The logic that other countries are doing it is so we should is senseless and is completely a-historical. For the better part of our country's history our primary foreign policy has been limited engagement in geopolitical problems outside of our hemisphere. Refugee problems due to civil wars is not our problem, and frankly speaking, its not Canada's responsibility to take care of every person in the world. It is not Germany's responsibility to take care of every person in the world. And to those who will argue that we caused the mess in the Middle East...this is a huge generalization. Sectarian violence is a historical phenomenon within Islam since its founding and the Syrian Civil War is an internal domestic matter that US policies did not cause. There's a bigger argument for the US taking in Ukrainian refugees than Syrian ones - we supported the Maidan protests that led to the ousting of Yanukovich, which led to the breakaway of Donetsk and Luhansk and thus the internal civil war in the Ukraine.

End this mindset of globalism. We each belong to a country. Each country's primary duty is to uphold the rights and safety of THEIR citizens. My tax money being used in our foreign aid budget is in my mind is a complete abjection of our principles and a waste of money.

The United States of America should definitely be taking refugees. Canada is taking in 25,000 by the end of THIS year, thats in just over a month. Germany has promised to take in hundreds of thousands of refugees. Where is the USA in this? The country with the highest capabilities and capacity to do this?

Where is the USA in this?

Being smart while sitting in a lawn chair, watching the refugee bandwagon roll by.

As with most things their needs to be a moderate, logical approach to this immigration. We can't turn our backs on refugees just because they are Muslim, that would be both wrong and stupid. However, we also can't just sing "Hakuna Matata" and allow anyone into the country without any kind of restrictions/conditions, that would equally stupid. We should take the amount of migrants we can reasonably handle with our resources, utilizing thorough background checks and security procedures.

Also, as an aside, I want to address the tendency of shaming countries who don't take in immigrants. No country has any duty or obligation to accept mass tidal waves of refugees. Whether they do or do not accept thousands of immigrants at once is their own business and should be done out of kindness, not because other countries will shame them if they don't.

A government has the duty of looking after it's own citizens first, and only the people within a country know what they can or can't handle.

We are restricting admission to women, children and families by the way, no lone males are being accepted as reported by the CBC... i think that takes away a lot of security concern...

We are restricting admission to women, children and families by the way, no lone males are being accepted as reported by the CBC... i think that takes away a lot of security concern...

ISIS and other terrorist groups have used women and children as suicide bombers in the past. So even that's not a 100% safe strategy. However, being 100% safe would require banning all immigration out right, which is obviously not doable. So, strict screening is the best we can do. Here's to hoping that keeps out most the terrorists.

is fear, bigotry, lack of empathy and stupidity still the main prerequisite for right winged politics and patriotism? as far as I know most americans claims to be christians. shouldnt your main issue be charity?

-Help Europe, yo! European countries are taking them; why shouldn't the US? [..]
-If Europe can't help itself, then that shows we shouldn't place ourselves in their situation.

is this how you discuss a topic. did you ever realize what aid means?

-The US is a nation of immigrants. It is hypocritical of the US to not take them when they have in the past, and shows a sense of Islamophobia.
-The US is, indeed, a nation of immigrants, but not of refugees from a state sponsor of terrorism, the very first country added on the list.

first of all, there is a reason for this massive migration. those refugies are politically or religiously persecuted. They are running from war, torture and terror. Doesnt america claim to fight the terror? What exactly do you mean when you mention this? throwing bombs on a under developed nation, destabilize the entire economy and public life and forcepush them into the hands of islamic fanatism? the least what america could do, to restore at least a little credibility is to take care for refugies, who run from terror.
You could only once show a bit integrity.

-Not all Muslims are terrorists

but most american politicians are. you only have to switch perspective.

-It's only 10,000 people, come on, man.
-10,000 is still a big number. It doesn't change the fact that we are taking a risk.

is it a pro or a contra? or is the entire thread just retarded?

-Not all Muslims are terrorists, but with the crap-tier vetting system, there is no way to pick out the bad apples.

ever heard of intelligence services? what do you think they are doing the whole day; dumping trillions of dollors in the toilette? you guys always pretend to be part of such a strong fearless nation, but you are in general only anxious douches (I could quote the last half of your statements here), who are hiding behind geographic obstacles, making big talks!

We already have extremist sympathizers in our borders.

well proved in this thread.

is it a pro or a contra? or is the entire thread just retarded?

but you are in general only anxious douches

If anyone cannot discuss the topic of this thread without using uncivil language, please get out. I believe this was addressed in the second comment. This is not one of my rants, this is not a troll thread. Please.

-Help Europe, yo! European countries are taking them; why shouldn't the US? [..]
-If Europe can't help itself, then that shows we shouldn't place ourselves in their situation.

is this how you discuss a topic. did you ever realize what aid means?

I'm sorry for having offended you by trying to spark a civil debate. "Aid" means many things. Assistance, cooperation, help, support, etc. I'm not sure how you think I don't know what it means. I think you may just be a bit angry for some reason, seeing as you can't keep your language and personal insults at bay; so your questioning my intelligence, I can forego this time.

Of course, migrants increase the workforce in this country. Which leads to a better economy.

^lol