Let's not help refugees because some may be terorrists

[DrZoidberg]

What is China doing in the way of aide to people that do not wish to stay in their country of birth?
What is Japan doing?
What is Russia doing?
What is England doing?
What is Indonesia doing?
What the FUCK are we doing and why the FUCK are we the ones doing it???

This is the tragedy of the commons. If everybody doesn't do anything as long as there is somebody doing less, then nobody will do anything.

 

[Malintent]

Who the fuck cares?

What the FUCK are we doing

We're taking in (some - only 10k from Syria as of August) refugees.

and why the FUCK are we the ones doing it???

Because, America.
Note that coconuts have killed more Americans than have those refugees ... WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE DOING ABOUT COCONUTS, AND WHY ARE WE DOING IT???

I care why America is the mommy and daddy of the rest of the world. If other countries are not "pulling their weight" with assisting all other countries with whatever social issues they have, then why should we?

WHY are we "taking in" anyone? WHY is it America's responsibility?

what the fuck are you talking about coconuts?? What does "killed Americans" have to do with America being the world's welfare office? Is this a connection you are trying to make, or was it just random nonsense to add to your content-free reply?

 

[Elixir]

WHY are we "taking in" anyone? WHY is it America's responsibility?

Because, America. Read your history books, Mal.
We ALL come from refugees, unless you happen to be pure native american stock.

And what's your problem with them anyhow? Over 700k refugees have resettled in the United States since 9/11. During that time, not a single one has carried out an act of terror.

 

[bilby]

America is wealthier than any other nation; More than anyone else, you can afford to help. And your country is practically founded on helping refugees, to the mutual benefit of all concerned. Of course you should help. As should the other OECD nations, all of whom can afford to do so.

"Fuck you, I've got mine" is not a sentiment I want my country to espouse; I am disappointed that it appears to be something anyone wants their nation to espouse. Particularly as history shows that helping refugees is a very sound investment, and a good way to get richer.

 

[Malintent]

WHY are we "taking in" anyone? WHY is it America's responsibility?

Because, America. Read your history books, Mal.
We ALL come from refugees, unless you happen to be pure native american stock.

And what's your problem with them anyhow? Over 700k refugees have resettled in the United States since 9/11. During that time, not a single one has carried out an act of terror.

Why do you keep returning to the tune, "but they're not terrorists"? Why do you think that is the least bit relevant? I don't know what you are reading, but this thread is about immigration, not terrorist infiltration.

Why is it relevant that everyone came from somewhere else at some point in history (even the Native Americans, who did not evolve here, but migrated here as well.. just longer ago than the Anglo-Saxons)?

My "problem" is not with "them". It is a burden on our infrastructure to allow a steady flow of immigration and we take an imbalanced 'unfair share' of "them".

EDITED:

Correction, I see why you keep returning to the terrorist tune... I only just noticed that it is in the thread title and OP... missed it in the line break. OK, this is not the focus of my comments, but I do understand why it keeps being brought back to that.

 

[Malintent]

America is wealthier than any other nation; More than anyone else, you can afford to help. And your country is practically founded on helping refugees, to the mutual benefit of all concerned. Of course you should help. As should the other OECD nations, all of whom can afford to do so.

"Fuck you, I've got mine" is not a sentiment I want my country to espouse; I am disappointed that it appears to be something anyone wants their nation to espouse. Particularly as history shows that helping refugees is a very sound investment, and a good way to get richer.

How very socialist and un-American this sounds. "fuck you, I've got mine" sounds very American Anthem to me. Although I would correct that to "fuck them we've got ours". You may not like it, but there are plenty of socialist governments you can immigrate to if you reject capitalism... or CAN you? THAT is the point.

 

[Elixir]

Native Americans, who did not evolve here, but migrated here as well..

As far as anyone knows, they did not displace another human population when they arrived in the Americas.

Yeah, the thread title did make me think your objection was somehow related to terrorism/potential terrorism. But let's leave that aside to pursue your point.
I see no rationale for assuming that any immigrant group or individual must be more of a burden upon our infrastructure than a contributor to it. Is there something about being born on this continent (south of the Canadian border and north of the Mexican border) that makes a person more productive, more able to build roads or design energy distribution systems - or anything - than someone born elsewhere might be?

 

[bilby]

America is wealthier than any other nation; More than anyone else, you can afford to help. And your country is practically founded on helping refugees, to the mutual benefit of all concerned. Of course you should help. As should the other OECD nations, all of whom can afford to do so.

"Fuck you, I've got mine" is not a sentiment I want my country to espouse; I am disappointed that it appears to be something anyone wants their nation to espouse. Particularly as history shows that helping refugees is a very sound investment, and a good way to get richer.

How very socialist and un-American this sounds. "fuck you, I've got mine" sounds very American Anthem to me. Although I would correct that to "fuck them we've got ours". You may not like it, but there are plenty of socialist governments you can immigrate to if you reject capitalism... or CAN you? THAT is the point.

Actually it's not the point at all. 'Ours' is socialism. If you are going to say 'ours', then you need a rationale for including other people in 'us' rather than 'them', and current citizenship is purely arbitrary from a personal perspective.

There are roughly three hundred million Americans; Even if you are the most outgoing and gregarious person in the country, the sum total of all of your friends and acquaintances is less than the rounding error in that figure. That means that almost all new Americans are complete strangers to you, whether they arrive from another country, or whether they are new born babies born to existing citizens.

As immigrants (particularly legal immigrants) are going to get to the point of being net taxpayers pretty quickly (even refugees who speak little English on arrival typically achieve this within five to ten years) the rational approach (if you persist in the error of thinking that more Americans is a bad thing) is to oppose people having kids first, and oppose immigration only once you have reduced the birth rate as far as possible.

If you oppose new Americans who arrive by boat or plane, but do not oppose those who arrive via American vaginas, then your stated reasons don't stack up - immigrants are better than babies, because they take less than half as long to stop being a net drain on society - and their ethnicity is irrelevant because you are statistically almost certainly never going to have any important interactions with either individual, and because Americans are already so diverse that you can't tell an immigrant from a second or even third generation natural born citizen without getting to know the individual at least as an acquaintance.

The fact is that adding to the number of Americans is good for the existing Americans - but immigrants are slightly better than babies in this regard, because the benefits take half as long or less to become apparent.