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]

[quote="DanieltheDragon"

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

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

I will grant practicality, not security economic impact stable social structure.

When we have taken in refugees we have seen economic growth no breakdowns of social structure, and as I pointed out earlier security and self preservation are red herrings as refugees are less likely to be terrorists than white nationalists. In fact no act of terrorism in the past 6 years has been committed by a Syrian refugee.

Personal preference seems like a euphemism. Do you have a personal preference for not sheltering Muslims? You see what I mean it sounds weird.

Fear by far wraps into the most logical reason and includes three of what you listed.

1. Fear for safety = self preservation and security
2. Fear of economic decline
3. Fear for the breakdown of social stability.

None of those factors are garunteed outcomes of taking in the refugees. Yet the fear of that possibility is a reason to avoid it.

Hatred of Muslims does seem to be a more subtle reason that most are probably unaware of in the first place. Islam is a competing religion to Christianity therefore it represents a threat to your beliefs. People tend to hate or dislike things that threaten them. Ergo there might be a bias to preserve your religious culture by keeping alternative cultures out.

I don't see how the issue of refugees should be tied into open borders. Refugees in of themselves are special circumstance cases and would be outside the confines of normal immigration policy. I see it more of an issue of international aid and/or international politics/policy.

[bluethread]

[quote="DanieltheDragon"

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

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

I will grant practicality, not security economic impact stable social structure. [/quote]

Well, there you go, but let's examine the ones you don't grant.

When we have taken in refugees we have seen economic growth no breakdowns of social structure, and as I pointed out earlier security and self preservation are red herrings as refugees are less likely to be terrorists than white nationalists. In fact no act of terrorism in the past 6 years has been committed by a Syrian refugee.

I don't recall you saying Syrian refugees. That is narrowing the argument. We have not always seen economic growth, and, again, I did not mention economic growth, but economic impact. There is much more to the economy than just growth. Regarding security, your reference to white nationalist is the red herring. We do need to control the citizenry, but that does not justify ignoring the risks involved in taking in refugees.

Personal preference seems like a euphemism. Do you have a personal preference for not sheltering Muslims? You see what I mean it sounds weird.

Again, narrowing the argument to infer a particular bias. What of the person who has a personal preference for sheltering Muslims? Is that any less weird? Are we to open the borders to everyone in the world who comes from an unstable region? I happen to like redheaded women, that does not mean that I hate blonds and brunettes, or am favoring them over men out of cowardice.

Fear by far wraps into the most logical reason and includes three of what you listed.

1. Fear for safety = self preservation and security
2. Fear of economic decline
3. Fear for the breakdown of social stability.

None of those factors are garunteed outcomes of taking in the refugees. Yet the fear of that possibility is a reason to avoid it.

Nice characterization. You are setting up fear as pejorative while using it as a descriptive. Many safety considerations are precautionary and not based one irrational fear. Economics is not s discipline of fear. It examines various factors and weighs them to establish reasonable policy. Whenever an unknown quantity is introduced into an environment there are not only foreseen effects, there are also unintended consequences. It is true that there is no guarantee that refugees will have a detrimental effect. However, it is rather certain that there will be additional stresses on a society that experiences a large influx of foreigners.

Hatred of Muslims does seem to be a more subtle reason that most are probably unaware of in the first place. Islam is a competing religion to Christianity therefore it represents a threat to your beliefs. People tend to hate or dislike things that threaten them. Ergo there might be a bias to preserve your religious culture by keeping alternative cultures out.

Once again, you exposing your agenda. A preference of Islam can also effect one's views regarding who should or should not be permitted into the country. Why is that preference any less repugnant than any other preference?

I don't see how the issue of refugees should be tied into open borders. Refugees in of themselves are special circumstance cases and would be outside the confines of normal immigration policy. I see it more of an issue of international aid and/or international politics/policy.

Why should that be? What is "normal immigration policy" and who determines that? Also, why do people from unstable areas get preferable treatment? In short, there are clearly many more reasons why a country would limit refugee immigration apart from hate and cowardice.

[Elijah John]

Is there an unconsidered explanation?

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

How about wisdom? Why would it be unreasonable to suppose that ill-intentioned terrorists would infiltrate the refugee population? Trojan horses?

Why gamble with American (or whatever other civilized country's) lives?

Also, there are plenty of destitute people in our own country that need our help. (Appalachia, and other places)..we seemingly are having difficulty in solving poverty problems in our own country, and the national debt is huge.

Also, your question is loaded. It is not a question of "letting refugees die". And it is not a question of "hating brown people". That is ridiculous.

We cannot fight every battle, but in theory we could help the oppressed in their own countries (some of them anyway) by helping to overthrow their oppressors.

[Mountainmanbob]

[Replying to post 1 by DanieltheDragon]


The point I am trying to make is that if you come to America seeking refuge you must assimilate. The majority do not plan on assimilating. Look no further than Europe for an explanation of what I mean.

Exactly -- for the ones who truly wish NOT to assimilate
please stay out.

MB