November 23, 2015 11:21 am at 11:21 am #1195576
I missed it because almost all those statments are in the ou’s statement!
“The heinous attacks in Paris this week demonstrate that ISIS, and other similar militant Islamic terrorist groups, have both the desire and means to strike terror in the capitals of the Western world. Clearly, this must impact the manner in which the United States considers the acceptance of refugees from Syria and other war-torn countries in the Middle East. … security concerns are real and serious. We cannot be naive in our assessment of the determination of terrorists to exploit the refugee crisis. And we should limit immigration to those individuals who share our American ideals and aspirations…
Thus, we encourage a sensible process of reviewing and enhancing security. … While security concerns must be paramount, …Congress and the Executive Branch should review the screening program for refugees and strengthen it as appropriate. … America has both the creativity and compassion to successfully address the competing considerations and we urge our political leaders to work toward achieving this delicate balance.”
After rereviewing This line “America has both the creativity and compassion to successfully address the competing considerations” is the one you seem to disagree with (Though I guess it is creativty that you beleive we lack not compassion). Thanks for replying.
I reposted just the staments tho that effect.
Are yu saying you only agree with those statments, not the rest?
My question was which part you DISAGREE with? if any
“i agree with it because it states what i was saying, that we can be sensitive to the plight of refugees, but we cannot become idealistic and agenda-istic and ignore the fact that there may be some very dangerous people among them. sure we should be “getting to yes”…”
Great! i love when we agree. It is an issue of attitute. and the attitude many in our community and in the political realm (eg Trump, christie) have is one of xenophobia, which should have no place in the discussion. And we of all people should be very careful.November 23, 2015 11:32 am at 11:32 am #1195577
The OU statement implies that the policy should be to accept them, and through creativity, we will figure out how to keep safe. Essentially, if there is a will, there is a way.
I do not have such confidence in the government. I don’t know if there is the will to make the tough decisions, or a way to overcome the political realities, necessary to be compassionate not only to the refugees, but to the innocent people who already live here.November 23, 2015 7:58 pm at 7:58 pm #1195578flatbusherParticipant
It’s not cruel not to allow Syrian refugees in. Nobody knows who they are or where there sympathies lie. Despite the Administraton’s claim that it’s orphans and widows coming, at least two-thirds are able-bodied men, Muslims, and if they were questioned about how they feel about western culture or Jews, I doubt you would get a truthful answer. The big concern is just that: that there are no databases to access to check the history of these refugees. If it’s any indication of who they are, a survey of Syrian refugees in Europe found that they viewed Israel and then the U.S. as threats to stability in Mideast ahead of ISIS, so exactly why are they running? And why are the men coming without their families? Maybe some are single, but two-thirds?November 23, 2015 8:14 pm at 8:14 pm #1195579screwdriverdelightParticipant
The terror threat could easily be avoided by doing the same thing they did with the Japanese in WWII. Let in all the refugees to a large, guarded area, and when (if) the dust settles in Syria, send them back.
They’re not citizens, they’ll have no rights. What’s wrong with that?November 23, 2015 8:21 pm at 8:21 pm #1195580
ubiquitin – you ended my quote with sure we should be “getting to yes”…”
I’m hoping you heard the rest of it, which I believe is pretty important. it is that getting to yes will probably never actually reach yes because I don’t think anyone believes that all the security will ever be in place. And I have no problem with that.November 23, 2015 9:08 pm at 9:08 pm #1195581👑RebYidd23Participant
There is no right answer.November 23, 2015 10:42 pm at 10:42 pm #1195582
“Despite the Administraton’s claim that it’s orphans and widows coming, at least two-thirds are able-bodied men,”
we get to decide who we let in.
“The terror threat could easily be avoided by doing the same thing they did with the Japanese in WWII”
Are you serious? that is one of the most vile times of our history. That is usually used as an exmple of what not to do
“I’m hoping you heard the rest of it, which I believe is pretty important. it is that getting to yes will probably never actually reach yes because I don’t think anyone believes that all the security will ever be in place.”
So lets strive towards it!
“I don’t think anyone believes that all the security will ever be in place.”
THe FBI, CIA, and department of homeland security feel otherwise
” And I have no problem with that.”
