Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Following the revelation that at least one of the Paris terrorists posed as a refugee, the imminent question of the safety of harboring immigrants has become more prominent than ever. Is the idea of averting refugee access to the US intelligent or Islamophobic?

Even before the attacks for me it would be a stupid idea to do this.

Yes, yes they should.

All those countries in Europe, why do they need to come here?

yes we should.

Originally posted by Surtur
All those countries in Europe, why do they need to come here?

Because we're awesome, have *tons* of space, it's the right thing to do, and it's easier for everyone if the burden is spread.


Also:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CT9HXgWWIAAdOrS.png

Article by the Economist- not a left-wing paper- on why we should take in those fleeing persecution and war.

Seems like they want us to do everything. Fight ISIS, take in these people, etc.

Though I will admit some ignorance about this, how does this process work? Since I thought you had to take tests and stuff to become a citizen. Do these people go through all that?

Originally posted by Surtur
Seems like they want us to do everything. Fight ISIS, take in these people, etc.

Though I will admit some ignorance about this, how does this process work? Since I thought you had to take tests and stuff to become a citizen. Do these people go through all that?

lol

Germany is expecting 1.5 million migrants this year alone. The international community is asking the US to take a mere 65 thousand.

The claim that "they" want the US to fight ISIS is also incorrect. A lot of countries fight ISIS, the US is not the most involved.

Those numbers are all fine, but is Germany the only country in Europe?

You also didn't answer my question, what do they have to go through to get here?

Originally posted by Surtur
Those numbers are all fine, but is Germany the only country in Europe?

You also didn't answer my question, what do they have to go through to get here?

Germany is not the only country in Europe. Why do you think Europe should be the only place to take in refugees of war?

The refugees that would come to the US are first screened by the UNHCR, if they are found to be legit and have a true claim for asylum status (i.e. they do fear for their life in the country they have fled) they are referred to the US where another screening process takes place that takes about 18 months.

"After the UNHCR refers a refugee applicant to the United States, the application is processed by a federally funded Resettlement Support Center, which gathers information about the candidate to prepare for an intensive screening process, which includes an interview, a medical evaluation and an interagency security screening process aimed at ensuring the refugee does not pose a threat to the United States."

"Several federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are involved in the process, which Deputy State Department Spokesman Mark Toner recently called, "the most stringent security process for anyone entering the United States."

These agencies use biographical and biometric information about applicants to conduct a background check and make sure applicants really are who they say they are."

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/16/politics/syrian-refugees-u-s-applicants-explainer/index.html


Again though, why is your stance that the US should not do it's duty as a first world nation and protect those persecuted in their countries to the extend that they have to flee? Particularly because there's a very strong case to be made that these Syrian refugees only have to flee because of foreign policy decision (particular the war in Iraq) that the US has made?

My stance is send them here if every other country in Europe is already overcrowded with refugee's and can't take anymore.

Or cast a magic spell and stop all illegals from Mexico from entering, then send your refugee's. End our problems with people coming here illegally, then send them.

Originally posted by Surtur
My stance is send them here if every other country in Europe is already overcrowded with refugee's and can't take anymore.

Or cast a magic spell and stop all illegals from Mexico from entering, then send your refugee's. End our problems with people coming here illegally, then send them.

So why Europe first? Why should the US, in your opinion, not do its part?

The net immigration from Mexico to the US has been neutral, btw.

Because why send people over a friggin ocean when you have a shitload of countries all around you?

Originally posted by Surtur
Because why send people over a friggin ocean when you have a shitload of countries all around you?

Because it is a humanitarian crisis that the capable countries should work to fix together. That includes the US, which was once a beacon of moral integrity, but has far fallen since then. Again, it is also a humanitarian crisis pretty directly caused by the US.

I also assume you didn't read a word of the info I posted, given your short, ill informed replies.

Your info answered one of my questions to you, so there was no reason to address it further.

All there is left to say is we can agree to disagree on if people should be brought in.

Send em all to Russia. They have WAY more space then either The U.S and Europe combined. That and Pooty is a way better humanitarian Leader then anything they got in either U.S or Europe too.
And if they have to come to the U.S. I say put them all in Wash D.C. Plenty of room to put up tents on the White House Lawn.

Let Obama open his heart for once.

Of course, but first spank the most conservative fellows into not being so damn close-minded.

Originally posted by Surtur
Your info answered one of my questions to you, so there was no reason to address it further.

All there is left to say is we can agree to disagree on if people should be brought in.

So I did answer your question. Could you do me the same courtesy and answer mine? Why do you think that the US should not do an equal part in mitigating this humanitarian crisis (which US foreign policy is partly at fault for causing)?

Why do Liberals always have to inject sex into things. Is it because most like politics. They don't really get the math of it?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Why do Liberals always have to inject sex into things. Is it because most like politics. They don't really get the math of it?

Why do conservatives associate spanking with sex? Yikes...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why do conservatives associate spanking with sex? Yikes...

Coming from a guy using a Rick Avatar...That's almost funny.

Maybe just keep your fetishes private?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Coming from a guy using a Rick Avatar...That's almost funny.

Can't see turning down 65,000 desperately needy people because of the off chance a few of them might be terrorist. Just have to be extreme with the vetting process.

We allowed 120K+ Cuban immigrants/asylum seekers into the US in 1980, knowing there would likely be a small number of lunatics and hardened criminals mixed in. That seemed to work out.

lol, who was it that called that Fly would take up Star's place in TI's cheerleading squad?

Originally posted by Robtard
Can't see turning down 65,000 desperately needy people because of the off chance a few of them might be terrorist.

We allowed 120K+ Cuban immigrants/asylum seekers into the US in 1980, knowing there would likely be a small number of lunatics and hardened criminals mixed in. That seemed to work out.

Yeah, you got a pretty awesome film out of it, too.

Is a great film, but I was mainly talking about the Cuban food.

Originally posted by Bardock42
lol, who was it that called that Fly would take up Star's place in TI's cheerleading squad?

Does a rustle your jimmies that much? It appears it does. Get some tougher skin.

Originally posted by Robtard
Can't see turning down 65,000 desperately needy people because of the off chance a few of them might be terrorist. Just have to be extreme with the vetting process.

We allowed 120K+ Cuban immigrants/asylum seekers into the US in 1980, knowing there would likely be a small number of lunatics and hardened criminals mixed in. That seemed to work out.
Why is it Liberals don't mind shoring up their moral high ground on the bodies of the victims their policies get killed?

While I realize you're just a troll mocking the Rightwing Radicals on this site, you do bring up a good question.

