Should the U.S. accept more than 10,000 Syrian Refugees?

[californiabernin]

The war in Syria continues to get more grim and dreadful. Something we can do is let in more refugees. It seems to me that as the "land of the free and home of the brave," we should be doing more for Syrian refugees. If you have a "magic number" of refugees you think we should accept, go ahead and post it. If you don't think there is a "magic number," then how should we decide how many to let in?

Edited to add this..

<snip>

The U.S. is the top resettlement country. It has taken 70,000 refugees annually (from all over the world, not just Syria) for the past several years and has upped the number to 85,000 in 2016 in response to the growing number of refugees, including the 10,000 Syrians the U.S. has approved for resettlement in fiscal year 2016.

Total Syrian refugees in U.S. as of Jan. 26, 2016: 2,715

Although some conservative politicians expressed outrage at that number, Jastram says 10,000 is far too few.

“As a positive political measure, accepting 10,000 Syrians is not sufficient,” says Jastram. “I think it’s completely within the realm of possibility for the U.S. to take at least 100,000 Syrians. It would be a strong statement to our allies in Europe and our friends in the Middle East — the countries who are bearing that burden — by showing them that we’re willing to step up.”

Canada, with one-tenth the population of the U.S., has committed to accepting 25,000 Syrian refugees in six months; nearly 14,000 have arrived there since November.



http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/01/26/syrian-refugee-crisis/

27 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Don't allow any Syrian refugees in
	6 (22%)
	Accept only the 10,000 Syrian refugees Obama has proposed
	4 (15%)
	Accept 65,000 Syrian refugees as Clinton has proposed
	0 (0%)
	Accept more than 65,000 Syrian refugees
	17 (63%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[californiabernin]

1. I must say that I am absolutely shocked that on DU there seem to be so many agreeing with Trump. n/t

[yuiyoshida]

26. gah, yeah...

disgusting.

[pangaia]

52. Here's more.

Check this out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027594438

Wow...

[Skittles]

38. they're called TROLLS

[flamingdem]

2. The Syrians really have had their lives destroyed

They should be let in before most of the Cubans.

[Travis_0004]

5. We really should change our policy towards cubans

We seem to be improving our relationship with cuba and I dont think we need to give them special treatment over other refugees.

[flamingdem]

6. It's still used for political football. At this point so many have come to the USA

that they can continue to get here through marriage, family reunifcation for years to come even without the wet foot dry foot loophole.

[linuxman]

3. Fuck it.

Let's just annex Syria and plant the flag. Then we can have all the Syrians with none of the logistics.

I like how they always use pictures of little kids, then the countries who open the gates are met with about one woman and child for every 10 adult men.

[liberal_at_heart]

4. That's usually because the men are going ahead first to try and find a job and and safe place

to live. Geez.

[linuxman]

7. I don't buy it.

There are programs and resources set up to accommodate women and children who arrive (you know, the ones we're told to expect). You'd think any kind of man would stay behind and wait while his wife and kids get to safety. After all, it's a warzone, right? Heck, maybe they could try and unfuck Syria while they're waiting.

I've spent a large part of my adult life in that area of the world. Here now, as a matter of fact. I can tell you one thing I've learned: The culture here doesn't really buy into the "Women and children first" concept.

You want refugees? Me too. Families, Women, kids, and those in critical specialties first. Illiterate single 16-30 year old men? Not so much.

[liberal_at_heart]

8. It happens all the time with Mexican refugees. Putting qualifiers such as being able to

read, have a college degree, and contribute massive amounts of taxes, dehumanizes us all. Someday the US may very well find itself in a situation where we find ourselves fleeing our country and crossing boarders. I sure as hell hope other countries will be more compassionate than we have been to them.

[tazkcmo]

13. Especially when we're dropping bombs on their country.

Seriously. How fucking ignorant does a person need to be? How cold hearted and uncaring has our country become? We encourage civil war in Syria, support the rebellion with weapons, some of the rebels are supported by Saudi Arabia and ISIS is born, now here comes Russia to support the guy we're trying to kick out, there's a giant cluster fuck with bombs and shit exploding every where, innocent civilians getting blown to bits and some getting "lucky" enough to escape and face this kind of bullshit from the citizens of the very country that started it all! #$%!#T@$^@^!#RWR&^T$K&JP%*%($$!#^~@#

[linuxman]

15. What sort of refugees are you talking about from mexico?

We admit very few, as there is no war, famine, or political prosecution of significance there. You mean illegal immigrants?

States are rationally self interested. That's life. Living in Africa sucks for most people, and is practically a death sentence for many. We don't ship them all over out of pity though. You have to be practical. We should only accept the most vulnerable and yes, valuable until we have figured out how to do better. We are being a hell of a lot more compassionate than most of their neighbors . What will bringing an illiterate, fundamentalist, single male with no skills to the US contribute vs a small child and its mother?

If the US ever got to that point, I'm sure I'd die of shame if I took off to a strange country without my family. They can go and find shelter and food first. Maybe scout me a job. Until then, I'd tough it out. Call me old fashioned.

