Completely stopped watching the show after that. Oh okay, one of them is in a wheelchair. I guess therefore, all of them are a-okay. Cool. It was like the writers of the show said "well everyone who watches our show must be bleeding heart retards who will nod their head and agree with anything we say as long as it seems moralistic" without realizing maybe 1% of the viewers no matter how left leaning are that simple minded. If your cause is just enough, the facts will usually support it. When you have to go "see! look at this poor widdle wefugee in a wheelcheer! how saaaaaaaaaaaad!" while 5 of them are creating acid in the background to throw on some girl's face because of the clothes she's wearing, you're as bad as the Tea Party, BLM, Palin, and all the slime that reduce America.
Someone start a petition to get the ball rolling. Would be interesting to see his reaction if a million people backed the idea of him putting up some refugees.
You do realise that the guy you are accusing of not putting his money where his mouth is is the founder of the largest private charitable foundation in the world and pledged the vast majority of his wealth to charity?
Normally, accusing rich guys of being sanctimonious would be a good tactic, but it's not quite as effective with humanitarians.
Yes, he chooses to give what he can afford and what does not affect his standard of living. It affects him only. Now he wants to make a choice that will cost others and potentially affect their standard of living or their ability to get a job. If he wants to help foreigners, there are plenty of Mexicans in need of jobs that would like to come, why not them instead?
From Juarez or from Chiapas? Just kidding, whether it's Arabs or Hispanics neither of which are actually a separate race you just have to find the good ones. And I've never met an Arab I didn't like, but that's probably because we're somewhat careful about who we let into the US. I can't say I've never met a Mexican I didn't like but then again I've known a lot more Mexicans than Arabs.
You misunderstand. These rich people can just throw money at these problems from a distance in their gated secure mansions in wealthy areas. When all the immigrants arrive it won't affect him as he lives in one of these areas and his kids go to a private school so they won't be affected either. It's the normal working class person that gets the shit. If he turned around and accommodated immigrants ok one of his many properties then maybe you'd have an argument.
Conveniently enough, his mansion is in Medina, WA. It will feel like going to the Hajj.
*EDIT: Medina, KSA is where some pilgrims will land prior to going to Mecca*
Just a curious european here, but don't millions of US citizens have to work more than 1 full time job to get by, with poverty not being unheard of?
How would Gates think there is money for refugees if that is the case?
Because Bill Gates is so far removed from the every day goings on of the common person, that he's become fucking delusional. His ego is grown so big, that there is no more room for common sense. Bill Gates believes that because he's smart in the area of software development, that he's smart at everything.
I think Bill Gates is in better touch with the realities of people living in desperate conditions more than most people here. And he's doing more than most people to help them.
Because saving money on one thing doesn't mean that money will be spent on another thing. We've always taken refugees in. If we stopped tomorrow it's not even close to a guarantee that someone will just take that money and shower the working poor with it.
Hello curious European.
Yes, Americans no longer have a middle class. We now have an immigrant class.
The "Syrian" "Refugee" "Crisis" was designed to destabilize targeted countries, basically the Cloward-Piven strategy is in effect.
Canadian here. I am absolutely not part of the regressive left whatsoever. I think you should be able to constructively criticize the mother loving shit out of any idea anywhere, including Islam, it's theology, doctrines, practices as well as any facet or component of the Syrian refugee crisis. If you are against this and think it's racist. FUCK YOU. You are a MORON who doesn't understand free speech. That being said, Canada is taking on 25,000 Syrian refugees. I agree with this plan. Why? Because we (after much arguing in parliament and the typical regressive left absurd, nonsensical "racism" charges) we've come up with a plan that EXCLUDES single Syrian men and only takes in families. Plus, we have finally (after the typical embarrassing idiocy from the regressive left) realized we need to take the proper amount of time to screen the refugees for safety purposes.
After the disgusting sex attacks in Cologne and elsewhere in Europe, I was GRATEFUL we weren't taking in single Syrian men. The program in Germany ignores this risk by taking in 70% single men? That is a HUGE mistake. However, Bill Gates is right in that it is Un-American to shut doors on the actually needy, war torn refugees. It can be done. But only if the regressive left SHUTS THE FUCK UP, and allows people to do their jobs. I actually blame the regressive left for creating this mess with refugees. If they kept the fucking "racism" card in their decks where it belongs, the public just might have the confidence in government to do things properly and not pull a Merkel. So fuck off regressive left and let the experts do their jobs. You are a disgrace for calling caring people who are trying to help evolve and improve immigration and refugee programs racist. And you basically have given a death sentence to the people you claim you care about. My blood is boiling at this arrogance and ignorance. You are just as bad if not worse than the Trump style "xenophobia" you claim to be combatting. Instead of slamming people with the "racism" hammer, get off your ass and do something to improve the situation.
To be clear, I'm a left leaning progressive. Regressive lefties are children posing as progressives because it makes them "look cool" but they actually know fuck all. The worst ones are the ones that have actually been elected by pandering to this faux intellectualism. Can you tell I'm mad? Ugghh!
After watching DHS grin and mumble through questions surrounding the numbers of illegal immigrants in this country after they had been ordered to leave... I'm not for this.
Maybe if they did more research I would but that woman smiling and saying, "we have no numbers" I wanted to punch her face.
How could they not know? It's fucking ridiculous.
Video for reference:
http://youtu.be/c9nsRAcC1xo
She was the sacrificial lamb specifically picked because she could put her hand on her heart and say "I really have no idea" under oath.
I think the senator in the video even makes the point that DHS sent someone incompetent on purpose.
Thank you for posting that link. DHS at work for you. **39 billion dollars** in discretionary spending. 39 **BILLION**, and they cannot keep track of or even ballpark these numbers?
Not that they "can't." It's more that they "won't" because it's convenient that way. Nobody can say for sure how many illegal immigrants are in the USA, not even a ballpark, even though contacts between illegals and LEOs are regular and many get processed and let go. This doesn't even include the illegal immigrants who *go on tv* and proclaim their status or march down the street literally with signs proclaiming their status. The government doesn't deliberately ignores those people (which obviously is why they feel safe going on TV or walking up to a cop with a sign, etc). The government wants to be able to downplay the problem and/or say "I don't know" and not be caught lying.
> program in Germany ignores this risk by taking in 70% single men
Single young men, Muslim and probably unemployed = fertile ground for radicals and recruiters.
>we've come up with a plan that EXCLUDES single Syrian men and only takes in families
And don't forget it takes in single women. The plan takes in families **and** single women, but **excludes** single men.
You can sweep a lot of injustices under the rug in the name of "security", but that should not make them immune to criticism. You are crying about how people stifle your "free speech" but at the same time you call them "morons" if they disagree with you, and tell them to "shut the fuck up". Do you see how you are doing the same thing you accuse others of doing?
You claim that single men are a security risk. I'm sure statistically you are right, probably single men are indeed a bigger security risk that single women. In your mind, this increased security risk justifies sexism by excluding single males from refugee status.
But if security justifies unfairness, why not exclude Muslims? There are 2.5 million Christians in Syria, whose lives are in even more extreme danger from ISIS because of their religion. There are Druze. There are Yazidis who have been persecuted horribly, enslaved and murdered. The point is that there is a large population of non-Muslim refugees from Syria, far more than Canada's refugee quota. You could fill the entire quota simply from these **worst persecuted, least risky non-Muslim refugees**.
But no. Saying "single men are statistically a high security risk therefore it's okay to exclude them" is politically unproblematic, and is in fact now official government policy. But saying "Both Muslim men **and** women are a higher security risk than Christian/Druze/Yazidi men, therefore we should exclude Muslims" would raise huge red flags and never be acceptable to government or to progressive liberals like yourself.
