President Obama recently declared that the U.S. will accept 10,000 refugees from Syria. The U.S. has been under pressure from its Syrian allies to help out with the crisis in which 3 Million refugees have fled Syria in the past year. Those in favor of accepting refugees believe that the U.S. has a duty to join its allies in Europe and accept at least 10,000 refugees. Opponents argue that the U.S. should stay out of this crisis and accepting refugees from the Middle East leads to a risk of letting terrorists into our borders.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Electoral District (2011):
Canada should accept refugees from Syria if they benefit to their country in some way. Canada will not be diverse enough if all Syrians are let in.
Increase spending to help more local areas support refugees thereby helping many more people
Yes, but we should prioritise families and accept more than the proposed 10,000
If we are in a position to help others, then we can accept more refugees. We should not accept more if we have canadians in need of help.
No, we have a lot of refugees already. We should pay more attention and help Canadians first.
Too many refugees already. Take care of the poor people, and homless people and the Vets first.
not at the moment. we need to fix our poverty first
Yes, as long as they can provide to the canadian economy
Yes but make sure they don’t depend on social service and they have to work to live here
yes but first we have to know who they are and what did they have been done so we don't get in any trouble
I have absolutely no idea
Not at this time. Too many Canadian's live below the poverty line or are homeless. Take care of Canadians first, then help the rest of the world.
Afghan refugees is the current most pressing refugee crisis.
yes and no, if it can be supported by our economy then yes. but i think canadian citizens should be the highest priority
We need to help Canadians before extending help to other countries
Should accept the Syrians that supported Canada during the last 20 years in Syria.
We should be worrying about Canadians, like our homeless population, and our housing market in general
Yes, and from every where but we have to make sure that we integrate them to the Canadian society.
Absolutely we should though put them on a modified visa plan where they have to pay thousands a year to renew the visa every year?
only if they’re going to work here and have to pay taxes like everyone else
Yes as long as they haven't committed any crimes
Depending on who they are and why they are coming.
Yes, but to a degree. Skilled labour
This in my opinion depends on the reason why they want to come to Canada and they need to provide honest answer with proof. If we start accepting everyone here i think Canada will turn in to a mess.
Yes, though we should keep in mind the employment status of current residents.
The refugees deserve a place here, but the way the system works right now is not good. Refugees can make more money because of the government than citizen workers make. That should definitely be more controlled.
Yes, accept 10,000 refugees, but mostly families.
Yes, but we have to have a plan for what we'll do with them once they're in the country
Everyone is the same and equal rights are important. We can’t let to many people in though to not have too many non Canadians and that isn’t just directed at Syrians but everyone.
No, we should fund refugee camps that allow them to return safely to their country afterwards.
Yes, while we help Canadians in debt or poverty
Canada should accept as many refugees as Canada can without accepting more than we can.
Yes, but in general no matter where you come from, if your an immigrant you should be monitored and have a background check.
Yes but in reduced quantity and they must equally contribute to our economy but also not prioritize them over the homeless Canadians - they should be treated equally
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
Yes, but only accept a precautionary number of 10,000 refugees once extensive background checks are completed to confirm they have no terrorist connections.
@8VMDYFN4yrs4Y
Yes, but only after confirming that they are not a threat to US safety through background checks.
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
Yes, but only after extensive background checks and intermittent monitoring to ensure they have no terrorist connections
@8H2MQ6D4yrs4Y
there is still a pandemic going on
@8RBQDDP4yrs4Y
No, we should eliminate any opportunity for terrorists to enter the country, but we should work with the U.N to find a solution
@7PTCG385yrs5Y
Yes, but only accept 5,000 families (as a precaution against terrorist activities) once extensive background checks are completed to confirm they have no terrorist connections.
@8PKXR3W4yrs4Y
A very limited amount of refugees.
@8N3HV754yrs4Y
Neither answer is right.
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
Yes, we should accept 10,000 refugees once extensive background checks are completed to confirm they have no terrorist connections.
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
Yes, but only accept a precautionary number of 10,000 refugees once extensive background checks are completed to confirm they have no terrorist connections
@7PTCG385yrs5Y
Yes, but only accept a precautionary number of 5,000 families once extensive background checks are completed to confirm they have no terrorist connections.
@7PTCG385yrs5Y
Yes, but only accept a precautionary number of 7,500 refugees once extensive background checks are completed to confirm they have no terrorist connections.
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
Yes, we should accept 10,000 refugees who have passed extensive background checks to rule out terrorist connections
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
Yes, we should accept 10,000 refugees once extensive background checks are completed to confirm they have no terrorist connections
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
Yes, but only after extensive background checks and intermittent monitoring to ensure they have no terrorist connections.
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
Yes, we should accept 10,000 refugees but only after extensive background checks.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