That is cruel. Which is what I was reffering to when responding to OP. Its one thing to feel bad for the suffering mostly innocent people becasue there is no choice. But to not have a problem with their suffering is cruelty and is why the st. Louis was sent back in 39.November 23, 2015 11:58 pm at 11:58 pm #1195583
ubiq- i never understand why people do that. I told you twice that i don’t want people to suffer but that i won’t compromise security for bad feelings and yet when you come to the last line, you decide i was saying osmething that would totally contradict myself. Why wouldn’t you stop and wonder what it means, or give it a moment thought, instead of assuming i just made a statement to contradict myself?
back to the topic – when i said i have no problem with “that”, how did you decide that “that” refers to suffering when that wasn’t mentioned?November 24, 2015 12:15 am at 12:15 am #1195584
Honestly Joseph, I would let all the Syrian refugees into Brooklyn and give each one with all their kids a car along with mosques on every other block.November 24, 2015 12:17 am at 12:17 am #1195585
i assumed “That” reffered to the situation ie condeming thousands upon thosands to people to death becasue of the (valid) concern that a small minority of them are terrorists.
The reason being that “I don’t think anyone believes that all the security will ever be in place” which even if true (though all anti-terror agencies disagree with your assesment)is a horrible horrible situation that you should have a very big problem with.
I’m sorry if you were reffering to something elseNovember 24, 2015 12:19 am at 12:19 am #1195586screwdriverdelightParticipant
ubiquitin, it’s vile (and unconstitutional) to do that to citizens with rights. But when you’re faced with a choice between turning down refugees and sending them back to the battlefield vs. allowing them an asylum, no matter how uncomfortable that asylum may be, you’re helping them out. If they’d rather their freedom, they’re more than welcome not to come.November 24, 2015 2:05 am at 2:05 am #1195587
refugees should be allowed refuge. but not at the expense of the safety of the citizens. If the refugees can be guaranteed to be free of ties to terror, then let them in (I think there are available apartments in brooklyn). If they have to be turned down because the security cannot be guaranteed and the safety of the citizens is being held as the number one priority then i have no problem with that because my family’s security is not hefker.
And by the way, (to beat a dead horse) these refugees have millions of cousins in many different countries who have decided to not open their borders to them. I don’t remember the Jews ever being in such a situation. The parallels are really less and less, not more and more.November 24, 2015 2:07 am at 2:07 am #1195588
sdd – i totally agree with your last post.November 24, 2015 2:44 am at 2:44 am #1195589
I get your first paragraph.
Im lost on the second one. Are you saying becasue Arab countries are selfish we can be too? I dont follow. Yes Many Arab countries are doing a terrible thing by not taking intheir own cousins, how does that absolve us.
“I don’t remember the Jews ever being in such a situation.”
We were in the 30’s (minus the ties to terror part, but dont worry they had their excuses) Many said we should go to our cousins in Palestine. Of course much like the Arab countries today, the rulers of palestine didnt let us in. So that like your suggestion today wasnt a real optionNovember 24, 2015 2:48 am at 2:48 am #1195590
there were no tens of jewish countries with millions of jews chosing to turn their backs on their enddangered jewish brothers.November 24, 2015 3:24 am at 3:24 am #1195591
Why is that the refugees fault?November 24, 2015 3:39 am at 3:39 am #1195592
don’t know that it is.
but with all those arab countries to go to, maybe all the other countries should be combining their efforts to find a way to put pressure on them to take in their own people to their own countries so they don’t have to uproot themselves and relocate to foreign lands.November 24, 2015 3:58 am at 3:58 am #1195593
ubiq, will you invite to your home random homeless men you encounter sleeping in the streets and in need of shelter?November 24, 2015 5:47 am at 5:47 am #1195594Avi KParticipant
Joseph, at one time a Jewish stranger who had no place to go had no problem being invited for after the davening. In fact, homeowners argued over who would get the mitzva. There are still communities where people organize Shabbat meals for newcomers, soldiers (in Israel), etc.November 24, 2015 5:52 am at 5:52 am #1195595
ubiq, taking your position to its logical conclusion, you should also be in favor of Israel settling thousands of Syrian refugees.
Some can be housed in Tel Aviv, others in Jerusalem and some more in Haifa, etc.November 24, 2015 7:00 am at 7:00 am #1195596Sam2Participant
Joseph: Even if not, I would gladly put them in the homeless shelter next door, wouldn’t you?November 24, 2015 10:54 am at 10:54 am #1195598MammeleParticipant
Sam: next door as in Canada with its vast open space?November 24, 2015 12:13 pm at 12:13 pm #1195599
“maybe all the other countries should be combining their efforts …”
what are you talking about? No but i do think we should have homeless shelters for them and I support some of those shelters by way of taxes.
dont you agree?
