CampingJosh
Master
- Dec 16, 2010
- 3,298
- 99
I addressed the foregoing points individually in an attempt to be fair with you, but my overall intention was not to get into a point-for-point, sentence-for-sentence tit for tat type discussion like so many here wish to do. Rather, my objective is to examine the overall "Big Picture" moral justification you are using for refugee resettlement on a large scale.
OK, let's do that.
And I have pointed out one large, concrete, local example which undermines your moral justification.
A ten square-mile section of Indianapolis has taken in a quantity of refugees in the last ten years which exceeds the quantity taken by other entire (and usually Blue) states, if the above statistical citations are taken at face value. And the situation they are fleeing has nothing at all to do with US intervention in their local affairs. It's entirely related to the precise sort of "ethnic-craphole" malaise which is prevalent in so many countries of refugees who want to come here, and while we can have empathy for that country's situation, it must be pointed out that the situation is entirely of their own making. While the US is certainly addicted to overseas intervention (a fact which many Trump voters, it should be noted, are attempting to attack head-on), it cannot be used as the excuse and justification for everyone who wants to come here.
Is it your position, then, given the example of Burma, that United States Citizens are morally responsible to take in refugees of every country which had a non-democratic government and/or economic crisis brought on by civil war or ethnic clashes? Because that's an incredibly tall order.
You are in a bit of a position here. You either have to admit that the example of the 13,000 Burmese in South Indy do not fit into your moral justification for refugee resettlement based on inimical US intervention. Or, you must admit that what you are actually advocating is the use of government power to enforce your religious views (rooted in compassion as they may be) upon the rest of the US population. And, that US foreign intervention really has nothing to do with it, and is just a convenient excuse on your part, in certain cases.
If you are truly just a compassionate "no such thing as an illegal human" resettlement advocate, that is a defensible position. However, I think it would be more intellectually honest for you to simply man-up and admit that fact, without making excuses based on past US adventures.
You have done an excellent job at crushing an argument that we both agree I didn't make. Why do you hunt the straw man?
I did not say that the U.S. has a moral debt to refugees from Myanmar. I said that the U.S. played a role in creating refugees among Hmong people in Vietnam and among people in Central America, specifically Honduras. A lack of debt to one party does not mean a lack of debt to every possible party. After all, should I be able to use the fact that I don't have a mortgage to get out of paying a credit card bill?