Harris Poll: Six in ten Americans oppose Obama's plan to accept 10000 Syrian refugees

[sirineou]

Harris Poll: Six in ten Americans oppose Obama's plan to accept 10000 Syrian refugees"

"Close to the same percentage opposing the Jewish refugees from entering the US trying to escape Nazi persecution,

Many were send back to die in concentration camps.

and there were no jewish terrorists then, so all in all thing have improved..

You're way off topic. Nonetheless, elected people are supposed to represent the people, not rule them, and if the people want to seal the borders then the borders should be sealed. Otherwise these elected leaders are going to get thrown out on their asses and someone who will do the people's bidding will take their places.

No country is obligated to throw away its immigration policies and controls and I don't see the US doing it. Obama's "executive orders" about immigration have been overturned twice now by the courts and he will be out of office before we have to deal with his shit again.

Simple really.

Cheers.

Not way of topic, the topic id the acceptance of refugees, and I am showing that not much has changed then and now.

People looking back say how were thing allowed to occur then,my answer , much like the way they are allowed to occur now.

and I am afraid you are wrong .We elect leaders to lead not to follow as. Every great thing that has happened has happened because of a few courageous individuals that lead as in that direction.

There is a term " tyrany of the majority" if every leader followed the will of the majority concerning individual issues think of all the things we will still have.

This post is another example how i can often agree with people yet reach wildly different conclusions. IMO, you were not off topic. I think the analogy you offered was troubled if not fatally defective but I got the point where you were offering. I think you were basically suggesting a double standard.

Elected leaders should listen to the people. Yet, if we have elected leaders who only listen to the vox populi, they are not really leaders at all, are they? They are poll sensing dolts. Totally following the will of the populace is the prescription of Democracy, aka Tyranny. It is 51% majority rules madness. So, where is the line where a person leads or follows? It is not the time for this question because it no longer applies to Obama. That has been answered long ago. This executive does not follow the will of the population. Obama set out to fundamentally transform America in his own image and has not strayed from this path. The degradation of the US population, economy, cultural glue, and homogeneity has been the single social engineering goal of Obama since the beginning.

So, the people crying that they don't want this actually also do not expect Obama to listen- he never has. It is in essence a call to intellectual (I hope only) arms. It is a wake-up call that this now borders on the existential, not theoretical tinkering.

everything that you an I said is highly arguable and there is a lot of agreement between us

but this is not about Obama's past performance also highly arguable, but the issue at hand which is the treatment of refugees by the US

Should Obama follow the will of the populus, or should he lead?

The will of the populus can be swayed by those more adept and with more resources at swaying them, so if it was that a leader had to follow the pols, one would not need to control the leader only to control the polls, in affect control the leader by controlling the polls, a situation where the populus becomes pawns in agendas.

So the subject at hand, Should the US accept refugees, a complicated subject to be sure.

First there needs to be some process of determining who is a refugee and who is not. I don't think there is anyone who does not want to accept refugees, what we don;t want are terrorists and economic immigrants.

so how does one separate the three

if they are refugees from danger, provide for them a danger free environment, until such time that the danger is removed and then they can return to their normal lives. This would not be acceptable to economic immigrants and and they will not come or soon leave , and since they would not be part of the general population but in a controlled environment, not good for terrorists also.

I don't know does this make any sense to anyone? but I am not holding my breath because I don't think this is only about refugees but also other agendas.

[NeverSure]

You're way off topic. Nonetheless, elected people are supposed to represent the people, not rule them, and if the people want to seal the borders then the borders should be sealed. Otherwise these elected leaders are going to get thrown out on their asses and someone who will do the people's bidding will take their places.

No country is obligated to throw away its immigration policies and controls and I don't see the US doing it. Obama's "executive orders" about immigration have been overturned twice now by the courts and he will be out of office before we have to deal with his shit again.

Simple really.

Cheers.

Not way of topic, the topic id the acceptance of refugees, and I am showing that not much has changed then and now.

People looking back say how were thing allowed to occur then,my answer , much like the way they are allowed to occur now.

and I am afraid you are wrong .We elect leaders to lead not to follow as. Every great thing that has happened has happened because of a few courageous individuals that lead as in that direction.

There is a term " tyrany of the majority" if every leader followed the will of the majority concerning individual issues think of all the things we will still have.

