Bloomberg Poll: Most Americans Oppose Syrian Refugee Resettlement

[brooklynite]

Source: Bloomberg

Most Americans want the U.S. to stop letting in Syrian refugees amid fears of terrorist infiltrations after the Paris attacks, siding with Republican presidential candidates, governors, and lawmakers who want to freeze the Obama administration’s resettlement program.

The findings are part of a Bloomberg Politics national poll released Wednesday that also shows the nation divided on whether to send U.S. troops to Iraq and Syria to fight the Islamic State, an idea President Barack Obama opposes, and whether the U.S. government is doing enough to protect the homeland from a comparable attack.

Fifty-three percent of U.S. adults in the survey, conducted in the days immediately following the attacks, say the nation should not continue a program to resettle up to 10,000 Syrian refugees. Just 28 percent would keep the program with the screening process as it now exists, while 11 percent said they would favor a limited program to accept only Syrian Christians while excluding Muslims, a proposal Obama has dismissed as “shameful” and un-American.



Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-11-18/bloomberg-poll-most-americans-oppose-syrian-refugee-resettlement

[think]

1. I remember when 70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11

Unfortunately Americans aren't the most knowledgeable people on the planet.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

[bluestateguy]

2. I. Don't. Give. A. Shit.

Obama is in the second half of his second term.

I'm confident that he will tell Bloomberg what they can do
with their little poll.

[ericson00]

5. if he wants to lose his legacy to President Donald Trump,

then yea Dems can ignore this public opinion at their peril.

[JackRiddler]

9. Should his legacy be as the guy who watched children drown?

[ericson00]

15. the US or most countries have never just let in tons of refugees

from war zones, and in recent years, only have in circumstances where genocide/ethnic cleansing was threatened (think Balkan Wars, African conflicts, etc). That meaning a group who risks being largely whiped out based solely on ethnicity/race or ethnoreligious grouping. Not the case with Arab Muslims. Thats why I reject the comparison to Jews in 1939 (the history of pograms was known back then even before The Holocaust). We can't just be the dumping ground for the world's refugees not threatened by genocide.

Also, how about the 12 million undocumenteds whose demographic has proven to integrate, not take up radical ideologies, and be economically productive, that Donald Trump would kick out? How about the people who would lose their health care when Trump replaces it with something "fabulous?" The environmental legacy of Obama, which is sterling?

[duhneece]

24. "Dumping ground for world's refugees..."

Other nations are pitching in and doing their humanitarian part, because after all, we are all humans and understand being driven out of your own country because of violence and need a human who cares 'out there'. We are 'out there' ...we care. That's who we are.

[JackRiddler]

34. "Arab Muslims"

You've got your general category, and it's wrong.

These are citizens of Syria, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan -- all countries in which your government conducted wars -- fleeing from current war zones, in which (1) conditions are deadly (due to the war, the bombs, including those made and delivered by your government, and the resulting health and ecological conditions) and (2) where there are forces who want to murder them, often on the basis of their ethnicity, race or religious grouping. Some of them aren't Arab, and some of them aren't Muslims. You want to debate the particular definition of "genocide" devised to suit the Great Powers of 1948, but this denies that whatever the definition, many of those you want to turn away will die from intentionally directed violence as a result.

Also, it's pogroms, not pograms.

Also, the 12 million undocumented people are a separate issue. (They should be legalized, of course.) You are employing the fallacy of "whatabouttery."

And the environmental legacy, "sterling." I missed something, did the US ban the blowing up of mountains and the poisoning of waters in order to extract hydrocarbons to burn and further fuck up the climate? Did the emissions level go down to conceivably sustainable levels? How about the coddling of BP and the failure to ban drilling on the ocean floor?

Anyway, fuck presidential "legacies." There are bigger issues.

[totodeinhere]

18. You should give a shit. These are the same people who will be voting in the next election.

Obama won't be on the ballot but plenty of other Democrats will be.

[christx30]

41. And the states that say they are refusing

refugees represents 300 electoral votes. A candidate who's platform is "I.dont.give.a.shit" might as well drop out now.

[leftynyc]

38. History is not going to end

with the Obama administration. We have an election coming up soon and if you think it's a good idea to ignore what 70% of Americans say they want, you're playing right into the gop's hands.

[Bucky]

3. It's almost like there's an interested party out there deliberately scaring people about this

and let's not fool ourselves about this. Some of those 3 year old orphans are scary

[ericson00]

4. if I were you, I'd look around the GD forum;

some of the fear of refugees may come from the fact that many liberals are taking the blinders off about Radical Islam. Moderate Dems, Independents and conservatives (broken clocks can be right at times) also see Radical Islam as a threat.

