Why Isn't America Stepping Up and Taking Its Share Of Syrian Refugees?

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

About 3.5% of the population is illegal in the US. 16-17% of the total population are legal/illegal immigrants. That' plenty.

Funny that , at a guess i would say 95% of Australians are legal/illegal immigrants .

So by your math only 5% of Australian s are native born?lol.

a reply to: ressiv

Hey Japan and germany called they would like a word with you.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Source please. Utter tripe.

Well lets see . A little over 200 years ago there was approximately 750,000 aboriginal people in Australia . In 2021 you get this number .

The population of Indigenous Australians is projected to increase to between 713,300 and 721,100 people in 2021

Lets call it 750,000 people . In history classes i dont recall them inviting anyone to Australia . You do the math . Work on 24 million Australians .

Please insert apology here .......................

a reply to: hutch622

Wow T&C prevent me from replying to that. Enough said from you I think.

Because we dont want to end up like Sweden?

Let the Saudis or the UAE handle them. Why dont they want them?

originally posted by: Ameilia
a reply to: Shiloh7

Why isn't Europe stepping up and taking their share of Mexican/Central American/South American/Chinese refugees? We have millions - how many have been taken in by a European country?

Because Europe wasmt the the one overthrowing south American regimes and Generaly operating a foreign policy like the USA that has made south America a miserable place.

The same foreign policy il add that has trained and armed terrorists in syria.

Wrong type of Muslims. UAE and the house of Saud are opposed to Shia Muslims
The UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are strictly Wahhabis

Wahhabists support Isis

I like that this thread has devolved into nothing more than a whizzing contest over who's country is taking the random, utterly arbitrary number of "enough" or "not enough" refugees.

No actual concern for the refugees shown. No real discussion of the issues associated with taking in refugees, no look at the political refugee landscape as a whole. Just bickering over a completely arbitrary notion.

Classy Monday morning here on ATS.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Probably three words location, location, location. For the same reason America primarily gets illegal immigrants from Mexico. I would assume that it's easier for Syrians to pay the expenses and go through the trip involved with getting to a European country, than it would be to reach America.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Why do people expect USA to do something moral when USA is immoral

I mean they created ISIS to destabilise Syria

So. .... ?

originally posted by: ScrewGmail
a reply to: Shiloh7

Why do people expect USA to do something moral when USA is immoral

I mean they created ISIS to destabilise Syria

So. .... ?

And why would anyone want to come to such an immoral country? Take help, get money, food, or anything from such a country? Probably a favor to most the refugees. You don't want to become part of such an immoral country. It's a blessing in disguise.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Ameilia
a reply to: Shiloh7

Why isn't Europe stepping up and taking their share of Mexican/Central American/South American/Chinese refugees? We have millions - how many have been taken in by a European country?

Because Europe wasmt the the one overthrowing south American regimes and Generaly operating a foreign policy like the USA that has made south America a miserable place.

The same foreign policy il add that has trained and armed terrorists in syria.

Are you sure?

www.globalresearch.ca...

originally posted by: avgguy

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Ameilia
a reply to: Shiloh7

Why isn't Europe stepping up and taking their share of Mexican/Central American/South American/Chinese refugees? We have millions - how many have been taken in by a European country?

Because Europe wasmt the the one overthrowing south American regimes and Generaly operating a foreign policy like the USA that has made south America a miserable place.

The same foreign policy il add that has trained and armed terrorists in syria.

Are you sure?

www.globalresearch.ca...

No I agree the UK has it responsibility for the mess syria. Not disputeing that.


Only the south America mess.

a reply to: paraphi

I'm sorry, Syria was a problem for the world. where did you get that from?


I don't remember Syria attacking and acting aggressively towards any other country. I don't remember it having nuclear weapons and not signing various treaties concerning them. I don't remember reading it sent murderers into other countries to kill scientists, etc. I also don't remember it defaulting or causing problems for the financial markets. I don't remember people separating it away from other Nations concerning Human Rights.

Speaking to Syrians who have come to this country they are here because of a lack of work opportunities and also Western backed interference in their country and the destruction of their homes and businesses etc. Now economic migrants are coming from all around the world not only Syria.

In fact I don't remember Syria doing anything that affected the rest of the world - so go on spit it out.

a reply to: Shiloh7

I doubt that Obama is the biggest proponent to get rid of Assad, the biggest proponent is or are the leaders in the neighbouring countries.
The US has a deal with these countries, weapons and protection for oil dollars.
These countries would like to have an oil pipeline from one of their states (Qatar) in to europe, but that pipeline must go through Syria.
That is a problem, Iran and Syria have agreed on the islamic pipeline from Iran in to Europe.

This is about influence and power in the region, Sunni-Shiites, Gulf states vs Iran.

In the meantime, Russia but also Iran has been successful in Asia as an oil producer.
Asia has always been the market share of Saudi Arabia, but now they try to sell their oil to Europe, Russia is, or has been the dominant supplier of oil to Europe.
Saudi Arabia is selling its oil at a discount, both Russia and the Gulf states are losing money with the current low oil price, so the stakes are high.
Russia is a dominant force, the US has everything to gain from a weakened Russia because it wants to retain its dominance as the world superpower.
Europe does gain from that too, since most European countries have only a small army, if Putin wanted, Russia would easily march into Europe.
With the war in eastern Ukraine and the threat to surrounding countries, this has become painfully obvious.
Well i think this is enough food for thought as to why Syria is destroyed in order to topple Assad and why Russia is now actively supporting the regime.

Sorry, but the plan was to destabilize your country, not ours.

I guess. ??

a reply to: Cygnis

So you're taking in 10,000 out of 3 million displaced Syrians? My My! The tiny UK took in over 500,000 without counting the people in camps having their claims considered or the illegals either.

What can one say when its Obama who has caused this mess by demanding that the West backed his determination to get rid of Assad policy. Its one head of state removing another from a weaker country that can't fight back.

Where did you get the idea I was suffering from angst - I was pointing out that Obama is responsible for the mess in Syria and he needs to take responsibility for the suffering he has personally caused. If he collapses the EU, America will loose a very valuable trading partner so its time to wake up - if you can work out the repercussions of this lunacy on ordinary Americans and Europeans.

Just to let you know, were I to dance off in angst you would be in no doubt.

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: Cygnis

So you're taking in 10,000 out of 3 million displaced Syrians? My My! The tiny UK took in over 500,000 without counting the people in camps having their claims considered or the illegals either.

What can one say when its Obama who has caused this mess by demanding that the West backed his determination to get rid of Assad policy. Its one head of state removing another from a weaker country that can't fight back.

Where did you get the idea I was suffering from angst - I was pointing out that Obama is responsible for the mess in Syria and he needs to take responsibility for the suffering he has personally caused. If he collapses the EU, America will loose a very valuable trading partner so its time to wake up - if you can work out the repercussions of this lunacy on ordinary Americans and Europeans.

Just to let you know, were I to dance off in angst you would be in no doubt.

Agree Obama should take personal responsibility, not make it a collective responsibility which taking on more refugees would be.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Probably because there's nothing that says a country involved in a war must take on refugees.

See, it's not the U.S.'s fault that European countries have an open-border policy that is now biting them in the ass. Also, nothing says that Syrians must flee from the Middle East into "Westernized" areas.

Like some have pointed out, we (the U.S.) takes its share of refugees every year, and also immigrants, both legal and illegal.

But the reality is that our country can't even deal with helping itself right now, so what business do we have pretending that we can help support other countries' citizens?