General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPres. Hollande: 30,000 Syrian refugees to still be welcomed in France
NBC Nightly News ?@NBCNightlyNews 3h3 hours agoPres. Hollande: Syrian refugees flee same people who have attacked France; 30,000 to still be welcomed in France.
watch: https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/667113181668487169
...Bonjour, America?
pampango
(24,692 posts)France will keep its promise to take in 30,000 refugees over the next two years, President François Hollande said on Wednesday. But he said they would be checked thoroughly to make sure they do not pose a threat.
Our country has the duty to respect this commitment, Mr. Hollande said, noting that those fleeing areas of Syria and Iraq controlled by the Islamic State were being tormented by the very same people who are attacking us today.
Speaking at a meeting of the countrys mayors on Wednesday, Mr. Hollande said that France would remain a country of freedoms.
Speaking in Manila on Wednesday, President Obama cautioned against inflating fears of migrants and criticized Republicans for political posturing on the admission of Syrian refugees into the United States. ... We are not well served when, in response to a terrorist attack, we descend into fear and panic, he said. We dont make good decisions if its based on hysteria or an exaggeration of risks.
http://www.nytimes.com/live/paris-attacks-live-updates/france-still-planning-to-accept-30000-refugees-hollande-says/
Good for France. The National Front will not be happy about this.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)"Don't mock people who are concerned" "Did you know Tsarnaev were refugees?" (completely false) "Did you know the Chatanooga shooter was a refugee?" (Also false) "Previous generations of immigrants were never thought to be politically violent" (Are you fucking kidding me????) "They're not vetted at all." "They're vetted by too many agencies." "Why don't we house homeless veterans first? Huh?" (Oh, *this* is the occasion to get you moving on *that*???)
MUSCULAR YOUNG MEN. MUSCLES. MUSCULAR. MUSCULAR YOUNG MILITARY AGE MEN IN THE CAMPS WITH MUSCLES. GLISTENING BRONZE MUSCLES ON THE YOUNG MUSCLED MEN.
The state of American discourse...
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)bigtree
(85,998 posts)...I got hit with that yesterday. Chattanooga too, please.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Those claiming that the Tsarnaev brothers and Abdulazeez (the Chattanooga shooter) were "refugees" are 1) technically incorrect and 2) providing irrelevant cases even if they weren't incorrect, which they are.
1) Technically Incorrect - Neither the Tsarnaevs nor Abdulazeez entered the US through refugee resettlement. Those claiming they did are using a vague, blanket sense of "somebody fleeing conflict" or something like that, rather than the real legal category. Let's be clear: refugee is a clear and distinct legal category, not a general catch-all. In the case of the Tsarnaevs, their parents entered the US on a tourist visa, then applied for asylum. In the case of Abdulazeez, his parents entered the US through regular immigration lottery: they were not resettled as refugees after the first Gulf War. Why do these legal categories matter? Because they affect the level of vetting received by the applicant. Neither the Tsarnaevs nor Abdulazeez were introduced to the US under the careful refugee resettlement protocols of the time, much less under the extremely stringent resettlement protocols applied to Syrian refugees today. But, ultimately, being technically false is sufficient. None of them were "refugees" under any legal definition. That's enough to be the end of the story, but...
2) Irrelevant - The younger Tsanaev entered the US with his parents in 2002. He was six years old. Tamerlan Tsarnaev arrived in the US through a derivative asylum process in 2004 (he was 18). Mohammed Abdulazeez entered the US in 1996. He was also six years old. Let's set aside Tamerlan Tsarnaev for the moment and focus on the other two, both six years old at the time of their arrival.
The claim of those opposing refugee resettlement from Syria is that actual, current DAESH members will infiltrate the refugee population and get into the US that way. Surely, neither Dzhokar Tsarnaev nor Mohammed Abdulazeez were sleeper cell terrorists when they entered the country at age SIX, right? They were radicalized long after that. While the case is harder for Tamerlan on age alone, it's well documented that he was not radicalized until later. He was not a terrorist infiltrator when he arrived. So, even if they had refugee status (which they did not), they aren't cases of terrorist infiltration through a refugee resettlement anyway, since they weren't terrorists when they were resettled.
OH, I know what's coming: they were potential terrorists (as six year olds), as will be all the three year olds, five year olds, eight year olds, and fifty year olds we might resettle. Fair enough. But in that case, we should not let anyone resettle here ever under any circumstances, if we're basing it on some future potential to be radicalized, even for small children.
Opponents of Syrian refugee resettlement can't have it ALL ways: anyone can be a refugee so long as we ignore actual legal status and designation as a refugee, and anyone can be a potential terrorist, even small children. If those are the arguments against refugee resettlement, then the case is irrational and panicky, which, of course, it is.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...easily understood and much appreciated