O’Malley wants US to take in 65,000 Syrian refugees

[Mr. Morden]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/04/politics/martin-omalley-syrian-refugees/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MisSkeptic]

It's obvious he's trying to score points with voters, but this could never work out in the real world. What we need to do is help Syria in their civil war. If not, expect a lot more chaos, death, and refugees escaping the war torn country.

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

He has a good point. For all that the US has done to screw things up in the Middle East, we should accept some (far more than currently). It would be nice to see the Gulf countries take some though.

[Marokai Backbeat]

He's definitely right that we should be doing more. 65,000 people ain't that big of a deal.

Still, I do always find the immigration/refugees numbers game a weird political football sort of thing. The numbers are unfailingly arbitrary. Why 65,000? Why not 66,000? Why not 600,000? Why not 6 million? The trouble with this issue is that all of that racism and insensitivity accusations can be made with just as much validity regardless of what you're proposed number is unless it's infinite.

But yes, we should be doing much more.

[136or142]

It's obvious he's trying to score points with voters, but this could never work out in the real world. What we need to do is help Syria in their civil war. If not, expect a lot more chaos, death, and refugees escaping the war torn country.

Why wouldn't it work.  In mostly the late 1970s and early 1980s the United States accepted 823,000 boat people. That averages to over 100,000 a year.

[WVdemocrat]

It's obvious he's trying to score points with voters,

That is called politics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

65,000 is peanuts. Like O'Malley said, Germany took in 800,000 this year.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That sounds good on paper, but the solution can't always be to call in the military to fix the situation. We don't need a four-way ground war in Syria. That would be unwinnable.

[MisSkeptic]

@Adam T and DimpledChad I'll reply to both of your comments in this single post.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While I understand that, it's very difficult taking in more and more people when there's already many Americans having difficulty in living day-to-day lives.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is why I believe we shouldn't be destroying these countries and their respected governments. Yes, I know it's not a conspiracy many citizens dislike their governments and want change, but since war is inevitable in counties like Libya, Syria, Irap, etc. We need to make sure we can have governments in place so the people can do everything from defend themselves, make sure there's an economy and jobs, etc.

I feel sad for the innocent civilians who are caught in the middle of all the wars and battles between the multiple groups fighting it out. But as I mentioned before, it's challenging bring in multiple people into another country and expecting they would easily be taking care of. If they can become citizens, get jobs and what not, than I'm proud of them. But if they leach off government than I don't support that. 

[Torie]

It's obvious he's trying to score points with voters,

That is called politics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

65,000 is peanuts. Like O'Malley said, Germany took in 800,000 this year.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That sounds good on paper, but the solution can't always be to call in the military to fix the situation. We don't need a four-way ground war in Syria. That would be unwinnable.

Just how is this going to win him votes? 

[WVdemocrat]

It's obvious he's trying to score points with voters,

That is called politics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

65,000 is peanuts. Like O'Malley said, Germany took in 800,000 this year.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That sounds good on paper, but the solution can't always be to call in the military to fix the situation. We don't need a four-way ground war in Syria. That would be unwinnable.

Just how is this going to win him votes? 

Huh? What I meant by "That is called politics," is: trying to score points with voters is what politics is all about.

[Torie]

It's obvious he's trying to score points with voters,

That is called politics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

65,000 is peanuts. Like O'Malley said, Germany took in 800,000 this year.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That sounds good on paper, but the solution can't always be to call in the military to fix the situation. We don't need a four-way ground war in Syria. That would be unwinnable.

Just how is this going to win him votes? 

Huh? What I meant by "That is called politics," is: trying to score points with voters is what politics is all about.

Quite. I just don't see how whatever points  are "scored" would be positive ones myself. It is not as if there is much of a constituency out there for this, at least of which I am aware.

[Stranger in a strange land]

He's right on this one. We should also be taking in many more Afghans and Iraqis.

[WVdemocrat]

It's obvious he's trying to score points with voters,

That is called politics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

65,000 is peanuts. Like O'Malley said, Germany took in 800,000 this year.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That sounds good on paper, but the solution can't always be to call in the military to fix the situation. We don't need a four-way ground war in Syria. That would be unwinnable.

Just how is this going to win him votes? 