Israel is different because it is a “jewish state” so there is a demographic issue.November 24, 2015 12:54 pm at 12:54 pm #1195600
If the homeless shelters were full, I’m sure you’d open your home, though. Right?November 24, 2015 1:20 pm at 1:20 pm #1195601
“If the homeless shelters were full, I’m sure you’d open your home, though. Right?”
Thats exactly right! Politicians and many citizens are so emotional about letting the Islamic refugees in no matter the cost, as long as they personally dont have to sacrifice anything. Only the people that the refugees actually live around have to deal with it, while the people making the decisions continue to live in their gated mansions and private estates where a refugee would be arrested if tried to enter.November 24, 2015 1:21 pm at 1:21 pm #1195602
And surely, dear ubiq, you’d support having a homeless shelter on your block, right?
Surely you favor Israel accepting at least a token number of Syrian refugees, correct? Besides, as you earlier said not accepting these refugees is condemning them to war and death. Certainly you are consistent and believe saving their lives is far more vital than demographics and Israel should even accept more than a token number to save their lives. Especially considering that Israel literally borders war-torn Syria and can facilitate a good number of life-saving rescues. Who, as you say, is more responsible to insure refugees are not turned away and sent to their deaths, like the Jews in the 30s, than the Jewish state?November 24, 2015 1:34 pm at 1:34 pm #1195603
No but I would favor building more. Wouldnt you?
Though I dont follow. did anyone suggest putting the refugees in your house?November 24, 2015 1:38 pm at 1:38 pm #1195604
Yes and YesNovember 24, 2015 1:44 pm at 1:44 pm #1195605
There are no available beds now. Would you take them into your home?
It’s a moshol. You would not want to compromise your or your family’s safety, despite your compassion, and we feel the same way about the refugees, and we don’t trust the government agencies’ claims that it is not a major security concern.November 24, 2015 1:45 pm at 1:45 pm #1195606
Why wouldnt you give a homeless man in need of shelter your guest bedroom, ubiq?November 24, 2015 1:58 pm at 1:58 pm #1195607oyoyParticipant
Good Zog JosephNovember 24, 2015 2:17 pm at 2:17 pm #1195608
“You would not want to compromise your or your family’s safety”
I dont want to compromise anyones safty. This whole discussion is contingent on the refugees undergoing a vigorous vetting process.
“and we don’t trust the government agencies’ claims that it is not a major security concern.”
allthouh DY made that above stament, I assume you agree. didnt you say on the Iran deal thread that I cant argue with “those in the know” If they say its safe who are you to argue?
As for my guest bedroom. a) There are shelters available (and we have them and fund them for a reason) so your question is silly. b) hypotheticly, if there were none if he underwent a fraction of the vetting process they have to undergo, I’d consider taking him.
Btw teyereh ziseh Jospeh
I cant help but notice that as per your MO you STILL havent answered my question regarding children
bottom line I agree if there is a safety concern they shouldnt be allowed (I never said otherwise).
I am saying two things
1) Our attitude should be one of trying to help “getting to yes”, comng up with a way to make the vetting process safer. If it still isnt rigorous enough, then make it stricter. Still not safe? Make it stricter etc etc Saying there is no way case closed is unacceptable.
2) We should have an atttude of compassion and feel bad for those we cant help, whether after the above the vetting process is still not enough or the reailty that we cant take all. And realize that we were in the same boat as the (mostly innocent)refugees. ALL the excuses you and others are making where made then. Granted perhaps your excuses carry a little more weight than theirs. But they had all your moshols or your risks just directed against us.November 24, 2015 3:07 pm at 3:07 pm #1195609akupermaParticipant
1. Many of the refugees are Christians, and there are no Arab Christian countries. In terms of finding a friendly church, America is probably their best bet. Most European countries are ultra-secular with an official established church and not much toleration for anything other than the official government religion. The only middle eastern country where Christians are not persecuted in Israel.
