> "Muslim immigrants as a group consume more in societal resources than they contribute in taxes or skilled labor."
There are several issues with this type of justification.
1) We do not value human beings based on whether they are net positive or negative contributors to societal resources.
2) We do not value human beings based on whether they are net positive or negative contributors to societal resources. (This point is rather important, I wanted you to read it so I included it twice).
3) Babies and elderly are a drain so why not give them the same treatment? If your answer is "because babies will eventually become contributors and elderly once were" then consider the following:
4) Many of these refugees are from war-torn countries, they have few resources of their own and perhaps little education. It might take a generation or two before they fully come into their own and contribute to society in the same way that many other immigrant groups have in the past. Give it time, and they too will contribute.
>We do not value human beings based on whether they are net positive or negative contributors to societal resources.
Of course we do. This is the stated, principle reason for immigration in almost all countries that allow it.
The Scandinavian countries have found this not to be the case- statistically the successive generations are actually less prone to educational attainment and more prone to radicalization than their parents.
In my personal experiences, the first generation immigrants are thrilled to be here, while their children lack the same sense of gratitude and tend to resent growing up around white people.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"
I think these words contradict your assertion and are more representative of the American approach to immigration.
But, to your point, it is an empirical question. We could actually explore this with Census data, using income as a proxy for societal contribution and controlling for year of immigration, religion, country of origin, and other demographic variables. My question for you is if the data turn out to be counter to your personal experience, and that Muslim immigrants do end up as net positive social contributors in subsequent generations, would it change your position on the recent Executive Order? If not then there must be some other explanation for your support of it.
As for me, if it weren't obvious from the two quotes above, my opposition to the EO is philosophical rather than economic. And even if the data show that immigrants are a net economic drain on society, I would still continue to welcome them with open arms. That's what I learned America is all about.
There are several issues with this type of justification.
1) We do not value human beings based on whether they are net positive or negative contributors to societal resources.
2) We do not value human beings based on whether they are net positive or negative contributors to societal resources. (This point is rather important, I wanted you to read it so I included it twice).
3) Babies and elderly are a drain so why not give them the same treatment? If your answer is "because babies will eventually become contributors and elderly once were" then consider the following:
4) Many of these refugees are from war-torn countries, they have few resources of their own and perhaps little education. It might take a generation or two before they fully come into their own and contribute to society in the same way that many other immigrant groups have in the past. Give it time, and they too will contribute.