|
|
Post by Vince524 on Dec 21, 2016 13:30:39 GMT -5
I get that there can be a disagreement on refugees, I just wish it was done honestly. Not that Cass isn't being honest. But the left constantly tries to sell refugees as just poor women and children, never mentioning the adult men who would also and have also come in. And if you so much as bat an eye, you're an inhuman monster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2016 13:46:27 GMT -5
I am actually saying something far more controversial. I recognize the risks. But I would take them.
Some screening -- yes. But keeping people just out in case -- no.
Which is why I started my post by noting that few (maybe no one here) would agree with me.
ETA:
Indeed, the only person who might agree with me is Angela Merkel. Oh well. I wouldn't know what to do with popularity anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 21, 2016 16:39:08 GMT -5
Not even Trump is suggesting we let no one in at all.
In the end it's going to be a question of "how many?" and "how are they chosen?" I lean towards "Few" and "Strictly," others would be more liberal about taking people in. That's fine. I just find often the argument begins and ends with "Refugees!" and lots of emotiveness about women and children and how can we not and how every country that has room has an obligation, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 22, 2016 10:46:19 GMT -5
Terror cell? www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/21/berlin-truck-attacker-was-no-lone-wolf-german-authorities-say.htmlRefugees or no refugees, I think states/governments have a fundamental duty to their citizenry when it comes to security: people looking to kill civilians can't be simply allowed into a country to set up operations to this end. Or alternatively, people who have been allowed in, then go down this road need to be tossed out on their ears, once that becomes apparent. I realize there is a serious conflict with the idea of freedom of speech/ideas in this regard, but it's a nut that needs to be cracked. |
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 22, 2016 11:33:41 GMT -5
Germany has some serious problems with its anti-terror programs. The following piece mentions a few things, but the Wall Street Journal has a more in depth article about it. How can a country which decided to let in massive numbers of refugees/migrants not have a good system in place to counteract terror threats? Ridiculous! I didn't know anything about Germany's inadequacies here prior to this most recent attack, but even I thought it was strange that it took them so long to identify the probable perpetrator of the Berlin truck attack. The killer LEFT HIS WALLET AND PAPERS IN THE TRUCK!!! www.nationalreview.com/corner/443271/how-can-any-western-country-get-caught-guard-terrorismwww.wsj.com/articles/germany-ill-prepared-for-terror-fight-critics-say-1482356048So let's review: 1) Let in massive numbers of immigrants from highly volatile places in the ME 2) Allow them to form enclaves which do not assimilate into the German culture and which breed and protect terrorists 3) Don't send KNOWN asylum seekers who have terrorist ties and who have committed violent crimes, out of the country. 4) Have an inadequate anti-terrorism system in place to combat these threats This is a recipe for complete disaster. What are they thinking?  ? |
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Dec 22, 2016 12:59:13 GMT -5
I am actually saying something far more controversial. I recognize the risks. But I would take them. Some screening -- yes. But keeping people just out in case -- no. Which is why I started my post by noting that few (maybe no one here) would agree with me. ETA: Indeed, the only person who might agree with me is Angela Merkel. Oh well. I wouldn't know what to do with popularity anyway. I disagree with you, to a certain extent at least, but I can respect your position.
It's one thing to recognize the reality of allowing refugees from a worn torn country into our country, where we can't really vet them.
I think it's a discussion we should have, but honestly. It pisses me off when the left pretends like that shell shocked little boy represents all of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2016 13:07:26 GMT -5
I think it's a discussion we should have, but honestly. It pisses me off when the left pretends like that shell shocked little boy represents all of them.
I agree with that, too. In general, I don't believe we should sugar-coat things and ignore ugly facts. We should always examine, understand, and accept the potential consequences of our actions (and inactions) as best we can. Whatever we do should be based on reality, not spin or fairy tales. |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 23, 2016 6:30:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 23, 2016 12:40:19 GMT -5
Wow. He crossed the German border, then the France border, then entered Italy. Gotta love that EU open border security. (Yes, I agree with Marine Le Pen here)
And look at this from the article:
How hard has Germany been looking for him over the past months, while he was on the most dangerous list? And what sorts of networks of protection do these terrorists have? How much of their hiding and protection is provided by migrant communities which don't have direct terrorist ties but which protect their own? His own family insisted he was a good guy whose dream was simply to move back to Tunisia and start a business. Were they lying? Or did he fool them too?
Germany's mixture of compassion, incompetence, and limited resources has created a dangerous mess here. If I were a neighboring EU country, I'd be pretty pissed off right now. Not to mention how the German citizens must feel.
This sort of stuff makes Donald Trump seem a lot smarter than Merkel. There is absolutely nothing wrong with extreme vetting and strict limiting of immigration from high terrorist countries. Better to be careful and prudent now than open a Pandora's box which can never be closed.
|
|
?