Syrian Refugee Opinion Poll

[beatitude]

First of all, America can't afford to solve its homeless problem or take care of its vets. Where we will get the money to help these people? is it even realistic for us right now?

Secondly, I suspect taking in men from Syria will increase the rape culture in America. (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape) Countries that are facing this problem (like Sweden) are putting money into teaching refuges not to rape, but again, where will we get this money for this (and frankly, how effective will it be?)

I would like to take in as many refuges as possible. If we give a high and quick priority to children, women, and men with families (preferably all together), I think that minimizes the concerns on terrorism and rape and helps the people in serious need first. 

The Gatestone Institute's article on rape is bogus. This explains why. Gatestone's fudging of statistics is unsurprising, because they are a notoriously anti-immigrant group that has also been loudly pro-war, and they had this attitude long before the Syrian crisis. It's not a coincidence that the majority of websites declaring that immigrants = rape threat belong to neo-Nazis and white supremacists. If we read actual studies on immigrant crime, the researchers themselves aren't throwing around causal links like this.

Refugees are people like us. The major difference between us and them is the horrors they have experienced. When I was living in refugee camps, I regularly had people concerned that I would be sexually assaulted. They had no basis for this assertion other than a conviction that refugees, while they deserve pity, are some alien species and their ways are not our ways. And for refugees themselves, these assumptions are the final straw - they have lost their home, their livelihood, and often their loved ones, and then they lose what's left of their dignity when people decide that they're so amoral they need to be taught how to behave. It's dehumanising. As one teenage refugee said to me, "I get sick and tired of trying to prove that I'm a person. We were real people once, humans, and I want to be someone real again." I think of him whenever I encounter people reducing refugees to statistics or treating them as the bogeyman under the bed.

The US has taken in barely a handful of refugees since the Syria crisis began, just over 2000. The idea that increasing this number is imperilling veterans and homeless people is frustrating, partly because increasing the tiny actual number of Syrian refugees to the modest proposed number is hardly going to break the bank, and partly because the people who make this argument are usually people who have a near-allergic reaction to the word "welfare". There seems to be an awful lot of concern for homeless veterans about now that was nowhere to be seen a couple of months ago. It's not a choice between tending to the needs of homeless people and looking after refugees. That is a strawman comparison.

[NadaTeTurbe]

I voted thinking about my country, France. I want to welcome syrian refugee here. I'm not afraid that terrorist will be among them : as we learned from the last attacks where all the terrorist were French, french society is very good when it comes to producing terrorist. But of course, for french politician, it's more easy to speak about refugee than to say "We failed. There are future terrorist among us."

In fact, I want my country to take MORE refugee. We can't say "we're fighting ISIS" and then say to the population who are running away from ISIS "ISIS is bad, but stay with them." 

Beatitude, it seems like the man who had the syrian passport was not syrian. It was a false passport. 

I spoke with syrian refugees in my region. All very educated, not really religious, very eager to learn french and to integrate in our society. the children are traumatized by the war, and the last attacks worried them that France was like Syria  

The Lord watches over the foreigner
psalm 145

 

[Amppax]

Personally, I think Taylor Marshall's article is pretty weak. I'm really not seeing how refugees are going to enact Sharia here in the US (they don't have the numbers for it, and they won't be voting) so that argument is pointless. And comparing refugees to an invading army (a la Maccabees) is a flawed analogy. So the only unique parts of his argument are flawed. 

[KnightofChrist]

I wrote and posted this on Facebook and thought I'd share it here.

Whether people like it or not there are legitimate concerns to hold for not being so quick to allow refugees into western nations. There are concerns that go beyond the threat of ISIS infiltration. Here I list those concerns with factual sources. We cannot afford to have simple minded and uneducated extremes on either side. Those extremes being refugees = terrorist and anti-refugee = racist. No matter what side you may be on in this debate I hope the list of concerns below are concerns you will now also share. #RefugeeCrisis

1) Christians (and other non-Islamic faiths) in many cases cannot enter the refugees camps out of legitimate fear that they will be murdered, beaten or otherwise abused by a number of Muslim refugees. This explains in part why a vast majority of refugees coming into Western nations are Muslim and Christians are so very few. Do we as a nation want to ignore or be ignorant of this behavior and thus risk importing it here?

2) Muslims who have converted in the camps to Christianity have been severally beaten by a number of Muslim refugees. Do we as a nation want to ignore or be ignorant of this behavior and thus risk importing it here?

3) On the refugee boats there have been a number of cases were Christians (and other non-Islamic faiths) have been murdered, thrown over board into the sea where they have drowned.  Do we as a nation want to ignore or be ignorant of this behavior and thus risk importing it here?

4) There has been a HIGH number of rape or a culture of rape taking hold against women and CHILDREN in the camps. Do we as a nation want to ignore or be ignorant of this behavior and thus risk importing it here?

5) According to the UNHCR (the United Nations Refugee Agency) 62% of the refugees are men, only 22% are children, and only 16% are women. This logically concludes that a high percentage of those abandoned or left behind are women and children. What sort of men abandon their children, wives and mothers behind defenseless and unprotected? Do we as a nation want to ignore or be ignorant of this behavior and thus risk importing it here?

