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

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

...What is obvious, is the fact that you are passionate about this issue.

Passionate? I guess, but not really. Knowledgeable? Yes.

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.

Not true. I've given you information regarding differences between refugees and immigrants. It seems that you have decided this information is somehow an attack on you. I'm not sure why.

...Good night

Peace out, homie.

 

[Ryujin]

.. I agree that immigrants do work hard and add value to an economy, WHEN they have employment. Speaking only from experiences in my area of the U.S., most refugees have had problems securing steady employment. There's a teacher down the hall from me who immigrated from Iraq. She teaches eighth-grade Algebra. She's continually telling me about refugees from her community who are unable to find work.

Then maybe your area is a poor choice for settlement? Or maybe it's that they are specifically looking for jobs in fields that do not require additional workforce at this time? Or maybe, just maybe, the people having trouble finding work are a representative percentage of the workforce, as a whole, who are having difficulty finding work? There are many explanations for that, which don't support your premise. That's the problem with anecdotal evidence.

 

[tomBitonti]

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.

Not to affirm or refute the quoted text, but as a hook for my reply ...

Cost is a fine approach. But you have to take a wide view when estimating the cost or benefit of a response.

When looking at cost, not bringing in refugees has a cost, too. Straining foreign relations. Or making foreigners less likely to help against terrorism, or perhaps encouraging radicalism.

A tragedy of terrorism is that it provokes responses that are self injurious. The issue wth respect to refugees seems to be a very good example of this.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Maxperson]

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

Yeah. That difference is in why they left their county and our inability to deport them.

http://www.ssi.org.au/faqs/refugee-faqs/148-what-is-the-difference-between-a-refugee-and-a-migrant

http://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/world/what-is-difference-migrants-refugees/

http://www.unhcr.org/55df0e556.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/world/migrants-refugees-europe-syria.html?_r=0

 

[Maxperson]

When looking at cost, not bringing in refugees has a cost, too. Straining foreign relations. Or making foreigners less likely to help against terrorism, or perhaps encouraging radicalism.

Going into a country and toppling its government promotes radicalism. However, allowing radicals to take over the middle east also promotes radicalism. Not taking in refugees does not promote radicalism. That region already hates us and allowing some refugees in doesn't change that. With regard to Syria, there really aren't any relations to strain. With regard to help with terrorism, that region outside of Israel generally only pays lip service with their help anyway.

 

[tomBitonti]

Going into a country and toppling its government promotes radicalism.

This I mostly agree with. In theory, I can see removing a despotic government as a positive, but in practice it doesn't seem to work out. Removing a representative government certain would promote radicalism.

However, allowing radicals to take over the middle east also promotes radicalism.

Agreed, but, this statement is nearly meaningless. "Allowing" implies that a step could be taken to prevent the outcome. Without comparison to that step, there isn't much to say.

Not taking in refugees does not promote radicalism.

This I wholly disagree with. Especially when we convey ourselves as helpful. Also, making friends with a community would rather seem to improve our effectiveness in working against radicalism (and against terrorism on the whole).

That region already hates us and allowing some refugees in doesn't change that.

I dunno about that. Certainly lots of folks in the world are unhappy with us. But generalizing that to the region seems a stretch.

With regard to Syria, there really aren't any relations to strain. With regard to help with terrorism, that region outside of Israel generally only pays lip service with their help anyway.

Also, I wholly disagree with this. Relations aren't just with Syria the country, but with many different groups in and about Syria, and with other countries all over the world. Russia and China, the EU, &etc. There is a whole tapestry of relations to consider.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Valador]

As a veteran and a Texan, I do not feel we should allow any "refugees" in when we have tons of homeless civilians and even worse, homeless veterans living on the streets with very little support. These people fought for their country and are living on the streets, meanwhile we're giving handouts to people who fled their country rather than fight for it. Screw that.

You see photos of all these refugees and 95% of them are fighting age men. Where are the women and children? Fight for your damn country.

I'm tired of the USA trying to wipe everyones butt and change their diapers. Stop trying to be big brother and world police. We need to focus on making our nation great again.

This is coming from someone who experiences dealing with tons of immigrants. I've also served in the US Army and have seen a big chunk of our world and it's people. You would be amazed at how much money and support we give to our "allies" and yet there's really nothing given in return from a lot of them, i.e. a lot of these poor Eastern European countries that look like a Soviet version of Fallout 3. Half the people we're allied with I wouldn't even want fighting beside us, as they would be more of a hindrance.

But, it's not my call... Every time someone gets hit by a tsunami we're going to send them a ton of money. Any time people refuse to fight for their own people and country we're going to baby them. Any time two idiot countries fight we're going to provide weapons to them, creating terrorist cells in the process, all while trying to take the guns away from our people here at home. I never see countries lining up to help out the USA in hard times...

The USA has fallen a long way, especially now with all of the mess revolving around Islamic extremist. I know here locally where I live people are trying to establish Sharia courts... GTFO of here...

End rant...

 

[Ryujin]

You see, this is the sort of rant that sets me off. When Hurricane Katrina hit, there were non American rescue workers on-site. More than one thousand Canadian emergency workers, Coast Guard, and military personnel were there. Vancouver's HUSAR team was there before the US Federal Government's response. When the towers fell, hundreds of Canadian emergency workers jumped in cars, buses, fire trucks... whatever came to hand, and responded. Regular citizens in Newfoundland put up hundreds of Americans who were stuck when flights were grounded after the attacks. Canadians helped rebuild in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. When America needs help, they get it.

As to the "disarming of America" it wouldn't be necessary to change the way that you think about firearms, if you weren't killing each other with them in ridiculously high numbers.

 

[Morrus]

You see photos of all these refugees and 95% of them are fighting age men. Where are the women and children? Fight for your damn country.

95% are fighting age men? What? And you're basing all this on a couple of photographs you saw? There are LOTS of women and children refugees. Where are you imagining they disappeared to? Are the 95% fighting age men hiding them in suitcases?

You would be amazed at how much money and support we give to our "allies" and yet there's really nothing given in return from a lot of them,

Guess what, us "allies" (scare quotes? what's that about?) have assisted you, come to your aid, and fought in your wars for you. And this is how you respond? Really?

But, it's not my call... Every time someone gets hit by a tsunami we're going to send them a ton of money. Any time people refuse to fight for their own people and country we're going to baby them. Any time two idiot countries fight we're going to provide weapons to them, creating terrorist cells in the process, all while trying to take the guns away from our people here at home. I never see countries lining up to help out the USA in hard times...

You never see countries lining up to help out the USA in hard times? Really? Really? You'd have to try *very* hard not to see all the aid you were given after Katrina, after 9/11, how we've all supported your wars. Money, food, manpower, military aid, the works; not to mention the regular folks like me who gave charitable donations to help you, although that's just small potatoes to what plenty did to help you.

And you saw none of this? And you saw no women and children in any refugee photographs, so therefore there aren't any? And you refer to us, your allies, as "allies" in sarcastic scare quotes?

 

[Umbran]

Not taking in refugees does not promote radicalism.

Says the man who has not been displaced from his life and job by war, and spent years living in tent cities and/or as an indigent, while people drop bombs back on the homeland that each cost the equivalent of several years of your income...

As if that kind of life wouldn't, over *years* not make someone rather angry? Really?