Syria

Trump Should Bring Syrians to America, Not Dispatch American Missiles to Syria

He should stop gutting America's refugee program.

|

Syria Bombing
David Whinham/CrowdSpark/Newscom

President Donald Trump cares so deeply about the suffering of the Syrian people that he didn't even feel the need to obtain congressional authorization before launching air strikes against Bashar al-Assad's regime. But if Trump really wanted to help Syrians escape Assad's chemical butchery, he wouldn't be dispatching Tomahawk missiles to Syria—he would be sending American ships to bring Syrians here.

Instead, Trump has systematically gutted America's refugee program. In particular, he has spurned the very Syrians he is now trying to save from a man he has called a "monster" and an "animal."

When Trump assumed office, the Syrian conflict had displaced about 12 million people, producing the worst refugee crisis that Europe had experienced since World War II. Yet America had taken in fewer desperate Syrians than the Middle East, Turkey, Europe, or Canada. Indeed, Canada, a country that has less than a tenth of America's population, has admitted more than twice as many Syrian refugees.

As if that was not bad enough, one of Trump's first acts as president was to suspend America's refugee program for six months to ensure that no terrorist could sneak in through it. When he reinstated it, he slashed America's total refugee quota from 110,000 to 45,000—the lowest in the program's history—and made an already onerous screening process practically unusable.

Even before Trump's extreme vetting, refugees had to endure a two-year-long, multi-agency process that automatically disqualified anyone who had so much as served a sandwich to a jihadi. (That counted as "material support" for terrorism!) It took non-Syrian refugees about two years from the time they approached a U.S. embassy abroad or an intermediary such as the United Nations to get a referral to the relevant American authorities. After that, the refugee still would have a dozen or so other hurdles to cross in the U.S., including medical screening, several in-person interviews, and background checks by various federal agencies, among other things.

If the refugees were from Syria—ISISland—they faced an additional "Enhanced Syrian Review" to rule out fraud, adding several more years to their processing time.

Even under the regular visa vetting process, according to a study released by the Cato Institute's David Bier yesterday, America experienced a dramatic drop in its already low vetting failure rate after 9/11. Indeed, from 2002 to 2016, it experienced one vetting failure for every 29 million visa or status approvals, for a grand total of 13 failures. And that's using a ridiculously broad definition of failure in which Bier counted even private thoughts that later became public. He also included anyone who committed an offense within a decade of entry even without evidence that they radicalized before entry. After 9/11, he found, vetting failures accounted for just 9 percent of terrorism deaths, while U.S.-born offenders killed 82 percent of the country's terrorism victims.

Only God could make the vetting process more foolproof, which doesn't mean Trump would leave it to Him. Indeed, the administration has added more hurdles to the refugee screening process overall and for Syrians in particular (and is working on making the regular process equally insane). Bob Carey, a former director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, observes that the refugee program isn't just being managed, "its being managed to fail."

The recent admission numbers testify to that.

The Niskanen Institute's Matthew La Corte has documented that from last October to March this year, the administration has settled only 10,548 refugees—about a quarter allowed under its own truncated quota. How many Syrians are among them? A grand total of 44! "The overall monthly refugee admissions…are the lowest they have been since 2012 and it's not close," La Corte notes.

Nor is the administration likely to make up the deficit in the remainder of this fiscal year, given that it has conducted less than a third as many "circuit rides" as in previous years. (These are when Homeland Security officials travel abroad to conduct refugee interviews to vet prospective refugees.) The administration is admitting as much. When the U.S. slashed the refugee quota last year, a State Department official assured that the administration had "every plan to process as many refugees as we can under the ceiling." Now it scoffs that the 45,000 ceiling was the "upper limit" and that the actual numbers of refugees admitted could be lower.

This is all terribly lopsided, given that refugees pose virtually the least possible security risk imaginable. The number of fatal terrorist attacks conducted on American soil by refugees is exactly zero. That hasn't prevented Trump from calling Syrian refugees "snakes," and it didn't keep Vice President Mike Pence, when he was governor of Indiana, from refusing to let them into his state. New Jersey's former governor, Chris Christie, declared that he would not offer refuge even to five-year-old Syrian orphans!

Refugees not only pose little security risk to Americans; they are also a great economic boon. They tend to be entrepreneurial, starting businesses at a much higher rate than other immigrants. Jerry Yang of Yahoo and Sergey Brin of Google were both refugees, and Steve Jobs was the son of Syrian refugees. A Department of Health and Human Services study that the administration tried hard to suppress last year found that over the last decade, refugees generated $63 billion more in government revenues than they cost.

By contrast, Trump's military assault on Syria is going to put America in a $100 million–plus hole. That kind of money would cover the upfront cost for settling almost 12,000 Syrian refugees (given that America spent $582 million in 2014 to settle 70,000 refugees—or about $8,300 per refugee).

That would be a far better use of taxpayer funds, but what would be even better is to let Americans resettle refugees on their own dime. The State Department is inundated with queries from churches, community organizations, corporations who wish to sponsor refugees. Uncle Sam bars them from doing so, many of them end up contributing to overseas relief efforts instead.

Refugee camps at best take people out of harm's way not offer them a chance to rebuild their lives. Canada pioneered a private refugee program four decades ago that by 2015 had settled more than 230,000 refugees. The Obama administration flirted with the idea of allowing a similar system in America but never got around to it.

The Trump administration should do it. It should also redouble its commitment to Syrian refugees and become an example for other countries, as befits a country founded by refugees. The best way to defang Assad isn't by dropping bombs on him. (That, by the administration's own admission, didn't come remotely close to fully degrading Assad's chemical weapons arsenals.) The best way is to deprive him of victims.

Syria's political turmoil is producing what The Atlantic's James Fallow has called a fire sale on human talent. America should scoop up that talent, not put its own blood and treasure on the line.

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.

198 responses to “Trump Should Bring Syrians to America, Not Dispatch American Missiles to Syria

  1. What if he did neither? How can Syria change for the better if all the Syrians who want positive change leave it? Also, I don’t know if bringing Syrians here just so we can bomb them locally only to save on rocket fuel is a position I can get behind, no matter how fiscally responsible I want our government to be.

    1. How can Syria change for the better if all the Syrians who want positive change leave it?

      I would really like to see this thought explored.

      You could argue that they have a duty to stay and fight to improve their country. You could argue they have a duty to leave and let the country deteriorate into a shithole full of deplorables.

      I know I don’t have an answer…

      1. Start making extra cash from home and get paid weekly… By completing freelance jobs you get online… I do this three hr every day, for five days weekly and I earn in this way an extra $2500 each week…

        Go this web and start your work.. Good luck…… http://www.jobs63.com

      2. What country? There is no country left and will not be for many years. Assad will probably regain control. He will be the dictator of rubble and corpses. Who will rebuild it? Most people with skills and means have left or are dead. The only skills that matter in Syria are bomb making and shooting.

        I think we should bring in more of them but that will never happen in Trump America.

        1. By all means, lets bring in more people skilled in “bomb making and shooting”.

          1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

            This is what I do… http://www.jobs63.com

    2. I have heard this argument with respect to bright flight in America (‘how can our backwaters improve, or even tread water, if the smart and ambitious young people leave as soon as they can, when they graduate high school, and never return?’).

      That argument is not persuasive.

      Forbidding someone to pursue education, opportunity, modernity, and a better life as a method of trying to improve the lousy community that good person wishes to escape is not the work of good person. Creating obstacles to those wishing to escape also seems the idea or work of a lousy person.

      1. Forbidding someone to pursue education, opportunity, modernity, and a better life as a method of trying to improve the lousy community that good person wishes to escape is not the work of good person.

        Africa’s a lot closer than the US, has far more land area, and plenty of natural resources.

        1. If you are trying to persuade someone to choose Africa over the United States, I question your effectiveness and motive.

