House vote to halt resettlement of refugees from Syria and Iraq

[SillyAmerican]

According to an L.A. Times article on November 19th:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you support the position of President Obama/Nancy Pelosi, or those members of the House who voted to curtail plans to accept refugees from Syria/Iraq? If you support the President's position, please explain your objection to our erring on the side of caution and why you think the President is so adamant about needing to accept these refugees in the wake of the Paris attacks.

[SillyAmerican]

Also, I can pretty much guarantee that even if someone slipped through the cracks and committed an act of terrorism, the number of people killed as a result would almost certainly be less than the number of refugees who will die from us closing our doors to them - and yes, American lives and Syrian lives are of the same value.

Perhaps the United States should indicate that it is ready to match the sum total of refugees welcomed into the following countries: Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain. Perhaps you should be speaking to citizens of those countries, letting them know how much Syrian lives matter; lest you forget, the United States continues to be one of the most generous nations on the planet.

[SillyAmerican]

Thankfully the Senate is where all legislation goes to die.

Yes, Harry Reid will do everything he can to prevent there being an up or down vote. Pretty pathetic to think that having a vote placed on the record on an issue as important as this would be considered something to be avoided.

[SillyAmerican]

If there isn't enough support for the bill to break the filibuster, then there's no way it would withstand a veto.

I would welcome an up/down vote in the Senate, and if the bill passes, I'd welcome a subsequent Presidential veto. That's the way our system should work, with the result being very clear about where the people who represent our interests stand, and who we should hold responsible if there are problems down the road. And frankly, this should not be treated as a partisan issue, and based on the fact that several dozen House Democrats support the measure, that seems to be understood, at least by some.

[SillyAmerican]

So the new goalpost for American morality should be "well, as long as we're not worse than Qatar?"

No, it should be "well, as long as we're not worse than the combination of six of the richest Muslim nations on the planet."  I mentioned the specific nations: Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain. Why is it that the United States needs to take on the responsibility of these refugees, given the fact that neighboring Muslim nations don't seem to care one iota? I know, I know, we have to be generous and welcoming, we should not be thinking of ourselves but of those in need. That argument would carry much more weight if this didn't appear to be yet another case of the U.S. being asked to shoulder costly measures that others have no interest in sharing in. Why is that, exactly?

[SillyAmerican]

Why should it matter if one other country is being terrible or six other countries are being terrible? Why should that determine whether or not we choose to do the right thing?

The argument is over whether or not allowing Syrian refugees into the United States is the "right thing". My contention is that those who believe welcoming Syrian refugees is the "right thing" would have a somewhat easier time making their argument if six of the wealthiest Muslim nations were doing their part in this regard, and I stand by that assertion. We shouldn't let others determine whether or not we choose to do the right thing, but when trying to determine what is the right thing to do, I think it's perfectly reasonable to look at how others have responded to what you're saying is "the right thing". Given that I disagree with you about what the right thing to do is, are you saying I'm also wrong to look at how other countries are responding to what you claim to be the right thing?

[SillyAmerican]

We need to stop allowing right-wing Christian terrorists to be in this country.

You really should hold off posting this until a right-wing Christian terrorist has strapped on a suicide vest and attended a crowded sporting event or concert. Are there murderers of every possible political/ethnic/religious persuasion? Absolutely. As a result, is there an equivalence across the board? Don't be silly...

[SillyAmerican]

Say you had a bowl of M&Ms. And say there was a .01% of them might be poison. And say there was a guy whose job it was to inspect each M&M and throw out the bad ones. And say that if you don't eat the M&Ms, thousands of innocent people will be killed.

Do you take a handful?

Well, the first thing you should be asking is if eating a handful of the M&Ms is the only way to save the thousands of innocent people. If it's not, then perhaps there are better ways of going about addressing the problem, ways that don't involve having to consume the .01% poisoned M&Ms, because if you happen to eat some of the poisoned M&Ms, I guarantee you you won't be happy about it.

[SillyAmerican]

If course we should consider what others around the world consider to be the right thing to do, but I'm saying that the governments of some of the countries you listed are not exactly known to be pillars of moral authority on human rights issues. Do you disagree with that?

I agree wholeheartedly; I don't think the governments/peoples of the countries I listed are to be looked on as having any moral authority. All I'm saying is that those who argue that the United States needs to take on refugees from a problematic part of the world would have a bit easier time making the argument if wealthy countries in that part of the world were found to be doing their share. (Or any share, for that matter). Do you disagree with that?

[SillyAmerican]

We need to stop allowing right-wing Christian terrorists to be in this country.

You really should hold off posting this until a right-wing Christian terrorist has strapped on a suicide vest and attended a crowded sporting event or concert. Are there murderers of every possible political/ethnic/religious persuasion? Absolutely. As a result, is there an equivalence across the board? Don't be silly...

Shooting up a group of people with as semi-automatic rifle and then shooting oneself produces the same result, no?

The difference is that to my knowledge, Christianity doesn't have the equivalent of wahhabism, and does not condone the murdering of those of other belief systems. Are there nut job Christians that murder people anyway? Absolutely, and they should be dealt with in exactly the same way as any other murdering wacko. And if there is a radicalized Christian denomination, then yes, it should be handled in the same way as we handle radicalized portions of Islam. I just fail to see the same level of organized radical elements within the Christian and Muslim communities, which is why I draw the distinction.

[SillyAmerican]

Without taking the time to confirm it on Wiki, i'm rather confident the US has a substantially greater total population , land mass, and GNP (overall, and I'd bet even average per capita too) than all of those 6 countries combined . we're quite arguably more able to absorb a greater number of refugees than all those countries combined.

You could proably add 20 more micro-nations like Vanuatu and Kiribati to the list of countires the US is accepting more refugees than their cumulative total, but the apples to oranges distinction would be just as obvious .

It sounds like many here are saying that the world's problems need to be addressed solely by the United States, that the rest of the world bears no responsibility in this regard. I disagree. Understand that I'm not saying these "micro-nations" should take in a large number of refugees, but I think it's reasonable to expect them to be doing a bit more than they are right now, especially given that the people looking to be resettled share the same cultural,  religious, and political values as those in other countries of the region.

[SillyAmerican]

Yes, I disagree with that. Nobody is arguing that the U.S. should take in all the refugees, but we can take in a large number without it being a huge burden on us. If other countries aren't pulling their weight, then so what?

Because we have so much money spend! No need to worry about excessive debt...

For the record, here are the figures from the HHS 2013 report on Middle Eastern Refugees receiving welfare aid in our country:

Cash assistance:  68.3 %
Medical / refugee medical assistance:  73.1%
Food stamps:  91.4%

A drop in the bucket, but an additional drop nonetheless.

[SillyAmerican]

If we're going to shut the door for Syrian Refugees, can we at least make sure all the Iraqi and Afghan Interpreters get in?

Absolutely. Those who have helped us in Iraq and Afghanistan should be given special consideration; that shouldn't be an issue.