By This Logic, We Wouldn't Allow Procreation
I find this meme to be silly and unconvincing.
It is not unreasonable to expect that 0.1% of any population is potentially dangerous. By this meme's implied logic (that if any of the refugees are bad we should not take any of them) we would never have allowed so much immigration of any sort in the past, immigration that has been undeniably beneficial to this country. But going further, by this logic we would not even allow procreation -- the number is hard to get at but 0.1% is not an unreasonable guess as to the chance that any person born today might end up being a murderer.
I am adamantly against both. What a horrid combination of stupidity and tyranny. The Greeks tried it - always ended in disaster.
Like the American Founding Fathers, I am for strictly limited representative government, rule of law, and above all - liberty.
Yes, because their actions are proven to be counterproductive to the health of their families and children. Anyone sane should see that they have been making exactly zero progress in winning their war against the west. They are tossing generation after generation of their children in the toilet trying to advance their medieval point of view. All that happens is that their homes get less and less secure, the damage and anguish of their young increases, and they seethe more and more.
The strong among them should repent and see the error of their ways. They should say:
We are wrong. We should have had the courage to institute free speech and freedom of religion, and then our technology would not be in such bad shape. Others would rush to live among us and work with us.
We should have had the courage to stop repressing our women, so that their labor and intelligence could help us build futures for our children.
Some of us even had the resources to do the job right, as we had been blessed with huge stores of oil.
Instead we drank from vessels filled with the spirit of hate, and it intoxicated us. Our poison became our antidote and then our poison again, until we were addicted. Many of us died before we saw that there was no end.
If we had asked for help for our people and you had helped us learn how to make our lives better, instead of letting our leaders live in obscene luxury and idleness, we would not now be suffering so much and have inflicted suffering upon you and our people.
We are sorry. We were wrong.
Instead, they continue to lash out in criminal, terrorist ways. Yes, of course I know they can do naught else if they want to continue the fight. But they should realize that the fight is useless. (Of course their demographic assault continues, and may in time be successful. I don't discount that.)
For our part, we are failing to just go ahead and win the war. We are signing up for this to continue by not just killing a million or so until they say uncle. That is the way wars have always been won, and we won't do that any more. We're hoping they see the light. But they are not.
If you are all OK and down with that, and want to be as stupid as they are, fine. But that doesn't mean I want to have truck with you. Goodbye.
The problem is all the lying by those insisting on taking the Syrian refugees. Once you pick up on it the gut response is to say no. If it was such a reasonable idea why the need to lie?
Examples:
- Dec 2011 President Obama signed into law preferential access for LGBT refugee/asylum seekers based on the premise that such individuals represented a group more at risk compared with others. Based on that standard Syrian Christian refugees should receive preferential access due being at risk from ISIS, being drafted into war on Assad's side, and murder by the Syrian Muslim refugees.
- The press is presenting the cost of refugees as only 3 months of assistance. In actuality refugees are immediately eligible for a number of government assistance programs and there is every indication that 40% - 70% of refugees remain on assistance for +5 years.
- Many are suggesting that the US is not doing its fair share and that refusal to take the 10,000 syrian refugee means the US is not doing anything. In fact the US has more refugees waiting for asylum than spots available. If the 10,000 syrian refugees are not taken there are 10,000 refugees from other parts of the world the US would take instead. On average the US takes ~70,000 refugees each year and that looks to increase the number of refugees to 100,000 annually.
"For our part, we are failing to just go ahead and win the war. We are
signing up for this to continue by not just killing a million or so
until they say uncle."
"We" have already killed a million or so, and among that million or so are the very women and children you say you want to help. Are you OK with that? You believe that we should step up the effort even if it involves killing thousands or even millions more innocents - in addition to thousands or tens of thousands of US soldiers?
That might not be so bad, but how do you keep it limited? It hasn't worked.
That's the game since the day the Constitution was enacted. Progressives push against those limits with all their might, while conservatives halfheartedly resist.
I don't understand your argument. One is wrong because we're not currently doing it that way and one is right because we are currently doing it that way?
This is a very late response, but boy did you screw the pooch Warren. After San Bernardino I think your logic or lack thereof speaks for itself. Or are you THAT desperate for cheap labor in your business that you're willing to overlook a little bloodshed? Got to break a few eggs to make an omelet, eh?
That's true only of 1st generation immigrants - those who sweated and sacrificed to come here nearly always just want to fit in and to earn a living. The 2nd generation are much different. A portion of their children are always resentful of being stuck between cultures. Each wave of immigration has spawned gangs (Irish, Italian, Chinese tongs and other Asian gangs, even German and Jewish), and much of our current criminal population is Hispanic 2nd and 3rd generation. In the long run, we've come out far ahead; e.g., the contributions to our society from Italians and Jews far outweigh the social costs of the Mafia and Murder, Inc.
But there are two dubious assumptions when you try to apply this history to this wave of Muslim/Arab immigrants - that their motives and adaptability are the same, and that there is no conspiracy to hide a 5th column among them. I can readily think of two historical counter-examples:
1) The Amish and Mennonites: Their religion has kept many of them distinct from American society even after many generations. This hasn't been a problem for society because their religious beliefs encourage them to be very nice and law-abiding people. The Muslim religion is far more distinct from mainstream American culture, and it does not teach pacifism or to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
2) Cross-border criminals have always hid themselves among Mexican and other Hispanic immigrants. But they're not trying to destroy our society, just to profit beyond a fair share. Jihadists among the "Syrian" refugees...