Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I don’t have the answer to your question. But I the netherlands is often called by “the” as is the hague and the Bronx
These can be googled…
Health
I still dont get it. so they both get EKG’s so wether you suspect heart attack or not doesnt really matter. ITs not like either case is having troponins drawn in the field or are they?
Do you only check fingerstick with one vehicle?
If the driver has pinpoint pupils, barely breathing would you only give narcan if only one vehicle was involved?
In what way is the managment different?
Health
“Are you in EMS? “
Nope.
“Let me explain it further.”
thanks, isnt that why you started the thread?
“The point I was making is that you evaluate for both medical & trauma at the same time. This is only for a single car accident.”
If you dont mind, id like further explanation. SO EKG would be done for a one car accident but not for multi-car?
“You should assume possible driver impairment as the cause of a 1 car accident.
Heart attack, stroke, drug use, drunk, suicide, etc.”
2scents said
“By maintaining and securing ABCs. Taking spinal precautions loading the pt and transporting to a trauma center.
Large bore iV in route. Other treatments would be splinting, needle d, as needed. “
I’m confused whihc of the above take precedence over ABC’s (or CAB’s)? Even if you had high suspicion of Heart attack, as far as I”m aware CAB’s still come first then you can decide whether to go to trauma center or one with PCI in the unlikely event that you cant find a facility with both.
Joseph
i’d be glad to.
Read about the immigration act of 1924. (Which while not based on communist affiliation per se, did heavily restrict immigrants from Eastern Europe)
Dont get to caught up on immigration legislation per se. Since my point was regarding the excuse. People were afraid of communists, Jews were occasionaly communists. Thus they were vary of Jews coming in. This isnt unreasonable. There is a nice wikipedia page on the First Red scare.
of course they were wrong!
Also dont just limit to communists read about the anarchist exclsuion act which became the immigration act of 1918. As you may have guessed many Jews were Anarchists (Emma Goldman comes to mind)
Joseph
sorry that is incorrect. The first red scare took place just after the Russian Revolution in 1919 Led by AG Palmer. In certainly picked up after WW2 but many laws were designed in the 20’s 30’s to prevent Communists from servinf in any fedearal office and – more to the point- prevent immigration of supected Communists
syag
“I was arguing the “blanketness” of your viewpoints”
I have reiterated several times. I am only talking about when deemed safe, i am not talking about a blanket allowance.
Joseph
again while i agree with you, that isnt objective.
Whcih would you rather live in France with its refugees and recent terror attack or the Former Soviet Union?
now granted Its quite far fetched for the U.S. to have turned into the Soviet Union by allowing some refugees even if communist in. however there was mass anti-communist hysteria at the time (as well as a depression)and people were nervous granted the fear was overstated.
But the risk the refugees pose is alos being over-stated. There is a thorough vetting process in place that takes almost 2 years and involves almost every intelligence agency. Tourists pose a greater threat! None of the terror attacks in the US since and including 9/11 have been via the over 700,000 refugees we have taken in since then.
Its getting hard to keep track of all the various postitions. so here they are as I understand them.
My apolagies If Ive misunderstood you. Please correct me and feel free to add categories or add yourself
On the issue of syrian refugees
1) Let as many in as want to come
– nobody here says this
2) Lets as many is as we can safely (and practicly)
– a. Which we can do – Ubiquitin, Sam2, akuperma, Avi K
– b. but impossible – DY, Syag
3) Prevent them from coming – Health, Newbee, Joseph, flatbusher, dbrim
Again please correct me if IVe misunderstood
Joseph
“Mass murdering terrorists are far far worse than commie sympathizers.”
I agree completly. But they may not have
“And it is fairly easy to determine if a refugee is Jewish or not”
how on Earth. Sadly most werent frum they were coming From Germany?
Syag
I turned a phrase to make a point (pretty cleverly if I may say so 🙂
Lest anyone think it was unsuccesful. Let’s do it again
“Besides differences in political, ideological, social, economic variables, etc.,”
Care to elaborate?
” bear in mind that the 1930’s the was pre-terror, pre 9/11 world.”
Yes but they had their concerns Communism, anarchist (many of whom were Jewish) and the possibility of Nazi Spies infiltrating the refugees
“Anyway, if we want to consider the issue from an empirical perspective, meaning what happens when the flow of muslim migrants enters a foreign country, we don’t have to look any further than Europe – and it’s not pretty.”
