Obama urges leaders to open hearts to refugees

[Damajin]

In order for the US to win, the US has to lose. Pretty standard dramatic dynamic there.

[May90]

No, there are no policies that can look into someones mind to find out if they're a bad guy.

There are policies though that discourage bad guys from even trying to move in (for example, the US has such a system, where, even if you are illegal and malicious, you have to work for the profit of the system to survive - no free welfare for you), and that can effectively cut off most of them (by focusing on accepting professionals and artists, dismissing less qualified people). I'd say the US, Australia, Canada, NZ have such policies. European countries seem to have more naive policies on this, but it also might change eventually.

[Berengil]

I have zero problem with accepting women and children, or very elderly men. Otherwise, no thanks.

[Nitro Fun]

There are policies though that discourage bad guys from even trying to move in (for example, the US has such a system, where, even if you are illegal and malicious, you have to work for the profit of the system to survive - no free welfare for you), and that can effectively cut off most of them (by focusing on accepting professionals and artists, dismissing less qualified people). I'd say the US, Australia, Canada, NZ have such policies. European countries seem to have more naive policies on this, but it also might change eventually.

You're full of bullshit. The immigration policies of most countries in the world can't do anything about getting bad people to the country. While some countries might be able to shut out some bad people that are known they will miss most bad people.

Because we can't read minds.

[Deleted]

Sadly, Obama doesn't have the power to accept everyone. That power lies with our highly dysfunctional Congress...the majority of who has only one motive (work against the President at all costs).

You might be right but then again comes the question: why did Obama authorize the initiation of these wars if the U.S. can't guarantee that if anything goes wrong then America is going to take care of the civilians by either sheltering them? Or just a quick end of the conflict even if it means defeat to the U.S. coalition and victory for Assad? This, of course, is a subtle question since politics is a dirty business.

This question might be easier: Can Obama be honest and just tell the world what you wrote down? That despite his efforts - if any - he can't convince the U.S. nation to open hearts for refugees? There are understandable reasons for the Americans to be conservative about it.

The irony is that is was (mostly) the US that destabilized the middle east.

How about you take in those millions of refugees?

Indeed. Someone must take the responsibility for creating this mess in the Middle East and this should not be Europe alone. What about the super rich Saudi Arabia?

What's really funny is that CNN is very focused on how inhumane Europeans are for not taking good care of the refugees and immigrants!

That would be the British and French after WW1 that mostly destabilized the ME.
The Sykes-Picot agreement that placed national borders in straight lines ended up putting a whole host of people in the same country with other people that they weren't terribly fond of.

You are right. These conflicts in the Arab world are to a certain extent the legacy of the ex-colonial powers - Britain and France.

But to my knowledge it was the Cold War when the Muslim world radicalized. Who is the main culprit - the U.S. or Russia - it doesn't matter anymore. Just google Afghanistan or Iran in the 1960s. Please, do it if you have not done it before. Compare it to what you see today and draw your conclusions.

Obama showing again that he's a complete joke.

A very brief and accurate summary of my original post

Not saying the U.S. is obliged to take in all the refugees and immigrants from the Middle East. They come from a very different culture and they are clearly problematic to integrate in a modern liberal society. They need to walk this way slowly by themselves the way that the Europeans did. They belong to their lands and their lands belong to them.

But it's truly hypocritical for the U.S. President to play the Mr. Nice, innocent and humane guy, "saving" the people and the world. The casualties of these conflicts deserve to know the truth and they deserve a rapid resolution of the issues which somebody else brought on them.

[May90]

You're full of bullshit. The immigration policies of most countries in the world can't do anything about getting bad people to the country. While some countries might be able to shut out some bad people that are known they will miss most bad people.

Because we can't read minds.

You are not able to comprehend a simple paragraph, but it's me who is full of bullshit... Hmm, mkay.

[Taneras]

I think you underestimate how unstable the situation in Syria is. Every city which seems safe one day, can become a battlefield the next day.

Compared to the permanent placement of these refugees in your country, its still going to be a shorter time span.

It is pretty clear though that attempting to organize any kind of safe zone for refugees in Syria would be quite an undertaking.

Accepting all the refugees into Western Nations (like Germany and France) has already been quite the undertaking. And yea, it will be hard, which is why Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, etc should be helping out.

Regardless, even if it is just 1 good guy vs millions bad guys, trying to discriminate against this 1 guy is wrong. That's not even just my opinion, that's basic logic: "guilt by association" is a logical fallacy.

I'm glad you can spell logic, unfortunately you don't understand it.

Guilt by Association would be assuming that the one good guy is also bad since he's part of a group of a million and one individuals who are largely bad. You're right back to the "NOT ALL SYRIANS ARE LIKE THAT!" line of argument I just spent a paragraph trying to dispel.

You're misapplying "basic logic".