Why "America first"?

Sorry, but immigration wont fix it. You don't dump gas on fire.

Originally posted by riv6672
If you understand, then you're asking because you dont like it, and want a chance to say so, repeatedly, to anyone naive enough to try and give you an answer you dont actually care about or want.
What you want is an audience.
Have fun with that, you've come to the right place (the internet).

Well, from your ad hominems I'm guessing you don't have an answer. And yeah, that does confirm my suspicions.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well you know I can fully understand that the whole "America First" or the just overall notion of "my country first" can have its downsides, but then again I just look at Europe..I look at Germany.

I look at legal German citizens being evicted from their homes in order to make room for refugee's. I see some people who have lived in the same place for decades being evicted to make room for refugee's. I look at that and I wonder if maybe they shouldn't have been a bit more vocal about "Germany first". I see German officials making lame excuses like "but but we would have needed to put beds in a gym!" in order to justify that bullshit.

Can you imagine that, though? Like okay you obviously feel it's good to help outsiders, but even you can't be on board with EVICTING someone from their home so that refugee's can live there?

I don't know about evicting people, but there's a bit of a balance between that and the opposite extreme, right?

If you're talking about refugee's..the question becomes: do we have a way to vet all the refugee's that would come into the country?

Well, we can start with the children, who are probably not going to commit felonies.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This can explain exactly how I feel, better then I can explain. With 100% truth and facts.

YouTube video

/thread

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Well, we can start with the children, who are probably not going to commit felonies.

Wouldn't that mean taking kids away from their parents?

It would. Given how long the American process is for screening refugees, if you give immediate access to children, you're going to have them living in the States without their parents a couple years. All on the taxpayers dime (because money is the only important thing ever).

As said, Immigration is destroying the world, are people not getting that?

Originally posted by Surtur
Wouldn't that mean taking kids away from their parents?

For a while? We're not forcing them to stay. Many parents may realize that foster care in the U.S. is superior to living in a nuclear family in a lot of countries.

For up to several years. The American screening process for refugees is ridiculously tight. If you give immediate access to the children, they're going to be living in a foreign land, whose language they don't understand, away from their parents. That may be a dream for teenagers and 20-somethings out of college, but not for children.

"Refugee" implies migration from an area under some sort of emergency situation, like, say, genocide or civil war. This is, at least, sometimes the case. Something tells me that having a language barrier isn't the worst evil to pick.

I'm not getting what you're getting at here. You're saying that, in the case of refugees, you want to immediately let the children in while the parents go through the vetting process?

I dont think anyone here knows exactly what immigration does.

* a streamlined vetting process. That's not necessarily the ideal solution, but it's better than the status quo, and probably requires less political capital.

Why have immigration at all? Makes no sense anymore. Americans are not allowed to mass immigrate anywhere else. Why should we allow it here.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
That's not necessarily the ideal solution, but it's better than the status quo.

To say nothing of the huge issue of sheltering these kids (Stateside) and making sure whatever foster homes or internment camps they're kept in are treating them properly. Ensuring an education for them while they wait, teaching them English, etc. This is a huge and sudden shift in their lives, and they have to go through it essentially alone. That's going to take a huge toll on their emotional and social development. Not likely a good one. No matter how often their physical safety is stressed or guaranteed, the words "separate children from their parents" is just awful, and should be avoided as often as possible.

EDIT: If you're going to bring them here anyway, bring whole families to live in internment camps. They won't be able to leave, they'll still be vetted, their physical safety still guaranteed, AND you won't be taking children away from their parents.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
* a streamlined vetting process. That's not necessarily the ideal solution, but it's better than the status quo, and probably requires less political capital.

I mean a streamlined process for the kids.

As for internment camps, that goes back to the political capital issue: people aren't going to like the idea of having "internment camps", but they'll be fine with foster care for child refugees. It's difficult for a politician to sell the notion that they're sleeper cell terrorists or something. Now maybe if we give these camps a better name, you could try it. Honestly though, you're almost certainly going to end up with shitty conditions and all sorts of problems with abuse and mistreatment, given that it's essentially a prison.

What happens if the parents fail the vetting?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I mean a streamlined process for the kids.

As for internment camps, that goes back to the political capital issue: people aren't going to like the idea of having "internment camps", but they'll be fine with foster care for child refugees. It's difficult for a politician to sell the notion that they're sleeper cell terrorists or something. Now maybe if we give these camps a better name, you could try it. Honestly though, you're almost certainly going to end up with shitty conditions and all sorts of problems with abuse and mistreatment, given that it's essentially a prison.

What happens if the parents fail the vetting?

Currently there's over 400,000 children in foster homes in the U.S. Of the 1 million+ Syrian refugees in Lebanon alone, an estimated 53% of them are children (to say nothing of those in Turkey, Jordan, Iraq etc.). In a nation already filled with people who hate and fear foreigners, especially if they're brown, Arabic, and Muslim... we'd be looking at a catastrophic shortage of 1.) volunteer households, 2.) households actually suitable for foster children, and 3.) the logistical infrastructure to acclimate/assimilate/integrate them into the family/neighborhood/culture.

Fostering as a viable solution to parent-less child refugees is the proverbial water pumps used on the Titanic ("they buy time, but minutes only"😉.

And then to consider camps... filled with scared, lonely, traumatized, children... good f*cking God...

Hmm

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
As said, Immigration is destroying the world, are people not getting that?

Ironic, coming from an American.