Taking in 10,000 Syrian refugees is no skin off our nose.The plan stated by numerous officials from Kerry, H. Clinton(not technically an official at this juncture), Obama and various members of his staff is to take in far more than 10,000. I've seen numbers quoted as high as 120,000. How much money is spent on each refugee "household" in terms of refugee resettlement? Housing? Medical? Food Assistance? Schools? Vetting? Transportation? Cars? How does a country with more people jailed per capita than any other nation on Earth, a place where 5% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, large ghettos in every single urban and small urban center, struggling schools, large racial legacy problems, an epidemic drug problem, it has a large shadow population of at least 10-12 million illegal immigrants, a now scarily common mass-shooting epidemic, crime rates that rival most nations on Earth, a Military/Industrial complex that has kept us continuously in conflict since WWII and is currently fighting some vague three way conflict in the name of the war on terror.. How does such a nation decide to take in tens of thousands of more people when it is currently known that resettling foreign refugees is a complicated issue with all sorts of underlying socio-economic problems? How does a nation plan for this when 50% of it's population is against it? What's going on?
Well said! The only thing I’d amend is the number of illegal aliens currently here – it’s probably much closer to 30 million.
Taking in 10,000 Syrian refugees is no skin off our nose.The plan stated by numerous officials from Kerry, H. Clinton(not technically an official at this juncture), Obama and various members of his staff is to take in far more than 10,000. I've seen numbers quoted as high as 120,000. How much money is spent on each refugee "household" in terms of refugee resettlement? Housing? Medical? Food Assistance? Schools? Vetting? TransportatioUn? Cars? How does a country with more people jailed per capita than any other nation on Earth, a place where 5% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, large ghettos in every single urban and small urban center, struggling schools, large racial legacy problems, an epidemic drug problem, it has a large shadow population of at least 10-12 million illegal immigrants, a now scarily common mass-shooting epidemic, crime rates that rival most nations on Earth, a Military/Industrial complex that has kept us continuously in conflict since WWII and is currently fighting some vague three way conflict in the name of the war on terror.. How does such a nation decide to take in tens of thousands of more people when it is currently known that resettling foreign refugees is a complicated issue with all sorts of underlying socio-economic problems? How does a nation plan for this when 50% of it's population is against it? What's going on? From a purely practical point of view, without any mention of Islam or vetting, etc., all of the Syrian refugees who might come in will be unemployed and probably unemployable for years. We already have a serious unemployment problem in the US--there aren't enough jobs to go around now, esecially low-level jobs that they might do. I assume none of them speaks English. We also have a housing shortage in many areas of the country, especially low cost housing. This means we will have to feed, clothe, shelter and educate every refugee that comes into the US for years to come. Republicans, especially, vote against social programs every chance they get. Who is going to pay to support refugees? Where are they going to be housed? Where is the money going to come from? What happens when they start resenting the US for not giving them jobs and decent lives? What happens when they accuse the US government of ghettoizing them? What happens when their children join gangs? Will they become radicalized as the Paris terrorists did, and turn on their rescuers? What can we expect fom people who will not be assimilated for years, if ever? Just askin'. Lois
Exactly. I just read an article on the Buffalo News about the Burmese refugees that settled there…in one of the bad neighborhoods.
Apparently they are having their houses robbed by their own Burmese youth and other refugees.
The problem?
The Burmese refugees don’t trust banks and keep all their money in their homes.
They don’t trust the police either so they don’t call to report these robberies.
And they don’t speak English either.
There have been over 100 home break-ins in recent months.
One of their landlords was quoted in the article saying that the Burmese feel they are not being afforded the normal protection like regular Americans. :lol:
From a purely practical point of view, without any mention of Islam or vetting, etc., all of the Syrian refugees who might come in will be unemployed and probably unemployable for years. We already have a serious unemployment problem in the US--there aren't enough jobs to go around now, esecially low-level jobs that they might do. LoisThe refugees are resettled through various Community Action Centers, Cultural Centers...religious institutions etc.. Here's one for example: This is from The International Institute's website. It's a private organization...