          1. I’m sure it seemed ridiculous to those living a good life in Europe to see others go to the new world to start a new life.

            1. If given an open land to do with as they would, what kind of state do you think Syrian refugees would end up with? I’d put money on their new world looking a lot like Syria the same way the US isn’t far off from Europe.

              1. But if we bring them here, I’m SURE they’ll abandon their retrograde attitudes and way of life and spend their days industriously baking apple pies.

          2. What would you recommend as a persuasive argument to get Californians to move to Africa?

          3. So you’re saying Africa is a shithole continent?

            1. Well, all the other continents were populated by people that wanted to get out of there…

      2. “That argument is not persuasive”

        Well your vague assertions of what is moral certainly aren’t convincing.

      3. Given this–

        I have heard this argument with respect to bright flight in America (‘how can our backwaters improve, or even tread water, if the smart and ambitious young people leave as soon as they can, when they graduate high school, and never return?’).

        ….and the countless variations that pepper your posts so much that they look like anthills, I am intensely curious about the inbred backwater of which you are clearly a native, Art. How bad is it? Can your mom, grandmother and sister wear the same hat….at the same time?

        Do you have all your own tooth?

        I absolutely adore these bumpkin sophisticates who wander through cities with their snot filled noses pointed at the sky in exaggerated snobbishness while never hearing the giggles as they struggle to speak properly while having no clue to the pronunciation of words with more than a single syllable.

        You go, Arthur, the folks back in the holler are so proud!!!


        1. …they struggle to speak properly while having no clue to the pronunciation of words…

          This is more a feature of people who learned their vocabulary from reading as opposed to ‘bumpkins’ in my opinion, and it’s a personal failing of mine. Maybe it’s just a lie I tell myself, but I somehow manage to teach people new words all the time that I learned from my vast collection of random books even while I probably mispronounce a lot of them.

      4. The problem really isn’t the one or two viciously poisonous grains in each bag of rice. The problem is that the entire bag is bad (inevitably with a few exceptions). Europe has decades of experience with large scale immigration from MENA (Middle-East, North-Africa). The result are poor. Even after several generations, the “immigrants” (and their children) are poor, welfare-dependent, violent, socially isolated, unemployed, uneducated, crime-prone, etc. Note that I not referring to a few “bad grains”. The “bad grains” are the overt terrorists. My comments apply to the median MENA immigrant.

        Of course, they do bring a certain type of “vitality” to Europe. Look up the word “tournantes” for the fun these folks bring with them.

        However, a word of warning is needed here. Don’t for moment think that the editors of the Reason don’t know all of this. They do. You can be sure that they keep their families as far from these people as possible.

      5. Forbidding someone to pursue education, opportunity, modernity, and a better life as a method of trying to improve the lousy community that good person wishes to escape is not the work of good person.

        So, Artie, what would you know about what is the work of a good person, since you clearly aren’t one?

  2. What if he did neither? How can Syria change for the better if all the Syrians who want positive change leave it? Also, I don’t know if bringing Syrians here just so we can bomb them locally only to save on rocket fuel is a position I can get behind, no matter how fiscally responsible I want our government to be.

  3. So that’s two votes for neither.

    1. Many more than that.

  4. I knew this was a Shikha article as soon as I read the headline. There’s a middle ground between bombing the shit out of people or importing them here. It’s called non-intervention and a libertarian website might consider it.

    1. A libertarian website that would object to immigration (or emigration) is a wingnut fantasy.

      Carry on, clingers. Maybe a little more lipstick to try to hide that right-wing pouting.

      1. Libertarians can certainly object to tax-funded expeditions to find candidates to come here.
        Want to come here, fine. DIY.

      2. Immigration is the act of people coming to your country of their own free will. I’ve seen several reports in Syria dating back years, and none of the people interviewed said they wanted to come to America. They just wanted their homeland to be peaceful and safe. But hey, you build that strawman since and tall!

      3. Tell that to Murray Rothbard.

      4. >A libertarian website that would object to immigration (or emigration) is a wingnut fantasy.
        You know you can object to the government wasting money actively settling large groups people here in resettlement programs OR bombing foreign countries with no valid impetus and still be pro-immigration, right? If you were any sort of libertarian, Arthur, you would have the sense to realize that these refugee resettlement programs and the bombing of Syria are wastes of money and both stances are pretty much opposed to non-interventionalism, since the gov’t is actively putting itself in a position to gain from another country’s detriment. But then again, you seem like on of those shameless partisan hacks that call themselves “libertarian” so they can push their progressive/conservative agenda on everyone else (and doing it in the most idiotic and obvious way possible too). If you want to come to America, that’s perfectly fine, but do it on your own dime, not mine.

      5. “Carry on, clingers.”

        I wonder if you realize the irony of hanging on to this slogan.

      6. “A libertarian website that would object to immigration (or emigration) is a wingnut fantasy.”

        A libertarian country that doesn’t enforce it’s borders in a statist world is a wingnut fantasy.

      7. For the record I am not a libertarian. With a few exceptions, libertarians (and you) see the world through rose-colored glasses. I prefer reality.

        The problem really isn’t the one or two viciously poisonous grains in each bag of rice. The problem is that the entire bag is bad (inevitably with a few exceptions). Europe has decades of experience with large scale immigration from MENA (Middle-East, North-Africa). The result are poor. Even after several generations, the “immigrants” (and their children) are poor, welfare-dependent, violent, socially isolated, unemployed, uneducated, crime-prone, etc. Note that I not referring to a few “bad grains”. The “bad grains” are the overt terrorists. My comments apply to the median MENA immigrant.

        Of course, they do bring a certain type of “vitality” to Europe. Look up the word “tournantes” for the fun these folks bring with them.

        However, a word of warning is needed here. Don’t for moment think that the editors of the Reason don’t know all of this. They do. You can be sure that they keep their families as far from these people as possible.

      8. You constantly confuse anarchist with libertarian.
        The former being your bailiwick.

    2. My thought exactly: “That’s so stupid it had to be Shikha.”

  5. “But if Trump really wanted to help Syrians escape Assad’s chemical butchery, he wouldn’t be dispatching Tomahawk missiles to Syria?he would be sending American ships to bring Syrians here.”

    You mean, like, all of them? Because that’s the only way you’re going to insure that there are zero Syrians that are potentially exposed to “chemical butchery”.

    That sounds sort of impractical.

    The most 100% certain way to insure that Assad can’t attack his own citizens with chemical weapons is to blow up Assad, but that’s somewhere that we probably shouldn’t go.

    1. That’s one thing i’ve never understood – why is it such a universal ethical standard that the people responsible for the decision to inflict suffering and death on other human beings via war are so often specifically exempted from the consequences of the same? That’s some lese majeste bullshit.

      1. Yeah, I’m not sure I understand that either. I guess it’s considered bad form to try to wipe out the duly reigning head of another government? If I don’t try to do it to you then you won’t try to do it to me?

        The only time I can remember it happening in my lifetime was back in the ’80s when Reagan tried to blow up Gaddafi. Missed, but just barely……

        1. Two things.

          One, if we go after theirs then ours are a legitimate target. Ours don’t like that idea.

          Two, there is the issue that if you decapitate their state, who do you negotate with going forward. That may create a chaos where no one can claim legitimate authority in the enemy state and you have no one to discuss binding terms with.

          1. Those seem legit.

            In addition, in some cases (and arguably this specifically applies to Syria currently) it’s possible to likely that whoever ends up replacing the guy we just blew up will be more problematic than him. More problematic meaning that instead of trying to use chemical weapons on his own people he’ll instead try to use chemical weapons on us.

            1. More problematic meaning that instead of trying to use chemical weapons on his own people he’ll instead try to use chemical weapons on us.

              Or more problematic the other way, more friendly to Russia and Iran and his anti-Western or anti-terrorist sentiments are more theatrical.