========

Sources:

1) Abuse in camps by Muslim refugees:

http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/sharia.law.rules.in.refugee.camps.where.christians.attacked.harrassed/49789.htm

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/syrian-christians-are-greatest-peril-least-likely-be-admitted

http://gatesofvienna.net/2015/10/the-persecution-of-christians-in-a-german-refugee-camp/  

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/02/christian-refugees-fleeing-germanys-migrant-shelters-forced-muslim-residents/

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260262/muslims-persecute-christian-refugees-germany-daniel-greenfield

2) Muslim beaten or abused by Muslim refugees for converting to Christianity.

http://m.christianpost.com/news/christian-refugee-conversion-islam-attacked-muslim-migrants-germany-148154/

3) Abuse and murder at sea by Muslim refugees::

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/christian-refugees-thrown-overboard-by-muslim-migrants-on-crossing-from-libya-to-italy-police-believe

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/11542320/Italy-accused-of-bringing-in-Islamist-terrorists-after-Christians-thrown-into-sea.html

http://www.christiantimes.com/article/police.christian.migrants.thrown.overboard.by.muslims.on.mediterranean.boat/52173.htm

4) High number of rape against women and children in the refugee camps

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3247831/Rape-child-abuse-rife-overcrowded-asylum-centres-huge-surge-migrants-pushes-Germany-s-services-breaking-point-claim-womens-rights-groups-politicians.html

http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/10072015

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/25/culture-of-rape-taking-hold-in-refugee-camps/

5) UNHCR data showing high number of refugees are men.

http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php

[Luigi]

"5) According to the UNHCR (the United Nations Refugee Agency) 62% of the refugees are men, only 22% are children, and only 16% are women. This logically concludes that a high percentage of those abandoned or left behind are women and children."

This is my primary concern. I was unaware of the UNHCR statistics, but I have a friend who teaches English as a second language in Turkey, and she saw the same proportions among the refugees - mostly young men, some few children, and very few women.

Let's take the women and children, at least until it's safe for them to return to their own country; if it doesn't become safe, then take the fathers & sons, too, if they're rejoining family who are already here. Otherwise, let the men defend their own homes & country. I find it astounding that some of the most well-established members of the Democratic party - Hilary Clinton and Dianne Feinstein among them - are calling on the president to send more troops to Syria. (When did liberals become hawks?!)  Why would the US send ANY troops to Syria when there are any number of unattached military-aged men streaming to other countries? Something is wrong with this picture.

[mcts]

Let 'em in. If the bad guys are going to come in, they're not going to wait for the months long process, where they may or may not actually get approved. They're just going to come in. 

[Didacus]

The only reason many of us are open to allowing large numbers of islamists amongst us is that we have never known islam amongst us when islam is strong or the majority. 

[Winchester]

Of the means of access,  the refugee route makes the least sense of all for terrorists. Sitting in a camp for a year or more with little assurance of being sent to the US. 

 

5) UNHCR data showing high number of refugees are men.

http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php
 

 

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

The numbers shared by the KOC show 850,571 refugees and include only sea arrivals. The numbers in the link I've provided to the KOC time and again show 4,289,792. Males do make up a "large number" of refugees in the larger sample, but not apparently not large enough to suit the KOC.

 

 

[Credo in Deum]

Help those in need. Send back those who abuse the help. 

[bardegaulois]

I must admit that I don't like the choices here at all because they don't count for all the possible nuances. I selected Christians only, but it's far more complicated than that. Of course Christians and any other group that would face hardship and potential violence in a refugee camp should have first billing, as should unaccompanied women and children, the elderly, and so forth.

As for all the young non-Christian men attempting to emigrate (the majority, I understand), their reason for emigration will have to be determined: are they genuine refugees or merely migrants of convenience? Also, not all of these migrants are even Syrian; we must determine who isn't and if they're just taking advantage of an open-door policy. Lastly, we're going to have to assess if there's even work available for them; as we in the US have seen with Mexicans and other Hispanics, allowing (well, tolerating) a large population to immigrate during a period of deindustrialization has poor consequences for labor all across the board, native and immigrant alike, and is actually in many ways an incubator of racism and nativism. Look at the Trump phenomenon of last summer if you don't believe me. And all of this isn't even addressing the matter of background screening for domestic security purposes.

So it's hard to say it's a cut-and-dry issue that can be delineated into three choices.

[Winchester]

10 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

Help those in need. Send back those who abuse the help. 

That would be quite the police state, there. I don't think you know what you're advocating.

[KnightofChrist]

On 11/22/2015, 9:55:04, Winchester said:

Of the means of access,  the refugee route makes the least sense of all for terrorists. Sitting in a camp for a year or more with little assurance of being sent to the US. 