U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) is one of 11 national Voluntary Agencies (VOLAGS) that contract with the PRM to resettle refugees. USCRI members are dispersed across the U.S. from Miami to Boise with programs in large cities like New York and Los Angeles, midsize metropolitan areas like St. Louis, and small towns like Bowling Green, Kentucky and Erie, Pennsylvania. The International Institute of St. Louis belongs to the USCRI network with 30+ other agencies and field offices throughout the United States.So these outfits contract with Uncle Sam and get heavy subsidies for doing do. The PRM mentioned in the quote above is the US Gov't (US Department of State, Bureau of Population, Migration & Refugees (PRM))
Refugee Resettlement Watch has a lot of information about what’s going on. It’s got a heavy anti-refugee slant, so, take that into consideration.
Myopia is in the eye of the beholder. Even "home-grown" terrorists are radicalized by Islam. Islam is apparently the problem, not where the radicalization happens. The man in the San Bernardino massacre had lived in Pakistan. He probably became radicalized there, though it's hard to tell for sure because he might well have been radicalized by his parents, who had immigrated to this country.Oh yeah. My point being with the abstract Fruit Salad part was to ask, what difference does it make? Crazed teen in movie theater. Crazed, whacked out teen in elementary school, crazed brainwashed muslims, who cares? What a shit world! What a flippin' joke this place is becoming. I agree. It's not in fashion right now to be anti-islamist. Or as the New Left is screaming....ISLAMOPHOBES!! Islam has no place in the decadent West. The West goes against all of their dogma. Yet they keep coming. Ladies walking around like they just walked out of The Cantina in Star Wars. Morons blabbering on like it was The Bronze Age. The New Left is gonna drag you right into it. It's as bad as Ultra Conservatism. The New Left says show compassion and these people will learn to grow and become eclectic too. Or better yet, they're already eclectic, they just aren't being made to feel like they belong. See? I don't see or describe myself as anti-Islamist. I see myself as anti-terrorist. In the past 15 years nearly all terrorist acts have been motivated by Islam. Incidentally, a phobia is an unreasonable fear. There is nothing unreasonable about fearing terrorism.
It is a sincere commitment to rationality. I have zero vested interests in Syria. I don't personally know any Syrians. I think that it is critical that in our Democracy, people, in general, learn to make accurate discriminations, rather than discriminations based on paranoia or over-generalization.That's doesn't answer my question. If for some reason the refugees don't come here-hypothetically, they'll go somewhere else. Why do you want them to come here? Because the US is part of the world community. It's basic ethics. You do your part. If you don't why should anyone else. Similar to taking action on anthropogenic global warming. If the US does nothing, why should any other nation do something?IOW, humanism. IOW, Humans are inherently social creatures, despite being individual organisms. A perspective of taking care of one's self alone or of one's nation alone, is a bit delusional. Sure, you take care of yourself first, but if everyone stopped there, no one would ultimately survive. Taking in 10,000 Syrian refugees is no skin off our nose. They will assimilate and contribute. And as far as taking care of our own problems, we seem to be mucking that up, regardless.Humans are social animals within small groups--i.e. tribalism. Helping people from the outgroup is OK sometimes, but not now. Syrians will just end up taking up space that belongs to Americans. Especially young Americans like my generation. Tim, if you want these people here so badly, why don't you and your fellow baby boomers commit suicide and free up some resources. As a baby boomer, I will be gone soon enough. Then the next upcoming generation, will be blaming you for mucking things up. Anyway, back to the point. All humans are, in essence, social creatures. Tribalism is also, in our nature. However, it is a cultural dead end. Humans have shown some capacity for cultural evolution beyond tribalism. So it in the bigger picture, it is not the individual Syrian refugees that matter, so much, as is the evolved culture that could accept rationally them. But, hey, millennial, if you prefer tribalism, best wishes in your post apocalyptic future.
But, hey, millennial, if you prefer tribalism, best wishes in your post apocalyptic future.I hate to answer for MidA, but that's hyperbole in the extreme. In fact there is no evidence whatsoever that points towards multi-culturalism as being beneficial. There's enough anecdotal evidence to support both sides of the argument. But if I had to press it I'd say the anecdotal evidence leans towards showing that too much multiculturalism is not necessarily good. I'd be much more satisfied to just have someone answer why they want refugees to come here. As opposed too them going somewhere else. It's obviously ideological. Therefore there is no baseline. There's no right or wrong. I'm just curious as to why people are actively rooting for the refugees to come here. Why they feel a need to accept something that has been put forth. I don't think most of the refugee supporters are campaigning to get all the downtrodden people from around the world to come to the US. So what is it? Political? Ideological machinations for political purposes. Are the existing people here going to get help? How will refugees benefit the US population? Do some of you have a concept of State?
