The attack in Solingen is just the latest example of a new wave of violence linked to the Islamic State terrorist group. Experts say the war in the Middle East is the main catalyst.
The terrorist militia Islamic State (IS) has claimed responsibility for the knife attack in Solingen. According to Amak, the mouthpiece of IS, the attack was carried out in “revenge for Muslims in Palestine and elsewhere” and targeted a “group of Christians.”
Does the aspiration of granting refuge to people facing hardship take precedence over the actual moral and societal imperative to ensure the safety for those you are already responsible for?
There are many people who are facing hardship who we refuse to shelter already and they were always here. And by taking in more people from the outside while refusing existing inside hardship-facers shelter and safety, what is this really accomplishing?
Is that right or fair or even practical?
I guess I might as well argue with a stone instead of an American about universal moral values but here goes nothing:
Wait, did I just judge a person by their membership of a group they got randomly assigned at birth which says nothing about their character?
Anyways…
The suffering of one person is not justification to inflict the same on others. Secondly why are you refusing to help people through hardship in the first place.
Let me ask you in return: Why are neither deserving of your help?
I believe very strongly that the group we are responsible for already should be helped and stabillized before we consider newcomers. I must also point out that mass immigration without regard to the provision of necessaries like plentiful affordable housing, healthcare, good jobs and wage increases, and other finite public resources actually hurts everyone in ways that are profound and difficult to reverse.
There never should have been “we’re taking in however many hundred thousand of any demographic (students, asylum seekers, economic immigrants, etc)” unless