how it can be perceived as rude to say “People wouldn’t object” to a person who has just told you she does object? It sounds like you are saying I’m not a person.
You are right that the people who want a religious test for refugees would probably stop objecting to refugees if we instituted a religious test. But you ignore the other people, the people like me who think instituting a religious test is a terrible idea that is against everything our country stands for.
The people who are objecting now wouldn’t object, but other people would object. There would still be people objecting, but it would be different people.
As a non-Christian, I wholeheartedly object to only taking in Christian refugees. It goes against everything I think my country stands for.
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free, but only if they’re Christian.
“@busdriver11, do you see how it can be perceived as rude to say “People wouldn’t object” to a person who has just told you she does object? It sounds like you are saying I’m not a person.”
I don’t see why it’s necessary to take everything so literally. I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the people who were objecting to taking the refugees because many of them are Muslim, and afraid of terrorism, who are obviously not you. Apparently that was not obvious.
"You are right that the people who want a religious test for refugees would probably stop objecting to refugees if we instituted a religious test. But you ignore the other people, the people like me who think instituting a religious test is a terrible idea that is against everything our country stands for.
The people who are objecting now wouldn’t object, but other people would object. There would still be people objecting, but it would be different people."
Yes, but I don’t believe that those people would object as vociferously as those who are objecting now (due to fear), and that states wouldn’t be refusing to accept people. There are still people that we could help. Religious minorities apparently were treated decently under the Assad regime, and Islamists are taking the opportunity to threaten them now. They have been persecuted harsher than most other groups in Syria, and they have as much or greater need than anyone else.
I think in some matters, it is more important to help those you can help, than to stand on principle. It appears that you disagree.
Got a link to a story describing this denial?
All I see are stories that explain why Christian refugees are underrepresented in the camps where the UN refugee relocation program starts its review, and thus they are underrepresented in the numbers referred to the U.S. for further screening.
Unless the argument is that by not giving Christians already in the pipeline fast-track treatment that is the same as denying them entry.
States are “refusing” to take refugees, but the refugees are being settled in those states anyway. We are helping people.
So why are we not prioritizing the most persecuted minorities? The ones who are even afraid to go to the camps, because they have been attacked and victimized in the camps, also? Why are the vast number of people we are accepting from Syria, Sunni Muslims (96% according to this article)? I understand the issue about not discriminating on accepting people on the basis of their religion, however, why should almost every single refugee accepted be Muslim, when the most truly victimized are the religious minorities?
We have a refugee system in place. People who argue now that we change the system to prioritize the most persecuted minorities only hold that belief when it’s their co-religionists who, they say, are the most persecuted. They are silent when other religious minorities, or other groups, are the “most persecuted.”
Is it really a surprise that many people are frightened to bring in Sunni Muslims from Syria? Sunni terrorist groups are pretty dang prominent right now, including ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the Nusra Front, just to name a few.
^^^ That CNS story (in post 1229) does not uphold the claim that thousands of Christian refugees trying to get here have been “denied” by the administration.
Not giving Christians special treatment, not creating a new diplomatic mission to zero in on finding them, making sure they are who they say they are, and expediting them to the U.S. is not the same thing as the accusation that Obama is blocking them or denying them (a common right wing media meme).
Christian refugees are apparently avoiding the UNHRC locations…so they are harder to find, harder to initially screen (we still expect them to be screened, don’t we?)
From the article linked:
I get that they are more vulnerable IF they are sent back, but once Christian Syrians have reached the safety of a church group in the neighboring country, they are no longer under immediate threats from ISIS. They are in the same boat as all they other refugees who want to come to the U.S.
Sure, many Americans would like to give preference to Christians because they are Christians. But should the U.S. government give preference to a particular religious group just because of their religion, not because they are in more immediate danger?
Not even close to the same.
There are laws governing credit reporting agencies, and there are consumer protection processes in place that do not require a lawyer to clear up an issue, e,g., an agency must respond to claims within X days and with X reasons. Also applies to the reporting party. They even have to supply the chain of evidence of why you were listed by the credit reporting agency, an you have the legal right to dispute each line item of the chain. Bottom line, credit reporting agencies must prove why you were listed within X gays or take you off.
In contrast, there are such no laws governing presentation of proof or even reason why one is on the No Fly List. It is a list made of god knows who, as there is no responsible reporting parties or even listing parties. With no responsibility line and no chain of evidence, it is is the worst thing to use to then deny someone a constitutional right.
