Rep. Cicilline: We Should Accept Many More Refugees
Rhode Island Congressman David Cicilline is spearheading an effort to get the White House to accept more than the 10,000 Syrian refugees they’ve agreed to so far. He spoke with me on radio Thursday night, saying that America has a moral responsibility to take people in, especially if they want to come here to work and not “take advantage of America.” Seventy other members of Congress are supporting the congressman’s efforts.
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
4 responses to Rep. Cicilline: We Should Accept Many More Refugees
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
maggie September 25th, 2015 at 14:01
I have neglected to comment on refugees since my despairing comments over our inaction….thank you rep cicilline……don’t know you but you are a compassionate man…..have a little faith in me…..all you have to do is have a little faith in me….when we engage in war we must accept that it’s a destructive process that ruins innocent lives…and we must all be accountable…I am so glad that the EU decided to have quotas and spread every one around…every one must do their part…of course….regime friendly people will slip through…their hearts will most of the time be changed…but I have faith that we can vet most people to keep out regime operatives…can’t just leave people to drown….starve, be bombed flee their homes to live in refugee camps the rest of their lives….that leaves…what to do about syria….? now that Iran has agreed to the deal I think it makes resolving the syrian conflict…not easier….less difficult….thanks for interviewing this guy alan…;) cheers to you…;)
maggie September 25th, 2015 at 14:05
GO DAVE FROM RHODE ISLAND
Robert Smithson September 25th, 2015 at 22:28
Why? A far better plan would be to create a safe zone in Syria and arm all the young men of fighting age to help defend the newly created safe area.
bpollen September 26th, 2015 at 03:05
I will welcome your references for the efficacy of the “safe zone” concept, and a breakdown of the human costs to American soldiers and Syrian civilians in this “boots on the ground” military intervention you propose. Kurds have been kicking ISIS ass, but you want to create a “safe zone” in ADDITION to the massively safer Kurdish controlled area. Kurds have closed the main border crossings that supply foreign reinforcements. Please explain the benefit of creating two totally different “safe zones” within the same country as opposed to expanding the existing “safe zone.”
You’re going to Syria to show them how it’s done, aren’t you? Because committing others lives to enforce an unproven strategy without being willing to put his own skin on the line would be a chickenshit chickenhawk cowardly thing for an actual MAN to do. You decide: craven coward or courageous leader?