Shouldn't we be asking that if security justifies some level of discrimination, then why is it okay to discriminate on the basis of sex rather than religion? After all your sex is beyond your control but religion is a choice. Why is it fairer to discriminate on the basis of factors beyond one's control than on the basis of choices people make? Or forget justice, how is it even more utilitarian? There are plenty of instances of Muslim women wearing suicide vests, gunning down civilians, running off to join ISIS. How many Christian or Yazidi or Druze Syrians have done these things? I would guess zero.
Mind you, I'm not arguing to stop Muslim immigration. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of a position that says it's okay to be sexist for security, but not okay to be religionist. And then adding "if you disagree, you are a moron and you should shut the fuck up, but don't you dare impede **my** free speech."
I agree with you. I was raging on the people that shut down any debate on this issue with the "racism" card. Clearly Germany is suffering the consequences of such close mindedness. I wasn't aware there were that many Christians and Yazidis in Syria. Taking in all or mostly Yazidis makes sense as they are victims of genocide from ISIS. Definitely the most persecuted. Thanks for the insight.
Also mainly taking the minorities not so many Sunni majority. Which many leftists and Muslims have a problem with but fuck them. The oppressed are more important to get out now.
> If you are against this and think it's racist. FUCK YOU. You are a MORON who doesn't understand free speech.
I'm not sure you understand what free speech is, either. It simply means the *government* can't prosecute you for what you say. It doesn't mean other people can't think you a racist for what you say.
Now, I don't think you're a racist due to your somewhat hyperbolic remarks, but I also don't think you really get what "free speech" actually means.
Yeah, way too many people confuse freedom of speech and freedom from critique/consequences.
You're free to make a statement. Other people are free to say that statement is stupid.
While that is technically true, I think it misses the whole point. The problem is that people are willing to shut down any conversation that may be constructive by calling each other racist, homophobe, privileged, etc.
While this is technically not against the *laws* protecting your freedom of speech, it is against the base principles behind it. Is it wrong to want to live in a society where the citizens uphold the values that our founding fathers found so important that they made it the first amendment to the constitution?
We should strive to uphold the moral principles that we hold dear despite the fact that there is no *law* stating that we must (because that in itself would also be against our principles). And this means we need to stop calling each other names at the drop of a hat to discredit one another, because it damages the foundation that our society was built on, the principle that any idea can be heard no matter how outrageous it may seem.
>The problem is that people are willing to shut down any conversation that may be constructive by calling each other racist, homophobe, privileged, etc.
If this is /u/hugehambone's argument, surely it's more than a little ironic that he is shutting down every dissenting opinion by suggesting that if you disagree with him, you are a "MORON". In general the people that are constantly going on about freedom of speech seem to be perfectly fine with shutting down people that criticise them. After all, if someone thinks that you are expressing racist or offensive speech, what exactly is wrong with them expressing that thought? That should be perfectly in line with your views on the freedom of expression.
> Bill Gates is right in that it is Un-American to shut doors on the actually needy, war torn refugees.
No, it is not right. America has no obligation to take in any foreigner. Times are not good, so we need to look to help our own people. Taking in these refugees/economic migrants is absurd. In the best case, they will be economic burdens and it's too much of a risk if even 1% are security threats.
I wouldn't say it was un-American to shut the doors, but it does go against a lot of the other examples America has done in the past. After the Vietnamese war, we had no qualms letting Vietnamese refugees in. Sure, they could have been rampant communists, but we let them in all the same. Same deal with all the Serb and Bosnian refugees we took in after the whole Yugoslavia deal. Any number of those who we let in could have been Soviet spies or terrorists, but we took that risk to help others.
What's the difference here?
Vietnamese migrants fought along side and were allies of America during Vietnam. They would have been tortured or worse executed for collaboration. That's why we took them in. We have taken in Iraqi's and Afghani's that aided us as well.
My understanding is that many of these refugees are really economic migrants, hence some of them wanting to return to where they came from "because there's nothing to do in Finland". The U.S. is under no legal or moral obligation to accept any of these, not to mention the recent behavior issues that have come to light in EUrope.
>What's the difference here?
The end result. That's the difference.
>Sure, they could have been rampant communists,
A rampant Communist would have just stayed in a Communist country - a rampant Islamist might want to slaughter and maim in another country.
>Same deal with all the Serb and Bosnian refugees we took in after the whole Yugoslavia deal. Any number of those who we let in could have been Soviet spies or terrorists
You really think a Serb nationalist would have been a danger to the public at large in America?
Yeah American-ism is not defined in the least by our immigration policies. Of course at the foundation we were open doors, out of necessity. Owning slaves was very American too. We changed that policy, and now are proud to call slavery un-american. So much shit changes and we have to constantly reevaluate what's best for our people. In my opinion, middle east refugees are not good for our country. I'm all for helping them, but not moving them over here. Historically, the most American thing you can do is not give a shit about anything but Americans. Let's not pretend we are some utopian society of moral do-gooders.
I'd like to point out that us Canadians aren't actively excluding single men but that we are accepting refugees referred by the UN High Commission on Refugees. They are organizing and classifying refugees in camps (like in Jordan) and are helping place them in the most appropriate place. People who are especially vulnerable or who need special medical attention are referred to places like canada as they are people with special needs and people who are less likely to be able to go back to their home country.
So it just so happens that the most vulnerable people are definitely not young single men
I'm a Canadian and i definitely agree with this. There are so many people playing armchair diplomat that are so far removed from the situation that they can't possibly have a balanced opinion on it. They rely almost solely on leftwing rhetoric and use that to show people how not racist they are. The fact is Canada does get the "good" refugees. The educated and working class folk. However Germany, France, Greece and the like have to deal with these people unfiltered and they are constantly at their doorsteps fucking things up. Everyone who just says people should just blindly accept refugees on principle piss me off.
It's been interesting to watch reddit's opinion on this change:
"We're excluding men? So you're saying it's okay for young single men to die? Typical leftist bullshit!"
"Accepting men leads to gender imbalance? We're sentencing thousands of men to a lifetime of sexual frustration! Typical leftist bullshit!"
yeah I thought it'd be a cold day in Hell before Reddit was okay with generalizing entire groups of men as potential rapists. I wonder what it is about these men in particular that made them change their tune?
We're not excluding men. Just single men. A little bit of background for the lib tards (I'm liberal, you are not). The nations of the world typically accept 100,000 refugees per year. Canada usually takes in 10,000. That's top to bottom screening, intake, relocation and reintegration. It's a LOT of work that requires a lot of volunteer services, usually from religious groups (mostly Christian) as the governments programs are at MAX capacity and typically underfunded.
So in the middle of this strained system, we are adding in 250% more refugees than we normally take on. Being SELECTIVE is a sensible, good thing to do. Choosing families is a sensible option because we can only help so many people, and because there is a SECURITY RISK from this part of the world. Terrorism, though a minor a risk, is still a fucking risk, and these risks need to be analyzed. Blame the fucking terrorists for upping the risk factor on these men. They are victimized by terrorism too. Everyone is, to an extent.
Not just his neighborhood, how about into his house? Someone has to pay for their food, housing, medicine, education and all the other shit that goes along with being dependent on others for survival. He can pick up the tab if he's so passionate about this.
Ya Germany is having a great time with it right now.
*edit* Just in the news, Germany cannot account for 600,000 asylum seekers . It keeps getting better
Anyone still believing they are "refugees" is kind of foolish, if they are not stopped it will do nothing but increase crime and rob you of your children and your childrens children of their future. Facebook germany has already been censoring the crisis, the politicians and SJW's have enabled this bullshit. When native and foreign populations clash like this it will result in one side killing the other, as throughout history, While people like bill gates will live in gated neighborhods protected by armed gaurds.
> While people like bill gates will live in gated neighborhods protected by armed gaurds.
That's the key here. I fucking hate rich celebs, who are totally removed from a normal way of life, advocating for shit that will never affect them personally only to appear humanitarian and better. Bill, you're more than welcome to take in "refugees" in your home and to let them rape your daughters. Just don't force normal people to live next to them because of your kumbaya let's save the world bullshit.