This post is another example how i can often agree with people yet reach wildly different conclusions. IMO, you were not off topic. I think the analogy you offered was troubled if not fatally defective but I got the point where you were offering. I think you were basically suggesting a double standard.

Elected leaders should listen to the people. Yet, if we have elected leaders who only listen to the vox populi, they are not really leaders at all, are they? They are poll sensing dolts. Totally following the will of the populace is the prescription of Democracy, aka Tyranny. It is 51% majority rules madness. So, where is the line where a person leads or follows? It is not the time for this question because it no longer applies to Obama. That has been answered long ago. This executive does not follow the will of the population. Obama set out to fundamentally transform America in his own image and has not strayed from this path. The degradation of the US population, economy, cultural glue, and homogeneity has been the single social engineering goal of Obama since the beginning.

So, the people crying that they don't want this actually also do not expect Obama to listen- he never has. It is in essence a call to intellectual (I hope only) arms. It is a wake-up call that this now borders on the existential, not theoretical tinkering.

I totally disagree. Tyranny is certainly NOT following the will of the voters who put you into office. Why do you think a democracy is called a "representative government"? Why do you think the US has an elected "House of Representatives?" It's because the elected leaders are expected to represent the people who put them there.

If they don't, they are out on their asses.

Obama is the worst example the US has ever had of a "ruler" who ignores the wishes of the people. He's so bad that 26 of the 50 states filed suit against his "executive order" and Obama lost at the trial level and again at the appellate level.

It could be reasonably argued that Donald Trump's appeal is a result of current leaders going against the wishes of the people. Insiders seem to be out and outsiders seem to be in, in this cycle. What is Trump's appeal? Well for one thing, he wants to overturn much of what Obama has done or is trying to do especially regarding immigration.

The majority of the people will get their way one way or another even though that evolves over time. Right now these "executives" who forgot who they work for are on their way out the door.

Cheers.

[sirineou]

You're way off topic. Nonetheless, elected people are supposed to represent the people, not rule them, and if the people want to seal the borders then the borders should be sealed. Otherwise these elected leaders are going to get thrown out on their asses and someone who will do the people's bidding will take their places.

No country is obligated to throw away its immigration policies and controls and I don't see the US doing it. Obama's "executive orders" about immigration have been overturned twice now by the courts and he will be out of office before we have to deal with his shit again.

Simple really.

Cheers.

Not way of topic, the topic id the acceptance of refugees, and I am showing that not much has changed then and now.

People looking back say how were thing allowed to occur then,my answer , much like the way they are allowed to occur now.

and I am afraid you are wrong .We elect leaders to lead not to follow as. Every great thing that has happened has happened because of a few courageous individuals that lead as in that direction.

There is a term " tyrany of the majority" if every leader followed the will of the majority concerning individual issues think of all the things we will still have.

This post is another example how i can often agree with people yet reach wildly different conclusions. IMO, you were not off topic. I think the analogy you offered was troubled if not fatally defective but I got the point where you were offering. I think you were basically suggesting a double standard.

Elected leaders should listen to the people. Yet, if we have elected leaders who only listen to the vox populi, they are not really leaders at all, are they? They are poll sensing dolts. Totally following the will of the populace is the prescription of Democracy, aka Tyranny. It is 51% majority rules madness. So, where is the line where a person leads or follows? It is not the time for this question because it no longer applies to Obama. That has been answered long ago. This executive does not follow the will of the population. Obama set out to fundamentally transform America in his own image and has not strayed from this path. The degradation of the US population, economy, cultural glue, and homogeneity has been the single social engineering goal of Obama since the beginning.

So, the people crying that they don't want this actually also do not expect Obama to listen- he never has. It is in essence a call to intellectual (I hope only) arms. It is a wake-up call that this now borders on the existential, not theoretical tinkering.

I totally disagree. Tyranny is certainly NOT following the will of the voters who put you into office. Why do you think a democracy is called a "representative government"? Why do you think the US has an elected "House of Representatives?" It's because the elected leaders are expected to represent the people who put them there.

If they don't, they are out on their asses.

Obama is the worst example the US has ever had of a "ruler" who ignores the wishes of the people. He's so bad that 26 of the 50 states filed suit against his "executive order" and Obama lost at the trial level and again at the appellate level.

