Yes
No
48%
12 votes
52%
13 votes
Sorry about the repost, the website decided to be a piece of sh*t for half an hour
I did a similar poll and was surprised by the results. Interested to see the comments on this one.
Didn't notice your poll, I tried making one in the opinions and it doesn't wanna let me. Surprised that people are against accepting the refugees?
Mister-man - someone mentioned this in my poll. What if we used Guam. It.Could be another island. But just for the discussion, we are going to take as many as we can accommodate on islands like Guam. How does that work for you?
Oh my... What non factional and non logical arguments.... Especially the playing up of the term 'Muslim'. Does that make a huge difference?
@Mister_Man - NO. Surprised that most WERE accepting of taking 1million or more.
Right now, I have one million + (11) || Zero (7) || one hundred to five hundred thousand (5). Not bad.
Http://www.Debate.Org/polls/how-many-syrian-refugees-are-you-willing-to-accept-into-the-us
FOUR TIMES TO GET THAT THROUGH THE fILTER. I HATE THIS FiLTER
If we put everyone on a nice little island I'd be fine with that. But to make them US citizens, ehhhh I don't think that'd be such a bright idea. And those are good statistics on your poll, unfortunately nobody is really choosing to elaborate on their Pro stances, such as WAM here. Speaking of WAM, can you please elaborate a bit more on what you're saying? I don't quite understand.
And yeah this dumbass filter sucks again. It was perfect for about a month there, allowed any type of text including links and swearing and such. Now I can't type anything without it being "submitted for moderation."
@Mister_Man - Citizenship is a separate issue. We have a humanitarian issue, and it should be dealt with as that only. It is in no small part our problem, we have our hand in making it, and we sure don't need to watch it deteriorate more. I have to say, I am not entirely apposed to this "island" idea. It would appease many of the security concerns that people want to discuss. We do control a bunch of islands. It would cost more, but it could be done with little real effort.
Yeah this island thing may work out, at least give them a decent place to live. I'm all for helping innocent people in need, but when the risks are as high as they are now, I would say we should ensure the public safety instead of the public political correctness, lol.
I honestly would prefer a more intrigued approach, but if anyone can find compromise that provides safe territory, food, shelter I would be for it.
That's gonna be hard with the threat of ISIS everywhere :P
The "threat" of ISIS is highly exaggerated. Terrorism is issue to deal with, but should not frighten us into inactivity.
Inactivity doesn't nessarlily have to happen. Why can't regional powers such as Saudi Arabia take in more refugees? Why should that burden be put on Western countries? If Saudi Arabia can export terrorists, they can afford to import a couple also.
"The "threat" of ISIS is highly exaggerated." The threat is still high enough for them to simply pretend to be a refugee. ISIS has already been sending its own into these refugees hordes.
I agree with both of you on that. I even said, when I first heard about ISIS, that they're just another group like Al-Quaeda, another main focus for the governments to spend and receive money on and for, and there are terrorist groups everywhere. I think ISIS is a bit different though because of the way they've conducted themselves, especially through social media. They make themselves heard and continuously threaten western countries with attacks and invasions, including what they're doing now, hiding with the refugees. I also agree that it shouldn't be up to the western, more civilized countries to have to look out for all the others.
Some not all.
Some new act of terrorism will happen on US soil at some point. We need to not loose our minds, and treat it like the relatively minor threat it is. Our "protection" lies in our efforts to find, arrest and thwart the attacks, not in battling it out in the middle-east. The only thing that has done so far is make more terrorists.
@TBR true, but we can not do nothing. We need to fix what we created. We messed upped, but we can not give up. There is a phase I like it is never give up never surrender. We have to fight to protect ourselves and the other millions of people living on this big blue world.
Sigh...
@tajshar2k ?
@stargate - Are traffic laws in another country our responsibility? Should we invade and accept collateral damage to impose better road safety in another nation?
@TBR for those reasons along no.
Its a flippant point, but seat-belts save life's. We could do more good by forcing everyone to wear them then to obliterate terrorism.
But we should when the country has high levels of terrorism, an poor human rights record, and a corrupt government. There is no easy yes or no answer to the refugees or for the middle east. But we nee d to be willing to fight for what we believe in.
Stargate, Those people don't like us. Period. They hate us more than their government. They don't want us to help them. Why do you keep insisting on helping them, when we literally receive no benefits?
Ask a number of people (countries - China) we THE US have a terrible human-rights record, and many would say corrupt government. We have home-grown terrorists too. Guess I should hope that someone rescues US!
Stargate, if people in Iran think the West is evil, and they need to send soldiers to help them, because they believe in fighting for whats right, what would you say?
Its the perfect Gordian knot tajshar2k. Or in the words from the "W.O.P.E.R" computer in war games, 'the best solution is not to play'.
"We should do careful background checks, only allowing trusted people in." Then that wouldn't likely be all refugees now would it?
In previous conflicts were mass refugees were common, the US did use Guam and several other islands as makeshift refugee camps. The last time this occurred was Vietnam if my memory serves me. Beyond that their are vast sections of federal land that are isolated enough to where any camp built in the middle of one would be just as secured as an island. In fact constructing makeshift towns would be remarkably easy in these regions while providing several hundred square miles as a buffer zone for the military to secure and monitor. The US could theoretically hold all the refugees from the current conflict with surprising ease.
@58539672 - Yup. On all points. We, the US, have plenty of land available. This would be no big deal.