[Bucky]

6. Well, of course radical Islam is a threat. That doesn't mean we quit being the land of the free

We have good screening programs for bringing in refugees into this country. What bothers me is the Americans who have no faith in their own country's values and tradition as a safe harbor from the craziness of the Eastern Hemisphere.

[ericson00]

8. I do think we need to know more about the screening process,

because confidence needs to be inspired. And yes, maybe this is one time to be unPC and let non-Muslim refugees like Yazidis and Kurds as well as Christians in first. After all, like the Jews in Europe, THEY are the ones threatened with genocide (which is extermination on the basis of race/ethnicity or ethnoreligion, not just merely being in a war zone-pograms against Jews in Europe had been known about for decades, which is why I reject the comparison to general "all Syrian refugees&quot The reason is not because Muslims are bad people: the reason is that often times, Islamist radicals adopt their ideologies while in a new country or while first generation citizens of countries. The Tsarnaev kids looked like perfectly normal Americans before they attacked our country up in Boston.

Also, where are the Arab countries, with big labor shortages (see UAE) and large landmasses (meaning space), and many with a lotta oil money? They need to take in more.

[branford]

19. The majority of Kurds are actually Sunni Muslim,

although some are Shia and other religions are represented.

Nevertheless, most Kurds are pro-Western and democratic, very few are fundamentalist, and as a group, are largely considered good and reliable allies. Heck, they have good relations with Israel. When Prime Minister Netanyahu openly compliments the Muslim Kurds and supports their independence, it speaks for itself.

The Kurds are the poster children for "good Muslims."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds#Religion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdistan%E2%80%93Israel_relations

[ericson00]

20. well the links you have are why they're not a potential threat

to American security, hence why I'd favor letting them in. Clearly, the Kurds have separated themselves from the venom of Radical Islamism.

[branford]

22. The Kurds are not only not a threat, they are very valuable and important allies against ISIS.

They have essentially become our ground troops in the region.

My post was simply to note that the Kurds are indeed Muslims, which also emphasizes how not all Muslims are violent extremists.

Of course, this does not change the fact that ISIS has threatened to enter the USA and attack us by infiltrating with Syrian and other refugees.

[smirkymonkey]

37. +1000

[onenote]

7. and thnking people understand that there is a difference between radical Islamists and those Muslims

Last edited Wed Nov 18, 2015, 07:44 PM - Edit history (1)

who are fleeing radical Islamists.

Closing our doors to those who are trying to escape our enemy is a particularly strange position to take. These refugees aren't crossing a nearby border to get here. They have to cross an ocean and go through a port of entry and be allowed in. There is a screening process and it takes months.

[ericson00]

11. on principle I agree with you: the problem is how many Islamist radicals

adopt radicalism while in a new country and don't integrate, or first gen ones become radical. This has happened in Europe a lot, especially with Islamist propaganda all on the internet out there. While today's Muslim Americans have integrated well, that may because there aren't huge enclaves of them all around the country's cities as in Europe. They know they're few so they integrate now. True, other part of the integration thing may very well also be that Europe cannot replicate America/Canada's melting pot and cultural mosaic, respectively.

[cstanleytech]

14. Look, you will always have a chance of some extremists. Timothy McVeigh who born in this country

and who was a complete and utter asshat though is a perfect that such people are really not limited to one specific religion or country but does this mean we should close the borders? No, it doesnt. It just means we need to be careful and take our time investigating their backgrounds and work at integrating them into our country.

[onenote]

28. By that logic, we should deport any Muslim that wasn't born in this country

If the concern is that Muslims that come here might later become radicalized, then any Muslim that wasn't born here should be sent packing, even if they've been here for years and even if they have permanent residence status or even have become naturalized citizens. And their children should be deported as well, even if they are natural born citizens.

Think I'm exaggerating? I just saw a post on FB that cited an alarmist Daily Mail story about the number of ISIS sympathizers arrested in the US and how some were "immigrants". The cases cited included one in which a number of Bosnian refugees were arrested for supporting terrorism. While I don't know how long ago these Bosnians came to the US, most Bosnian refugee immigration occurred around 20 years ago. Several of those arrested had been here long enough to get permanent legal status and some had become naturalized US citizens. If they are held up as an example of why allowing Muslims to immigrate is bad, then logically anyone who was previously allowed to immigrate should be expelled.

Which is stupid, of course.

[Darb]

13. I notice that you use the name "radical Islam", the exact phrase

used by all the bed-wetting Repugnants. As a matter of fact, they are all in a tiff about the President and others NOT using it. Define "radical Islam" for me. Thanks.

