Syria

This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees

We contributed to the problem. But we've barely allowed any in.

|

Credit: michael_swan / photo on flickr

In the months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell sometimes invoked what he referred to as the Pottery Barn Rule: "You break it, you own it." The obligations of ownership are now coming due, in the form of millions of refugees desperate to escape the strife of the Middle East. 

After the end of the Vietnam War, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese left the country, often in rickety boats. Given the United States' role in the conflict, Americans soon came to accept an obligation to admit many of them. 

Conservatives thought we had a duty because our withdrawal allowed the Communists to win. Liberals thought we had to step up because we had inflicted so much damage on Vietnam and its people. In 1975, we took in 125,000 Vietnamese refugees, a number that eventually grew to 750,000. They have become a significant part of the American mosaic. 

Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. 

We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it. 

Some four million Syrians have left their homeland, going to Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan and other neighboring nations. Hundreds of thousands have set sail across the Mediterranean Sea for Europe, and many have not made it: More than 5,000 migrants have died in the attempt. Others have suffered terrible hardships—which will only get worse with the onset of colder weather. 

Some European countries have decided they have no choice but to open their doors. Turkey is now host to 1.9 million Syrians. Germany is planning to take 800,000 by the end of this year. Sweden has admitted nearly 65,000. 

And the United States? About 1,500. On Thursday, the White House announced it would agree to another 10,000 in the coming year. But that's a tiny step toward solving a huge problem that is partly our creation. 

The U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI), a private group, proposes a larger target: 100,000 Syrian refugees by the end of next year. That figure would not be out of line with what has been done in the past. 

Besides the Vietnamese, we took in more than a million Cubans, including 125,000 in 1980. More than 300,000 Soviet Jews came here after 1988. Today, most Americans hardly remember these influxes, because they had no obvious ill effects. 

The Syrian exodus sparks fears of Islamic terrorists making their way here. But people who trek hundreds of miles on foot or cram into rubber rafts for ocean voyages typically have more pressing objectives than militancy. They do it to escape violence and extremism, not to spread it. We know how to handle this challenge, having already admitted more than 100,000 Iraqis. 

In any event, the U.S. government doesn't simply wave in anyone who applies for asylum. It has a thorough program to screen out criminals, jihadists and other undesirables. Applicants have to prove a credible fear of persecution or torture back home. "It's very selective," Eskinder Negash, senior vice president for global engagement at USCRI, told me. 

If the goal is to combat extremism, taking in asylees is a better tactic than letting them languish in bleak camps abroad. "There is no surer way to create a young terrorist than leave them to fester in an under-resourced refugee community," Kathleen Newland of the Migration Policy Institute told USA Today

The U.S. has a lot of experience with refugees. In a normal year, we resettle more than any other country. With the help of churches and other charitable groups, the newcomers generally adapt and integrate into society. Their children grow up Americans. 

There is nothing about the Syrians that should deter us from admitting them in far greater numbers than we have so far. Besides, like it or not, we kind of owe them. 

© Copyright 2015 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Kim Davis Memes Are Awesome. Kim Davis, Not So Much

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I don’t owe the Syrians a goddamn fucking thing.

    They can stay at your place, asshole.

    1. Absolutely. No more Muslims. And incidentally, these aren’t families and throngs of orphaned children. What isn’t being reported is that 75% of the ‘refugees’ are adult males of fighting age. That’s what we need here, adult Muslim males of fighting age entering the U.S. without any background screening.

      1. So you propose a religious test for immigration?

        1. Cultural test would be better

        2. I would. Islam has been at war with western civilization since its inception. It does not allow for the separation of church and state, does not concede that individuals have the right (and duty) to follow their conscience, keeps half the population (the female half) in subjugation, and expressly encourages treating non-believers dishonestly it you are not in a position of strength, and like second class citizens when Muslims are the majority.
          Islam is not just a religion, it is a socio-economic system. It is an ideology that is fundamentally antithetical to western liberal democracy, and allowing large influxes of people who subscribe to this ideology is not in the best interests of our own society in any way.

          1. I liked that better in the original German.

            1. Cute. Except the Nazi’s were friendly with various Islamic groups during the war. Including the Iraqi Baathists. Want to try again?

              1. Hear that noise? It was the analogy flying over your bigoted head.

                1. I fully admit to being a bigot. I firmly believe that western liberalism is superior to 14th century tribalism and dark age superstition and barbarity.
                  So, that makes me a fascist?
                  I could care less about race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc. But somebody who embraces the fucked up teachings of Islam is not someone I want in my country.
                  Further, the way I feel about Muslims is a pale imitation about the way most Muslims feel about Americans.
                  Besides, why kind of people don’t like dogs? Even Hitler liked dogs.

                  1. Don’t you know all cultures are equal? The reason that people are fleeing the Middle East by the millions is because of climate, asteroids and giant reptillian monsters that shoot laser beams. It’s got nothing to do with the political culture or the philosophies that predominate that society whose members are colonizing the west. Nope, these migrants can only make western democracies better because the belief systems they carry with them caused none of the problems they’re fleeing. Makes sense right?

                  2. Wait, am I the bigot, or did you mean Denver? ‘ bigot’ would mean an unreasoned dislike of something. My disdain of Islam is very well thought out, and includes a year of my life spent in the Middle East.

                    On that subject, what did you think of the Middle East when you were living there?

                    1. I quite liked it, thank you.

                      But this is the US. Assimilation takes about one generation, often less. And it is relentless.

                    2. And often not. There are pockets of immigrants that don’t assimilate. This includes the population of Islamic immigrants already here.

                    3. Come on, you know the rules: The only religion you can criticize is the one that says “but the greatest gift is this: That a man lay down his life for another” something about “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” and then the best: “The greatest law is this: That you do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
                      I’m an agnostic (just a non-militant atheist, really), but I can see the difference between a religion that peaches the above (even if imperfect men are often hypocrites), and the death cult known as Islam.

                    4. Huh, I thought I posted this somewhere else in reply to… Somebody?
                      Am I drunk? It’s the squirrels, isn’t it? Oh no, wait, I can do this:
                      Free society said:

                      Don’t you know all cultures are equal?

                      sarcastically I know.

                    5. Look up the word, it doesn’t mean any kind of dislike but a belief that your opinion is the only correct one.
                      You can, or at least many can, disagree with someone, yet not dislike them.

                  3. Addressing-No more Muslim immigrants idea-which I agree with:

                    Legally, we cannot now, nor can we expect to be able to in the near future, exclude immigrants on a religious basis-so to achieve the “no more Muslim immigrant” goal, we have to ask Trump to accept a moratorium with a strict need-not simple a business offers a job, but strict “no American will take this job” qualifier, and various groups who would vet that a good search had been made would be involved. That, and a biometric ID card guest worker for agricultural work, and we could cut way, way down on more Muslim immigrants.
                    Only Trump is possible on this, and he is clear that he wants to bring back “most” of those he would deport. So it would be a change, but at least with him, it’s a possibility.

                    1. Excluding Muslims is not imposing a religious test because Islam is not just a religion.
                      Islam is an entire societal construct, not just a way to quietly worship your God. It is imbued with a decree to convert all non-believers, or treat them as less-thans, with the goal of converting them or eliminating those who defy it.
                      That sets it apart from the types of religions protected by the Constitution.

                2. Hear that noise? It’s a marathon being bombed exponential cultural enrichment.

            2. I liked that better in the original Arabic .

              FTFY

              Islam predates national socialism.

              1. But he wasn’t calling me an Arab, which of course makes sense. Not did he call me Charles Martel, a notorious Islmaphobe.
                He was calling me a fascist, for stating my opinion that Islam is a danger to the West, and to freedom.

            3. Appeal to emotions rebuttal. Try again. Nothing he stated was untrue. If Islam has anything in common with a reference to German its the goal of Islam and Hitler’s Germany.

        3. Incitement to murder is a crime.

          Nobody who belongs to an organization that advocates murder should enter ANY free society.

          Islam’s founder set the mold when he killed people over their beliefs. This is a violation of NAP. You cannot redact this fact. Ignorant Muslims can be non-violent, but just as soon as they become educated they will have a choice: become soft, decadent, libertine or become serious about it.

          If they become serious about it, they then have a further choice: terrorism or heretic.