Is helping the needy despite some possible risks just a Liberal move? Shouldn't helping the needy be a Conservative moral foundation, considering they're the party that likes to name-drop "Christian values" more often?

Originally posted by Robtard
While I realize you're just a troll mocking the Rightwing Radicals on this site, you do bring up a good question.

Is helping the needy despite some possible risks just a Liberal move? Shouldn't helping the needy be a Conservative moral foundation, considering they're the party that likes to name-drop "Christian values" more often?

Well the Christian Aspect of Helping is doing it in a way that Helps people make it so they can take care of themselves. Not put them on preeminent welfare status and a burden on others. Its called Self Reliance.

That was a somewhat decent avoiding the issue dance.

But the first step here in regards with these refuges is letting them into the US, so they then can begin to integrate themselves, go to school, get jobs and contribute to society, or as you put it, become "self reliant".

So the new Definition of Refugee is now Illegal Immigrant? They all have to become Citizens of the country that gets stuck with them? Why can't they GO HOME when the trouble has died down?

And as for dodging the question. With Liberals. The Trouble their actions cause never seems to affect them all that much. Seeing as how they are all Rich 1 %-ers.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
So the new Definition of Refugee is now Illegal Immigrant?

They all have to become Citizens of the country that gets stuck with them? Why can't they GO HOME when the trouble has died down?

And as for dodging the question. With Liberals. The Trouble their actions cause never seems to affect them all that much. Seeing as how they are all Rich 1 %-ers.

Are you not aware that the Syrian refuges are seeking asylum because they're fleeing from a massively war-torn country. It's not just some dude who woke up one day and said "meh, think I've go to the US for shits and giggles".

Good question. But if they properly integrated into US society, got jobs, pay taxes and especially brought in needed skills (nurses, carpentry, teachers etc) with them, why should they leave? Why would you want them to leave? Worked out well for Florida in the 80's with the Cuban wave.

That's just another empty and ridiculous claim meant to distract.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Well the Christian Aspect of Helping is doing it in a way that Helps people make it so they can take care of themselves. Not put them on preeminent welfare status and a burden on others. Its called Self Reliance.

Oh, I see you are a follower of "Supply Side Jesus"...

Originally posted by Robtard
Are you not aware that the Syrian refuges are seeking asylum because they're fleeing from a massively war-torn country. It's not just some dude who woke up one day and said "meh, think I've go to the US for shits and giggles".

Good question. But if they properly integrated into US society, got jobs, pay taxes and especially brought in needed skills (nurses, carpentry, teachers etc) with them, why should they leave? Why would you want them to leave? Worked out well for Florida in the 80's with the Cuban wave.

That's just another empty and ridiculous claim meant to distract.

Wars don't last forever. Why can't people fix their own countries instead of abandoning them? Pure Lazyness. And not all of these Peacefufl Refugees Integrate into their Host Countries. A lot of them try to change said countries to more resemble their own. See France for an example.


Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, I see you are a follower of "Supply Side Jesus"...

So you follow the Permenent Underclass Side jesus then?

I do think Jesus' teachings are insanely communist....if that's what you mean...

Apparently Maryland has banned entrance to Syrian refugees and other states are doing so as well.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I do think Jesus' teachings are insanely communist....if that's what you mean...

Except for the fact that they weren't.

You just wish they were.

Nah, they were, that's why the Catholic Church needed to make sure absolutely no one reads the Bible but their people, and why the sirght wing conservatives struggle so much to redefine Jesus within their moral framework, cause he's basically against them.

no. my stance is that immigration, refugees, etc.. basically any movement of people... should be regulated for the benefit of the country in question. it's just plain stupid to take on another country's burden against your own interests.

sometimes if you have a culture that is similar enough that you can take their refugees... like the cuban refugees in miami, then you can see a success story.

but the syrians are very different from americans and europeans... the cultural difference is much greater and realistically we are dealing with people who have traditionally been considered enemies... there's a natural antagonism that is going to follow from forcing lower class europeans and americans to brush elbows with lower class syrians... sorry guys people still do have tribal instincts and nationalist tendencies. i think this sort of thing..

hZFmnz4ROEo

makes it pretty clear why this is a stupid idea. multiculturalism is a pretty fragile ecosystem. if you think you can just jam any random cultures together and make a workable society you are just delusional.

so for the same reason it was stupid to import hundreds of thousands of european jews to the middle east in the 20th century... it is stupid to import the massive collateral damage of the syrian civil war in the 21st century.

Originally posted by red g jacks
no. my stance is that immigration, refugees, etc.. basically any movement of people... should be regulated for the benefit of the country in question. it's just plain stupid to take on another country's burden against your own interests.

sometimes if you have a culture that is similar enough that you can take their refugees... like the cuban refugees in miami, then you can see a success story.

but the syrians are very different from americans and europeans... the cultural difference is much greater and realistically we are dealing with people who have traditionally been considered enemies... there's a natural antagonism that is going to follow from forcing lower class europeans and americans to brush elbows with lower class syrians... sorry guys people still do have tribal instincts and nationalist tendencies. i think this sort of thing..

hZFmnz4ROEo

makes it pretty clear why this is a stupid idea. multiculturalism is a pretty fragile ecosystem. if you think you can just jam any random cultures together and make a workable society you are just delusional.

so for the same reason it was stupid to import hundreds of thousands of european jews to the middle east in the 20th century... it is stupid to import the massive collateral damage of the syrian civil war in the 21st century.

So what do you think should happen to them?

dunno... the world is a harsh place... i think perhaps they should go back to syria.

Jacks: "All My Life I've Had Great Relationships with Middle Easterners"

Couldn't resist

Originally posted by red g jacks
dunno... the world is a harsh place... i think perhaps they should go back to syria.

Sociopathic, but I suppose not an uncommon view.

Of course there's also negative aspects to a nation that doesn't do its part for the international community, but I suppose they are more long term.

Originally posted by red g jacks
no. my stance is that immigration, refugees, etc.. basically any movement of people... should be regulated for the benefit of the country in question. it's just plain stupid to take on another country's burden against your own interests.

Would you have taken this stance against allowing Irish in during the Great Irish Famine?

Let's take everyone out of the Middle East and integrate them into our countries.

Originally posted by Robtard
Can't see turning down 65,000 desperately needy people because of the off chance a few of them might be terrorist. Just have to be extreme with the vetting process.

We allowed 120K+ Cuban immigrants/asylum seekers into the US in 1980, knowing there would likely be a small number of lunatics and hardened criminals mixed in. That seemed to work out.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sociopathic, but I suppose not an uncommon view.

