Chris Christie: U.S. shouldn't let in Syrian orphans

[lego 44,165]

5 minutes ago, Bad Bromance said:

Yes, but I'm talking about other refugees in general.  There are talks in the U.S. about allowing 10,000 Syrian refugees in the country and that is why I said I was fearful of possible extremists infiltrating the country in that wave that come through.

As for the orphans, yes, if they are young children, then yes, they should be allowed here.  The problem is what we are going to do once those children arrive in the U.S.  What if no one wants to adopt them?  Then what happens?  They're going to end up in foster care or become wards of the state.

I think the solution would be to get families to agree to adopt the children so they can have a real home and not end up in our foster care system, which is pretty broker if you ask me.

I'm pretty sure there would be families willing to adopt them, as I mentioned above.

These refugees shouldn't be left on their own, Obama said don't mix the refugee issue with the terrorist issue, they are not the same. And Paris attack had nothing to do with refugees. It's just used to spread fear and demonize these people. Extremists already exist in the USA, of all kind. 

[Bad Bromance 5,809]

1 minute ago, lego said:

I'm pretty sure there would be families willing to adopt them, as I mentioned above.

These refugees shouldn't be left on their own, Obama said don't mix the refugee issue with the terrorist issue, they are not the same. And Paris attack had nothing to do with refugees. It's just used to spread fear and demonize these people. Extremists already exist in the USA, of all kind. 

In my last sentence of my last post, I meant to say our foster care system is pretty broken, not broker.  I was typing way too fast and didn't catch that mistake.  I edited my post so that my last sentence makes sense.

Anyway, the only way we should accept the orphans is if people agree to adopt the children so they can have a real home.  Blindly bringing them here without some kind of plan will only cause thousands of them to end up in foster care which is not the best option at all.  I hope we can find a viable solution to this problem because the children shouldn't have to suffer because of everything that's going on in the world.

[mmm 879]

4 hours ago, Simon said:

I think in SA refugees just don't have refugees status or something like, but @lego knows about that I think. 

 

 

4 hours ago, ZacharyMark said:

Do you know the issue with SA, UAE, etc not allowing refugees into their countries? Or was that made-up?

Also, I think that the US should let people in; however, if we can't even take care of our own, how are we suppose to for the refugees?

All gulf countries took in refugees and Saudi Arabia alone has 2 million syrian refugees since 2011 but they are not signed or treated as refugees.. they are instead given legal temporary residency and live normal lives because the SA government has enough money to help them. More than 100,00 syrian students entered Saudi public schools and 700 million dollars was given as humanitarian aids and opening refugee camps all over the Middle East. My cousins mother fleed the war to live with us in Saudi but we have money so I wouldnt call her a refugee.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/saudi-arabia-denies-giving-syrians-sanctuary-150912050746572.html

I do not think the US should take any refugees though.

[Benji 20,113]

I've always been torn on the refugee crisis but I do think we should be taking in the women and young children.

A little old fashioned I know, but we need to protect the most vulnerable.

[mmm 879]

1 minute ago, Benji said:

I've always been torn on the refugee crisis but I do think we should be taking in the women and young children.

A little old fashioned I know, but we need to protect the most vulnerable.

you mean a little bit s-xist?

[Benji 20,113]

Just now, Fays1 said:

you mean a little bit s-xist?

The women have it extremely hard there, I don't really care for political correctness in situations like this.

Protect the most vulnerable first, which are ironically being left by the men.

[mmm 879]

3 minutes ago, Benji said:

The women have it extremely hard there, I don't really care for political correctness in situations like this.

Protect the most vulnerable first, which are ironically being left by the men.

Women are vulnerable meaning they are inferior to men? im just kidding I actually agree with you but I find it funny that most people here are feminists who believe gender is a social construct and that men and women are equal yet they would all agree with you.

[Benji 20,113]

Just now, Fays1 said:

Women are vulnerable meaning they are inferior to men? im just kidding I actually agree with you but I find it funny that most people here are feminists who believe gender is a social construct and that men and women are equal yet they would all agree with you.

I totally believe Gender is a social construct and we should all be equal regardless of how we identify, but the world simply isn't at that stage yet and I think we need to accept it in situations like this.

I mean how is a woman in that area supposed to look after her family? They're treated like second class citizens and now their men are leaving them? It's awful!