In what sense?
(See my new thread for related discussion)
” Chayecha Kodmin.”
This part I agree with. And Am only reffering to where the neccesary agencies feel it is safe.
“is an apples-elephants comparison”
Maskim, because you like apples but not elephants. However that shouldnt be a factor in doing whats right, and who knows what if apples were to become unpopular again
Your point has been addressed numerous times
Newbee
“Well said.”
What was well said? both of the lines before that are my answers to you
Which answer do you accept?
If a meshulach asks me for money, Do you think my replying well I cant help you there are lots of needy people out there is a valid reply?
none of the groups you mentioned are facing death to nearly the same extent (with the possible exception of Africa). It is estimated that around 200,000 people have been killed over the past few years alone.
“First of all Syria is not Nazi Germany performing genocide.”
a) when the st. Louis was sent back there was no genocide in Germany yet. Do you think the US was right to send them back?
b) So you agree that victims of Genocide can come? seems arbitrary but ok I can live with that
“Second they should be going to other ISLAMIC COUNTRIES. “
a) Many of the refugees arent Muslim which is part of the problem and partly what is driving the campaign of violence against them (keep this in mind when you answer “b” above it is a trap)
b) Sadly many of the Islamic countries arent willing to take them
As for your question. Even though it is a new topic and doesnt affect the syrian refugees as I replied earlier. I’ll answer directly
“should we not take all of those people into the US?”
No, much as we shouldnt take all Syrians and shouldnt have taken all Jews in the 30’s. But yes we should (and often do) take what we can.
Please note we arent talking about throwing open the border and letting anybody from Syria in the re is a long vetting process that can take up to 2 years.
Which is why Health’s comment is silly so hopefully you wont agree with it. It is a lot easier to get in a tourist! So leaving syrians to their death wont even prevent what is “happening/happened in Europe will happen here.” The much easier/quicker way in is still open to terrorists. Of the >700,000 refugees allowed in over the past decade 4 were arrested for anything terrorist related (and only one directed against the U.S. On the other hand NONE of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 where refugees!
Now that I answered your question would you be so kind as to answer mine. Here they are again: edited – please be respectful to those you are debating
1. Is it a valid response to tell one meshulach, I cant elp you becasue there are lots of other meshulachim out there?
2. In 1939 before any systematic genocide was taking place Do you think the U.S. was justified in sending back the St. Louis
3. Would you allow those facing Genocide asylum in the U.S. (again, and this goes without saying and is a prerequisite to my point, only if deemed safe by a thorough vetting process
DY
I’m sorry I’ll try to be clearer.
If i would tell a meshulach, “I’m sorry I cant help you since there are lots of meshulachim out there”. You would (I assume) correctly say what does that have to do with anything. He needs help, help him who cares if you cant help other people.
Thus the fact that there are “millions and millions of latinos, chinese, koreans, africans, and indians etc that desperately want to come to the US” is completley irrelevant to the subject at hand. Sure we can start a new thread to discuss those people, but this thread isnt about them.
As for the St. Louis. It is entirely relevant for two reasons:
1) because that is PRECISELY my point. That we the descendants of those who were denied entry should be extra careful, extremly compassionate, and be sure to exhaust all possibilities before denying that freedom to others. THIS IS ONE OF MY MAIN POINTS (not yelling, just for emphasis) as I have outlined here http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/banning-syrian-refugees-from-the-us/page/2#post-589144
2) As a direct response to Newbee’s question (even if it was relevant) I am asking if had that excuse been used against us eg “We’d love to take you out of Hitler’s Germany but what about all the millions and millions of latinos, chinese, koreans, africans, and indians etc that desperately want to come to the US” would he accept it. and say good point, I guess the U.S. was right to sent back the St. Louis
DY
First of all that is one of the very two points I am making see here where I outline them http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/banning-syrian-refugees-from-the-us/page/2#post-589144 so it is quite relevant.
and second of all Those are both my points! If you think the St. Louis isnt relevant then you agree with my answer 1 to Newbee. If you think it is relevant then the question is a valid reply to newbee’s point.
Either way Newbee’s question is addressed.
newbee
“I am curious to know if anyone actually living in a place that the refugees would start living could weigh in on this”
i live in NYC. you can bet they’ll end up here.
