My Original Post: I don’t think there is a single issue more dear to me than that of refugees. Let me be clear: shitting on refugees is one of the worst things I can think of human beings doing to one another. These are those amongst us who need the most help, and the rest of the world fully has it within their power to help them, and yet so many would choose to close their doors on them. Why? Because you only care about yourself? Because you don’t like their religion or skin color? Closing out the neediest of our neighbors, turning our backs when they reach to us for help, is indecent, inhuman, selfish, gutless, spineless, thoroughly unChristian, and straight-up vile.
Commenter: I want to help those that truly need help, but some on the left are extremely hypocritical. The premise is the same as gun control, the left wants to take the rights of legal guys owners over the actions of few. However let’s let all the refugees in world into our country. We both know their are few bad apples with these refugees, so why not apply same principal that they use for guns control. I think we as a country need to know who these people are.
Me: This is NOT an issue of left vs right politics. This is an issue of basic humanity and compassion, something that everyone with a soul should easily agree on regardless of political affiliation. Dragging unrelated political issues into it makes sense. “I want to help those in need” should never be followed but a “but” unless it’s to say “but I don’t know how- anyone have guidance?” Following up “I want to help those in need” with “BUT the liberals are taking away my portable killing device” is bonkers. These things are in no way related. But fine, if for same crazy reason we DO want to equate saving war-savaged children and families with saving the rights of people to own weapons, then consider this: Refugees already went through the most rigorous vetting process that we have for anybody to enter the country- a process that is only available to a tiny sliver of the world’ s needy refugee population and sends then through several federal agencies. It is not an open door for anyone to walk through. Whereas gun control advocates are not asking for a complete shut down of gun ownership, they’re asking for basic checks, that are nowhere near as stringent as the checks put upon refugees. In other words: on an accessibility scale with 1 being anyone gets access and 10 being nobody gets access, gun ownership is currently at 3 and control advocates think it should be a 6, but refugees trying to reach America have been at a 9 but are now boosted to a 10.
Same Commenter, starting a new chain: Have you all seen the recent attacks in Germany and France? Why should we as a country not completely vet these people. And after all those attacks the German and French leadership criticize trump… baffles my mind. We are a sovereign nation and no foreign national can demand entry into this country if they are not a naturalized citizen . Oh yeah and where was that outrage when Obama banned Iraqi migrants? Hillary wanted to do the same thing Germany did, do you want trucks driving through Christmas markets, July 4 celebration?
Me: You are not listening. We were already thoroughly vetting then. Now we are banning them. Maybe you should decide what you count as “vetting” them, then compare your suggestion to the vetting process we already had in place, then let us know what steps are in your vetting process that were lacking from the original vetting process.
Here, I’ll even help you out. The whole thing is worth a watch but you can also just start with the cartoon if you’re short for time or just like cartoon:
Another thing you could do is educate yourself on ISIS and what they actually want. Then, decide whether banning innocent Muslims from our borders helps ISIS’s plan of recruiting by suggesting that the West hates them, or hurts their plan of recruiting by suggesting that the west helps them. Here, I’ll even help with a source for that. No cartoons in this one, though: