>2015
>Unironically citing Sam Harris and Bill Maher
I’m not following your logic. People, even educated people, are worried about terrorism: True. The Democrats should take a strong stand against terrorism: Sensible. Therefore, we should limit the refugees we take in: Wait, what? What do they have to do with anything? If anything, a strong stance against terrorism should mean doing more to help their victims, not less.
So, break up families?!
Neither is an ideological test for immigrants/refugees compatible with the American way of life.
I don’t see how adhering to existing policy wrt immigration and asylum means letting ISIS win. Our actions should be driven by our own interests, independent if those actions align with ISIS or not.
As to the proposal in the OP, sacrificing principles for political expedience is unseamly. If the body politic has moved away from your principles, it doesn’t mean you should change your principles, it means you shouldn’t lead.
Wow, this is a crazy idea. Was the OP being sarcastic?
My demographic (white, 50’s) can be won over on the refugee issue, but Hillary needs to step up her game.
E.g., there have been times past when the USG deported immigrants for being anarchists or Communists – and I hope no one here will seriously contend that is anything but a disgraceful stain on American history.
I’d respond but apparently I need to check in with MoveOn and Michael Moore to find out what I should think first.
“We shouldn’t respond by essentially calling them idiots. That way lies electoral disaster.”
On this thread the “essentially” was dispensed with…
If “limit” means “take twice as many, or more”, then sure.
A young woman blew herself up with a suicide vest during the raid in Paris this morning.
True this.
On 9/11 I distinctly remember being scared going up the elevator to my apartment. It was only later when the shock wore off that I rationally realized that it was unlikely that Al Qaeda would bother running an airplane into a 16 story apartment building even if it was on the outskirts of DC.
I reject the premise of the OP. It may indeed be politically expedient to refuse entry to Syrian refugees now just as it was politically expedient to send that boatload of Jews back to Germany in the 1930s, but it would be just as morally wrong. When these attacks happen, the xenophobes and racists come out of the woodwork and Republicans bend over backwards to cater to them. For Democrats to follow this immoral lead would be suicide. If you’re a hater, you already vote Republican and catering to you makes no sense.
So Bob, you think Kevin Drum is way off to worry about “electoral disaster”? I don’t.
BTW, all the appeals to statistical unlikelihood could also apply to regular American mass shootings. Does that mean we should stop opposing the NRA? Be consistent now!
Was she the mother of small children?
The problem with such craven triangulation is that voters prefer the real thing, not some watered down swill from a non-believer trying to trick them. You also depress your own base.
You set up a dilemma. Which is better?
- Families together, but not in America.
- Women and children in America, men stranded.
I don’t think the second option is particularly attractive to most people at first glance, even the theoretical nativists you’re trying to woo. You still want mass immigration.
I could see it being trotted out as the goto reference for terrorism fears. We need to do X, unless you want a repeat of Paris here in America!
You’ve been posting a lot of 4chan buzzwords and now you’re green texting but trying to pretend it’s different with red. It’s time for an intervention.
Her wiki page doesn’t say.
The West generally bases its standards on something other than the enemies it’s trying to prove it’s better than.
If we can allow in greater numbers of women and children, then why can’t we allow in greater numbers of men, too? There’s no particular reason to suspect any of them, of any age or gender, of terrorism.
So you cop to believing the West is morally and culturally superior to the Muslim world, and this is basically a white man’s burden type thing. Isn’t that bigoted in its own way? Or at least very patronizing.
How many times do I have to point out that I am NOT trying to appeal to nativists?
The framing I propose in my OP explicitly attacks nativists! Like Kevin Drum, I believe the electoral risk extends into populations that otherwise have no problem with people of various skin complexions immigrating to the U.S.
That anyone on this site besides Qin knows what any of that is amuses me for some reason.