|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
What I said doesn't suggest that.
What I said doesn't suggest that.
Derived from premise my words didn't suggest.
Then what is your point with this observation?
"I've seen multiple instances of the same men caught in photos with firearms in a gang AND admitted as refugees in Europe."
I thought you were saying this is bad. If you were, in fact, saying this is exactly appropriate, then I absolutely misunderstood you.
If you're saying it's bad, then based on what?
What is your actual premise, I mean.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Not suggested by what I said.
Then what do you mean with this observation?
"I've also seen a ton of photos of refugee masses made up of mostly robust, well-fed men, with very few women and children."
I can't find any motivation to say this if not to suggest that this is a problem.
If you're suggesting that it's a problem, then upon what basis do you posit such?
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Importing criminals is not a separate issue from importing criminals.
Of course not.
Making a 1:1 equation of "refugee" to "criminal" is your mistake, here.
Depriving the society of the intelligence, innovation and hard work of non-criminal immigrants is the kind of economic problem I'd expect you to put more weight on than this.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Because reality.
Don't cop out.
Which aspect(s) of reality?
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm not sure why this is directed at me. How is this related to trying to import fewer terrorists?
Because you're willing to stop all refugee immigration to nullify some of their bad behavior.
"How many innocents is acceptable to punish in the name of the guilty?" seems a core question to elucidate where you're coming from.
|
Reply With Quote