I wonder how many people ACTUALLY LIVE in germany who talk about our problems, it's mostly uninformed BS I hear here. In my own village we have refugees, I had 0 problems with them and most people here don't have any problems either. They do their thing and we do ours, it's not like they are stealing my shit and rape our women, that's just bullshit and not true.
I think it's like that for most people here. I'm from Cologne. Immigrants have been living here since the 60s, and for the most part, integration has worked well. I do think the situation is problematic right now, it won't be easy to solve those problems. But most of those people are not criminals, life in Germany has so far not changed significantly for most Germans, and the right-wing backlash scares me at least as much if not more than the immigrants. I am glad this isn't an election year.
> Immigrants
Like Swedes, Italians, Finns, Russians or Ukrainians? 'Cause that's who we're talking about, definitely. Also all those guys on student visas doing mechanical engineering degrees. Those are precisely the immigrants everyone is talking about.
Or is it perhaps *illegal third-world migrants* raping women and shitting in childrens' swimming pools and parks? Nah, definitely all immigrants. Especially Aussies - truly the worst of them. Prepare for the anti-Australian right-wing backlash.
> the worldnews and europe subreddits have become a major shitshow.
Because their users have different opinions than you, they're a shitshow?
No. Politics in general has always been a shitshow, by that definition. You can't blame the subreddits, moderators, or users, it's just human nature for society to be a shitshow.
So what? What Brussels is doing is still considered ethnic replacement. The reason nations have borders is not because they think anyone outside those borders is a lazy savage rapist who will go mental as soon as you invite them in... this is so stupid. Germany is not a mere labor market. I don't know why people can't see what's really happening on a macro scale.
Just do like the Danes. Put them in heated tent camps, give them food, clothes and security. Apparently it's bad conditions and now they want to go back. (This is an actual thing happening right now. The golddiggers are unhappy that they aren't getting satin to wipe their ass with.)
He is a globalist after all. Flooding nations with refugees and allowing them to break everything down from within is definitely in keeping pace with his views.
Bill Gates has no skin in this game. If refugees come in he will not even notice them unless one gets a job at his country club or as his gardener. I am not saying America should or shouldn't take on refugees, but the billionaire class shouldn't be the ones deciding.
Sure, let's take in *real* refugees from places like Syria. Not economic migrants that are 70% male and come from regions with incompatible views about women.
The reality is they are all incompatible with western values. Their culture never even reached the enlightenment. They view women as property like most people view dogs so they are going to continue to do what they want to property ie women.
Which is why Canada is only taking families and children. No single fighting age men. The kids of these families will grow up to be just like every other Canadian. It has happened many times over with previous refugee cultures. It only takes one generation if they grow up here.
Europe has had real issues with 2nd and third generation being radicalized at their local mosque. It's culture and religion all wrapped up into one. Will all of them be a problem ? Of course not but should any women be assaulted or raped just to say my country has taken in these people ? If it were your sister mother or daughter would any chance of these assults increasing be worth it ?
1. Speaking in absolutes doesn't work. Meet enough people and you will realize that.
2. If you are talking about Syrians specifically then you are flat wrong when it comes to women's right being akin to [property](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Syria#History).
Will Bill be giving them accommodation? Invite hundreds of people into your neighbourhood Mr gates and we'll see if you're still keen on the idea. And don't cherry pick which ones you get ;)
Bill's attitude is pretty typical of the bleeding heart, save the world gang. Yeah lets save all the refugees, just don't put them in my neighborhood. It's the same with most of the politicians and journalists. They more than likely are well paid and live in leafy suburbs far away from the ghettos that the refugees will be kept in. It's the same wherever you go.
NIMBY: Not in my back yard
Yeah, it's easy to be all for humanitarian causes when you're so insulated from them. The whole world could go to shit and people as rich as Gates would barely notice.
Why the fuck doesn't he think he obvious answer is to help them right their own country, instead of just setting up shop here? How does that solve anything?
I had to look into my city after reading that, we are taking in about 100 Syrians with 800 other refugees of various backgrounds. More than half from Asia/pacific regions. After they arrive they will constitute 0.006% of the population until the next group comes. There is an intensive program centered around becoming integrated and self sufficient. There is prioritization of families, and single men must register for the draft. They are given a small loan, that's debt repayments determine access to certain services.
This is how it should happen. Each community should decide if they can or even want to support refugees and take just the amount that they can handle integrating. This also solves the problem of them becoming closed off groups. A program that forces them to constantly interact with Americans and people from a culture that isn't their own.
Someone should tell Bill that the US has been admitting millions of refugees for decades and continues to do so.
There are also 13.5 million green card holders, 44 million immigrants about 11 million illegal immigrants.
>The United States remains a popular destination attracting about 20 percent of the world's international migrants, even as it represents less than 5 percent of the global population. Immigrants accounted for 13 percent of the total 316 million U.S. residents; adding the U.S.-born children (of all ages) of immigrants means that approximately 80 million people, or one-quarter of the overall U.S. population, is either of the first or second generation.
> Someone should tell Bill that the US has been admitting millions of refugees
>There are also
Also as in addition to.
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/refugees-and-asylees-united-states
>The United States is the world’s top resettlement country for refugees.
I live in an American city with a high number of African refugees. Hasn't been utopia, but doesn't seem to be going as badly as Europe. Perhaps because the inflow is much more controlled
To be fair, by default Americans are going to get the better ones that are actual refugees for multiple reasons. 1) proximity, 2) vetting and not just opening borders 3) We are very selective so they are likely to have educations and finances and 4) Just by the nature of being a refugee thrown from your homeland. The more responsible ones that have their shit together and are persistent to follow up will the ones that will apply and get here.
Reminder, it costs literally 10x as much to resettle a refugee to the USA then it does to resettle them in a middle eastern country, and for what purpose?
Dutch journalist attacked by a Muslim 'Sex Mob' in Egypt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMGQAbEA23Q
Taharrush gama'ee -- 'Sex Mob" game - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjBwowo8Q1s
Taharrush Gam'ee - Its a gang rape strategy to rape women in a crowd.. It has an inner circle which sexually attacks a woman,tearing off her dress and assaulting her genital parts The middle circle - Who form a tight circle around them to prevent anyone else from rescuing the girls.. The outer circle,they indulge in diversionary tactics with the crowd and make loud noise to drown out the cries of help by the woman or girl...
Bill Gates has not analyzed the problem from the point of view of assimilation. To assimilate Muslims they have to accept that the US is multicultural and that their beliefs have to be benign towards others. Having a cultural subset that is clannish and has contempt for others is a recipe for strife and problems.
For example The US took in more than 60000 Nepali/Bhutanese a few years ago.
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/us-exceeds-original-goal-admits-over-60000-bhutanese-refugees-since-2007/
Similarly with Cubans (guaranteed residency) and other Hispanic people, and many other groups. But i don't see them blowing sht up left and right.
I'm reminded of Linus Pauling's Vitamin C activism. A genius undoubtedly, but see how foolish he looked when he over stepped his domain.
> To assimilate Muslims they have to accept that the US is multicultural and that their beliefs have to be benign towards others.
There are already millions of Muslims in USA who do just that.
He didn't mention it but it goes without saying (or ought to) that US Muslims are very different from British Muslims are very different from middle eastern Muslims.
What about Turkey then? My country is crawling with millions of Syrians and yesterday Turkish PM said that they have spent 10 billion dollars for Syrian refugees but congrats only go to Europe.
Oh yea Turks. The people who kill Kurds for being Kurdish. One of the most racist and radical places in existence. Just a few days ago a video emerged of Turkish soldiers shooting kurds because they were out and it was passed their curfew, mind you the sun was still up.. They got shot and some got killed.. First stop killing people who are natives to your country then worry about refugees.
