What obligation do we have to take in refugees?
I don't understand why this gets the left's panties in a wad. We have no obligation to take in these people.
Not only could they he ISIS terrorists since they aren't screened very well to begin with, but why should we give them a special immigration pass over everyone else who wants to come?
If someone wants to come from Canada, Australia, England etc they have to do it the harder way by marrying an American or landing a job in the US but the refugees get a pass on immigrating faster just because they're running from terrorists in their country?
Whatever happened to equal opportunity for all? If we give refugees this special pass, we should also give Canada and Australia the exact same opportunity.
Either do it for everyone or abolish the refugee Visa altogether.
Why should we give them special privileges over others that want to come here?
- 2 years ago
WE HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO TAKE IN REFUGEES FROM ANY COUNTRY. THIS WAS OPEN DOOR TO THE USA WAS STARTED BY THE CORRUPT OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. AMERICA IS NOT OBLIGATED TO HELP THE WORLD.
- MaxiLv 72 years ago
What obligation do we have to take in refugees? As a signatory of the 1951 International treaty
- 2 years ago
LOOK AT THE FACES OF THIS REFUGEES FROM CENTRAL AMERIKA.......THEY ARE NATIVE AMERIKANS ( INDIANS ) AND THEY HAVE MORE RIGHTS TO BE HERE THAN YOU. ( FIRST NATIONS OF AMERIKA / THE REAL AMERIKANS ).
- StephenWeinsteinLv 72 years ago
First, we do have an obligation. Two obligations, actually. Treaties we have ratified, and international law. Three if you could moral obligations.
Second, they are extremely well-screened. They cannot be ISIS terrorists, because ISIS terrorists are Muslim and no Muslim terrorist has come to the U.S. as a refugee -- ever. The screening of refugees is so superb that the last terrorist to get through was in the 1970's, and that terrorist was Cuban, so probably Catholic.
The difference between them and "others who want to come here" is that refugees don't "want" to come here. They NEED to come, so that they don't die. If they were Canadians or Australians in that situation, they would get the same opportunity.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- W.T. DoorLv 72 years ago
The USA has signed a number of international agreements regarding accepting refugees. However, all of the agreements say refugees have to accept refuge in the first "safe haven" country and have > no right < to simply keep going until they get to a country they want.
The answer from Lone Star Patriot is correct the Left wants to use the asylum seekers, illegal aliens, ad refugees to destroy the western democracies, and in particular to destroy the USA. I am glad to see Lone Star Patriot (who is not an American) admit that.
- Lisa ALv 72 years ago
Only 2 countries have not signed the UN treaty on refugees. That means that 198 countries are obligated to take in refugees.
- mokrieLv 72 years ago
International law states that when fleeing a country with valid reasons for needing asylum, they must ask for asylum in the first country they come to. NO REASON to pass other countries and come all the way to America. And many of those that ran across our border, when told they were being sent back, they abandoned their children to our agencies, which was their plan from the start to gain a foothold to get in legally at a later date. The stopping of DNA testing for children by the left also makes it impossible to know if someone that brought a child is really a parent or a child sex trafficker.
- RonLv 72 years ago
My ancestors had no obligation to take in your ancestors
- satsLv 72 years ago
We shouldn't but because The Obama wanted it the libs feel it must happen as he was their messiah.
- Anonymous2 years ago
You still haven't figured it out - the issue is not whether you agree with patriotic Americans, it's whether you can stop us.