It could be reasonably argued that Donald Trump's appeal is a result of current leaders going against the wishes of the people. Insiders seem to be out and outsiders seem to be in, in this cycle. What is Trump's appeal? Well for one thing, he wants to overturn much of what Obama has done or is trying to do especially regarding immigration.

The majority of the people will get their way one way or another even though that evolves over time. Right now these "executives" who forgot who they work for are on their way out the door.

Cheers.

Yes represent not follow. You elect a leader that had the qualities you think are desirable and send him/her there to represent you and make decisions on your behalf. I think you are confusing representative with agent.

If what you are saying is true then we don't need a leader all we need is a computer, pols will be taken, the computer will tabulate the results and a decision will be made. Who need costly elections, presidents, secret service, legislature etc etc

Today polls say that blacks should seat in the back of the bus, tabulate results, send blacks in the back of the bus ,

[arjunadawn]

This post is another example how i can often agree with people yet reach wildly different conclusions. IMO, you were not off topic. I think the analogy you offered was troubled if not fatally defective but I got the point where you were offering. I think you were basically suggesting a double standard.

Elected leaders should listen to the people. Yet, if we have elected leaders who only listen to the vox populi, they are not really leaders at all, are they? They are poll sensing dolts. Totally following the will of the populace is the prescription of Democracy, aka Tyranny. It is 51% majority rules madness. So, where is the line where a person leads or follows? It is not the time for this question because it no longer applies to Obama. That has been answered long ago. This executive does not follow the will of the population. Obama set out to fundamentally transform America in his own image and has not strayed from this path. The degradation of the US population, economy, cultural glue, and homogeneity has been the single social engineering goal of Obama since the beginning.

So, the people crying that they don't want this actually also do not expect Obama to listen- he never has. It is in essence a call to intellectual (I hope only) arms. It is a wake-up call that this now borders on the existential, not theoretical tinkering.

everything that you an I said is highly arguable and there is a lot of agreement between us

but this is not about Obama's past performance also highly arguable, but the issue at hand which is the treatment of refugees by the US

Should Obama follow the will of the populus, or should he lead?

The will of the populus can be swayed by those more adept and with more resources at swaying them, so if it was that a leader had to follow the pols, one would not need to control the leader only to control the polls, in affect control the leader by controlling the polls, a situation where the populus becomes pawns in agendas.

So the subject at hand, Should the US accept refugees, a complicated subject to be sure.

First there needs to be some process of determining who is a refugee and who is not. I don't think there is anyone who does not want to accept refugees, what we don;t want are terrorists and economic immigrants.

so how does one separate the three

if they are refugees from danger, provide for them a danger free environment, until such time that the danger is removed and then they can return to their normal lives. This would not be acceptable to economic immigrants and and they will not come or soon leave , and since they would not be part of the general population but in a controlled environment, not good for terrorists also.

I don't know does this make any sense to anyone? but I am not holding my breath because I don't think this is only about refugees but also other agendas.

Posts removed to reply. Wrong. I do not want refugees. Was America able to feed its poor, house the homeless, reduce its debt, limit entitlements, increase jobs, limit welfare and stop endlessly meddling in wars then I would say "Maybe." But America taking refugees is just making our children bear the burden for the bad choices that are inherently integral to their choice of faith. Various EU and US polls unambiguously reveal muslim populations remaining substantially on welfare, easily and always above 50%. No, I do not want them in the US at all. Every day, everywhere, all the time, all we here about is this issue and it will not improve until we accept what the glue is that binds these contiguous issues. Look at one example of a Western country that is years ahead of the US in this "for the children" self loathing suicide. It just does not work unless the host genuflects. http://examine-islam.org/2015/11/we-hear-a-lot-from-muslims-what-about-the-rest/

Only in isolation does the past not influence the discussion today. It is untrue that all leaders should have their past suspect with regard to an emerging issue. However, in this case integral to the issue is the sense that Americans feel this leader runs roughshod over them- thus the byline above, "...Obama's plan..." The polls consistently reflect this. Obama is the leader of America, not Syria, the EU or even the secondary in fact title of the leader of the world as superpower. All these labels take a backseat to the primary duties of stewardship- protecting America, as a culture, as an economy, as an institution, as it currently is, not as the executive imagines it could be with his machinations or engineering. Americans do not want this for all the obvious reasons- division, isolation, demands, accommodations, infringement, subterfuge, insurgency, aggression, war, terror, mayhem, avowed disregard to plural values such as sexuality, intolerance, ad naseum. America already has a boiling pot of Balkanization stewing.