          If you don’t condemn murder, you must engage in it. That is the ontological basis of the religion. Murder is ok.

          This isn’t something you can change. It is literally a criminal organization, from a NAP standpoint. It’s a pact to murder people. Ignorant Muslims who are peaceful are just carriers of a deadly meme. It will express any time their decendents get educated.

          Because of the human spirit striving to develop, Islam will always be about violence because people will always strive to education. You can’t keep them ignorant of the philosophic implications of its founders behavior.

          1. (continued)

            We let muslims in and then pretend education will soften their orientation towards the “finer” points of their religion, but it does JUST THE OPPOSITE. We think “westerners tend towards atheism the more educated they are”. Which is probably true for Muslims too. The difference is what happens to those who don’t renounce god. What moral mandates become incumbent upon a self-aware Christian vs Muslim. Look at their founders. One turned the other cheek and died a victim, the other conquered by the sword as a victor.

            1. We let muslims in and then pretend education will soften their orientation towards the “finer” points of their religion, but it does JUST THE OPPOSITE.

              Take a walk through Orland Park, then get back to me.

              That is weapons-grade retarded.

              1. Old Man,

                Walking through Orland Park or many parts of Boston, or Islamic areas of Michigan would show many peaceful, well mannered areas. Of the one to one and half billion Muslims worldwide, between one and five percent, conservatively, are motivated and young and strong enough to express willingness to violent, islamicist (not Islamic – Islamicist is a Muslim world term for the violent brand of Islam that was once mainstream, but is out of the mainstream of most Muslims).

                This is again a conservative estimate, from Pew surveys of the Muslim world. So of many Boston Muslims, we get two who turn from Americanized to Radicalized, and bomb the Boston Marathon. Several American Muslims have gone off to fight with ISIS-our current plan to deal with the threat they pose if they return is a confused babble that translates as “ask him-no, you do it…”

                Your term, “weapons grade retarded,” describes choosing to increase the risk of a higher number of radicalized Muslims, by choosing among the roughly million of people we take in each year, to increase the percentage of Muslims. The mistake yours, for blinding yourself to the risk so as to remain obedient to PC concepts.

                1. Dude, this is the US. I know that’s a difficult concept for you, but it is still a fact. Muslims here are slightly to the left of Mormons.

                2. In those “peaceful, well mannered areas” there still exist roughly 80% who want/believe that they should be living under Sahria – the legal aspect of the “religion”.
                  And you can’t have just some living under Sharia, all must submit.
                  Even the “moderate” Muslims want to rule over you.

        4. I propose a whole bunch of tests for immigration. Our immigration policy should not be based on the needs of some foreigners. As long as we have a welfare state we should not be importing millions of illiterate, low/no skilled people to add to our economic burden. Bring in people who benefit us. And I would damn well bar Muslims from immigrating here except for special circumstances.

          We already have circa thirty million illegals here as it is. Maybe we should put a hold on adding more until we sort things out. And bringing in thousands of Muslims, largely men of fighting age, from that part of the world is the last thing we should be doing.

          1. we should not be importing millions of illiterate, low/no skilled people to add to our economic burden

            After all, we already have you.

            1. Hey asshole, I’ve got two college degrees and run my own business. I’ve paid my fucking dues and probably yours too. So go fuck yourself idiot.

        5. For Syrians, the first step on the application process would be eating a ham sandwich.

        6. More of a political test.

          But in the case of Islam, it amounts to the same thing. Hence the problem.

          1. No, no, Dan. See, in America we have separation of church and state. So no group of motivated religious people (coughcoughMoralMajority) would ever seek to impose their religious views on others by using government force.

            1. Islam is more than a religion, it is an entire way of life whose goal, by fair means or foul, to impose its design on whatever society it invades.

            2. Yeah, those Christians upset about gay marriage dropped those gays from buildings.

              Oh wait, shit, that was Muslims.

              http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..h-off.html

        7. I’ve got a “religious” test for immigration:

          If you’re not an American citizen – get lost! I don’t care where you’re from or what your religion is. We don’t need you.

          After a decade of that, we can consider admitting immigrants who show promise for improving America.

    2. Agreed. But they should also stay with Obozo. After all, he’s the one who unconstitutionally and unilaterally launched attacks on Libya which destabilized the entire region and led to the rise of ISIS.

      He did it ON HIS OWN.
      He did it WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY.
      He did it IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

      Why isn’t he in prison?

      At the very least, we can send half of the refugees to live in the Obozo home.

    3. Your government owe them.

  2. I was in Syria 20 years ago, trust me, it’s been fucked up a looooooong time.

    Sort of like you, chapman.

  3. Fine, Chapman. You start: How many families would you like to move into your neighborhood?

    1. He doesn’t speak for the people in his neighborhood. Ask him how many he will take into his own house.

    2. Chapman is going to take them into his house, right?

      1. All of them? Damn, I knew being a pundit paid, but I had no idea that it paid so well!

        1. Oh, but immigrants are good for our economy, right? I mean, the 70+% of criminal aliens and the 50+% of legal immigrants on welfare is good for America, right?

          Hey! Why don’t we sign up the whole WORLD for American welfare!? If tens of millions of immigrants on welfare in America is good for America, wouldn’t it be good for everyone if we just gave the rest of the world all the money they could take?

  4. I’m no fan of Obama, but how the hell is he at fault for “declining to take out…Bashar al-Assad”? By that logic the U.S. is at fault for every single refugee in the world, and for that matter every ill in the world, for declining to take preventive action, never mind the fact that taking out al-Assad would not guarantee zero onerous side effects. And if failing to act creates blame, why blame Bush for choosing to act on Saddam Hussein, someone at least equally heinous as al-Assad? Mr. Chapman can’t even maintain consistency within his faulty logic.

    1. Everyone is trying to kill the next hitler.

      1. You know who else was Hitler?

        1. Vic Hitler, the narcoleptic comic?

          1. I think we’ve done this one before. Got the deja vu thing going on.

    2. Reason always goes full retard on anything related to immigration.

    3. Chapman doesn’t seem to claim to be particularly libertarian, and here it really shows. For example, I can fault the Iraq War (and moreso the subsequent occupation) for destabilizing the region without believing that the ME was particularly idyllic beforehand, and I can believe that Obama’s wildly incompetent foreign policy, and especially his idiotic saber-rattling, contributed to the current situation in Syria without believing we should have invaded or “taken out” Bashar al-Assad.

      When he claims not to see a distinction between Vietnamese or Iraq and Syria he’s either being deliberately obtuse or he has absolutely no understanding of the three situations. My guess is that it’s the former, because you’d have to be dumb as a bag of hammers not to get that the Viet Cong, having won, was never going to send terrorists to the US. And any Iraqi terrorists had plenty of American targets right in their backyard.

    4. I’m no fan of Obama, but how the hell is he at fault for “declining to take out…Bashar al-Assad”? By that logic the U.S. is at fault for every single refugee in the world, and for that matter every ill in the world, for declining to take preventive action, never mind the fact that taking out al-Assad would not guarantee zero onerous side effects.

      I’m reminded of Peter Hitchens’ latest column in the Daily Mail, where he makes a congruent point regarding Cameron & Osborne (while discussing drone policy:

      It is all part of a confused and delusional policy towards Syria and ISIS. George Osborne, the Chancellor, still seems to want to attack Syria’s President Assad, whose army is now one of the main barriers against an ISIS victory.

      Last week he said Parliament’s vote not to bomb Assad in 2013 was ‘one of the worst decisions the House of Commons has ever made’.

      On the contrary, if we had bombed Assad then, we would have helped the people who soon afterwards became ISIS. Given this confusion at the highest level, Parliament should be very careful not to allow Mr Osborne and Mr Cameron to make the same mistake again.

    5. I agree. For the vast multitude of things I can lay at Obama’s feet, this isn’t one of them. Despite all his bungling in Syria. And if we owe anyone in the region, it’s the Kurds. Not Syrians.

    6. “By that logic the U.S. is at fault for every single refugee in the world, and for that matter every ill in the world…”

      Now you’re catching on!

      ” Mr. Chapman can’t even maintain consistency within his faulty logic.”

      Like all Proggies, they’re perfectly consistent, you just have to know the principles they are actually following. In this case, Hate America First, Last, and Always.

      See how that resolves all mysteries?

  5. cue anti immigration idiots pretending to make cogent arguments

    1. It’s gotten worse recently.

      1. It’s gotten worse recently.

        Actually, the hordes invading our country are thinning out because the economy is so bad 😉

    2. They gonna take r jobs!

      1. More like your life, infidel.

        1. Yeah, the Muslim hordes have taken over Chicago. I can’t buy alcohol, and the left lane is “Camels Only.”

          1. Look at the problems they have in the UK with their Muslims. How about that soldier that two members of the religion of peace decapitated in BROAD FUCKING DAYLIGHT, in LONDON. How about five weeks of riots in France a few years back by young Muslim men? Charlie Hebdo? Etc., etc.

            But no, all culture are created equal and should be blindly welcomed with open arms right?

            Idiot.

            1. Ummm, did you happen to notice that this isn’t the UK? And that Muslims here assimilate just like everyone else does?

              I thought not.

              1. Right, they’ve all assimilated. We have no problem with Islamist shootings anywhere, or any problems with Islamic violence at all here.

                Are you fucking kidding? The only reason we haven’t had more problems with Islamic violence is hard work and that a lot of the radicals are kind of stupid.

                You’re so committed to open borders at all costs that you ignore facts and obvious logic.

                1. Yeah, these idiots think Rotterham was an anamoly instead of a marker of a fucked-up culture. But somehow importing them to the US will make them see the error of their ways. And then they cry “BIGOTZ” when anyone dare point this out.

                  The “free-market SJW” crack someone leveled here the other day is an apt description.

              2. Seems like 19 of them weren’t all that assimilated on 9/11.

                1. And a bunch more who aborted their part of the attack.

              3. Uh, did you miss those half a dozen cases where Muslims ran rape gangs? For years and years and years? And the local police/government were too afraid to do anything?

                If anyone is assimilating, it’s the British, not the Muslims…

              4. “Ummm, did you happen to notice that this isn’t the UK? And that Muslims here assimilate just like everyone else does?

                I thought not.”

                That is weapons-grade retarded. to use your own words.

                Did you happen to notice here in Texas a US army officer went all Gi-jihadi-Joe on Fort Hood? perhaps you missed the Muslim millionaire who constantly spoke of moderate peaceful Islam and when his wife decided she was not that into Islam he gave her the Pez dispenser neck option with a sword. Or the Muslim up in Dallas who was not comfortable with his daughters assimilating so he killed them. The numerous organisations funneling money to Hamas and other terrorists groups right here inTexas, Arizona, New York and elsewhere. If I recall we even had a U.S. born, Christian raised Muslim convert down in Victoria kill his wife and kids because they did not want to convert.

                I suppose you could argue the Muslim that killed his wife but failed to fully behead her was not inspired by the entire history of his religion and was merely caught up in a bizarre OJ Simpson fantasy role play but that would require being ignorant to the point of believing a change in geography changes the core beliefs in how a religion/legal system/political ideology like Islam functions.

    3. This is an imbecilic argument. “Taking in” Syrian refugees is not an instance of a libertarian support for the free movement of people. It’s financing their immigration to the host country and supporting them while here. Equating that to being okay with someone simply showing up and being admitted after a basic background check – e.g. normal unrestricted immigration – is just silly.

      1. It’s beyond silly, it’s disingenuous and intellectually lazy.

    4. Actually the anti-immigration folks have reality, logic, and morality on our side. All you guys have is snarky bullshit like what you posted (ala “took our jerbs”) and magical thinking (with the suicide morality of altruism lurking in the background).

      1. Well, see, libertarians believe in classic economics, you know, things like supply and demand, until faced with immigration. Then, magically, things like labor, property values, emergency room visits, etc., are no longer affected by supply and demand.

        1. Goods moving across borders aren’t the same as people moving across borders. Goods move across borders because of the agency of the producers outside of the border contracting with the distributors and consumers inside the border. The mutual benefit is readily apparent, we can take it for granted.

          People, if they were like other goods, would be goods that somehow move across borders with their own agency, mutual benefit is irrelevant, only the benefit to the goods themselves is taken for granted.

          1. Actually even Ricardian free trade requires (in economic terms) that the winners compensate the losers. Otherwise its just nothing more than a utilitarian winners/losers game – or two wolf eating the sheep.

            Since the winners never actually do compensate the losers; the ‘free trade’ mantra is actually closer to a religion than to economics.

            Not to mention that Ricardian free trade also assumed stable currencies – not free floating currencies where much of the benefits of trade accrue to neither the producer nor to the consumer but to the purveyor of currency hedges.

            1. It took me a while to think about that. I’m bright enough that momma calls me sun, but them’s a lotta big words strung together.
              I understand how currency traders would make lots of money, but how does that negate the lower costs to consumers?

          2. I thought about your content even longer than the one below.
            I call bullshit. Sorta. You’re right about the goods moving themselves for their own benefits, ok. How does that in any way change their affect on the price of labor?
            Of course people aren’t goods.
            In economics, people are labor.

            1. And since my monocle factory is closed so that I can fumigate (some of the orphans escaped and I suspect that they are living inside the walls), since the factory will be closed, I have time to explain that labor is the one unique force that humans can unleash on the earth.
              You have resources, labor, and means of production. Now, I’ve just come up with all of this, right now. So I suspect that it may take me a few hundred yrs to dig into the nuances. I wish somebody had started studying “economics” back in the day.

  6. What a bunch of bullshit. Like others have said, when are you going to start taking in some refugees? Even if you did, you have no right to force anyone else to do so.

    WTF is wrong with people? Whether they sit in the church pews, or say they support the NAP, or are about peace and what have you, they still advocate some kind of state sanctioned violence against others……grrrrrr

  7. Why’s there this sudden push for 1st world nations to intake hordes of refugees? The Syrian conflict has been wrecking that country for many years now.

    Anyway, yeah, fuck off with the collective guilt tripping. I don’t owe them shit.

    1. Because they want to either A) bring the 1st world down a few pegs or B) The multicult has these people literally believing that all cultures are equal and all immigration is good as long as they aren’t white immigrants.

    2. Maybe it’s the new vogue thing to do for the progressives. Like when adopting Chinese babies was the cool social thing for them. Except in this case, they aren’t starting out young and cute. So iwe have to do it, but you won’t see any of the Syrians moving into their neighborhoods.

    3. “Why’s there this sudden push for 1st world nations to intake hordes of refugees? ”

      Because the easiest way to win elections is to import voters you prefer.

      1. Also, the twin lures of cheap labor and undeserved feelings of moral superiority play a part.

  8. ‘We’ don’t have to do anything. I need to mow and then drink some beer today.

  9. Most of the refugees are fleeing from Turkey seeking not safety but bigger welfare checks. I don’t see any other ME countries taking them in.

    Fuck you Chapman.

    1. It seems these people are welfare shopping for the country with the most benefits.

  10. Give us your tired, weak and surprisingly fit looking males btw 17-35. BTW why is the Mediterranean Sea awash in Passports?

    1. Well, that the 17 to 35 yr old males are subject to instant inscription into, or death at the hands of, whichever armed force arrives at their village first might have something to do with the demographics.
      I empathize with them. It’s like the illegal Mexicans: If I was born in some third rate excuse for a country, my economic prospects were dismal, and I was persecuted by a racist government (Google it), then I’d be trying to get into America my own damn self.
      I get it. I sympathize. But sympathy is not a good way to set government policy.

      1. Sympathy is found between shit and syphilis in a dictionary and is equally desirable.

  11. If you want to place nlame for the mess in the middle east, look to the European Intellectual Left. They are the omes who were certain that the old Colonial rule was A Bad Thing, and look what has followed. India was, sort of, ready for self-rule. The middle east? Not so much.

    As for our taking reponsibility, oh my aching back. Syria has been a pesthole for longer then I’ve been alive. Not my circus, not my monkeys.

  12. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for … declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

    Yes, because our previous attempts at removing the strong men dictators of the Middle East and North Africa have brought so much peace and prosperity to the world.

    1. There is no good option for Syria. It’s just a matter of which flavor of shit sandwich you pick. Rock hard turd, or diarrhea melt. Your choice.

