Should the U.S take in any refugees from the Middle East?

[Alternat¡ve]

This is a very controversial topic. Explain your reasoning as a reply please

[Ad Bot]

[ssedyrD]

yes lol they're human beings

[Waru]

no sorry there's enough space in europe for them to rape/steal there

[The Resonte!]

how many are there

[sir dooble]

They should, but that doesn't mean all of them, or without checks in place, or without facilities to cope.
Easing the strain on Europe would be nice.

But I don't think the US or anyone is obligated to take in refugees.

[Phoople]

Nope. Most of those people that would be coming into our country would be Muslim extremists. Americans should stop viewing Islamic extremism through the lens of political correctness.

[Cavik]

We just finished demolishing our skinhead church's, we don't need a bunch of sand people revving them back up.

[Nickpb 3.0]

Ya no

[Ipquarx]

after thorough screening for any hint of extremism and making sure that they're not just an economic migrant, the US could take in several tens of thousands of refugees and evenly distribute them without any harm. Seeing as there's a significant chance of them being killed otherwise, the only kind option is to do so.

Seriously, screening isn't some hard thing to do when you have professionals doing it.

[e-maxx]

only if I get to work the checkpoints

[sir dooble]

Seriously, screening isn't some hard thing to do when you have professionals doing it.

Nor when you have time for it. The US is lucky because it has no land borders with the Middle East. The US gets to pick and choose without worry of being overwhelmed.

[Daswiruch]

Explain your reasoning as a reply please

Poll Choice: No, the U.S should not take in refugees

The US should not take in refugees because:
1. They probably aren't US citizens. (99.9999% sure)
    1b. We don't allow people that are from Canada nor Mexico to waltz in freely just because they are in trouble.
2. Based on what's happened in other countries that have taken in refugees, it's not going to end well with us.
3. There's no reason to even consider bringing them here in the first place.

[Otis Da HousKat]

The US should not take in refugees because:
1. They probably aren't US citizens. (99.9999% sure)

If they were US citizens then they wouldn't be refugees here. They would be citizens.

Fleeing your country instead of choosing to defend it in a time of war is cowardice to the extreme. The only treatment they deserve is a summary execution.

after thorough screening for any hint of extremism and making sure that they're not just an economic migrant, the US could take in several tens of thousands of refugees and evenly distribute them without any harm. Seeing as there's a significant chance of them being killed otherwise, the only kind option is to do so.

Seriously, screening isn't some hard thing to do when you have professionals doing it.

We would still have to house and feed them during the screening process on top of all the other administrative costs to carry out these screenings and deportations. The camps and holding facilities where they keep illegal immigrants awaiting trial and deportation are rife with mistreatment and poor living conditions. I can't image the refugees would fair much better. Why should we be burdened with the expenses of that to allow cowards and ideological enemies into our lands?

[otto-san]

i wouldn't protest if we didn't, though i feel like people are having a bit of a kneejerk reaction. the fears are certainly justified, but i think a substantial number of refugees are legitimate. if we do take anyone in, we obviously need to do some screening, even if that inconveniences those who are innocent, for our own safety.

[Cavik]

Honestly, even if we did decide to let them in and they start causing trouble they'll most likely just get shot. Like that one video where the truck driver was getting jumped by migrants and the only thing he could do is try to drive away or shoo them away. Do that around here and you'll probably get a shotgun funeral.