Anti refugee rhetoric is either hate or cowardice.

[DanieltheDragon]

Given the multiple refugee crises arising in the past few years. Millions of refugee immigrants have been displaced. Given their vulnerability to exploitation and fear of returning home lest they risk death. The rhetoric that follows against them is illogical and unreasonable given the statistics. Unless you account for fear and hate. If one hates brown people or people of another religion then it makes perfect sense to discriminate against the meek and helpless. There is a motive. Same with fear and they both feed into each other.

Is there an unconsidered explanation?

What good reasons other than hate and cowardice do we have to let refugees die?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 18 by Kenisaw]

I forget that this is a global forum sometimes. I was referring mostly specifically to American rhetoric. With regard to Europe I have mentioned multiple times that i get their situation is different.

No worries. You are in Charlotte and I am in St Louis, but I wanted to be sure we were talking about the same thing (and I didn't ask that until after I commented, which is rather stupid of me).

So as it relates to "American rhetoric", how exactly is America causing refugees to die?

If we as a country do not let refugees in, that is our right as a nation state I am sure you would agree. I think you would also agree that the majority of the current refugees that are getting all the attention these days are ones from the general area of the Middle East. The numbers clearly show that the majority of these refugees are young males, and the vast majority of them are Muslim. Many have no documentation of who they are or where they have been. I think you would also agree that the most number of terrorist attacks in the U.S. have been conducted by young men who were practicing Islam. So I think you can see why there is concern for letting these refugees into the U.S.

I would not agree that most of the terror attacks in the US are young Islamic males.

https://www.cato.org/publications/polic ... k-analysis

www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

White nationalist groups, anti abortion terrorism, and miltia groups actually account for more of our terrorism than Radical terrorism. There has been no terrorism from Syrian refugees or murders.

If it were not for Turkey, Jordan, and Germany we would be seeing a lot more civilian deaths. If the borders were closed and no one let these refugees out it is literally letting them die. Assad is actively killing civilians and political opponents in addition to fighting the civil war. Case in point Aleppo. ISIS is actively killing and torturing all who do not subscribe to their religious beliefs.You have populations literally running away from being murdered. If we tell them no and deny them access to leave their country they will likely die if they stay.

So there is this hyped up fear that these immigrants that are likely to die if they stay put, are going to come here and start killing Americans which is simply not true. Lets say you have a fort and outside this fort is maurading bandits and someone comes to the door asking for refuge from maurading bandits. Do you let this person in or let the bandits kill this person?

[bluethread]

DanieltheDragon"

What good reasons other than hate and cowardice do we have to let refugees die?

I guess there is no reason for me to gear my posts to getting people to face the presumptions in their posts. So, I will just come out and say it this time. How is me deciding who can and can not come into my house "letting refugees die"? Are you really arguing that I am obligated to not only let someone from a violent "hood" duck into my house, but also become of my family? Sorry, you aren't coming into my house, if I don't want you to and my kids can just go to their rooms and suck their thumbs, if they don't like it. I'll listen to their opinions and we can negotiate family rules, but when it comes to the security of my home, I am making the day to day decisions.

[DanieltheDragon]

DanieltheDragon"

What good reasons other than hate and cowardice do we have to let refugees die?

I guess there is no reason for me to gear my posts to getting people to face the presumptions in their posts. So, I will just come out and say it this time. How is me deciding who can and can not come into my house "letting refugees die"? Are you really arguing that I am obligated to not only let someone from a violent "hood" duck into my house, but also become of my family? Sorry, you aren't coming into my house, if I don't want you to and my kids can just go to their rooms and suck their thumbs, if they don't like it. I'll listen to their opinions and we can negotiate family rules, but when it comes to the security of my home, I am making the day to day decisions.

Again, I am not passing judgment. Just discussing the reasons for such rhetoric. Fear and hate seem to be the most logical reasons for refusal of entry. I am not saying that is a bad thing. What I am pointing out is the denial of these reasons by proponents of such rhetoric.

As my previous analogy listed someone who is running from a clear and present danger asks for shelter and you deny them shelter that is literally letting them die. Whether this is good or bad is for you to judge.

In your analogy why would you deny entry to this fellow from the "hood"?

[bluethread]

In your analogy why would you deny entry to this fellow from the "hood"?

Because it's my house. I am tempted to make guesses as to the circumstances of the situation. However, that is buying into the idea that I have all of the time in the world to analyze whether or not to let someone into my house. That is not the nature of the power given to the President of these United States concerning immigration. If Congress wants to override an executive order regarding immigration, they are free to put forth a Constitutional amendment to that effect. However, yes, the security of these United States is so important that not only the founders, but every federal administration, congress and supreme court has given absolute power to the President., in this regard.