          2. Point two seems somewhat legitimate, but considering they’re already in a state of civil war that problem seems to be present in either scenario. Which claimed ‘legitimate’ head of state do you acknowledge, the one using chemical weapons on their populace or the one who’s…probably not that much better?

            The point is, I suppose, that either way you’re picking and choosing sides.

            1. of course the problem would resolve itself if we let them finish their own wars and we talked to whoever won.

              1. of course the winner may have been helped by those we don’t like and then we won’t get a seat at the financial table which is the whole point of being involved in the first place.

              2. I would actually be fine with that in most cases. I’m not so sure I’d be ok with talking to the guy that ‘won’ through using chemical weapons on the civilian populace, though. That doesn’t necessarily justify going over there to stop it categorically, but it also doesn’t mean we’re obligated to take in the losers in their civil war.

                If we aren’t morally required to stop him from gassing Syrian civilians, we’re also not morally required to take in their political dissidents after the fact.

      2. The one good thing we did in Iraq was not doing that. Hell, we tried to blow Saddam up a few hours into the war, our location intel was just a few hours out of date.

        If it hadn’t been out of date, and we’d withdrawn immediately after blowing him up, it probably would have been the rare foreign adventure that overall was actually good.

    2. Even worse, if Assad is gone, ISIS takes over. And they are not any better when it comes to civilians.

      The only way to insure nobody is hamred is for us to invade and run the country.

      I sure as shit do not want that.

  6. Most of the Syrian so-called “refugees” are the wives and children of the Islamonazi terrorist scum who started the civil war in the first place under the bullshit banner of the so-called “Arab Spring”.

    They can go fuck themselves, and any country who brings them in in large numbers is a country run by complete fools.

    1. Most of the Syrian so-called “refugees” are the wives and children of the Islamonazi terrorist scum who started the civil war in the first place under the bullshit banner of the so-called “Arab Spring”.

      They can go fuck themselves, and any country who brings them in in large numbers is a country run by complete fools.

      Umm.. a policy of bringing in the wives of your enemies sounds like the complete opposite of cuckoldry and a strong disincentive to terrorism.

      Yes, yes, foolish terrorist. Blow yourself up (preferably over there). We will bring in your women for ourselves, and ensure that your children are raised not in Islam but in our Western secular decadence. Enjoy your 72 incels.

      1. Oh fuck that bullshit. If the terrorists’ wives don’t want to endure a civil war, they should tell their insane, throat-cutting Islamonazi men to lay down their arms and end it.

        1. I don’t think you understood my comment at all.

        2. Sort of an Isistrata Gambit? Somebody wake up Aubrey Beardsley!

      2. This is the culture that believes the punishment for a rapist is to let the victims family rape the rapists sister or daughters. Where if you dare disrespect the male patriarchy you deserve death, stoning, or acid attacks. Where women get sent to jail for causing men to rape them.

        You think they actually care for their wives and children?

        1. Their religion requires them to care about being cucked and ending up with apostate descendants.

  7. My coworkers are gonna wonder why i’m making popcorn so early.

  8. Indeed, Canada, a country that has less than a tenth of America’s population, has admitted more than twice as many Syrian refugees.

    Maybe you don’t realize how dumb it is to say “they have more open space and took in more people”. I don’t think you’re making the argument you think you’re making.

    1. Maybe you don’t realize how dumb it is to say “America is full.”

      1. I didn’t say America is full, retard. If you can show where I did, I’ll apologize.

      2. Maybe you don’t realize how dumb it is to say “they have more open space and took in more people”.

        You know who really has a lot of open space and needs these hard-working, up-by-their-bootstraps populations? Africa. Maybe we should be sponsoring a relocation program to place Syrian refugees in the Congo instead of the western world.

      3. “If your friends imported Jihadi terrorists into their countries, would you do it, too?”

    2. Dalmia doesn’t realize a) Canadians aren’t overly pleased about it and b) Trudeau is an idiot who people increasingly don’t trust to do so.

    3. Also wonder why Sweden and Germany weren’t mentioned for the numbers they imported .. maybe due to the increased sexual assaults.

  9. “But if Trump really wanted to help Syrians escape Assad’s chemical butchery, he wouldn’t be dispatching Tomahawk missiles to Syria”

    And certainly not missiles that destroy chemical weapons.

    1. “If you kill your enemies, they win.”
      -Justin Trudeau

      1. “If your enemies kill you, you win”

        1. But only if you have Last Stand or Martyrdom, and they dropped the latter like a bad habit for MW2.

  10. “President Donald Trump cares so deeply about the suffering of the Syrian people that he didn’t even feel the need to obtain congressional authorization before launching air strikes against Bashar al-Assad’s regime.”

    Broke out the unconstitutional argument in the first sentence? Wow.

    You’d almost think Shika Dalmia cares about the separation of powers and the enumerated powers of congress in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

    How does Dalmia feel about the other enumerated powers of congress–like the power of congress to set the rules of naturalization? Is that sacred like the power to declare war–or would she rather the president ignore the rules on immigration as set by congress in accordance with the Constitution? After all, the power to set the rules of naturalization is enumerated to congress in the Constitution in the same place as the power to declare war.

    Believing that congress should set the rules naturalization to include as liberal an immigration policy as possible is a thoroughly libertarian position, but there isn’t anything libertarian about using the coercive power of the executive to impose a liberal immigration policy on the American people–over their objections and without regard to the rules set by congress as the Constitution requires. The latter reeks of authoritarian elitism–no matter the good intentions.

    1. I once had a pony, but it could only do one trick.
      I rode that mo’fo to glory and cocktail parties.

      /Shikha

    2. Libertarianism isn’t about which branch of government decides what the government does. It’s about what the government does. Being constitutional and being libertarianism are two different things.

      It’s nice if you can be both, but if I could secure the blessing of liberty by scrapping the Constitution, I would.

      1. Democracy has a proper role. Imposing an unpopular immigration policy on the American people is like imposing an unpopular war. That’s why both powers are enumerated to congress–because they’re within the proper purview of democracy.

        I have a right to free association. I do not have the right to set immigration policy.

        We should probably differentiate between anarchists and small state libertarians. I think principled anarchists are unlikely to hold up the Constitution as sacred–as if we have to abide by it even if we don’t like what congress chooses to do.

        Dalmia is (quite correctly) criticizing Trump’s strikes as unconstitutional. I don’t think we’re dealing with a principled anarchist here. For small state libertarians, yeah, I think the separation of powers is a fundamental libertarian issue.

        I’m a small state libertarian. I reverence the Constitution because the Constitution does a pretty good job of protecting our rights–especially by way of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth . . .

        I insist on the government abiding by the Constitution because it does such a good job of protecting our rights. And there probably isn’t much worse we could do to undermine its authority than to claim that some enumerated powers are sacred while others should be completely ignored. And I think that’s what’s happening here.

        On a libertarian website, no less.

        1. “Democracy has a proper role”
          That’s like saying “taxes have a proper role,” “rape has a proper role,” “slavery has a proper role,” “drug prohibition has a proper role.”

          I have a right to free association. I do not have the right to set immigration policy.

          Free association is an immigration policy.
          If someone is imposing a contrary immigration policy by force (all contrary immigration policies are by force,), the victims have a right to retaliate by force.

          “For small state libertarians, yeah, I think the separation of powers is a fundamental libertarian issue.”
          I myself am a minarchist. I do NOT view separation of powers as fundamental. Separation powers is a generally good heuristic for getting moderately less authoritarian governments than you would otherwise. But heuristics are not algorithms.

          1. “[Saying democracy has a proper role is] like saying “taxes have a proper role,” “rape has a proper role,” “slavery has a proper role,” “drug prohibition has a proper role.”

