A Common Sense Approach to Middle East Refugees.

[RoyalShock]

The Obama administration suspended the Iraq refugee program for six months back in 2011 because two al-Qaeda linked insurgents used it to settle in Bowling Green, KY. I believe these are the same two guys Rand Paul has been talking about the past week who tried to obtain Stinger missiles once they got here. Why is Obama attacking representatives and governors who want to do the same thing due to the same fears?

[SB Shock]

[shocka khan]

The Obama administration suspended the Iraq refugee program for six months back in 2011 because two al-Qaeda linked insurgents used it to settle in Bowling Green, KY. I believe these are the same two guys Rand Paul has been talking about the past week who tried to obtain Stinger missiles once they got here. Why is Obama attacking representatives and governors who want to do the same thing due to the same fears?

Perhaps because many of the people trying to get in are widows and orphans. If the governors who don't want these people in here actually applied a little common sense (which isn't really common), they could come up with rules like only men who are too old for military service (and have enough experience that they realize going around attacking people will get you killed), women and children should be allowed in.

That's straightforward and easy to enforce, but it won't happen. Why? Because the push pollers are telling us that the public is against allowing any refugees in so it is politically expedient to invent arguments as to why we shouldn't do it instead of first looking at how we could do it and make the risk minimal.

PS: Just for the record, my opinion on these kids going to Syria to become jihadists is that if they were U.S. citizens, their citizenship should be taken away because they committed a treasonous act. They should never be allowed to set foot back into this country because they not only committed treason, but they are also a clear and present danger that continues to exist.

[shock]

Perhaps because many of the people trying to get in are widows and orphans. If the governors who don't want these people in here actually applied a little common sense (which isn't really common), they could come up with rules like only men who are too old for military service (and have enough experience that they realize going around attacking people will get you killed), women and children should be allowed in.

That's straightforward and easy to enforce, but it won't happen. Why? Because the push pollers are telling us that the public is against allowing any refugees in so it is politically expedient to invent arguments as to why we shouldn't do it instead of first looking at how we could do it and make the risk minimal.

PS: Just for the record, my opinion on these kids going to Syria to become jihadists is that if they were U.S. citizens, their citizenship should be taken away because they committed a treasonous act. They should never be allowed to set foot back into this country because they not only committed treason, but they are also a clear and present danger that continues to exist.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Smarter-Bomb-Children-Suicide/dp/1442219521

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/africa/nigeria-violence/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9014282/Afghan-boy-suicide-bombers-tell-how-they-are-brainwashed-into-believing-they-will-survive.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/afghanistan-pakistan/isis-in-afghanistan/why-afghanistans-children-are-used-as-spies-and-suicide-bombers/

[WstateU]

Perhaps because many of the people trying to get in are widows and orphans. If the governors who don't want these people in here actually applied a little common sense (which isn't really common), they could come up with rules like only men who are too old for military service (and have enough experience that they realize going around attacking people will get you killed), women and children should be allowed in.

I feel for Ahmed, however I don't want him here...

[shocka khan]

http://www.amazon.com/The-Smarter-Bo.../dp/1442219521

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/africa/nigeria-violence/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9014282/Afghan-boy-suicide-bombers-tell-how-they-are-brainwashed-into-believing-they-will-survive.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...icide-bombers/

Really, that's all you have? Really? Do you really think that grandmas and 6 year olds blow them selves up at a high enough rate you think you can't accept them?

So do you support w Muslim registry?

[pinstripers]

What rate would be acceptable?

[shock]

Really, that's all you have? Really? Do you really think that grandmas and 6 year olds blow them selves up at a high enough rate you think you can't accept them?

So do you support w Muslim registry?

It's not all I have. Google women and children suicide bombers and see for yourself.

Do I support a Muslim registry? I support a policy that keeps us safe without a registry. When the Greeks leave a giant wooden horse at the gates, do you roll it in?

[Rlh04d]

PS: Just for the record, my opinion on these kids going to Syria to become jihadists is that if they were U.S. citizens, their citizenship should be taken away because they committed a treasonous act. They should never be allowed to set foot back into this country because they not only committed treason, but they are also a clear and present danger that continues to exist.

This would actually be illegal by international law. Legally, no state is allowed to render a person stateless.

As ISIS is not a recognized state, and thus can't grant recognized citizenship to anyone, you cannot take away the citizenship of a person without another citizenship to fall back on.

We can arrest them, though.

[Rlh04d]

I was being completely facetious.

I figured when you said it was working :)

[MoValley John]

It's not all I have. Google women and children suicide bombers and see for yourself.

Do I support a Muslim registry? I support a policy that keeps us safe without a registry. When the Greeks leave a giant wooden horse at the gates, do you roll it in?

Prior to WWII, we should have let the Jews in. During WWII, we shouldn't have interred citizens of Japanese descent. During WWII, we properly and correctly curtailed any and all immigration from hostile countries. While the current situation isn't a declared war, the same rationale needs to apply, you don't invite potential enemies inside your borders.

