Question for liberals: What benefit is it to America to let Middle Eastern Muslims immigrate here?
On the heels of what BaronVonZemo posted, I'd like to see an answer that goes beyond the usual emotional ones liberals make. Let's hear some PRACTICAL reasons why the United States specifically needs these people to come here.
Replies to: Question for liberals: What benefit is it to America to let Middle Eastern Muslims immigrate here?
The only "practical" reason is the US helps its allies.
Our western European allies are taking a shit-ton of these refugees, and they really don't have a choice since most are just showing up (similar to many of our Latin American immigrants that are here to escape poverty/drug cartels). Agreeing to take some on helps our allies, which makes them more likely to help us with other issues (i.e., fighting terrorism globally and taking our side in disputes with Russia and China).
But the reality is there is not always a purely "practical" way to look at these issues. The situation in Syria is currently the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world. 99% of refugees just want out and a chance for a better life. There will be a very small percentage that are radicalized and/or have the capacity to become radicalized. Of course we have this risk with American citizens as well. We've all heard the terrible "poison M&M analogy". The problem with that analogy is these are real people undergoing real suffering...not inanimate pieces of candy.
The reason this has become a liberal vs conservative argument is similar to the reason gov't assistance for poor Americans is a liberal vs. conservative issue. In general, liberals are OK with gov't policies that help poor people even though they get nothing out of it themselves. Conservatives don't want any government policies that could be negative to them even if it could help others.
I'm not a liberal but I love Middle Eastern cuisine
Posted at 9:03 am on Dec 23, 2016
Yeh... I confess... I'm a RINO.
Finally! A practical answer!
(no message)
.
(no message)
.
(no message)
.
(no message)
.
(no message)
.
(no message)
.
(no message)
.
(no message)
.
(no message)
.
(no message)
.
(no message)
The cabs can't drive themselves........................................yet.
(no message)
Is being a human being "practical"?
Or how about just basic decency.
Or church teaching about helping others.
Or how about how no refugees from Syria have killed anyone here.
Or how about just not being a fucking pussy.
Re: Is being a human being "practical"?
Even though the majority may be "peaceful" and cause no harm, you are going to have to accept that a certain number that we let in ARE going to commit mass murders in the name of Islam as we've already seen a number of times. You not only have to accept that; you have to be okay with that fact.
There are 7 billion of them. Is it practical to let them all in? Or, can lines be drawn?
If so, where would you draw the lines?
How about the fact that our forebearers were given the same opportunity?
(no message)
Not the same opportunity.
Our forebearers were given just that: opportunity.
They were not given a cocktail of government services, with the promise that those services be given to anyone who walks in the door and asks for them.
Really? Our gov't didn't just give away land to any immigrant of European decent?
You've really never heard of the Homestead Act? But I guess 640 acres of free land is worth less than some gov't healthcare?
I'd rather give them the land. That would be a lot cheaper.
You got a link for the 640 acre thing?
We still have a lot a land out there we can give out. Not sure anyone wants it, though.
Good point. The RR's actually advertised this in foreign nations.
(no message)
I didn't say give them a free ride, but let them in to earn their way.
(no message)
Unfortunately, you probably won't be in charge of how, or whether, they integrate.
We have to anticipate how the liberals will handle this.
We need them
US birth rate is now at about 1.8 kids / woman, and the sustainable 'replacement' rate is estimated to be 2.1. Simply put, we need immigrants.
Besides, when I'm in NYC and can't catch an Uber ride, someone is needed to drive my taxi.
There are plenty in Latin America. Why not start there? Order of magnitude fewer integration issues.
...assuming, of course, that integration is a goal.
I also think Democrates would supprt allowing them in.
(no message)
Because they do jobs that Americans who pursue Q school don't do?
(no message)
Someone needs to rake the traps.
(no message)
Because they are beautiful . . . . and I want one.
(no message)
It is probably just the Cheerleader Effect, but I see your point. Yowzer!
We need more of these chicks in country!
Just wait til you see what'S under the covers ..
(no message)
Yep, until she pulls the cord on her explosive vest.
(no message)
I presume that is code for "orgasm." Cannot wait, LT!
(no message)
No code. Big explosition, people dead and maimed.
(no message)
Now i feel like a cigarette.
(no message)
Plus, sometimes they become president!
(no message)
Bravo!! Spot fookin on!!
(no message)
Not a Lib obviously, but the answer is also obvious. The anwer that there is no
benefit to Americans, only risk and expense.
Re: Not a Lib obviously, but the answer is also obvious. The anwer that there is no
While the majority desiring to come here may be the stereotypical "peaceful" Muslims, there is no doubt that at least some we let into the US in will engage in mass murder specifically in the name of their religion. We've already seen it here on a number of occasions. The left has to decide if those future mass murders are worth it to be "open" and "inclusive."
Name the number of occasions.
(no message)
Exactly, and this is where Liberals and Conservatives split.
The Conservatives believe saving a hundred foreigners is not worth it if one American civilian is harmed/killed by one of these immigrants.
The Liberals tend to think that if the majority of the would-be immigrants are peaceful, we should allow them in for the greater (not just American) good.
Wait a minute there, LT. You mean to tell me that you are not liberal?!!
Man, have I been missing the boat on that one! :)
Why is this a liberal versus conservative issue?
(no message)
Because liberals in general believe in letting anyone come here from anywhere
(no message)
it's called "open boarders".
(no message)
An "open boarder" is a guy who lives in your house who is up for anything
An "open border" is LT's nightmare.
I thought it was a double meaning...and both meanings worked.
(no message)
They pay their board picking stuff and doing other crappy jobs. What do you do to contribute to the
common good? Other than post retarded shit on a message board?
And wasting taxpayer money on the ones here illegally.
(no message)
Because it is precisely divided between the two.
(no message)
Bullshit
(no message)
The theoretical overall "net good" is higher with that choice.
It saves the lives of other desperate human beings.
Cynically, it adds more poverty and welfare cost to a bloated deficit, and opens the door for criminals and terrrorists to enter this country. It is not the best option for American citizens' interests. It's the same argument when it comes to amnesty for existing illegals and increasing HUD-voucher programs.
The US can't "save the lives" of 3 billion people who live in self inflicted shitholes.
(no message)
Of course not. I don't advocate it.
(no message)
Yes you do
(no message)
No he doesn't. Read again what he wrote.
(no message)
You ignorant piece of shit. I do not want the refugees in the U.S
Fuck you for misrepresenting my position.