KillingtonZone.com

If immigrants come here with a sponsor, get work, and assimilate into the community - it usually works. After a couple generations they forget the old country.

Are these people going to find work in Rutland?

hillbangin wrote:If immigrants come here with a sponsor, get work, and assimilate into the community - it usually works. After a couple generations they forget the old country.

Are these people going to find work in Rutland?

http://www.killington.com/company/employment/job_fairs

hillbangin wrote:If immigrants come here with a sponsor, get work, and assimilate into the community - it usually works. After a couple generations they forget the old country.

Are these people going to find work in Rutland?

exactly, if they are seeking permanent residence they are immigrants not refugees...they need to follow the same protocol as other immigrants....starting with a private sector sponsor and a job... not a gov sponsor and benefits...

madhatter wrote:

hillbangin wrote:If immigrants come here with a sponsor, get work, and assimilate into the community - it usually works. After a couple generations they forget the old country.

Are these people going to find work in Rutland?

exactly, if they are seeking permanent residence they are immigrants not refugees...they need to follow the same protocol as other immigrants....starting with a private sector sponsor and a job... not a gov sponsor and benefits...

Agreed.

But to deny people just for who they are is just wrong.

SnoBrdr wrote:

madhatter wrote:

hillbangin wrote:If immigrants come here with a sponsor, get work, and assimilate into the community - it usually works. After a couple generations they forget the old country.

Are these people going to find work in Rutland?

exactly, if they are seeking permanent residence they are immigrants not refugees...they need to follow the same protocol as other immigrants....starting with a private sector sponsor and a job... not a gov sponsor and benefits...

Agreed.

But to deny people just for who they are is just wrong.

you say deny for who they are, I say one needs to "qualify" for immigration status......

madhatter wrote:

hillbangin wrote:If immigrants come here with a sponsor, get work, and assimilate into the community - it usually works. After a couple generations they forget the old country.

Are these people going to find work in Rutland?

exactly, if they are seeking permanent residence they are immigrants not refugees...they need to follow the same protocol as other immigrants....starting with a private sector sponsor and a job... not a gov sponsor and benefits...

You can't require refugees to wait in line with immigrants. Refugees are experiencing crushing oppression or disaster. We have been accepting large numbers of Haitian refugees for instance.

However I'm not sure how wise it is to accept refugees from a hostile nation, or a nation that contains a large hostile segment of the population. There are many places to be generous in this world without raising our level of risk.

Mister Moose wrote:

madhatter wrote:

hillbangin wrote:If immigrants come here with a sponsor, get work, and assimilate into the community - it usually works. After a couple generations they forget the old country.

Are these people going to find work in Rutland?

exactly, if they are seeking permanent residence they are immigrants not refugees...they need to follow the same protocol as other immigrants....starting with a private sector sponsor and a job... not a gov sponsor and benefits...

You can't require refugees to wait in line with immigrants. Refugees are experiencing crushing oppression or disaster. We have been accepting large numbers of Haitian refugees for instance.

However I'm not sure how wise it is to accept refugees from a hostile nation, or a nation that contains a large hostile segment of the population. There are many places to be generous in this world without raising our level of risk.

IMO a "refugee" should be a temporary status with the end goal being for them to return home...if one wants to immigrate there's a process for that ( one that could probably use some redefining)

These are all much more constructive and reasonable responses to the op. My issue is when the opposition argument is based solely on a race, religion, culture, etc. which is classic bigotry and groups you with the likes of the kkk or Hitler.
That said, we cannot deny refugee relocation just because they come from a hostile nation especially when they refugees are fleeing due to persecution from that hostile nation. History is rich with us accepting refugees escaping the hostility of our enemies. We just have to be extra cautious in the vetting process.

The salient point is there is a subset of refugees that want to destroy us by what ever barbarian means they can.

Not much has changed since Thomas Jefferson went to London back in 1786 to negotiate with the ambassador of Tripoli over the Barbary pirates capturing U.S. ships and enslaving the crews.

The Ambassador said "It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.”

The U.S. paid the Barbary Coast States huge tributes forcing Congress to form the Dept of the Navy in 1798. American ships joined up with Sweden going to war in 1801. The marines captured the Tripolitan city of Dern in 1805 raising the American flag on foreign soil for the first time. This act is immortalized in the Marine Hymn –“to the shores of Tripoli”

This is simple Navy history that I learned back in boot camp.

