House vote to halt resettlement of refugees from Syria and Iraq

[SillyAmerican]

According to an L.A. Times article on November 19th:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you support the position of President Obama/Nancy Pelosi, or those members of the House who voted to curtail plans to accept refugees from Syria/Iraq? If you support the President's position, please explain your objection to our erring on the side of caution and why you think the President is so adamant about needing to accept these refugees in the wake of the Paris attacks.

[Crumpets]

I support the President's position because I object to erring on the side of pandering to cowardly racists, and because there has been no demonstrated link between allowing the resettlement of refugees and seeing an increase in terrorism.

I think the President is adamant to accept refugees in the wake of the Paris attacks because the attacks demonstrate the horrors these people will continue to face if we don't help provide them safe haven.

Here's a pretty good video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvOnXh3NN9w

[Crumpets]

Also, I can pretty much guarantee that even if someone slipped through the cracks and committed an act of terrorism, the number of people killed as a result would almost certainly be less than the number of refugees who will die from us closing our doors to them - and yes, American lives and Syrian lives are of the same value.

[Mehmentum]

Thankfully the Senate is where all legislation goes to die.

[Angel of Death]

So (nearly) the same people who caused the mess in the first place don't want to pay any price for it.

[SillyAmerican]

Also, I can pretty much guarantee that even if someone slipped through the cracks and committed an act of terrorism, the number of people killed as a result would almost certainly be less than the number of refugees who will die from us closing our doors to them - and yes, American lives and Syrian lives are of the same value.

Perhaps the United States should indicate that it is ready to match the sum total of refugees welcomed into the following countries: Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain. Perhaps you should be speaking to citizens of those countries, letting them know how much Syrian lives matter; lest you forget, the United States continues to be one of the most generous nations on the planet.

[SillyAmerican]

Thankfully the Senate is where all legislation goes to die.

Yes, Harry Reid will do everything he can to prevent there being an up or down vote. Pretty pathetic to think that having a vote placed on the record on an issue as important as this would be considered something to be avoided.

[SteveRogers]

Also, I can pretty much guarantee that even if someone slipped through the cracks and committed an act of terrorism, the number of people killed as a result would almost certainly be less than the number of refugees who will die from us closing our doors to them - and yes, American lives and Syrian lives are of the same value.

Perhaps the United States should indicate that it is ready to match the sum total of refugees welcomed into the following countries: Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain. Perhaps you should be speaking to citizens of those countries, letting them know how much Syrian lives matter; lest you forget, the United States continues to be one of the most generous nations on the planet.

So the new goalpost for American morality should be "well, as long as we're not worse than Qatar?"

[Mehmentum]

Thankfully the Senate is where all legislation goes to die.

Yes, Harry Reid will do everything he can to prevent there being an up or down vote. Pretty pathetic to think that having a vote placed on the record on an issue as important as this would be considered something to be avoided.

If there isn't enough support for the bill to break the filibuster, then there's no way it would withstand a veto.

[Ebowed]

If you support the President's position, please explain your objection to our erring on the side of caution and why you think the President is so adamant about needing to accept these refugees in the wake of the Paris attacks.

You're conflating caution with fear.  They're not the same thing.

[Cassius]

Also, I can pretty much guarantee that even if someone slipped through the cracks and committed an act of terrorism, the number of people killed as a result would almost certainly be less than the number of refugees who will die from us closing our doors to them - and yes, American lives and Syrian lives are of the same value.

Of course, your advocacy of such a position is why you people will never obtain widespread popular support for what you want.

[SWE]

Say you had a bowl of M&Ms. And say there was a .01% of them might be poison. And say there was a guy whose job it was to inspect each M&M and throw out the bad ones. And say that if you don't eat the M&Ms, thousands of innocent people will be killed.

Do you take a handful?

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Also, I can pretty much guarantee that even if someone slipped through the cracks and committed an act of terrorism, the number of people killed as a result would almost certainly be less than the number of refugees who will die from us closing our doors to them - and yes, American lives and Syrian lives are of the same value.

The thing is, the American government exists to serve the interests of the former, not the latter. If even one American life is imperilled by refugee resettlement, it should be off the table.

[user12345]

Also, I can pretty much guarantee that even if someone slipped through the cracks and committed an act of terrorism, the number of people killed as a result would almost certainly be less than the number of refugees who will die from us closing our doors to them - and yes, American lives and Syrian lives are of the same value.

The thing is, the American government exists to serve the interests of the former, not the latter. If even one American life is imperilled by refugee resettlement, it should be off the table.

Donald Trumps plan to end Obama Care puts American lives at risk but you seem to fully support him.

[Mehmentum]

Also, I can pretty much guarantee that even if someone slipped through the cracks and committed an act of terrorism, the number of people killed as a result would almost certainly be less than the number of refugees who will die from us closing our doors to them - and yes, American lives and Syrian lives are of the same value.

The thing is, the American government exists to serve the interests of the former, not the latter. If even one American life is imperilled by refugee resettlement, it should be off the table.

1.) Whether we like it or not, we have made ourselves leader of the free world.  We have taken on responsibilities beyond the lives of Americans, and our foreign policy has reflected that.  I mean think about it, when we hear about violence in Ukraine, Syria, etc. the conversation in the U.S. is 'how are we going to fix this?'.  We have made ourselves responsible for what happens in the world.  If you don't want that responsibility, then maybe you should adopt an isolationist foreign policy.

2.) We are in many ways responsible for what has happened in Syria, through our invasion of Iraq and premature withdrawal.  It would be highly irresponsible of us to shirk our responsibility in this situation.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Also, I can pretty much guarantee that even if someone slipped through the cracks and committed an act of terrorism, the number of people killed as a result would almost certainly be less than the number of refugees who will die from us closing our doors to them - and yes, American lives and Syrian lives are of the same value.

