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

[Cor Azer]

Yep. They donated about 20-30 million in cash and sent some supplies. Big whoop. The U.S. and U.S. organizations gave 3.16 billion for the Tsunami relief for the 2004 tsunami.

I'm not an economist by any means, but I don't think it's a poor assumption that the US has a slightly larger GDP (or whatever metric is used to measure the size of an economy) than even some other first world countries like Canada and the UK; sometimes looking at percentages is more telling than the absolute numbers.

There's an old parable about who's more generous - the man with a million dollars who donates $200, or the beggar with $100 to his name but donates it all?

 

[Nagol]

Yep. They donated about 20-30 million in cash and sent some supplies. Big whoop. The U.S. and U.S. organizations gave 3.16 billion for the Tsunami relief for the 2004 tsunami.

Actually about $850 million was pledged. About half that was collected by the U.S. and those figures do not include the emergency relief manpower sent in the immediate aftermath or aid collected by non-government agencies.

An article in the April 29, 2007 Washington Post claimed that of the $854 million offered by foreign countries, whom the article dubs "allies," to the US Government, only $40 million of the funds had been spent "for disaster victims or reconstruction" as of the date of publication (less than 5%).[57]

Additionally, a large portion of the $854 million in aid offered went uncollected, including over $400 million in oil (almost 50%).[57]

 

[Maxperson]

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?

There's a big difference between a few people being that bitter and something that actually promotes radicalism. The existence of Cherios can cause some people to buy it. Ads about Cherios promote it. Our refusal would not be a promotion of radicalism. It just wouldn't. Would a few already mentally unstable people go radical and blame us instead of the multiple other countries refusing to take them in? Sure.

 

[Maxperson]

How ungrateful.

Let me backpedal a bit. I was responding to a post that implied that the aid sent to us was somehow equal to what we send. It isn't even remotely close. As a comparison, the amount we received amounted to a "big whoop." It was in that context that I responded.

Of course I appreciate and am grateful for help, no matter the amount. That said, I do believe that we need to take care of our own homeless and impoverished before we take care of those from other countries. We have the ability to do both, but it would mean we do less (not nothing) for others.

 

[Maxperson]

Actually about $850 million was pledged. About half that was collected by the U.S. and those figures do not include the emergency relief manpower sent in the immediate aftermath or aid collected by non-government agencies.

An article in the April 29, 2007 Washington Post claimed that of the $854 million offered by foreign countries, whom the article dubs "allies," to the US Government, only $40 million of the funds had been spent "for disaster victims or reconstruction" as of the date of publication (less than 5%).[57]

Additionally, a large portion of the $854 million in aid offered went uncollected, including over $400 million in oil (almost 50%).[57]

So 40 million was spent on recovery over three years. Did that article say why the money wasn't collected?

 

[tomBitonti]

There's a big difference between a few people being that bitter and something that actually promotes radicalism. The existence of Cherios can cause some people to buy it. Ads about Cherios promote it. Our refusal would not be a promotion of radicalism. It just wouldn't. Would a few already mentally unstable people go radical and blame us instead of the multiple other countries refusing to take them in? Sure.

There is another way to think about what you wrote. Instead of looking at whether not taking refugees promotes radicalism, look at whether taking them in undercuts it, then whether not taking them in is a failure to undercut radicalism. That may seem awfully picky about word choice, since the measurable outcome may be the same, but the meanings are very different.

Thx
TomB

 

[Maxperson]

There is another way to think about what you wrote. Instead of looking at whether not taking refugees promotes radicalism, look at whether taking them in undercuts it, then whether not taking them in is a failure to undercut radicalism. That may seem awfully picky about word choice, since the measurable outcome may be the same, but the meanings are very different.

Thx
TomB

This is the way I see it. Russia has refused Syrian refugees. Israel has refused to take Syrian refugees. If someone will be radicalized by a refusal to take refugees, it's going to happen anyway and Israel is a bigger focal point of hatred than even the U.S. If they aren't going to be radicalized by a refusal by any country, but only a refusal by the U.S., then their hatred is already set and they'll most likely radicalize anyway.

 

[tomBitonti]

This is the way I see it. Russia has refused Syrian refugees. Israel has refused to take Syrian refugees. If someone will be radicalized by a refusal to take refugees, it's going to happen anyway and Israel is a bigger focal point of hatred than even the U.S. If they aren't going to be radicalized by a refusal by any country, but only a refusal by the U.S., then their hatred is already set and they'll most likely radicalize anyway.

What if the the effect of radicalism happens without our doing anything? There are lots of actors who are not the US promoting it. We could do things to promote it, but let's say we aren't doing any such things.

Then what if we could do things to undercut it? And what if taking in refugees is one such thing?

Thx!
TomB

 

[Jester David]

The refugee issue makes me sad. This has been repeated time and time again, and history is never favourable to turning a blind eye to human suffering. We don't need to look back too far to see the horror that often happens from refusing aid, with the most famous reminder being that Anne Frank and her family were refused entry into the US:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-annefrank-letters-idUSN1430569220070214

How many Anne Franks are we turning away this time?

That said, I do believe that we need to take care of our own homeless and impoverished before we take care of those from other countries. We have the ability to do both, but it would mean we do less (not nothing) for others.

I hate that argument/ talking point.

As you say, it's possible to do both. Amazing things could be done domestically to help the homeless for a few hundred million.
But most of the time it's just a dismissal. If something were done locally it'd be different, but too often there's no follow through or attempt to actually help the disenfranchised. ("Yeah, I could wash the dishes. But why should I do the dishes when I'm haven't vacuumed? I should do the vacuuming before I do the dishes. So off to Netflix I guess.")

Also, it's really, really insulting. Super insulting. It's effectively equating the two problems, and thus comparing refugees to the homeless.
That's super problematic as the two groups are very different. The homeless issue is incredibly complex and "fixing" it involves touching on a whole lot of problems including treating mental illness, addiction, social support systems, rent programs, employment programs, and so many other factors. It's really hard for a federal government to fix when so much involves many different departments, state/provincial groups, and local cooperation.
Meanwhile, the refugee problem is much simpler. The why they have no homes and jobs is apparent. And making progress on fixing the issue can be handled federally or more locally.

Also, refugees are brave people. They're giving up everything to leave their homes and travel across the world in the hopes of a better life. They're dedicated, driven, and ambitious. That's the kind of people you need and want in your countries. The kind of people who aren't going to just sit and accept a bad life but actively try to improve their situation.
(Which might be why, historically, following an influx of refugees a county's economic situation has generally improved.)

They're also pretty anti-ISIS and terror. If they were pro-terror the easy way to improve their life would have been to stay home and join a local militia or cell. But they chose the opposite route. They actively chose a different path. Again, those are people you want to support.

 

[Nagol]

So 40 million was spent on recovery over three years. Did that article say why the money wasn't collected?

Seemingly multiple hundreds of millions received and 40 million spent by the article's publication, yes.

Not specifically stated, but there a bunch of typical reasons:

1) the pledge can't be delivered without running afoul of other laws. Part of Britain's pledge was pre-packaged meals which couldn't be imported because of Mad Cow importation restrictions, for example.
2) political shifts in the pledging country between when the pledge is made and the time to deliver
3) materials pledged are effectively worthless to the receiver, for example some African aid over the years was clothing made for a western European climate and culture. Dress shoes, particularly high heels, offered little value to the recipients.
4) the pledge comes with triggers or conditions which didn't occur / weren't acceptable
5) the receiving country makes no effort to receive the aid because of pride or political appearances -- taking aid from an enemy, appearing weak, etc.