But, hey, millennial, if you prefer tribalism, best wishes in your post apocalyptic future.I hate to answer for MidA, but that's hyperbole in the extreme... Yes, in direct response to MidA suggesting that I kill myself, and I quote his statement "... why don’t you and your fellow baby boomers commit suicide and free up some resources." My hyperbole, I suggest, is less vitriolic than urging me and everyone born before the mid '1950's to commit suicide.
... In fact there is no evidence whatsoever that points towards multi-culturalism as being beneficial. There's enough anecdotal evidence to support both sides of the argument. But if I had to press it I'd say the anecdotal evidence leans towards showing that too much multiculturalism is not necessarily good. I'd be much more satisfied to just have someone answer why they want refugees to come here. As opposed too them going somewhere else. It's obviously ideological. Therefore there is no baseline. There's no right or wrong. I'm just curious as to why people are actively rooting for the refugees to come here. Why they feel a need to accept something that has been put forth. I don't think most of the refugee supporters are campaigning to get all the downtrodden people from around the world to come to the US. So what is it? Political? Ideological machinations for political purposes. Are the existing people here going to get help? How will refugees benefit the US population? Do some of you have a concept of State?Allowing in 10,000 Syrian refugees is NOT going to have any significant multicultural impact. It's not like they're going to all be imported to one spot and create a "Little Syria". The (a couple of thousand now, I think) that have already come in, have been placed all over the country. They will assimilate. Allowing them in is a nationally responsible act of a nation that is part of the world community. And 10,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall crisis for the world. Other nations are going to take the brunt of whatever downside the Syrian refugees may pose. It is a rational decision (that a little over 50% of Americans don't agree with) to bring them in. I'm a patriot. I want my country to do the right thing, rather than to do the wrong thing based on irrational fear and anger.
Yes, in direct response to MidA suggesting that I kill myself, and I quote his statement "... why don’t you and your fellow baby boomers commit suicide and free up some resources." My hyperbole, I suggest, is less vitriolic than urging me and everyone born before the mid '1950's to commit suicide.Roger that. I was taken aback myself.
It is a rational decision (that a little over 50% of Americans don't agree with) to bring them in. I'm a patriot. I want my country to do the right thing, rather than to do the wrong thing based on irrational fear and anger.Right, right. I don't want us doing the wrong thing on irrational fear and anger either. But the more practical reasons for rethinking our refugee policy doesn't have to be predicated on: "Well lot's of people don't want the refugees here because of fear and anger, therefore I'm for the refugees."
It is a rational decision (that a little over 50% of Americans don't agree with) to bring them in. I'm a patriot. I want my country to do the right thing, rather than to do the wrong thing based on irrational fear and anger.Right, right. I don't want us doing the wrong thing on irrational fear and anger either. But the more practical reasons for rethinking our refugee policy doesn't have to be predicated on: "Well lot's of people don't want the refugees here because of fear and anger, therefore I'm for the refugees." I think that I have addressed the "practical reasons" re: re-thinking bringing in 10,000 Syrian refugees, -- in different threads and quite a number of posts on the subject.-- There are no, IMO, legitimate practical reasons for doing so. -- I don't care to compile all of the points that I have made on the matter, or to re-hash them. But you can find them and re-read them, if you wish.
I think that I have addressed the "practical reasons" re: re-thinking bringing in 10,000 Syrian refugees, -- in different threads and quite a number of posts on the subject.-- There are no, IMO, legitimate practical reasons for doing so. -- I don't care to compile all of the points that I have made on the matter, or to re-hash them. But you can find them and re-read them, if you wish.Well certainly much of the refugee issue is based on policy and laws, to an extent. Certainly you wouldn't argue that re-thinking policy and laws isn't practical? There are many legitimate, practical reasons for re-thinking policy and laws. That's how politics/government functions. It's kind of bullheaded to assume policies and laws concerning a societies population aren't up for examination and possible improvement. Your pro-refugee comments have been centered around anecdote and opinionated compassion. All of which is not based upon any official stated purpose of the US. You cite the oft heard "'cause that's what we do as Americans" type jingles. But that's just branding. It could be an outdated brand that you are still clinging too. That stuff written on the Statue of Liberty is outmoded. It's like Teddy Roosevelt on Mt. Rushmore....same thing. But I don't wish to hector you further. Like I said there's no right or wrong here...I can't fault you for being compassionate. I just hope it's compassion and not some other senseless construct.
