Yes, I too believe America today would be much more of a world power if the Irish, Italians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans and Mexicans had been turned away and it had remained a nation of WASPs as the good Lord intended.
And their black slaves, obviously.
(BTW, is “cultural leftists” the new “cultural marxists” ? Could you maybe vague it up some more for me ?)
You’re just trying to delegitimize him.
There are no Syrian refugees coming to Wester nations. They migrate to the West from camps in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan. The Syrian migrants we get in Denmark flee from Germany. Mainly they flee on to Sweden. Because who wouldn’t flee from Denmark? And Sweden have been moping a bit laterly, so I recon they wouldn’t mind if some of their Syrians fled Sweden to the USA.
That ship sailed sometime around 1865.
And that ship did *not *remove all the newly-freed slaves from the newly reunited USA.
Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia.
(Really TJ–the “blood of the master”?)
You may find that a great little talking point but it’s technically wrong. There are in fact Syrians who enter the US under refugee status. Just because you’ve decided that traveling through a Turkish refugee camp nullifies their refugee status doesn’t make it so.
I’m in favor of taking in refugees, and in fact Canada is taking in far more refugees per capita than is the U.S.
However, there is one moral argument I have trouble with: The refugees that make it to the camps are often the people with the highest intelligence, highest income and education, or otherwise with the most ability to escape a war region. That depletes the human capital of the country they are escaping from, and condemns the people who have to stay behind to a darker future.
In that regard, would it be more humane to have a temporary refugee system where camps are set up in the surrounding countries, and then every effort is made to end the conflict or remove those who are terrorizing the population so that the refugees can return? I know this is easier said than done, but I’m not sure how healthy it is for the region for millions of their best and brightest to permanently leave it.
In Syria’s case, millions of Sunni Muslims are fleeing. That’s going to change the balance of power and likely lead to more persecution of the Sunnis still in the country, isn’t it? And if this strengthens the Shia against the Sunnis, that could also have grave consequences for Iraq, and benefit Iran.
Those are the questions that trouble me. Yes, I think there are likely to be a few terrorists mixed in with the refugees, and even more people sympathetic to their cause and hostile to western values. We shouldn’t deny that the risk exists, but we shouldn’t let that risk stop us from helping people in desperate conditions. No one promised this was going to be easy.
Some are trying to promise that it will be risk-free, and I think that’s not just silly but dangerous in that if an attack does come, the people who claimed there was no risk at all will be discredited and that could hurt the refugees. Better to acknowledge the risk up front.
About two million refugees have already been taken in by neighboring countries like Lebanon and Jordan, so many that it is straining the capacity of those governments to care for everyone. Basically, the Middle East is already full, and the people fleeing to Europe are the spillover.
Most refugees do dream of returning home one day. Many never do, but some manage it, if the reason they left in the first place is no longer a concern. It’s not like refugees would be prisoners in their new home (or they shouldn’t be). Plenty of refugees have come to the US, done well, then gone back home, or choose to spend time in both the US and their native country. It’s all good if you can take desperate people and give them a place to have a good life where they have choices again.
That works when you have conflicts that are likely to resolve soon. But we’ve seen refugee camps persist for decades, sometimes with entire generations living and dying in camps. That doesn’t benefit anyone.