“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

[Umbran]

...We're arguing macro vs. microeconomics here.

With respect, you were the one who brought up national statistics - you can't argue micro from that.

If they are resettled in a large urban area, with a large population and a lot of resources, than they are unlikely to make an impact on the area. If they are relocated to a smaller population area, with fewer people, job opportunities and resources, than their addition becomes a very noticeable drain on the local economy.

It isn't like they dump then all in just a couple of places, by the thousands. It's a handful here or there. They come with support of a sponsor, and support of organizations helping them. It isn't like they get dropped at the bus stop with a blanket and told to fend for themselves.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

If they are relocated to a smaller population area, with fewer people, job opportunities and resources, than their addition becomes a very noticeable drain on the local economy.

How small of a town does it have to be for 6 people will crush the local economy? Why wouldn't refugees be able to contribute to the local economy? They come in with funds given to them by the fed, and possibly by charities, which can be spent in the local economy. Additionally, the funds that are used to help people aren't limited to funds the local community has. Those funds come from the state and the federal governments. Even if it was a town of only 50 people, they would not be the ones paying for the 6 new residents.

 

[was]

With respect, you were the one who brought up national statistics - you can't argue micro from that.

..My apologies, I think that I actually argued both but I got my conversation with you mixed up with another one that I was having. Sorry to be contradictory. It wasn't intentional.

 

[was]

How small of a town does it have to be for 6 people will crush the local economy? Why wouldn't refugees be able to contribute to the local economy? They come in with funds given to them by the fed, and possibly by charities, which can be spent in the local economy. Additionally, the funds that are used to help people aren't limited to funds the local community has. Those funds come from the state and the federal governments. Even if it was a town of only 50 people, they would not be the ones paying for the 6 new residents.

...Was referring to the planned 100,000 immigrants not just the six in Dallas.

...Refugees without employment do not contribute.

...Applying for and receiving federal aid is a slow process and it isn't very much. Refugees don't come in with a ton of federal money to support them. They apply once here. That leaves them reliant upon local charities and organizations which sponsored them until the federal aid comes through. Most of whom are churches. If a church sponsors them, people in the community are taking care of them until the federal aid comes through. That leaves the people the church usually supports holding the short end of the stick in a small community.

 

[Kramodlog]

...There may be some confusion about the discussion. I see that you are posting from Canada. Let me clarify that I am discussing the U.S. government. I have no experience with the Canadian government and none of my arguments pertain to it. If you thought I was commenting about the Canadian government and was offended, then I apologize.

...I am not talking about just charities, though it's surprising how many 'charities' are currently taking care of people the government let drop through cracks. The fact is that money, from taxes, set aside by the government to help people often never makes it to those who need it.

...I am talking about people, both veterans and civilians, having to hire lawyers because the government won't recognize their disabilities or lost their disability payments.

...I am talking about people hiring lawyers because the multiple agencies working for the government 'lost' their student loan payments.

...I am talking about veteran's hospitals being denied access to congressional funds supposedly set aside to pay physicians and upgrade their facilities.

...I am talking about reservations unable to gain access to their own money through the BIA government red tape to build schools.

...Finally, I am talking about schools struggling to access funds supposedly set aside by the government to fund special programs used for such things such as feeding needy school children.

...The second problem is in no way 'hypothetical' and needs solving first. More money is great, but doesn't do much good if the government cannot get it to those who need it.

Blame those who claim to be fiscally responsable and in the name of fiscal responsability put up all sort of hurdles for the needy.

 

[was]

Blame those who claim to be fiscally responsable and in the name of fiscal responsability put up all sort of hurdles for the needy.

...heh, maybe a fiscally responsible politician is an oxymoron.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

...That argument was made when we were talking about 100,000 immigrants not six.

Then your argument makes even less sense. The government isn't going to bring in 100,000 immigrants into any city/town, much less a small one. Immigrants and refugees are very different from a status point.

...Refugees without employment do not contribute.

Neither do citizens without employment.

...Applying for and receiving federal aid is a slow process and it isn't very much. Refugees don't come in with a ton of federal money to support them. They apply once here. That leaves them reliant upon local charities and organizations which sponsored them until the federal aid comes through. Most of whom are churches. If a church sponsors them, people in the community are taking care of them until the federal aid comes through. That leaves the people the church usually supports holding the short end of the stick in a small community.

