T O P

If we grant that countries that are involved in foreign wars need to take in refugees, then (Italy) does not need to take in (Syrian) refugees

If we grant that countries that are involved in foreign wars need to take in refugees, then (Italy) does not need to take in (Syrian) refugees

Confident_Ad6435

I think every country should allow all immigrants, it’s just the ones that had war are more obligated


SchmulyWormberg

No country is obligated to take in any immigrants. If they people of a society agree to take in some amount, that's fine, but asserting they are "obligated" to defies and ignores the very concept of national sovereignty.


IanArcad

It's always easier to find arguments as to why some other country should take all the refugees. Personally i wouldn't pay any attention to these arguments. The USA's primary responsibility is to look after its own citizens. If refugees will be an asset to the country, take them in, and if not, don't.


WaterDemonPhoenix

Agree


Scribbles_

Allow me to give you a small lesson in basic logic Suppose of you have an if-then statement. *If A then B*. For example: *If it is raining, the driveway is wet.* --- Now this statement has three other forms that use the same facts, the **inverse**, the **converse**, and the **contrapositive**. However this statement only implies the truth of one of them: the **contrapositive** (*if not B then not A*) So it’s true that *if the driveway is not wet, it is not raining*. --- What is not true is that *if the driveway is wet, then it is raining*. (The **converse** *if B then A*) This is a formal logic fallacy known as **affirming the consequent**. What is also not true is *if it is not raining the driveway is not wet* (The **inverse** *if not A then not B*) This is called **denying the antecedent** Both of these are wrong in this scenario because there are **other reasons** why a driveway may be wet other than rain. Like someone watering the grass or dumping out a large amount of water. The converse and the inverse are contrapositives of each other and therefore logically equivalent. Both of these formal fallacies are fundamentally the same error. --- What am I getting at? If you have foreign wars then you should have to take in refugees. Does **not** imply If you do not have foreign wars then you should not have to take refugees. Because that would be denying the antecedent. The only way this relationship holds is if the statement is **if and only if** you have foreign wars, you should take in refugees. But nobody is actually making such an argument. They believe foreign wars are *a* reason, but not *the only* reason.


WaterDemonPhoenix

Then answer this. Why should Italy take in Syrian refugees if they are not involved in the war?


CheckYourCorners

It's the humanitarian thing to do, and immigration overwhelmingly benefits the economy.


WaterDemonPhoenix

Well I guess I disagree. Its humanitarian to go volunteer for charities. But I don't see it as a must. If I don't have the time or money or desire to do so, I'm not bad for not volunteering. If Italy doesn't want to or find it not beneficial to do so, they aren't bad people As for benefits, that's subjective. If it triples their economic output, yeah maybe. But if its 1% increase, maybe the downfalls , increase population= increase competition, maybe Italians don't want that.


CheckYourCorners

You are an individual, not a country so I don't think the comparison is analogous. The benefits aren't subjective, the vast majority of the population sees a net increase in wages from immigration.


Scribbles_

Well, there could be some appeals made here. First, you could say that it is their humane duty to do so because they have a responsibility to humanity (the humanitarian angle) Second, you could say that Italy has indirectly benefited from foreign wars for oil or resources via economic activity with the powers that did wage those wars (the indirect angle) Third, you could say that Italy once produced a fair number of migrants which were accepted by countries like America but also other countries in the Americas and Europe (the historical angle) I suppose there could be more, but these three are off the top of my head.


yunglegendd

Congratulations You created one of the most condescending, talking without saying something comments I’ve ever seen. This type of attitude will continue to push normal people away and isolate yourself, but at least you and your mom think you’re smart.


Scribbles_

Okay, thank you for your contribution.


billgranger9000

I agree no country owes another country, refugees should defend their own country rather than trying to run to other countries like cowards.


Scribbles_

Sorry this is just not how geopolitics works. You’re taking one of the most complex geopolitical phenomena (mass migration due to conflict) and simplifying it to “don’t be cowards and stay.” It takes bravery to uproot your life to protect your family from the horrors of conflict. You don’t want your children growing up somewhere where they constantly fear for their lives. You want stability and security for those who you love, not to die and leave them to fend for themselves in a war-ridden place. It’s easy to point at people and call them cowards when you’ve never had conflict threaten your life and the safety of your family. Or when your knowledge of geopolitics is limited. It takes effort to be empathetic and to learn how war and famine has always caused displacement of people.


billgranger9000

I don't care I don't want more undesirables in my state, they already come here and cause a lot of crimes and take up welfare. Us should be focused on helping its own citizens rather than other citizens. Btw my family has faced conflict, they had to flee the 1947 india partition and start from nothing in India, you got it you racist liberal, you know nothing about my situation. These Muslim refugees should go to other Muslim countries, it's not the job of Christian nations to take care of them.


Scribbles_

>I don't care I don't want more undesirables in my state "Undesirables" huh? Thank you for showing your hand so quickly. >Btw my family has faced conflict, they had to flee the 1947 india partition and start from nothing Yeah, 74 years ago your family faced conflict. You are generations removed from this. Don't pretend something your family went through long before you were born gives you direct experience of conflict. >These Muslim refugees should go to other Muslim countries, it's not the job of Christian nations to take care of them. What does religion have to do with it? This is just a talking point you're parroting. Christians are not just duty bound to other Christians.


Torontomon2000

>it's not the job of Christian nations to take care of them. Does that mean the U.S should take in refugees from Ghana now because they are Christian?


Caelus9

I've never understood people opposed to immigration, other than racists. It seems like they just haven't thought through their reasoning. Why do you think it's OK to discriminate against someone based on what they were born as regarding nationality, but not race, exactly?