GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl
Senior Associate
"How you win matters." Ender, Ender's Game
Joined: Jan 2, 2011 13:33:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,291
|
Post by GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl on Nov 22, 2016 10:43:34 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 22, 2016 11:03:06 GMT -5
It's a nice sentiment.
Devoid of all logic and practicality, which is what I'd expect from a six-year-old.
Precisely the kind of thing policy shouldn't be based on. I'm sorry.
|
|
GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl
Senior Associate
"How you win matters." Ender, Ender's Game
Joined: Jan 2, 2011 13:33:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,291
|
Post by GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl on Nov 22, 2016 11:26:02 GMT -5
I guess I'm all about sentiment, then. Maybe because *I*, as most Americans are, am the child and/or grandchild of immigrants.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,861
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 22, 2016 11:33:34 GMT -5
So am I. They came here legally, learned the language and assimilated. No welfare either.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 4:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2016 11:38:53 GMT -5
It's a nice sentiment. Devoid of all logic and practicality, which is what I'd expect from a six-year-old. Precisely the kind of thing policy shouldn't be based on. I'm sorry. I loved Alex's note because it is so logical and practical. He knows the little boy will need to learn English so Alex will help him . . . along with arithmetic. He doesn't know how to ride a bike so Alex will teach him that as well. But he also knows that the little boy has much to offer in return. But, yeah, policy should be based on cynicism and "what's mine is mine." That's solved so many problems in the past.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 22, 2016 14:33:35 GMT -5
It's a nice sentiment. Devoid of all logic and practicality, which is what I'd expect from a six-year-old. Precisely the kind of thing policy shouldn't be based on. I'm sorry. I loved Alex's note because it is so logical and practical. He knows the little boy will need to learn English so Alex will help him . . . along with arithmetic. He doesn't know how to ride a bike so Alex will teach him that as well. But he also knows that the little boy has much to offer in return. But, yeah, policy should be based on cynicism and "what's mine is mine." That's solved so many problems in the past. For a six-year-old, it's logical and practical enough. For real life: Europe is buckling under enormous problems with their migrant influx. They're facing a surge in violent crime rates, sprawling refugee ghettos, importation of fierce ethnic and religious hatred, a staggering level of unemployment among refugees, and crippling new burdens on their social infrastructure. A boy's kindly sentiment about teaching a Syrian boy math doesn't magically invalidate all of these facts. There are serious risks, problems and costs inherent in refugee migrations, and there is nothing unwise or immoral about self-preservation. Despite having the best intentions in the world, if you pull a man into an overfull lifeboat and it sinks, you've done him no favours and drowned everyone else in the process. What should policy be based on? At the very least, objective studies on North African migration to Europe over the past two years that quantifies how likely each immigrant is to assimilate, how likely each is to find employment, and how much distress each will place on law, civil, and social infrastructure. The numbers I've seen are horrendous. The cost per refugee divides the total resources the US has to spend on foreign charity, and with $1.5 trillion in new public debt and $2.4 trillion in unfunded obligations in 2015 alone, the only reasonable number to put in the numerator is zero. If wealthy private citizens want to sponsor and be fully responsible for the cost and responsibility of repatriating displaced families, accommodations can be made. This would be a logical, practical policy. Not the pipe dreams of a six-year-old. I'm not trying to detract from the boy's kindhearted sentiment, but good feelings are insufficient to do good. Woe to America if this is how Pres. Obama decides whether or not to hike his refugee quota.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,295
|
Post by swamp on Nov 22, 2016 16:05:28 GMT -5
So am I. They came here legally, learned the language and assimilated. No welfare either. I'm sure it takes a few years to assimilate. Give the kid a chance to learn the language. Sounds like Alex is doing a good job helping his friends assimilate.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Nov 22, 2016 16:52:22 GMT -5
So am I. They came here legally, learned the language and assimilated. No welfare either. I'm sure it takes a few years to assimilate. Give the kid a chance to learn the language. Sounds like Alex is doing a good job helping his friends assimilate. Nope, assimilation happens in 5 minutes.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Nov 22, 2016 16:52:31 GMT -5
Many of the recent terror attacks have been perpetrated by U.S Citizens or legal residents who were either immigrants or children of immigrants. Letting in foreign nationals from Syria carries risks, and they should not be ignored. As recent examples prove, the risk and present itself decades down the line.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Nov 22, 2016 22:56:38 GMT -5
Hey, it's a balancing act. We, as a country, have the wherewithal to provide a home and opportunity to a lot of people. We do not, however, have the resources to provide homes and opportunities to unlimited numbers of people. Especially when many of those potential immigrants would, for the short term (maybe a generation), be a net drain on our economy.
