What are the valid criticisms? I don't know of any.
>Unless a person is willing to integrate with their host country's society and accept their culture, you won't be welcomed in. I think that's a very reasonable bar to hold people to.
This argument is not convincing to me at all.
I've lived in California, New York, and Florida and if your requirement for refugees is to learn the culture of all these different places I would say it's impossible.
How does people coming to the United States, speaking a different language, eating different food, and holding different beliefs affect your life in any way?
>I haven't seen anyone seriously calling for an outright ban of all refugees, so that seems like a bit of a strawman.
I think this is dishonest. Many people are calling for an outright ban on refugees.
>Why aren't you criticizing all these other countries that barely take in refugees?
Because I'm not a citizen of other countries and I actually believe refugees and immigrants in general are good for this country.
Eventually it becomes South Miami where there are parts where workers don't speak English. Kind of sucks when you try to order from a butcher shop and have to point at the meat and then the grinder.
>>I haven't seen anyone seriously calling for an outright ban of all refugees, so that seems like a bit of a strawman.
>I think this is dishonest. Many people are calling for an outright ban on refugees.
Yea it's impossible to really argue this. Some do yes. Many just want increased vetting.
Language is all I really care about. I don't understand how you can mesh with a society at all if you can't even speak to them. Eat and do whatever the hell you want, at the very least know English though.
Yeah, that would be kinda annoying.
Leaving innocent people to die in a totalitarian hellhole ought to demand a slightly higher bar than "kinda annoying."
Where do you draw the line? There's only 300 million people in the U.S. A quick search reveals that 780 million people don't have access to clean water. What do you do?
And we can't save them all, anyways. If everyone living in a totalitarian regime showed up in the US they would vastly outnumber the current Americans.
Obviously nations have the right to do that. I don't think anyone has said otherwise. Saying "your right to not be tortured and killed by a tyrannical government is less important than my right to prompt convenience at the grocery store" is still a dick move.
I never said that. See my reply to ApolloFortyNine.
> You seem eager to give away other people’s country.
It's my country too, thanks.
Just want to point out, again, that right now you are specifically arguing that convenience at the butcher's is more important than human life. Are you really making your point effectively and convincingly?
Your number only includes resettled refugees, i.e. it doesn’t include asylum seekers who came to the country by their own means. That number would look completely different.
While it’s great that the USA still accepts tens of thousands of resettled refugees, the number per capita is low: only 102 per 1 million residents. There would be room for much more. These resettled people are all thoroughly vetted, and they’ve waited for years in camps in the worst areas of the world. Canada takes in seven times more.
Neighboring countries in conflict regions tend to be most heavily affected by migration as conflict is a primary cause.
Some numbers (also available in the link above) to give perspective:
Country or territory of asylum Refugees per 1 million USD (GDP) Refugees to 1,000 inhabitants
Lebanon 19.48 169.16
Turkey 3.35 36.04
Germany 0.19 8.3
Denmark 0.11 5.89
Canada 0.06 2.68
United States 0.01 0.84This sounds like the case for, not the case against. Yes, we have this proud tradition and it's yet another thing that makes the US exceptional.
From 'The New Colossus' (1883):
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Salvadoran refugees are nothing if not "tempest-tost." And it's likely that the gang warfare over running their country is due in no small part to our countless interventions into central American politics.
Some of people's criticisms about refugees are totally valid. Unless a person is willing to integrate with their host country's society and accept their culture, you won't be welcomed in. I think that's a very reasonable bar to hold people to.
I haven't seen anyone seriously calling for an outright ban of all refugees, so that seems like a bit of a strawman. Having some kind of limit seems reasonable, and other countries can help to balance things out. I'm not sufficiently educated on the subject to comment on the factors which might've influenced us to reduce our cap. Maybe the number of refugees we accept should be different, I genuinely don't know. But ultimately, not everyone has to come to the US. Why aren't you criticizing all these other countries that barely take in refugees? The US is still accepting a very large number of refugees relative to the rest of the world.
[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...