            If the government has any legitimate role at all, it is to protect our rights. We have police to protect our rights from criminals; courts to protect our rights from police; a military to protect our rights from foreign threats; etc.

            Free association means you have the right to associate with whomever you please–but that doesn’t mean they have the right to be in the country, as just one example. There are others; for instance, just because you have the right to associate with someone convicted of murder and serving a life sentence doesn’t mean they receive a get out of jail free card.

            The government actually has a legitimate role in protecting our rights from convicted criminals, and doing so by imprisoning murderers after their due process rights have been respected is a perfectly appropriate, small state libertarian use of government.

            1. Free association means you have the right to associate with whomever you please–but that doesn’t mean they have the right to be in the country, as just one example.

              How the fuck do you have free association if you can’t go visit the people you want to associate with who want to associate you?

              Comparing people who happen to have been born on the other side of a border to convicted murderers is ridiculous nonsense.


              1. How the fuck do you have free association if you can’t go visit the people you want to associate with who want to associate you?

                Buy a plane ticket to Syria, perhaps?

              2. You have freedom to go to whatever country you want to (if they also will let you) to associate with whoever you want. Go ahead and use your (US Constitutionally granted) freedom of association to associate with say, a North Korean, and then get back to us on what NK thinks about anybody’s freedom to associate.

                Random non-US citizen does not have the freedom to come into America to associate with you.

                That’s the difference.

                1. You’re confusing the moral and legal concept of rights. We were arguing about whether the government is violating the moral right of noncitizens to free association. The fact that it does not recognize any such legal right is strong evidence that it does.

                  I assumed the people in the conversation were libertarians, not people who believe rights are “granted” by government documents.

                  1. “I assumed the people in the conversation were libertarians, not people who believe rights are “granted” by government documents.”

                    1) Nothing was “granted,” people had to fight and kill for those rights.
                    2) Not everyone believes in natural rights. I for one do not, I think it is horseshit. This is also why I think it is so crucially important that if you want to live in a libertarian society then you have to convince people it is in their best benefit to vote as such and also to keep society that way. Your natural rights will go right out the window the minute a majority of this country turns socialist or as soon as society stops fighting to protect their rights.

            2. There are others; for instance, just because you have the right to associate with someone convicted of murder and serving a life sentence doesn’t mean they receive a get out of jail free card.

              The murderer forfeited many rights when he/she committed the crime of murder.

              What did the immigrant do to forfeit his/her rights? Be born in the wrong place?

              1. “What did the immigrant do to forfeit his/her rights? Be born in the wrong place?”

                Immigrants aren’t subjected to a trial because being born in the wrong country isn’t a crime. A crime is when you violate someone’s rights.

                What makes you think they have the right to be in another country? Our Constitution doesn’t say so, and I don’t see any natural right there either.

                Our rights arise naturally as an aspect of our agency. Our rights are choices. Our legal rights protect our right to make choices for ourselves.

                Property rights mean you get to choose how something is used. Gun rights don’t mean you get to shoot people indiscriminately. They mean you get to choose to own and carry a gun. You can still be held responsible for using your gun to violate someone’s rights. Religious rights mean you get to choose your own religion.

                I’m not convinced I have the right to choose to go into other countries in violation of their laws. I am convinced that imposing an unpopular immigration policy on your people is like imposing an unpopular war–no immigration without representation.

                Because I think the free flow of people across borders is a good thing doesn’t mean that’s a natural or legal right to go into other people’s countries. I also think strawberry ice cream is a good thing. I’m not sure I have a right to strawberry ice cream. I’m sure I don’t have a right to ice cream that belongs to someone else.


                1. What makes you think they have the right to be in another country? Our Constitution doesn’t say so, and I don’t see any natural right there either.

                  See, the thing is that a lot of people don’t seem to understand that this is literally the excuse for most of prior American military adventurism. You see, those people over in that country there don’t get to exercise their natural rights, so by god we’ll go over there and overthrow their government and install one that respects those natural rights!

                  Of course, it never actually works out that way but it’s absurd for people to cite natural rights as the one and only consideration for if we’re allowed to control immigration. You can leave America and go associate with whomever you want, last I checked no one is stopping you from leaving the United States. That is how the American government respects your right to free association.

                  Why is this so complicated for some people?

                  The American people, by and large, love their labor controls so much that they have quite literally democratically decided to keep those people out. The minority of people are upset over it, but you’ll note they sputter like dolts when asked what a preferable alternative is.

                2. I’m not convinced I have the right to choose to go into other countries in violation of their laws.

                  And that’s why you’re not a libertarian.

                  1. “I’m not convinced I have the right to choose to go into other countries in violation of their laws.”

                    That’s why I’m not an anarchist, maybe.

                    Meanwhile, I either have a right to choose to go into other countries in violation of their laws or not regardless of whether I’m a libertarian.

              2. What did the immigrant do to forfeit his/her rights? Be born in the wrong place?

                Does every single human on Earth have a “right” to live in the USA?

                1. That’s effectively what they’re saying.

                  The First Amendment is a prohibition on what congress can do–because our rights are not the proper purview of democracy.

                  The Constitution enumerates the power to set the rules for naturalization to congress–because, like war, that’s the proper purview of democracy.

                  This is a big part of what people are talking about when they’re talking about elitism, too. They want to disenfranchise the American people from the conversation–despite what the Constitution says and why.

                  I don’t like our present immigration system either. I want to see something more like open borders through a treaty with Mexico that contains certain stipulations. We’ll never get the American people to support that so long as other open borders people are arguing that democracy has no place in setting the rules of immigration. Why would the American people support the policies of those who treat the consent of the governed with contempt?

                2. On this very website, I’ve found that people, even anti-immigration people, are fairly responsive to my open borders arguments–once they realize that the only thing they have to fear from me is that I might persuade them to change their minds. You’ll never get to that point with people after you’ve told them that their vote shouldn’t matter.

                  . . . and in the meantime, you want to complain about Trump ignoring the enumerated powers of congress on a declaration of war, too? They should be ashamed of themselves. Like I said, they’re effectively arguing for an elitist authoritarianism that’s openly hostile to the proper place for democracy. I’d say their heart is in the right place, but what difference does that make?

                  1. The problem really isn’t the one or two viciously poisonous grains in each bag of rice. The problem is that the entire bag is bad (inevitably with a few exceptions). Europe has decades of experience with large scale immigration from MENA (Middle-East, North-Africa). The result are poor. Even after several generations, the “immigrants” (and their children) are poor, welfare-dependent, violent, socially isolated, unemployed, uneducated, crime-prone, etc. Note that I not referring to a few “bad grains”. The “bad grains” are the overt terrorists. My comments apply to the median MENA immigrant.

                    Of course, they do bring a certain type of “vitality” to Europe. Look up the word “tournantes” for the fun these folks bring with them.

                    However, a word of warning is needed here. Don’t for moment think that the editors of the Reason don’t know all of this. They do. You can be sure that they keep their families as far from these people as possible.

                3. “Does every single human on Earth have a “right” to live in the USA?”
                  They have a right to live anywhere, unless some other person has a (legitimate, individual Lockean) property right to exclude them from a particular place.
                  The US government did not do anything to legitimately acquire the entire landmass of the United States.

                  1. “The US government did not do anything to legitimately acquire the entire landmass of the United States.”

                    You are living in a fantasy. This might sound wonderful to say but has no basis in reality.

                    1. Do you have an actual rebuttal instead of what amounts to “lol ur rong?”

          2. There are other questions like that; for instance, “Should we go to war?” You may have freedom of association, but you don’t have the right to declare war unilaterally against a foreign nation. Answering the question of whether our government should go to war is the proper purview of democracy. I would argue that the government should not conscript you into fighting a war against your will–because of your freedom of association. However, you do not have the right to declare war. That power belongs to congress because it is within the proper purview of democracy.

