^ I know that particular question is a clusterfuck (again, one above my paygrade). But the complicating factors seem to be:
- we're dealing with a refugee crisis that derives from a destabilization of the region--a destabilization that this country has had a partial but significant role in fostering. Not sure how (morally but also politically) we can do something like invade Iraq (+ make mistakes in Libya and Syria) and then disavow responsibility
This rise of ISIS was not inevitable. We have no obligation to take 65,000 refugees as Hillary wants to do (the actual number would be higher, I'm sure). We have an obligation to do what's best for our country and the safety of its citizens.
I don't understand how people make statements like this without realizing what they're saying. We shouldn't have to worry about alienating a large population of Muslims within our country. The fact that we have to worry about that is ipso facto proof that our immigration policy is insane. We have to worry about Muslims being offended by an immigration policy that protects innocent lives, so your solution is to continuing bringing in people from the culture that we can't offend for fearing of being blown up an airport. If you think this problem will be solved by a continuation of our current immigration policies, just to show how tolerant we are, nothing I say is going to make a dent.
Supposedly? We have to pretend that it's up for debate whether or not it's a good idea to keep taking people from this culture? All immigration is not the same. You must know that.
His father was an immigrant from Afghanistan. Please describe, in detail, the vast cultural enrichment we receive by taking in people from Afghanistan. It must really be something if it's going to offset the 50 people brutally murdered last night.