Why are people against Syrian refugees coming?

Post Reply New Topic

To the United States? An ignorant fox-news viewing paraprofessional at school said we should not accept syrian refugees into the United States because many of them may be ISIL terorrists plotting to kill Americans... first off, it's ridiculous that you would allow a million human beings to suffer over a hyped-up non-threat, second, the chances of an attack occuring are incredibly miniscule... WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE???

ISIL is not some hyped-up non-threat, and all it takes is one or two people - maybe a couple of disgruntled Islamist extremists with an interest in explosives - and mass murders start happening in public places.

It's bad enough we have our own gun-toting nutcases shooting up schools; it would be even worse if ISIL operatives were allowed within our borders and given free access to cookware and household chemicals.

Europeans have been criticizing the USA for breeding violence. Well, they will likely have seen nothing yet. They should really lock down their borders and be VERY careful about what kind of "refugees" they let in.

ISIS has specifically said that they will infiltrate our countries thru refugees on numerous occasions, I wouldn't worry a ton in America but in Europe where they're coming in on foot with virtually no vetting is crazy. I think Europe has a real problem assimilating its Muslim immigrants and I can't see this making things better. Likewise these are all welfare states so suddenly a huge needy group appears and there is less to go around the table for the needy that are actually from there.

The thing about ISIL is that it isn't a nationality or something, it's an ideology. We could put a mile-high wall around every border and coastline in Europe, and stop all flights, and they'd still get in. The US could do the same thing and they'd still get in. ISIL will not come to the West by walking here or getting on planes, but by radicalising disaffected young people over the internet.

In the grand scheme of things, the refugees who've run away from terrorism are nothing to worry about.

-------------------------

The main reason people are against refugees coming to the West seems to be that "we can't help everyone in this country yet". A close second is "they'll drain all our resources". The third is "they're terrorists".

I think the first point is an excuse to do nothing; propose helping the homeless, and you'll be told, "well, people have it much worse in the Middle East!". The second is something we need to guard against, but not a pressing issue. If we allow the refugees to participate in capitalism, they'll probably benefit their host countries, particularly as it tends to be the wealthier and better educated who have the resources to flee. The third is xenophobic and/or racist and/or Islamophobic nonsense - "they're brown, Muslim, and Syrian, so they're probably terrorists". So whilst I believe those are the three main justifications people give, I don't think any of them hold much merit.

They're a terrorist organisation. Causing as much panic as possible with as little effort as possible is their MO. Say "yeah, we're sending 500,000 terrorists your way, enjoy!" is a typical tactic. They want us to fear them, they want to incite Islamophobia (so that some of the victims of it feel sympathy for them or even join them), they want us to fear the refugees. We must not rise to the bait.

Just think about it. The entire notion is nonsensical. You spend a great deal of time and money training soldiers to fight in your war, then send them on a dangerous journey to a country where they can't help the war effort, where they can't easily access the firearms you've trained them to use, and where they will live in poverty. There's a very good chance that they'll die when their boat sinks in the Med, or on the walk to Germany. Why bother with all of that when you can radicalise local populations?

On any given night, the City of Los Angeles has over 20,000 people - men, women, and children - sleeping on the sidewalks, under overpasses, in alleys, and in bus shelters.

That's just one city!

If L.A. can't handle that crisis, then how can anyone expect over 20,000 "refugees" to be cared for, as well? Why is there more concern for foreign-born immigrants than for native-born citizens? If people are so bloody concerned about these "refugees", then why don't each of those concerned people take in an entire family and take on all the responsibility for their food, clothing, housing, medical care, and behavior?

We already have more homeless people than we can handle. We don't need any more.

Because immigrant masses ruin the economy.

these refugees will likely never return home, its as much fleeing war as it is economic

the reality is that there are probably over a billion people outside the western world that wish they could live here if given the chance, we need to start teaching people to fish since we can't save the rest of the world when we can barely save ourselves.

Exactly. Here in France we've had Islamic terrorists committing atrocities, but the vast majority (if not all of them) were France-born French citizens. It's not the refugees who commit terrorist attacks, if only because they are too busy putting their lives back together somehow and providing a future to their children. The dangerous ones are the local youths who think the system sucks and are carefully brainwashed over the internet into becoming extremists.

If anything, it's not the Syrian refugees coming to Europe we need to worry about: it's the European youths going to Syria and other ISIS-infested countries, because *they* are the ones being trained to commit terror acts.

We've been trying to "teach people to fish" for decades through the Peace Corp and other similar organizations. Now just look at where it got us.

For the same reason they are against the population of Africa or India moving here.

We have a post industrial declining population, rising net worth, and high standard of living.

We have a waiting list of educated and wealthy people who want to move here.

Why should someone not qualified be allowed to the head of the line?

Should we pass on people with advanced degrees, people with money to invest in business, who prove they will be self supporting, in favor of forever welfare cases who are illiterate? 25% of Syria is illiterate.

We do not have endless wealth, we are spending a half billion a year on Syrian refugees, and we are going in debt at the rate of a trillion a year, and have problems like Social Security being unfunded.

Just because some people say all HIV positive African Homosexuals are in need, that is no reason to bring them here.

Bringing some here may sound good, but it would be cheaper and better for more people to fund the problem at the source. For what taking 10,000 would cost, much could be done for the four million in camps.

actually, early childhood deaths, maternal perinatal deaths, and hunger have all decreased significantly. saw it in a ted talk. also learn about it from following bill gates on facebook.

I agree with this.

Plus, in Canada, those who are refugees get BETTER healthcare and BETTER unemployment benefits than those who were born here and have lived here their entire lives. I'm on disability and they get more money per month than me, which I have a major issue with.

OP from another thread:

This is so true! I'm Canadian. My mother is unemployed because she has to take care of me and my sister. The governement barely gives her enough money to the three of us. Whats the point of giving immigrants s**t when you can't even take care of your people, the ones who really need help?

Who's "you people"? In another post you shouted that you were AMERICAN!! Oh, did you mean WHITE people?? Hmmm, looks like prejudices go BOTH ways!!

You're extremely young (17? I think), you're extremely emotional----take a Ritalin, and call me in the morning!!