I think that I have addressed the "practical reasons" re: re-thinking bringing in 10,000 Syrian refugees, -- in different threads and quite a number of posts on the subject.-- There are no, IMO, legitimate practical reasons for doing so. -- I don't care to compile all of the points that I have made on the matter, or to re-hash them. But you can find them and re-read them, if you wish.Well certainly much of the refugee issue is based on policy and laws, to an extent. Certainly you wouldn't argue that re-thinking policy and laws isn't practical? There are many legitimate, practical reasons for re-thinking policy and laws. That's how politics/government functions. It's kind of bullheaded to assume policies and laws concerning a societies population aren't up for examination and possible improvement. Your pro-refugee comments have been centered around anecdote and opinionated compassion. All of which is not based upon any official stated purpose of the US. You cite the oft heard "'cause that's what we do as Americans" type jingles. But that's just branding. It could be an outdated brand that you are still clinging too. That stuff written on the Statue of Liberty is outmoded. It's like Teddy Roosevelt on Mt. Rushmore....same thing. But I don't wish to hector you further. Like I said there's no right or wrong here...I can't fault you for being compassionate. I just hope it's compassion and not some other senseless construct. All of my comments are in support specifically of the current policy re: the admittance of the Syrian refuges. It is sufficient, in terms of keeping out jihadi infiltrators (which is the sticking point for many of those opposing it or wanting to amend it). It is likely sufficient in regards to helping these refugees get their lives started again, and to eventually, assimilate. It is good for the U.S. to take part in the effort of placing the refugees, not because of "jingles", but because, in doing so, we don't look like complete assholes to the other industrialized nations, that we need to get along with, for a variety of reasons (IOW, in this respect it is in our national self interest). It is not likely to cause any significant cultural disturbances. AND, as a plus, it is compassionate. So I think that there is a right and rational stance on this particular specific issue. i.e., Leave it like it is.
It is good for the U.S. to take part in the effort of placing the refugees, not because of "jingles", but because, in doing so, we don't look like complete assholes to the other industrialized nations, that we need to get along with, for a variety of reasonsTim, these other industrial nations? Do you understand that they know we are taking the burden of tens of millions of refugees from the Western Hemisphere? Mexicans and Central Americans. These industrialized nations? They know that we have picked up 90% of the tab monetarily, materially and in human resources in the boondoggle that is trying to stabilize the Mid East. How could they possibly look at US as assholes Tim?
It is good for the U.S. to take part in the effort of placing the refugees, not because of "jingles", but because, in doing so, we don't look like complete assholes to the other industrialized nations, that we need to get along with, for a variety of reasonsTim, these other industrial nations? Do you understand that they know we are taking the burden of tens of millions of refugees from the Western Hemisphere? Mexicans and Central Americans. These industrialized nations? They know that we have picked up 90% of the tab monetarily, materially and in human resources in the boondoggle that is trying to stabilize the Mid East. How could they possibly look at US as assholes Tim? Good points. But leaders are often looked at as either saviors or assholes. (In regards to the Syrian refugee crisis, 10,000 is a mere pittance - a token gesture.) As to, taking in tens of millions of immigrants, (not as you said tens of millions of refugees), those are people who became part of who we are. We didn't just take them in out of the goodness of our hearts, despite that particular emphasis on our narrative, e.g., "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...". BTW, is it true that we have actually had a net loss of a million illegal immigrants, in recent years?
BTW, is it true that we have actually had a net loss of a million illegal immigrants, in recent years?I don't know. It's too early to trust the sources or the numbers on that.
As to, taking in tens of millions of immigrants, (not as you said tens of millions of refugees), those are people who became part of who we areEhnn, ok, illegal immigrants. Some seek refugee status though. Asylum etc... If you wanna quibble on semantics.. we didn't take them in. They snuck in. The bottom line is we would never have taken in that many. In other words our Immigration and Naturalization system would never process that many people. Not because of bureaucratic/admin. capacity but because we actually have sensible policies based on social engineering and population needs and fluctuations.