PRESIDENT TRUMP

One also have to remember that a refugee and an emigrant/immigrant are not the same thing. One is a bit more voluntary and the other is escaping war or some other disaster.

Yeah, but there is a subsection of Democrats pushing to make it illegal to actually enforce that law. Their counter-claim is that there are millions of people who are legal citizens but are too poor to be able to prove it, which is pretty equally unlikely. The whole issue is dumb and irrelevant because it's probably gonna add or remove like thirteen voters nationwide.

author=NeverSilent
I, too, am one of those people that are strongly in favour of letting "everyone and anyone" in. But it seems that you struggle to imagine anyone would ever want to admit foreigners simply because they deserve a chance at a good life as well. Regardless, perhaps you should consider the possibility that for many people who are in favour of open borders, it is not about a "fanatical dedication to the out group," but about treating everyone well regardless of where they come from. And - to push it a little bit further - if the national way of life you seem so afraid of losing is what drives people to reject and exclude their fellow humans because of their origins or religion, then you should ask yourself if it is even worth preserving in this form to begin with.

I get where these ideas are coming from NeverSilent, but have you considered the flipside? Far be it from me to argue against immigration in general, of course, having spent my teen years in Australia. (My family was approved under their points system, though, so I obviously have no qualms with Brexited Britain or any other country adopting its equivalent in the future.) However, I have to say that the idea, implicitly contained in the bolded statement, that the only kind of a "good life" is one that fully correlates to the current Western standards of living, is not a sustainable one.

Simply put, the current level of consumption in the Western countries needs to be brought down already (even if mainly be targeting the wealthiest minority), as the world cannot sustain it even with others in their current states. Until that happens, more people coming into the West and joining its high-consumption economy is far from beneficial for us all, and a "chance for a good life" for one person eventually adds up to greater drought for the place they left behind, to give just one example.

Large-scale immigration bans are not really the solution I advocate, of course: empowering the source states is. Your approach is that whenever there's conflict and desolation, the West simply needs to be able to take in however managed to get there (which often excludes the truly poorest, but that is a somewhat different matter.) My belief is that globally, more work needs to be done on strengthening each and every state, so that it is able to lift their citizens up at home, and prevent them from going through the traumas of displacement and such in the first place. That obviously includes not invading them, or encouraging revolt through various means. We admittedly don't have a clean record on the last one, but I think I can still say that Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria and even DNR/LNR are better off today, and have far superior long-term prospects, to modern Libya.

Beyond that, though, it also means curbing the "free trade" in its EU/TTIP sense, and placing greater oversight on NGOs. The former is opposed to strong states through its very nature; it needs pliant ones to grease the wheels for corporations. Yet, the real success stories of 90's trade liberalization were the countries that kept a significant protectionist state role in their economies, such as China and Vietnam, and not those that truly abandoned them all, such as Mexico. If every country in the world treated free trade more like China/Vietnam does it, there wouldn't be a problem. As it is, EU's rules against state aid are the main reason why I was in favour of a (left-wing) Brexit.

Meanwhile, it's difficult to talk about the latter, since they do provide notable degrees of assistance. However, it's also true that practically all of them are ultimately most interested in reshaping the country they work in into their chosen image, rather then letting its state evolve in its own manner. Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, for instance, is well-known for rarely entrusting the local people and officials with any command duties, and instead bringing in their personnel elsewhere. Once they rid the places they still work in from polio, they're not interested in them becoming strong states, no longer needing their influence. This suits the liberal EU-led West fine (unless it's the wrong "NGOs" such as the radical anti-gay Christian groups doing it, of course), but can become increasingly counterproductive for stability in the long run.

Harmonic, don't you think it's rather cruel to imply that people are undeserving of protection from death, torture and trauma because they are "young, strong, well-dressed men" and not the personification of some cliched image of war orphans?

I personally know quite a few refugees, and believe it or not, very few of them ever wanted to leave their home countries. Even though many of them may be physically healthy, have functioning families and enjoy their new living circumstances, you can't always immediately see the scars on the inside. Besides, how do you think it feels to know that old friends and parts of your family are still stuck in a place where ongoing fights between multiple equally vile parties claim civilian lives every day, and that there is literally nothing you can do to help them?
These people aren't looking to take your wealth away from you or undermine your culture. They literally just want to lead a life worth being called that.