Of course there's also negative aspects to a nation that doesn't do its part for the international community, but I suppose they are more long term. i don't think it's sociopathic.. i think it's pragmatic. the amount of suffering in this world is endless. we can't put a cap on it by importing unskilled and impoverished people into rich countries. the only solution is in fixing the countries that they came from. right now syria is having a particular problem which makes them more sympathetic... but there are literally billions of people throughout the world who are just as hopeless, they just don't have enough facebook memes to garner western attention. so i do feel bad for the syrians... and i felt bad for the jews that came from the camps of eastern europe... but importing them into a completely alien culture was a bad idea. and here it is as well.

i mean if anybody should take the refugees it should be countries where they could more easily assimilate like saudi arabia or egypt... ethnically arab and religiously sunni countries... these would have the best hopes of actually providing an environment that these people could assimilate to on a mass scale.

i mean look at turkey... they are having problems there because the massive influx of syrians is seen as a "arabization" of the country... stirring up old nationalist sentiments.. and this is a country that is culturally much much closer to the syrians than any western country.

so what makes white people/westerners think we are so special? so immune from human tribal behavior, that every other part of the world is susceptible to?

Originally posted by red g jacks
no. my stance is that immigration, refugees, etc.. basically any movement of people... should be regulated for the benefit of the country in question. it's just plain stupid to take on another country's burden against your own interests.

sometimes if you have a culture that is similar enough that you can take their refugees... like the cuban refugees in miami, then you can see a success story.

but the syrians are very different from americans and europeans... the cultural difference is much greater and realistically we are dealing with people who have traditionally been considered enemies... there's a natural antagonism that is going to follow from forcing lower class europeans and americans to brush elbows with lower class syrians... sorry guys people still do have tribal instincts and nationalist tendencies. i think this sort of thing..

hZFmnz4ROEo

makes it pretty clear why this is a stupid idea. multiculturalism is a pretty fragile ecosystem. if you think you can just jam any random cultures together and make a workable society you are just delusional.

so for the same reason it was stupid to import hundreds of thousands of european jews to the middle east in the 20th century... it is stupid to import the massive collateral damage of the syrian civil war in the 21st century. You realize that, literally, 99% of the people who immigrate into our country never commit any crimes or cause any problems, yes?


Are you aware that domestic terrorism (read: terrorism committed by US citizens) is the most common form of terrorism that occurs in our country?

The entire "assimilation" argument is dumb when you look at the sheer numbers. The overwhelming majority of immigrants that come here "assimilate" just fine.

is it literally 99%? do you have a stat for that?

and yea i'm well aware that we have homegrown retards. i wish we could deport them instead of importing more problems.

Originally posted by red g jacks
is it literally 99%? do you have a stat for that?No, it's a hyperbolic number that I pulled out of my ass. Here's an actual figure, to support my general point:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/09/Screen-Shot-2015-09-30-at-12.45.19-PM.png&w=1484


"Deport" means to send them back to their country of origin... how does one deport US citizens out of the US? Where would they go?

Mexico.

Let's send all the Syrians to Mexico and all the Mexicans to America, then build the wall and this will be New Jersulaem.

https://40.media.tumblr.com/ee90c8383b66e9640fd981345baef498/tumblr_nxxfl2cv3D1qjj1nko1_500.jpg

We bring all the Meixcans here because they belong here really.

Then we send all the Syrians to Mexico and they can hopefully do something better with it then it's currently being used for.

Originally posted by Bardock42
https://40.media.tumblr.com/ee90c8383b66e9640fd981345baef498/tumblr_nxxfl2cv3D1qjj1nko1_500.jpg



Spot on.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
No, it's a hyperbolic number that I pulled out of my ass. Here's an actual figure, to support my general point:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/09/Screen-Shot-2015-09-30-at-12.45.19-PM.png&w=1484thats an interesting chart. it would seem to indicate that the 1st generation immigrants aren't the real problem, their kids (and the generations after that) are. what a cheerful message for our multicultural utopia.


send them to the moon for all i care.

We could use Mexico like a staging process. All the good ones stay in Mexico till they prove they won't cause problems here. And bring them to the US.

Originally posted by Bardock42
https://40.media.tumblr.com/ee90c8383b66e9640fd981345baef498/tumblr_nxxfl2cv3D1qjj1nko1_500.jpg it's fitting that the story in question is a religious myth

Originally posted by red g jacks
it's fitting that the story in question is a religious myth



And all the aeithests here like Bardock jump on it ferverously like the republicans jumped on Joe the plumber.

Originally posted by red g jacks
it's fitting that the story in question is a religious myth

Yeah, it is funny that it is one of the main religious myths of the people who now do not want to take in Syrian refugees. That's sort of why I posted it.

Doesn't Merkel have enough money to build them homes?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Doesn't Merkel have enough money to build them homes?

Basically yes, I mean lets be real, the 65000 is a token effort compared to what European and Middle Eastern countries are doing. It would make the US seem a little bit less bad, particularly since US action is partly to blame for the crisis.

Woah.. You're not suggesting that Christians don't always live up to their religious ideals are you? That's pretty groundbreaking stuff there pal. You better be careful that the Catholic church doesn't catch you and put you on trial for heresy.

Originally posted by red g jacks
Woah.. You're not suggesting that Christians don't always live up to their religious ideals are you? That's pretty groundbreaking stuff there pal. You better be careful that the Catholic church doesn't catch you and put you on trial for heresy.

Rather than a groundbreaking revelation I view this shared tweet as a humorous pointing out of said hypocrisy.

I will try to find more unique and earth shattering 140 characters in the future.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Would you have taken this stance against allowing Irish in during the Great Irish Famine?

well i would hope the syrians would get a warmer welcome than the irish did.

topic though: yes, they should let them in.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Basically yes, I mean lets be real, the 65000 is a token effort compared to what European and Middle Eastern countries are doing. It would make the US seem a little bit less bad, particularly since US action is partly to blame for the crisis.

I refuse to blame Obama for this. Why can't Merkel handle this. She seems well equipped.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I refuse to blame Obama for this.

lol, you have in other threads though, when it comes to his policy regarding ISIS.

Oh I thought you just wanted to hear me blame Obama.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Basically yes, I mean lets be real, the 65000 is a token effort compared to what European and Middle Eastern countries are doing. It would make the US seem a little bit less bad, particularly since US action is partly to blame for the crisis. which actions are you referring to?

Also, i think Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran, Russia and England all top the USA in terms of direct involvement in the Syrian disaster. So if we're going to play the blame game then let those countries take the hit.

Originally posted by red g jacks
which actions are you referring to?

Also, i think Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran, Russia and England all top the USA in terms of direct involvement in the Syrian disaster. So if we're going to play the blame game then let those countries take the hit.

