Quote:
Originally Posted by sperbonzo
Did you read the article? Or my perspective? I said that it was interesting, and that I tended to lean towards totally open borders. . The article talks about decentralizing control of them, not banning immigration altogether.
|
I read the article carefully because I happen to believe in liberty and I was curious. It is unfortunately just a load of mental gymnastics as to why you should close borders to refugees. As a former refugee myself, I find that in stark contrast with liberty. I never asked for war, so the country that brought it to me should accept me. This is what I truly believe, I understand that the country bombing me will have a different view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sperbonzo
P.s. This mess started after the British and French brought down the Ottoman Empire and tried to create made-up nations by drawing artificial lines without regard to tribal or regional boundaries, so it is not all the fault of the US. Terrorism and massacres began in the 1920s..
|
yes the damage is historically compounded...arabs have every right to seek asylum in any nation that either held them as a colony, or bombed them, or armed ISIS (like the USA did)
I agree that it is not just the USA that should take all the refugees but also the british and french.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sperbonzo
If you want to use the "because we are all ex-immigrants ourselves" argument. Where does it stop? When Homo Sapiens walked out of Africa would be a good place.
The debate is simple, are the majority of people will to accept a lower standard of living to allow anyone who wants to, share the countries wealth?
No one is against controlled migration, both in and out. It's mass migration of the poor who will deduct from the many we disagree with. Without a referendum.
I'm assuming you believe in the democratic process.
|
If you are against mass migration of the poor, do not impoverish entire regions in the first place. I do not believe in democratic process as a reality, nobody asked the people of vietnam, avghanistan, iran, syria or what ever other place if they want to be bombed by the USA because the USA-s corporate government wants hegemony. Democracy is either a 2 way street or its plain old Fascism.
You reap what you sow. If you sow decades upon decades of mass destruction and exploitation and corporate bullshit you have 2 realistic options:
1) a poor refugee mass migration and eventual destruction of your own economy because they can not live on thin air and in the rubble you left behind
2) district 9 (basically anything outside the bombing countries would become a mass concentration camp, cash would be made illegal to stop the aliens from coming over, and 5% of the world that is the USA will live like israel does
there is no solution #3...solution #3 would be "we keep on bombing and they just shut up about it and stay home without bombing us back"....
pick solution 1 or 2 and enjoy