So I don't understand what makes you think it's more "sane" for a country to default to rejecting people looking to preserve their lives. There's a very simple answer to the question of why all of them should be allowed to live in countries where they don't have to fear war, persecution, oppression and murder: They are humans just like you. The assumption behind your view on this matter seems to come dangerously close to the idea that some people - your in-group specifically - matter more than others.

To put it a little more drastically: Any notion of national identity is worth nothing if it means leaving thousands of innocents to die. Period.



@NTC3:
I'm sorry, you must have misunderstood me. The reason why I phrased it that way was because at that point in the conversation, we were talking about immigration specifically. In general, I definitely think that improving the living conditions in other countries - or better yet, helping the people there improve their living conditions themselves - is important, too.
The situation of immigrants and refugees that come to Europe or the US specifically is just something I put extra emphasis on because it was relevant to the topic at hand. Of course, it'd be preferable if people wouldn't have to bother moving somewhere else in masses, because they can live a safe and fulfilling life in the place they choose to call home. But sometimes, the situation in a certain area or country just becomes so unbearable that they have little choice, and that's the point when denying them entry (at least temporarily) into you country is simply cruel and inhuman.

author=Solitayre
snip

The two are similar, and Trump isn't banning based on religion. The fact remains that no matter what, people will criticize Trump for actions that, if executed by Obama, would get a pass. No matter what, people like you will use confirmation bias for the next 4 to 8 years, and call Trump a failure, even if he cures cancer, AIDS, and colonizes Alpha Centauri.

Also, it's odd that you, Soli who lectures me to be careful on sources, rely solely on politifact, known far and wide to be obviously biased.

Neversilent, you are beginning from the perspective that the US owes something. So much so that you can force me at the barrel of a gun to pay more taxes and compromise the social cohesion and trust of my neighborhoods because you feel the US owes something. I disagree that I owe something.

Even so, it's better for everyone to find another solution if you really want to help. Why is your only solution moving them here? That should be done carefully, when someone actually wants to assimilate and become a part of the American way of life. Have you considered, perhaps, putting resources into helping them where they are, or perhaps, countries with similar cultures? The dominant American culture is very incompatible with Sharia law.

How much of this is actually true and not just liberal talking points? I mean seriously, it reads too perfectly to be factual, and yet this is "the greatest Facebook comment ever"? Give me a break.

Give me a break.

author=Corfaisus

How much of this is actually true and not just liberal talking points? I mean seriously, it reads too perfectly to be factual, and yet this is "the greatest Facebook comment ever"? Give me a break.

Give me a break.

Well, the bar is pretty low, so this very well could be the greatest Facebook comment ever.

"Lefties generally want to do away with national sovereignty and import everyone and anyone, give them welfare and voting rights, so they can outnumber and defeat the right. The right sees this as a threat to the safety and well being of our neighborhoods. "
haha wow.

author=Solitayre
Sorry, not good enough? Here's a few more:

http://www.snopes.com/refugee-invaders-meme/

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/stretching-facts-on-syrian-refugees/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/08/09/syria-refugees-united-states-women-children/88446226/

http://time.com/4122186/syrian-refugees-donald-trump-young-men/

Not to mention that Politifact also cited their source in that article: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

Also, I really hate hearing the argument that Democrats are pro-immigration for political leverage. How does that jive with the Johnson administration's Cuban Adjustment Act? Most Cubans who fled to the U.S. were fleeing Communism and naturally flocked to the Republican party. This anti-refugee, anti-immigration sentiment is just another bogeyman; I've never seen any statistics that clearly prove that immigrants and especially refugees have contributed more to crime than natural citizens, nor have I seen evidence that they're taking jobs that natural citizens want.

Edit: If my country were being bombed, I would flee instead of shooting at planes with a hunting rifle. Citizens don't have much of a chance in modern warfare.

By that comment, neither one is good. It just would be better for whoever candidate was more suited for the individual.

Like myself and family is better off republican. While others democrat.

Gonna have to be selfish here and go with what's better for me.