or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread - Page 78

post #1156 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

the US has an obligation to take anyone that wants to come here as we both know that's not the case.

 

Literally nobody is saying that. 

post #1157 of 1314
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

Literally nobody is saying that. 

Which is probably why you carefully edited out the word "implying."
post #1158 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

It's not really pointless, at least in my estimation, as the legislation needs to be read. Somehow I'm willing to bet there's limits, definitions of qualification for the categories, etc. It's basically not as simple as implying the US has an obligation to take anyone that wants to come here as we both know that's not the case.

Well, that's absurd, and I think you know better. It is pointless, if you are shifting goal posts to now be anybody.

Nobody (and certainly not I) implied that the U.S. has an obligation to take "anyone that wants to come here." That's just insane and a total distortion. I said people who had valid claims for asylum, which is an incredibly high bar to reach in the U.S. Of course there are qualifications, categories, etc. to being a refugee. As I said, those limits, despite many people's beliefs and assumptions, are actually quite onerous for someone seeking refugee status.

If there is concern about refugees or their offspring commiting terorrism, perhaps a more productive conversation that can be had would be ways to raise those limits even higher, not just declare that our obligations are suddenly invalid.
post #1159 of 1314
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

Well, that's absurd, and I think you know better. It is pointless, if you are shifting goal posts to now be anybody.

Nobody (and certainly not I) implied that the U.S. has an obligation to take "anyone that wants to come here." That's just insane and a total distortion. I said people who had valid claims for asylum, which is an incredibly high bar to reach in the U.S. Of course there are qualifications, categories, etc. to being a refugee. As I said, those limits, despite many people's beliefs and assumptions, are actually quite onerous for someone seeking refugee status.

If there is concern about refugees or their offspring commiting terorrism, perhaps a more productive conversation that can be had would be ways to raise those limits even higher, not just declare that our obligations are suddenly invalid.

Did I declare the obligations of the US were invalid? Glass houses.
post #1160 of 1314

Pio likes to do this cute thing where he never takes a position and just asks questions. Kind of like a undergrad philosophy major. 

post #1161 of 1314
No true Somali, piobra. :P
post #1162 of 1314
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

Pio likes to do this cute thing where he never takes a position and just asks questions. Kind of like a undergrad philosophy major. 

Oh man, I just dream of making undergrad status.
post #1163 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Did I declare the obligations of the US were invalid? Glass houses.

This is cute.
post #1164 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post


If liberals are admitting that, conservatives should admit that the U.S. actually does have an explicit obligation to protect the lives of people from Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. who are asylum seekers and refugees. The U.S. is a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, which is a treaty requiring the U.S. to accept valid claims from asylum. Those obligations were further expanded by the Refugee Act of 1980. It's not just some liberal Obama policy. It's the law and has been for some time.

So, the U.S. has an explicit legal obligation to accept many of these people. Now, anbody is entitled to oppose these laws, to work to overturn them, and to argue for new policies. It seems like you may have some good arguments to make. However, you're completely counter-productive, if you aren't able to admit (or understand) for yourself the obligations the U.S., in fact, does have.

The US has only signed the protocol from '67 and not the convention from '51.

The issue with the UN refugee convention is exactly the fact, that its from '51 and was designed to deal with refugee issues like the ones from WW2 and not what we have today.

A lot of european countries have started to talk about by passing the convention for a period of time until they can have it updated, so its applicable to present-day. Which essentially will put an end to the asylum shopping that is going on right now and they can refuse entry at the boarder.

People also tend to forget this part of the convention "Refugees are required to abide by the laws and regulations of their country of asylum and respect measures taken for the maintenance of public order." Countries like Somalia refuses to take back their nationals, who have committed crimes or have been refused asylum and they have signed the convention.

Not to mention the whole repatriation part, which only happens ones every blue moon.
post #1165 of 1314
Yes, the U.S. is only a party to the protocol. Trying to explain the difference was not particularly necessary to do previously, but thanks for your clarification.

Since you mentioned it and actually raised an issue with the convention, as opposed to the protocol, it's helpful to explain the difference. The protocol actually is more expansive than the convention, removing the time limit that limited refugees to prior to 1951 and removing the restriction on only European refugees. The general provisions from the convention are similarly applicable to the protocol.

As for updating things, great! The protocol did it, and there's no reason countries shouldn't again. That's exactly what I was suggesting. Countries should update to reflect modern times. My point was that you can't have productive conversations about updating these things when people don't even seem to know that these obligations even exist.
post #1166 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

yes the most vocal liberals are rich enough to fly in private jets or chartered flights; the rest of the mere millionaire liberals don't have any personal reason to fear terrorism either. terrorists only strike solid, jesus-loving republican places like lower manhattan and gay nightclubs in orlando.

Please create a list of western countries that have seen a sharp rise in their Muslim population, but haven't seen a sharp rise in cultural segregation and terrorism. Take as much time as you need. Anyone on your side of the argument is free to give you a hand. That's really what we're arguing about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

There have been less than 80 people killed since 1995 in terrorist attacks by 1st or 2nd generation Americans. 

The deadliest terror attack by a resident of the US since 1995 was carried out by a white man.

Since 1980 we have invited 1.8 million refugees to live in our country.

Seems like a fine ratio to me. 

The son of an Afghan immigrant killed 49 people in Orlando just this year. What has the scope of this refugee policy done to poverty and crime? Has it benefited the people living here? Is Minnesota better off? They aren't, but you already know that and admitted it. Nothing I say will matter, nor do the undeniable case studies throughout Europe matter to you, because you don't believe the government's job is to protect the interest of its citizens. That's as far left as anyone can get on the issue. It's off the charts. If Hillary Clinton gave a statement and said "hey look, some of you are definitely going to die in a terrorist attack because of this policy, but the death toll will be a small percentage of the total refugees we take," she'd lose the election at that moment. A lot of people might be too naive to figure this out on their own, but they aren't suicidal. If they were flat out told what the inevitable result will be, they're smart enough to avoid it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

If liberals are admitting that, conservatives should admit that the U.S. actually does have an explicit obligation to protect the lives of people from Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. who are asylum seekers and refugees. The U.S. is a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, which is a treaty requiring the U.S. to accept valid claims from asylum. Those obligations were further expanded by the Refugee Act of 1980. It's not just some liberal Obama policy. It's the law and has been for some time.

So, the U.S. has an explicit legal obligation to accept many of these people. Now, anbody is entitled to oppose these laws, to work to overturn them, and to argue for new policies. It seems like you may have some good arguments to make. However, you're completely counter-productive, if you aren't able to admit (or understand) for yourself the obligations the U.S., in fact, does have.

Please define the legal obligation we have to take X number of people despite material security risks. It doesn't exist. We have the ability to pick and choose.
post #1167 of 1314
Speaking of immigration policy, over 800 accidentally given citizenship

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5aa83cad5521484296a629863b068964/more-800-immigrants-mistakenly-granted-citizenship

Be afraid, very afraid, dear citizens, the invasion is ramping up and they have insider agents holding the doors open eek.gif
post #1168 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

"hey look, some of you are definitely going to die in a terrorist attack because of this policy, but the death toll will be a small percentage of the total refugees we take,"

 

You do realize that this is the case with basically every decision a politician makes? Are you really this naive about how the world works? Or are you too old to remember life's complexities...

post #1169 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

Please define the legal obligation we have to take X number of people despite material security risks. It doesn't exist. We have the ability to pick and choose.

 

So, you have shifted the goal posts. It was originally "we have no legal obligation." Now, it's "okay, maybe we have some legal obligation, but that legal obligation doesn't specify the exact number of people." Actually, that's generous. You shifted even further by adding "despite material security risks." No. This just isn't how it works.

 

First, you are correct. We do have some ability to pick and choose. Nobody has suggested or argued otherwise. In fact, several people have mentioned that we pick and choose, explaining numerous times that the bar for refugee status is extremely high. This is our picking and choosing. Much of this is codified. It's not just the whim of some government dudes. Second, if you are looking for the defined obligation to take X number of people, you should look to Section 207 of the INA, which provides the mechanisms for determining that number. There is tons of info out there about how that number is reached. Here is some of it:

http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/docsforcongress/247770.htm

I also would suggest reading the Congressional Record, if you would like more information about how we determine X number. This number is set every year by Congress and the president.

 

Changing policy to reduce the number of refugees admitted and to increase the stringency of screening process are totally reasonable suggestions to address the concerns you are raising. I haven't said your concerns are invalid. I've said you don't understand the proper way to address your concerns. These policy discussions can't exist when people in the conversation don't understand some of the basic legal frameworks under which U.S. refugee policy is operating. At some point, it's not productive to continue the conversation, if you are not interested in understanding that framework.

post #1170 of 1314
I don't think it's his responsibility to understand how the government can implement the changes, that falls on the shoulders of elected officials.

I'm really curious how afraid some posters really are, or if they're just couching true intent in such language. Seems like a very stressful way to lead a life.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread