Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 11:30:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 16:42:36 GMT -5
One problem is that all of the developed countries tend to view these immigrants as burdens on their economies, etc. It may very well be true, but what's to become of them if no country is willing to accept the burden? Do we as civilized human beings send them back?
There's the concept of doing our fair share. It isn't fair to ask Europe to assimilate them if we aren't willing to as well. It's not Europe's problem alone simply because they are geographically closer.
Sure, it's be nice for us as a country and society if we cherry picked only the "best." Never mind that it's hard to become a doctor or even get a basic education if you live in a war-torn society.
The answer's not easy, but Alex has the right starting point. These are people.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 23, 2016 17:02:07 GMT -5
Europe made a huge mistake in allowing themselves to be overrun and burdened. They brought crime and disease and no desire to assimilate whatsoever.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Nov 23, 2016 17:11:09 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.
The people who usually make this argument are the loudest opponents of programs designed to help our own poor. "Immigrants need help!" "We should be helping our own poor." "Inner city kids are not being fed so we should give them free breakfast and lunch at school!" "I'm not paying more taxes just to let these crappy parents off the hook."
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 23, 2016 17:46:49 GMT -5
Correct.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 23, 2016 17:48:35 GMT -5
If Alex's family is willing to feed, house, provide medical care and education for a "refugee " so that they don't become a burden on society, go for it
|
|
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 18:05:44 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. An immigration policy has to consider the people left behind as well as the people taken. Suppose the fighting in Syria ends 8 months from now, and a sizable number of the refugees that have gathered around the Mediterranean decide to head back and rebuild. That's not going to be an easy task, and it will be all the more difficult if nations have stripped out the doctors, engineers, businessmen, skilled labourers, et al. as part of selective immigration programs. There's going to be a severe shortage of technical talent, and the only two ways to deal with this are either to ignore it, in which case we've crippled Syria's ability to rebuild, or to send over technical talent equivalent to the talent we stripped out, meaning we've just wasted billions vetting and resettling people only to waste billions more sending them (or others) back overseas. As for licensing based on competency rather than credentials, while I agree that it's a good idea in principle, I don't see it happening on any reasonable timetable. If the US got started today on comprehensive foreign equivalency testing/legislation, it might be ready for deployment a decade from now. This is assuming professional associations in the US were willing participants, which I highly doubt. Remember, these are credentials people spend years of study and hundreds of thousands of dollars obtaining in an extremely competitive environment. If all a refugee has to do to obtain the same credentials is pass a few tests, either the tests are going to be brutal to the point where they demonstrate competency at the level of a US professional with a top-tier education, or you're going to have a lot of outraged professionals. Since it'd be the US professionals to write the tests, I'm guessing the former.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 23, 2016 19:15:40 GMT -5
One problem is that all of the developed countries tend to view these immigrants as burdens on their economies, etc. It may very well be true, but what's to become of them if no country is willing to accept the burden? Do we as civilized human beings send them back? There's the concept of doing our fair share. It isn't fair to ask Europe to assimilate them if we aren't willing to as well. It's not Europe's problem alone simply because they are geographically closer. .... The answer's not easy, but Alex has the right starting point. These are people. Not sure that's a tack you want to take given that the US hasn't received much - if any - help from Europe in assimilating the estimated 11 million undocumented people from Central and South America that the US has been hosting over the past few decades. That's a fair share of people that the US has taken on and continues to struggle with. But it's been the US' problem alone simply because we are geographically closer to Central and South America... that's sort of how the logistics of illegal immigration and refugees have tended to work. Mexicans, Hondurans, Guatemalans, Salvadorans, Syrians... they're all people. I'm just not sure between the US and Europe, there are enough resources to handle 100% of the people, so to me, it makes sense to figure out how the limited resources we have can be best put to use not just for our country but for the people we'd like to help.