Should Syrian refugees be allowed into the US

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

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

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 ^^

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

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...

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...

Originally posted by Surtur
The refugee's should dress up as fetuses.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Btw, I live in a majority Haitian neighborhood. They're great, you bigot. Not all of them are Zoe Pound.

i grew up in south florida, though. i lived in lake worth - another haitian neighborhood. a lot of my friends are haitian - i'm not saying "all haitians are zoe pound." just that haitian gangs tend to be the worst down there, in my experience.

you've been there two years? you can't lecture me then, bro... i thought you were actually from there. you have "nothing but positive things to say".... not surprising, you strike me as an ideologue. and i've got nothing against diversity or immigration - i'm just being real about some of the adverse side effects that have come along with it. prior to the 1980's, south florida was a very peaceful place. it no longer is. that's just a fact. it's not detroit... it's not baltimore.... there are definitely worse places in this country. but statistically it is a high crime area. thanks in no small part to being built on drugs, tourism and poorly managed immigration.

what neighborhood do you live in btw?

Originally posted by red g jacks
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.

Yes, you use a definition of mutually beneficial that doesn't take circumstances into account and is therefore far removed from basically any other use. Say a woman has to sleep with a prison guard so he protects her from other guards beating her...that'd be mutually beneficial in your definition, and technically if you just want to reduce it to the literal meaning of the two words you'd be correct, but no one would say that, and the same is the case for saying that Irish Immigration was mutually beneficial, that just glosses over immense amounts of exploitation.

Oh no, the International Community won't "punish" the US in the way you think. It's just another thing that people remember, and maybe at some point when the US needs aid people will be like "meh"...it has consequences, they are subtle, but long lasting, and often aren't considered when just doing a "does this benefit me" analysis. At any rate, people in this thread also showed how even an analysis leaving out these consequences can come to the conclusion that this kind of immigration is a net benefit for a nation.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i lived in lake worth

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Zoe Pound.

Sounds like a porn actresses name

Originally posted by Robtard
Sounds like a porn actresses name

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It all makes sense.

either way... sorry to diss your town. i can be a cynic. but most people i've known in south florida tend to agree miami isn't the most pleasant place to live, in the poorer areas. when i was a kid i told my mom and my stepdad that when i grew up i wanted to move to miami... my stepdad was sort of a dick, and a bit racist. he told me miami was a shithole and i didn't believe him, cause on tv it looked cool. so he took me on a trip down there to show me what it's like... i've never seen so many destitute people... there were entire homeless families living in abandoned buildings. some kid with no shoes on came up and begged us for money in a store that didn't even have a proper floor. honestly felt like south america

as far as big cities in florida go, it's probably the 2nd least desirable metro area to live in for lower class people. the first would be jacksonville imo. that place is a dump. at least miami does have some culture (imported from latin america, of course). jacksonville is just a bunch of rednecks and southern blacks. might as well be georgia.

edit - actually, i'll bump you guys to 3rd. orlando would be 2nd. **** orlando.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, you use a definition of mutually beneficial that doesn't take circumstances into account and is therefore far removed from basically any other use. Say a woman has to sleep with a prison guard so he protects her from other guards beating her...that'd be mutually beneficial in your definition, and technically if you just want to reduce it to the literal meaning of the two words you'd be correct, but no one would say that, and the same is the case for saying that Irish Immigration was mutually beneficial, that just glosses over immense amounts of exploitation.

either way i don't know why we're arguing about this. if it wasn't beneficial to the irish to import them, then i would say fine, we shouldn't have imported them. i'm not denying any sort of historical injustice or exploitation.

if it's about the definition of the phrase then can you remind me how do you define the phase and i'll see if i agree with you?

Oh no, the International Community won't "punish" the US in the way you think. It's just another thing that people remember, and maybe at some point when the US needs aid people will be like "meh"...it has consequences, they are subtle, but long lasting, and often aren't considered when just doing a "does this benefit me" analysis. At any rate, people in this thread also showed how even an analysis leaving out these consequences can come to the conclusion that this kind of immigration is a net benefit for a nation.

but why is nobody responding to my point about the cultural climate in large portions of the united states which aren't going to be particularly hospitable to muslim arab implants...do you not see why this would concern me?

also, the whjole "net benefit" angle is ridiculous when you place it side by side with the "moral obligation to take one for the team." if it's a net benefit then you guys can have them all. you'll get all the benefits.

Originally posted by Surtur
The refugee's should dress up as fetuses.

😆

Originally posted by red g jacks

but why is nobody responding to my point about the cultural climate in large portions of the united states which aren't going to be particularly hospitable to muslim arab implants...do you not see why this would concern me?

You have a lot of racist and bigot people, however exposure to different cutures is generally what fixes that in time. Places in Europe has radical racists as well though, so it's not that much different.

Originally posted by red g jacks
also, the whjole "net benefit" angle is ridiculous when you place it side by side with the "moral obligation to take one for the team." if it's a net benefit then you guys can have them all. you'll get all the benefits.

Only because you discount the very real argument that the sheer numbers make it a logistical nightmare and therefore problematic both for the countries providing refuge and the refuge themselves. The very small amount (about 65000 refugees or 0.02% of the US population) would not be a trouble in that way for the US at all, leaving mainly the benefits.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You have a lot of racist and bigot people, however exposure to different cutures is generally what fixes that in time. Places in Europe has radical racists as well though, so it's not that much different.

Only because you discount the very real argument that the sheer numbers make it a logistical nightmare and therefore problematic both for the countries providing refuge and the refuge themselves. The very small amount (about 65000 refugees or 0.02% of the US population) would not be a trouble in that way for the US at all, leaving mainly the benefits.