The thing is, the American government exists to serve the interests of the former, not the latter. If even one American life is imperilled by refugee resettlement, it should be off the table.

Donald Trumps plan to end Obama Care puts American lives at risk but you seem to fully support him.

Like Donald Trump, I support a replacement to Obamacare that will provide quality healthcare to every American citizen.

[SillyAmerican]

If there isn't enough support for the bill to break the filibuster, then there's no way it would withstand a veto.

I would welcome an up/down vote in the Senate, and if the bill passes, I'd welcome a subsequent Presidential veto. That's the way our system should work, with the result being very clear about where the people who represent our interests stand, and who we should hold responsible if there are problems down the road. And frankly, this should not be treated as a partisan issue, and based on the fact that several dozen House Democrats support the measure, that seems to be understood, at least by some.

[SillyAmerican]

So the new goalpost for American morality should be "well, as long as we're not worse than Qatar?"

No, it should be "well, as long as we're not worse than the combination of six of the richest Muslim nations on the planet."  I mentioned the specific nations: Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain. Why is it that the United States needs to take on the responsibility of these refugees, given the fact that neighboring Muslim nations don't seem to care one iota? I know, I know, we have to be generous and welcoming, we should not be thinking of ourselves but of those in need. That argument would carry much more weight if this didn't appear to be yet another case of the U.S. being asked to shoulder costly measures that others have no interest in sharing in. Why is that, exactly?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We need to stop allowing right-wing Christian terrorists to be in this country.

[SteveRogers]

So the new goalpost for American morality should be "well, as long as we're not worse than Qatar?"

No, it should be "well, as long as we're not worse than the combination of six of the richest Muslim nations on the planet."  I mentioned the specific nations: Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain. Why is it that the United States needs to take on the responsibility of these refugees, given the fact that neighboring Muslim nations don't seem to care one iota? I know, I know, we have to be generous and welcoming, we should not be thinking of ourselves but of those in need. That argument would carry much more weight if this didn't appear to be yet another case of the U.S. being asked to shoulder costly measures that others have no interest in sharing in. Why is that, exactly?

Why should it matter if one other country is being terrible or six other countries are being terrible? Why should that determine whether or not we choose to do the right thing?

[SillyAmerican]

Why should it matter if one other country is being terrible or six other countries are being terrible? Why should that determine whether or not we choose to do the right thing?

The argument is over whether or not allowing Syrian refugees into the United States is the "right thing". My contention is that those who believe welcoming Syrian refugees is the "right thing" would have a somewhat easier time making their argument if six of the wealthiest Muslim nations were doing their part in this regard, and I stand by that assertion. We shouldn't let others determine whether or not we choose to do the right thing, but when trying to determine what is the right thing to do, I think it's perfectly reasonable to look at how others have responded to what you're saying is "the right thing". Given that I disagree with you about what the right thing to do is, are you saying I'm also wrong to look at how other countries are responding to what you claim to be the right thing?

[SillyAmerican]

We need to stop allowing right-wing Christian terrorists to be in this country.

You really should hold off posting this until a right-wing Christian terrorist has strapped on a suicide vest and attended a crowded sporting event or concert. Are there murderers of every possible political/ethnic/religious persuasion? Absolutely. As a result, is there an equivalence across the board? Don't be silly...

[SillyAmerican]

Say you had a bowl of M&Ms. And say there was a .01% of them might be poison. And say there was a guy whose job it was to inspect each M&M and throw out the bad ones. And say that if you don't eat the M&Ms, thousands of innocent people will be killed.

Do you take a handful?

Well, the first thing you should be asking is if eating a handful of the M&Ms is the only way to save the thousands of innocent people. If it's not, then perhaps there are better ways of going about addressing the problem, ways that don't involve having to consume the .01% poisoned M&Ms, because if you happen to eat some of the poisoned M&Ms, I guarantee you you won't be happy about it.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Also, I can pretty much guarantee that even if someone slipped through the cracks and committed an act of terrorism, the number of people killed as a result would almost certainly be less than the number of refugees who will die from us closing our doors to them - and yes, American lives and Syrian lives are of the same value.

The thing is, the American government exists to serve the interests of the former, not the latter. If even one American life is imperilled by refugee resettlement, it should be off the table.

Is this why you think that guns should be severely restricted? And basically everything, since basically everything imperils life a little bit?

Why should it matter if one other country is being terrible or six other countries are being terrible? Why should that determine whether or not we choose to do the right thing?

The argument is over whether or not allowing Syrian refugees into the United States is the "right thing". My contention is that those who believe welcoming Syrian refugees is the "right thing" would have a somewhat easier time making their argument if six of the wealthiest Muslim nations were doing their part in this regard, and I stand by that assertion. We shouldn't let others determine whether or not we choose to do the right thing, but when trying to determine what is the right thing to do, I think it's perfectly reasonable to look at how others have responded to what you're saying is "the right thing". Given that I disagree with you about what the right thing to do is, are you saying I'm also wrong to look at how other countries are responding to what you claim to be the right thing?

I don't want to presume, but I somehow doubt that you honestly think that the way to determine the right thing to do is to look around and see what other people are doing.

[SteveRogers]

We shouldn't let others determine whether or not we choose to do the right thing, but when trying to determine what is the right thing to do, I think it's perfectly reasonable to look at how others have responded to what you're saying is "the right thing". Given that I disagree with you about what the right thing to do is, are you saying I'm also wrong to look at how other countries are responding to what you claim to be the right thing?

If course we should consider what others around the world consider to be the right thing to do, but I'm saying that the governments of some of the countries you listed are not exactly known to be pillars of moral authority on human rights issues. Do you disagree with that?