“I want to know why we can’t allow in the millions and millions of latinos, chinese, koreans, africans, and indians etc that desperately want to come to the US but cant. I dont think its fair.”
1) Start a new thread, how does that affect the issue at hand
2) Most of those arent facing death
3)Would you accept that as a reason for the Us to have turned back the St. louis in 39?
mdd
“The case has been proven”
What case? and proven how?
with what point do you disagree.
Again keep in mind i am only talking about cases where they can be vetted properly. With Israel there is a seperate demographic issue which is why only a token could be considred (Netanyahu said the same though he said not even a token, Herzog said to take some).
DY
“You would not want to compromise your or your family’s safety”
I dont want to compromise anyones safty. This whole discussion is contingent on the refugees undergoing a vigorous vetting process.
joseph
“and we don’t trust the government agencies’ claims that it is not a major security concern.”
allthouh DY made that above stament, I assume you agree. didnt you say on the Iran deal thread that I cant argue with “those in the know” If they say its safe who are you to argue?
As for my guest bedroom. a) There are shelters available (and we have them and fund them for a reason) so your question is silly. b) hypotheticly, if there were none if he underwent a fraction of the vetting process they have to undergo, I’d consider taking him.
Btw teyereh ziseh Jospeh
I cant help but notice that as per your MO you STILL havent answered my question regarding children
bottom line I agree if there is a safety concern they shouldnt be allowed (I never said otherwise).
I am saying two things
1) Our attitude should be one of trying to help “getting to yes”, comng up with a way to make the vetting process safer. If it still isnt rigorous enough, then make it stricter. Still not safe? Make it stricter etc etc Saying there is no way case closed is unacceptable.
2) We should have an atttude of compassion and feel bad for those we cant help, whether after the above the vetting process is still not enough or the reailty that we cant take all. And realize that we were in the same boat as the (mostly innocent)refugees. ALL the excuses you and others are making where made then. Granted perhaps your excuses carry a little more weight than theirs. But they had all your moshols or your risks just directed against us.
Joseph
Yes and Yes
DY
No but I would favor building more. Wouldnt you?
Though I dont follow. did anyone suggest putting the refugees in your house?
Syag
“maybe all the other countries should be combining their efforts …”
They should!
Joseph
what are you talking about? No but i do think we should have homeless shelters for them and I support some of those shelters by way of taxes.
dont you agree?
Israel is different because it is a “jewish state” so there is a demographic issue.
syag
Why is that the refugees fault?
syag
I get your first paragraph.
Im lost on the second one. Are you saying becasue Arab countries are selfish we can be too? I dont follow. Yes Many Arab countries are doing a terrible thing by not taking intheir own cousins, how does that absolve us.
“I don’t remember the Jews ever being in such a situation.”
We were in the 30’s (minus the ties to terror part, but dont worry they had their excuses) Many said we should go to our cousins in Palestine. Of course much like the Arab countries today, the rulers of palestine didnt let us in. So that like your suggestion today wasnt a real option
Syag
i assumed “That” reffered to the situation ie condeming thousands upon thosands to people to death becasue of the (valid) concern that a small minority of them are terrorists.
The reason being that “I don’t think anyone believes that all the security will ever be in place” which even if true (though all anti-terror agencies disagree with your assesment)is a horrible horrible situation that you should have a very big problem with.
I’m sorry if you were reffering to something else
This op ed of yours was accepted
SDD
Its not worth arguing over, since I clearly misunderstood what you meant.
entitled means (one definition) they have a “JUST CLAIM” to do something. Just claim means it is correct. In your OP you said these questions are not correct.
Thats all.
As you explained you did not mean “entitled” in the sense that it is a correct action but rather that they have the right to.
That is fair. I am not arguing, I misunderstood.
For example is someone “entitled” to speak lashan hara?
No in the sense that as a yid it is not allowable nor just. but yes in the sense that it is not illegal so he has a legal right to.
flatbusher
“Despite the Administraton’s claim that it’s orphans and widows coming, at least two-thirds are able-bodied men,”
we get to decide who we let in.
SCD
“The terror threat could easily be avoided by doing the same thing they did with the Japanese in WWII”
Are you serious? that is one of the most vile times of our history. That is usually used as an exmple of what not to do
Syag
“I’m hoping you heard the rest of it, which I believe is pretty important. it is that getting to yes will probably never actually reach yes because I don’t think anyone believes that all the security will ever be in place.”