[tazkcmo]

17. I call you a coward.

Mainly because you are one.

[linuxman]

20. Big talk from an Internet nobody.

I'll give it the consideration it deserves.

I feel a bm coming on...

I may not be brave enough to abandon women and children to beat feet to the west, but I'd hardly say I'm a coward. I have no doubt you'd be brave enough to run though...

[liberal_at_heart]

22. buh-bye. Gong on my ignore list.

[tazkcmo]

23. Good example.

I'll follow it.

[linuxman]

27. Awww shucks!

Please stay! I want to hear more about the bravery required to leave your wife and kids in a war zone while you head to Europe. I mean, there aren't any bombs, gunfights or deaths quads there, but the food, shelter and programs hardly make up for the veritable hell that is France and germany!

I say bring on the women and children.

[linuxman]

24. I'll wear it as a badge of honor.

"The royal order of the flustered."

[liberal_at_heart]

18. Those illegal immigrants do so because their families are starving. Would I illegally cross a border

if my family was starving? You better freakin believe it. It's not shameful at all to go ahead of your children in order to keep them safe.

[jeff47]

28. Wow. Clueless much?

We admit very few, as there is no war, famine, or political prosecution of significance there.

Recently, more than 40 people were executed in one town for displeasing the local drug lord. No one knows how many are actually dead, because the lifespan of prosecutors is measured in months so no officials are looking into it.

Mexico is far from peaceful and stable. And it gets worse as you go into Central America.

If the US ever got to that point, I'm sure I'd die of shame if I took off to a strange country without my family.

So after your torture and execution, they can be alone in a foreign country with no support. Excellent plan, Mister Old Fashioned!!

[linuxman]

31. Last I checked,

We provide food, support, job programs, and shelter for refugees.

Not seeing how theyd be worse off here, but whatever.

Oh, and there is nooooooo way the cartel would kill my wife and kids if they don't find me. No way. I think I'd still send them first, thanks.

As far as the cartels go, yeah, I missspoke. I tend to get wrapped up in the refugee thing from the standpoint of syria. Fleeing from cartels is legititmate, but I don't believe that such people make up the bulk of the immigrants we have seen from mexico, especially given the patterns over the years prior to rampant drug violence.

[jeff47]

33. Yeah...we actually don't do much.

We prevent refugees from starving to death. And that's about it. The stipend we give is, at best, the minimum required to keep the refugees alive. It's also time-limited, so they gotta start trying to land a job relatively quickly. Not easy when you don't speak the language and don't have a resume, and have no idea where in the US you will actually be settled.

It's actually far easier on the refugees to send one person first, have them work out the details, and then bring the rest. Heck, it's even much easier and faster when it comes to paperwork.

Oh, and there is nooooooo way the cartel would kill my wife and kids if they don't find me. No way.

Believe it or not, sexists who think women are worthless chattel don't particularly hunt down women and children.

Let's say you're fleeing ISIS. You not working for ISIS means you die. But they view your wife and kids as future ISIS supporters, or incubators for future ISIS supporters.

[linuxman]

36. Regarding the first part

Yeah, there is a limit to the aid we can be expected to provide for tens of thousands. I'm not sure what your point is. We can't buy everyone a house and car, setting them up with all the advantages of a 3rd Gen citizen. They arent, and life is going to be hard for them regardless. All things considered, you're going to be better off here than in syria. The obstacles you mention are going to exist for both the men and women. May s well bring the more vulnerable over first in that case.

As to the second point, I can admit I'm not intimately familiar with the process. The afghans I see applying for asylum and getting their papers tend to do it as families. They tend to fly out of kabul as families too, from what i see. Not sure why it wouldn't be the same for syrians.

Cartels most surely will hunt down and kill your family, pets, and probably your lawn if they cant find you. They do it often. It's not really a debatable point. Sexism plays little into their goal of sending a message.

You seem to be under the impressing that every man left in syria not working for asad is either isis or wor king for them. That is not the case.

Goin to bed.typing on a tablet is killing me atm.

[tazkcmo]

16. Then have Hillary bomb India.

You can get lots of highly skilled refugees from India by over throwing their leadership and creating a power vacuum that will turn that country into a chaotic hell hole, too.

[tazkcmo]

10. As a man

I wouldn't want my wife and children going to a strnge country where we know no one nor speak the language and am aware of a very hostile segment of new country's population towards people like myself. I know, my wife and children should be as brave as shit talking right wingers posing as a liberal on an anonymous message board who would presumably be ok with sending his wife and children over seas alone to defend for themselves. But that's just me.

[liberal_at_heart]

11. Well said!

[linuxman]

19. If you have something to say, come out and say it.

Yeah, i'm sure it's much worse for those women and kids in the west than syria. How brave of the men to make the first plunge into the maelstrom . WaIt, why are they immigrating again? I thought it was better here.

[tazkcmo]

21. ??????

Ok, so you're an idiot and a coward. They aren't immigrating. They are fleeing death and destruction brought upon them by OUR country. See the difference? You're an idiot for not knowing this and a coward to have your wife and children go ahead of you to find you food and shelter and scope out job prospects for you.