America has genuflected at the altar of cultural atonement for a very long time. America cannot be indicted for being apathetic or cold. America has bled its cultural traditions to embrace minorities, progressive lifestyles, and equality in opportunity (now pretty much surrendering wholly to equality in outcomes). If America groans from the weight of this plan it is self evidently a bad idea.

[Chicog]

Tar. Brush. Stop it.

[Ks45672]

Whether it's a good idea or not, they're is almost zero chance that at least one terrorist will be let in with the refugees..

Its virtually impossible to vet them properly at a 100% success rate...

I'm not American so I won't be voting anyway but I think it's only a matter of time before there's a another France style attack in the USA...

[nottocus]

If I had a country I wouldn't be accepting any "muslim" refugees

You dont, so it really doent matter.

But for aguments sake if you did own a country and decided your country get involved in another country's domestic affairs which resulted in that country falling into a civil war with thousands and thousands being killed and millions suffering I would hope, no, I would expect your country to assist those you have caused this suffering upon.

But thats just me.

The thing is, my country wouldn't be involved in another's domestic affairs so no responsibility to take a bunch of potential terrorists.

[puukao]

i just made 100% on my money!!!! 1 satang to 2.

percentages are useless....they put NEW YORK in the article not because of publication but because of appearance of a real study with large numbers of people.

and they hope 40% are too dumb to think...take this as the word.....and move on with subliminal knowledge of the facts

100% disagree

[Scott]

Numerous off-topic posts removed along with replies.

The topic is rather specific to the situation with Syrian Refugees. Please stay on topic.

[kbelyeu]

My opinion is that they should not be allowed into the US without proper vetting. If this cannot be assured then they should NOT be allowed to enter the country end of story.

Kurt

[Linky]

If I had a country I wouldn't be accepting any "muslim" refugees

You dont, so it really doent matter.

But for aguments sake if you did own a country and decided your country get involved in another country's domestic affairs which resulted in that country falling into a civil war with thousands and thousands being killed and millions suffering I would hope, no, I would expect your country to assist those you have caused this suffering upon.

But thats just me.

The thing is, my country wouldn't be involved in another's domestic affairs so no responsibility to take a bunch of potential terrorists.

But the US did, so they should take responsibility for a lot of the refugees.

[Seastallion]

Whether it's a good idea or not, they're is almost zero chance that at least one terrorist will be let in with the refugees..

Its virtually impossible to vet them properly at a 100% success rate...

I'm not American so I won't be voting anyway but I think it's only a matter of time before there's a another France style attack in the USA...

I have no doubt that there will be attacks.

But I will wager that none of the attackers come in as refugees.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

Continue with the inflammatory, troll type posts and you will be given a suspension.

[chuckd]

It appears at least some of the refugees were missed in the vetting process:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Sen. Sessions Reveals 12 Refugee-Jihadis Charged this Year, Hopes to Shrink Obama’s 2016 Refugee Budget

by NEIL MUNRO

24 Nov 20155,078

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is out with a list of 12 vetted refugees who quickly joined jihad plots to attack the United States.

He’s spotlighting the refugees-turned-jihadis because he’s trying to prod GOP leaders into halting Congress’ normal practice of giving the president huge leeway to import foreign migrants and refugees into the United States.

This year, Obama is promising to bring in an extra 10,000 low-skill, potentially difficult-to-integrate Syrian migrants into the United States. Sessions and other critics fear he’ll use his many powers — and Congress’ autopilot funding for refugee programs — to bring in far more than 10,000 migrants.

Go here for the full list: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/sen-sessions-reveals-15-refugee-jihadis-hopes-shrink-obamas-2016-refugee-budget/

[Scott]

I can tell you this much, the Syrians are a lower risk group than the Somalis and They are generally more highly educated than the Somalis. Remember the refugee numbers have been set. It's now a matter of where they will come from and there are pretty slim pickings -- The Hmong have largely been repatriated. They tended to be pretty poorly educated. A lot of the Africans are quite poorly educated. Then there are always the Rohingyas or perhaps the Afghans. Neither of these groups is particularly good at integrating.

With the enhanced security measures that are being pushed for -- and there is good justification for ensuring tight security measures, I would say the Syrian group would be one of the better groups.