Saudi Arabia is doing its share, possibly in the millions: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anhvinh-doanvo/europes-crisis-refugees_b_8175924.html

The others I agree should do more.

didn't answer my question as to which actions the united states took that resulted in the syrian crisis.

alright... well tbh what i am worried about is importing the religious war you guys are dealing with. i distrust how the rednecks will react just as much as i distrust any islamic extremists.

They just found a ambulance full of explosives at a soccer game in Germany.

Originally posted by red g jacks
didn't answer my question as to which actions the united states took that resulted in the syrian crisis.

alright... well tbh what i am worried about is importing the religious war you guys are dealing with. i distrust how the rednecks will react just as much as i distrust any islamic extremists.

Oh yes, the main one is waging the Iraq war, destabilising the region leading to the rise of ISIS.

My state, Louisiana, already refused to take refugees in. I agree with that. It is too much of a national security risk. How many ISIS members could be among the 65000? You can not do proper background checks to a satisfactorily level on these people. Not to mention my taxes would have to support these people.

After your taxes supported putting these people's lives in disarray...I can see how you don't want to spend that as well...

Not another America bashing session, please.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Not another America bashing session, please.

America's part in the current humanitarian crisis is relevant to the thread.

Obama is your commander and chief. Keep it clean and on point.

I actually happen to be German, so Obama is not my commander in chief. The main decisions that led to this were made by the Bush administration anyways.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I actually happen to be German, so Obama is not my commander in chief. The main decisions that led to this were made by the Bush administration anyways.

As much as you talk about Obama's badassery, I didn't think it mattered where you live, he's your guy. After all borders should not determine citizenship or political beliefs.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
As much as you talk about Obama's badassery, I didn't think it mattered where you live, he's your guy. After all borders should not determine citizenship or political beliefs.

lol, well borders don't determine citizenship necessarily, that is true.

I think B42's point is, if you helped burn down someone's house, the moral thing would be to offer them a room at your place, figuratively speaking.

It's a shame more and more states are being immoral. Do hope California doesn't take the path, I'd even be fine with all 65K coming in CA.

Originally posted by red g jacks
thats an interesting chart. it would seem to indicate that the 1st generation immigrants aren't the real problem, their kids (and the generations after that) are.That's right, immigrants don't cause nearly as much troubleas citizens.

In fact, it would seem that the only immigrants in US history who **** shit up the moment they arrive are white ones, as I'm sure Antonio de Santa Anna and Opechancanough will attest to.

Anyway, now that we've found established that immigrants by and large do not pose a threat to national security, on what imperative are you arguing that we should bar them from the country?

Fair enough, so long as you're the first one on the rocket.

War has consequences. It's unfortunate, but true. If people want to say we should do it because it is our fault then anyone who is running for president and was even a tiny bit in favor of doing what we did to cause this should never hold the job of president.

Originally posted by Surtur
War has consequences. It's unfortunate, but true. If people want to say we should do it because it is our fault then anyone who is running for president and was even a tiny bit in favor of doing what we did to cause this should never hold the job of president.

That's a non-sequitur.

Yeah, I probably should of put it in the general primary thread, my bad.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah, I probably should of put it in the general primary thread, my bad.

No, I mean it makes no sense.

Why does having to do humanitarian work after a war mean that everyone that is for the war should be categorically discounted from the presidency?

You say we caused it. You say over a million people are refugee's in your country, and 65,000 here. If we caused something that made that many people flee then it's just another thing to add to the list of clusterf*cks of the war.

So for me I don't want someone who was in favor of something that caused that much damage. But that is just me.

Originally posted by Surtur
You say we caused it. You say over a million people are refugee's in your country, and 65,000 here. If we caused something that made that many people flee then it's just another thing to add to the list of clusterf*cks of the war.

So for me I don't want someone who was in favor of something that caused that much damage. But that is just me.

That makes sense as a personal decision. I mean there's not that many people left then though, Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders, I suppose.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh yes, the main one is waging the Iraq war, destabilising the region leading to the rise of ISIS. ...nah. you can blame the us for ISIS, sure. you can't blame the US alone for the arab spring, which is actually what led to the syrian situation.

btw are we as liberals still supposed to support the broad that wanted to give more help to the syrian rebels... which in turn ended up being arming al nusra/isis?

I am proud to live in one of the states refusing to accept the Unvetted Syrian Invaders.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
I am proud to live in one of the states refusing to accept the Unvetted Syrian Invaders.

I just had an idea. If Obama empties Gitmo.
WE COULD SEND THEM ALL THERE!

Places is practically Pleasure Resort.

It is on a tropical island after all and it is Winter in The U.S

Wouldn't want the refugees getting cold.

seriously though look at this green text typing guy above me to see why the prospect of importing a ton of sunni arab musilms from syria into this country makes me nervous

you guys really think this is a good idea? you might start a holy war or something, lol. i mean yea we have "tons of space"... technically speaking that is. problem is most of the "space" is in redneck country. most of this country is white as **** and christian as ****. the few metropolitan areas like the ny philly cali chicago texas south florida etc that might be somewhat accomodating... there's not so much "space" in these places. they're generally crowded and expensive as ****. if syrian refugees can hack it there then sure.. it wouldn't be so bad.. but what are the chances that these people are going to have any economic prospects here? they're from a war torn impoverished part of the world. a good number of them are young unemployed males. honestly. we all know how demographics like that do in large metropolitan urban centers

I agree with Redy. Only put them in Blue States where they will be safe.

No one should be allowed into the US.

I don't care if you're a US citizen and you're just on vacation, sorry, US is closed.

GWB has a lot of room on his ranch out in Crawford, Tx.

So does Hillary in one of her 15 million dollar mansions.

No it shouldn't be foisted onto Taxpayers to take care of foreigners. For all of the altruistic libs who are generous with the money of others, what's preventing them from hosting them in their own homes and paying for their livelihoods?

Originally posted by carthage
No it shouldn't be foisted onto Taxpayers to take care of foreigners. For all of the altruistic libs who are generous with the money of others, what's preventing them from hosting them in their own homes and paying for their livelihoods?


Who says they don't? And mostly, refugees, the goal is to get them working and in the populace ASAP, at which point they pay taxes and so on like anyone else.

It costs some money short term- you know, to save people from a horrible situation that we did play a role in making, so responsibility and all- but long-term (and not all that long a term) is going to be budget positive.