We should ban immigration and acceptance of refugees from hostile countries. Period. People who support the taking of refugees and immigrats from Syria like to quote a bronze plaque on the Statue of Liberty, at the same time, they forget the preamble to the Constitution.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You can't insure domestic tranquility, at the same time invite potential terrorists inside our borders.

You can't provide for the common defense, at the same time allow enemies to establish themselves among us.

You can't promote the general welfare, nor can you secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity by opening up our borders to those that would harm us.

That said, there needs to be a balance in how we handle these refugees. Unfortunately for the innocent refugees, we know ISIS is planting insurgents among them, we know that vetting them so far has been a failure and we know that there is a very heightened risk to our safety and security by allowing them in. Until we can be assured that we aren't bringing terrorists in, we must keep them all out.

That is common sense. It sounds harsh, but is the only common sense answer.

[Kung Wu]

That is common sense. It sounds harsh, but is the only common sense answer.

How about we air drop AK-47's and a years worth of ammo per gun all over the exit points of Syria where the refugees are fleeing. Indiscriminately arm _everybody_ in Syria. Then don't let 'em out.

Edit: Forget that, why bolster Russia's economy? Air drop M16's!

[pinstripers]

Prior to WWII, we should have let the Jews in. During WWII, we shouldn't have interred citizens of Japanese descent. During WWII, we properly and correctly curtailed any and all immigration from hostile countries. While the current situation isn't a declared war, the same rationale needs to apply, you don't invite potential enemies inside your borders.

We should ban immigration and acceptance of refugees from hostile countries. Period. People who support the taking of refugees and immigrats from Syria like to quote a bronze plaque on the Statue of Liberty, at the same time, they forget the preamble to the Constitution.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You can't insure domestic tranquility, at the same time invite potential terrorists inside our borders.

You can't provide for the common defense, at the same time allow enemies to establish themselves among us.

You can't promote the general welfare, nor can you secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity by opening up our borders to those that would harm us.

That said, there needs to be a balance in how we handle these refugees. Unfortunately for the innocent refugees, we know ISIS is planting insurgents among them, we know that vetting them so far has been a failure and we know that there is a very heightened risk to our safety and security by allowing them in. Until we can be assured that we aren't bringing terrorists in, we must keep them all out.

That is common sense. It sounds harsh, but is the only common sense answer.

Common sense has never been a staple of the left.

[shockmonster]

We could have stopped their rise at many points. My point is just that pulling out of Iraq wasn't the one, single point that created the current problem. It exacerbated the problem, but it didn't create it. The invasion of Iraq didn't create it, either, as the real problem is the terrorist ideology in general, and that has far longer-term causes -- but it did create this specific problem.

We could have done dozens if not hundreds of things differently along the way. I would have recommended co-opting or executing all Sadaam loyalists on war crimes at the start, to prevent the numbers of disaffected former Iraqi military leadership/intelligence who defected to ISIS.

I'm a little late to this party but I think that Kung Wu's viewpoint has just as much validity as yours. Actually, we don't know for sure what would have happened if we wouldn't have pulled out of Iraq. It's probably between you and KW. It is safe to say that ISIS wouldn't be what it is today.

[Rlh04d]

Could please expound on this?

Also, my position regarding immigration was that way prior to the Muslim refugee thing. However, my position would also now apply to it as well. If you have not done so, also read this thread and watch the videos, particularly the second before answering. Feel free to debunk the videos all you wish. I'm most always open to new ideas and approaches.

Alright, I've gone over everything now :D This is just for ShockTalk, so everyone else feel free to ignore the wall of text.

I reject Roy Beck's thesis: the idea that immigration is about humanitarianism. His fundamental argument is that immigration is a means of humanitarian aid to the world -- and yes, if you're viewing it from that perspective, then he's correct. Our immigration policies do not make other countries better. They make us better.

Look at immigration from India. Do I need to give numbers for the plethora of Indian immigrants filling STEM positions in the United States? Here's one fun number: the median annual income of US households headed by an Indian immigrant is $103,000, twice the US median. Does that immigration make India better? Unquestionably not -- there is clearly, without question, a brain drain from India into the United States, and India is losing brilliant doctors, engineers, and leaders who could be used to make India a far greater, more prosperous, safer, and stronger nation. Not every single immigrant from India is making the United States a better place, but on average, there is no question that the United States is far better off from the addition of large numbers of Indian immigrants.

The argument made against immigration is always the idea that "we're not getting the best and brightest." That is both true and untrue -- many of the illegal immigrants to the United States from Mexico and other countries are poor and uneducated. Are we really at the point that we don't believe uneducated immigrants make the United States better, though? How many of our families came to the United States because they were educated, wealthy members of their home countries and just decided to leave out of boredom? My great-great-grandparents came to the United States as uneducated, poor German farmers, far, far from the "best of the best" from their home countries. I would wager that 90%+ of people on this forum had their families come to this country under similar circumstances. If immigrants who are not the best and brightest of their home countries make our country worse, then how did the United States get to this point in the first place? The idea that poor, uneducated immigrants are bad for our future completely, absolutely rejects the entire history of the United States, which has become the greatest country on earth on the back of uneducated, poor immigrants.

