Above, is a photo showing some people walking to reach the final objective, to live in a European country. Even if this photo is making it around the world, only 1% of the people will notice the truth. In this photo, there are 7 men and 1 woman - up to this point – nothing special. But in observing a bit closer, you will notice that the woman is bare footed, accompanied by 3 children, one is walking and she is carrying 2. There is the problem, none of the men are helping her, because in their culture the woman represents nothing. She is only good to be a slave to the men. Do you really believe that these particular individuals could integrate into our societies and countries and respect our customs and traditions ????
The question remains, if such peoples do become a part of Western Society, and retain much of their cultural beliefs, can they live amongst us in acceptable ways? In other words, are WE willing to tolerate their living in ways which would be intolerable to US? Frank
They are cultural programmed to think that way and changing the location would not make much of a difference just look at what is happening in Europe. They want to bring their religion and beliefs with them.
I do think people can change, but I don't believe the US, for example, has the resources to take on such a task. I mean we have a lot on our plate already
I do understand that Martin, I'm not saying "all" people "would" change. I guess I can relate my feelings about it, or what I think, to someone who has been in a cult. I've met at least one person that was raised in it. And today, they are very different. But yes, there is brainwashing/programming of people, and I don't think the US has any business taking in "anyone" that would be a possible threat. I think it was Ken that mentioned "do we take in the people that we are at war with?" Something like that. It wouldn't be smart, absolutely not. I mean, not without some sort of restrictions put on them. I guess I'm thinking of prison-camps or whatever they are called. Can't think of it now. But somewhere we would have way, more control over their movements. Oh, I know what I was trying to think of, defecting, like people wanting to escape "that way" of life. But still how do we know for sure, and do we have the resources.
We don't have the resources nor do we have the room yet we have hundreds of thousands probably in reality nearer millions already of them here .. and our schools medical services, hospitals, etc are close to complete collapse.. Remember we're already an overcrowded small Island, with 64 million people in a country less than the size of Oregon (pop under 4 million)....so you can understand why we get so upset at all these so called refugees being permitted to come here..
Right, and I forget about you guys being from another country on here. I have heard of the massive numbers of Muslims in Britain I think I would be scared to death. I am very sheltered where I live, and I am frightened of what may happen here on US soil. Already horrible things happening, so yes, I want the immigration stopped, or put on hold until we can get a handle on it, if we can.
They should also start thinking of the cause. What happened to their country to make them into refugees? What happen to the word peace? Whatever happened to leave us along if we have a bad government it is our problem not the UN. We will not stop these refugees as long as we keep bombing their homeland or funding one group against another.
As I heard it told, we funded ISIS to get rid of Assad, and now ISIS wants to get rid of us! Go figure!
I can't help but think of Star Trek, and their "prime directive". Here's something on it here, and I am not saying this "exactly" relates, but I wondered(http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Prime_Directive): The Prime Directive, also known as Starfleet General Order 1 or the Non-Interference Directive, was the embodiment of one of Starfleet's most important ethical principles: noninterference with other cultures and civilizations. At its core was the philosophical concept that covered personnel should refrain from interfering in the natural, unassisted, development of societies, even if such interference was well-intentioned. The Prime Directive was viewed as so fundamental to Starfleet that officers swore to uphold the Prime Directive, even at the cost of their own life or the lives of their crew. (TOS: "Bread and Circuses", "A Piece of the Action"; TAS: "Bem"; TNG: "Justice", "Symbiosis", "Who Watches The Watchers", "Homeward"; VOY: "Course: Oblivion"; Star Trek Into Darkness) The "precursor" to the Prime Directive, though somewhat undefined, could be traced back to Captain Jonathan Archer's and Phlox's ethical dilemma faced when encountering two species, one with a terminal genetic illness and the other without. Archer commented that eventually, Starfleet would have to "come up with some sort of a doctrine" establishing what Humans should and should not do while exploring space and interacting with other lifeforms. They decided that interfering with the natural evolutionary course of these two species would go against the "directive" upon which they based their entire mission: to meet new species and attempt peaceful communications, not to "play God". This is Denise again. That last line got me, communicate, but don't "play God". I just think there is a lot in films and TV that were some, damn good ideas. Now we all know that if the Starship enterprise was attacked, they defended themselves, but they weren't supposed to go in and play god.
slave is right. the alleged men have the right to beat, rape and murder women. feature that here. because it applies to all women. worldwide