Hah

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Would you have taken this stance against allowing Irish in during the Great Irish Famine? meant to respond to this as well

correct me if i'm wrong but didn't we have a desperate need for cheap and expendable labor at the time we imported most of the irish/italians/etc?

my point being that we weren't acting "against our interests..." if so

it was a mutually beneficial solution

this situation doesn't seem mutually beneficial to me... if the refugees in question were to provide an economic stimulus to any of the countries taking them then we wouldn't be spending so much time bickering over who is going to take x amount of refugees... we are negotiating this situation as if we're dividing a burden to be bared.

Originally posted by red g jacks
meant to respond to this as well

correct me if i'm wrong but didn't we have a desperate need for cheap and expendable labor at the time we imported most of the irish/italians/etc?

my point being that we weren't acting "against our interests..." if so

it was a mutually beneficial solution

this situation doesn't seem mutually beneficial to me... if the refugees in question were to provide an economic stimulus to any of the countries taking them then we wouldn't be spending so much time bickering over who is going to take x amount of refugees... we are negotiating this situation as if we're dividing a burden to be bared.

Mutually beneficial to some, not to others. And generally only in theory, not in practice.

It wasn't called "The American Wake" for nothing.

America got the better deal though, that's true. So it was beneficial for them.

Originally posted by red g jacks
meant to respond to this as well

correct me if i'm wrong but didn't we have a desperate need for cheap and expendable labor at the time we imported most of the irish/italians/etc?

Not that much.




The thing is, there's enough that the problem can largely be one of handling so many *at once*.

Like the Economist article said, we've taken in 3/4ths of a million refugees over the last 14 years. And odds are, you didn't have the slightest inkling of it, it's not like that number even would get mentioned in the news til this came up, because we so casually handled it.

The same number over 1 year would be much harder. Like, it'd be a huge crisis.


The Syrians are not going to stretch our systems, they're only moderately more than we normally do, and a smaller number of Syrians is fine for the other countries too. It's not that they're turning them all away, it's that they're saying, "Ok, we currently only have setup for X many, and this is more than that over too short a time."

Originally posted by Q99
Not that much.i was hoping for a bit more if you are going to correct me... i admittedly dont know much about that history but you're not going to win me over with "not that much"... at least provide some actual insight on the question




once again... if you're going to speak authoritatively about numbers like this then at least give me some data to back it up. if you make a convincing enough case i might even change my mind. but just stating it as fact without any data isn't good enough.

keep in mind that i'm mostly skeptical that the population will do well economically and prosper in our society. just take a look at muslim ghettos in france for a taste of the type of thing i'm not interested in importing for no good reason.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Mutually beneficial to some, not to others. And generally only in theory, not in practice.

It wasn't called "The American Wake" for nothing.

America got the better deal though, that's true. So it was beneficial for them. ... care to elaborate? like i said im not that familiar... "the american wake" is a term i've never heard. welcome to the results of 21 century urban american public school

Originally posted by red g jacks
... care to elaborate? like i said im not that familiar... "the american wake" is a term i've never heard. welcome to the results of 21 century urban american public school

lol np. It's not as if we do much American history ourselves.

Even as bad as things were in Ireland, the time before one left for America was called the American Wake. Now, it didn't start off during the famine, but by the time of it, it was called as such because leaving to go the states was considered almost as bad as a death, to the extent that it was a kind of death itself.

People going to America was seen not as a great opportunity, but a necessity to feed hungry families due to what England/Cromwell were doing in Ireland at the time. By the time the famine came around, the Irish had to leave or else face death due to how bad it got.

When they actually arrived in America, they were abused, mistreated and exploited by the locals. I'm sure not every American was terrible to the Irish, nor were all Irish emigrations to America a disaster. But a very, very large number were. It isn't like nowadays where countries like Australia or Canada are all "we could do with some skilled workers, you should come over" (though Australia is pulling back on it).

Job listings commonly said "No Irish need apply", and a lot of immigrants were forced to work on the railroads with, iirc the Chinese. The kind of railroads that black slaves were apparently too valuable to be risked on. It wasn't exactly a party.

Any American knows today that the relationship with Ireland goes back a long way. For the most part nowadays it's a good relationship (bar the trouble with Shannon). But to call it mutually beneficial when, for a lot of these people, their choices were basically death or extreme poverty slash slavery, doesn't seem accurate to me.

I didn't mean to rant. My bad.

Originally posted by red g jacks
meant to respond to this as well

correct me if i'm wrong but didn't we have a desperate need for cheap and expendable labor at the time we imported most of the irish/italians/etc?

my point being that we weren't acting "against our interests..." if so

it was a mutually beneficial solution

this situation doesn't seem mutually beneficial to me... if the refugees in question were to provide an economic stimulus to any of the countries taking them then we wouldn't be spending so much time bickering over who is going to take x amount of refugees... we are negotiating this situation as if we're dividing a burden to be bared. Immigrants provide an economic benefit to us now.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/09/Screen-Shot-2015-09-30-at-11.27.28-AM.png&w=1484

Namely, performing "cheap and expendable labor" that American citizens don't want to do. The situation today is no different from how it was before.

Originally posted by carthage
No it shouldn't be foisted onto Taxpayers to take care of foreigners. For all of the altruistic libs who are generous with the money of others, what's preventing them from hosting them in their own homes and paying for their livelihoods? Guess who foots the bill when the US military razes a country to the ground and then has to re-build it? Tax-payers are taking care of foreigners whether you like it or not, friendo.

Pretty much. The people who want "all the illegals out", will be the first to cry when their formerly cheap goods/services cost double or more.

"Why's my detox smoothie $8.75!?" Because the ****ing strawberries in it had to be flown in from Argentina, a*****e.

Or we could just make a machine/robot that does it cheaper and we still won't need them anymore.

And I some how doubt the type of people that would order a Detox smoothy are the ones calling to get rid of illegals.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Or we could just make a machine/robot that does it cheaper and we still won't need them anymore. And these robots are going to not also be used to take away all the jobs that US citizens do, because...?

I mean, the total-automation of labor is an inevitability, and those of us in our 20's or younger will come close to seeing it in our life-time, but you're making the mistake of thinking this will somehow only remove the benefit of having immigrants... as opposed to it completely removing the benefit of having human workers at all.

Yeah, total automation of the workplace is more of a... everybody problem, not just an immigrant problem. Though if George Friedman's predictions for this century are accurate, the West is going to be starving for immigration in the next generation or two, legal or not.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
And these robots are going to not also be used to take away all the jobs that US citizens do, because...?

I mean, the total-automation of labor is an inevitability, and those of us in our 20's or younger will come close to seeing it in our life-time, but you're making the mistake of thinking this will somehow only remove the benefit of having immigrants... as opposed to it completely removing the benefit of having human workers at all.
Progress has its costs.
Its gonna happen regardless of how people feel about it.

I for one will hail our New Robot Overlords.


Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Yeah, total automation of the workplace is more of a... everybody problem, not just an immigrant problem. Though if George Friedman's predictions for this century are accurate, the West is going to be starving for immigration in the next generation or two, legal or not.

Its not the robots or illegals faults you kids today to selfish to go out and raise family's.

Yeah they nee to make an app for that.

Those dang kids and their self-actualization hootenanny. In my day we toiled away in meaningless servitude to our societal masters and traditions. If it's good enough for my Hobbesian ancestors, it's good enough for everyone.

Originally posted by -Pr-
lol np. It's not as if we do much American history ourselves.

Even as bad as things were in Ireland, the time before one left for America was called the American Wake. Now, it didn't start off during the famine, but by the time of it, it was called as such because leaving to go the states was considered almost as bad as a death, to the extent that it was a kind of death itself.

People going to America was seen not as a great opportunity, but a necessity to feed hungry families due to what England/Cromwell were doing in Ireland at the time. By the time the famine came around, the Irish had to leave or else face death due to how bad it got.

When they actually arrived in America, they were abused, mistreated and exploited by the locals. I'm sure not every American was terrible to the Irish, nor were all Irish emigrations to America a disaster. But a very, very large number were. It isn't like nowadays where countries like Australia or Canada are all "we could do with some skilled workers, you should come over" (though Australia is pulling back on it).

Job listings commonly said "No Irish need apply", and a lot of immigrants were forced to work on the railroads with, iirc the Chinese. The kind of railroads that black slaves were apparently too valuable to be risked on. It wasn't exactly a party.

Any American knows today that the relationship with Ireland goes back a long way. For the most part nowadays it's a good relationship (bar the trouble with Shannon). But to call it mutually beneficial when, for a lot of these people, their choices were basically death or extreme poverty slash slavery, doesn't seem accurate to me.

I didn't mean to rant. My bad. i appreciate the explanation... and this is probably going to sound cold hearted/'sociopathic' to some.. i still call it mutually beneficial cause the prospect of being enslaved/exploited by american businesses was still preferable to starving to death... hence why the irish continued to come

'beneficial' doesn't mean ideal... it just means something better than the alternative

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Those dang kids and their self-actualization hootenanny. In my day we toiled away in meaningless servitude to our societal masters and traditions. If it's good enough for my Hobbesian ancestors, it's good enough for everyone.


Lol.....hootenanny.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Immigrants provide an economic benefit to us now.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/09/Screen-Shot-2015-09-30-at-11.27.28-AM.png&w=1484

Namely, performing "cheap and expendable labor" that American citizens don't want to do. The situation today is no different from how it was before.

Guess who foots the bill when the US military razes a country to the ground and then has to re-build it? Tax-payers are taking care of foreigners whether you like it or not, friendo. yea to a certain extent

like migrant workers on farms are an example of unskilled labor that genuinely doesn't have enough domestic candidates. but it is more or less unique in this regard... with the current levels of unemployment we really don't stand to benefit from importing a bunch of unskilled and (most likely) unemployed young people into our urban metropolises

Originally posted by red g jacks
i appreciate the explanation... and this is probably going to sound cold hearted/'sociopathic' to some.. i still call it mutually beneficial cause the prospect of being enslaved/exploited by american businesses was still preferable to starving to death... hence why the irish continued to come

'beneficial' doesn't mean ideal... it just means something better than the alternative

to me, mutually beneficial means both sides get something worthwhile from the situation. "not dying" might seem that way to you, and that's fine. just not to me.

i think you're wrong... not dying is definitely beneficial


https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define%3A%20beneficial

Originally posted by red g jacks
i think you're wrong... not dying is definitely beneficial


https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define%3A%20beneficial

lol, yes, it's better than the alternative, but it's not nearly as good as what the locals got in return. Not even remotely.

I know what beneficial means.

i didn't say it was 50/50.... companies profit more from their employees than the employees profit from the companies... yet due to the companies having much more leverage than said employees, it's still a mutually beneficial relationship

Originally posted by red g jacks
i didn't say it was 50/50.... companies profit more from their employees than the employees profit from the companies... yet due to the companies having much more leverage than said employees, it's still a mutually beneficial relationship

But we aren't talking about companies and employees here. We're talking about people with nothing being dragged off boats and being forced to work as little more than slaves. They benefitted by not dying, sure, but they were still getting horribly exploited and abused.

You can say it's mutually beneficial, when it's no more mutually beneficial than what's going on now. So I don't see how it's any different.

Originally posted by red g jacks
yea to a certain extent

like migrant workers on farms are an example of unskilled labor that genuinely doesn't have enough domestic candidates. but it is more or less unique in this regard... with the current levels of unemployment we really don't stand to benefit from importing a bunch of unskilled and (most likely) unemployed young people into our urban metropolises These jobs don't have enough candidates because American citizens don't want to do them- it isn't due to a literal lack of bodies. Immigrants fill these jobs because many Americans would rather be unemployed or just wait for a better offer to come around then shatter their spine picking crops or cleaning toilets with zero benefits, etc.

As for your comment about unskilled immigrants:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/09/Screen-Shot-2015-09-30-at-11.27.23-AM.png&w=1484

Nearly 50% of immigrants have a college education or higher. That's a significant contribution to our skilled/educated-labor workforce.

Let's see what Jesus has to say about it:




Not helping the needy is one of the only areas where Jesus came out and flat said, "Screw you, Eternal punishment." In incredibly non-vague words.

Most other stuff people claim sends one hell-bound? Either a non-Jesus person, or merely framed as a sin or similar (i.e. something someone you can make up for). Neglecting those in needs? No uncertain terms.

Inviting random strangers into your house sounds like a great way to get raped.

There is a smart way to help people in need, and a stupid way to help people.

And brother. is the U.S being run by STUPID PEOPLE!

The important thing is getting them a place to stay.


Also, who here remembers the story of Jesus's birth? You know, came to town, looking for a place to stay, only a manger gave them space?

Taking care of people who need places to stay is *quite* major in Christianity.


Heck, Sodom and Gomorrah was done over poor hospitality- Job and his family were the only one willing to take care of guests, while the rest of the town wanted to rape them. And yes, it is the hospitality that is the actual reason.

Originally posted by red g jacks
yea to a certain extent

like migrant workers on farms are an example of unskilled labor that genuinely doesn't have enough domestic candidates. but it is more or less unique in this regard... with the current levels of unemployment we really don't stand to benefit from importing a bunch of unskilled and (most likely) unemployed young people into our urban metropolises

You can literally say that about anything then. Just because you can conceive of something worse doesn't mean that what happened was beneficial. By the same token you can say slavery was mutually beneficial, because if the slaves had refused to work they would have been killed, so they had a benefit from working for the slave masters.