So lets strive towards it!
“I don’t think anyone believes that all the security will ever be in place.”
THe FBI, CIA, and department of homeland security feel otherwise
” And I have no problem with that.”
That is cruel. Which is what I was reffering to when responding to OP. Its one thing to feel bad for the suffering mostly innocent people becasue there is no choice. But to not have a problem with their suffering is cruelty and is why the st. Louis was sent back in 39.
DY
I missed it because almost all those statments are in the ou’s statement!
“The heinous attacks in Paris this week demonstrate that ISIS, and other similar militant Islamic terrorist groups, have both the desire and means to strike terror in the capitals of the Western world. Clearly, this must impact the manner in which the United States considers the acceptance of refugees from Syria and other war-torn countries in the Middle East. … security concerns are real and serious. We cannot be naive in our assessment of the determination of terrorists to exploit the refugee crisis. And we should limit immigration to those individuals who share our American ideals and aspirations…
Thus, we encourage a sensible process of reviewing and enhancing security. … While security concerns must be paramount, …Congress and the Executive Branch should review the screening program for refugees and strengthen it as appropriate. … America has both the creativity and compassion to successfully address the competing considerations and we urge our political leaders to work toward achieving this delicate balance.”
After rereviewing This line “America has both the creativity and compassion to successfully address the competing considerations” is the one you seem to disagree with (Though I guess it is creativty that you beleive we lack not compassion). Thanks for replying.
I reposted just the staments tho that effect.
Are yu saying you only agree with those statments, not the rest?
My question was which part you DISAGREE with? if any
Syag
“i agree with it because it states what i was saying, that we can be sensitive to the plight of refugees, but we cannot become idealistic and agenda-istic and ignore the fact that there may be some very dangerous people among them. sure we should be “getting to yes”…”
Great! i love when we agree. It is an issue of attitute. and the attitude many in our community and in the political realm (eg Trump, christie) have is one of xenophobia, which should have no place in the discussion. And we of all people should be very careful.
yehudayona
none refute the presence of gangsters among Jewish refugees. Though i am not saying there WERE gangsters, just that that could have been used as an excuse to send them back to their deaths.
“The argument against the Jewish refugees wasn’t that they were criminals, it was that they were communists,”
The argument could have been anything! It was wrong. and is prominently exhibited as an example of the world in general and the Us in particular ignoring our people’s suffering.
DY
“which part? Already posted.”
i’m sorry, mind pointing it out please. (do you mean the comparison Jewish refugees?)
Joseph
care to reply to any of my questions?
You often claim you do…
CA
I was confused by your post at first. i understood your first line “Comparing refugees that aren’t known killers with refugees that are known killers is wrong!” As supporting the refugees since after all we shouldnt compare most of those refugees who “aren’t known killers” with the few that are.
“being Jewish wasn’t associated with being in the mafia today being Muslim is being associated with being a terrorist”
Of course it was. People in the 30’s didnt (always) say we are a bunch of xenophobes and antisemites and dont want to take Jews even children on our shores. They had all sorts of excuses including mafia, communism, nazi spies etc etc.
Bottom line Here is the OU stament again:
“”The heinous attacks in Paris this week demonstrate that ISIS, and other similar militant Islamic terrorist groups, have both the desire and means to strike terror in the capitals of the Western world. Clearly, this must impact the manner in which the United States considers the acceptance of refugees from Syria and other war-torn countries in the Middle East. While most of those refugees are innocent bystanders whose lives have been wrecked by ISIS and similar groups, security concerns are real and serious. We cannot be naive in our assessment of the determination of terrorists to exploit the refugee crisis. And we should limit immigration to those individuals who share our American ideals and aspirations.
does anybody here disagree with it? whihc part?
DY
Yes! though partly
My next question is if you support a way of SAFELY letting in refugees
Thats all Im saying. None of us are actually making policy (sorry if you thought otherwise)
Syag
“but that still has nothing to do with the issue at hand.”
My issue is attitude
“you cannot confuse attitude with action here. feeling a strong desire to allow innocent syrians in because we were in the same situation cannot blind you to opening the door without discretion.
i have NO idea what the right thing is to do, but you appear to be discussing attitude with people who are discussing action.”
Lol the state department doesnt check the coffee room for policy ideas.
See the OU stament above.