Why bring Afghan refugees here?

Author: thett3

Posts

Total: 59
Topic's author
#1
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,065
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
Because of the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, people are now clamoring to bring Afghan translators and others who assisted the US military during the war back to the states. But why? I would agree that these people should not be left to die, but there is a sensible middle ground everyone seems to be ignoring, which is to resettle them in countries more culturally compatible with their values. There are certainly Islamic countries willing to take them in, especially if the United States greases the skids for a tiny portion of the overall cost of this suicidal war.

Really the issue exposes the hubris of the secular, Western mind that believes everyone in the world would be just like us, if only they were enlightened enough! Even the Afghans willing to work with the United States are not compatible with the country at all. According to Pew, 99% of people in Afghanistan want Sharia law to be the law of the land. 61% say this should also apply to non-Muslims. 85% want to implement stoning as a punishment for adultery, and 79% support the death penalty for apostasy. There is absolutely no reason they should be brought here instead of settled in countries more compatible to their values. If they are brought here the culture shock will be a bad thing for both sides.



#2
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,672
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@thett3
You need to watch United States of Al on CBS.
#3
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@thett3
coincidentally they are all landing in red states, so I think you know why they are being brought here. 
#4
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,382
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@thett3
A sense of responsibility, due to power and actions taken.
Though if they wanted to immigrate to 'other countries, that were more similar to their values, it would fulfill our responsibilities, to help them move there instead.
Topic's author
#5
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,065
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Lemming
A sense of responsibility, due to power and actions taken.
What responsibility to move them here, specifically, when Afghanistan is a strong contender for least similar culture on Earth to the USA? It will lead to nothing but trouble.
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,121
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
What's wrong with pakistan?
#7
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@thett3
the people going onto the planes very obviously  want to leave afghanistan if they are going into the planes.... 
should we just leave them to suffer in a fascist authoritarian government filled with murders? heck people even tries to  sit on the wing of the plane while it went to launch.

#8
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,121
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
Imagine if China in the future had to rescue Americans and brought them to China to resettle as "an act of mercy"
#9
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,121
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
What's kinda funny is the recent series of The Falcon and the Winter soldier. There were multiple narrative episodes blaming white people for why a Black family couldn't make money fishing in Louisiana, when the fact of the matter is America took in hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees in the 70's where many resettled in the only cultural place they know: Along the Gulf shores fishing. Almost all local fishing in Louisiana is done by about 24,000 Vietnamese families living on family fishing boats, not "whites"

Unintended consequences....
#10
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,382
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@thett3
I suppose I don't immediately see a responsibility to move them 'specifically to the United States,
But the Invasion and War in Afghanistan,
'Still implies to me, a responsibility to do 'something.

And by 'something, I mean more than our prayers are with you,
Or here are some boxes of MREs we didn't use,
Though I don't think those are the actions you are suggesting.
#11
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@thett3
Because of the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, people are now clamoring to bring Afghan translators and others who assisted the US military during the war back to the states. But why? I would agree that these people should not be left to die, but there is a sensible middle ground everyone seems to be ignoring, which is to resettle them in countries more culturally compatible with their values. There are certainly Islamic countries willing to take them in, especially if the United States greases the skids for a tiny portion of the overall cost of this suicidal war.
I don't even know why America needs to be involved in the first place, let alone in the Middle East at all. This might have made a lot more sense during the Cold War, wherein Russia might have seized control over the Middle East (and it's debatable that would even be a good thing for Russia, due to the cost of maintaining it). But we're 30 years passed all that. 

The Middle East in general now hates America, threatens terrorist attacks against it (that deal way more damage in fear than actual damage) and it's now all for nothing, seeing that America left anyway. AND NOW they also think that America is weak, given how America left.

Both Democratic and Republican parties are wrong in wanting to be involved in the first place, and have made a giant mess in the Middle East.

Really the issue exposes the hubris of the secular, Western mind that believes everyone in the world would be just like us, if only they were enlightened enough! Even the Afghans willing to work with the United States are not compatible with the country at all. According to Pew, 99% of people in Afghanistan want Sharia law to be the law of the land. 61% say this should also apply to non-Muslims. 85% want to implement stoning as a punishment for adultery, and 79% support the death penalty for apostasy. There is absolutely no reason they should be brought here instead of settled in countries more compatible to their values. If they are brought here the culture shock will be a bad thing for both sides.

Muslims often laugh at the state of degeneracy in the Western world. They laugh at our hyper-consumerism tendencies. They laugh at our "progressive" values that are undoing the cultural and social fabrics of a functioning society. They laugh at our atheistic/agnostic nihilism that produces lost and depressed people. They see through the Western propaganda and laugh at it. You're right, the Western world has gigantic hubris in thinking the rest of the world wants to be like it. Muslims are ALREADY "enlightened" as to what Western values lead to, and they want nothing to do with it.

As you've cited, Afghani culture is incompatible with Western culture. Sharia is non-negotiable -- you either have it or you don't. Stoning for adultery conflicts with our criminal justice precedents, and the death penalty contradicts our separation of religion and state. It doesn't require too much of a guess to think about what Muslims would like to do with homosexuals and transgender people, too. You can add to this all the racial bias humans have, and one party is going to stop 'tolerating' the other party in short order.
#12
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Lemming
I suppose I don't immediately see a responsibility to move them 'specifically to the United States,
But the Invasion and War in Afghanistan,
'Still implies to me, a responsibility to do 'something.

And by 'something, I mean more than our prayers are with you,
Or here are some boxes of MREs we didn't use,
Though I don't think those are the actions you are suggesting.
This is the kind of chump thinking that gets white nations into so much trouble.

You're not the savior of the human race. You're not responsible for the governments Afghanis fail to contend with. Afghanis are distinctly different to you at the cultural and DNA level. They don't think like you and they don't share your values or racial in-group bias. When you import these people, even out of "responsibility', you're importing people who are not going to get along with you, and will eventually want "rights" (read: political power) that undermine your country when they push for their values to be law.

They want your help now because they are weaker, but when you bring them in, when you give them political power, you end up like South Africa and Zimbabwe wherein they HATE you and want to wipe you from what becomes their country.

Stop being a chump and get with the program. 
#13
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,114
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@thett3
Plenty of room in the U.S.

Just not enough room inside your head.


Excuse me, we've caused an almighty fuck up in Afghanistan, so is it OK if  you sort out the problem for us..... As we don't actually like the look of Afghanis.


LOL.











#14
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@thett3
I fully agree. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Iraq should bear the responsibility of housing them. India's already taking steps to house Afghan Sikhs. I'm not a big fan of the Sikhs, but India's doing a fantastic job of managing the crisis.

I'm well-aware that more than 3/4 of muslims in the US are college graduates. They're generally smarter than most other muslims, but suspicion should be applied nonetheless. If they support sharia law in handling family matters, even in the smallest problems, then the US has a problem.
#15
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@Lemming
I think the US should refuse extended kin and that only the interpreters (if they are really westernized) and their spouses (alongside their children) should be allowed entry. The main criteria for admission should be outrageously high, such as being a christian or having spouses that are fully westernized. 



The thing with Ilhan Omar is that she could turn fundamentalist at any time. That's the problem with muslims. They could turn moderate but because of the lack of worldwide Ulama support (slim to none) for the moderate faction, they could turn fundamentalist in a single day.
#16
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@thett3
At least they can speak English.
#17
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,382
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@MarkWebberFan
I'm a bit rambling.
The way I see it, 'most anyone who chooses to immigrate to the USA, ends up being assimilated, well enough eventually. May be some hiccups, but I believe in the strength of our nation and laws.
Though there's likely 'flaws in my perspective,
I don't see the difference between refusing entry to someone for being a Muslim, and refusing entry to someone for being of Black ethnicity.
'NOT because these are the same thing, I'm not saying all Blacks are Muslims.
I might as well have said,
I don't see the difference between refusing entry to someone for being a Odin worshiper, and refusing entry to someone for being of Inuit ethnicity.

I'm referring to the underlying categorization,
Refusal to someone under the claim of them not being Our Kind.

My current view of America, is apparently we take people of near any stripe, so long as they acknowledge the supremacy of our system and laws.
Though not through a 'forever en masse.
There's a difference between a specific wave, and a 'permanent open faucet, such as exists from south of America.
I can appreciate letting in the Vietnamese Boat People, or a number of Afghans who supported our nation.
It's the difference between keeping a stable population, secure borders, and being beholden to a group.

To my mind, it's shameful of America, lacking in honor, to ignore those it's taken responsibility for, by 'putting them in said position in the first place.

If America was a 'closed sort of state, believed and acted on discriminatory creeds, of race, religion, or culture. I'd think different.
I'd still believe that honor required we provide for them, but I'd not think we ought accept them into our nation.
But we 'don't live in 'such a closed state, so far as I can tell, only part we insist on, is they follow our laws.

One could argue the Europeans, Germans for example, are mad, to dilute their culture and people, as they have.
But America is a society of mutts, that insists on political and law, not other discriminations.

No significant organizations that I know of, exist in America, that insist upon purity of religion or race.

#18
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,114
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@MarkWebberFan
The criteria for admission should be outrageously high.

Such as wearing a plaid shirt and a back to front baseball cap, with no serious consideration for gun control.

1 out of 3 for starters.....And they can soon be fixed up with a shirt and cap.

LOL.


Over here in the U.K.......We have the come on in boys and just do what the fuck you like approach......Seems to work OK.....No guns though.

Knives?....Well, we'll just have to cross that bridge when we come to it.


And what has a Sikh ever done to offend you?
Topic's author
#19
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,065
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@drlebronski
the people going onto the planes very obviously  want to leave afghanistan if they are going into the planes.... 
should we just leave them to suffer in a fascist authoritarian government filled with murders? heck people even tries to  sit on the wing of the plane while it went to launch.
Absolutely not. But I don’t see a reason why they should be settled in a secular, liberal democracy with incredibly alien cultural values instead of somewhere they would be more comfortable. 
#20
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Lol, okay well, i suppose that's one way of looking at it. It's a good joke, and a good life advice especially for long-term planners.

As to your qeuestion, i'm not a big fan of any organized religion. The Upanishads had good metaphysics, but again, I never really liked organized religion. Just look at how Hindus treat minorities, that should give you a clue. I've done a bit of a spat with some dart user a while back and I remember that I took the side of secularization. Any country with elements of secularization is always preferable than a religious dustbin with elements of religiousity imho.
#21
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@Lemming
Well, generally, people do assimilate. I think the question is whether they're willing to renounce barbaric beliefs in favor of secular values that permeate Europe/US. To date, Islam hasn't reform itself into anything substantial. Attempts to reform said religion by the think tanks of the west are regularly looked at by the ulama who regularly publishes various opinions read by most of the muslim public. I don't know about the US but you can ask around if the muslims in your area read any of the muslim scholars. Muslim scholars are unanimous in their fundamentalist voice, so sticking to the general "Have you read any of the Ulama" suffices. I still think there is a calculated risk when a country deals with any muslim. Are you willing to let them convene their behind closed-doors attacks on democracy? Perhaps not, after all, they're only doing it in private. Ethnic lines are irrelevant. I often conflate whites/blacks as of the same cloth, but that's me. It's not a valid criteria because people can trace their genetic trees to various races.

The responsibility of housing refugees, in so far as they are allies, remains a moral obligation subjected to degrees of religiousity. If they're religious about Islam, perhaps you can send them to Saudi Arabia. The monarch is often trusted as a valid substitute to the caliphate; democracy isn't trusted as a valid substitute. I know this sounds dishonorable, but I'm just giving you my opinion. 
#22
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@Lemming
No significant organizations that I know of, exist in America, that insist upon purity of religion or race.
Well-stated.i think that's an admirable principle to hold, not that I'm saying that I've changed my views about this.
#23
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@thett3
Really the issue exposes the hubris of the secular, Western mind that believes everyone in the world would be just like us, if only they were enlightened enough!
Disagree. It says we honor our promises; we take care of those who risk their lives for us. Besides, I'm certain if a translator wanted to go to another country besides the US we could make that happen too.

If we're being honest the motivation to disallow Afgan refugees to the US is fear. Those objectors are happy to benefit from people risking their lives, but not at the expense of having them among us because that *might* risk our culture... a culture known to be a melting pot of cultures. Its fear speaking to the mindset of *our* culture being more important than *their* lives. "Hubris of the secular, western mind". Gtfo with that projection. 
Topic's author
#24
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,065
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Disagree. It says we honor our promises; we take care of those who risk their lives for us. Besides, I'm certain if a translator wanted to go to another country besides the US we could make that happen too.
First off, what promise? I don't remember any promise to grant citizenship to people the military paid to translate and do other services. Secondly, you really aren't answering the question of why it's preferable to bring them *here* specifically. I am NOT saying leave them behind. But why resettle in a place so culturally alien and so far away? How does that make any sense? The annual cost of resettling a refugee in the United States is about 60x what it costs in the Middle East: https://cis.org/Report/High-Cost-Resettling-Middle-Eastern-Refugees

If we're being honest the motivation to disallow Afgan refugees to the US is fear. Those objectors are happy to benefit from people risking their lives, but not at the expense of having them among us because that *might* risk our culture... a culture known to be a melting pot of cultures. Its fear speaking to the mindset of *our* culture being more important than *their* lives. 
Fear can be rational. Given the experience that Europe has had with refugees from Afghanistan and other places of similar cultural backgrounds, concern over the potential consequences of bringing hundreds of thousands of Aghans here is completely justified. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/ive-worked-refugees-decades-europes-afghan-crime-wave-mind-21506 I'm happy to admit that I'm worried about the potential consequences, especially considering that, while I am sure many are good people, the US worked with some of the absolute worst people on Earth to try and defeat the Taliban: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html

Also I was NOT happy to "benefit" (how, lol) from these people risking their lives. I wholeheartedly applaud Biden for getting out of Afghanistan, something the last two Presidents promised to do but failed to deliver on. 

"Hubris of the secular, western mind". Gtfo with that projection. 
No projection. I believe that groups of humans are different from each other in deep and profound ways, that cannot be washed away easily. It is because of my belief in these differences that I can predict the inevitable cultural clash that would result in resettling Afghan refugees here, when we could avoid said clash entirely through settling them in a culturally similar area. The secular liberal project believes that there are no deep and profound differences between groups of humans, that everywhere would be a secular, liberal democracy with a libertine culture if only the constraints holding them back were removed. It is because of this delusion that they spent over two decades trying and failing to build a liberal democracy over there, and also why they believe there will be no issues in resettlement. 
#25
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@thett3
Because of the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, people are now clamoring to bring Afghan translators and others who assisted the US military during the war back to the states. But why?
The same reason over 110,000 refugees were evacuated from South Vietnam at the end of the Vietnam War.
#26
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@thett3
According to Pew, 99% of people in Afghanistan want Sharia law to be the law of the land.
Do you understand what "democracy" is ?
#27
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
What's wrong with pakistan?
They didn't invade Afghanistan.
#28
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Imagine if China in the future had to rescue Americans and brought them to China to resettle as "an act of mercy"
That would be uncharacteristically nice of them.
#29
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
I suppose I don't immediately see a responsibility to move them 'specifically to the United States,
Who is responsible for their predicament ?
#30
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,382
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
They don't 'necessarily 'want to live in the 'USA.