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 23, 2016 19:26:03 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. An immigration policy has to consider the people left behind as well as the people taken. Suppose the fighting in Syria ends 8 months from now, and a sizable number of the refugees that have gathered around the Mediterranean decide to head back and rebuild. That's not going to be an easy task, and it will be all the more difficult if nations have stripped out the doctors, engineers, businessmen, skilled labourers, et al. as part of selective immigration programs. There's going to be a severe shortage of technical talent, and the only two ways to deal with this are either to ignore it, in which case we've crippled Syria's ability to rebuild, or to send over technical talent equivalent to the talent we stripped out, meaning we've just wasted billions vetting and resettling people only to waste billions more sending them (or others) back overseas. As for licensing based on competency rather than credentials, while I agree that it's a good idea in principle, I don't see it happening on any reasonable timetable. If the US got started today on comprehensive foreign equivalency testing/legislation, it might be ready for deployment a decade from now. This is assuming professional associations in the US were willing participants, which I highly doubt. Remember, these are credentials people spend years of study and hundreds of thousands of dollars obtaining in an extremely competitive environment. If all a refugee has to do to obtain the same credentials is pass a few tests, either the tests are going to be brutal to the point where they demonstrate competency at the level of a US professional with a top-tier education, or you're going to have a lot of outraged professionals. Since it'd be the US professionals to write the tests, I'm guessing the former. Nothing would force refugees to stay in a host country. If there is a group of refugees that gather, decide to head back and rebuild, both the ones remaining in camps and the people who have been accepted into host nations would be welcome to make that choice for themselves and go back if they choose. The idea that we leave them rotting in a camp because in the future there might be a group that might decide to head back seems pretty harsh. Why not go ahead and help/accept the ones we can help and if they later want to go help rebuild, then Godspeed to them. There already are plenty of competency based tests in practice, such as the medical boards and the CPA exam. No reason we couldn't provide programs that assist language development to allow professionals to pass these exams. I have a friend who was a doctor in the Netherlands, moved here to the US a few years ago and just passed the board exam to be a doc here for example. Since she was already a practicing doc, the content of the exam wasn't the issue, she mostly needed to work on her English language and vocabulary skills. Not that this would be a simple thing, just pointing out there are already some ready made competency exams and more could be developed. Also, I should be clear that although I used doctor as an extreme example because it's easily understood by everyone, I wouldn't recommend we limit the search to just professions like doctors. I think if we do some studies of ways that prior US immigrants have been successful, we'd find some other traits and commonalities. Throwing out some ideas but we might find that married couples who have baking or restaurant experience in their prior country tended to replicate that well in the US, so we look for that. Or that women who were washerwomen in their prior country tended to be successful in the US because they easily found jobs in the US, were rarely arrested and raised high achieving children, so we look for them. Without doing the research I don't know what we'd find, but I suspect there would be some data points to work with and that could point us in the right direction.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 11:30:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 19:38:10 GMT -5
One problem is that all of the developed countries tend to view these immigrants as burdens on their economies, etc. It may very well be true, but what's to become of them if no country is willing to accept the burden? Do we as civilized human beings send them back? There's the concept of doing our fair share. It isn't fair to ask Europe to assimilate them if we aren't willing to as well. It's not Europe's problem alone simply because they are geographically closer. .... The answer's not easy, but Alex has the right starting point. These are people. Not sure that's a tack you want to take given that the US hasn't received much - if any - help from Europe in assimilating the estimated 11 million undocumented people from Central and South America that the US has been hosting over the past few decades. That's a fair share of people that the US has taken on and continues to struggle with. But it's been the US' problem alone simply because we are geographically closer to Central and South America... that's sort of how the logistics of illegal immigration and refugees have tended to work. Mexicans, Hondurans, Guatemalans, Salvadorans, Syrians... they're all people. I'm just not sure between the US and Europe, there are enough resources to handle 100% of the people, so to me, it makes sense to figure out how the limited resources we have can be best put to use not just for our country but for the people we'd like to help. You are probably right. I don't even begin to be an expert on this subject. I just keep thinking of that starfish story that gets told and retold. You know . . . the one where the little boy walks down the beach throwing starfish back into the ocean. His father or whoever tells him that there are thousands of starfish stranded and what he does can't possibly make a difference. The little boy say, "It makes a difference to this starfish." We can't save the world. I understand that. But Alex only wants to save one little boy. That's why I think Alex is right, and we cynical adults are inherently wrong. In seeing the "big picture," we lose sight of the individual.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 23, 2016 19:45:20 GMT -5
I love the starfish story. It was part of the CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate - for foster kids) training and I wore a starfish charm on my necklace and thought about it all the time when I'd get discouraged.
