Can't we save thousands more Muslim refugees by supporting their relocation to other Muslim countries?
"... doesn't that pretty much set itself up as a recruiting poster that America considers foreign lives to be worthless?"
Not worthless, one word. But perhaps worth less, two words, than the lives of American women and children, yes.
Maybe we could have saved Somalia back when we invaded with the U.N. force but we decided that those millions of lives were worth less than the thousands of American troops we would lose in the effort. Their lives were apparently not even worth one Black Hawk Down.
That's Trump's whole point. Put America first. We can still help them but there is no reason to endanger our own civilians and subject them to completely predictable and preventable terrorist attacks in the process. We just help them over there.
It's not even a question of the lives of thirty thousand Syrian refugees being worth less than the lives of thirty American women and children. That would be a good question though.
Hillary's answer is that if it costs thirty Americans their lives to help thirty thousand Syrians come to America it's worth it. Trump's position is that it's not.
But that's not even the question because we could actually save the lives of more Syrians and other refugees by not bringing them to America because bringing them here is so much more expensive.
Make our next arms deal with Saudi Arabia conditioned on them accepting in some Muslim refugees. Many Muslim countries have huge populations of foreign guest workers, for instance from the Philippines, so it's not like they don't have jobs available. It's almost like they aren't accepting any because they prefer using this crisis, just like ISIS is, to spread Islam across the world. And when we fall for it that just incentivizes them to extend the crisis situation, escalate it, and keep making more of them if possible.
I'm glad the FBI caught the latest couple of Muslim terrorists who infiltrated in with the refugee population but there are two obvious problems with that. One is that they may not catch the next one because that's the "beauty" of the lone wolf attacks. These guys talked to an informant. The next guy might not. And the second problem is this is taking away FBI resources that could go to solving other crimes and tackling other problems. It's not like we don't have enough as it is.
And that brings us back to the issue of drunk drivers and heart disease and second hand smoking deaths, driver by shootings, random murders in gang initiations, domestic violence homicides, and falling down in your bathtub. We've got enough problems as it is without adding more. And it's not like the victims of terrorism were going to die some time soon anyway by some other means. Why send them to their graves when we don't have to?
This all seems very similar to what happened in Britain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html"The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett."