[DanieltheDragon]

In your analogy why would you deny entry to this fellow from the "hood"?

Because it's my house. I am tempted to make guesses as to the circumstances of the situation. However, that is buying into the idea that I have all of the time in the world to analyze whether or not to let someone into my house. That is not the nature of the power given to the President of these United States concerning immigration. If Congress wants to override an executive order regarding immigration, they are free to put forth a Constitutional amendment to that effect. However, yes, the security of these United States is so important that not only the founders, but every federal administration, congress and supreme court has given absolute power to the President., in this regard.

Time wise you have 6 years in the case of the Syrian civil war to decide if they are safe or not. Given every statistic with regard to the matter on Syrians they seem to be relatively safe. We currently have a ~2 year vetting process.

Recent court rulings have shown the president does not have absolute authority. The presidency does not equal a kingship. The founders made sure not to give the presidency absolute power in any regard. Again the difference between having a president vs a king.

Back to your analogy because it is your house is the cause of your right to deny entry but it is not why you are denying entry again why would you deny entry? Remember no judgments just going to the reasons people have for doing things. If you knew this person at the door was facing a life or death situation why would you feel it is important to deny their entry?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 25 by DanieltheDragon]

All people should be treated with equal dignity. It's a shame we have national borders in the first place, wouldn't the world be a better place if we recognized we are in fact all brothers and sisters.

[micatala]

[Replying to CrisMac]

wnd.com should never be cited anywhere for any reason.

They were essentially the home for birtherism, for one.

In general, one who researches their articles will find that any given article has a very high probability of having false claims, or presenting speculation as fact, or ignoring readily available information that refutes the main claims of the article. Again, see birtherism, which wnd pushed for years despite readily available evidence debunking it (and most any of the particular arguments being made for it.)

[micatala]

DanieltheDragon"

What good reasons other than hate and cowardice do we have to let refugees die?

I guess there is no reason for me to gear my posts to getting people to face the presumptions in their posts. So, I will just come out and say it this time. How is me deciding who can and can not come into my house "letting refugees die"? Are you really arguing that I am obligated to not only let someone from a violent "hood" duck into my house, but also become of my family? Sorry, you aren't coming into my house, if I don't want you to and my kids can just go to their rooms and suck their thumbs, if they don't like it. I'll listen to their opinions and we can negotiate family rules, but when it comes to the security of my home, I am making the day to day decisions.

The country is not your house. Bad analogy. You get to refuse people at your door, yes. You do not get to refuse people at the boundaries of your block or your neighborhood or your city or your state.

Now, I am not arguing for open borders, but I am saying what any given person decides regarding house guests is irrelevant to what our immigration policy should be. The latter has to be a collective decision. Security is a legitimate criterion in making that decision, but should be based on the overall affect on the country, not personal whims.

[bluethread]

[quote="DanieltheDragon"

What good reasons other than hate and cowardice do we have to let refugees die?[/quote]

Practicality, security, economic impact, self preservation, stable social structure, personal preference, . . . Shall I continue? Hatred and cowardice are projections of the "no borders" crowd.

[bluethread]

DanieltheDragon"

What good reasons other than hate and cowardice do we have to let refugees die?

I guess there is no reason for me to gear my posts to getting people to face the presumptions in their posts. So, I will just come out and say it this time. How is me deciding who can and can not come into my house "letting refugees die"? Are you really arguing that I am obligated to not only let someone from a violent "hood" duck into my house, but also become of my family? Sorry, you aren't coming into my house, if I don't want you to and my kids can just go to their rooms and suck their thumbs, if they don't like it. I'll listen to their opinions and we can negotiate family rules, but when it comes to the security of my home, I am making the day to day decisions.

The country is not your house. Bad analogy. You get to refuse people at your door, yes. You do not get to refuse people at the boundaries of your block or your neighborhood or your city or your state.

It is not yours either. That begs the question, what is a country? Can you answer that question?

Now, I am not arguing for open borders, but I am saying what any given person decides regarding house guests is irrelevant to what our immigration policy should be. The latter has to be a collective decision. Security is a legitimate criterion in making that decision, but should be based on the overall affect on the country, not personal whims.

So, you believe that my decisions regarding who is permitted into my house are only based on whims? Where does the analogy break down? Who decides what is the "overall effect"? As I pointed out, who is permitted into my house is a collective decision. However, it is a decision and that requires a decision process. What decision process do you propose for the country?