America has been a land of opportunity for generations of immigrants. But, even many decades ago, when millions of acres of land were free for the settling, the US limited the number of immigrants we accepted. Because we could not provide opportunity for everyone who wanted that opportunity without destabilizing our society and our economy. And we, as most countries still do today, would only accept immigrants would would not be a burden on our economy.
Immigration? Yes! Unlimited, unrestricted immigration? To my mind, not a good idea.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 23, 2016 8:40:02 GMT -5
Hey, it's a balancing act. We, as a country, have the wherewithal to provide a home and opportunity to a lot of people. We do not, however, have the resources to provide homes and opportunities to unlimited numbers of people. Especially when many of those potential immigrants would, for the short term (maybe a generation), be a net drain on our economy. America has been a land of opportunity for generations of immigrants. But, even many decades ago, when millions of acres of land were free for the settling, the US limited the number of immigrants we accepted. Because we could not provide opportunity for everyone who wanted that opportunity without destabilizing our society and our economy. And we, as most countries still do today, would only accept immigrants would would not be a burden on our economy. Immigration? Yes! Unlimited, unrestricted immigration? To my mind, not a good idea. The people we already have in the country today, legally, who are citizens, are already a burden on our economy. Perhaps we should be helping our own people before we worry about helping everyone else (both in immigration terms, foreign aid, etc). I'm not against the idea of immigration, but we can't give the pantry away to the neighbors while our own kids starve.
Alex's note is clearly illogical, which is ok, he's a kid. "Oh we'll share our toys and teach him English, we'll introduce him to friends and there will be balloons!". Ok, who is paying the kid's medical bills? Who is buying him food? Who's providing his housing? It's easy to have this mindset when the answer to all of those questions is "someone else will pay for that, I'll volunteer them to pay for it because I'm so kind". It's always easier to be compassionate on someone else's dime. It's also a lot more romanticized to help someone in a far-off land than it is to help someone in similar circumstances who lives a couple of miles away.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 4:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 8:47:02 GMT -5
Hey, it's a balancing act. We, as a country, have the wherewithal to provide a home and opportunity to a lot of people. We do not, however, have the resources to provide homes and opportunities to unlimited numbers of people. Especially when many of those potential immigrants would, for the short term (maybe a generation), be a net drain on our economy. America has been a land of opportunity for generations of immigrants. But, even many decades ago, when millions of acres of land were free for the settling, the US limited the number of immigrants we accepted. Because we could not provide opportunity for everyone who wanted that opportunity without destabilizing our society and our economy. And we, as most countries still do today, would only accept immigrants would would not be a burden on our economy. Immigration? Yes! Unlimited, unrestricted immigration? To my mind, not a good idea. The people we already have in the country today, legally, who are citizens, are already a burden on our economy. Perhaps we should be helping our own people before we worry about helping everyone else (both in immigration terms, foreign aid, etc). I'm not against the idea of immigration, but we can't give the pantry away to the neighbors while our own kids starve.
Alex's note is clearly illogical, which is ok, he's a kid. "Oh we'll share our toys and teach him English, we'll introduce him to friends and there will be balloons!". Ok, who is paying the kid's medical bills? Who is buying him food? Who's providing his housing? It's easy to have this mindset when the answer to all of those questions is "someone else will pay for that, I'll volunteer them to pay for it because I'm so kind". It's always easier to be compassionate on someone else's dime. It's also a lot more romanticized to help someone in a far-off land than it is to help someone in similar circumstances who lives a couple of miles away.
