A Common Sense Approach to Middle East Refugees.

[shock]

They are not "immigrants". They are refugees. There is a difference.

[Rlh04d]

There is a difference between not giving a knowledgeable statement on a subject and having a lack of knowledge. I think @Rlh04d may very well be more knowledgeable than you believe him to be. In fact, I'm a little surprised by his reply instead of a statement.

In regards to Aargh's post? I can give a longer response if needed, but once you get into "I think we should behead everyone of a religion asking for entrance," I think you lose any ability for that to generate rational discussion.

As for shock's childishness, I've discussed my job here before. In much the same way I wouldn't go around questioning the many aviation engineers on this forum about their knowledge of aerodynamics, stating I lack knowledge on this subject is laughable. Being knowledgeable on this subject is literally my job. My opinions have been wrong many times, and I'm all for anyone questioning my opinions, but I am very rarely uninformed.

Beyond that, I don't need to respond to his ridiculous personal attacks. Some people can't handle anyone that disagrees with them, without immediately degenerating into furiously foaming at the mouth.

[MoValley John]

They are not "immigrants". They are refugees. There is a difference.

Like the difference between a drunk and an alcoholic?

[shock]

Like the difference between a drunk and an alcoholic?

Like your in-laws staying for the weekend and moving in with you.

[MoValley John]

Like your in-laws staying for the weekend and moving in with you.

That happened once.

[MoValley John]

So, a refugee intends to move back home, while immigrants and my in-laws plan to stay forever?

[MoValley John]

If that's the case, all I can say is

fffuuuccckkk...

[wufan]

So, a refugee intends to move back home, while immigrants and my in-laws plan to stay forever?

Your in laws intent is to stay forever. If you treat them well they are immigrants. If you treat them poorly, it's a chance that they will become refugees and seek a new home with your brother-in-law.

[Rlh04d]

Unfortunately, our constitution gets in the way, but we could probably safely take in these refugees if we had the ability to give them "guest" status. They could come, live and integrate here, but they wouldn't have freedom of movement, nor a right to privacy. They would be allowed to live, work and worship, but they would have all correspondence monitored, their phone conversations, internet activity, email and mail. They would need to inform of any movement outside of normal everyday activities.

Not going to happen.

This might be the smartest option. We would have to be very careful to treat them well, though.

Unfortunately I think the biggest problem with this, outside of legal protections, would be that what you're describing would simply require a ton of manpower. This is likely the same problem France is dealing with -- even if they wanted to, there are just too many to track.

And regarding internet activity, take a look at the surge in encryption technology over the last few years following the various classified leaks.

[Kung Wu]

We are way, way over quotient on immigration. Many decades over quotient in fact.

- We need to completely freeze all immigration entirely. Not even student VISAs for students. Freeze it all. There should be very few exceptions and that would be for well publicized persons with Ph.D. equivalents or otherwise provable expertise in their field of education, and business sponsorships that are EXTREMELY expensive. If you don't fit one of those two, you aren't getting in for a long time. I could see an exception for students from the European Union, whose parents were born there. Same for a handful of Asian states and Australia.

- Now while ALL immigration is frozen SHORE UP THE BORDER.

- While you are shoring up the border, begin deportation of illegal aliens to one of two places:
1) Have a criminal record? Congratulations, you just earned you and your family a one way ticket to Iraq!
2) No criminal record? You get to go to balmy southern Mexico!

- Reestablish control of Iraq. We are experts in that country and know the terrain. Keep the pressure on ISIS from territory we are experts at, close to their money sources and homelands.

- Use the illegal immigrants to help rebuild Iraq and train them in security.

- Rewrite Iraq's constitution (major failing on Bush's part to let them write their own constitution). Remove any trace of Sharia from their constitution. Adjudication must be based on civil law only, going forward.

- Go heavy and hard at ALL terrorist factions. Compare intel with France and Germany. If it looks like a terrorist cell, quacks like a terrorist cell, it IS a terrorist cell.

- Stop with the drone strikes and let the elite troops go in and sort it out. DO NOT TIE THEIR HANDS when letting them do their thing.

- Once the illegal alien populations are under control, the border is being properly protected and monitored, and the terrorist cancers are eradicated, open legal immigration back up but with responsible numbers.

[ShockTalk]

There's not much to say when someone is suggesting beheading immigrants.

Well, yes there is. A better suggestion, in this case, not so "childish". Otherwise, don't give the post the time of day.

