Why do Hillary and Obama want more refugees?

[DaveP043]

11 hours ago, StefanUrkel said:

Everything politicians do is for votes. Does this really add votes? Or some other reason?

I agree with the OP, its my guess that anything that is said this close to the election is really intended to get votes, and may not truly indicate what Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama really want.  And I'd apply this to any candidate for any party, their only job at this point is to win the election.  If they lose, they're out of work.

Having said that, my great-grandparents were immigrants.  Immigrants generally enrich our country by providing new viewpoints, new cultures, new foods, immigrants have made this country what it is now.  In construction, I see a whole lot of Hispanic workers, and as a group, those are some of the hardest working people I've ever come in contact with.  Of course there are dangerous individuals we should try to keep out, and I don't want to see a great influx of unproductive people living off of government hand-outs, but overall immigration will continue to be positive for this country.

[GolfLug]

25 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Given the fact that there are currently 1,000 separate terrorist investigations on-going in the US, I'd go out on a limb and say this oopsie has become pretty routine.

Then we should cutoff ALL international travel. Good luck.

7 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

And isn't it a "tenet", not a "tenant"?

Yes, yes, yes! I erred.. please forgive me. PLEASE.. just this once. PLEASE...

And while I'm at it, I want to remind all the tenants to pay their rent by the 5th every month. No exceptions.

[newtogolf]

46 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

How so? Isn't 1st part a result of the 2nd? That is the tenant @boogielicious quoted I think.

Allowing them to enter doesn't mean we're financially responsible for them forever.  People entering this country are expected to contribute to the country, support themselves, pay taxes and abide by our laws.  If they refuse or are not able to do so they should not be granted permanent residence.  

[GolfLug]

3 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Allowing them to enter doesn't mean we're financially responsible for them forever.  People entering this country are expected to contribute to the country, support themselves, pay taxes and abide by our laws.  If they refuse or are not able to do so they should not be granted permanent residence.  

Never said we are. I thought OP was only talking about allowing/not allowing them in in the first place.   

[Elmer]

11 hours ago, StefanUrkel said:

Everything politicians do is for votes. Does this really add votes? Or some other reason?

Taking them in is what Jesus would have done!

 

Edited September 19, 2016 by Elmer

[CarlSpackler]

Perhaps what they really want is to go back to their homes and live a peaceful life. Perhaps if the UN would settle things down over there, that could become a reality.

[StefanUrkel]

4 hours ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Accepting the worlds downtrodden is supposed to be an american tenant. 

pre-welfare

[mcanadiens]

Accepting refugees is a noble thing. Perhaps it may raise the world's esteem for the U.S. I've heard it suggested that Muslims would actually be less likely to join groups like ISIS if more of their own were Americans.

On the other hand ... Supposing that any serious threat of terrorism from would-be refugees can be dealt with, you still have the fact that it costs money to accept them. Not that either major-party muppet has even acknowledged it, but we got a certain budget problem that isn't getting any smaller. 

[StefanUrkel]

1 hour ago, mcanadiens said:

Accepting refugees is a noble thing. Perhaps it may raise the world's esteem for the U.S. I've heard it suggested that Muslims would actually be less likely to join groups like ISIS if more of their own were Americans.

On the other hand ... Supposing that any serious threat of terrorism from would-be refugees can be dealt with, you still have the fact that it costs money to accept them. Not that either major-party muppet has even acknowledged it, but we got a certain budget problem that isn't getting any smaller. 

Can a couple live in your house?

[newtogolf]

3 hours ago, Elmer said:

Taking them in is what Jesus would have done!

 

You don't get to tell people what Jesus would do unless you're willing to accept all the things the bible states.  No picking and choosing.  

[Ernest Jones]

Well, @Golfingdad, @Groucho Valentine and @GolfLug seem to have this under control, so I'll keep my gunpowder dry for the next one.

 

 

[mcanadiens]

41 minutes ago, StefanUrkel said:

Can a couple live in your house?

Hell. I've already got a refugee in the house.

[Golfingdad]

51 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

You don't get to tell people what Jesus would do unless you're willing to accept all the things the bible states.  No picking and choosing.  

I can't quite tell if you're joking or not. :)

[14ledo81]

10 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I can't quite tell if you're joking or not. :)

I think he is fairly serious.  Seems somewhat hypocritical to take only the portions that support your point, while being dead set against others.

59 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

Well, @Golfingdad, @Groucho Valentine and @GolfLug seem to have this under control, so I'll keep my gunpowder dry for the next one.

 

 

Naahh... jump in, the waters fine...

How many refugees is Canada taking???

[drmevo]

5 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

How many refugees is Canada taking???

31,000 so far.  Three times as many as the US I believe.

Edited September 19, 2016 by drmevo

[Golfingdad]

35 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

I think he is fairly serious.  Seems somewhat hypocritical to take only the portions that support your point, while being dead set against others.

Well then, I guess you guys win this round, because I honestly have no idea what to say to that.

[14ledo81]

1 minute ago, Golfingdad said:

Well then, I guess you guys win this round, because I honestly have no idea what to say to that.

Ill try to explain it a bit better.  Keep in mind, this is simply my opinion.

The Bible is a book written by God not man.  If you believe in God, you believe in the complete book.

I suppose you could agree with certain portions in theory, but that is not the same as believing in God to me.  

If someone believes in Jesus's teachings, but not Jesus himself, that's fine, but then state that.  I am not against @Elmer's belief that we should help the poor. I just feel he should let us know his belief on it instead of using Jesus name to try to hold it against others, when (IIRC) he doesn't actually have a very high opinion of Jesus.

Not sure if that helps.  It would be easier for me to communicate this verbally. 

[newtogolf]

7 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

Ill try to explain it a bit better.  Keep in mind, this is simply my opinion.

The Bible is a book written by God not man.  If you believe in God, you believe in the complete book.

I suppose you could agree with certain portions in theory, but that is not the same as believing in God to me.  

If someone believes in Jesus's teachings, but not Jesus himself, that's fine, but then state that.  I am not against @Elmer's belief that we should help the poor. I just feel he should let us know his belief on it instead of using Jesus name to try to hold it against others, when (IIRC) he doesn't actually have a very high opinion of Jesus.

Not sure if that helps.  It would be easier for me to communicate this verbally. 

You are pretty much dead on.  I'm agnostic but don't use the bible or Jesus to make my points when the subject matter fits my perspective and then call it fiction when it doesn't.