            Setting the rules for immigration is also the proper purview of democracy. You should not be prohibited from hiring whomever you like to work for you, but that doesn’t mean you have the right to set immigration policy. Citizenship probably only means three things–you have the right to vote, you have the right to run for office, and you have the right to be in the country. Being a citizen lets you influence immigration policy through your vote, through running for office yourself, etc. but answering the question, “Whom should we let into the country?” is properly answered by way of democracy through congress. FWIW, congress’ rules for immigration are obligated to respect the First, Fourteenth, etc. rights of everyone–even people who aren’t citizens.

            That’s what I mean when I say that democracy has a proper role. Go look under Article I, Section 8 for hints as to what those roles are.

        2. ” I think principled anarchists are unlikely to hold up the Constitution as sacred”

          Not so much sacred, but even a principled anarchist can see that achieving the rule of law is a step in the direction of anarchism from where we are now.

          Force the government to follow rules, and then change the rules to roll back government. You’re never going to get to anarchism by agreeing that the government is entitled to arbitrary discretion about following the rules.

      2. It’s nice if you can be both, but if I could secure the blessing of liberty by scrapping the Constitution, I would.

        After having written a statement like this I almost question your ability to scrap a gift shop copy of the Constitution.

        Why stop at *just* liberty? Secure perpetual ecstacy for all by scrapping the Constitution!

    3. “”he didn’t even feel the need to obtain congressional authorization before launching air strikes against Bashar al-Assad’s regime.”””

      Why would he? His actions are just an extension of Obama’s Syrian campaign.

    4. Yeah, it’s pretty common for idiots like Dalmia to cry ‘Constitution’ but really only when it suits their already existing notions. People like her really shouldn’t cite constitutionalism as an argument, since it’s pretty clear they don’t understand how those things actually work.

      1. It undermines the case for those of us who really care about the Constitution.

        Because the Constitution protects my free speech, religious rights, gun rights, etc., I’m willing to go along with constitutionally acceptable policies that I don’t like. This is what gives me the moral authority to really call out those who would abuse our first or second amendment rights, for instance.

        When someone comes along and pisses on some enumerated rights but not others, they’re compromising our moral authority to call out violations of the constitution–especially when they do so in the name of libertarianism.

        What isn’t she willing to sacrifice at the alter of immigration?


        1. What isn’t she willing to sacrifice at the alter of immigration?

          Like most other leftists, I wager her willingness to sacrifice will end when immigration puts a downward slope on her income. People like Dalmia have no problem throwing the borders open as long as it only puts downward pressure on other people’s income. Threaten their own income, and suddenly they want more labor protections.

  11. Refugees not only pose little security risk to Americans; they are also a great economic boon. They tend to be entrepreneurial, starting businesses at a much higher rate than other immigrants.

    You know, every time this gets trotted out it strikes me as somewhat shady. If you want to talk about Syrian refugees then take the time to filter out what Syrian refugees have done. Same goes for Central American refugees or any other refugees. Don’t claim that accepting more Syrian refugees will be a net good then use Russian and Chinese guys as proof.

    1. Also, your link is bullshit. It goes to a Washington Post article which links to two different studies, one of which isn’t even available anymore, and also includes this nugget:

      ountries do incur big costs up front to help refugees. Governments need to spend money to process claims for asylum, temporarily house and feed refugees, and help them find permanent homes, jobs and skills training. For Europe’s financially strapped governments, settling refugees will be a challenge. The United Nations agencies responsible for helping millions of refugees are essentially broke.

      So what you appear to be saying is that it’s our duty as Americans to go broke helping refugees resettle. I don’t think you’re the best person to be beating this horse.

    2. The claim on its face is insane. If they were so beneficial, why is Syria a shithole?

      1. “If they were so beneficial, why is Syria a shithole?”

        How do you think a guy like Assad came to power? Because the people freely chose him?

        This is “democracy” in Syria:

        http://www.theguardian.com/wor…..a.ianblack


        1. How do you think a guy like Assad came to power? Because the people freely chose him?

          The fact remains that enough Syrians chose Assad for there to be a civil war in the first place, which does seem to indicate that there is support for their dictator. Like it or not, if he was truly that unpopular there would not be a civil war.

          Remember when the French decided that they were done with nobility? That seems like a choice they made, and not a lot of nobility survived despite the French military.

          Of course, since Assad appears to have the support of Russia it does sort of make one wonder if the Syrian people get much of a choice. Especially since they’re gassing civilians that might not agree.

          I take this to mean that Libertarians should have absolutely been in favor of Hitler retaining power. After all, what’s a little gas when it’s so far away? The German’s didn’t even attack us, the Japanese did. (And no, I’m not really in favor of shooting missiles at Syria either. Just pointing out the parallels.)

        2. The article you cite is from 2007. Syria had a multi-candidate election in 2014 which Assad won. His party also won a comfortable majority in Syria’s parliament in 2015 elections. Assad, and his English, highly educated Sunni wife, Asma, are wildly popular in Syria and becoming more so as Syrians are rescued from places like Ghouta where civilians were caged, starved and, in some case, killed. Assad drives his own Honda Accord through the busy streets of Damascus and wades into adoring crowds with only one visible body guard.

  12. “This is all terribly lopsided, given that refugees pose virtually the least possible security risk imaginable. The number of fatal terrorist attacks conducted on American soil by refugees is exactly zero.”

    How many have been perpetrated in Europe?

    Is there any reason to think they’re less inclined to attack Americans than Europeans?

    P.S. I won’t discuss whether the president’s policies on this issue are appropriate without also asking whether they’re popular. Trump apparently has more regard for the wishes of the American people than Shika Dalmia. She doesn’t even mention whether Trump’s refugee policies are popular. It’s almost as if she thinks that’s irrelevant.

    1. Other than Rasmussen, has Trump broken 40 lately?

      Trump and his policies are huge in the can’t-keep-up stretches, but unpopular among successful, modern American citizens and communities.

      1. Well yeah, they want to import slaves.

      2. “I ignore poll I don’t like, that make me INTELLECTUAL!!”

        It’s also why you looked like an asahole when your candidate got her box kicked off.

    2. Whether his refugee policy is right or wrong doesn’t depend on popularity, just as the fact that the American public doesn’t really care much about privacy issues doesn’t mean that you should stop peddling your encryption wares here.

      1. “Whether his refugee policy is right or wrong doesn’t depend on popularity

        Whether an immigration policy violates someone’s constitutional rights doesn’t depend on popularity.

        Apart from that, the Constitution gives the power to set the rules to congress–because popularity does and should matter on the issue of immigration, emigration, and naturalization.

  13. YES! We need as many Middle Easterners in the US as possible!

    #NoBanNoWall

    1. How about we exchange ten progressis back to the Middle East for every Arab we bring over here? They get the benefit of coming here, and you progs can do for the Middle East what you’ve done to America? You’re for all that, right?

      1. I’d support the almighty hell outta this

  14. Invade the world, invite the world, in hock to the world.

  15. More Leftist slobber from Shitha.

  16. ” Indeed, Canada, a country that has less than a tenth of America’s population, has admitted more than twice as many Syrian refugees”
    I’m all for open borders, but…. this sentence basically reads to me as “they have more room.”

    1. Most of their room is tundra. Might not be appealing for people coming from an arid Mediterranean climate.

      1. In theory, refugee resettlement isn’t supposed to be appealing. Supposedly it’s about avoiding like, death or torture or famine or whatever.

      2. Most of their room is tundra. Might not be appealing for people coming from an arid Mediterranean climate.

        Hasn’t stopped them from trying to get into Scandanavia for those sweet government welfare programs.