2. Many are losers in the “Arab Spring” which tried to establish western style democracy in the middle east, and failed miserably. There are no western-style democratic countries in the middle east for them to flee to. The only secular Muslim country in the middle east was Turkey, and they’ve turned politically Islamist. Lebanon is basically jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
3. Preventing terrorists from posing as refugees is a real problem but hardly one that is hard to surmount.November 24, 2015 4:53 pm at 4:53 pm #1195610Avi KParticipant
Joseph, as a matter of fact, in a typically daring Zionist operation Israeli commandos brought the last Jews home from Syria with the exception of a woman who converted to Islam and married an Arab (after the Brother Daniel case the Law of Return was amended to explicitly exclude someone who converted to another religion). As for non-Jewish Syrians, it might be feasible to take in some Druze under a family reunification plan (many are related to Golan Druze) given the fact that they keep the sheva mitzvot (the sheik of the Israeli segment officially accepted them in the name of the whole community and Rav Ovadia ruled that their religion is not avoda zara) and have an excellent loyalty record.November 24, 2015 8:42 pm at 8:42 pm #1195611
I am curious to know if anyone actually living in a place that the refugees would start living could weigh in on this, besides everyone else who allowing the refugees in will not directly effect their lives.November 24, 2015 8:43 pm at 8:43 pm #1195612
I want to know why we can’t allow in the millions and millions of latinos, chinese, koreans, africans, and indians etc that desperately want to come to the US but cant. I dont think its fair.November 24, 2015 8:47 pm at 8:47 pm #1195613mddMember
Ubiquitin, if you think that Syrian refugees should be admitted to Israel, I believe, and many here would agree, there is nothing to talk about anymore. The case has been proven.November 24, 2015 8:52 pm at 8:52 pm #1195614
“if you think that Syrian refugees should be admitted to Israel, I believe, and many here would agree, there is nothing to talk about anymore.”
I back this 100%
Well said.November 24, 2015 10:23 pm at 10:23 pm #1195615
“I am curious to know if anyone actually living in a place that the refugees would start living could weigh in on this”
i live in NYC. you can bet they’ll end up here.
“I want to know why we can’t allow in the millions and millions of latinos, chinese, koreans, africans, and indians etc that desperately want to come to the US but cant. I dont think its fair.”
1) Start a new thread, how does that affect the issue at hand
2) Most of those arent facing death
3)Would you accept that as a reason for the Us to have turned back the St. louis in 39?
“The case has been proven”
What case? and proven how?
with what point do you disagree.
Again keep in mind i am only talking about cases where they can be vetted properly. With Israel there is a seperate demographic issue which is why only a token could be considred (Netanyahu said the same though he said not even a token, Herzog said to take some).November 24, 2015 10:31 pm at 10:31 pm #1195616
Would you accept that as a reason for the Us to have turned back the St. louis in 39?
Start a new thread, how does that affect the issue at handNovember 24, 2015 11:51 pm at 11:51 pm #1195617
First of all that is one of the very two points I am making see here where I outline them http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/banning-syrian-refugees-from-the-us/page/2#post-589144 so it is quite relevant.
and second of all Those are both my points! If you think the St. Louis isnt relevant then you agree with my answer 1 to Newbee. If you think it is relevant then the question is a valid reply to newbee’s point.
Either way Newbee’s question is addressed.November 25, 2015 1:35 am at 1:35 am #1195618
I have no idea what you mean.
All I see is you making an analogy but not letting him make one.November 25, 2015 1:58 am at 1:58 am #1195619
I’m sorry I’ll try to be clearer.
If i would tell a meshulach, “I’m sorry I cant help you since there are lots of meshulachim out there”. You would (I assume) correctly say what does that have to do with anything. He needs help, help him who cares if you cant help other people.
Thus the fact that there are “millions and millions of latinos, chinese, koreans, africans, and indians etc that desperately want to come to the US” is completley irrelevant to the subject at hand. Sure we can start a new thread to discuss those people, but this thread isnt about them.
As for the St. Louis. It is entirely relevant for two reasons:
1) because that is PRECISELY my point. That we the descendants of those who were denied entry should be extra careful, extremly compassionate, and be sure to exhaust all possibilities before denying that freedom to others. THIS IS ONE OF MY MAIN POINTS (not yelling, just for emphasis) as I have outlined here http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/banning-syrian-refugees-from-the-us/page/2#post-589144
2) As a direct response to Newbee’s question (even if it was relevant) I am asking if had that excuse been used against us eg “We’d love to take you out of Hitler’s Germany but what about all the millions and millions of latinos, chinese, koreans, africans, and indians etc that desperately want to come to the US” would he accept it. and say good point, I guess the U.S. was right to sent back the St. LouisNovember 25, 2015 4:38 am at 4:38 am #1195620
“Would you accept that as a reason for the Us to have turned back the St. louis in 39?