His other thesis, from the video you posted, is that US population growth is alarming and dangerous. I reject this as well.

Population growth isn't just normal, economically it's actually necessary, in much the same way that inflation is necessary -- we worry about inflation, but deflation would be profoundly damaging to our economy. Stagnating population growth is actually very, very bad. Here's one simple explanation of why: look at our social security system, where current workers support retired workers with their incomes. The reason social security is in trouble is because life expectancy and birthrates are increasing the numbers earning social security relative to the numbers supporting social security with their incomes.

As a starker example of the impact population growth has on economic growth, look at Japan. Do you remember when people were throwing a fit about how Japan was going to overcome us and take over the world? For a while there in the 80s Japan was the villain in tons of Box Office movies -- check out Robocop again ;) Their economic growth is over essentially, and has been since the early 90s, in large part due to the fact that they just stopped having children. Their birth rate is below the replacement rate, people are living longer and longer, and they've become an elderly civilization. Not a winning combination. Similar issues are afflicting Europe now, and are in part why Europe is having economic problems long-term, and in fact this is why China has finally stepped away from their One Child Policy -- not because they had a change of heart on the morality of the decision, but because China was reaching a breaking point where their population would begin declining by 2040-50, leaving them with an elderly civilization similar to Japan's, with the accompanying economic stagnation.

One of the reasons that immigration growth is going to become such an important part of the US' population growth isn't just because of the number of immigrants we're letting in -- it's because non-immigrants aren't having children. Without immigration, our own fertility rate has dropped below the replacement rate, meaning that if you stop immigration, as you suggested, our population is actually shrinking. And, again, this means we become Japan. Our fertility rate is on a clear downward trend.

There's a lot of fear-mongering about how the United States is going to become predominantly Hispanic, but this is always couched in terms of immigration being to blame. It's not, at least not completely. It's because white Americans are not having children! White Americans are to blame for this, not immigration. And this is not going to change -- the younger generation is not going to suddenly go back to embracing child-bearing any time soon, and possibly not ever. When people want to get into this "we're going to be the minority!" mindset, the reason is because "we" have stopped breeding. And unless "we" are going to go back to embracing breeding, either "we" will become the minority, or "we" will watch our country become Japan, and stagnate for decades, if we're lucky.

Immigration isn't the threat to American culture -- our increasing xenophobic antagonism of immigration, and our declining birthrate, is. If you're one that defines American culture as "white," then yes, be afraid. If you're one that defines American culture by our shared morals, our shared work ethic, and so on, then no, the threat would come from rejecting the immigrants that are already here and not embracing them, because when you reject immigrants and refuse to absorb them into the overall culture, you end up with the way France is now: "French" culture, and a disaffected, angry, violent minority population that knows they can never "become French," and thus reject all aspects of French culture, including Western morality.

Beck makes an interesting point about how much larger our population is today over the ~80 million when Roosevelt fought to protect lands. What he does not acknowledge is the dramatic influence of the population growth following that point, which he is clearly criticizing, on the massive economic gains the United States had following it. When Roosevelt went to protect those lands, the US was a relatively minor world power. That population growth (both through immigration and through strong domestic fertility) had a HUGE influence on the economic growth that drove the US to being the premier world economy.

We have two solutions for the economic disaster a fertility rate below the replacement rate represents: either get current American citizens ****ing more, or work harder to indoctrinate immigrants into American culture regardless of race or country of origin.

This is already long. If I was going to continue, I would make a case for worldwide brain-drain due to the brilliance of American universities, which ends up with the world sending their best and brightest to go to school in the US, and many of those students choosing to stay here. I'd also make a case that the very large percentage of world leaders educated in America imparts American culture and values on other countries far better than our military has ever been able to. Soft power's a hell of a strength to have.

Long term there will have to be a solution to the major reliance of capitalism on population growth, and I suspect it'll be through a fundamental change brought on by technology -- but we aren't there yet, and we might not be in our lifetime. The real concerning trend is that there is an undeniable correlation between economic prosperity and declining fertility rates, which means that, eventually, worldwide economic prosperity is going to peak and decline, unless we can fundamentally change the game between the world fertility rate falls under the replacement rate.

None of that is to say that I completely reject any idea at evaluating what is an appropriate level of immigration for the US. That's not my point at all -- that's a debate definitely worth having, and continued illegal immigration has to be stopped, because it limits our ability to evaluate and control that appropriate level. My response is to your statement that "I am opposed to immigration at this time." All evidence shows that halting immigration would severely damage the US economy.

Some interesting reading, although I can suggest quite a bit more research as evidence:

http://news.usc.edu/45490/shrinking-california-child-population-signals-major-changes-for-state/