<p>
No, I’M not the one who’s been saying that, am I? I am saying you can’t compare this to the wholesale destruction that was the Holocaust. In today’s world of mass media and social networking, we would have probably known sooner, just like we’d probably know if this was a genocide-level situation. </p>
<p>
No, it’s the worst option. And most other options will be limited in effectiveness. </p>
<p>
Sub-Saharan Africa is already in economic duress enough, and their economic ties to the US as opposed to with China and Russia are fairly low. And the Middle Eastern countries? You know and I know that, unfortunately, our dependence on oil precludes any such action. </p>
<p>
My sentiment exactly, the UN is ineffective at MANY things. </p>
<p>
As said before, this is a very rarely enforced, arcane law, not mass murder. I agree that we could accept those who are under direct threat, but accepting every sexual minority is impractical at best. Also, there’s the whole “Why do they have to come HERE?” argument. It’s not that I’m an isolationist or anything, but the US has a bad record with refuge rights, conditions for refugees are much better in Western Europe and Canada. While we can fix that, it would take a while and wouldn’t address the other issues. </p>
<p>I maintain that doing what we can to spur INTERNAL action is the best possible choice.</p>