Are you referring to 6 refugees or 100,000 immigrants that the federal government is dumping in a small town and changing laws to fit your argument? Seriously, pick one and stick with it. with the 6 refugees, the church has made arrangements ahead of time. This isn't something being dumped on their lap out of nowhere. With 100,000 immigrants, you have to call out the church for being run by a bunch of morons that decided to try and provide for more people than their backwater town has.

 

[was]

Then your argument makes even less sense. The government isn't going to bring in 100,000 immigrants into any city/town, much less a small one. Immigrants and refugees are very different from a status point.

Neither do citizens without employment.

Are you referring to 6 refugees or 100,000 immigrants that the federal government is dumping in a small town and changing laws to fit your argument? Seriously, pick one and stick with it. with the 6 refugees, the church has made arrangements ahead of time. This isn't something being dumped on their lap out of nowhere. With 100,000 immigrants, you have to call out the church for being run by a bunch of morons that decided to try and provide for more people than their backwater town has.

...Let's keep the discussion a bit more 'civil' please. I am a registered Independent, not one of the conservative Republicans you are intent on rabidly attacking in your posts.

...I was engaged in multiple conversations over several pages. Attempting to wrap all the comments into one argument, will not provide clarity. To recap, these discussions included:

...Postulating what would become of Syria with so many of it's people having fled to other countries.
...The fact that a large portion of the wealthy populace avoids paying the taxes needed to improve the current economic crisis.
...The current economic struggles in the U.S. and the inability of the government to get money to the needy.
...The total number of refugees the government was planning to bring in, as well as, the six mentioned in the article.
...The impact, in general, of refugees upon small vs. large economies.
...The inability of refugees to gain meaningful employment.
...The fact that, no, churches do not always make the proper arrangements ahead of time.

...Comments on unemployed citizens does not support accepting unemployed refugees, which would add to the existing economic burden faced by the country.

..I have nothing against accepting the refugees. I do, however, like to thorougly examine both sides of an issue with an objective eye before making a decision.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

...You need to realize that I was having multiple conversations.

I'd argue that you need to realize you were having multiple conversations, and the one you were having with me was not the same as the ones you were having with others. I'd like to think that you knew you were having multiple conversations and you obviously recognized you were having multiple conversations, but you gave me responses that included responses related to the 6 refugees and 100,000 immigrants without identifying which was which or why you were doing so.

...Postulating what would become of Syria with so many of it's people having fled to other countries.

Not something I was discussing with you. It's pretty obvious if you read our exchanges.

...The fact that a large portion of the wealthy populace avoids the taxes needed to improve the current economic crisis.

Again, not something we were discussing. The responses you gave me had nothing to do with this.

...The current economic struggles in the U.S. and the inability of the government to get money to the needy.

This we can discuss as it relates to our conversation. The fact that the government is not able to get money to the people that need it can make it difficult for refugees to be able to come to the U.S. However, refugees don't get to come into the U.S. without some form of preparation, which includes financial preparation. What's actually worse than the government not being able to get money to the people that need it, is that sometimes the government doesn't want to get money to those that need it. That, unfortunately, is something that happens far too often.

...The total number of refugees the government was planning to bring in, as well as, the six mentioned in the article.

You do realize that the 6 are part of the total number the government is planning on bringing in, right?

...The impact, in general, of refugees upon small vs. large economies.

Interesting. When I asked you how small a town would have to be for 6 refugees to disrupt its economy, you said you were referring to 100,000 immigrants, which as I pointed out are not the same as immigrants. If you want to discuss how refugees would impact a small vs large economies, you should stick to refugees and not confuse them with immigrants, which as I said, come with a variety of difference.

...The inability of refugees to gain meaningful employment.

That's a baseless assumption. There is no reason to believe that refugees would not be able to get jobs. They have a different legal status than other immigrants, and they are able to to legally work.

...The fact that, no, churches do not always make the proper arrangements ahead of time.

It's part of the refugee process. If it's not a church, it's some other charity or organization. Some refugees can avoid this if they have family that is willing to sign an affidavit that they will be responsible for the refugees.

...Stating that the unemployed do not contribute either is not a conversation point, it's being argumentative. It also undercuts your position by pointing out that additional refugees would only add to the existing welfare burden.

It seems you keep confusing refugee with immigrants, and most likely illegal immigrants. There is a difference.

 

[was]

pretty obvious if you read our exchanges

...What is obvious, is the fact that you are passionate about this issue. It's also clearly apparent that you have no intention of actually having an open conversation about it. Since you are determined to take my comments out of context, in order to be derisive and argumentative, I'll terminate my participation in this discussion.

...Good night