POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[Psych36]

Dude, I said nothing about our current screening process or how it is or is not bad. I said we have the resources to put in place a good screening system like one Canada did.

And the "cost to taxpayers" is not known currently but it can easily be less than 1.2 billion over the course of 6 years which is absolutely nothing, assuming they do a little creative thinking on getting the cost down

And like I said, again, they cannot make any law targeted at muslims. They can target it at an entire country, or a nationality, but not a religion.

Okay? What i've been saying my last three posts is that they can prevent people from known terror hotspots and warzones from coming into the USA regardless of religion. I hope you realize as a sovereign nation we can prevent access or block refugees from coming into the country. And the five year cost of 39,000 refugees is closer to $3 billion over the course of 6 years which is a lot of money that could be spent on the citizens of this country.. After all they're the taxpayers dollars.

[Ad Bot]

[Ipquarx]

And the five year cost of 39,000 refugees is closer to $3 billion over the course of 6 years

Clearly not because Canada just did it for nearly 3 times less.

And again, there's no point in denying everyone from a given area. Put them through a strict screening process like Canada did. We had no problems, you guys won't either.

[Psych36]

Clearly not because Canada just did it for nearly 3 times less.

And again, there's no point in denying everyone from a given area. Put them through a strict screening process like Canada did. We had no problems, you guys won't either.

Okay, but we weren't discussing whether there was a point or not just that it could be done despite the obvious point of importing a toxic culture and potential terror. And that's great that it costed 3x less to settle them in Canada but it's gonna cost us a fortune since her plan requires we take in hundreds of thousands of new refugees and that it's been projected to cost $2.5 billion per 39,000 refugees over the course of five years and we're letting in hundreds of thousands. I'm also sure resettling them in Canada doesn't cost the same as it does to resettle them into America since the processes are different.

The cost of resettlement includes heavy welfare use by Middle Eastern refugees; 91 percent receive food stamps and 68 percent receive cash assistance. Costs also include processing refugees, assistance given to new refugees, and aid to refugee-receiving communities. (http://cis.org/High-Cost-of-Resettling-Middle-Eastern-Refugees)

[Ipquarx]

-snip-

You realize the entire point of the screening that Canada did was to get rid of the toxic ones and potential terror, and the lazy and unwilling-to-integrate ones, right? $1.2bn over 6 years for 50,000 refugees who got jobs and are not toxic to the values that we as a nation care about. That's what the cost was.

[Psych36]

You realize the entire point of the screening that Canada did was to get rid of the toxic ones and potential terror, and the lazy and unwilling-to-integrate ones, right? $1.2bn over 6 years for 50,000 refugees who got jobs and are not toxic to the values that we as a nation care about. That's what the cost was.

You do realize that the screening process isn't foolproof at all? Terror attacks are still happening around the globe despite "intense screenings".

You've also completely glossed over the point that there is no point in America taking refugees we've already taken in thousands of refugees, but how many have the wealthy gulf monarchies that share more cultural similarities, religious views, and have vast wealth?

Not to mention that Saudi Arabia has thousands of air conditioned tents that they can provide refugees with that are not occupied. Obama has a plan in motion to take in tens of thousands why should we take in hundreds of thousands?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/15/saudi-arabia-has-100000-air-conditioned-tents-sitt/

[Ipquarx]

-snip-

I'm talking about Canada. Not other countries.
And if you don't want any more refugees, then you stop all refugees.
If saudi arabia wants to give space to more refugees that's their decision.

I never said you should take in "hundreds of thousands." I didn't even specify any number, I just gave Canada's 50,000 as an example.

[Psych36]

I'm talking about Canada. Not other countries.
And if you don't want any more refugees, then you stop all refugees.
If saudi arabia wants to give space to more refugees that's their decision.

OK so basically this has just gone in a full circle because the whole argument has been about whether we can refuse to accept refugees and the answer is yes.

We might not share the same opinion but we already have thousands of syrian refugees and we'll have more by the time Obama has left office. My point is that we've taken enough and the solution is not to take in hundreds of thousands of syrian refugees but rather to find them suitable living solutions near their home countries till its safe for them to go back.

[$trinick]

To be fair, constitutional rights only apply to citizens and people who are on US territory. So.. technically speaking, rejecting visas or green cards for immigrants wouldn't violate anyone's constitutional rights, because if you don't yet have a visa or green card then you aren't on US soil. That being said, I don't understand how anyone could really fit "blanket oppression of a group of people" inside their moral tapestry.

[Ipquarx]

My point is that we've taken enough and the solution is not to take in hundreds of thousands of syrian refugees but rather to find them suitable living solutions near their home countries till its safe for them to go back.

If that's what your point is, then I can at least say that I have no immediate objections. I don't think taking in some more would necessarily hurt, but I don't know how much it would help.

[ZombieDude]

That being said, I don't understand how anyone could really fit "blanket oppression of a group of people" inside their moral tapestry.

is refusing to bring in hundreds of thousands of people who have proven themselves to be barbarians who follow a religion incompatible with your society 'blanket oppression'?

[IkeTheGeneric]

is refusing to bring in hundreds of thousands of people who have proven themselves to be barbarians who follow a religion incompatible with your society 'blanket oppression'?

holy loaded question batman

[Drydess]

is refusing to bring in hundreds of thousands of people who have proven themselves to be barbarians who follow a religion incompatible with your society 'blanket oppression'?

refusing to accept the fact that they have basic human rights is, yeah

[ZombieDude]

holy loaded question batman

it's not really a question meant to be answered
just putting things in to perspective

refusing to accept the fact that they have basic human rights is, yeah

how does not letting someone in to your country deny them human rights
living in any country is not a right, its a privilege

[Psych36]

To be fair, constitutional rights only apply to citizens and people who are on US territory. So.. technically speaking, rejecting visas or green cards for immigrants wouldn't violate anyone's constitutional rights, because if you don't yet have a visa or green card then you aren't on US soil. That being said, I don't understand how anyone could really fit "blanket oppression of a group of people" inside their moral tapestry.

and this is pretty much what i meant earlier none of these people are actually on U.S soil when they're seeking refuge.

[$trinick]

is refusing to bring in hundreds of thousands of people who have proven themselves to be barbarians who follow a religion incompatible with your society 'blanket oppression'?

Yes, that is pretty much the definition of blanket oppression. Perhaps you need me to break down the phrase: oppression is the unjust control of people, and blanket means to apply it to a large population of people. People who follow Islam constitute a large population, and barring them from entering the country for exercising something that we as a society hold as a basic and inherent human right (religion) is oppression. That being said, I don't think anybody is really saying that we should let hundreds of thousands of people from a specific background into our country in a short period of time. I certainly don't think that. I just think that if you're going to bar people from entering the country, you should pick criteria that we don't hold as self-evident rights. Like being a loving terrorist.