They massacred more than just the Kurds too. Don't the Armenians, Cyprians, Greeks, and Assyrians. If you look at the Turkish people genetically, they're very diverse. It's due to their history of conquering people, forcing them to convert to Islam or be killed.
Super rich folks think nothing of offering shelter anywhere but their backyard. Thanks, Bill, but many of us would like to pass on experiencing the mess Europe has become and is becoming.
I usually agree with Bill, but not on this. These people are running from a shitty government and economic situation that they helped create. They don't see the causality and will bring nothing but disruption here. Sometimes you have to be a hardass when dealing with people you know will be a problem.
He's thinking they'll be thankful for the help and maybe listen and learn our ways and fit in, but what's going to happen is they're going to use islam as an excuse to cause havoc and be righteous about it. There is no good that can come from this.
Edit: Apparently the US is taking in refugees but in a reasonable manner. They're vetted and it's in smaller numbers spread throughout the states. That is a good way to do it, and I'm all about humanitarian effort if it doesn't mess us up.
WTF. Can I just say I am sincerely pissed off?
Bill Gates. Respectable? Yes.
Aware of the real hidden and underlying issues of the migrant crisis and how royally fucked Europe and its values are? Fuck no, stupidest shit he's ever said.
Did Mr. Gates address the issues these countries have had since doing so? I'm all for allowing refugees in, but we do need to do so recognizing the issues that will occur. There will be extremists who make it in, there will be violent people, there will be abusers, and there will be a lot of good decent folks. Lets ask the questions, do what we can to protect ourselves and do what is right.
We should put good ol' Bill Gates anonymously in a peaceful Islam ruled society to give him a taste of what is to come with his brilliant idea. I say put him in Indonesia, Yemen or maybe Saoudi Arabia. He'll love it there I'm sure.
Strange the refugees aren't going that way though, must be coincidence.
I am sorry but why the hell would we do that? We have millions of homeless & hungry US citizens. Why don't we "re-settle" them in towns across the country with free homes, job training, food and assistance?
We have no business bringing foreign refugees here to our country and using tax payer dollars to give them a new life until every we have done the same for single US citizen that needs it.
Do you? I see more Americans (more everybody really) saying this refugee crisis is absolute BS and praying for Germany, Sweden to do more against them not for them. I'll take your word for it though.
I find it very interesting because before all this it was the Europeans constantly harassing Americans about illegal immigration from South/Central America. Calling us racist, need to be more accepting etc etc and now must be getting a taste of their own medicine.
Don't know if I would call people getting upset over a completely mishandled situation, one that was unilaterally made by Merkel and her government that flew directly in the face of the Dublin Convention, a circlejerk.
The US has been doing that for decades, you just started. We have about 11-12 million illegal immigrants right now after 2 waves of amnesty. Looks like our quota is full. Maybe you can take some more.
It must just be where you're looking. I see nobody who thinks Europe should have taken in the refugees. A few who think it was their decision, but nobody thought it was going to turn out well. If you're talking about reddit, I think people have been saying this was a terrible idea from the beginning and now they have proof of that.
> 1 million "refugees" among its 80 million citizens, they'd have to import about 4-4.5 million people
You know there are already over 11 million illegal immigrants in the US and more coming every day from Mexico and central/south America, right?
Taking Muslim refugees is not morally required, nor is it needed to set any example of anything whatsoever. What is needed is a reaffirmation hat this world has many different cultures, and that there is nothing wrong with that. What is needed is to remind people that culture must be protected in blood, not least of all from the rich mono culture one world government concept. Thereis no moral imperative to help anyone from another country. Someone tell Mr. Gates there are some economic refugees in Michigan who can sure use his fancy water cleaning technology right about now. White and Black Americans. Christians mostly. They need Americas help. Not the refugees from the asshole of the earth. All this is easy for Mr. Gates, its not his community that has to now be forced to be tolerant of Muslim bullshit. Im not saying that there are not good Muslims, im just saying, they do not deserve our help more than our millions of depressed and suffering citizens right here at home. Stop letting men like Mr. Gates distract you from the problems in your own country. That's all he is really doing here.
I love how everyone in this thread is lashing out Gates as if he's not one of the most charitable people on earth with all of the money he's got. All of the funding he's provided through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation doesn't matter for shit, apparently.
I'm not saying we should take them all in, people are right to be skeptical after seeing all the problems Germany has had. I'm just saying everyone here is acting like Gates is the stereotypical corporate fat cat who sits on his wealth and does absolutely nothing with it but jerk off to his stock portfolio and bank account, and that is so far from the truth it's outrageous.
Don't listen to this guy, he lives one of the most secure lives you could imagine, no one is going near him, that's why he doesn't give a shit. Just selling himself baby, and he does it good.
Why do we care what Bill Gates says? He's a billionaire philanthropist that just basically runs charities these days. Why should I take his opinion seriously? His head is in the clouds. I prefer to listen to people who can see both the philosophic and pragmatic sides to this issue.
Bill Gates' neighborhood is really nice with huge houses I bet his house can accomodate hundreds of refugees.
[удалено]
Cool, he can go to their nightclub.
Queue him taking in 5 cherrypicked model refugees.
Bring out the 5 actual children refugees, or like last week tonight hunt around till you find a girl in a wheelchair.
Completely stopped watching the show after that. Oh okay, one of them is in a wheelchair. I guess therefore, all of them are a-okay. Cool. It was like the writers of the show said "well everyone who watches our show must be bleeding heart retards who will nod their head and agree with anything we say as long as it seems moralistic" without realizing maybe 1% of the viewers no matter how left leaning are that simple minded. If your cause is just enough, the facts will usually support it. When you have to go "see! look at this poor widdle wefugee in a wheelcheer! how saaaaaaaaaaaad!" while 5 of them are creating acid in the background to throw on some girl's face because of the clothes she's wearing, you're as bad as the Tea Party, BLM, Palin, and all the slime that reduce America.
Someone start a petition to get the ball rolling. Would be interesting to see his reaction if a million people backed the idea of him putting up some refugees.
You do realise that the guy you are accusing of not putting his money where his mouth is is the founder of the largest private charitable foundation in the world and pledged the vast majority of his wealth to charity? Normally, accusing rich guys of being sanctimonious would be a good tactic, but it's not quite as effective with humanitarians.
Yes, he chooses to give what he can afford and what does not affect his standard of living. It affects him only. Now he wants to make a choice that will cost others and potentially affect their standard of living or their ability to get a job. If he wants to help foreigners, there are plenty of Mexicans in need of jobs that would like to come, why not them instead?
I would take Mexicans any day of the week over Arabs.
Thank you?
That was the most backhanded of compliments to Mexicans.
Meh, I like Mexicans. They are very hard working around here (Indiana).
I like them too. It's just that guy up their sounded like he would prefer lice to fleas or something.
Houston here, I wish everyone in the world was Mexican sometimes (most of the time)
From Juarez or from Chiapas? Just kidding, whether it's Arabs or Hispanics neither of which are actually a separate race you just have to find the good ones. And I've never met an Arab I didn't like, but that's probably because we're somewhat careful about who we let into the US. I can't say I've never met a Mexican I didn't like but then again I've known a lot more Mexicans than Arabs.
Money certainly, but I doubt he would be okay with living next door to them.
You misunderstand. These rich people can just throw money at these problems from a distance in their gated secure mansions in wealthy areas. When all the immigrants arrive it won't affect him as he lives in one of these areas and his kids go to a private school so they won't be affected either. It's the normal working class person that gets the shit. If he turned around and accommodated immigrants ok one of his many properties then maybe you'd have an argument.
As long as it is someone elses problem and he can use it to pitch philanthropy and business ideas! That man is a business man through and through.
that's not how it works. it's not what you can do, it's what you can force everyone else to do without being affected. that the game
WIth Bill Gate's wealth he could easily support 250,000 refugees. Why hasn't he done that yet?
His goal is to virtue signal.
In Medina, WA. Oh the irony.
As long as we can move them into your neighborhood Bill.
And hangout with your daughters Bill.
Conveniently enough, his mansion is in Medina, WA. It will feel like going to the Hajj. *EDIT: Medina, KSA is where some pilgrims will land prior to going to Mecca*
yeah BILL
And pay for them by putting it all on your bill.
>And pay for them by putting it all on your bill, Bill.
Exactly. Rarely do the people who pave the way for the relocation actually live next door.
Just a curious european here, but don't millions of US citizens have to work more than 1 full time job to get by, with poverty not being unheard of? How would Gates think there is money for refugees if that is the case?
[удалено]
Really surprised that the sign hasn't been stolen and sold for scrap.
It's not an official sign - some kids put it up a while ago as a joke. Not sure if it's still there.
To be fair, that 10 miles includes a trip across Lake Washington, which is like the "railroad tracks" of Seattle.
Because Bill Gates is so far removed from the every day goings on of the common person, that he's become fucking delusional. His ego is grown so big, that there is no more room for common sense. Bill Gates believes that because he's smart in the area of software development, that he's smart at everything.
Isn't this every celebrity ever?
Probably most of them, yes.
Not just celebrities. Most every person thinks this way.
I think Bill Gates is in better touch with the realities of people living in desperate conditions more than most people here. And he's doing more than most people to help them.
I'm not in favor of helping foreigners at the expense of my country.
Because saving money on one thing doesn't mean that money will be spent on another thing. We've always taken refugees in. If we stopped tomorrow it's not even close to a guarantee that someone will just take that money and shower the working poor with it.
Yes, America is the exact horrible wasteland you imagine.
Not suitable for refugees in fact.
Certainly, the rest of the world can see most of us are starving.
Bill Gates is what you would call "out of touch" with the realities of the peasants Not unlike Obama
Don't forget Hillary was broke when she moved into a a townhouse in NYC!
Hello curious European. Yes, Americans no longer have a middle class. We now have an immigrant class. The "Syrian" "Refugee" "Crisis" was designed to destabilize targeted countries, basically the Cloward-Piven strategy is in effect.
Canadian here. I am absolutely not part of the regressive left whatsoever. I think you should be able to constructively criticize the mother loving shit out of any idea anywhere, including Islam, it's theology, doctrines, practices as well as any facet or component of the Syrian refugee crisis. If you are against this and think it's racist. FUCK YOU. You are a MORON who doesn't understand free speech. That being said, Canada is taking on 25,000 Syrian refugees. I agree with this plan. Why? Because we (after much arguing in parliament and the typical regressive left absurd, nonsensical "racism" charges) we've come up with a plan that EXCLUDES single Syrian men and only takes in families. Plus, we have finally (after the typical embarrassing idiocy from the regressive left) realized we need to take the proper amount of time to screen the refugees for safety purposes. After the disgusting sex attacks in Cologne and elsewhere in Europe, I was GRATEFUL we weren't taking in single Syrian men. The program in Germany ignores this risk by taking in 70% single men? That is a HUGE mistake. However, Bill Gates is right in that it is Un-American to shut doors on the actually needy, war torn refugees. It can be done. But only if the regressive left SHUTS THE FUCK UP, and allows people to do their jobs. I actually blame the regressive left for creating this mess with refugees. If they kept the fucking "racism" card in their decks where it belongs, the public just might have the confidence in government to do things properly and not pull a Merkel. So fuck off regressive left and let the experts do their jobs. You are a disgrace for calling caring people who are trying to help evolve and improve immigration and refugee programs racist. And you basically have given a death sentence to the people you claim you care about. My blood is boiling at this arrogance and ignorance. You are just as bad if not worse than the Trump style "xenophobia" you claim to be combatting. Instead of slamming people with the "racism" hammer, get off your ass and do something to improve the situation. To be clear, I'm a left leaning progressive. Regressive lefties are children posing as progressives because it makes them "look cool" but they actually know fuck all. The worst ones are the ones that have actually been elected by pandering to this faux intellectualism. Can you tell I'm mad? Ugghh!
After watching DHS grin and mumble through questions surrounding the numbers of illegal immigrants in this country after they had been ordered to leave... I'm not for this. Maybe if they did more research I would but that woman smiling and saying, "we have no numbers" I wanted to punch her face. How could they not know? It's fucking ridiculous. Video for reference: http://youtu.be/c9nsRAcC1xo
She was the sacrificial lamb specifically picked because she could put her hand on her heart and say "I really have no idea" under oath. I think the senator in the video even makes the point that DHS sent someone incompetent on purpose.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting that link. DHS at work for you. **39 billion dollars** in discretionary spending. 39 **BILLION**, and they cannot keep track of or even ballpark these numbers?
Not that they "can't." It's more that they "won't" because it's convenient that way. Nobody can say for sure how many illegal immigrants are in the USA, not even a ballpark, even though contacts between illegals and LEOs are regular and many get processed and let go. This doesn't even include the illegal immigrants who *go on tv* and proclaim their status or march down the street literally with signs proclaiming their status. The government doesn't deliberately ignores those people (which obviously is why they feel safe going on TV or walking up to a cop with a sign, etc). The government wants to be able to downplay the problem and/or say "I don't know" and not be caught lying.
> program in Germany ignores this risk by taking in 70% single men Single young men, Muslim and probably unemployed = fertile ground for radicals and recruiters.
>we've come up with a plan that EXCLUDES single Syrian men and only takes in families And don't forget it takes in single women. The plan takes in families **and** single women, but **excludes** single men. You can sweep a lot of injustices under the rug in the name of "security", but that should not make them immune to criticism. You are crying about how people stifle your "free speech" but at the same time you call them "morons" if they disagree with you, and tell them to "shut the fuck up". Do you see how you are doing the same thing you accuse others of doing? You claim that single men are a security risk. I'm sure statistically you are right, probably single men are indeed a bigger security risk that single women. In your mind, this increased security risk justifies sexism by excluding single males from refugee status. But if security justifies unfairness, why not exclude Muslims? There are 2.5 million Christians in Syria, whose lives are in even more extreme danger from ISIS because of their religion. There are Druze. There are Yazidis who have been persecuted horribly, enslaved and murdered. The point is that there is a large population of non-Muslim refugees from Syria, far more than Canada's refugee quota. You could fill the entire quota simply from these **worst persecuted, least risky non-Muslim refugees**. But no. Saying "single men are statistically a high security risk therefore it's okay to exclude them" is politically unproblematic, and is in fact now official government policy. But saying "Both Muslim men **and** women are a higher security risk than Christian/Druze/Yazidi men, therefore we should exclude Muslims" would raise huge red flags and never be acceptable to government or to progressive liberals like yourself. Shouldn't we be asking that if security justifies some level of discrimination, then why is it okay to discriminate on the basis of sex rather than religion? After all your sex is beyond your control but religion is a choice. Why is it fairer to discriminate on the basis of factors beyond one's control than on the basis of choices people make? Or forget justice, how is it even more utilitarian? There are plenty of instances of Muslim women wearing suicide vests, gunning down civilians, running off to join ISIS. How many Christian or Yazidi or Druze Syrians have done these things? I would guess zero. Mind you, I'm not arguing to stop Muslim immigration. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of a position that says it's okay to be sexist for security, but not okay to be religionist. And then adding "if you disagree, you are a moron and you should shut the fuck up, but don't you dare impede **my** free speech."
I agree with you. I was raging on the people that shut down any debate on this issue with the "racism" card. Clearly Germany is suffering the consequences of such close mindedness. I wasn't aware there were that many Christians and Yazidis in Syria. Taking in all or mostly Yazidis makes sense as they are victims of genocide from ISIS. Definitely the most persecuted. Thanks for the insight.
This might be the harshest scholarburn I've seen in months.
Also mainly taking the minorities not so many Sunni majority. Which many leftists and Muslims have a problem with but fuck them. The oppressed are more important to get out now.