“I get that they are more vulnerable IF they are sent back, but once Christian Syrians have reached the safety of a church group in the neighboring country, they are no longer under immediate threats from ISIS. They are in the same boat as all they other refugees who want to come to the U.S.”
It sounds like you are saying that once you are away from the immediate threat, whether in a camp or in another country, you are all in the same boat?
I disagree with that. One group may be leaving their homes because of the hope of economic opportunities in another country, and could return home without being threatened. Another group might be leaving because they expect they will be murdered, and think that if they returned home, they would be killed. As Christians in Syria, that seems likely. I believe that is a huge difference, and I don’t think they are in the same boat at all.
Another perspective:
Many Syrian Christians stayed longer in the country before fleeing because they felt protected by the Assad regime. So they are further down in the line than the Muslim refugees who left.
Christians tended to be more affluent, and had other options for leaving. Arriving on travel visas and then applying for asylum.
Also socioeconomic status may play a part.
I doubt that many Christians in Syria feel even remotely protected now. I don’t think there are many people out there arguing how much better off they are.
This is what in the pro-Second Amendment crowd we call the “think and answer” what you want poll, not a poll that addresses the actual issues being presented by the gun control advocates.
Note that in my post explaining the plurality, I state this:
Well, guess what, if one asks a generic question that does not exclude the mentally-ill issue, one can easily get a majority or close to one because the stopping of the mentally-ill from getting firearms garners some 80%+ support, especially since the Vtech, Holmes, and Lanza mass shootings.
However, that is not what the gun control advocates are pushing all the time - they are pushing gun control that affects the average law-abiding, non-mentally-ill person, and it is there that people break away, rather quickly, from this general question of more strict gun laws.
- Ask people if they they want a restriction on handguns - The majority does not want any restrictions on handguns owned by citizens.
- Ask people if number of guns owned should be limited - They do not support that government can tell someone how many guns he can own.
3, Ask people if they support making it harder for them to have a gun in their homes - Some 60%+ believe that a gun in the house makes them safer at home against an intruder and do not support such restrictions.
- Ask people if assault weapons, definition as used in the media, should be banned - As stated already, the dreaded assault weapons ban is losing support fast.
I could go on, but the support is not in favor of limiting guns like gun control advocates want - and thus, it is a “devil is in the details” problem for the gun control advocates.
More specifically, it does not include anything the gun control advocates are actually pushing for. Therefore, respondents get a freebie in thinking “Sure I am in favor of making sure less innocent people are harmed by gun-fire.”
So, let’s get to the details. Gun control advocates are not out pushing any policy that I am aware of that says let’s stop the mentally-ill from getting guns and let’s get that legislation passed. If they are, I missed it, as it is not getting any coverage.
What gun control advocates are publicly pushing covers the spectrum from outlaw assault weapons, make it more expensive of normal person to purchase a gun, tax bullets for law-abiding people, limit how many guns a person can buy, stop innocent people on the No Fly List (who have not been convicted of anything) from exercising their 2nd amendment rights. There are few more, but the point is made, and all of these affect normal, law-abiding people - not one mentally-ill person or criminal is affected.
Basically, people are not in favor of the gun laws that gun control advocates want, and therefore, it does not matter what this generic poll says because it asks nothing specific. Ask any policymaker and congressman about the specifics and gun control advocates are on the losing end - that is why none of what advocates like is being passed. it si something like 2 to 1 against the gun control policies being pushed,
Think of it this way - what level of support do you think a question such as, “Do you support stricter driving laws to reduce vehicular accidents?” would get? I gather it would be 80% or higher. But then ask, “Do you support the reduction in your use of a car and in making it more expensive for you to drive in order to reduce vehicular accidents?” I garner that would go down in flames.
I stick to my original statement, but maybe should add one caveat - A plurality (maybe even a majority) are against more strict gun control laws, if it means restricting their personal use of guns. However, they have no issue if the restrictions are placed on the mentally-ill and criminals.
aw,
when someone asks you what time it is, do you lecture them on how to build a clock?
The analogy to the credit reporting agencies is that if the agency or someone reporting to the agency makes an error, it is incumbent on the person whose report it is to get it fixed. Ergo it is very much like the watch list in this regard. Not saying its identical. Saying there are similarities. No need to over-analyze.
And now the gallup poll is being rejected? Good grief. Time for the lecture on why the sky really isn’t blue (yes, we know…)
Well, he is reading off the talking points.