We, Americans and the West, forcibly repatriated Soviets and other eastern block citizens that we knew would be ultimately killed after WW2 to placate Stalin. That is truly reprehensible behavior. Not accepting Syrian refugees is nowhere near that standard of evil. FDR refused to allow Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler to enter the USA. Some liberals have very short memories.
There was a very small risk. I judge that the risk of Syrian refugees is much, much greater. As a matter of fact, I’m 99% certain that we will either get attacked by some of them, or foil an attack by some of them if we’re fortunate.
Note that I’m not going after people for wanting to admit them. I understand the desire to do so completely. But I thought hard about the relative merits vs. the risks and I have to conclude that it’s just not in our interests. And personally, by Democrats and their supporters basically making it a test of individual morality, they are going to alienate a LOT of voters. which means they’ll probably snap back and act like they are just as tough on refugees as Republicans are(Maggie Hassan is already going there), while all the time patting themselves on the back for their superior morality because in their hearts they believed the right thing while appeasing the rubes.
My favorite was a recent NY Times article that said we shouldn’t accept Cuban doctors as asylum cases because it messed up Cuba’s health care system.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/opinion/a-cuban-brain-drain-courtesy-of-us.html?_r=0
It would be easier to respect liberals’ moral values if they really believed them and weren’t just worshipping at the altar of political correctness.
You don’t even try, do you? Just repeat whatever you hear on Fox and pretend you’re thinking for yourself, right?
When you can show you accept responsibility for the consequences of your wallowing in bigotry and ignorance and fear, you can start to talk that way. But that isn’t going to happen any time soon, is it?
There could be a dozen ISIS assholes among the refugees, with the abilities to buy guns and shoot people in a shopping mall. This is all possible. It’s also possible that by rejecting refugees, many of them would be radicalized (or take desperate actions like joining ISIS, since desperate people will often do desperate things to survive without other options) and ISIS gets stronger. And it’s possible that some Americans on the brink of radicalization might be pushed over the edge by uncompassionate and un-American actions like rejecting refugees.
I think the last possibilities are both far more likely and would be far more damaging than the first. Rejecting refugees would be more risky for America and Americans than taking them in, in my view.
Tell that to the people in Paris.
I understand the point you’re making but you’re ignoring that they(ISIS) believe their gateway to heaven involves martyrdom at the expense of innocent civilian lives. They have sworn to kill us, and they are making good on that promise. The Crips, on the other hand, generally target rival gang members.
Excerpting quotes is acceptable, often necessary. Reread the rules if you need to.
You can’t possibly have typed that with a straight face.
Some liberals learn from past mistakes. FDR was wrong then, and you’re wrong now.
When France expels its Syrian refugees, we can consider having this discussion. Until then, “tell that to Paris” is a ridiculous argument.
You’ve gotta stop watching cable news. They rile you up and scare you for the ratings.
What are the consequences? That we don’t get attacked by refugees we let in? Oh the horror! I don’t know how I’ll sleep at night.
I do accept that bigotry is not a good thing. The same as I accept that war is not a good thing, and the use of force in general is not a good thing. But there are necessary evils, and this is one of them.
Compassion is political correctness?
You got that wrong too.
Here, since you apparently need help
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7697048&postcount=11
Why does the NY Times lack compassion for Cuban doctors? And as I recall, there wasn’t much taste among the left for taking in Cuban refugees either. Punishment for them voting Republican perhaps, or lingering affection for Castro? You decide.
That we strengthen ISIS and other enemies, increase the likelihood of radicalization, as well as condemning many of these refugees to death.
That we engender more hate, more bitterness - more recruits for ISIL. That we debase ourselves in an attempt to pander to the fearful and ignorant. That we lose who we are.
But you don’t see that you’re engaging in it, and making excuses for it.
Has letting refugees in been particularly effective at deradicalizing anyone? Seems to me it’s encouraging radicalization in Europe.
You keep on saying the kinds of things a Democrat would have in 2004 despite 11 years of evidence to the contrary.
Letting refugees in has not helped Europe, in fact it may have increase ISIL recruitment.
No, I acknowledged I was engaging in it pretty much from the start. I have REASONS for it, rational reasons, and I’m willing to defend those reasons. As I said, necessary evils.
Why is it “necessary” when actual ISIS agents can enter the country so many other ways? Aren’t your people always telling us about how ISIS is entering the country via our undefended borders?
They voluntarily signed up for that sort of thing or do you think they thought they signed up to pet puppies and smell flowers?
Because the whole point of favoring the doctors was to disrupt Cuba. The doctors were pawns. There was no concern for the doctors themselves.