Start a new thread, how does that affect the issue at hand”
2) Most of those arent facing death
3)Would you accept that as a reason for the Us to have turned back the St. louis in 39?
2) Out of those millions and millions of people many of them are facing death in one way or another I assure you.
3) First of all Syria is not Nazi Germany performing genocide. Second they should be going to other ISLAMIC COUNTRIES. There are many of them with lots of room. The US should be encouraging this. Not taking them into the US.November 25, 2015 4:41 am at 4:41 am #1195621
ubiquitin I want you to answer me honestly, assuming out of the millions and millions of people I previously mentioned, thousands upon thousands of them are facing death, should we not take all of those people into the US?
Yes or no? Hundreds of thousands if not millions of africans, latinos, chinese and indians. Yes or noNovember 25, 2015 7:01 am at 7:01 am #1195622HealthParticipant
Newbee – My previous post:
“They shouldn’t let them in! What is happening/happened in Europe will happen here. Even Trump is a liberal. What the Western World should do is to get rid of the problem in Syria & Iraq. No more pussyfooting around! Then they could go home.”
Do you agree with my post from before???November 25, 2015 11:22 am at 11:22 am #1195623
What was well said? both of the lines before that are my answers to you
Which answer do you accept?
If a meshulach asks me for money, Do you think my replying well I cant help you there are lots of needy people out there is a valid reply?
none of the groups you mentioned are facing death to nearly the same extent (with the possible exception of Africa). It is estimated that around 200,000 people have been killed over the past few years alone.
“First of all Syria is not Nazi Germany performing genocide.”
a) when the st. Louis was sent back there was no genocide in Germany yet. Do you think the US was right to send them back?
b) So you agree that victims of Genocide can come? seems arbitrary but ok I can live with that
“Second they should be going to other ISLAMIC COUNTRIES. “
a) Many of the refugees arent Muslim which is part of the problem and partly what is driving the campaign of violence against them (keep this in mind when you answer “b” above it is a trap)
b) Sadly many of the Islamic countries arent willing to take them
As for your question. Even though it is a new topic and doesnt affect the syrian refugees as I replied earlier. I’ll answer directly
“should we not take all of those people into the US?”
No, much as we shouldnt take all Syrians and shouldnt have taken all Jews in the 30’s. But yes we should (and often do) take what we can.
Please note we arent talking about throwing open the border and letting anybody from Syria in the re is a long vetting process that can take up to 2 years.
Which is why Health’s comment is silly so hopefully you wont agree with it. It is a lot easier to get in a tourist! So leaving syrians to their death wont even prevent what is “happening/happened in Europe will happen here.” The much easier/quicker way in is still open to terrorists. Of the >700,000 refugees allowed in over the past decade 4 were arrested for anything terrorist related (and only one directed against the U.S. On the other hand NONE of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 where refugees!
Now that I answered your question would you be so kind as to answer mine. Here they are again: edited – please be respectful to those you are debating
1. Is it a valid response to tell one meshulach, I cant elp you becasue there are lots of other meshulachim out there?
2. In 1939 before any systematic genocide was taking place Do you think the U.S. was justified in sending back the St. Louis
3. Would you allow those facing Genocide asylum in the U.S. (again, and this goes without saying and is a prerequisite to my point, only if deemed safe by a thorough vetting processNovember 25, 2015 12:49 pm at 12:49 pm #1195624dbrimParticipant
How absurd. Comparing the question of allowing migrant muslims into the US with barring entry to Jewish refugees from Nazi war-torn Europe (e.g., the St. Louis) is an apples-elephants comparison. Besides differences in political, ideological, social, economic variables, etc., bear in mind that the 1930’s the was pre-terror, pre 9/11 world. Anyway, if we want to consider the issue from an empirical perspective, meaning what happens when the flow of muslim migrants enters a foreign country, we don’t have to look any further than Europe – and it’s not pretty. Chayecha Kodmin.November 25, 2015 12:57 pm at 12:57 pm #1195625
“is an apples-elephants comparison”
Maskim, because you like apples but not elephants. However that shouldnt be a factor in doing whats right, and who knows what if apples were to become unpopular again
Your point has been addressed numerous timesNovember 25, 2015 1:03 pm at 1:03 pm #1195626
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.