And yet terrorist have used the refugee route to come to the Untied States or refugees have gone the terrorist route after coming to the United States. Either way a reason to be concerned. Just because it's hard, just because ISIS looks down on the refugees doesn't mean terrorists don't use the route.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322649/The-enemy-Nearly-SEVENTY-arrested-America-ISIS-plots-include-refugees-given-safe-haven-turned-terror.html

On 11/22/2015, 9:55:04, Winchester said:

 

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

The numbers shared by the KOC show 850,571 refugees and include only sea arrivals. The numbers in the link I've provided to the KOC time and again show 4,289,792. Males do make up a "large number" of refugees in the larger sample, but not apparently not large enough to suit the KOC.

 

 

I may be wrong but I only recall having one prior conversion with you about the Refugee crisis. I don't recall you sharing 'this time and time again' link, I do recall you being verbally nasty lol so I then ignored most of what you said after that. If I missed the link it's due to the fact that I don't recall, never noticed it, or I ignored the post(s) in was in due to some nasty nonsense. More than likely it was due to nastiness. You're a friend and when you talk like that I just ignore it so it doesn't anger me.
 

But thank you for the link, I stand corrected one that point. For now at least. However why ignore the other points? I put the refugee numbers last because it was least important.

[Winchester]

4 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

And yet terrorist have used the refugee route to come to the Untied States or refugees have gone the terrorist route after coming to the United States. Either way a reason to be concerned. Just because it's hard, just because ISIS looks down on the refugees doesn't mean terrorists don't use the route.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322649/The-enemy-Nearly-SEVENTY-arrested-America-ISIS-plots-include-refugees-given-safe-haven-turned-terror.html

I may be wrong but I only recall having one prior conversion with you about the Refugee crisis. I don't recall you sharing 'this time and time again' link, I do recall you being verbally nasty lol so I then ignored most of what you said after that. If I missed the link it's due to the fact that I don't recall, never noticed it, or I ignored the post(s) in was in due to some nasty nonsense. More than likely it was due to nastiness. You're a friend and when you talk like that I just ignore it so it doesn't anger me.
 

But thank you for the link, I stand corrected one that point. For now at least. However why ignore the other points? I put the refugee numbers last because it was least important.

You're comparing people who allegedly provided aid to people sent to carry out attacks. Someone with sympathies might well come here and then send money back. If they were previously involved with terror, there's a good chance they will be rejected. If they want to get to the US to carry out an attack, going through refugee processes are lengthy and there's no assurance of them getting sent to the US. A refugee might also come here and then "radicalize". I see these as different concerns, and the numbers don't say this is a serious threat, never mind common sense. The article you cited also speaks of natives joining ISIS. I saw two refugees mentioned in the article who provided aid, another who was born in a refugee camp. Others were immigrants or natives. The refugees were the minority.

 

I am often verbally nasty. It's a flaw, and I agree that it can really screw up whatever message I've decided is so important to deliver. The tone overwhelms content. Sorry about that.

 

The last point caught my eye as I was scrolling. I picked it because it's a bug I had up my butt about previous talks. So bug up my butt is the short version.

[PhuturePriest]

After learning more about the process and hearing all arguments, in the end I think I've come in favor of allowing Syrian refugees in. The process is incredibly scrupulous and long, and no terrorist with half a brain would ever choose it as a means of getting in the United States.

[KnightofChrist]

18 hours ago, Winchester said:

You're comparing people who allegedly provided aid to people sent to carry out attacks. Someone with sympathies might well come here and then send money back. If they were previously involved with terror, there's a good chance they will be rejected. If they want to get to the US to carry out an attack, going through refugee processes are lengthy and there's no assurance of them getting sent to the US. A refugee might also come here and then "radicalize". I see these as different concerns, and the numbers don't say this is a serious threat, never mind common sense. The article you cited also speaks of natives joining ISIS. I saw two refugees mentioned in the article who provided aid, another who was born in a refugee camp. Others were immigrants or natives. The refugees were the minority.

Yes, it's common to compare those that willfully pay for or fund the murder of others to those that actually murder others. 

I don't know what the actual data is on our "good chances" but Government has show it's utter incompetence many times, over many years, over many issues. So I don't really trust our chances to them. I know it's been repeated many times but this is the same Government that said ISIS was a JV team, that ISIS was contained just hours before the attack in Paris (for those that don't like those two examples there are plenty of other incompetent nonsense by Government) and now that Government pinky promises that they are rigorously vetting the refugees and that there's no need to be concerned.  Which may be true, I just don't trust that it is true.

Going through the lengthy and difficult process would in my opinion be a cunning move on part of ISIS or like minded groups. If they made it through the refugee process rather than for example the visa process there would be less suspicion and more protections for them from both the public and the Government. After all no one but those nasties on the right would dare question them.

Anyway, for me it all comes down to trust. I do not trust the United States Federal Government, I am not reassured by their words, I do not trust their words. 

 

 

18 hours ago, Winchester said:

I am often verbally nasty. It's a flaw, and I agree that it can really screw up whatever message I've decided is so important to deliver. The tone overwhelms content. Sorry about that.

 

The last point caught my eye as I was scrolling. I picked it because it's a bug I had up my butt about previous talks. So bug up my butt is the short version.

It's fine, I ignore it like I ignore ads or commercials. No  big deal.