Well, from the sound of the note, his family was going to take him in, no? I would assume they would take on his expenses. "We will give him a family and he will be our brother." Yes, it's just one boy. But if the world had the attitude this one child has, just think what a difference that would make.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 23, 2016 10:39:52 GMT -5
In the past, our country didn't have an extensive social safety net. At that time, we attracted immigrants who were interested in opportunity; they knew they'd have to work hard to make it - and they did. What we offered was different so what we attracted was different. We attracted the independent, hard workers and those that weren't didn't thrive. Little risk or cost to the country.
The situation now is different and the immigrants that want to come here are a mix of those that want to work hard to make the most of opportunity and those that know they won't need to work if they can just get the golden ticket of citizenship.
I'm very supportive of immigration. It's what made our country successful and can be part of what continues to make our country successful. I also think we need to either change the social safety net so that we're not attracting and retaining immigrants who are a huge long-term burden or we need to change the way we evaluate who gets to immigrate. Instead of allowing immigration to be random, we should think about what traits make immigrants successful contributors and base our immigration policies on attracting and admitting those contributors. To put it bluntly, since there are millions more who want to come here than we have space for, let's pick the doctors/hard workers/disease free and get the benefits of immigration instead of it being a net burden.
|
|
GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl
Senior Associate
"How you win matters." Ender, Ender's Game
Joined: Jan 2, 2011 13:33:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,291
|
Post by GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl on Nov 23, 2016 10:55:28 GMT -5
In the past, our country didn't have an extensive social safety net. At that time, we attracted immigrants who were interested in opportunity; they knew they'd have to work hard to make it - and they did. What we offered was different so what we attracted was different. We attracted the independent, hard workers and those that weren't didn't thrive. Little risk or cost to the country. The situation now is different and the immigrants that want to come here are a mix of those that want to work hard to make the most of opportunity and those that know they won't need to work if they can just get the golden ticket of citizenship. I'm very supportive of immigration. It's what made our country successful and can be part of what continues to make our country successful. I also think we need to either change the social safety net so that we're not attracting and retaining immigrants who are a huge long-term burden or we need to change the way we evaluate who gets to immigrate. Instead of allowing immigration to be random, we should think about what traits make immigrants successful contributors and base our immigration policies on attracting and admitting those contributors. To put it bluntly, since there are millions more who want to come here than we have space for, let's pick the doctors/hard workers/disease free and get the benefits of immigration instead of it being a net burden. So, no room for genuine refugees or other seeking asylum? We just turn our backs on genuine humanitarian crises? Whose to say refugees won't meet the tests some of you set out: learn the language, assimilate, get a job, etc.? Simply by virtue of being a refugee we automatically assume they will be deadbeats or terrorists?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,861
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 23, 2016 10:59:28 GMT -5
No, there is no room for them. There's no more safety net that's used and abused. You had to have a job, a sponsor, and some cash on you when you entered this country. You weren't allowed to become a taxpayer burden. We don't take care of our own people. DD was shocked that I wouldn't pay for her to go to Haiti and do medical help. I told her I'd pay for her to go to rural Applachia and help. Or somewhere in this country.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 23, 2016 11:15:06 GMT -5
In the past, our country didn't have an extensive social safety net. At that time, we attracted immigrants who were interested in opportunity; they knew they'd have to work hard to make it - and they did. What we offered was different so what we attracted was different. We attracted the independent, hard workers and those that weren't didn't thrive. Little risk or cost to the country. The situation now is different and the immigrants that want to come here are a mix of those that want to work hard to make the most of opportunity and those that know they won't need to work if they can just get the golden ticket of citizenship. I'm very supportive of immigration. It's what made our country successful and can be part of what continues to make our country successful. I also think we need to either change the social safety net so that we're not attracting and retaining immigrants who are a huge long-term burden or we need to change the way we evaluate who gets to immigrate. Instead of allowing immigration to be random, we should think about what traits make immigrants successful contributors and base our immigration policies on attracting and admitting those contributors. To put it bluntly, since there are millions more who want to come here than we have space for, let's pick the doctors/hard workers/disease free and get the benefits of immigration instead of it being a net burden. So, no room for genuine refugees or other seeking asylum? We just turn our backs on genuine humanitarian crises? Whose to say refugees won't meet the tests some of you set out: learn the language, assimilate, get a job, etc.? Simply by virtue of being a refugee we automatically assume they will be deadbeats or terrorists? There are more refugees and people seeking asylum than we can support. There's no reason we shouldn't pick from the huge pool the ones that are most likely to be successful. There's no reason we need to take refugees on a first-come-first-served basis. I'm not in the group that assumes they'll be deadbeats or terrorists. I joined the pro-immigration marches in Phoenix ten years ago (and was sometimes the only white person there in crowds of 100,000+.) I support immigration and will welcome a taco truck on every corner.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Nov 23, 2016 11:51:21 GMT -5
Immigration needs to be a planned process.