      1. Not our choice. Not our country. None of our goddamn business what they do there.

        1. It’s an expression. No need to go full retard here.

  13. While there are arguments about how much taxpayer funding migrants get, there is no doubt that refugees are paid by the US taxpayers. Much of the money goes through various ‘charities’ but the vast amount of money they get are from the taxpayers.

    These ‘charities’ often have religious names but if you look at their financial report they are really just government contractors who get paid for each refugee they handle. And when the money runs out they just dump the refugee on the state and local welfare system.

    1. Here is one refugee organization “American Refugee Committee”

      Out of 35 million in revenue, 29 comes directly from government grants.

      http://www.charitynavigator.or…..fbBIBFVhBc

  14. the Pottery Barn Rule: “You break it, you own it.” The obligations of ownership are…

    …complete figments of Powell’s imagination. And Chapman is stupid enough to accept it as axiomatic.

    1. Yeah, I kept looking for the part where the United States caused the Syrian civil war. Maybe it’s in a footnote. Unless he’s talking about Barry running off at the mouth about a “red line” or whatever, which only works if you subscribe to the “whoever smelt it, dealt it” school of responsibility.

      1. I think the red line speech gave the rebels a huge incentive to stage a chemical attack to look like Assad, while simultaneously giving the Assad regime no incentive whatsoever to use gas attacks. The gas attack that did occur cannot be said to have served any military purpose, for anyone but the rebels that is. There were no gas attacks prior to his red line speech, and no subsequent gas attacks since it became clear that Obama was bluffing.

        1. And frankly, none of it was our business anyway.

          1. True enough. But even making that speech about the war, arguably got a few extra thousand people gassed by Islamists and/or western backed rebels who were just implicitly offered the benefit of a world class air force if only some women and children get gassed.

            1. If you’re arguing that Obama was an idiot to weigh in, I can’t disagree. If you’re arguing that we then have some responsibility because Arab A killed Arab B, ummmm…. no.

              1. Nothing I said could be construed as a pro-intervention argument. As controversial as I got was to posit that we already did intervene, between Barry’s fungible “non-lethal aid” and his “red line speech” that was really just a call to rebels to murder some civilians on the implicit promise of gaining a free air force.

  15. That fucking place was already broken.

  16. Today, we don’t have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe’s shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.”

    We don’t have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can’t very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn’t doing enough to ameliorate it.

    “We’re at fault somehow, don’t worry too much about the explanation or details.”
    — “Reason”.com

    1. It’s especially hilarious when you consider Chapman is one of the fucking retards who thought the “Arab Spring” would be one of the greatest things ever a couple of years ago.

      1. Hasn’t it been ?

      2. I roll my eyes whenever I see that curtesy little romanticized term. All the news reports from that time read like progressive erotic fan fiction.

        1. And that’s when Morisi reached out and grabbed her hands. He brought Egypt closer to his face, so he could look directly into her eyes. She felt her Democracy stir.

  17. The majority of commenters have missed the point here, and have revealed themselves as home-and-country tea-partiers motivated by ethnic and cultural prejudice.

    From a libertarian point of view, national borders are difficult to justify. Who owns “our” public space? A pretty tough argument. You’ve got police and barbed wire ranged along an invisible boundary. If you’ve got it organized on ethnic or nation-state lines, you’ll have a hard time making a “Reasonable” argument. And I don’t see any signs of that in the discussion above. Just mostly grumpy home-town thumpers. Maybe Edmund Burke would be your best bet? Anything to raise the level of the discussion.

    1. Dumb.

      Even in an ideal Libertarian (i.e., stateless) society, you’re going to have property owners and the delimitations of said property are going to be policed, etc. Hordes of refugees are unlikely to wash up in a place where there’s no govt forcing society to pay for them.

      1. Of course property will be policed. But there’s private property, unowned things, state property and so forth. Pretty complicated. Requires a fundamental discussion, not just a few xenophobic sound-bites. Not everyone at Reason.com is lined up with that mentality.

        As for where refugees will go, they’ll go where they can and where they see a future. America has plenty to offer besides handouts, and presumably it doesn’t all originate in the collection of economic rents for border patrol. You can fly from Damascus to Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey without a visa. The 4 million flood was not slowed down by the lack of a Swedish-style support system in those countries. That is an odd argument. There’s more at stake here, regarding individual rights concerns, than just the question of public funding.

        1. Or people with little will go where they believe other people have something that they can take. Often nations are about people with a shared morality and work ethic. In countries like Germany, the country thrives because everyone is expected to be productive and law abiding. The have not had large parts of the population on permanent public aid, and they have not had to spend an exorbitant amount on police and prisons. If you add a reasonable number of refugees willing to adopt those values, the country is the better for it. If, on the other hand, you let several million people in, and they continue behave like they are still in Syria, Afghanistan or Benin, your country and culture can collapse. Open borders seems like compassionate idea, but it is based on the idea that everyone is the same, except for their economic circumstances. I have lived among people in many countries and cultures. The sad truth is that there are a bunch of people out there who could not function in our society without deep changes in their culture and moral code. I would rather be seen as a mean isolationist than have to explain to my daughter that she was gang raped because the gentlemen who did it feel that it is a reasonable reaction to seeing a girl traveling without escort.

        2. Of course property will be policed. But there’s private property, unowned things, state property and so forth. Pretty complicated. Requires a fundamental discussion, not just a few xenophobic sound-bites. Not everyone at Reason.com is lined up with that mentality.

          True.

          As for where refugees will go, they’ll go where they can and where they see a future. America has plenty to offer besides handouts, and presumably it doesn’t all originate in the collection of economic rents for border patrol.

          It has plenty to offer besides handouts, but AFAIK unsettled fiscal questions remain re: how these people going to get here, where are they going to live when they arrive, who/what is going to support them until they presumably get on their feet, etc.

          If this were a spontaneous influx of migrants assorting themselves into a new environment in a ‘natural’ laissez-faire fashion, that’d be different. But this isn’t that kind of situation?instead we’ve state entities with oversight to plan and (mis)manage the migration. So there’s going to be a miasma of perverse incentives involved fucking this process up and unleashing shitty unintended consequences for all. And given present conditions, many of these people will likely be coddled into forms of state-subsidized subsistence.

          I’m all for open borders and freedom of movement, in principle. But these aren’t incompatible with the status quo of state population management and open welfare.

          1. *But these aren’t compatible with the status quo

        3. You can fly from Damascus to Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey without a visa. The 4 million flood was not slowed down by the lack of a Swedish-style support system in those countries. That is an odd argument.

          Eh. I’m sure they can be resourceful for sake of self-preservation, so it’s unsurprising the tide hasn’t slowed. But many of them have clearly stated preferences re: where they’d like to end up, and these tend towards nations w/ plusher welfare states (e.g., Germany).

          There’s more at stake here, regarding individual rights concerns, than just the question of public funding.

          Sure, but questions of public funding also have everything to do with individual rights concerns as well?why should my individual right to not be stolen from (taxed) be overridden by their individual right to freedom of residence?

          Also, fuck the posting char limit on this board.

          1. Thanks for a long and interesting comment.

            I agree that *every* public expenditure is suspect on the basis that it is taken from people in the form of taxes. We could debate this. And you’re welcome to be more radical on this point than me — you’ve got to understand that where I live, libertarianism of this kind is virtually unheard of.

            But the fact of social welfare is either a “choice” of the countries that have it, or alternately, it is a burden unfairly imposed on them by a self-perpetuating oppression — or even simply an oppressive majority. In any case, it’s not remotely the responsibility of the guy standing at the door of Europe, who wishes to cross over. And the “right” to exclude him is not remotely an individual right, and only vaguely a property right, and only in some generalized, collective sense.

            1. But the fact of social welfare is either a “choice” of the countries that have it, or alternately, it is a burden unfairly imposed on them by a self-perpetuating oppression — or even simply an oppressive majority. In any case, it’s not remotely the responsibility of the guy standing at the door of Europe, who wishes to cross over. And the “right” to exclude him is not remotely an individual right, and only vaguely a property right, and only in some generalized, collective sense.

              I agree this isn’t the problem of the man standing at Europe’s door, and that excluding them from a given nation’s territory isn’t an individual right.

              Though nation-states by their nature do adjudicate on matters pertaining to those vague collective sensibilities, along with implying that some notional social contract exists between those residing within its borders (a standard justification for taxation & welfare). So long as such sociopolitical distinctions remain in force, the state will be an arbiter in deciding who is or isn’t a citizen of their national collective.

              Not defending this, it’s just a reality of our societal context. In a just world of course, nobody should have to ask for permission to freely traverse or settle in areas that aren’t someone else’s property. But because we have all this nationalized social contract baggage, that isn’t really possible.

          2. continued…

            So even if it has some validity as a wise policy, it does not have the character of a libertarian right at all. And it is being posed against his individual right. And for a person who supports individual rights, usually, if not predominantly, the individual right should be given precedence over the collective right. So such a policy of exclusion, even if it’s necessary as a “practical matter”, must surely have lots of exceptions, is a matter of judgement, and so forth. It doesn’t deserve the absolutist tone of some of the previous comments. (Not to speak of the knee-jerk Islanmophobia.)

            The “absolutist tone” borrows its power from the classic imagined freedom-fighter situation when the lonely individual is trying to exert one of his rights against a generalized notion of the “greater good”. But in the case of the would-be immigrant, the classic situation is exactly inverted.

            Agreed, fuck the limit.

            1. There is nothing knee-jerk about my Islamophobia. It is a rational position to take considering history.
              I don’t remember old man being much of a preener, so I assume his position is really what he believes, and I respect his opinion while disagreeing with it.
              You, on the other hand, seem to be busy signaling how unbiased you are.
              This isn’t the Huffington Post, and nobody is going to commend you for being politically correct.

            2. So even if it has some validity as a wise policy, it does not have the character of a libertarian right at all. And it is being posed against his individual right. And for a person who supports individual rights, usually, if not predominantly, the individual right should be given precedence over the collective right. So such a policy of exclusion, even if it’s necessary as a “practical matter”, must surely have lots of exceptions, is a matter of judgement, and so forth. It doesn’t deserve the absolutist tone of some of the previous comments. (Not to speak of the knee-jerk Islanmophobia.)

              Well, nation-states are kind of a poor platform for universal individual rights given that they exist for some selected collective. At best, one can enumerate certain individual rights for its own members (something the US founders did)?but then there’s that statist quandary again over deciding membership?

              Ultimately, I don’t think a fully Libertarian position on borders/immigration is possible so long as national borders remain a politically enforced construct.

              1. Ehhhhh… Kinda I’ll agree with this. I might look at it from a different angle: Since the world is not Libertopia, and since we wish to make the US as free as possible, it makes sense to defend the borders of the US against those who are a threat to the freedoms of US citizens.
                I will agree to dissolve the borders of this country just as soon as the area outside the borders becomes as free as the area inside the borders.

                1. Or, equally, as soon as the freedoms in this country are diluted to the same level as the world outside our borders. Which will probably happen sooner.

        4. That is an odd argument. There’s more at stake here, regarding individual rights concerns, than just the question of public funding.

          Which indiviudal right gives you claim to other people’s property? Which individual right entitles you to the use of stolen public property?

          1. “That is an odd argument.”

            This refers to the idea that the primary motivator of refugees is social services, which came up earlier in the thread.

            But it could also be job opportunities and above all, simple physical security. Do you view acquiring these as a form of theft?

            For example, you could argue that the streets, conditions and institutions of a society are the collective property of its current residents, or maybe its citizens, but to me this seems too gluey to be part of libertarian thinking. At least, it’s hard to argue that the right is absolute, in the way that more personal property rights should be.

            1. This refers to the idea that the primary motivator of refugees is social services, which came up earlier in the thread.

              On that point, isn’t a motivator? Is there some reason perhaps why the migrants chose Germany instead of one of the 20 or so countries whom are closer to Syria, geographically and culturally? I mean if they are fleeing from their lives from the Middle East in general, then why not stop in Bulgaria or are their lives in danger there too? Why not set up shop in Bosnia? Croatia?

            2. But it could also be job opportunities and above all, simple physical security. Do you view acquiring these as a form of theft?

              Do they lack physical security in Turkey? Bulgaria? Macedonia? Bosnia? Iran? India? I had no idea that ISIS’s reach extended all the way to the Bavarian border.

              For example, you could argue that the streets, conditions and institutions of a society are the collective property of its current residents, or maybe its citizens, but to me this seems too gluey to be part of libertarian thinking. At least, it’s hard to argue that the right is absolute, in the way that more personal property rights should be.

              Because it’s not libertarian thinking. Public property is stolen property. And there’s certainly no absolute right to the private property of others, nor the stolen property of others. And if anyone on this earth has a right to stolen property or a right to make rules about that stolen property, it’s the people from whom that property was stolen. Which means that Bangladeshi peasant children do not in fact, have a “right” to my property or the stolen property managed by the government. The government may be the second least justified entity to make rules of use for stolen property (taxes and land), though the most stupendously unjustified entity to make rules and demands are unsponsored hypothetical immigrants.

              1. That is interesting. Is every form of resource or good that is not privately owned automatically public property and therefore stolen? As I understand it, goods is taken into private ownership by some reasonable process, such as mixing your labor with it and making it more valuable. But there is always a huge fund of stuff that either unowned, or collectively owned. On top of that, there is the notion of public property. This might be just government property, or might also be defined to include all the unowned stuff — you tell.

                But even some some of the government property is not really stolen, at least not from individuals. For example, the “public” areas of a city are formally government property. Perhaps you view them as being stolen from the “unowned” property by being made subject to many liberty-infringing regulations. In any case, I get that. It is a reasonable point to make, even if I might argue against it.

                1. That is interesting. Is every form of resource or good that is not privately owned automatically public property and therefore stolen?

                  No. Unowned land isn’t property. It’s unowned. Unowned things are by definition, not property. What is stolen, are taxes. What is stolen is land seized by eminent domain or illegitimately owned land which is paid for by taxes.

                  This might be just government property, or might also be defined to include all the unowned stuff — you tell.

                  Public property is government property, which is entirely stolen property. A rock at the bottom of a valley on Mars is not public property, it’s unowned.

                  But even some some of the government property is not really stolen, at least not from individuals. For example, the “public” areas of a city are formally government property

                  Only if those streets were entirely donated to government, and entirely maintained by freely given donations, would they not be stolen property. Did the owners of the land on which that street was built consent to the sale, or was it forced upon them at gun point? Were the potholes filled by donations, or taxes?

                  Perhaps you view them as being stolen from the “unowned” property by being made subject to many liberty-infringing regulations. In any case, I get that.

                  Not at all. Streets are clearly owned by someone, even if those property rights aren’t exercised by the legitimate owner.

              2. But aside from that, who does own that stretch of “public” city space? Is it the nation, the world, or nobody? Or should it be entirely in private hands, like Podkayne’s Venus? In any case, if you believe it was stolen, then from whom? If the government has no legitimate taxing power or owning power — how can it have a rulemaking power over some “unowned” land? And by what authority can it be denied to someone from another part of the world?

                As an additional point, there are many institutions that are more diffuse than physical property, such as courts, constitutions, universities. Are they unowned, or owned by a nation? Plus thousands of businesses. And we know who owns them. Plus peace and prosperity. Do we own that? Maybe so? In any case, I can’t blame anyone for wanting to be near Western institutions.

                1. But aside from that, who does own that stretch of “public” city space? Is it the nation, the world, or nobody?

                  The government. But according to principles of justice and liberty, the people from whom the land was stolen AND the people who were taxed to maintain it. The only legitimate property is private property, so yes, it should be privately owned whether by a group or an individual matters not.

                2. If the government has no legitimate taxing power or owning power — how can it have a rulemaking power over some “unowned” land?

                  They have legitimate owning power, just like me. But the difference is that I didn’t seize my property by force. I had to create it myself or trade for it from the person who did create it. The government has no legitimate rule-making authority per se, but that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be rules. For example, I disagree with the existence of public roadways but that doesn’t mean I don’t think we need traffic rules. Ideally those rules would be determined by the give-and-take between economic producers and consumers, the road’s owners and it’s users. But the ideal system is not available and we’re stuck in a government monopoly. Thus if the government were to monopolize roadways and then fail to at least mimic the rule making authority of property owners, if it didn’t live up to it’s self-imposed rule-making monopoly, then it’s actually just adding insult to injury and doing motorists great harm.

                  1. As this relates to immigration, ideally it would be regulated by the voluntary willingness of private property owners to sponsor ‘immigrants’, to sell them goods or refuse to do business with them at all. The ability to discriminate, to freely associate, is the natural mechanism by which societies protect themselves and their communities. The amount of social and cultural change brought on by immigration would reflect the host society’s willingness to accept it. Some immigrants would be welcome, others certainly wouldn’t. What we have now is not an ideal system. The government has monopolized the role of the immigration gate keeper, and only it is allowed to discriminate freely. I as a business owner, am not allowed to exercise my right o free association, I’m not legally allowed to discriminate. Society itself, is therefore not allowed to operate it’s naturally posessed immigration regulation mechanisms. Thus, if the government having put us in this position to begin with, abrogates it’s self-imposed role as rule-maker, then society is harmed and we’ve just added insult to injury.

                3. As an additional point, there are many institutions that are more diffuse than physical property, such as courts, constitutions, universities. Are they unowned, or owned by a nation?

                  Universities are not nearly as abstract as constitutions and courts. But all of the above are basically government property. The Constitution is after all a state constitution. It’s like asking “Who owns the lease agreement between you and your landlord?”, well both of us, but the difference is that I entered into my lease agreement voluntarily and of my own volition. The same cannot be said of the Constitution, it’s owned wholly by the state. That might be why it monopolizes the right to interpret the thing.

                  Plus thousands of businesses. And we know who owns them. Plus peace and prosperity.

                  Businesses have owners. Peace and prosperity are relative concepts.

                  In any case, I can’t blame anyone for wanting to be near Western institutions.

                  Wanting something does not confer a right to have it, much less to take it.

    2. …revealed themselves as home-and-country tea-partiers motivated by ethnic and cultural prejudice.

      You say that like it’s a bad thing.

      1. Not at all! Variety is the spice of life.

    3. Eat shit, pal.

      I live in Dearborn Heights, MI, and the vast majority of my neighbors are Muslim Arab-American. Americans that contribute to society and my community.

      Refugees are here on MY dime.

      1. So it sounds like you respect and resent them at the same time, or something like that. And you’re mad about it. Well, that’s understandable. There’s a lot of things to get mad about. Cheers.

        1. Goddamn, you’re just an ar,chair pseudo intellectual, aren’t you? Just puke out some weak theoretical argument and expect to inflict your lame ideas on the rest of us. But when we don’t want to live with your bullshit, well, ‘there are plenty of things to get mad about’.

          Seriously, fuck you.

      2. I live in Dearborn Heights, MI, and the vast majority of my neighbors are Muslim Arab-American. Americans that contribute to society and my community.

        You’re saying that they ASSIMILATE? Just like everyone else who has ever come here? Huh, who’da thought?

    4. No, from an anarchist (which I am, actually) point of view, national borders are difficult to justify. Libertarians support the existence of states, so, by definition, they support national borders.

      But that Edmund Burke reference was a nice touch. Very intellectual.

      1. Thanks for the distinction.

        The most troubling idea is that of collective responsibility. Both article and comments throw this muddy concept around without reflection, as if the only question is where to assign it.

        As for Edmund Burke, I only heard about him recently when I realized there was an intellectual structure to conservatism.

    5. “The majority of commenters have missed the point here, and have revealed themselves as home-and-country tea-partiers motivated by ethnic and cultural prejudice”

      You just revealed yourself as a douchebag who likes to throw around the race card. What part of the NAP, or freedom and liberty don’t you get? You don’t have the liberty to rob others so you can feel better about yourself.

      Take some individuals into your home, or donate to a charity that supports refugees. Or even create your own charity. It would be far more effective than you advocating others to be robbed by the state to do so. Now how many donations would you get if you called people racists if they chose not to donate? And if you tried robbing them, well you would eventually get the shit kicked out of you.

      1. You’re jumping to conclusions. Who said I support using people’s tax money to support refugees? Or that I agree with the thesis put forth in the article?

        It’s the low tone and intellectual level of the comments that I’m referring to. Plus the America for Americans type chauvinism.

        BTW the NAP by itself is rather empty of content, and indeed it’s one of the weaker verbal “planks” of modern-day libertarianism. It doesn’t mean anything until you supplement it with content-style assertions about when the use of force is justified. It is like having a single axiom of geometry without the others. Everyone would agree with the ostensible meaning of the words “non-aggression”, but the left (and many others) will accuse you of a bait and switch when they find the implicit preconditions embedded in the use of “aggression”. So it’s not very good shorthand except for converts.

        1. Ok, so how many of these Syrians are YOU taking in?

      2. I’m openly culturally prejudiced. People who aren’t culturally prejudiced aren’t very familiar with foreign cultures. They aren’t created equal, some of them are objectively bad for human survival and some of them are outright incompatible with civilization.

        1. But the phrase “culturally prejudiced” appears to mean pre-judgement of individuals on the basis of superficial cultural markings.

          It’s rather different matter to have a reasoned belief in the overall superiority of Western culture. And it’s only “overall superiority”. When you have long-term contact with another way of life, you find many specific things in it that are better than at home.

          And the best thing about Western culture — present nowhere else in such abundance — is its tolerance. There’s no way to roll that back without damaging the core.

          1. ‘Tolerance’ and ‘blind stupidity’ are different things. Maybe you should think a whole lot harder about this. Because all I see is a bunch of blindly optimism theoretical chatter. And as someone who has actually lived in the Middle East for a year and visited several countries there, I am in no hurry to import anything related to those cultures here.

          2. And the best thing about Western culture — present nowhere else in such abundance — is its tolerance. There’s no way to roll that back without damaging the core.

            We could certainly stand to roll back the tolerance. Yes the west is highly tolerant, it’s part of the reason why people who argue that “white heterosexual males” are intolerant privilege havers, are blatantly wrong. White heterosexual males, for all their supposed evils, built the most prosperous, inclusive and tolerant societies the world has ever known. That fact is not even up for debate.

            But we are getting to the point where we are tolerant to a fault. When the tolerance ideal begins to cannibalize our other ideals, we have a problem. (hello hate speech laws and public accommodations)

            Western civilization is eating itself alive because of tolerance. I see no obligation to tolerate anyone and everyone as a core value of western philosophy.

            1. “White heterosexual males”

              Incidentally, how do you know it was heterosexuals? That seems like a bit of a stretch. Hasn’t it been rather easy to go in disguise?

              1. My white male heterosexual privilege is like a superpower. I just know.

    6. The majority of commenters have missed the point here, and have revealed themselves as home-and-country tea-partiers motivated by ethnic and cultural prejudice.

      Ah, yes, argumentum ad hominem. By opening with this gem, you reveal the paucity of your logic and consign yourself firmly to the kid’s table of the discussion. If you’re actually interested in “raising the level of the discussion”, you’ll probably want to take on individual arguments on their own merits rather than flinging poo.

      1. He has no real argument other than ‘feelz and intentionz’.

    7. Like it or not modern ‘absolute’ (as contrasted with the previous feudal/obligation stuff that is still the legal basis of all ‘fee simple’ ownership) property rights conflict with a whole slew of natural freedoms.

      We have the natural freedom to wander around for good reason or no reason at all.
      We have the natural freedom to seek shelter against predators/elements
      We have the natural freedom to seek shelter in order to rest/heal
      We have the natural freedom to claim exclusive use of territory

      Most animals have the same freedoms – which is a pretty good indication that these truly are ‘natural’ freedoms. But we humans have fixated on turning the last of those into a ‘natural right’ – and in so doing have undermined the other three because those are not all mutually compatible.

      1. Reading the history of property law in England is a real eye opener. It’s worth it for the linguistic gems alone.

        We need states. But we have a cult of states.

        1. “We need states”

          No, we don’t.

          1. Simply as a practical matter 😉

    8. We haven’t missed a goddam thing. And you destroyed any real credibility to your argument bringing racism into it. It is entirely reasonable and logical to not want to import thousands of young men of fighting age that come from a violent culture and religion.

      Also, we do not live in a theoretical world. We live in a real one. National borders are easily defined, and necessary. Seriously, your argument is asinine and ignores reality on any ‘Reasonable’ level.

      1. “National borders are easily defined…”

        That sounds rather easy!

        National borders are often disputed, and the very concept of what is a valid “nation” is often a pretty muddy process. Opinions differ sharply depending on one’s ethnic position within a given society. What was unthinkable a few decades ago becomes obvious.

        The U.S. is such a special case, with such a stable framework, it’s hard to grasp how tense and heavy these things are elsewhere.

        1. It is easy. You’re one of those people that make vague little disingenuous theoretical arguments, aren’t you? Then act like you’ve made some sort of clever point, when you haven’t.

          And no, none of this is hard to grasp at all. Border disputes aren’t a difficult concept. I think it’s just you.

          If you want to do more than just be an annoying troll, maybe you should try making a specific point about something tangible. But you won’t. You know damn well the moment you do, any contention you make will be torn apart. Probably by more people here than me.

    9. “From a libertarian point of view, national borders are difficult to justify. ”

      If you think libertarianism is anarchism, sure. Not everyone thinks so.

  18. Damn, today’s most popcorn-ready article is relegated to the kid’s table.

  19. This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees

    The U.S. has a lot of experience with refugees. In a normal year, we resettle more than any other country.

    Circular argument.

    Accepting the premise of the article, how are ‘we’ going to pay for it? We are already the most heavily indebted nation in the history of the human race [if there is a nation that is, or has been farther in debt, I’d like to know]. Real world experience points to more and higher taxes, greater debt, with the attendant screeching about budgetary needs not being met.

    I recognize the Libertarian argument for freedom of movement, but can’t resolve that with real world un-Libertarian consequences.

  20. Bringing over Vietnamese was one they didn’t have the baggage Islam brings with it, 1000’s of Muslims who clearly have and agenda is wrong to place them. Obama is clearly to Blame for this mess if he would have been a Real Leader instead of a Real Loser shutting down the world economy does not help. Europe & America will pay a Heavy price generations to come.

    1. I always love when threads like this attract the illiterate who get linked to it from… where, this time? V-Dare?

  21. Steve Chapman: obvious Reason troll of the day. You can’t be this dumb. Try putting the blame up your asshole, that’s the only place it makes sense.

    1. You can’t be this dumb.

      Would you care to reconsider that statement?

    2. Don’t make the same mistake I appear to make on a daily basis, underestimating the stupidity, lazy thinking, and general thoughtlessness of others. And for me, that is REALLY saying something.

    3. ” You can’t be this dumb.”

      Wanna bet? Proggie beliefs require sabotaging reason to maintain.

  22. Gee, was not Powell’s quote about breaking it an argument for nation building and an interventionist foreign policy? I am not sure that Chapman grasps the full implications that if we buy Syria we have an obligation to fix it.

    1. He’s cherry picking without proper context.

  23. I don’t know what else to say except to join the chorus of “Fuck off, Chapman.”

  24. I weirdly assumed that Assad and the citizens of Syria were responsible for breaking their own country.

    1. Actually, this logic works great. When I was younger I drove my car home drunk and took off my front bumper by grinding it into a pillar in the parking garage. If only I’d known then that it was actually the city zoning board’s fault for allowing the bar to be built…

  25. This is the foreign policy of infantilism. Nobody is ever responsible for screwing up their own nation and sorting out the consequences. Uncle Sam is always to blame.

    1. AKA Uncle Sucker.

  26. I’ll believe the bleeding heart proggies when it is THEIR neighborhood, tax dollars, and precious “good schools” they brag their kids attend that these refugees are welcomed into. I’ve seen how the other refugee groups have been treated here in the US, and the snooty proggy crowd are at best hypocritical NIMBYs.

    1. Ironic, I live in a rather wealthy neighborhood and I was amazed that Syrian immigrants are housed here too; their daughter goes to our son’s excellent grade school. I was relieved that they are not regime supporters. That sort of viewpoint makes it difficult to find a suitable topic of conversation over tea and cakes. 🙂

      1. I am skeptical about every claim you just made in that comment, except for tea and cakes. I do see you as a tea and cakes sort of person.

        1. Well, it’s two woman and a girl, but they told me they live with 11 people together. They are not formally refugees, but relatives under a “family togetherness” program. Fleeing the war is their clear motivation. The girl is a little too fat. The older sister has learned the language very fast and has the right to go to university (because she did in Damascus). And tea belongs to our ethnic heritage; don’t knock it. What else do you want to know?

          1. Nothing from you.

  27. I don’t owe anybody anything.

    The company I work for doesn’t owe anybody anything.

    The neighborhood I live in doesn’t owe anybody anything.

    The county I live doesn’t owe a thing to anybody.

    I’m having a hard time finding “nexus” for the State I live for any responsibility to Syria.

    The Federal level? The USG? Maybe. But I don’t endorse them. If they unleash broadcast Force outward, that’s too bad. But I too am at their mercy. They’re inflicting Force outward AND inward. I suppose there has been SOME mercantilism of a sort, but I don’t feel that much of any transfer has accrued to me – not any that isn’t going to be taxed, regulated, or debased away from me.

    And so victims of the USG’s foreign entanglements shouldn’t look to me, another victim. I’m trying navigate myself through my own life, and I seem to be a bit poorer every day, relative to the last. I have some paper assets that are may worth 20% of the stated value. I’m caught right where the USG wants the middle class, particularly the private sector middle class.

    In short, just because the thuggish, laundered gangsters of my country are better at pushing around the thuggish, laundered gangsters of your country doesn’t suddenly create a collective obligation for me or those like me.

    1. “I don’t feel that much of any transfer has accrued to me”

      Incredibly good point. Your analysis is crisp.

      Similar story if you’re Greek, by the way. The money that was squandered is not in the pockets of most of them.

      1. Indeed. Government bonds are simply the right to rob future generations. Piss off.

        I’m fine with governments simply repudiating national debts until no one will ever loan them a nickel again.

  28. They are not refugees, they’re economic migrants, just like the Mexicans. To be a refugee, they have to be fleeing war or other disaster and must stop in the first place they find, like Turkey, Lebanon or Bulgaria. Nope, they keep coming farther west for the free money and other benefits. The USA doesn’t owe Syria anything. If you want to help a migrant, try the ones that are already here.

    1. Exactly. We have a gigantic migrant mess to sort out here before looking abroad to take on more problems.

    2. Actually, with four million refugees in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan, they are experiencing the dismal aftermath of war by being cooped up in go-nowhere refugee camps. It’s a stretch to call that economic migrants, with its implied accusation of selfishness, except as a way of dismissing it.

  29. To make it really crystal clear, this is why refugees are flooding the UK and France, and why they’re coming to America, because we’re idiots and we do the same exact thing: https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get

    1. On a related topic, the Saudi King has offered to pay for 200 new mosques to accommodate the influx of Syrians into Germany……….

      http://www.arabianbusiness.com…..05755.html

      1. Mighty nice of him to insure that new Islamic invaders have nice facilities in which to worship. Why am I not surprised?

  30. It’s all America’s fault hate America first.

    Chapman is in the house.

  31. Do away with ALL DRUG LAWS!!!!!! Drop the DEA, return us to the gold standard, drop the income tax pass a law that government unions cannot make a deal in private. Pay senators and congress the average wage that the people in their district are paid. Make a law that the government cannot run a deficit unless in times of DECLARED WAR. And that would be a start, oh yea no Social security unless I get to control how it is invested.

  32. Oh, yeah, this makes a lot of sense – since we screwed up and helped create theproblem, we should make the problem worse by allowing islamic terrorists to walk right into our living rooms.
    These people need to be quaranteened in the Middle East, not the West

  33. “The U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI), a private group, proposes a larger target: 100,000 Syrian refugees by the end of next year. That figure would not be out of line with what has been done in the past. ”

    Walter Russell Mead had a good essay on the migrant crisis in this Saturday’s WSJ. He said something to the effect of “Europe can obviously take in 10,000 migrants. It can’t take in 10 million. Somewhere in between they will hit a breaking point.”

