They are humans, we are obligated to help them.

Not at the cost of the American people. Besides, let me show you something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

We can do much more good than simply letting people in.

We're letting in refugees, not immigrants or gumballs(they should deal with their own problems, Babubble Al-Chocalate isn't that bad). Let them stay for a while, then send them back to Syria with some aid to where they came from.

It would be difficult to keep track of them. Look at the visa system. Even if we could, what if they refused, or the war dragged on? Would children of the refugees ("anchor babies") be citizens?

I suppose. The most we'll get is going to be in the tens of thousands, not millions. It'll be like Canada, not like Germany, and most certainly not like Turkey.

This is not about freedom, this is about race. Racial and ethnic divisions are awful and are responsible for awful conditions in many places.

Ok, then the US and any other nations on Earth shall cease to exist with your reasoning, I am not against it actually. And yes Racial and ethnic divisions are awful, but divisions led by supremacist, warmongering and imperialist powers is worse than anything else.

They've been non-independent for more than a hundred years. It's not like Romania should give away Transylvania because they're not all Romanians, same with Transnistria, same with Tibet, same with Tuva, same with South-Eastern Nigeria, and same with Euskadi.

Same with Karabagh inhabited by 99% of Armenians but recognized internationally as part of Azerbaijan because it was decided a hundred years ago among high diplomats without the consent of the people living there, same with Tibet which used to be an independent state and is now colonized by millions of Chinese migrants coming there to destroy their culture and nation and assimilate it to China. Same with Western Papua, inhabitated by native Papuans but heavily suffering since the 50s from Indonesian colonization, stealing their lands, killing Papuans and destroying their villages, why? because the island of Papua was divided in 2 by Western powers (Netherlands and Britain) and it ended with Papua New Guinea as a sovereign state and Western Papua integrated to Indonesia without consulting the population living there. This is unfair, but there is plenty of similar examples. Many borders have to be redefined.

Ok, then the US and any other nations on Earth shall cease to exist with your reasoning, I am not against it actually. And yes Racial and ethnic divisions are awful, but divisions led by supremacist, warmongering and imperialist powers is worse than anything else.

Sounds like a plan

Same with Karabagh inhabited by 99% of Armenians but recognized internationally as part of Azerbaijan because it was decided a hundred years ago among high diplomats without the consent of the people living there

Decided by Stalin who reorganized the Transcausasia SSR into three SSRs that would be internally divided after the fall of the Soviet Union and not be able to stand against Russia.

Tibet which used to be an independent state and is now colonized by millions of Chinese migrants coming there to destroy their culture and nation and assimilate it to China.

Humans are going to a place with humans to make human culture human.

This is unfair, but there is plenty of similar examples. Many borders have to be redefined.

Redefining borders means placing humans in different pens, basing it on arbitrary differences and calling it freedom. Tibet before 1950 had serfdom , you could sell your children for Buddha's sake. And now you're whining that China built them up economically and is allowing people from China to work there?

Redefining borders means placing humans in different pens, basing it on arbitrary differences and calling it freedom.

No, not "arbitrary differences", this is why many borders are currently not valid, because they were drawn arbitrarily without respecting the people actually living inside these borders.

Decided by Stalin

Yes decided by Stalin, Stalin actually hated Armenians (for who knows the reason), and this was even pointed by Turkish diplomats (who were at that time not recognized to be very Armenophiles either...). Dividing a people just because of a dictator's decision, do you see now why some borders need to be redefined?

Tibet before 1950 had serfdom , you could sell your children for Buddha's sake

China wasn't far form it before 1917 (see the movie master piece "The Last Emperor" illustrating it) , and this is out of topic, cultures change, people change. Who knows how Tibet would have been without Chinese interference? See Mongolia.

Edited 3/30/2016 00:00:01

Mongolia was a Soviet puppet since the Whites invaded in the civil war. They did not evolve independently of communist intervention. The only way Tibet could get rid of it's slave owning system is if a modernizing leader came to power, which is nearly impossible because Tibet was a theocracy.

I was talking about nowadays, Mongolia is currently showing great improvements, economically one of the top performers (average of 14% of annual growth these last years well above most Asian nations) despite being landlocked by 2 giants that are sometimes hostile to this nation. Mongolia also used to have a close and similar model to the Tibetan one (these 2 states shared many cultural, political, and socio-economical traits.
About Tibet, your argumentation about Tibet and slavery is similarly defended (how surprising) by the Chinese and anti-Tibet propaganda, whereas you (perhaps purposely) omit that attempts of modernization were made in TIbet before the Chinese invasion, and efforts made by the Tibetan authorities to modernise the country and improve conditions in Tibet in the first half of the 20th Century. The Tibet government recognized that traditional Tibetan society was, by no means, perfect and was in need of changes. The Dalai Lama and other Tibetan leaders have admitted as much. That is the reason why the Dalai Lama initiated far-reaching reforms in Tibet as soon as he assumed temporal authority. The traditional Tibetan society, however, was not nearly as bad as China would have us believe.

All of the land is owned by landlords and monasteries(the government) and you can't leave, don't have rights and are going to live and die poor. You might be killed by a Muslim Raider, there is no social mobility what-so-ever(even in China there was, if you were in the party or military at least).

Xizang was greatly improved under China. Let's face the truths: it's a mountainous country, that if independent, would be preyed upon by China and India, that has no agricultural or industrial potent whatsoever and is more or less just a Chinese outpost against India, which is why there has been any development there at all. Now food is real, in Xizang.

Also, borders, who cares about borders. Change them if some stupid rats' arses who need to go to hell get violent, but otherwise, just keep them as is. Who cares, we're all fellows. Changing borders is mainly irredentist rhetor, supported by governments (not just of their own folk, but of other folk who would be happy to weaken other governments - f.e. America wants independent Tibet since they can use this as a propoganda point of how authoritarian and inhumane China is and since Tibetan independence would weaken China a bit, and encourages Tibetan violence against Chinese that are in Xizang) and if you believe in it, they've succeeded in their goal. Nationalism is an usually government-directed propoganda.

Now Papua being divided into two: West Papuans have to be with the government of Indonesia, boo-hoo. Now folk from Java and Sumatra are migrating from their native lands to the great Papua, oh no. What's that? They're killing folk? Oh, no, we got to kill them, too.