What do we want from immigration? What benefit will it provide to us and society at large? How many immigrants/refugees can we support? Are there enough jobs and housing for them?
I'm not opposed to legal, well thought out immigration. In fact, I think we should use our "shining city on the hill" status to plunder the world's talent.
I'm not opposed to even some humanitarian immigration, as long as the numbers are manageable, and the process is planned and thought out. And as Milee said, since everyone agrees that we can't accept all refugees, we need to have criteria to select particular refugees, or otherwise just treat it as a lottery.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 23, 2016 12:07:32 GMT -5
Right now, immigration to the US is actually exactly that - a lottery. Random and nonsensical.
If we want to both benefit ourselves and to help others, we should also look at alternative possibilities. Instead of the process just being a random lottery, maybe we could help greater numbers of people and ourselves with innovative programs. For example, maybe it makes the most economic and social sense to admit the highly skilled and/or hardest working immigrants to the US where not only the US benefits but the immigrants have the most chance to be successful themselves. In addition, we also sponsor groups of other immigrants to take up residency in other countries where their language isn't a barrier and where the $2000 seed money we give them enables them to start their own small business and be successful in that country. Don't know if that would make sense - obviously would need a lot more thought and study - but seems worth looking at rather than our current policies which don't benefit us and set many of the immigrants up for a cycle of poverty in the US.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 23, 2016 12:56:57 GMT -5
Alex's note is clearly illogical, which is ok, he's a kid. "Oh we'll share our toys and teach him English, we'll introduce him to friends and there will be balloons!". Ok, who is paying the kid's medical bills? Who is buying him food? Who's providing his housing? It's easy to have this mindset when the answer to all of those questions is "someone else will pay for that, I'll volunteer them to pay for it because I'm so kind". It's always easier to be compassionate on someone else's dime. It's also a lot more romanticized to help someone in a far-off land than it is to help someone in similar circumstances who lives a couple of miles away.