I am not necessarily pushing for any particular group, given the current climate. It is not good for refugees to be resettled in a hostile environment. Whatever groups or individuals are allowed in, there needs to be some positive PR work to ensure a successful resettlement and a nation not at risk.

[hawker9000]

My opinion is that they should not be allowed into the US without proper vetting. If this cannot be assured then they should NOT be allowed to enter the country end of story.

Kurt

Some will actually argue that the UN agency so charged is going to effectively vet them for us, followed by a 2nd US vetting. I really can't decide which to be more scornful of. UN caseworkers operating under senior UN official deadlines, quotas, & mandates, or the US Justice Dept under the Obama "executive" thumb. 61% of Americans apparently agree, but what do they matter??

[Scott]

The UN has a long history of not really answering to much of anyone and they work at a rather leisurely pace. When I was assigned to work for the Special Committee for Unaccompanied Minors and Vulnerable Persons, the screening committee had screened a total of 12 cases in one year. They had regular UN funding and they had an additional $10 million from the US gov't to screen Unaccompanied children and those who had suffered severe trauma as a result of the trip to the country of first asylum. These people were at the head the queue for screening. It was deemed imperative that children without family be gotten out of the camps ASAP.

One report that I wrote on one individual child was over 100 pages long. The entire committee decided to interview the young man -- he was by then about 16. I think he had been in the camp since he was 12 or 13. He had a good claim to refugee status and managed to get through a 4 hour review with the entire committee without encountering one credibility problem. There was background information on his family that was gathered in the country and from others in the camp that he was not aware of, but there were no conflicts. He was still screened out and eventually repatriated to Vietnam.

We also had the option of durable solution for children and vulnerable persons. That meant that they could be deemed not to be a refugee, but could be resettled in a 3rd country if it was felt to be in their best interest. This almost never happened since the prevailing attitude was that children are better off with their family. Poverty was never a reason for granting refugee status. Neither was evasion of compulsory military service.

My experience with the UN at that time was that they liked to see fairly definitive proof of persecution. Severed fingers and limbs and burn marks were high on the list of credible evidence -- provided it was supported by a credible story. Once screened in, then they are presented to various countries. First priority is to place them in a country where they have a connection -- that can be family members already in the country or associations with the gov't, such as being employed by the gov't or providing some other material support.

The country can also look at which groups they feel they can settle most successfully. If a gov't feels that they wish to give preference to Christians, that can be done. They may wish to resettle Shia, but not Sunni because of possible conflicts that may develop in the new country. They may decide to give priority to minority religious groups.

In the case of the Vietnamese, many of those who came from the North were settled in Australia or Canada while the US took many of them from the South. That helped to prevent some of the Vietnamese war conflict spilling over. It was also logical that those from the South frequently had a connection to the US.

The US can pick and chose who they wish to take. As I have said before, the numbers thrown about are not realistic as the process is simply too long and complicated to make it realistic.

If the attitude of the US citizens in general continues to be negative toward Syrian Refugees, then it is probably best not to resettle them in the US. Refugees don't need to have further hurdles than are already present. The US can continue to stick with Iraqi Kurds and there are a lot of them in need of resettlement and many have very close links with the US.

[sirineou]

I can tell you this much, the Syrians are a lower risk group than the Somalis and They are generally more highly educated than the Somalis. Remember the refugee numbers have been set. It's now a matter of where they will come from and there are pretty slim pickings -- The Hmong have largely been repatriated. They tended to be pretty poorly educated. A lot of the Africans are quite poorly educated. Then there are always the Rohingyas or perhaps the Afghans. Neither of these groups is particularly good at integrating.

With the enhanced security measures that are being pushed for -- and there is good justification for ensuring tight security measures, I would say the Syrian group would be one of the better groups.

I am not necessarily pushing for any particular group, given the current climate. It is not good for refugees to be resettled in a hostile environment. Whatever groups or individuals are allowed in, there needs to be some positive PR work to ensure a successful resettlement and a nation not at risk.

as true as all of the above might be it is also true that at this time we are engaged in military action in Syria and we are not in Somalia,

those we openly declare to destroy in Syria might not be very happy with it. and not having the ability for a symmetrical response, might use the refugee situation to infiltrate , cause some pain to our civilian population, and gain political and military advantage

Given the way the ISIS leadership is behaving and the goals they are achieving I get the idea that they are not stupid, and not to take the refugee opportunity IMO would be very stupid indeed, .