Generally mutually beneficial is used to say that something will be good for both parties, one party getting a huge benefit cause they can leverage their power while the other party gets the second worst possible option just doesn't really fall into that category.

Originally posted by Q99
The important thing is getting them a place to stay.


Also, who here remembers the story of Jesus's birth? You know, came to town, looking for a place to stay, only a manger gave them space?

Taking care of people who need places to stay is *quite* major in Christianity.


Heck, Sodom and Gomorrah was done over poor hospitality- Job and his family were the only one willing to take care of guests, while the rest of the town wanted to rape them. And yes, it is the hospitality that is the actual reason.

Dude do you not see the issue of talking about "this is what Christians would do" and then bringing up how the thing these people worship is so ass backwards he will NUKE YOU for not being hospitable? You are trying to reason with crazy.

Though do we not have plenty of people in this country that need a place to stay? Did we solve our homeless problem?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You can literally say that about anything then. Just because you can conceive of something worse doesn't mean that what happened was beneficial. By the same token you can say slavery was mutually beneficial, because if the slaves had refused to work they would have been killed, so they had a benefit from working for the slave masters.

Generally mutually beneficial is used to say that something will be good for both parties, one party getting a huge benefit cause they can leverage their power while the other party gets the second worst possible option just doesn't really fall into that category. well, no. i can't say it about something where someone is forced into something against their will and doesn't reap any benefits whatsoever. like being raped or murdered or something. i can only say it about something where they obtain some sort of benefit. even if they are exploited in the process due to being in a vulnerable position. it's not like i'm advocating exploiting people, though. i wish they weren't exploited. i wouldn't say take in the syrian refugees and exploit them. i'm just saying if the states benefited from the irish refugees then that really doesn't go against my initial stance of moderating the influx of new arrivals based on the benefit of the host country, rather than as some act of charity to the 3rd world.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
These jobs don't have enough candidates because American citizens don't want to do them- it isn't due to a literal lack of bodies. Immigrants fill these jobs because many Americans would rather be unemployed or just wait for a better offer to come around then shatter their spine picking crops or cleaning toilets with zero benefits, etc.

As for your comment about unskilled immigrants:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/09/Screen-Shot-2015-09-30-at-11.27.23-AM.png&w=1484

Nearly 50% of immigrants have a college education or higher. That's a significant contribution to our skilled/educated-labor workforce. i'm not against immigration. i'm skeptical that the syrian refugees are going to benefit us. like i said before... we wouldn't be debating this in terms of "which countries should have to take the refugees" if it was really desirable for any country to take them. they're being debated as if they're a burden to bare, and each country should have to do its fair part. so it just seems silly to me for you to turn around and act as if they're a bunch of doctors and engineers that are going to come here and provide us with some great utility. i didn't just fall off the turnip truck, pal. Originally posted by Q99
Let's see what Jesus has to say about it:




Not helping the needy is one of the only areas where Jesus came out and flat said, "Screw you, Eternal punishment." In incredibly non-vague words.

Most other stuff people claim sends one hell-bound? Either a non-Jesus person, or merely framed as a sin or similar (i.e. something someone you can make up for). Neglecting those in needs? No uncertain terms. hm... last time i checked, jesus wasn't american. what country was he from, again?

you know, this is a pretty interesting point. jesus was from the same country that we sent a bunch of war torn refugees to 50 years ago. that worked out well, didn't it guys? and that same country is conveniently very close to syria... so they would hardly have to travel at all. seems like the perfect solution to me... israel should take all of the syrian refugees.

Originally posted by red g jacks
well, no. i can't say it about something where someone is forced into something against their will and doesn't reap any benefits whatsoever. like being raped or murdered or something. i can only say it about something where they obtain some sort of benefit. even if they are exploited in the process due to being in a vulnerable position. it's not like i'm advocating exploiting people, though. i wish they weren't exploited. i wouldn't say take in the syrian refugees and exploit them. i'm just saying if the states benefited from the irish refugees then that really doesn't go against my initial stance of moderating the influx of new arrivals based on the benefit of the host country, rather than as some act of charity to the 3rd world.


No, actually you can, by your logic. Benefit says nothing about whether the lack of benefit comes from the another person's deeds. You draw an arbitrary line, but much further than anyone who uses the term "mutual benefit" usually does.

If you argue from your position you can call the lack of murder or rape of the person a benefit. And I understand that you aren't advocating for it, you just use a term that is used for completely different circumstances and apply it to these exploitative situations. That's why I am trying to show you the absurdity of it.

Leaving the "Irish Immigrants and US Employers were in a mutually beneficial relationship" point aside, regarding your point about benefit of the host country, that is a common view, however most modern countries also view certain moral duties to other humans as one of their duties, and will act in such a manner, as well as punish those that do not comply to these basic levels of humanitarian work.

I just have a query. Let us say by some form of black magic..12 months from now the area these refugee's came from is someone stabilized. What happens then? Do they just leave the country and return home?

Originally posted by Surtur
I just have a query. Let us say by some form of black magic..12 months from now the area these refugee's came from is someone stabilized. What happens then? Do they just leave the country and return home?

It depends, many would, many others may have found work and places in their communities, friendships and relationships, that may make it reasonable for them to stay.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, actually you can, by your logic. Benefit says nothing about whether the lack of benefit comes from the another person's deeds. You draw an arbitrary line, but much further than anyone who uses the term "mutual benefit" usually does.

If you argue from your position you can call the lack of murder or rape of the person a benefit. And I understand that you aren't advocating for it, you just use a term that is used for completely different circumstances and apply it to these exploitative situations. That's why I am trying to show you the absurdity of it.
i don't really understand what you're saying tbh

in my mind, when i said mutually beneficial all i meant was that a transaction occurred which both parties entered into voluntarily because they stood something to gain

i think that is a pretty straightforward definition of the term, in all honesty. i'm thinking about it in almost biological terms... like a symbiotic relationship. the alternative being a parasitic relationship, which one party reaps all the benefits against the will of the other party and leaves the other party worse off than they would be if there was no relationship at all.

this definition of the term couldn't apply to you raping someone, for example. because the rape victim is clearly better off if you never have any interaction whatsoever. so they stand to gain nothing from the interaction.

my problem with this is like i said... the amount of suffering in this world is nearly infinite. there are probably up to a billion if not more people in this world that are in situations just as or nearly as desperate as the syrian refugees... so placing a moral imperative on trying to save the syrian refugees seems disingenuous to me.

so for the implication that we'll be punished by the international community for not doing so... i say let them take their best shot at doing so. i think we both know that's an idle threat tbh.