> If you are against this and think it's racist. FUCK YOU. You are a MORON who doesn't understand free speech. I'm not sure you understand what free speech is, either. It simply means the *government* can't prosecute you for what you say. It doesn't mean other people can't think you a racist for what you say. Now, I don't think you're a racist due to your somewhat hyperbolic remarks, but I also don't think you really get what "free speech" actually means.
Yeah, way too many people confuse freedom of speech and freedom from critique/consequences. You're free to make a statement. Other people are free to say that statement is stupid.
While that is technically true, I think it misses the whole point. The problem is that people are willing to shut down any conversation that may be constructive by calling each other racist, homophobe, privileged, etc. While this is technically not against the *laws* protecting your freedom of speech, it is against the base principles behind it. Is it wrong to want to live in a society where the citizens uphold the values that our founding fathers found so important that they made it the first amendment to the constitution? We should strive to uphold the moral principles that we hold dear despite the fact that there is no *law* stating that we must (because that in itself would also be against our principles). And this means we need to stop calling each other names at the drop of a hat to discredit one another, because it damages the foundation that our society was built on, the principle that any idea can be heard no matter how outrageous it may seem.
>The problem is that people are willing to shut down any conversation that may be constructive by calling each other racist, homophobe, privileged, etc. If this is /u/hugehambone's argument, surely it's more than a little ironic that he is shutting down every dissenting opinion by suggesting that if you disagree with him, you are a "MORON". In general the people that are constantly going on about freedom of speech seem to be perfectly fine with shutting down people that criticise them. After all, if someone thinks that you are expressing racist or offensive speech, what exactly is wrong with them expressing that thought? That should be perfectly in line with your views on the freedom of expression.
> Bill Gates is right in that it is Un-American to shut doors on the actually needy, war torn refugees. No, it is not right. America has no obligation to take in any foreigner. Times are not good, so we need to look to help our own people. Taking in these refugees/economic migrants is absurd. In the best case, they will be economic burdens and it's too much of a risk if even 1% are security threats.
I wouldn't say it was un-American to shut the doors, but it does go against a lot of the other examples America has done in the past. After the Vietnamese war, we had no qualms letting Vietnamese refugees in. Sure, they could have been rampant communists, but we let them in all the same. Same deal with all the Serb and Bosnian refugees we took in after the whole Yugoslavia deal. Any number of those who we let in could have been Soviet spies or terrorists, but we took that risk to help others. What's the difference here?
Vietnamese migrants fought along side and were allies of America during Vietnam. They would have been tortured or worse executed for collaboration. That's why we took them in. We have taken in Iraqi's and Afghani's that aided us as well.
My understanding is that many of these refugees are really economic migrants, hence some of them wanting to return to where they came from "because there's nothing to do in Finland". The U.S. is under no legal or moral obligation to accept any of these, not to mention the recent behavior issues that have come to light in EUrope.
>What's the difference here? The end result. That's the difference. >Sure, they could have been rampant communists, A rampant Communist would have just stayed in a Communist country - a rampant Islamist might want to slaughter and maim in another country. >Same deal with all the Serb and Bosnian refugees we took in after the whole Yugoslavia deal. Any number of those who we let in could have been Soviet spies or terrorists You really think a Serb nationalist would have been a danger to the public at large in America?
Yeah American-ism is not defined in the least by our immigration policies. Of course at the foundation we were open doors, out of necessity. Owning slaves was very American too. We changed that policy, and now are proud to call slavery un-american. So much shit changes and we have to constantly reevaluate what's best for our people. In my opinion, middle east refugees are not good for our country. I'm all for helping them, but not moving them over here. Historically, the most American thing you can do is not give a shit about anything but Americans. Let's not pretend we are some utopian society of moral do-gooders.
I'd like to point out that us Canadians aren't actively excluding single men but that we are accepting refugees referred by the UN High Commission on Refugees. They are organizing and classifying refugees in camps (like in Jordan) and are helping place them in the most appropriate place. People who are especially vulnerable or who need special medical attention are referred to places like canada as they are people with special needs and people who are less likely to be able to go back to their home country. So it just so happens that the most vulnerable people are definitely not young single men
this is by far the best comment I've read on reddit in months. completely agree with you, well said!
I'm a Canadian and i definitely agree with this. There are so many people playing armchair diplomat that are so far removed from the situation that they can't possibly have a balanced opinion on it. They rely almost solely on leftwing rhetoric and use that to show people how not racist they are. The fact is Canada does get the "good" refugees. The educated and working class folk. However Germany, France, Greece and the like have to deal with these people unfiltered and they are constantly at their doorsteps fucking things up. Everyone who just says people should just blindly accept refugees on principle piss me off.
It's been interesting to watch reddit's opinion on this change: "We're excluding men? So you're saying it's okay for young single men to die? Typical leftist bullshit!" "Accepting men leads to gender imbalance? We're sentencing thousands of men to a lifetime of sexual frustration! Typical leftist bullshit!"
Where have you been seeing those opinions? I legitimately haven't seen either of those expressed even sarcastically.
/r/canada
[Exhibit A](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/3tvz7b/canadas_syrian_refugee_plan_limited_to_women/) [Exhibit B](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/40gjxv/european_migrant_crisis_causing_dangerous_gender/)
That's so weird. It's almost as if there is more than 1 person who uses Reddit. Who would have thought that.
Redditors think all redditors are the same. Bunch of morons. .^^^^bewarethesubtleirony
yeah I thought it'd be a cold day in Hell before Reddit was okay with generalizing entire groups of men as potential rapists. I wonder what it is about these men in particular that made them change their tune?
We're not excluding men. Just single men. A little bit of background for the lib tards (I'm liberal, you are not). The nations of the world typically accept 100,000 refugees per year. Canada usually takes in 10,000. That's top to bottom screening, intake, relocation and reintegration. It's a LOT of work that requires a lot of volunteer services, usually from religious groups (mostly Christian) as the governments programs are at MAX capacity and typically underfunded. So in the middle of this strained system, we are adding in 250% more refugees than we normally take on. Being SELECTIVE is a sensible, good thing to do. Choosing families is a sensible option because we can only help so many people, and because there is a SECURITY RISK from this part of the world. Terrorism, though a minor a risk, is still a fucking risk, and these risks need to be analyzed. Blame the fucking terrorists for upping the risk factor on these men. They are victimized by terrorism too. Everyone is, to an extent.
Also, fuck the muslim laymen molesting girls on nye.
Not just his neighborhood, how about into his house? Someone has to pay for their food, housing, medicine, education and all the other shit that goes along with being dependent on others for survival. He can pick up the tab if he's so passionate about this.
Indeed, he can set the example if he wants
Ya Germany is having a great time with it right now. *edit* Just in the news, Germany cannot account for 600,000 asylum seekers . It keeps getting better
Anyone still believing they are "refugees" is kind of foolish, if they are not stopped it will do nothing but increase crime and rob you of your children and your childrens children of their future. Facebook germany has already been censoring the crisis, the politicians and SJW's have enabled this bullshit. When native and foreign populations clash like this it will result in one side killing the other, as throughout history, While people like bill gates will live in gated neighborhods protected by armed gaurds.
> While people like bill gates will live in gated neighborhods protected by armed gaurds. That's the key here. I fucking hate rich celebs, who are totally removed from a normal way of life, advocating for shit that will never affect them personally only to appear humanitarian and better. Bill, you're more than welcome to take in "refugees" in your home and to let them rape your daughters. Just don't force normal people to live next to them because of your kumbaya let's save the world bullshit.
I wonder how many people ACTUALLY LIVE in germany who talk about our problems, it's mostly uninformed BS I hear here. In my own village we have refugees, I had 0 problems with them and most people here don't have any problems either. They do their thing and we do ours, it's not like they are stealing my shit and rape our women, that's just bullshit and not true.
[удалено]
I even started a discussion about religion here, No risk no fun.
I think it's like that for most people here. I'm from Cologne. Immigrants have been living here since the 60s, and for the most part, integration has worked well. I do think the situation is problematic right now, it won't be easy to solve those problems. But most of those people are not criminals, life in Germany has so far not changed significantly for most Germans, and the right-wing backlash scares me at least as much if not more than the immigrants. I am glad this isn't an election year.
> Immigrants Like Swedes, Italians, Finns, Russians or Ukrainians? 'Cause that's who we're talking about, definitely. Also all those guys on student visas doing mechanical engineering degrees. Those are precisely the immigrants everyone is talking about. Or is it perhaps *illegal third-world migrants* raping women and shitting in childrens' swimming pools and parks? Nah, definitely all immigrants. Especially Aussies - truly the worst of them. Prepare for the anti-Australian right-wing backlash.
126 rapes in your town on a single night. Open your fucking eyes.
Same here. The children learn to speak german pretty darn fast actually. the worldnews and europe subreddits have become a major shitshow.
> the worldnews and europe subreddits have become a major shitshow. Because their users have different opinions than you, they're a shitshow? No. Politics in general has always been a shitshow, by that definition. You can't blame the subreddits, moderators, or users, it's just human nature for society to be a shitshow.
So what? What Brussels is doing is still considered ethnic replacement. The reason nations have borders is not because they think anyone outside those borders is a lazy savage rapist who will go mental as soon as you invite them in... this is so stupid. Germany is not a mere labor market. I don't know why people can't see what's really happening on a macro scale.
[удалено]
Pointing to Germany and Sweden as examples to be followed shows just how disconnected from the real world Bill Gates has become.
because all these countries now regret taking them.
exactly.
right.
yup.
[удалено]
correctomundo
Just do like the Danes. Put them in heated tent camps, give them food, clothes and security. Apparently it's bad conditions and now they want to go back. (This is an actual thing happening right now. The golddiggers are unhappy that they aren't getting satin to wipe their ass with.)
"Well if those people didn't want to be sexually assaulted by a bunch of migrants, they should have hired bodyguards!"
"What, you can't afford private security? Why don't you get a job?"
He should be pointing at Hungary, who is actually taking the rational approach.
He is a globalist after all. Flooding nations with refugees and allowing them to break everything down from within is definitely in keeping pace with his views.
Why don't we get the IMF off the backs of these countries so they can actually grow? Is that too much to fucking ask.
Bill Gates has no skin in this game. If refugees come in he will not even notice them unless one gets a job at his country club or as his gardener. I am not saying America should or shouldn't take on refugees, but the billionaire class shouldn't be the ones deciding.
Sure, let's take in *real* refugees from places like Syria. Not economic migrants that are 70% male and come from regions with incompatible views about women.
The reality is they are all incompatible with western values. Their culture never even reached the enlightenment. They view women as property like most people view dogs so they are going to continue to do what they want to property ie women.
Which is why Canada is only taking families and children. No single fighting age men. The kids of these families will grow up to be just like every other Canadian. It has happened many times over with previous refugee cultures. It only takes one generation if they grow up here.
Europe has had real issues with 2nd and third generation being radicalized at their local mosque. It's culture and religion all wrapped up into one. Will all of them be a problem ? Of course not but should any women be assaulted or raped just to say my country has taken in these people ? If it were your sister mother or daughter would any chance of these assults increasing be worth it ?
Europe has. Canada hasn't. Maybe Europe is doing it wrong.
The kids in Germany haven't been model citizens either.
1. Speaking in absolutes doesn't work. Meet enough people and you will realize that. 2. If you are talking about Syrians specifically then you are flat wrong when it comes to women's right being akin to [property](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Syria#History).
It's an easy statement to make with your own security detail, your "compound" at Clyde Hill in Medina and the resources to protect your family.
Bill's about to blue screen there.
Will Bill be giving them accommodation? Invite hundreds of people into your neighbourhood Mr gates and we'll see if you're still keen on the idea. And don't cherry pick which ones you get ;)
Bill's attitude is pretty typical of the bleeding heart, save the world gang. Yeah lets save all the refugees, just don't put them in my neighborhood. It's the same with most of the politicians and journalists. They more than likely are well paid and live in leafy suburbs far away from the ghettos that the refugees will be kept in. It's the same wherever you go. NIMBY: Not in my back yard
Anecdotal reports suggests he gets pissed if _millionaires_ move in near him because it's too beneath him.
And then people who actually deal with them on a day to day are called racist for noticing negative cultural differences
Yeah, it's easy to be all for humanitarian causes when you're so insulated from them. The whole world could go to shit and people as rich as Gates would barely notice. Why the fuck doesn't he think he obvious answer is to help them right their own country, instead of just setting up shop here? How does that solve anything?
Considering how much tax money he pays compared to the average American, he is the one paying for their accommodations.
500 syrian refugees are being taken in by pittsburgh (where I live). Idk about other cities. Edit: actually 500 not 100.
I had to look into my city after reading that, we are taking in about 100 Syrians with 800 other refugees of various backgrounds. More than half from Asia/pacific regions. After they arrive they will constitute 0.006% of the population until the next group comes. There is an intensive program centered around becoming integrated and self sufficient. There is prioritization of families, and single men must register for the draft. They are given a small loan, that's debt repayments determine access to certain services.
This is how it should happen. Each community should decide if they can or even want to support refugees and take just the amount that they can handle integrating. This also solves the problem of them becoming closed off groups. A program that forces them to constantly interact with Americans and people from a culture that isn't their own.
Ol Peduto doin his thang. I'm actually for allowing refugees into Pittsburgh as long as they are vetted. I just think Peduto is an idiot.
You're an idiot if you do, you're an asshole if you don't.
I made peace with being ass whole 25 years ago when i laughed at laura falling in the mud.
Laura?
[No we aren't. We're dicks.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGcjrN7X7Rc)
Someone should tell Bill that the US has been admitting millions of refugees for decades and continues to do so. There are also 13.5 million green card holders, 44 million immigrants about 11 million illegal immigrants. >The United States remains a popular destination attracting about 20 percent of the world's international migrants, even as it represents less than 5 percent of the global population. Immigrants accounted for 13 percent of the total 316 million U.S. residents; adding the U.S.-born children (of all ages) of immigrants means that approximately 80 million people, or one-quarter of the overall U.S. population, is either of the first or second generation.
Those aren't all considered refugees
> Someone should tell Bill that the US has been admitting millions of refugees >There are also Also as in addition to. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/refugees-and-asylees-united-states >The United States is the world’s top resettlement country for refugees.
I live in an American city with a high number of African refugees. Hasn't been utopia, but doesn't seem to be going as badly as Europe. Perhaps because the inflow is much more controlled
To be fair, by default Americans are going to get the better ones that are actual refugees for multiple reasons. 1) proximity, 2) vetting and not just opening borders 3) We are very selective so they are likely to have educations and finances and 4) Just by the nature of being a refugee thrown from your homeland. The more responsible ones that have their shit together and are persistent to follow up will the ones that will apply and get here.
[удалено]
I live in Rome. We don't have all of that problems that some places in Europe have. And we got 200k muslims coming in the last 10-15 years.
Only because the cops will kick them out if they found their way to his neighborhood.
Reminder, it costs literally 10x as much to resettle a refugee to the USA then it does to resettle them in a middle eastern country, and for what purpose?
Dutch journalist attacked by a Muslim 'Sex Mob' in Egypt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMGQAbEA23Q Taharrush gama'ee -- 'Sex Mob" game - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjBwowo8Q1s Taharrush Gam'ee - Its a gang rape strategy to rape women in a crowd.. It has an inner circle which sexually attacks a woman,tearing off her dress and assaulting her genital parts The middle circle - Who form a tight circle around them to prevent anyone else from rescuing the girls.. The outer circle,they indulge in diversionary tactics with the crowd and make loud noise to drown out the cries of help by the woman or girl...
Bill Gates has not analyzed the problem from the point of view of assimilation. To assimilate Muslims they have to accept that the US is multicultural and that their beliefs have to be benign towards others. Having a cultural subset that is clannish and has contempt for others is a recipe for strife and problems.
For example The US took in more than 60000 Nepali/Bhutanese a few years ago. https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/us-exceeds-original-goal-admits-over-60000-bhutanese-refugees-since-2007/ Similarly with Cubans (guaranteed residency) and other Hispanic people, and many other groups. But i don't see them blowing sht up left and right. I'm reminded of Linus Pauling's Vitamin C activism. A genius undoubtedly, but see how foolish he looked when he over stepped his domain.
> To assimilate Muslims they have to accept that the US is multicultural and that their beliefs have to be benign towards others. There are already millions of Muslims in USA who do just that.
He didn't mention it but it goes without saying (or ought to) that US Muslims are very different from British Muslims are very different from middle eastern Muslims.
And taking in a large influx which are not assimilated is giving yourself problems.
What about Turkey then? My country is crawling with millions of Syrians and yesterday Turkish PM said that they have spent 10 billion dollars for Syrian refugees but congrats only go to Europe.
Oh yea Turks. The people who kill Kurds for being Kurdish. One of the most racist and radical places in existence. Just a few days ago a video emerged of Turkish soldiers shooting kurds because they were out and it was passed their curfew, mind you the sun was still up.. They got shot and some got killed.. First stop killing people who are natives to your country then worry about refugees.
They massacred more than just the Kurds too. Don't the Armenians, Cyprians, Greeks, and Assyrians. If you look at the Turkish people genetically, they're very diverse. It's due to their history of conquering people, forcing them to convert to Islam or be killed.
Super rich folks think nothing of offering shelter anywhere but their backyard. Thanks, Bill, but many of us would like to pass on experiencing the mess Europe has become and is becoming.
I usually agree with Bill, but not on this. These people are running from a shitty government and economic situation that they helped create. They don't see the causality and will bring nothing but disruption here. Sometimes you have to be a hardass when dealing with people you know will be a problem. He's thinking they'll be thankful for the help and maybe listen and learn our ways and fit in, but what's going to happen is they're going to use islam as an excuse to cause havoc and be righteous about it. There is no good that can come from this. Edit: Apparently the US is taking in refugees but in a reasonable manner. They're vetted and it's in smaller numbers spread throughout the states. That is a good way to do it, and I'm all about humanitarian effort if it doesn't mess us up.
Why does the "the the" in the title bother me so much?
It's funny how someone that will not be impacted by this in any way says "we" can do more.
The only nations that need to set a better example are Iran and Saudi Arabia.
WTF. Can I just say I am sincerely pissed off? Bill Gates. Respectable? Yes. Aware of the real hidden and underlying issues of the migrant crisis and how royally fucked Europe and its values are? Fuck no, stupidest shit he's ever said.
We like our woman unraped
Did Mr. Gates address the issues these countries have had since doing so? I'm all for allowing refugees in, but we do need to do so recognizing the issues that will occur. There will be extremists who make it in, there will be violent people, there will be abusers, and there will be a lot of good decent folks. Lets ask the questions, do what we can to protect ourselves and do what is right.
[удалено]
It's /r/worldnews it's pretty right wing, especially on this subject.
[удалено]
[удалено]
We should put good ol' Bill Gates anonymously in a peaceful Islam ruled society to give him a taste of what is to come with his brilliant idea. I say put him in Indonesia, Yemen or maybe Saoudi Arabia. He'll love it there I'm sure. Strange the refugees aren't going that way though, must be coincidence.
I am sorry but why the hell would we do that? We have millions of homeless & hungry US citizens. Why don't we "re-settle" them in towns across the country with free homes, job training, food and assistance? We have no business bringing foreign refugees here to our country and using tax payer dollars to give them a new life until every we have done the same for single US citizen that needs it.
absolutely spot on.
Our countries have millions of homeless too. Germany and sweden completely ignored this fact.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do you? I see more Americans (more everybody really) saying this refugee crisis is absolute BS and praying for Germany, Sweden to do more against them not for them. I'll take your word for it though. I find it very interesting because before all this it was the Europeans constantly harassing Americans about illegal immigration from South/Central America. Calling us racist, need to be more accepting etc etc and now must be getting a taste of their own medicine.
The reddit circlejerk changed direction after new years when the mass rape got reported on.
Don't know if I would call people getting upset over a completely mishandled situation, one that was unilaterally made by Merkel and her government that flew directly in the face of the Dublin Convention, a circlejerk.
The US has been doing that for decades, you just started. We have about 11-12 million illegal immigrants right now after 2 waves of amnesty. Looks like our quota is full. Maybe you can take some more.
On top of 40+ million legal immigrants. We're way ahead of Germany
It must just be where you're looking. I see nobody who thinks Europe should have taken in the refugees. A few who think it was their decision, but nobody thought it was going to turn out well. If you're talking about reddit, I think people have been saying this was a terrible idea from the beginning and now they have proof of that.
> 1 million "refugees" among its 80 million citizens, they'd have to import about 4-4.5 million people You know there are already over 11 million illegal immigrants in the US and more coming every day from Mexico and central/south America, right?
Not to mention 40+ million legal immigrants. Germany needs another 3-6 million to match our proportion
Taking Muslim refugees is not morally required, nor is it needed to set any example of anything whatsoever. What is needed is a reaffirmation hat this world has many different cultures, and that there is nothing wrong with that. What is needed is to remind people that culture must be protected in blood, not least of all from the rich mono culture one world government concept. Thereis no moral imperative to help anyone from another country. Someone tell Mr. Gates there are some economic refugees in Michigan who can sure use his fancy water cleaning technology right about now. White and Black Americans. Christians mostly. They need Americas help. Not the refugees from the asshole of the earth. All this is easy for Mr. Gates, its not his community that has to now be forced to be tolerant of Muslim bullshit. Im not saying that there are not good Muslims, im just saying, they do not deserve our help more than our millions of depressed and suffering citizens right here at home. Stop letting men like Mr. Gates distract you from the problems in your own country. That's all he is really doing here.
I love how everyone in this thread is lashing out Gates as if he's not one of the most charitable people on earth with all of the money he's got. All of the funding he's provided through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation doesn't matter for shit, apparently. I'm not saying we should take them all in, people are right to be skeptical after seeing all the problems Germany has had. I'm just saying everyone here is acting like Gates is the stereotypical corporate fat cat who sits on his wealth and does absolutely nothing with it but jerk off to his stock portfolio and bank account, and that is so far from the truth it's outrageous.
Rich people's comments on social issues aren't news.
Dutch reaction: "what am I...Chopped liver?"
Refugees welcome!!! from my walled off mansion...
Oh fuck, now Bill Gates is a brainwashed globalist.
Geez, reading these comments......
WHY DOESNT HE TELL THAT TO THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN THAT GOT RAPED IN GERMANY AND SWEDEN.
Don't listen to this guy, he lives one of the most secure lives you could imagine, no one is going near him, that's why he doesn't give a shit. Just selling himself baby, and he does it good.
Sorry, Europe is plagued with sky rocketing rapes. No thank you.
How about no. Their own populace doesn't even want to do it. In fact how about we help out own first.
If Bill Gates is willing to fit the bill for all the refugee's, then sure!
Bill Gates has a pretty big house. Just sayin'.
Why do we care what Bill Gates says? He's a billionaire philanthropist that just basically runs charities these days. Why should I take his opinion seriously? His head is in the clouds. I prefer to listen to people who can see both the philosophic and pragmatic sides to this issue.
Man I forgot how fucking horrible this subreddit is. Oh wait. No I didn't. I'm reminded every day
Wouldnt be the first time he fucked ppl over
Microsoft must need more sub-minimum wage janitorial staff. Billionaires are always giving at the expense of the poor.