Military Significant Others and Spouse Support - MilitarySOS.com
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47

Thread: Do you think America should take in Syrian refugees?

  1. Senior Member
    CDNTrish's Avatar
    CDNTrish is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6,431
    #21
    Advertisements
    I think it's sad that this is even a question. These are humans, with families, and children, and their whole world has been turned upside down. They are fleeing their homes, persecuted for their religion, or for believing in democracy, for speaking up against a brutal dictator, for speaking up against tyrannical murderers. They are desperate, with nothing, running away, hoping for something, anything better than bombs being blasted on their neighbourhoods, on their families, on their loved ones. They are hoping for something better for their children and sacrificing everything they have left to try and start a new life.

    I have so many other feelings on this, but I'll leave it at that, because I am honestly dumbfounded that this is even a debate.

    Also, the "let's fix our shit first" is mind-bogging, considering the US (and NATO by extension) is already extensively involved in the Middle East.
  2. Moderator
    TheSisterWife's Avatar
    TheSisterWife is offline
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    20,560

    #22
    Yes. Not willy-nilly, but yes.
  3. Senior Member
    Andie's Avatar
    Andie is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,747
    #23
    Yeah, I understand the reservations especially in the wake of what might've (last I heard they hadn't confirmed that's how they entered the country) happened in Paris. But, I don't think completely banning Syrian refugees would increase safety in the US. I also don't agree with the "focus on or issues before solving other people's issues" thing cause I feel like that's always directed at humanitarian efforts as opposed to war efforts where I think the bigger cost is (and certainly the US can do both, our issues aren't unsolvable IMO it's mostly that we disagree on how we should solve them that's holding us back).

    And when we take on refugees I do think we are obligated to allow them access to pretty much anything we would do for a citizen in regards to basic needs.
  4. Senior Member
    Guynavywife's Avatar
    Guynavywife is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    19,283
    Blog Entries
    2
    #24
    Quote Originally Posted by CDNTrish View Post
    I think it's sad that this is even a question. These are humans, with families, and children, and their whole world has been turned upside down. They are fleeing their homes, persecuted for their religion, or for believing in democracy, for speaking up against a brutal dictator, for speaking up against tyrannical murderers. They are desperate, with nothing, running away, hoping for something, anything better than bombs being blasted on their neighbourhoods, on their families, on their loved ones. They are hoping for something better for their children and sacrificing everything they have left to try and start a new life.

    I have so many other feelings on this, but I'll leave it at that, because I am honestly dumbfounded that this is even a debate.

    Also, the "let's fix our shit first" is mind-bogging, considering the US (and NATO by extension) is already extensively involved in the Middle East.
    Really? There are lots of legitimate (and not as legitimate, in my opinion) reasons to say no.
    Here is one:

    Ok, we bring in 10,000 refugees. Now what? Who is going to house them? Support them? What kind of work are they going to do? Do we send them back after a certain amount of time? Who is going to absorb the cost of educating the children, the health care, etc.

    Its nice to say "none of that should matter" but are we just going to let them in and then abandon them? Are we going to keep them in refugee camps like we did the Cubans?

    Letting them in is just the first step. There is no plan for follow-up. If we let them in, all of the above become our responsibility. Their welfare becomes our responsibility.
    If you want my opinion on your relationship or life issues, just ask Villanelle!
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleMsSunshine View Post
    I think it's really funny when people come on here, and automatically assume that everyone here is a gung-ho, hoo-rah, i-bleed-red-white-and-blue, kiss-my-military-ass, people-in-uniform-can-do-no-wrong, and i'm-entitled-to-everything bitch.
    "RIP Blackie, and Whitey, New Whitey. Goodbye Poopers and Momma Beige and Lady Grey. New Blackie and the Whitey Sisters rule the roost now!"
  5. Senior Member
    *Palindrome*'s Avatar
    *Palindrome* is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    VA to Japanland!
    Posts
    4,528
    #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Southern-queen View Post
    At the moment....I am wishy washy on the subject. I don't want to say no because I know not all or even most Syrians are bad, but I don't want to say yes because I know posing as refugees is how they are getting into other countries.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.VinoVet View Post
    This is how I feel. I soooooo want to let in a [certain number of] refugees and help, because most of these people are kind and good and are just fleeing the horrors, but some to pose as refugees simply to enter the country and then they get to train homegrown terrorists. I know besides 100% closing borders this can happen regardless, and I dont think we should do that obviously, but I have a hard time being excited to take on refugees.
    Quote Originally Posted by Guynavywife View Post
    Really? There are lots of legitimate (and not as legitimate, in my opinion) reasons to say no.
    Here is one:

    Ok, we bring in 10,000 refugees. Now what? Who is going to house them? Support them? What kind of work are they going to do? Do we send them back after a certain amount of time? Who is going to absorb the cost of educating the children, the health care, etc.

