Philisophical Dilema: Is the life of one American citizen worth more than the life of outsiders in other countries?
Philosophical Abstract: Let's say there are 500,000 Syrian Refugees wanting to come into the US in 2018. For every 100,000 Syrian refugees that you take into the United States, 2 US citizens will be killed in terrorist attacks. So assuming you take all 500,000 there will be 10 US citizens killed in terrorist attacks as a result.
On the other hand, for every 100,000 Syrian refugees left in Syria, 1,000 will be killed in war or die of malnutrition. Thus if you take no refugees, 5,000 Syrians will die as opposed to the 10 US citizens that would die if you took all of them in.
Not considering other cultural or economic aspects what do you do? Me personally, I'm leaving those mofos out to dry. Cuz fuck that shit, I aint tryina get killed. Aint my fault if dudes in the middle east keep icing each other.
I don't think the US or most of Europe should let in refugees either (immigrants fine as long as it's done in the same manner as previously), and if we do, they should be sent back as soon as the war is over.
However, your reasoning for not letting them in is stupid and immature: "I aint tryina get killed" - You already have one thing in common with refugees, congrats.
"Aint my fault if dudes in the middle east keep icing each other." - I'm fairly confident most Syrians and Iraqis would rather be living in peace. And, the West (certainly the US) does have a to take some responsibility for creating this mess, putting a discriminatory Shia government in power in Iraq and leaving caches of valuable weaponry.. not the brightest moves.
Just wondering, what's your reasoning then, if you don't support letting refugees in?
No.
Though I do think that the ability of most immigrants to adjust and thrive in their ultimate new society should be considered (not assimilating per se, but respecting the criminal and judicial system etc.). I also think infrastructure should be considered (can schools and hospitals be built quickly enough, can utilities and transportation assets handle the increased population).
ah ah
seeing as the murder rate in the US is 4.5 per 100,000, letting them in would be fine. North Dakota has a population density of 10.45 people per square mile, so there is plenty of land available. Building infrastructure would also bring jobs.
Personally, I think it's not our fucking problem. I don't know why everyone thinks the U.S. has to be the savior of the world. We have enough problems, let others countries reach out.
I think this presents sort of a false dilemma since the U.S. (or Europe or Russia or Iran, but let's be honest--none of those groups of people have the moral fiber or will) could create safe zones in Syria where refugees could live and possibly even build new cities and rebuild their lives. I'd much rather see this than the U.S. intervene in a hot war or try to integrate millions of people.
With that said, let's take the question at face value. The U.S. government has a legal and constitutional responsibility to U.S. citizens first and foremost. However, if U.S. citizens freely vote for a policy (via their representatives) that would diminish their safety (greatly or marginally) then that is well within the right of the public. So my view on this is that a refugee policy (an ongoing, long-term policy) should be directed by Congress when possible. Every 2 years the people can weigh in on their feelings, and their feelings can be modified through considered debate between representatives.
Laboriosam soluta sapiente et nisi praesentium amet tempore. Voluptatem non quidem aut rerum. At quia voluptatem quo.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...