I find it very strange that you weren't up in arms about what was happening to the Yazidis. You never were suggesting that people take in these people. Nor were you suggesting that the Christians in the Middle East being slaughtered by Muslims should be helped and brought over here as refugees. For some reason you keep on trying to equate this with what happened to the Jews escaping the Nazis. I think the Jews would have been glad to accept asylum in any country who offered it, and wouldn't have been worrying about getting to the countries where they could get the best benefits. That is why there were many Jews migrating to South America or Mexico after the war. Eventually some of them made their way to the States, but they still originally settled in countries where at least they felt safe. I believe there were Jews who even went to China.
I was.
I lump the Yazidi's in with all the Syrian refugees. They are all being slaughtered and in need of help. I don't understand people who feel that a person's religion makes them less worthy of help. It is no different from those who closed doors to Jewish refugees or would admit only children because they associated all Jews with anarchist movements.
Don't you see that people are people? That the people trying to escape ISIS and Assad are just people regardless of religion? We, the US, need to be doing more and so should the Gulf States. It shouldn't be resting almost entirely on Turkey, Jordan, Lebenon and Europe.
I don't think that anyone here has actually seen you concern yourself with the Yazidis, not even when they were throwing their children down from the mountain so that the terrorists wouldn't get them. In fact, much has been written about the rapes of these Yazidi women and how they are still suffering., and yet you have been silent. I think you are more concerned with what is happening in Myanmar. When I mentioned that a Pakistani Brit poster said that it was OK for Muslim men to entice young White girls into prostitution because they are only White meat anyway, you right away brought up what is happening in Myanmar and Thailand with regard to trafficking. What that had to do with what a Pakistani Brit said is beyond me. The Pakistanis are immigrants to Britain and are still being allowed to immigrate. I don't think the Pakistanis are immigrating to Myanmar orThailand.
I've posted more about the Yazidi's then you have about the Congolese, Mexicans, Myanmar, etc. or human trafficking in general. Why is that Sally?
Why don't you care when it doesn't involve Muslims?
Syrian refugess comprise Muslims, Christians, Druze, Azidis and other small minorities that are in danger of extinction. In the end they are people - living breathing human beings like the little boy who washed up on the beach and who's father was devasted at the loss of his entire family. How can you look at that and think "are they muslim? christian?" or determine whether they should be granted refugee status based on religion first and need second? How? I don't understand you. From your posts I gather you live in a vibrant multi-cultural and colorful community and you seem to love it - how do you think that community came about? Shouldn't we just care about people because they are being horribly abused by ISIS and Assad and have no options but to flee or be killed? We took in the Hmong and Vietnamese when Vietnam was run over by genocidal ideologues. But we won't take in Syrian's unless they are of a certain religion?
Listen, nobody is saying that these people don't need help. However, it is dangerous times these days, and many people;e realize that there could be terrorists coming in with these refugees. With other groups that were allowed in here, they didn't have people who hate America and wanted to destroy her.
These people don't necessarily "hate America" and "want to destroy her" - that argument right there is what they used against Jewish refugees only, they accused them of being anarchists (and at the time there was anarchist terrorism). The arguments are the same, the fears are the same, and the desperation of the refugees are the same.
I don't see you suggesting that Russia or China take any of these refugees. Why is it only the West who has to take in loads of people so that people can get plenty of freebies like the Boston Marathon Bombers' family while also worrying about terrorist acts committed by some of these refugees. You yourself have seen how these refugees don't want to stay in European countries unless they are the ones like Britain, France and others in western Europe. If I were a refugee, I would be glad for any safe haven regardless of the freebies that might not be given out. I think if you were trying to escape some conflict, you would feel the same.
Alarm as Syria sells 10,000 passports with few questions asked
I think EVERYONE that can, should take in some - including the Gulf States, Russia and China. Even the tiny Vatican state is taking in a few. Refugees are trying to reach countries where they are wanted - Sweden and Germany and France have opened their homes to them - rather than countries where they are hated. I don't blame them. But the system that forces them to register at the first country they come to is unworkable - it places a huge burden on a very few countries that can't handle the influx. And despite all you say about Europe - the huge bulk of the refugees are in Turkey, Jordan and Lebenon. Jordan's water supplies and infrastructure and economy are strained as a result.
Some things don't change much. 1940's ... 2015...it's the same fear, rhetoric and dehumanization. That's the way I see it Sally. When the burden is this big it needs to be shared by everyone. You don't pick and choose based on religion - you don't split up families by taking only children like they did in the kindertransports.