 |
| Image URL: http://img.wennermedia.com/article-leads-horizontal/anti-refugee-movement-protest-taibbi-read-e41a65be-0b79-412d-bc8a-eb5f19db8750.jpg
According to President Trump's administration, he plans on lowering the US refugee intake limit to 45,000, the lowest it has been set at since 1980 when the limit was 67,000. This is less than half of the limit set by the Obama administration last year, and it is also lower than the 75,000 intake limit advised by US resettlement agencies.
I think that, relative to the refugee intake of European countries like Germany and Sweden, the US has been extremely underperforming in the area. We should be helping to take off the burden from other smaller countries in Europe by taking in more refugees ourselves. How can it be that Germany, a country with less than a third of the US population, has taken in more than 10 times the amount of Syrian refugees in the past few years than the US has? To me, this is unacceptable and embarrassing for the US government and us because we have to live in a country that doesn't help others.
What are your thoughts?
|
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
Refugee Limit to be at a Historical Low
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think that this was a smart move on the part of Trump. The US should do everything in it's power to ensure that radical islam does not spread to the US. Despite the popular belief that only a "tiny minority" of muslims are radicalized, it turns out that according to pew research there are 15 countries where over 70 percent of the population supports sharia law, a system of law where people who criticize or deny the quran, allah, ect are put to death. This seems pretty radical to me. Seeing that muslims have a significantly higher fertility rate than non-muslims, this means that the population of muslims is going to increase at a much higher rate than other groups, resulting in a world with a much higher percentage of muslims. Seeing that radical islam is clearly not a tiny minority, but rather a majority (depending on how you define radicalization). If the US adopts progressive policies with regards to the intake of refugees this will inevitably result in the infiltration of radical islam into the US. Europe has seen a dramatic increase in levels of terrorism since adopting these progressive immigration policies, who is to say that this will not happen to the US. The threat of radical islam is nothing to be taken lightly and the US should take steps to prevent the spread of radical islam to the US.
I think that it is pretty safe to say that radical Islam already exists within the United States, and that if one wants to spread radical Islam the best way to do it is not through an actual person coming into a place and radicalizing people, but through the internet and social media. Indeed this is what we have seen in recent years, as many of the domestic terror incidents here in the United States have not been committed by foreign individuals, but by US citizens who have been radicalized through the internet, without ever having had physical contact with a terrorist. I also happen to disagree with John's definition of radical Islam, but the point is moot because no matter what the definition is, it is clear that it has already found its way into the United States. Unless the United States government intends to block every single bit of terrorist propaganda from making its way into our computers (a highly unrealistic goal) than Middle Eastern refugees pose no more threat than Facebook or Youtube. The next would be does the United States have an obligation to open their borders to refugees for humanitarian reasons? In my own personal opinion I think the answer to that is no. The United States is a sovereign nation and owes nothing to citizens of other countries. But just because we don't have to help, doesn't mean we should not help. As one of the most powerful and wealthiest nations in the world we have the ability to open our borders, and provide aid to millions of people in need. I believe in the power of human kindness, and the importance of helping others out when we can, because I would hope someone else would do the same for me. I also think that we as a nation gain something of value when we open ourselves up to new people and new perspectives. Albert Einstein was a refugee from a religious minority, and, without his genius and insight into the nature of the atom, Germany may have been able to develop nuclear weapons before the US, and the world we live in today would be a very different place. Irrational fears should not be used to justify the United State's unwillingness to do its part to make the world a better place.
I would have to agree with Sam. I don't think that welcoming more refugees automatically makes us super vulnerable to "radical Islam." I also think that the data John provides pointing out that the number of terrorist attacks has increased since Europe has adopted progressive immigration policies is a very weak correlation (if any at all). The point about the fertility rate is a non-sequitur as it doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not America should accept more refugees. While I think that in comparison to other countries America could do more to help the refugees, I do not think that allowing for a huge influx of more refugees is the best way to help, but it certainly is help nonetheless.
I believe the best approach in this issue is to ensure the presence of a vigorous vetting process to protect from radical Islamist terrorists from being able to sneak citizenship inside the United States. While Syrian refugees are desperate for seeking access to peace and security free from the dangers of conflict, we should be wary of radical Islamist terrorists who might attempt to exploit this loophole. Effectively, this solution would form a bipartisan compromise between the desires and fears of the Republicans and Democrats. As for where to settle these immigrants within the United States, I believe the decision should be left to state-by-state decision. Some states such as California might be more democratically accepting of refugees.
Post a Comment