[From the "Don't Let Fox News Shape Your Perspective" department]
Opinion: Putting ‘America First’ would require keeping our word to Afghan allies
Opinion by Catherine Rampell
Columnist
<start clip>
To be clear, the most compelling reason to take in military interpreters and other vulnerable Afghans is the moral and humanitarian one. These…
[From the "Don't Let Fox News Shape Your Perspective" department]
Opinion: Putting ‘America First’ would require keeping our word to Afghan allies
Opinion by Catherine Rampell
Columnist
<start clip>
To be clear, the most compelling reason to take in military interpreters and other vulnerable Afghans is the moral and humanitarian one. These people helped us and are now in grave danger. They have targets on their backs precisely because they helped us, and we have made a commitment to protect them in return. This commitment is enshrined in U.S. law.
A related reason regards our national security interests. If we break our word to protect these allies, then the next time we need people in another part of the world to take a risk by cooperating with us, they’ll be less likely to agree. Our reputation matters.
There’s another, even more self-interested argument: that refugees are good for the U.S. economy.
In 2017, while casting about for excuses to choke off refugee admissions, the Trump administration commissioned a study on the economic and fiscal impact of refugees. Much to Miller’s chagrin, it found that refugees are a net positive for the U.S. economy. Yes, refugees often arrive penniless and in need of public services, such as food assistance. Within short order, most get jobs and become self-supporting.
As a result, over the decade that the Trump administration examined (2005-2014), refugees paid $63 billion more in taxes than they received in benefits, across all levels of government.
(We must never forget to remember the attacks from the right are meant to cover over past failures of GOP politicians, Presidents and right wing media.)
[From the "Don't Let Fox News Shape Your Perspective" department]
Opinion: Putting ‘America First’ would require keeping our word to Afghan allies
Opinion by Catherine Rampell
Columnist
<start clip>
To be clear, the most compelling reason to take in military interpreters and other vulnerable Afghans is the moral and humanitarian one. These people helped us and are now in grave danger. They have targets on their backs precisely because they helped us, and we have made a commitment to protect them in return. This commitment is enshrined in U.S. law.
A related reason regards our national security interests. If we break our word to protect these allies, then the next time we need people in another part of the world to take a risk by cooperating with us, they’ll be less likely to agree. Our reputation matters.
There’s another, even more self-interested argument: that refugees are good for the U.S. economy.
In 2017, while casting about for excuses to choke off refugee admissions, the Trump administration commissioned a study on the economic and fiscal impact of refugees. Much to Miller’s chagrin, it found that refugees are a net positive for the U.S. economy. Yes, refugees often arrive penniless and in need of public services, such as food assistance. Within short order, most get jobs and become self-supporting.
As a result, over the decade that the Trump administration examined (2005-2014), refugees paid $63 billion more in taxes than they received in benefits, across all levels of government.
<end clip>
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/26/putting-america-first-would-require-keeping-our-word-afghan-allies/
(We must never forget to remember the attacks from the right are meant to cover over past failures of GOP politicians, Presidents and right wing media.)
The paragraph about refugees is the most surprising today for me, Christopher. You find the most illogically logical things.
It's either a gift or blind luck. Truth is I've latched on to some good sources in the most unlikely places.