        1. Wss just pointing out that a lot if Canada is empty, and there is good reason for that.

    2. Canada is like 1820’s USA. USA shouldn’t take any refugees because Canada needs those valuable human resources more.

    3. Isn’t Canada complaining about all of the illegal immigration?

      1. No! they we’re all for it, you know, until they started arriving. #nimby

    4. Also, any discussion about refugees and how many a country can handle should include the over 10 million illegal immigrants in America who fled economic woes and crime from Mexico, Central, and South America.

      1. Canada got like a thousand illegal border crossers last year and even the liberals there had to vehemently tell people to stop, and that people not following the proper procedures will be deported. Canada’s status is entirely due to the fact that America separates it from the the rest of the Americas and frigid oceans separate it from the rest of the world.

  17. What could go wrong with spending hundreds of millions on “refugees”? And let’s pretend they won’t be collecting various forms of welfare indefinitely.

    Almost 90% of refugees are still unemployed after living for 2.5 years in the Netherlands

    1. I would bet good money that between a third and a half of these refugees are functionally illiterate in their own native language, and that at least 90% of them can neither speak or write in any of the major European languages.

      I don’t know what these geniuses running the west seriously expected of these people, because they don’t have the education or skills to be anything much higher than a maid.

      1. I was made to understand that they are all hard working entrepreneurs and new businesses would be springing up everywhere.

      2. As much as I don’t really want to agree with you, frankly you’re not wrong when it comes to literacy and how well these individuals can function in the first world.

        The left likes to pretend that everyone can be quickly and efficiently retrained into, say, software engineer when your prior ‘career’ was growing opium in a war zone.

        Sorry, but that’s not really how most humans work. It’s a noble thought, but not realistic. Hell, even the native born American population has a section of people who are eternally structurally unemployed. We just stopped counting them in the unemployment numbers is all.

        1. The left likes to pretend that everyone can be quickly and efficiently retrained into, say, software engineer when your prior ‘career’ was growing opium in a war zone.

          They take the same approach with schools, too, regardless of how dysfunctional the surrounding community is. They honestly believe a ghetto school will produce the same number of highly literate graduates as a suburban mega-school if the former has the same amount of funding as the latter.

    2. And let’s pretend they won’t be collecting various forms of welfare indefinitely.

      Oh come on! Indefinitely? If anything persistent joblessness guarantees they’ll die early.

  18. Curious. Those people holding up the ‘stop bombing Syria’ sign. Would they have been out and ‘aboot’ if Obama did so? After all, he did want to bomb Syria. And he did bomb seven countries.

    Where were they then? Right, picking their stupid asses and noses.

    1. I didn’t see anyone holding a “stop bombing Yemen” signs.

      Obama managed to keep it largely out of the mainstream press. His drone campaign was rarely a talking point. Even when a drone attack killed a wedding party and most of a family. It was evil Fox news lies.

      Also, partisan politics rule #2, Never highlight the transgressions of your team. Doing so give power to the opposition.

  19. So we should accept Syrians who are fleeing the horrors of war, but we shouldn’t be allowed to do anything to stop the horrors that are creating this crisis in the first place?

    1. What’s the difference between Bill Kristol and Shikha at this point?

  20. An interesting perspective….
    http://voxday.blogspot.com/201…..n.html?m=1

  21. “But if Trump really wanted to help Syrians escape Assad’s chemical butchery…”

    Assad has NEVER used chemical weapons.

    1. He pinky swore that it was someone else, honest!

  22. I’m all for relatively open borders but I really don’t feel it on the refugees. We should absolutely take in more refugees when we can but the definition of refugee should be restricted to those in fear of persecution as a result of who they are, not just where they live. Bring in the Copts and the Rohingya and other individuals in danger of baseless political, sexual, or religious persecution, but just being Syrian should not be sufficient. Civil wars happen all the time, sadly, and spending our own money to bring in as much of another country as possible is wasteful. Not everyone who has fled Syria to go to Europe is fleeing from danger; some are opportunists. Let all those people spend their own money and resources to get here, just as normal immigrants do. As it is, blanket accepting refugees encourage the opportunists. They don’t deserve my money to come here and I would rather it go to somebody who does.

    We should also not be wasting money on missile attacks, but that kinda goes without saying.

  23. Bring more Syrians here, so they can vote a slightly Democratic split, support the AUMF selectively, and authorize our future Presidents to bomb the shit out of other places unilaterally. Duh!

  24. Color me amazed that the only solution for the Syrian “problem” (which, mind you, is not OUR problem in any way) is to bring in more refugees.

    Yup, that is the only possible solution. For US to bail out others for their problems.

    Dalmia, either you want us to be the world’s policeman or you do not. If you insist we bring in people when shit goes wrong, then we should also be making sure shit doesn’t go wrong.

  25. Clearly, Trump’s original idea of “letting Russia deal with this” was stupid and only because he was in the payment/thrall of Putin. It couldn’t be a smart idea to avoid the tar baby of Syria.

  26. Syrian refugees for Gary Johnson!

  27. I had this pegged for Dalmia before I even clicked the link. Hey, Dalmia, how many Syrians is India taking in? What about all the studies that it’s actually cheaper and more effective to care for refugees in their own country? What about the fact that the U.S. doesn’t owe Syrian refugees a damn thing.

  28. Trump Should Bring Syrians to America, Not Dispatch American Missiles to Syria

    I am sorry, Shikha, but when it comes to tefugee importation, that’s where we disagree. Immigration will always be a market phenomenon, despite what xenophobic and white supremacist Trumpistas want to believe, but the importation of refugees is a political action by the State and that makes it a form of interventionism.

    If Americans want to sponsor refugees, that’s a different matter and they should have the freedom to do so –again, despite what xenophobic and white supremacist Trumpistas, who get off on State aggression against brown people, want to think– but the government has bo business bringing in refugees.

    1. Politics is a lever in the world same as economics. And that’s a good thing. When only economics dictate outcomes, most people get shitty outcomes.

      1. That’s an extraordinarily ignorant take

        1. It’s Tony, what did you expect? Sure, he may know his way around a nutsack, or a rectum, but that’s about it.

      2. This is a profound and baseline misunderstanding of what economics is. So, par for the course from someone who has never, ever studied economics.

    2. Immigration will always be a market phenomenon

      By your own tenants, this is an oxymoron. Either borders are meaningless, you mean migration, and are ignoring the fact that a market in Europe has behaviors and aims distinct from a market North American or you mean immigration and that it is influenced by the American, European, or (lack of a) Syrian market of which parts or totalities may be government controlled.

      You aren’t open-borders any more than any Trumpista. You’re just (astoundingly) more self-righteous about your border opportunism.

    3. Save your rancor for the racists clinging to Planned Parenthood – and the vision of Margaret Sanger, Old one. It was no accident the vast percentage of “clinics” were placed deep in minority neighborhoods. Freedom to choose is one thing, and I support that. But grabbing taxpayer money to force a percentage play for white supremacy with slight of hand is third reich stuff. I note that… Trump did not run as a democrat. I also note that Ryan funded PP [again], by holding added military spending hostage in effect. Do we have a uniparty in DC under false flags?

      But refugees are never a market phenomenon – that’s a government action for temporary relief. People can sponsor immigrants, but it is congress that has anything to say about executive actions that take in refugees.

      1. People can sponsor immigrants

        Is ‘sponsor immigrants’ a fancy way of saying ‘comp their moving costs’ or does it include some form of nomination, application, or selection? Are we pretending that any massive difference between Americans’ abilities to ‘work at Google’ and Indians’ abilities to ‘work at Google’ are because the Indian and the American public school systems, infrastructure, and economic situations are equal? That, by some almost mystical phenomenon, Indians are so much better working for Google when they do it from Silicon Valley rather than Mumbai?

        The notion that immigration is a purely market phenomenon deliberately ignores the fact that the market is nowhere near a purely market phenomenon.