Interesting- Just heard an expert on NPR talking about how refugees and immigrants tend to both commit less crimes, and start more businesses than native born.

One incident cited was when Fidel Castro sent 80,000 largely lower class people, often from prisons (Fidel dumped the political prisoners on us), onto Miami. You'd think that'd cause a crime spike and job problems, simple supply and demand, more unemployment and such, but it didn't, and Miami was soon experiencing great economic growth.

Not the radio show obviously, but an article on the economics of Syrian refugees.

Originally posted by Surtur
I just have a query. Let us say by some form of black magic..12 months from now the area these refugee's came from is someone stabilized. What happens then? Do they just leave the country and return home?

If they want to, yes, and a good number would. Probably with positives feelings to the US for letting them duck out of a horrible conflict.

When you say immigrants do you mean legal or illegal?

But then I'd also be asking why they do this more? Does it just boil down to "natives are lazy" ?

the prospects of syria becoming a desirable place to live any time soon are pretty slim, i would think. let's be honest if we are going to entertain taking these people - it will most likely be a permanent situation. just like the irish refugees you mentioned before. some of those people were probably ancestors of mine.

and just ftr.... i'm not saying any of this just to be a dick, guys. i'm honestly just skeptical that this could be a very detrimental move on our part. the political situation in the united states is incredibly volatile, and large portions of our population are not only coming to view immigration unfavorably, they are also openly antagonistic towards islam and view the islamic world as our greatest current global enemy. so if you think you can honestly import tons of impoverished war torn muslims into redneck country and not get a significant backlash, then i think you simply don't understand this country or its people that well.

if the good people of california and ny feel positive about the prospect of taking the refugees, then fine. let them try it first and we'll see how that goes.

I think it's important to note that being a refugee often takes courage, grit, drive, and money. A lot of the people leaving Syria aren't poor--they're middle class, because only people with money can afford the huge fees required to hire smugglers to take them to Europe.

Originally posted by Q99
One incident cited was when Fidel Castro sent 80,000 largely lower class people, often from prisons (Fidel dumped the political prisoners on us), onto Miami. You'd think that'd cause a crime spike and job problems, simple supply and demand, more unemployment and such, but it didn't, and Miami was soon experiencing great economic growth.

Not the radio show obviously, but an article on the economics of Syrian refugees.
yes we've all seen scarface

and i have nothing against the cuban refugees - they have done well for themselves

miami itself isn't such a great success story, though. most of that city is a crime ridden slum, thanks in no small part to both poorly managed immigration and the drug war

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think it's important to note that being a refugee often takes courage, grit, drive, and money. A lot of the people leaving Syria aren't poor--they're middle class, because only people with money can afford the huge fees required to hire smugglers to take them to Europe. maybe they were middle class before the civil war in syria. i would say since they are begging for a place to stay they aren't middle class anymore

Originally posted by red g jacks
maybe they were middle class before the civil war in syria. i would say since they are begging for a place to stay they aren't middle class anymore
The point is that they weren't street urchins, that they're hard working and educated, and if provided the opportunity they could become middle class again.

Originally posted by red g jacks
yes we've all seen scarface

and i have nothing against the cuban refugees - they have done well for themselves

miami itself isn't such a great success story, though. most of that city is a crime ridden slum, thanks in no small part to both poorly managed immigration and the drug war
I take it you've never been to Miami before. Or at least you haven't been here since the 1980s, or you have a very broad definition of "crime ridden slum..."

you are incorrect... i was there maybe a year or two ago.

granted it's better than it was in the crack era... still not that great. i know how floridians are about defending their image, though. gotta keep the tourists coming.

my point, though, was that we did see a crime wave in miami in the 80's and 90's. not blaming the cubans, though. haitians, on the other hand...

Originally posted by Surtur
When you say immigrants do you mean legal or illegal?


I mean 'immigrant.'

How people act doesn't depend much on an arbitrary label that doesn't affect too much- well, it can affect ability to get jobs, so I guess some on that end.

Whether someone is a documented or undocumented immigrant is a matter of documentation, that it is a big rift is largely an artificial viewpoint. Sign a paper and one becomes the other, so, naturally, there's not a big behavior difference.

Though, an undocumented 'immigrant' who moved in when they were, say, 2, probably acts much more like a native than an immigrant ^^




Like Omega notes, being a refugee takes a lot of drive to begin with. Leave your home, deal with inevitable obstacles along the way, travel halfway across the world to a place you've never been before.

Also, they *know* they're starting from the bottom and need to work up. They know they don't have an in with the local authorities. Quite often, they band together into communities to help each other with the idea that other successful individuals can help them.


New business people in other contexts are usually people who feel they have a fallback in case they fail- family members, a money nestegg, a job they're sure they can get, or so on, because, sensibly, you don't want to give up an existing reasonable position to take a chance. People who actually are making a fresh start with their eyes open don't have a reason for that normal caution.

"Well, I've already seen rock bottom, I'm not going to be worried about a little financial risk." Especially when, in this case, rock bottom was trying to behead them!

The somewhat lower crime rate is likely because, one, they don't expect local police to go easy on them, and two, no contacts or ties to any existing criminal groups.

Originally posted by red g jacks
you are incorrect... i was there maybe a year or two ago.

granted it's better than it was in the crack era... still not that great. i know how floridians are about defending their image, though. gotta keep the tourists coming.

my point, though, was that we did see a crime wave in miami in the 80's and 90's. not blaming the cubans, though. haitians, on the other hand...
Okay, did you live there or visit?

I've been in the area two years now, and I have nothing but positive feelings about the place. Immigration and the cultural diversity here are what make Miami great.

So then in your opinion do you feel we should take measures in this country to change things so that this isn't true? So that the native people here can also succeed? I am not suggesting change things in a way of "ban all refugee's etc." but just changing it so the people already in the country can also find success.

Since I mean hey it's a great happy ending for those people, but we have people in need who are from this country. People who need jobs, etc.

Republicans want pro life yet they don't want to help save refugees

The refugee's should dress up as fetuses.

Originally posted by red g jacks
you are incorrect... i was there maybe a year or two ago.

granted it's better than it was in the crack era... still not that great. i know how floridians are about defending their image, though. gotta keep the tourists coming.

my point, though, was that we did see a crime wave in miami in the 80's and 90's. not blaming the cubans, though. haitians, on the other hand...
Btw, I live in a majority Haitian neighborhood. They're great, you bigot. Not all of them are Zoe Pound.

Originally posted by Surtur
The refugee's should dress up as fetuses.
I'm checking to see if there is a fetus outfit