Huh? What I meant by "That is called politics," is: trying to score points with voters is what politics is all about.

Quite. I just don't see how whatever points  are "scored" would be positive ones myself. It is not as if there is much of a constituency out there for this, at least of which I am aware.

Well, yeah. TBH I was just being nitpicky with MisSkeptic's post.

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

He's right on this one. We should also be taking in many more Afghans and Iraqis.

Especially the ones that risked their lives to help us as translators, etc.

[Vega]

Because, you know, the US needs 65,000 middle eastern Muslims who don't speak English. Horrible position for him to take. Only the most bleeding hearts would want something like this.
What a dumb idea.

[politicus]

Because, you know, the US needs 65,000 middle eastern Muslims who don't speak English. Horrible position for him to take. Only the most bleeding hearts would want something like this.
What a dumb idea.

Not all Muslims and a lot would be able to speak English.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is essentially the same argument made by Bjorn Lomborg on Global Warming: "there are already more important environmental problems to deal" with and it fails for the same reason: there is no reason to believe that the money spent on taking in refuges would go to assisting those Americans already having difficulties.

[Mehmentum]

I agree with him completely.  We spend a lot of money on humanitarian aid, so why is there so much resistance to this.  Taking in refuges is basically humanitarian aid.

[MisSkeptic]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is essentially the same argument made by Bjorn Lomborg on Global Warming: "there are already more important environmental problems to deal" with and it fails for the same reason: there is no reason to believe that the money spent on taking in refuges would go to assisting those Americans already having difficulties.

Oh, snap! You just did not go there!

Money does not grow on trees. It has a value. It's impossible taking care of everyone if we can't provide them jobs, make sure the dollar is strong and so forth. It's not that I don't want to help them. It's just I don't want this to become a catastrophe where it's becomes more and more difficult helping people out.

That's why in my earlier posts I commented we need to either help these government survive or at least so that people can have a country where they can live free from the harshness of war. Regardless of our political affiliations, we have to realize the consequences of disposing not only of dictators and corrupted leaders, but disposing of their own governments; which in turn changes the future of their respect countries.

It seems at the moment the people have gotten a bad deal. And the only alternative they have is seeking aid in foreign countries. Which can have both positive and negative reactions down the line.

That's why I believe we need to stick it out and realize we're in the Middle East for the long run, we have to help them build back their countries or suffer humiliating defeats by the likes of the Islamic State; who are rapidly taking control of large territories.  

[skoods]

Ummm, don't we already have enough college educated AMERICANS who can't find a job that can provide a decent living wage? But, yeah, let's welcome in more immigrants who undoubtedly will be supplemented with our tax dollars.

Immigration is an issue that I disagree with my party on. It's gotten ridiculous. The bleeding hearts think they can just save everyone.

[eric82oslo]

65,000 is quite a lot less than Germany's 800,000. O'Malley is like a Trump Junior (lol). Just kidding, yet this is an absolutely horrific proposal! 65,000 is like a needle in the entire Pacific Ocean, won't even make a slight dent out of the 11 million who are currently running from Syria.

[Oak Hills]

I support this proposal, and it is in no way impractical, as it is a small fraction of the number of immigrants coming to the United States every year already.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home

Let the UN handle it all.

[PJ]

65,000 is quite a lot less than Germany's 800,000. O'Malley is like a Trump Junior (lol). Just kidding, yet this is an absolutely horrific proposal! 65,000 is like a needle in the entire Pacific Ocean, won't even make a slight dent out of the 11 million who are currently running from Syria.

... This would be an increase in the amount of refugees the US accepts.

O'Malley is usually terrible but he's right on this.

[eric82oslo]

While I understand that, it's very difficult taking in more and more people when there's already many Americans having difficulty in living day-to-day lives.  

There's a `clear difference between not having a ton of luxury and waking up each day not knowing whether you'll survive this day or not. You understand that difference right?

[MisSkeptic]

While I understand that, it's very difficult taking in more and more people when there's already many Americans having difficulty in living day-to-day lives.  

There's a `clear difference between not having a ton of luxury and waking up each day not knowing whether you'll survive this day or not. You understand that difference right?

Yes, I know the differences between the two.