In regards to Aargh's post? I can give a longer response if needed, but once you get into "I think we should behead everyone of a religion asking for entrance," I think you lose any ability for that to generate rational discussion.

As for shock's childishness, I've discussed my job here before. In much the same way I wouldn't go around questioning the many aviation engineers on this forum about their knowledge of aerodynamics, stating I lack knowledge on this subject is laughable. Being knowledgeable on this subject is literally my job. My opinions have been wrong many times, and I'm all for anyone questioning my opinions, but I am very rarely uninformed.

Beyond that, I don't need to respond to his ridiculous personal attacks. Some people can't handle anyone that disagrees with them, without immediately degenerating into furiously foaming at the mouth.

I don't expect more from many posters. It was because you, in particular, didn't ignore the post that I expect more of a response in handling the problem.

While I thought @Aargh:'s first post was designed more for shock value, he's second post makes a lot of sense. We have past the days of fighting and solving "wars" like in the past.

[shockmonster]

We have past the days of fighting and solving "wars" like in the past.

So you are proposing to solve the problem of ISIS how? Do you agree with Obama's containment policy?

[MoValley John]

So you are proposing to solve the problem of ISIS how? Do you agree with Obama's containment policy?

But Obama told us Friday morning that ISIS, or ISIL, as he and the Arab world call it, is contained.

[shock]

Here is the issue with bringing in large numbers of Muslims, whether they are immigrants, refugees or on a visa- they cannot and will not condemn Hamas, they cannot and will not condemn the Muslim Brotherhood, and they would choose groups like ISIS and the al Qaeda over the United States of America if it came down to it. The reason they are fleeing is because they would rather choose inaction than have to face their faith and stick to it, and the strife that terror organizations need to survive and thrive are not conducive to the public living a safe productive life.

Most Christians have no problem condemning Westboro Baptist, the man who shot Dr. Tiller, or anybody else who commits acts against the public. During the crusades and through the decline of the British and Ottoman Empires, Christianity was the most violent religion on earth. They committed horrible acts against Muslims and other non-believers with the blessing of the Catholic Church and the Pope. However, disagreements with the Catholic church led to the founding and propagating of colonies in the Americas and the creation of the greatest democracy in the history of mankind. Christianity has evolved from the violence and now promotes peace, using violence only to protect.

Islam is a violent religion by nature. Militant Muslim groups pursue and will continue to pursue the destruction of America because it represents tolerance. There is no tolerance in Islam. Convert or be killed. They use refugees as a Trojan horse, knowing that European countries are socially sympathetic to these poor people who just want to live in peace, and hide militants and sympathizers amongst them. Hello Paris. If refugees are considered immigrants, hello 9/11.

The Muslim militants are reminiscent of the Japanese military during WWII. Much like bombers with bombs strapped to their chests, the Japanese had manned missiles, torpedoes and bombs. Look up the Japanese Special Attack Units. People would actually pilot a bomb into a target. Sound familiar?

Now that we understand all that, WHY IN THE HELL IS BRINGING REFUGEES HERE EVEN BEING CONSIDERED?! MoVal, if your wife's family hated you and one of her cousins said that someone in her family was going to kill you when they came over for Christmas, would you still invite them over? America is the shining beacon of religious tolerance to the known world. Muslims HATE tolerance. Its all or nothing.

Rlh04d, you seem to be socially liberal. You seem to be sympathetic to the minority movement. You seem to accept that European Socialism would be good for America. If I am wrong on these, please correct me. Thats all fine and dandy, its a philosophical argument for another time. These refugees do not think the same way we do. Their customs do not fit well into ours. While beheading them is extreme, bringing them in amongst us while we have our hands full with Mexican immigrants is asking for another tragedy like 9/11. If our borders were secure and we could give even 80% of our focus to the refugees if we brought them stateside, then that would be one thing. But we can't. We are a match away from a national crisis, and we cannot afford to open up like that.

[Rlh04d]

I don't expect more from many posters. It was because you, in particular, didn't ignore the post that I expect more of a response in handling the problem.

While I thought @Aargh's first post was designed more for shock value, he's second post makes a lot of sense. We have past the days of fighting and solving "wars" like in the past.

I do think you're right about Aargh's post. His other posts on the subject have been far more reasoned.

But I disagree with you that "a better suggestion" is needed in response to that. Some statements are so ridiculous that they don't deserve to be treated as the beginning of a discussion. I consider outright dismissal of what is tantamount to calling for genocide to be the appropriate response.