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 jacksThese 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.
yea to a certain extentlike 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
As for your comment about unskilled immigrants:
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:
Matthew 2531 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
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.
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 extentlike 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 Bardock42well, 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.
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 Tzeentchi'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.
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:
Nearly 50% of immigrants have a college education or higher. That's a significant contribution to our skilled/educated-labor workforce.
Originally posted by Q99hm... last time i checked, jesus wasn't american. what country was he from, again?
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.
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.
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 Bardock42i don't really understand what you're saying tbh
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Q99yes we've all seen scarface
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.
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 Visionmaybe 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
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.
