A qualified white man might find that there is a more qualified immigrant, and a company would probably give him the job instead
Believe it or not, we love to resist change, even if it means that a single decision can impact hundreds of lives (in a positive way). But there will always be opposition to change. Remember, what happened during demonetization? And now, with the refugee ban. No, I am not a Trump supporter, but yes, I think the refugee ban was necessary. It starts with one question — what is the goal of this ban?
The United States is the third most populated country in the world. The Obama administration allowed more than 85,000 refugees into the country in the last fiscal year, several of whom were from Muslim countries in search of a place to stay. They got jobs there, and (along with some hiccups) tried living as normal people. But where are they getting these jobs from? With a little under a million white people unable to get jobs for themselves, where are the job opportunities for everyone?
Now, one can understand the frustration of an American man, who is unable to get a job while people from all over the world come in and become everything from CEOs to janitors. A qualified white man might find that there is a more qualified immigrant, and a company would probably give him the job instead.
That brings us back to the question. What is your goal? Is your goal to keep your whole country employed and happy? Is your goal to make sure every citizen of your country is well-fed and cared for? Is your goal to ensure people in Syria are safe and have somewhere to go, albeit at the expense of your citizens? Of course, nobody wants refugees to go through the pain that they are in. Everyone wants to help them, but there some countries that simply can’t. India has millions who are homeless. How could we possibly have space for more people? Luckily, the situation on the other side of the world isn’t that bad, but constant immigration and refugee entries will make it a place where the primary citizens are no longer the priority. While some other citizens with houses and jobs may be perfectly happy with 85,000 more people in their country, should the President not consider the dissatisfaction of the lower strata of the country struggling to find a stable job?
Obama may have been a great man and a people’s President for several reasons. But why did so many people vote for Trump, knowing his misogynistic and racist character?
I don’t believe that banning people from seven majority Muslim countries is the solution. It is extreme, and not ethically reasonable. At the end of the day, Trump’s method is horrible. If he really wanted to stop immigration, he should have gone about it in a more politically correct fashion. He did give waivers for refugees already set to enter the US, but there are so many other refugees who may no longer have a place to go. Hopefully, there will be countries with ample resources, the economy, and most importantly the willingness to hold 85,000 more people.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Donald Trump")
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}