I hope that clears it up for you.

[linuxman]

25. You're an idiot for assuming I don't have a tv, and for being unable to comprehend I'm not opposed

to refugees. As for your personal bravery...I'll let your words speak for you.

I like the part where sending your loved ones to go to the west and receive aid, food, shelter, and stipends is cowardly, yet sending yourself first is not. Leaving them to wait for your summons under a hail of ombs and gunfire is clearly the better option. I sincerely hope there aren't many Syrians with father's like you who are currently imperiled. Nope, you're no coward at all. Nosiree.

[oberliner]

35. "They are fleeing death and destruction brought upon them by OUR country."

Huh?

[Javaman]

42. simple question: what is your heritage? nt

[linuxman]

46. Not a clue.

If you mean ethnicity

Culturaly, I suppose I'm an apalachian

[Javaman]

47. Generally speaking, people of Appalachian background are of Irish decent.

given the history of how the Irish were treated in this nation when they first arrived in the 19th century, you might want to reconsider your stance.

[linuxman]

48. I think they got over it.

[Javaman]

49. then that is a shame.

I'm of Sicilian decent. My dad told me what he had to go through when growing up in NYC. I experience a little of that myself as a young man.

I never forgot and promised myself never to do that to other people.

[linuxman]

50. Anger just eats a hole in the vessel that carries it.

Whatever happened to my ancestors, I have felt very little to none of it. Closer to none. What point would bitterness serve for someone who wasn't affected?

[Javaman]

56. its not bitterness.

did you even read what I wrote?

it's called learning from the past.

look we are done.

it's glaringly apparent that being accepting of others matters little to you.

good day.

[linuxman]

57. Whatever.

Have fun finding meaning in things in such a way as to get offended.

[HooptieWagon]

9. Speaking of Syrian refugees, whatever happens to Riverbend, the Baghdad is Burning blogger?

She had fled to Syria with her family. I think about her when I see reports on Syria. There were other Iraqi bloggers too, now silent. Anyone have any info of them still blogging?

[jeff47]

12. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free

does not only apply to white Europeans.

[tazkcmo]

14. We gotta get rid of that damn thing!

Really. We don't deserve it anymore.

[yuiyoshida]

29. I am SURE Donald Trump will send it back to France

box it up and send it in pieces, FEDEX and make the French Pay for it.

[tazkcmo]

32. You're right.

He's an ass.

[ericson00]

30. bad choices;

one of your choices should've been "accept only Yazidi refugees" (people who are actually threatened with genocide) as there clearly is a problem in the Islamic world with regards to Muslim refugees' likely sentiments about things from people who could ultimately start influencing our body politic.

Also, Hillary did walk back the 65k number, changing her tune at a debate a few months ago. Your poll should therefore have not had that option of associating her with that. And even saying it in the first place was just an attempt to please the base, which I can't blame her for given what they did to her in 2008, making her a "neo-con."

[Hydra]

34. We broke it, we need to buy it

We should be helping everyone we've put in danger with our imperialist BS...but we won't.

[Skittles]

37. interesting way to spot the trolls

[mwrguy]

39. Accept as many as we can transport

65,000 or ten million.

[hughee99]

51. How about 23 million?

If you want to end the fighting in Syria, relocate them all to the US.

[mwrguy]

53. Ten is fine

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Are we (liberals, progressives, leftists) our brothers keepers?

We damned well should be.

[pampango]

41. Great to see a liberal result to this poll, although on a site like DU I expected it to be even

better.

I can only imagine how few votes the "Don't let any Syrian refugees in" option would get at freeperville. It may be unanimous!

[gyroscope]

43. Yes, but only if

the Congresspersons who voted in favor of the IWR have their assets seized to pay for it.

why should the taxpayers be forced to pay for their idiocy.

[davidn3600]

44. I want serious questions answered first....

Where are you going to shelter them? How are you going to give them food? Where are they going to work? Who will pay for their medical care?

These are questions the European people have been asking for months and have gotten no reply from their governments. And it's the same thing here. Everyone wants to let them all in! But no one wants to talk about the logistics and the realities and the costs about taking care of them.

What if they commit a crime? What if what happened in Cologne, Germany happens in an American city? Will our government cover it up and make excuses and blame the women because Islam is immune to criticism?

Sorry, No. I can't support more than the current number until our government answers some very important questions.

[hack89]

45. More but only families, no single men. nt

[6chars]

54. we might alleviate more suffering putting the effort to helping them where they are

We are talking oh, 50k to settle one refugee? Multiply that by 100,000 is what, $5B
That could help a lot more than 100k refugees in Turkey or Jordan - or returning to Syria if conflict comes to a halt.

If the goal is to alleviate suffering, and we are willing to spend a big chunk to do it, it might be more virtuous to do it in the way that alleviates the most suffering, not in the way that has the greatest emotional symbolism. That might be to rectify problems where they originate.

[JPnoodleman]

55. I think the US should taken in those going to Europe...

We are better able to absorb waves of migration more than Europe can.