Should Syrian refugees be allowed into the US

Started by Q9915 pages
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.

Mindset
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.

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.


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.

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

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."

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

ben·e·fi·cial
ˌbenəˈfiSH(ə)l/
adjective
favorable or advantageous; resulting in good.

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.