True we can do it, but will we? Also I do not mean attacking any nationn you do not like. They would one need to have some sort of importance this is due to one lives will be lost in a war and two the only way we can go to war is for a good reason(usally). I did not mean lete kill anyone saying the west sucks, they can say it. That is there opinion, but when there government is realy bad the nation has some sort of importance, plus terrorism then we can go to war. Though I hate Russia and China I do not think we should go to war with them or Iran for that matter. You know why? I can tell you even though they have a bad government, high levels of corruption, along with Russia invadeing and talking land. But we can't stop them directly without WW3, and no one wants that many lives lost.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/world/gulf-states-syrian-refugee-crisis/
@tajshar2k Well obviously not all, there might be people who are secretly ISIS militants. And we shouldn't allow any refugee that supports sharia law.
Exactly, so you should have voted No.
I basically support exactly what you said. But the Gulf states should take more responsiblity.
If there are 'terrorists' embedded into these refugees, it would seem logical that we would want to 'take them in'. How would you suggest finding them otherwise?
As for gulf states doing more... Well, turkey has taken ~1.25 million. Saudi Arabia? Well they just suck rocks, don't they. I have no idea why anyone has good things to say about THAT pit. Terrible country, they just don't threaten as much as the others.
"It would seem logical that we would want to 'take them in'. How would you suggest finding them otherwise?" Thats great, but we don't exactly know who is the terrorist. By the time we figure it out, he would have established an entire Jihadi network.
@TBR Were you being sarcastic about Saudi Arabia?
I didn't understand what you mean by "they just don't threaten as much as the others."
On Saudi Arabia, no. What a complete sh1thole. All the money oil can buy does not make a pleasant society.
On the other. My point is, if you want to find the 'embedded terrorists' it would help to have physical, and information control over them. It the best way to sort out anyone who would be a terrorists.
@TBR By doing that, you are taking an incredible risk which could potentially backfire and instead help establish a terror network in America. It's a make it or break it thing.
But remember, the question is asking whether we should except "all" muslim refugees. I have no problem taking our fair share, but other countries should take more responsibility.
1) I don't see why we don't take 'most'. 2) the risk is not as high as we want to panic about. The refugees would be monitored, and in 'known' locations. It really is not as anything to get overly worried about. There are other threats more serious and more difficult to track
@tajshar2k We can still take in refugees while also separating them from American society as a whole. That is why I suggested the island and federal land ideas. It is possible to house hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of refugees while having them isolated in one spot. The government owns 28% of the countries land mass. Some of those areas, like in New Mexico and Nevada, stretch hundreds of miles across with next to one living in them. If a makeshift town is established in the middle of one with military monitoring and patrolling the surrounding territory, these refugees (and any potential terrorist) will be cut off from the whole country. They may as well be considered living in another continent for how isolated we can make them.
@58539672 - Yup. Everyone should spend time in the west (or Idaho, ND SD) and see how much space there really is. It is truly impressive how much of our country is still underpopulated by people or corn.
@TBR There is also a misunderstanding regarding where these refugees are currently residing. Their are actually close to 11 million refugees (of an original population of 22.4 million, this is appalling). 7.6 million are refugees still residing in Syria, the vast majority being in internal refugee camps and concentration camps. The remaining 4 million are seeking asylum abroad. 1.6 million remain in Turkey, both Lebanon and Jordan have a million each, and a few hundred thousand in Iraq and Egypt. This brings 95% of all the refugees living in those countries. So saying that the nations of the region aren't accepting enough refugees isn't the problem. The problem is that these nations have to many refugees and are inadequately prepared to provide for them. This has lead to many refugees trying to get to Europe, which does have the resources and, by international law that the Europeans created, the obligation to house them. So saying that the regional nations should take in more refugees is not a viable solution.
And aside from the European nations being very xenophobic and hesitant to help, the Arab states have taken in no refugees, and China, Russia, and Iran which have been steadily supplying weapons and military supplies to Assad which are prolonging the conflict have done remarkably little to help these refugees. Plus the US which is one of the original instigators of the conflict has still yet to take major action. So far, everyone involved is to blame for the crisis.
@58539672 - I agree. I don't think (other than my slamming Saudi Arabia) I was unclear about that. Turkey has taken way more than anyone else. As for the European countries. Greece is getting SLAMMED at a time where they cant provide for their own people in any way. Its time for us to step up to our responsibilities and stop this "well, as long as they aren't terrorists, and take a test". We have a real line between our actions and this mess. Its not all our doing, but we have plenty of blame in the mix. Step up like the caring nation that WE ARE. We can take them ALL. We are big and strong. Bigger and stronger than anyone else. Its not all just about military. We are America, and if we cant do this, what is the point being a super-power.
Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and 
Yes, there's not a good enough reason why we shouldn't.
They have no where else to go. But like what triangle said, do some background checks first.
They should have to do what every American has to do to obtain citizenship. If a terrorist tries to come in, a background check should be able to tell us.
Yes, we shouldn't abandon human beings, they aren't horrible people, but they should be filtered in case of terrorists or criminals.
Our national security is more important. We should let some in, but we must do a very careful check. Remember these people came from an area where ISIS came from. No point in letting in immigrants, by putting our fellow citizens at risk.
Considering ISIS has admitted to hiding terrorists in the groups of refugees, I'd say that's a good enough reason. That, on top of how western Europe is turning out, with all the Muslims imposing their laws on the western societies. And since all these refugees are coming from countries that are infested with ISIS members, it'd be safe to, at the very least, have extensive background checks. Political correctness can't save you from suicide bombers.
Bad idea, maybe with an exception for woman and babies.
We should do careful background checks, only allowing trusted people in.
It is suspicious to me that most of them are young men. If your country is so dangerous, why leave your women and children behind, you cowards?
I noted the same thing as Renegader, predominantly young able-bodied men, at best deserting the women, children, elderly. But possible they aren't refugees at all.