The point is that prohibitions based on national origin DON'T equate prohibitions on enemy combatants. They just end up being arbitrary barriers that punish innocent people and, when we are talking about refugees, condemn innocent people to death.

It's not okay to just shrug at people dying at Auschwitz. That's my people being dismissed as if their lives didn't matter. Their lives did matter. Their lives could have been saved, if it weren't for ignorance and prejudice. The US could absolutely afford to take those refugees in. In fact, refugees are economically beneficial especially in depressed regions.

It is not fair to compare the American refugee process to the European refugee crisis. They are completely different situations. And part of the reason Europe is struggling so much is that other countries have not stepped up to help take in more refugees. If America took in more refugees, Europe wouldn't be struggling as much as it is.

More importantly, Muslims are not terrorists, any more than any other religious group. And most of the terrorists who have attacked in Europe are themselves European, just as most terrorist attacks in America are carried out by Americans.

What do you mean by "It's already been said that acts of terrorism by one's own people on one's own people is an entirely different issue." I don't think this is true. Even the type of terrorism we're specifically talking about, Daesh, is primarily directed at Syrians, Kurds and Iraqis. And no, there aren't a lot of foreign nationals committing terror attacks in the United States. In no small part because we already have the strictest vetting process in the world.

No one is shrugging at Auschwitz...
And I'm curious to see information on how refugees are beneficial exactly if there are no jobs, and not enough food to go around already. There was nothing at all listed in those articles about turning those ships away, about prejudice of any kind, merely a concern about financial hardship and the inability to care for them.
I wasn't comparing the American and European refugee processes, I was pointing out acts of terrorism committed by foreign nationals or those radicalized by foreign nationals, in areas of Europe which have seen heavy immigration.

And by the "It's already been said that acts of terrorism by one's own people on one's own people is an entirely different issue." I meant that it has nothing to do with the refugee crisis, or rather, nothing to do with incoming refugees (it creates them yes but that wasn't what we were talking about).

The story of the St Louis is a story about how the US government refused to allow Jewish refugees to land on US soil and instead sent them back to Europe, where many died in Auschwitz. I thought you would appreciate the sanitized, analytical, strictly accurate historical recount most, but perhaps I should have chosen a different source that was more accessible and less invested in the technical details. This twitter account is a public art project dedicating to remembering the refugees from the St. Louis who were murdered, perhaps this might provide better context. https://twitter.com/Stl_Manifest

Your reaction to this story was shrug. This is a story of how people ended up dying at Auschwitz, after being so close to freedom they could see the lights in Miami. Therefore, your reaction to people dying at Auschwitz was shrug.

As for how refugees are beneficial...I can point to the town of Lowell, MA for an example. Lowell is an old mill town. In New England, most of the mills closed before the Great Depression and the jobs just never came back. But Lowell became a popular area for refugees, and with the refugees came new investments, new workers, more money and greater entrepreneurship. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/t ... setts.html

Here's an interview with an economist from Columbia University about why Utica, NY has been actively seeking refugees: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sens ... n-america/
A quote from the interview: "For the world, it’s positive, because people are leaving desperate situations and getting to economically better situations. For the U.S., on net, it’s positive, because there are gains when people come, add to the labor market, add skills and generally, earn less than what they can contribute to the society as a whole. "
(I think you'll like this one because they also discuss some of the resistances to refugees, though it's worth noting the percentage of refugees who are dependent on public assistance after 1 year is small)

Another example is Rutland VT, which has now lost the chance to bring in the refugees they were depending on to revitalize their town. (I've been to Rutland for work a few times. The situation is pretty dire) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/s ... -plan.html

I still don't understand what you mean by "I wasn't comparing the American and European refugee processes, I was pointing out acts of terrorism committed by foreign nationals or those radicalized by foreign nationals, in areas of Europe which have seen heavy immigration." It seems to me you're saying these attacks in Europe justify banning refugees from the United States. But the process of getting to the United States as a refugee is completely different from the process of getting to Europe as a refugee. The heavy immigration in Europe is the migrant crisis, and the problems that have come with the migrant crisis would be best addressed by other countries accepting an equitable share of the burden. But if you are not comparing the situation in Europe to the situation in the US, what is the point of bringing it up at all?

Terrorism has nothing to do with the refugee crisis?

You said: "I meant that it has nothing to do with the refugee crisis, or rather, nothing to do with incoming refugees (it creates them yes but that wasn't what we were talking about)."

What is the "it" that has nothing to do with the refugee crisis? Terrorism? US terrorism? Religious extremist terrorism? If what you are concerned about is Daesh and Al Qaeda (to be clear, I prefer the term Daesh because it is also an insult) then the description "acts of terrorism by one's own people on one's own people" describes them perfectly.

These are groups that are murdering people, and instead of helping those people you're saying we should abandon them, ignore their desperate cries for help, and do nothing?

I am not shrugging at Auschwitz. The article doesn't mention Auschwitz once. Most of the people on that ship were accepted into other countries. Some of them died during the war as it spread, just like other, non-jews died because of war conflict as well. Your sanitized, analytical, strictly accurate historical account has nothing to do with prejudice or Auschwitz.

That pbs article also brings up the financial hardship that a mass influx of immigrants can have on those already in the low end work market or who are seeking jobs. That and originally I was asking in regard to the depression, America is somewhat better off financially (even if we are in such awful debt), to take care of them. Look, it's a complicated issue. I have not said I believe we shouldn't let them in, just that there's a lot to consider when we do. I like to play devil's advocate (while also learn a bit from civilized debate, which I have in talking to you).

How does the difference in process lessen the likelihood for similar attacks? It's a knee jerk reaction, I'm sure, to (as a country/government) be afraid of seeing what's happening elsewhere and compare. If you're saying those terrorist driven attacks happened solely because certain places in Europe are cramped with a flood of refugees... then yes, I can see how you would think other places needn't be worried.

Sorry for the confusion, what I meant (tries to say it a different way), was that acts of violence or terrorism (I guess I meant specifically in America) by Americans, is a separate issue, than the fear of those that would be committed by those coming into our country. Does that make more sense?

I'm going to focus on the last part, because I don't the the conversation about the St Louis is getting anywhere.

"Sorry for the confusion, what I meant (tries to say it a different way), was that acts of violence or terrorism (I guess I meant specifically in America) by Americans, is a separate issue, than the fear of those that would be committed by those coming into our country. Does that make more sense?"

No, it doesn't make sense. It does not make sense to have one standard for Americans and another standard for everyone else in the world. That is prejudice.

More importantly, the reason I made that comparison was that when we talk about refugees, we are talking about victims of the violence that is then used to justify abandoning those refugees. If it makes sense to care about American victims of terror, then it makes sense to care about victims of terror in other countries. But banning refugees just further hurts the victims of terror and helps the terrorists.

The St. Louis conversation was fine, you just read what you wanted to read out of what I said, and made it about something else. But I'll stop trying to explain and give examples for debate in general, then.

I'm sorry, I'm at work right now so I was trying to limit the conversation. I don't want to shut this down, so please keep going. I'll respond to the St Louis stuff later

Eva wrote:I am not shrugging at Auschwitz. The article doesn't mention Auschwitz once. Most of the people on that ship were accepted into other countries. Some of them died during the war as it spread, just like other, non-jews died because of war conflict as well. Your sanitized, analytical, strictly accurate historical account has nothing to do with prejudice or Auschwitz.

The first article was an article from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. It told the story of how the St Louis attempted to gain entry first to Cuba and then to the United States. This first article says that 254 refugees who had been on the St Louis died in the Holocaust.

This second article, also from the museum, tells the story of the return to Europe. https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.ph ... d=10005393

This third article (again from the museum) tells the story of what happened to the refugees, many of whom were interned whether they ended up back in Nazi-controlled territory or not. This article does specifically name Auschwitz. https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.ph ... d=10005431

"Thus, in the end, the former St. Louis passengers underwent experiences similar to those of other Jews in Nazi-occupied western Europe. The Germans murdered many of them in the killing centers and the concentration camps. Others went into hiding or survived years of forced labor. Some managed to escape. The different fates of the Seligmann and Hermanns families illustrate the varied experiences of the passengers."

This is a story about people who could have been saved dying in Auschwitz. It is very personal to me, because there are Holocaust survivors in my family.

I hadn't read the other articles, thanks for linking. Bleh it's almost worse to say no once they're already there you know? (as far as refugees) Like, saying no, send them somewhere else, is one thing, but, they're literally at your door knocking, asking to be let in and you say no and they have to go back? Very crummy.

Exactly. Which is very similar to what happened this last weekend.

Edit: This piece was published today in the New York Times. It is the story of a young refugee from Guatemala named Elena who is in the process of applying for asylum in the US (and who is now currently banned and, according to the current interpretation of the law, would have to start the process all over again if the ban is lifted). I think everyone can agree that girls like Elena need to be helped as soon as possible.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/opin ... eft-region