Quote:
Originally Posted by TOMAHAWK9521
OK. So we call the spade a spade. The Mexican government will get all indignant about their people being called refugees. The "usual suspects" Jessie, Al, ACLU, and SPLC will scream racism. And the politicians will vehemently deny the Mexican people being classified as "refugees" in order to keep them as potential future voter blocs.
|
Well...I'm not sure that's enough. I was discussing the issue with some friends over breakfast yesterday, and I think it may come down to some unspoken assumptions.
Here's the problem - those assumptions are both emotionally charged and unprovable. Even if they're not unprovable, there is little (no?) hard information on the subject.
The two assumptions are:
1) Do people - extra population, if you will - always and without limit add to the wealth of nations? The assumption is a yes or no. A further complication is the question of when this occurs, since new immigrants (or refugees) may be expensive, whereas their descendants may (or may not) be a positive contributor to the greater society.
This assumption applies to the new population in aggregate. We can always find an example who is brilliant, good-hearted, and a wonderful addition. We can also find some loathsome criminal. Instead of looking at individuals, the issue deals with the group in its entirety.
2) Is there a point at which extra population is more a burden than a benefit? This goes with the question - are we there yet?
My personal bias - because I see no hard facts to guide me on this - is that the refugees would generate more costs than benefits and that we are at a point where the extra population is more of a problem than a gain. This leads to the conclusion that the door should be slammed shut.
Others will surely have different views. Maybe they're right.
If we get lots of refugees (or illegal aliens, or undocumented workers, or whatever we call them), then I suspect the societal debate will become heated.