    4. “If Americans want to sponsor refugees, that’s a different matter and they should have the freedom to do so –again, despite what xenophobic and white supremacist Trumpistas, who get off on State aggression against brown people, want to think– but the government has bo business bringing in refugees.”

      You are a racist.

      1. I have learned to translate progtardese, over time:

        xenophobic=self-interested
        white supremacist=not anti-white (enough)

        There should be a glossary somewhere…

  29. My god conservatards are a bunch of pants-pissing little pussies. Fear your Bible-thumping neighbor more than a Syrian refugee. They’re not even that brown.

    1. Tony, your kind are worthless and weak. Even the worst among conservatives is worth a thousand progtards.

      You are valueless trash. Accept it.

    2. My neighbors haven’t gone on unpunished raping and groping sprees in major cities.

      Refugees have.

    3. really?

      https:// gellerreport.com/2018/04/ muslims-stabs-wife-23-times.html/

    4. The problem really isn’t the one or two viciously poisonous grains in each bag of rice. The problem is that the entire bag is bad (inevitably with a few exceptions). Europe has decades of experience with large scale immigration from MENA (Middle-East, North-Africa). The result are poor. Even after several generations, the “immigrants” (and their children) are poor, welfare-dependent, violent, socially isolated, unemployed, uneducated, crime-prone, etc. Note that I not referring to a few “bad grains”. The “bad grains” are the overt terrorists. My comments apply to the median MENA immigrant.

      Of course, they do bring a certain type of “vitality” to Europe. Look up the word “tournantes” for the fun these folks bring with them.

      However, a word of warning is needed here. Don’t for moment think that the editors of the Reason don’t know all of this. They do. You can be sure that they keep their families as far from these people as possible.

  30. There goes Shikha – wrong as a gold plated grill on a yugo [again]. Obama has already salted the earth coast to coast with “refugees” – which for seemingly inexplicable reasons were not mainly comprised of the persecuted [non-muslims]. Most didn’t arrive as families. No, the largest component were muslim men of fighting age that left their families behind. We have a word for those incidents [such as our boys in the Gulf War]: deployment. Of note, the deployed are never there to assimilate. You would think that christians, jews and gays would have topped the list if the concerns were genuinely humanitarian. But there are genuine refugees in the mix, so there is no cookie cutter A vs. B style argument to be made in network fashion.
    How did ISIS come to find something along the lines of critical mass? Go back to the Clinton presidency, as he handed the former Yugoslavia to the muslims [net], just as they were in the process of self deporting to Albania and the hostilities were ready to wind down. Throwing gas on a fire and expecting anything other than a conflagration is not intelligent. Assad knows how to be brutal, but in looking at how ISIS setup camp after Saddam was removed… does our State department do anything but make the wrong choices? I’m looking forward to memoirs of what really drove out Rex Tillerson, and what the hell did we just do in giving [the terrorist part of] the arab a street much needed propaganda tool for their survival… again.

    1. Islam is a curse upon the earth.

  31. While I do think we should bring in more refugees from Syria and Iraq and anywhere else we are dropping bombs, I think any honest discussion of refugees in America must include the 10,000,000+ refugees that have fled here from south of the border. Are illegal immigrants not just refugees? When you add them to the picture, America is still the most generous country in the world.

    1. The US takes in more immigrants than every nation in the world combined. A inconvenient point that is usually forgotten by people like Shikha

  32. Call me crazy, but maybe if the US wasn’t fueling their civil war they wouldn’t want to come here. I know Shikha and her friend Bill Kristol love empire, but they can’t deny its costs

  33. No. Don’t send refugees half way around the world.

  34. Am i too late to chime in with another vote for neither?

  35. We have enough savages in the US already without bringing in more –

    https:/ /gellerreport.com/2018/04/ muslims-stabs-wife-23-times.html/

  36. Yet America had taken in fewer desperate Syrians than the Middle East, Turkey, Europe, or Canada

    The first three of those make 100% sense, because people flood the border and those countries are right there. It has nothing to do with sympathy, it’s just that they are physically closer to that. You might as well complain that Turkey has taken in too few Cuban refugees compared the US or some dumb shit.

    1. +1, common fucking sense.

  37. There’s just one problem:
    Syrian refugees FTMP don’t want to “come to America”, they want to return to Syria absent a civil war, to rebuild their lives and their country. Just go to the camps in Jordan and ask them.

  38. Did Trump or did Trump not comply with the War Powers Act? That law, which itself may be unconstitutional, seems to be the current standard for military actions. It requires the President to “in every possible instance…consult with Congress before introducing [armed forces] into hostilities”, and requires Congressional notification within 48 hours of any such actions. It allows such actions to continue for 60 days without Congressional approval.

    Congress long ago punted on their desire to have control over declarations of war, and provided methods for Presidents to engage the military in minor actions (police-actions?) without a declaration of war.

    Obama did it plenty. Trump has now done it.

    At least Bush got a Congressional approval before the Afghanistan and Iraq “wars”, which weren’t really wars and instead were the less-stressful-to-Congress ” use of military force”.

  39. How about this for a novel idea:

    Why not just try to be as sure as possible that any potential refugee/immigrant signs off on the Bill of Rights before being allowed to immigrate? I wouldn’t mind a modified “right of return” for people I consider Americans born abroad, but quotas from a given country seems like a terrible idea.

    For example, I live near a city that took a lot of Somali refugees which have, by and large, neither assimilated nor made any particular effort to. On the other hand, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, herself of Somali extraction, has a better grasp on the tenets of classical liberalism than 95% of the people with whom I interact on a daily basis. Therefore, whatever the overhaul to the refugee/immigrant processing, it would be one which would let her in and keep them out.

    I’m not sure how to design such a screening process, but it would be a hell of a lot better than arbitrary quotas from any part of the world.

  40. I have to agree that the nation has no business warring against the Middle East, but it also has no business permitting Muslim immigrants into the nation from the Middle East. Mohammedanism, aka Islam, has the express goal of destroying the nation and installing a caliphate.

  41. When Trump began his administration, dn’t forget there had already been a decade of war going in IN Syria, largely fomented by various organisatioins WE had trained, equipped, sometimes transported and/or motivated by us as well. WHY? Previous administrations did not like that Syria was in plans to facilitate a pipeline from the Levant on to Russia….. and so began the chant “Assad Must GO!!!”. Remember, too, there WAS a gas attack I think aobut 3 years ago…. instantly blamed on the “nasty” Assad regime. Turned out, after some independent digging, that it was the result of some ISIS rebel forces, trying to take out Assad’s legitimate government, whom WE had trained and even helped equip, who were not properly versed in how that gas weapon functioned….. and deployed it by accident. Once THAT news crept out, the whole thing sort of evapourated…. Please, someone tell me HOW we KNOW this time it reall was Assad’s government’s decisioni and action to use that gas? I’ve read a fair bit that builds a strong case it was a false flag event… Assad’s troops had successfully cleared that area of the rebel forces, relocating them to a territory where they’d be relatively harmless (please note, he COULD have simply gassed THEM and had done with them all) WHY would any sane military commander gas civilians in an area where they had just succeeded in defeating and removing the enemy? Sorry, that all doesn’t wash.

    1. Anyone else remember how it was that Bush decided we had to go get Sadman Insane, thus “justifying” invading Iraq? “He had weapons of mass destruction”. So there…. Saddam must GO. So in we went. Turns out they never found the WMD, didn’t it? Two theories: there never WERE those WMD’s, or the WMD’s were transported OUT of Iraq. In either case, turns out the pretense to “jusstify” that war was false. Or at least later made to SEEM false. Bush relied on his advisors, intel, etc, which was demonstrated to be “not quite accurate”……. yet everyone blames HIM for the bogus excuse. Fast forward two admins further on…..Trump is relying on HIS advisors, intel, etc… Does anyone else think that those guys have a not so well hidden agenda? Like.. making $Bns off the wars such claims have “justified”?

