Saz, Dylan, you can just be honest that you don't like Muslims or what they believe. Both of you have said as much, but for some reason, you have decided to defend this point of view through the lens of logistics and technical feasibility. To be frank, that is retarded. Of course the US and Canada can settle drastically more people. Of course we can safely and rather easily increase our ability to process claims. Of course you can secure the border AND let in more people, both through the normal immigration process, and by the refugee/asylum system. After WWII, we literally administered the governments of most of Europe and Asia. Am I supposed to seriously believe that the US cannot possibly handle having a couple hundred migrants show up at their border? That the richest and most powerful country on the earth cannot settle more than 25,000 refugees, and it is LIKE CRAZY MAN to process a couple hundred thousand applications in a reasonable amount of time, all while using basic technology to keep the country secure?
Let me ask you something - what is cheaper?
This:
Or this?
Anyways, what I really don't understand is why you won't just argue in good faith. You sound genuinely idiotic trying to claim that the West can't figure out how to run a bureaucracy that handles complex issues like immigration. It mostly definitely can, what matters is the political will to do so. These concerns stem from the issues that you both have with poor, young and uneducated Muslims. So why not actually put forward an argument on that front? I don't agree with people who make this argument, but it is at least a valid position. I can understand how you arrived at that conclusion. Does it make you a cowardly, pathetic victim, unable to cope with an event that happened 17 years ago? Yes, yes it does. But stressing over fear is rational at least. This other stuff? Just stupid.