Fast forward a couple centuries and the story remains the same – Muslim nations seek to dominate and destroy non-Muslim nations. The U.S. has had little choice but to protect U.S. citizens and our interests by using military force.

Radical Islamic jihadists continue this battle to today while the rest of the peaceful Muslim world seems to sit quietly on the sidelines cheering them on.

Guy in Shorts wrote:Not much has changed since Thomas Jefferson went to London back in 1786 to negotiate with the ambassador of Tripoli over the Barbary pirates capturing U.S. ships and enslaving the crews.

The Ambassador said "It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.”

The U.S. paid the Barbary Coast States huge tributes forcing Congress to form the Dept of the Navy in 1798. American ships joined up with Sweden going to war in 1801. The marines captured the Tripolitan city of Dern in 1805 raising the American flag on foreign soil for the first time. This act is immortalized in the Marine Hymn –“to the shores of Tripoli”

This is simple Navy history that I learned back in boot camp.

Fast forward a couple centuries and the story remains the same – Muslim nations seek to dominate and destroy non-Muslim nations. The U.S. has had little choice but to protect U.S. citizens and our interests by using military force.

Radical Islamic jihadists continue this battle to today while the rest of the peaceful Muslim world seems to sit quietly on the sidelines cheering them on.

What Muslim nation state can you identify as doing this today.

Maybe you are confusing radical jihad as state run, but you cannot find any evidence to show this.

SnoBrdr wrote:

Guy in Shorts wrote:Not much has changed since Thomas Jefferson went to London back in 1786 to negotiate with the ambassador of Tripoli over the Barbary pirates capturing U.S. ships and enslaving the crews.

The Ambassador said "It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.”

The U.S. paid the Barbary Coast States huge tributes forcing Congress to form the Dept of the Navy in 1798. American ships joined up with Sweden going to war in 1801. The marines captured the Tripolitan city of Dern in 1805 raising the American flag on foreign soil for the first time. This act is immortalized in the Marine Hymn –“to the shores of Tripoli”

This is simple Navy history that I learned back in boot camp.

Fast forward a couple centuries and the story remains the same – Muslim nations seek to dominate and destroy non-Muslim nations. The U.S. has had little choice but to protect U.S. citizens and our interests by using military force.

Radical Islamic jihadists continue this battle to today while the rest of the peaceful Muslim world seems to sit quietly on the sidelines cheering them on.

What Muslim nation state can you identify as doing this today.

Maybe you are confusing radical jihad as state run, but you cannot find any evidence to show this.

A few that come to mind - ISIS controlled areas, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, Algeria and let's not leave out Uzbekistan.

Guy in Shorts wrote:

SnoBrdr wrote:

Guy in Shorts wrote:Not much has changed since Thomas Jefferson went to London back in 1786 to negotiate with the ambassador of Tripoli over the Barbary pirates capturing U.S. ships and enslaving the crews.

The Ambassador said "It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.”

The U.S. paid the Barbary Coast States huge tributes forcing Congress to form the Dept of the Navy in 1798. American ships joined up with Sweden going to war in 1801. The marines captured the Tripolitan city of Dern in 1805 raising the American flag on foreign soil for the first time. This act is immortalized in the Marine Hymn –“to the shores of Tripoli”

This is simple Navy history that I learned back in boot camp.

Fast forward a couple centuries and the story remains the same – Muslim nations seek to dominate and destroy non-Muslim nations. The U.S. has had little choice but to protect U.S. citizens and our interests by using military force.

Radical Islamic jihadists continue this battle to today while the rest of the peaceful Muslim world seems to sit quietly on the sidelines cheering them on.

What Muslim nation state can you identify as doing this today.

Maybe you are confusing radical jihad as state run, but you cannot find any evidence to show this.

A few that come to mind - ISIS controlled areas, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, Algeria and let's not leave out Uzbekistan.

Did you forget that ISIS is NOT a Nation State.

While they may control areas of different nations, it does not fit your claim.

Why is it that 18% of Syrian refugees are Christian yet only 3% of Syrian refugees allowed into the U.S. are Christian?

IRAN. When Iran leaders say "Death to America" they mean death to America. God you're an idiot. You're never right about anything.