    And so will we. Can we assimilate 100,000 migrants? Probably. Can we assimilate 10 million? Probably not. But what is for sure is taking in an initial group of 100,000 will not end the crisis, or the calls for us to do more. There are so many more people waiting/hoping to flee, throughout the Middle East. Accommodating all of them is not possible. But letting in the first wave only encourages more to come. Germany is already reversing its open-door policy, after only a few days. Last week they were expecting 800,000 migrants this year. Now they’re expecting 1 million. What will the number be next week?

  34. Libertarians should understand that governments create perverse incentives more than anyone else. America recently experienced its own a “migrant” crisis when unaccompanied minors and families from south America tried to cross the border in the mistaken belief that they won’t be turned back.

    The truth is, these people are from regions hostile to our nation. Once word spreads that America is accepting a large amount of migrants, ISIS will place their agents within their rank (it’s happening already, according to them). Someone with no ties to radical Islam or no criminal records would suffice.

    1. Unfortunately, a lot of Reason commenters here are open borders kooks who have no sense of reality when it comes to the subject. Fortunately, there are some with good sense.

  35. I thought those unaccompanied kids and whole families were allowed to stay.

    1. With Obama who knows? They may SAY that, but you know damn well he will just do whatever he wants.

  36. The Middle East was broken long before the US got involved, mostly by Europeans. You can’t blame the US for trying to pick up the pieces after WWII.

    Furthermore, I don’t believe that having a vast exodus of refugees from those countries is good for those countries. The only people who can oppose the oppressors of the Middle East are the people who live there, and if everybody with an ounce of initiative just packs up and leaves, it simply perpetuates oppression. In addition, refugees are an excellent way for spies and terrorists to get smuggled into the country.

    I don’t have any good answers, but I think Europe should take most of the refugees from the Middle East: they need the people demographically, they broke it, and it’s in their backyard.

    1. The Middle East has been broken since some pederast named Muhammed fucked it up in the 7th century. And it has been a filthy shithole ever since. Sadly, they have. A lot of oil. If they didn’t we could largely just seal them off from the rest of the world.

      1. Considerably more recent than that Gates of Vienna. See Lewis, “What Went Wrong.”

    2. Europeans fucked up the Middle East? It’s got nothing to do with their backwards and oppressive culture? I’m sure Europeans are also the reason Islamic banking and insurance industries are virtually illegal and all the economic problems associated with that.

      1. As soon as Islam came into being, it was steadily downhill. Cultural and technological progress largely came to a halt once Islam became dominant. Keep in mind that the Middle East had a number of notable philosophers, mathematicians, etc up to that time.

      2. “Europeans fucked up the Middle East?”

        Just like they screwed up Zimbabwe.

        Many places quickly turned into toilets once their evil white oppressor overlords were overthrown.

  37. To bring in more jihadis would be insane………

  38. Wonderful sentiment.

  39. ___I___ did nothing to contribute to the problem. What is it with some O’ist types that they fall prey to such altruistic thinking and blindly support open border policies with no consideration for the risks that are not only plausible, but likely in certain populations of would-be-immigrants?
    If the argument is that those who were in part responsible for this should thereby be responsible for helping the victims of it, then fine. Go back and look at the congressional logs and find out who voted on the various resolutions that led to the cause-and-effect you are referring to — then THEY can set up tent towns in their backyards. (I’m sure most of them have levied their kick-backs and campaign contributions to buy plenty of acreage)

  40. I ask again: why are 72% of these so-called “refugees” adult males?

    1. Because those are the ones most terrified of losing their heads to ISIS?

  41. The article says the Obama administration is going to allow in at least 10,000 more Syrian Muslim refugees.

    Meanwhile, Pakistani Christians have a far better claim to be allowed into the US for humanitarian reasons. Pakistani Christians are facing genocide. However, they will not be given refuge.

    http://en.dailypakistan.com.pk…..tians-493/

    http://www.persecution.org/201…..hristians/

    1. Obama has zero empathy for Christians. Not persecuted Egyptian Coptics. Not Pakistani Christians, not any of them. And I am highly skeptical of any claims that Syrians brought here are anything but Muslim.

  42. Steve, how many are you going to “sponsor” – in the full legal meaning of the word?

  43. Look, guys, if only 20% of these refugees are bad people then I think it’s safe to say we shouldn’t let any of them in. There are US Senators who would agree with me.

  44. I stopped reading after the “which President broke it” part. The collective unearned guilt complex of these leftist morons knows no boundaries.

    The region was broken when Muhammad’s psychotic episode became a way of life…some 1300 years ago.

    1. How would you know? You’d already been dead for what, 700 yrs, give or take?

  45. “The Syrian exodus sparks fears of Islamic terrorists making their way here. But people who trek hundreds of miles on foot or cram into rubber rafts for ocean voyages typically have more pressing objectives than militancy. ”

    As opposed to a fanatic who would strap on a suicide vest and walk into a crowded venue?

    The refugees are opportunists. They are not going to France because they’re are no jobs there. We have no way of knowing who they are.

  46. Our “leaders” contributed to the problem.
    But we pay the price.

  47. “You break it, you own it.”
    Im living in Norway and the same argument gets tossed around a lot here. Why is Syria *broken*… could it possibly have anything to do with overpopulation and Islam…? Could possibly the descissions of the population over decades have ended up in a failed stated…? No… it can not be the syrians own fault, it must be our [/sarcasm]

    In a global world all things are to a certain level connected, but its utterly b***it to claim that the result of overpopulation, islam and failed states is our fault.

  48. You know, if the basis of your thesis is that “We contributed to the problem”….maybe you might want to consider actually supporting that assertion a little?

    But I suspect your ignorance of the current conflict and the recent history of Syria in general would make that nigh impossible.

  49. “We contributed to the problem. But we’ve barely allowed any in.”

    Who the hell is “we” ?

    I have no obligation to anyone else in any part of the world, unless I choose to do so. I am not a we, and I don’t vote as a “we,” I vote as I. The voting booth is still one person at a time aren’t they? Its been a while, obviously, since I bothered, since the Diebald’s make most of the decisions for the “we” now, if not all of them.

    “The obligations of ownership are now coming due….” FYI, playing the original sin, guilt card isn’t working anymore. My conscience is clear, I didn’t expend any extra energy voting for, or supporting, a fear/war-mongering, guilt-ridden, finger-pointing, “we” ideology.

    If I want to help someone I will, if I don’t want to help someone, well the “we” crowd will make sure I am forced to anyway. However, I have no “duty” to subjugate my own best interests to your we, except through the force. Nazis.

  50. Oh bullshit. How long do we have to “accept blame” for these kinds of things?

  51. I think the culture is equal.

  52. My view is, the United States gave 500 million dollars to recruit, train, arm, and equip the Syrians to defend themselves from ISIS and the other crazy people in Syria. They only received a hand full of recruits, and now the people are leaving Syria looking for a new home. If they are not willing to fight for their own country and their homeland why should we feel obligated to give them ours. We did not start the war there, and it’s not our problem. We did try to help by giving 500 million dollars for training and equipment, but they don’t want to help themselves. I do feel sorry for the people of Syria, but we have to draw the line somewhere.

  53. If the US was in the midst of civil war and our citizens needed a safe refuge would Syria open their doors to us, FUCK NO. We have a set procedure in place, if you want to immigrate to the US awesome, Im happy to have you, go through the proper channels and vetting process just like my ancestors. This country is not an open turnstile, there is no way to background check/vet these refugees therefore they cannot enter the US, NOT A ONE. Terrorists are mistaking our world peacekeeping interests as a weakness, and that’s a shame. Innocent Syrian citizens will have to suffer. Many countries have had civil unrest, including the US, that resulted in bloodshed, if these refugees are so at odds with their government stay and fight and make a change for the better instead of running away like cowards. 3 million people have left syria, as refugees, imagine instead a military movement or political movement involving 3 million people, how could that fail? It has been confirmed that a Paris terrorist was a syrian refugee, if you read the news an ISIS source states the 4,000 of theses 3 Million immigrants have ties to isis and radical islam, and these 4000 are already in the US and Europe. Fuck ISIS, Fuck Terrorism, and Fuck you if cant see this situation with some clarity. If you want Syrian Refugees in our country so bad open the doors do your homes and have Syrian refugees sleep in your home, by your children, by your spouse, by your neighbors, comforting

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.