    Its nice to say "none of that should matter" but are we just going to let them in and then abandon them? Are we going to keep them in refugee camps like we did the Cubans?

    Letting them in is just the first step. There is no plan for follow-up. If we let them in, all of the above become our responsibility. Their welfare becomes our responsibility.
  6. Senior Member
    lovely's Avatar
    lovely is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,023
    #26
    In my country we have enough refugees coming in pretending to be syrian and most of them are actors . I get that those people need help and are fleeing from war however we need to check our borders more strictly and don't let just any refugee coming in . Better safe than sorry .
  7. Senior Member
    kw1214's Avatar
    kw1214 is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    858
    #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Guynavywife View Post
    Really? There are lots of legitimate (and not as legitimate, in my opinion) reasons to say no.
    Here is one:

    Ok, we bring in 10,000 refugees. Now what? Who is going to house them? Support them? What kind of work are they going to do? Do we send them back after a certain amount of time? Who is going to absorb the cost of educating the children, the health care, etc.

    Its nice to say "none of that should matter" but are we just going to let them in and then abandon them? Are we going to keep them in refugee camps like we did the Cubans?

    Letting them in is just the first step. There is no plan for follow-up. If we let them in, all of the above become our responsibility. Their welfare becomes our responsibility.
    I agree with the above and I must add that that we don't have a secure plan to vet these refugees. Most of these people have no documentation, no records.... we have no idea who they are. There is so much more on this issue but I have to say no, we simply can't handle this.
  8. Senior Member
    irish85's Avatar
    irish85 is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,732
    #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Guynavywife View Post
    Really? There are lots of legitimate (and not as legitimate, in my opinion) reasons to say no.
    Here is one:

    Ok, we bring in 10,000 refugees. Now what? Who is going to house them? Support them? What kind of work are they going to do? Do we send them back after a certain amount of time? Who is going to absorb the cost of educating the children, the health care, etc.

    Its nice to say "none of that should matter" but are we just going to let them in and then abandon them? Are we going to keep them in refugee camps like we did the Cubans?

    Letting them in is just the first step. There is no plan for follow-up. If we let them in, all of the above become our responsibility. Their welfare becomes our responsibility.
    This is where I stand on the issue right now too.
    "She knew she loved him when 'home' went from being a place to being a person."
  9. Senior Member
    fallinstar's Avatar
    fallinstar is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    5,863
    #29
    Yes.
  10. MilitarySOS Jewel
    AshleyO's Avatar
    AshleyO is offline
    MilitarySOS Jewel
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    5,727
    #30
    Quote Originally Posted by CDNTrish View Post
    I think it's sad that this is even a question. These are humans, with families, and children, and their whole world has been turned upside down. They are fleeing their homes, persecuted for their religion, or for believing in democracy, for speaking up against a brutal dictator, for speaking up against tyrannical murderers. They are desperate, with nothing, running away, hoping for something, anything better than bombs being blasted on their neighbourhoods, on their families, on their loved ones. They are hoping for something better for their children and sacrificing everything they have left to try and start a new life.

    I have so many other feelings on this, but I'll leave it at that, because I am honestly dumbfounded that this is even a debate.

    Also, the "let's fix our shit first" is mind-bogging, considering the US (and NATO by extension) is already extensively involved in the Middle East.
    Quote Originally Posted by Guynavywife View Post
    Really? There are lots of legitimate (and not as legitimate, in my opinion) reasons to say no.
    Here is one:

    Ok, we bring in 10,000 refugees. Now what? Who is going to house them? Support them? What kind of work are they going to do? Do we send them back after a certain amount of time? Who is going to absorb the cost of educating the children, the health care, etc.

    Its nice to say "none of that should matter" but are we just going to let them in and then abandon them? Are we going to keep them in refugee camps like we did the Cubans?

    Letting them in is just the first step. There is no plan for follow-up. If we let them in, all of the above become our responsibility. Their welfare becomes our responsibility.
    Trish, that was kind of my knee-jerk reaction as well. However, like Guy says it's just not that simple. I think what they are facing is horrible and I they absolutely need some sort of help, but housing refugees is so difficult.

    I Eelizah
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •