Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothpops
The result of this is going to be disastrous. We're leaving men behind that are trying to escape a horrible situation. not only are we discriminating against them for their gender, we're basically disenfranchising them. In order to survive in Syria, those men are going to have to choose a side, either ISIS or Assad, or the radicals. Either way, this is going to cause problems down the road. why this is being seen as a logical choice is beyond me
|
This is going to sound callous, but people are acting as though there has never been war before. A combination of social media and a younger generation that has a near-absolute ignorance of history is causing this perpetual crisis mode, where a civil war in Syria is treated as though its an unprecedented disaster. Use the internet. Look up a year - any year. 1979. 1968. 1956. 1985. There was probably a war going on big or bigger than Syria today.
There will always be wars. There will always be refugees. It would be folly for Western countries to adopt a policy that we're responsible for taking in all young men displaced by war. The reason there are more refugees today than in the past isn't because wars or worse - it's because the people in war zones today have more money and more contacts abroad to make flight to Europe feasible.
I'm okay with a careful, modest intake of select refugees. It's good for the economy and its gives refuge to people who need it. But that's a far cry from the assumption that we're obliged to take in all people displaced by conflict. Our social systems, or society could not handle it.