[ericson00]

16. look around GD, you'll see I'm not alone

in calling out Radical Islamist ideology, or even Islam as a religion (as people here have done to Christianity/Judaism for over a decade)

[Darb]

23. Just curious as to why you used the prescribed "radical Islam".

Prescribed by the teanuts by the way. I noticed you changed it to "radical islamists", which is of course, more accurate.

I think they are lunatic fucknuts too. I do not think the whole religion should be painted as such. I will alter that view when necessary.

As for GD? Why should I give a damn what rubbish gets posted there or anywhere else?

[Darb]

10. Most Americans cannot find their ass with both hands.

I can, jussayin'. The rest need to be taught. Let some time pass and the procedures for a refugee getting into the country be explained clearly and this trend will come around. 35%, all Repugnant bigots, will never say yes.

[cstanleytech]

12. Probably related to the same crowd who thought internment camps for American Japanese were ok and

that the US shouldnt let any Irish into the country.

[ericson00]

17. nobody is advocating persecuting people already here

or at least I sure as hell am not and I doubt the others here, (and other places that might surprise on who goes on progressive blogs goes) are for internment either.

[cstanleytech]

26. Not yet, but give them and they will. They have done it before and they will do again because

people are alot like sheep in that they are easily lead.

[branford]

21. Never forget that those popular internment camps were created and championed by FDR,

a liberal Democratic icon, and approved by the Supreme Court. The differences between imprisoning actual Americans and choosing not to bringing foreigners to our shores, is also not even remotely comparable as a legal or moral matter.

Nevertheless, the "same crowd" you reference includes many people from our own party, and this "crowd" still gets to vote even if you believe them ignorant or foolish.

I, for one, am not anxious to risk a President Trump or Cruz over legitimate, if largely inflated, concerns of ISIS infiltrators with legitimate refugees.

[cstanleytech]

25. Yup and it was not of FDRs or the courts better moments in our countries history.

As for the vote no where did I say that people dont get a vote but they are foolish and easily lead like sheep every time they become scared.

[24601]

27. C-SPAN is doing a series on major USSC cases. Last week was Korematsu v. US and it has never been

overturned and is still the ruling precedent although the USSC today would overturn his conviction for disobeying the order to evacuate the West Coast Security Zone. Fred Korematsu was a US Citizen, not an enemy alien. The court vote was 6-3 and Justice Robert Jackson's dissent is legendary.

On the same day (Dec 18, 1944) the same court decided Ex Parte Endo in wihch the Justices unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a citizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States.



OK, OK, I'm a C-SPAN law nerd....

[underpants]

29. We are so misinformed and easily lead around by the nose

This is just sad

[bklyncowgirl]

30. The only way to counter this is with cold hard facts--not by mocking people's fears

The administration needs to be very clear about this. We liberals tend to think that reasonable people will automatically believe as we do and are surprised when they don't. The Ebola scare comes to mind.

People need to know:

What is the vetting process?
How many people are screened?
What percentage of those screened are admitted?

I heard one of the president's national security advisors on Chuck Todd's show saying that something like 90% of refugees screened do not make it in. If true then these are pretty strict criteria and they need to be made much more public.

[leftynyc]

39. VERY well said

As for most things, education is the answer. The administration needs to share what the protocols are, show how much stricter they already are in comparison to Europe and lead instead of just saying he wants to veto the measure. I realize he's at the "I don't give a fuck" portion of his presidency but we do have an election coming up and there isn't a gop-er running who doesn't scare the bejeezes out of me.

[Historic NY]

31. Fear breeds ingnorance.........

most don't even know how restricted the program is and how long 2 yrs or more before they are settled. The poll mimics the RW talking points.

[forthemiddle]

36. If it takes two years

Where are the refugees being housed while waiting for clearance?
What is the process? If these refugees are fleeing Syria what do they do from the time they leave their homeland, and when they are resettled in the USA?

[Historic NY]

43. Depending on circumstances it can take that long.....in the meantime...

they go through this process on the way towards resident alien.

http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/onepagers/228696.htm

[forthemiddle]

44. Thanks for the info

That's what I was looking for!

[RBInMaine]

32. There is always a fear factor immediately after an incident like in Paris. Take a breath.

Take a breath and settle down. Same as the ebola scare. Same as MANY other scares. Things will settle down. Education will happen.

[MFrohike]

33. Wow

All that bullshit on tv news only 53%? That's bad news for them. 10 years ago this probably would have been 70%, so it's nice to see that a lot more people aren't scared of their own shadows anymore.

[leftynyc]

40. I really wouldn't crow

Add the 11% that only want Christians let in if you want a truer picture.

[Todays_Illusion]

35. Bloombert must be disappointed the number isn't larger.

[EndElectoral]

42. Thanks. Perfect reminder of how the majority can be wrong, like electing GW Bush.