[mmm 879]

14 minutes ago, Benji said:

I totally believe Gender is a social construct and we should all be equal regardless of how we identify, but the world simply isn't at that stage yet and I think we need to accept it in situations like this.

I mean how is a woman in that area supposed to look after her family? They're treated like second class citizens and now their men are leaving them? It's awful!

I knew you believed that thats why I posted what I did. Women can actually work and join the military there so I dont know what your talking about and their men are not leaving them.. if gender is a social construct then why do transgenders exist? and you dont believe in biology? ofcourse there is exceptions but these are very rare less than 1% 

If you were in a boat in the US and it was sinking, would you help women and children first?

[Benji 20,113]

14 minutes ago, Fays1 said:

I knew you believed that thats why I posted what I did. Women can actually work and join the military there so I dont know what your talking about and their men are not leaving them.. if gender is a social construct then why do transgenders exist? and you dont believe in biology and gender brains? ofcourse there is exceptions but these are very rare less than 1% 

A large majority of the refugees are men?

Women here can also work and join the military? Does s-xism not exist now? Are they treated as a 100% equal to men in every aspect? No.

Why are you trying to drag this down into a discussion on the social constructs and the biology of gender? If you want to go into some deep discussion about gender, start a new thread about it because I'm not going to write you a thesis on my opinion of gender and the world's treatment and views on gender.

It's great you're passionate about the subject, but you can't apply Tumblr's perfect world of rainbows and scented candles to scenarios like mass terrorism and warfare.

[mmm 879]

2 minutes ago, Benji said:

A large majority of the refugees are men?

Women here can also work and join the military? Does s-xism not exist now? Are they treated as a 100% equal to men in every aspect? No.

Why are you trying to drag this down into a discussion on the social constructs and the biology of gender? If you want to go into some deep discussion about gender, start a new thread about it because I'm not going to write you a thesis on my opinion of gender and the world's treatment and views on gender.

It's great your passionate about the subject, but you can't apply Tumblr's perfect world of rainbows and scented candles to scenarios like mass terrorism and warfare.

I actually told you I was joking with you but then you wanted to argue about it so I did.. if you dont want to continue this conversation thats fine. 

Most refugees are men because they are actually not refugees.. refugees are people who flee the war to live in a safe environment but most of them were already in countries like Turkey but went to Europe for welfare and work and send money to their family at home. Also there is many safe places in Syria like government areas.

I dont know what you were trying to say about tumblrs perfect world of rainbows! 

[Benji 20,113]

Just now, Fays1 said:

I actually told you I was joking with you but then you wanted to argue about it so I did.. if you dont want to continue this conversation thats fine. 

Most refugees are men because they are actually not refugees.. refugees are people who flee the war to live in a safe environment but most of them were already in countries like Turkey but went to Europe for welfare and work and send money to their family at home. Also there is many safe places in Syria like government areas.

I dont know what you were trying to say about tumblrs perfect world of rainbows! 

I don't see how my second reply to you was me wanting to argue with you but okay?

[ARTPOPdidntflop 3,987]

6 hours ago, MJHolland said:

Yes it does! We can't afford the children because we pay for the world's military! That's a very straightforward concept.

I think this is an ironic point considering the US has also started a lot of wars themselves, their whole occupation in the middle-east is probably one of the worst military decisions in history

[ARTPOPdidntflop 3,987]

5 hours ago, ZacharyMark said:

Do you know the issue with SA, UAE, etc not allowing refugees into their countries? Or was that made-up?

Also, I think that the US should let people in; however, if we can't even take care of our own, how are we suppose to for the refugees?

The UAE isn't a place filled with houses and towns and communities. I used to live there. It's apartments, complexes, gated communities, hotels (Mostly apartments). Many of poor live in "labour camps". The UAE would have no capacity to house refugees, they only house the rich and the tourists.  If you're not spending money in the UAE you're worthless to them

[Whispering 18,865]

3 hours ago, lego said:

I'm pretty sure there would be families willing to adopt them, as I mentioned above.

Children over the age of two have a difficult time getting adopted in the US. Children that are school aged have a particularly hard time and that's why they end up in the foster care system until they are 18. Many end up as runaways and homeless before they reach 18. 

If there aren't families that are waiting to adopt these orphans, it is not a good idea to send them thousands of miles from their home and their people, just to throw them in the foster care system. It simply isn't a good idea for the children.