So let's start from the assumption that we are going to accept Syrian and Iraqi refugees, which I personally think is the right thing to do. Let's also assume that we are going to do everything we can to make sure the ones getting in are truly refugees and not terrorists posing as refugees. One of the problems that France and other European countries has is that they already have large Muslim populations and that many, or even most, of their terrorists are homegrown. Young men who grew up in Western countries but nonetheless become terrorists. Many of these terrorists' parents were probably just like the refugees that want to come here now. They had no sympathy for terrorists or extremism. Yet, some of their sons have grown up to blame the West for all of their problems in life and they are susceptible to extremism.
My question for debate requires a bit of history. The Roman Empire used immigrants and refugees to populate its lands with regularity. It often populated its lands with the peoples of its conquered enemies, or with people fleeing other conquering armies. But when it did, it did not settle those people in mass. The fear was that if they settled in mass, they would never Romanize, would never accept Roman culture and would instead maintain their own culture. They would be insular from the Romans around them and never accept Roman as their true home. So they broke them up into small groups and spread them throughout the Empire. In contrast, the American government likes to settle refugees from the same part of the world to the same area of the country in order to allow them to maintain their culture and give them a sense of home away from home. When various plagues or depopulation events hit late in the time of the Empire, the Romans were forced to settle entire tribes to depopulated areas. Many of those tribes never Romanized, and in time some of them revolted against Rome. This is often cited as one of the reasons for the fall of the Empire.
(For the hardcore history buffs, please excuse any mistakes I made. I'm no expert on Roman history, just reciting what I think I remember from what I've read. The point isn't to discuss Roman history and my knowledge, or lack thereof, but instead to simply set up the following question.)
So my question is, starting with the idea that yes, we will accept refugees - is it better to settle them together to give them a sense of home and community or is it best perhaps to spread them thinly across the country so as to more likely force them to integrate with our culture?
My question for debate requires a bit of history. The Roman Empire used immigrants and refugees to populate its lands with regularity. It often populated its lands with the peoples of its conquered enemies, or with people fleeing other conquering armies. But when it did, it did not settle those people in mass. The fear was that if they settled in mass, they would never Romanize, would never accept Roman culture and would instead maintain their own culture. They would be insular from the Romans around them and never accept Roman as their true home. So they broke them up into small groups and spread them throughout the Empire. In contrast, the American government likes to settle refugees from the same part of the world to the same area of the country in order to allow them to maintain their culture and give them a sense of home away from home. When various plagues or depopulation events hit late in the time of the Empire, the Romans were forced to settle entire tribes to depopulated areas. Many of those tribes never Romanized, and in time some of them revolted against Rome. This is often cited as one of the reasons for the fall of the Empire.
(For the hardcore history buffs, please excuse any mistakes I made. I'm no expert on Roman history, just reciting what I think I remember from what I've read. The point isn't to discuss Roman history and my knowledge, or lack thereof, but instead to simply set up the following question.)
So my question is, starting with the idea that yes, we will accept refugees - is it better to settle them together to give them a sense of home and community or is it best perhaps to spread them thinly across the country so as to more likely force them to integrate with our culture?