One of my friends has interesting gatherings because her friends are always very interesting, strong women on all ends of the political and social spectrum. A couple of years ago, she proposed we all learn a new card game so we could start a card league. The game was Euchre - apparently it's popular in the Midwest, but most of us had never heard of it; it's similar to bridge but less complicated. Of the 10 women, about half were what could be classified as fiscal conservatives and the other half were vocal liberals. Within a few weeks, all of the fiscal conservatives learned the game and were playing with at least some skill but not a single one of the liberals could play at more than a very basic level. Very surprising since all were smart women. We limped along for several months but with half the group not being able to play without extensive help, things eventually fell apart and we went back to just drinking wine and socializing rather than trying to play cards. I didn't know some of the women well enough to know who was conservative and who was liberal, so none of this struck me as odd. It was my friend the organizer who talked to me about it later, pointing it out and wondering if there was possibly a correlation there. Her theory was that the people who were fiscal conservatives were fiscal conservatives because they were thinking through the financial consequences of certain actions, not because they were "mean" or "uncaring". The fiscal conservatives were people who tended to think about long term strategy, not just the current move/emotion. She also thought that the liberals were the people who weren't able to fully comprehend the fiscal consequences of certain actions or who were just reacting to something they felt strongly about without considering the next 5 moves. I'm not sure I fully agree with that and think it's a too harsh assessment. But it does come to mind when people talk about immigration. The choices about immigration aren't either/or. We don't have to decide between being racist, selfish xenophobes or pretending like we have unlimited resources and immigration poses no risk. We can - and should - develop a middle ground. Welcome immigrants and seek to reach out to refugees and people needing asylum while also doing it in a way that benefits the most people, including both US and foreign citizens. That's just common sense.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,861
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 23, 2016 13:22:22 GMT -5
I vote for giving them 2k and letting them go to another country or stay in their own.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 23, 2016 15:23:36 GMT -5
I vote for giving them 2k and letting them go to another country or stay in their own. "Here's $2,000.00 US to sod off. Please don't spend it on terrorism." You're making this too complicated. Question: Does the US have the financial means to support its existing social infrastructure and entitlements? Answer: No. Clearly, no. You're running up astronomical deficits at all levels of government; your entitlement programs are fearfully underfunded; your healthcare system is falling apart with no clear way forward. The answer is flat-out no. Question: Can a nation without the financial means to support its existing social infrastructure and entitlements afford to load new freight onto its books? Answer: No. Question: If a nation's current system is unsustainable and will inevitably break down, leaving hundreds of millions of citizens destitute and vulnerable, should such a nation prioritize the needs of non-citizens? Answer: You tell me, because this is exactly the situation you're in and exactly what's being proposed here. To me the answer is clear: build your own home and then help your neighbour build his. Public charity is nice, but you cannot afford it.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 23, 2016 15:35:30 GMT -5
I vote for giving them 2k and letting them go to another country or stay in their own. "Here's $2,000.00 US to sod off. Please don't spend it on terrorism." You're making this too complicated. Question: Does the US have the financial means to support its existing social infrastructure and entitlements? Answer: No. Clearly, no. You're running up astronomical deficits at all levels of government; your entitlement programs are fearfully underfunded; your healthcare system is falling apart with no clear way forward. The answer is flat-out no. Question: Can a nation without the financial means to support its existing social infrastructure and entitlements afford to load new freight onto its books? Answer: No. Question: If a nation's current system is unsustainable and will inevitably break down, leaving hundreds of millions of citizens destitute and vulnerable, should such a nation prioritize the needs of non-citizens? Answer: You tell me, because this is exactly the situation you're in and exactly what's being proposed here. To me the answer is clear: build your own home and then help your neighbour build his. Public charity is nice, but you cannot afford it. I think there's room for both. We can build our own home and also help our neighbors, too. Immigration is a founding idea of this country, it benefits this country and it's just the right thing to do (yes, simplistic, but true.) I strongly support immigration. I strongly support a path to citizenship for people that are already here, working and contributing or were brought here as children who had no say in the decision. I strongly support providing refuge to people who need it. I also recognize our resources are limited and think we should do more to tailor our immigration policies to encourage immigrants who will both be a long term benefit to us and who will be successful contributors here.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 23, 2016 15:43:11 GMT -5
Part of my sentiment comes from thinking about the immigrants I've known. They've all been incredibly hard working people who were net contributors to society. Not all were high earners, but all were consistent workers who also raised good people who also contributed or will contribute to society. If we have many, many applications for every one immigration opening, why wouldn't we want to find and admit people like that? And conversely, if our aim is humanitarian and we now know how hard it is for some immigrants to assimilate, how high the crime and poverty cycle is in some areas of the US, why would we want to admit immigrants who are almost certain to end up trapped in that cycle? It would be like admitting functionally illiterate students to Harvard - they will not succeed and all we do is spend a lot of money, destroy their self esteem and put them through hell in the process - cruel and a waste for all involved.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,357
|
Post by Tiny on Nov 23, 2016 15:48:10 GMT -5
So am I. They came here legally, learned the language and assimilated. No welfare either. Yep, they probably did that out of fear not out of 'longing to be American' - fear of being spit on and told to "go back where they belonged" or fear of NOT being hired for some crappy job.
Good thing they were able to learn the language and quickly learned how to 'pass' - I bet they just needed a 'clothing change' and maybe a hair cut to look just like everyone else.
Good thing there was some crappy job that the real Americans didn't want to do that they could do (can you say work in a slaughter house, or sweatshop, or canning factory, or some other dangerous industrial or mining job)
Maybe, even a good thing they had some relatives (or friends of relatives) already settled here so they could 'land' in a place with people who spoke the same language/had the same traditions. If they were lucky they might even be able to 'room' with the friends/relatives until they got settled, got some money and could find a place of their own.
Maybe your ancestors were wealthy and upper class before they came here and so weren't afraid of physical harm when they came here... mine weren't rich/upper class - they landed in a neighborhood filled with other immigrants from the same place they were.
Also, you DO realize that the immigrants who came here from Europe - tended to settle in a place and then they would 'make' that place be like where they came from? The shops all had signage in their language of origin. The schools taught the kids the "mother tongue". Their places of worship used their "mother tongue" and had the customs of the 'homeland'. their neighborhoods celebrated holidays/life events JUST like they did back in the homeland? Right?
That's not much different than the current immigrants.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,357
|
Post by Tiny on Nov 23, 2016 15:52:53 GMT -5
I vote for giving them 2k and letting them go to another country or stay in their own. since I suspect you mean people from Mexico/South America - you're going to have to pay them more to leave.... I hear it cost about 5K to get here illegally. They can earn a whole hell of lot more than 2K if they stay. Besides the 2K won't get them back home NOR is it enough to send home to their relatives.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,861
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 23, 2016 16:05:12 GMT -5
So am I. They came here legally, learned the language and assimilated. No welfare either. Yep, they probably did that out of fear not out of 'longing to be American' - fear of being spit on and told to "go back where they belonged" or fear of NOT being hired for some crappy job.
Good thing they were able to learn the language and quickly learned how to 'pass' - I bet they just needed a 'clothing change' and maybe a hair cut to look just like everyone else.
Good thing there was some crappy job that the real Americans didn't want to do that they could do (can you say work in a slaughter house, or sweatshop, or canning factory, or some other dangerous industrial or mining job)
Maybe, even a good thing they had some relatives (or friends of relatives) already settled here so they could 'land' in a place with people who spoke the same language/had the same traditions. If they were lucky they might even be able to 'room' with the friends/relatives until they got settled, got some money and could find a place of their own.
Maybe your ancestors were wealthy and upper class before they came here and so weren't afraid of physical harm when they came here... mine weren't rich/upper class - they landed in a neighborhood filled with other immigrants from the same place they were.
Also, you DO realize that the immigrants who came here from Europe - tended to settle in a place and then they would 'make' that place be like where they came from? The shops all had signage in their language of origin. The schools taught the kids the "mother tongue". Their places of worship used their "mother tongue" and had the customs of the 'homeland'. their neighborhoods celebrated holidays/life events JUST like they did back in the homeland? Right?
That's not much different than the current immigrants.
Nope. Mine were poor as dirt and orphans. Ages 14-20. But 14 was considered an adult and my dad went to work
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,861
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 23, 2016 16:06:01 GMT -5
I vote for giving them 2k and letting them go to another country or stay in their own. since I suspect you mean people from Mexico/South America - you're going to have to pay them more to leave.... I hear it cost about 5K to get here illegally. They can earn a whole hell of lot more than 2K if they stay. Besides the 2K won't get them back home NOR is it enough to send home to their relatives.
I don't have to pay them a thing. They'll be leaving soon hopefully.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 23, 2016 16:14:55 GMT -5
"Here's $2,000.00 US to sod off. Please don't spend it on terrorism." You're making this too complicated. Question: Does the US have the financial means to support its existing social infrastructure and entitlements? Answer: No. Clearly, no. You're running up astronomical deficits at all levels of government; your entitlement programs are fearfully underfunded; your healthcare system is falling apart with no clear way forward. The answer is flat-out no. Question: Can a nation without the financial means to support its existing social infrastructure and entitlements afford to load new freight onto its books? Answer: No. Question: If a nation's current system is unsustainable and will inevitably break down, leaving hundreds of millions of citizens destitute and vulnerable, should such a nation prioritize the needs of non-citizens? Answer: You tell me, because this is exactly the situation you're in and exactly what's being proposed here. To me the answer is clear: build your own home and then help your neighbour build his. Public charity is nice, but you cannot afford it. I think there's room for both. We can build our own home and also help our neighbors, too. Immigration is a founding idea of this country, it benefits this country and it's just the right thing to do (yes, simplistic, but true.) I strongly support immigration. I strongly support a path to citizenship for people that are already here, working and contributing or were brought here as children who had no say in the decision. I strongly support providing refuge to people who need it. I also recognize our resources are limited and think we should do more to tailor our immigration policies to encourage immigrants who will both be a long term benefit to us and who will be successful contributors here. I'm saying that you should base the decision to import North African refugees on the numbers coming out of Europe. They are not good. Get a qualified team to confirm the numbers, but if their conclusion comes back "Yes, the unemployment, crime, administrative costs, and social costs are as big a net liability as they appear to be." then why are you obligated to take a single refugee? Surely some refugees would be net contributors, especially trained professionals, but consider: - Stripping a displaced people of their professionals and talent is as objectionable as leaving the entire group to fend for itself. You're all but guaranteeing that the majority you don't spirit away are going to have a harder time resettling and rebuilding anywhere--including back in Syria.
- Even if picking out the professionals was a conscionable option, there are logistical and bureaucratic hurdles that prevent them from plying their trade in the US. They have no capital. Most can't provide records of professional certification, let alone credentials sufficient to grant them professional status on US soil. Many don't speak functional English. Non-professionals will lie through their teeth in order to be considered, and as we already know, getting the Syrian ministries to forge documents is already a booming business.
Immigration is necessarily a slow, methodical process incompatible with mass refugee migrations. Legal migrants are generally an ambitious, skilled, proactive lot with a desire to immigrate, to assimilate, and to thrive. The North African refugees, from everything I've seen, are the polar opposite. They're slack and uninterested in hard work. They hold western values in contempt. They have no desire to immigrate save for the fact that they have nowhere else to go, and no desire to assimilate. Get some official studies to confirm it, but once you do, you owe them nothing.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 23, 2016 16:16:54 GMT -5
I vote for giving them 2k and letting them go to another country or stay in their own. since I suspect you mean people from Mexico/South America - you're going to have to pay them more to leave.... I hear it cost about 5K to get here illegally. They can earn a whole hell of lot more than 2K if they stay. Besides the 2K won't get them back home NOR is it enough to send home to their relatives.
I was the one that threw out the $2k suggestion. Wasn't intended as a "go away" payoff and I was actually thinking about Syrian refugees. Could be naive but seemed it was worth investigating if there were any other countries which shared common languages and would be open to accepting them if they just had a little seed money to help them get started.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 23, 2016 16:26:30 GMT -5
Virgil, my only hesitation about using the studies to impute motives to 100% of refugees is that behavior can and will be significantly impacted if refugees are accepted and housed en masse in camps (much of Europe) or on a smaller basis. I think - but have no data to support - that individuals living in a community will behave differently than refugees with no hope of assimilation living in a mass camp.
And the professionals? Doctors and hard workers languishing in the camps aren't helping the refugees either so I don't find it unconscionable in the least to let them come to a place where they can thrive. I've never been one to trust certification so think it would be better to rely on competency testing for not just immigrants but citizens as well.
|
|