      How’s about WE get our big schnozzolas OUT of Syria and let their government manage? WHO is pressing for this stuff? The aptly named by Eisenhower, about ten admins or so back, “military industrial complex” want more earnings. They make money when things are built, deployed, blown up. THAT does not happen when we”re NOT at war. The more DIFFRENT wars we’re tangled in the more war materi?l gets built deployed blown up. Not to mentioin the torn up bodies of our soliders who go do what they’re told… including to train, equip, deploy groups like Taliban, al Quaeda, ISIS/ISIL, which then work to take out leaders like Assad…..

      1. Remember the USS Maine… and the Lusitania…… and Pearl Harbor,……….. and Tonkin………. and WMD…….

  42. The problem really isn’t the one or two viciously poisonous grains in each bag of rice. The problem is that the entire bag is bad (inevitably with a few exceptions). Europe has decades of experience with large scale immigration from MENA (Middle-East, North-Africa). The result are poor. Even after several generations, the “immigrants” (and their children) are poor, welfare-dependent, violent, socially isolated, unemployed, uneducated, crime-prone, etc. Note that I not referring to a few “bad grains”. The “bad grains” are the overt terrorists. My comments apply to the median MENA immigrant.

    Of course, they do bring a certain type of “vitality” to Europe. Look up the word “tournantes” for the fun these folks bring with them.

    However, a word of warning is needed here. Don’t for moment think that the editors of the Reason don’t know all of this. They do. You can be sure that they keep their families as far from these people as possible.

  43. “Trump should bring more Not Americans to America, because Americans suck and their effect on America should be diluted as much as possible”

    Shikha should cut and paste this as every article.

  44. My Buddy’s mom makes $77 hourly on the computer . She has been laid off for five months but last month her check was $18713 just working on the computer for a few hours. try this web-site

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.Jobpost3.tk

  45. So if a nation with an unsustainable debt and experiencing the slow death of brick and mortar model should take in vulnerable citizens from every broken down third world country, the global crisis would be solved.

    But, we still have to send in billions of dollars in aid in case of natural disasters and STILL conduct surgical air strike if dictator unleash chemical warfare on their own people.

    This is an argument in favor of Utopia, effectively the flip side of nation building. And yet, nation building HAS some record of past success. No nation has ever achieved prosperity and stability by allowing hordes of their own people to escape to another nation freely. Libertarians often blame “brain drain” from Puerto Rico as one of the reasons why that formerly prosperous nation declined.

    The practical benefits of a immigrant rich state like CA is that you’ll work at a Boba tea shop or some low end blue collar work. That’s about it. You’re never going to work in trade, tech, or even tourism that provides the bulk of the revenue. Wages for immigrant businesses are not magically higher then their white counterparts. You ain’t gonna earn living wages and get healthcare working at K-town or Westminster. And more Mexicans leave CA then arrive at the state.

  46. The official position of the Democratic party and reason magazine:

    -Anyone who wants to, can come here
    -Anyone who arrives here, can stay here
    -Anyone who objects is racist and xenophobic

  47. There is a plan to build a mosque and community center in my suburb. The city has already approved the building plan, the land has been purchased and the variances granted.

    Now there is a petition circulating to stop it. There are no real issues with the building or plan. It is just because it is a mosque. I looked at the drawing you would hardly know what it is. The city is holding strong right now in granting the permit.

    I wonder how many readers and commenters here would agree and sign the petition if it was your neighborhood?

  48. Not our problem. Tell the Saudis or Iraqis or Turks to deal with it.

  49. I only clicked on this to confirm it was Shakia. To my total non-surprise, it is.

    No, not gonna even look at it beyond that. As a “journalist” she’s a known quantity. If the only solution she can imagine for people suffering distress is for them to “move to America”, how can she give to the Syrians the spots already reserved for the Venezuelans and Sudanese?? I mean, she should open her home to them, as the mayors of Oakland and San Francisco have done for the homeless already here…oh wait, what? Oh! She should open up SOMEONE ELSES’ HOME to them, following the enlightened example set by our West coast betters.

  50. If all Syrians who want to come were allowed in, results would be disastrous. Since that is not current policy, statistics arising out of current policy does not apply to a completely open borders policy.

    Studies have shown that third-world immigrants overwhelmingly tend to vote leftwing or Democrat party. Many are Muslims, who tend to have more children. IQ levels in the third world tend to be much lower than those from Europe, Israel, or east Asia. There is no way that bringing in vast numbers of low IQ, unskilled, and politically/culturally hostile people can benefit most Americans.

    Open borders sounds nice in theory, but we can reasonably expect to pluck one isolated principle and apply it out of context of reform of other elements, and expect success. First we need reforms, such as the “privatization” of schools, hospitals, welfare, and roads.

  51. “…the Syrian conflict had displaced about 12 million people, producing the worst refugee crisis that Europe had experienced since World War II.” When did Syria become a part of Europe? Europe has a refuge crisis because it choose to have one.

  52. kenapa dia begitu tidak sukanya dengan islam?

  53. Libertarianisme bukanlah tentang cabang pemerintahan mana yang memutuskan apa yang dilakukan pemerintah. Ini tentang apa yang dilakukan pemerintah. Menjadi konstitusional dan menjadi libertarianisme adalah dua hal yang berbeda.

  54. Yeah, “Reason” because that worked out so fucking well for Europe. Seriously, I am getting sick of the open borders, Koch brothers bull shit, for the last time open borders isn’t libertarian, allowing people to violate other people’s private property rights and voting illegally for big government isn’t libertarian. The “Syrians” you speak have turned most of Europe into a Sharia, rape shit hole but “Reason” never mentions the fact in some of these Muslim immigrant enclaves that there is no go zones and crime out of control. Stop bombing Syria, yes, please stop but these immigrants should go through a process and follow the fucking law. I am seriously thinking about just sticking to lewrockwell.com.

    1. ” allowing people to violate other people’s private property rights and voting illegally for big government isn’t libertarian.”
      Open borders implies nothing about either private property lines or the franchise. You can allow noncitizens to cross the border and still not invite them to dinner. You can allow them across the border and still refuse to allow them to vote.

  55. Perhaps we should settle all of Syrian refugees in Dalmia’s neighborhood. We have no obligation to bring any refugees, much less those who may not fit in with the predominant culture of our country. Maybe we should be pressuring other wealthy Arab/Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Quatar, to accept them.

    1. Well, Dalmia and other non-libertarians are already hard at work on that “predominant culture” thing, because inclusion.

  56. So instead to trying to stabilize a country and promote freedom and the rule of law we should take in everyone on the planet that live in an oppressive country… Hummm where are we going to put that 3 or 4 Billion people? Would it not be better for everyone if the world were freer… Ya, that is way to Neocon for the small minded…

  57. dpbisme|4.22.18 @ 9:50PM|#
    “Would it not be better for everyone if the world were freer… ”

    Yes, it would, and it’s someone elses’ job to do so.

  58. Ugh. Yeah because we REALLY need to import a bunch more uneducated rabble that will probably not integrate for shit, just like most middle eastern immigrants we’ve had since opening up who we let into the country in 1965.

    We also REALLY need to get our rape numbers up like Europe!

    I’m not some moron who thinks they’re ALL horrible rapists or anything… But the thing is a disproportionate percentage of them have proven to be sketchy as fuck in terms of education levels, unemployment levels, crime levels, etc. There’s literally NO upside for current American citizens, other than if we actually needed additional uneducated laborers… But we don’t. We can’t even employ the native born.

    Maybe if we were just snaking Syrian doctors or engineers or something, but we’re not. They’re mostly just uneducated people with a ton of mental problems from all the trauma they’ve lived through. I feel bad for them, but I also don’t want them to be my new next door neighbor.

    Sorry Shikha, but I’m not a bleeding heart like you.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.