I just don't know how we avoid talking about the big picture when we talk about how to address immigration as a country. And I can't tell if I respect people who view each and every potential immigrant as equally deserving of help and offering a potential benefit, or if I think they're just being naive and avoiding addressing the issue by sticking their head in the sand. It's not easy and I can't think of a way for 100% to be saved, so I'm trying to come up with the best ideas I can come up with to do the most overall good.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 23, 2016 19:49:08 GMT -5
I think those who wish to take in refugees need to assume total responsibility for said refugees. Problem solved.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 11:30:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 19:50:01 GMT -5
I love the starfish story. It was part of the CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate - for foster kids) training and I wore a starfish charm on my necklace and thought about it all the time when I'd get discouraged. I just don't know how we avoid talking about the big picture when we talk about how to address immigration as a country. And I can't tell if I respect people who view each and every potential immigrant as equally deserving of help and offering a potential benefit, or if I think they're just being naive and avoiding addressing the issue by sticking their head in the sand. It's not easy and I can't think of a way for 100% to be saved, so I'm trying to come up with the best ideas I can come up with to do the most overall good. I think that's what we are all trying to do. And I'm the first to admit that I am naive. But if I didn't think every child was equally deserving of help and offering a potential benefit, I would be a lousy teacher. And if you didn't do a cost analysis or whatever you do, you would be a lousy accountant. It takes all of us. Happy Thanksgiving!
|
|
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 19:54:52 GMT -5
An immigration policy has to consider the people left behind as well as the people taken. Suppose the fighting in Syria ends 8 months from now, and a sizable number of the refugees that have gathered around the Mediterranean decide to head back and rebuild. That's not going to be an easy task, and it will be all the more difficult if nations have stripped out the doctors, engineers, businessmen, skilled labourers, et al. as part of selective immigration programs. There's going to be a severe shortage of technical talent, and the only two ways to deal with this are either to ignore it, in which case we've crippled Syria's ability to rebuild, or to send over technical talent equivalent to the talent we stripped out, meaning we've just wasted billions vetting and resettling people only to waste billions more sending them (or others) back overseas. As for licensing based on competency rather than credentials, while I agree that it's a good idea in principle, I don't see it happening on any reasonable timetable. If the US got started today on comprehensive foreign equivalency testing/legislation, it might be ready for deployment a decade from now. This is assuming professional associations in the US were willing participants, which I highly doubt. Remember, these are credentials people spend years of study and hundreds of thousands of dollars obtaining in an extremely competitive environment. If all a refugee has to do to obtain the same credentials is pass a few tests, either the tests are going to be brutal to the point where they demonstrate competency at the level of a US professional with a top-tier education, or you're going to have a lot of outraged professionals. Since it'd be the US professionals to write the tests, I'm guessing the former. Nothing would force refugees to stay in a host country. If there is a group of refugees that gather, decide to head back and rebuild, both the ones remaining in camps and the people who have been accepted into host nations would be welcome to make that choice for themselves and go back if they choose. The idea that we leave them rotting in a camp because in the future there might be a group that might decide to head back seems pretty harsh. Why not go ahead and help/accept the ones we can help and if they later want to go help rebuild, then Godspeed to them. There already are plenty of competency based tests in practice, such as the medical boards and the CPA exam. No reason we couldn't provide programs that assist language development to allow professionals to pass these exams. I have a friend who was a doctor in the Netherlands, moved here to the US a few years ago and just passed the board exam to be a doc here for example. Since she was already a practicing doc, the content of the exam wasn't the issue, she mostly needed to work on her English language and vocabulary skills. Not that this would be a simple thing, just pointing out there are already some ready made competency exams and more could be developed. Also, I should be clear that although I used doctor as an extreme example because it's easily understood by everyone, I wouldn't recommend we limit the search to just professions like doctors. I think if we do some studies of ways that prior US immigrants have been successful, we'd find some other traits and commonalities. Throwing out some ideas but we might find that married couples who have baking or restaurant experience in their prior country tended to replicate that well in the US, so we look for that. Or that women who were washerwomen in their prior country tended to be successful in the US because they easily found jobs in the US, were rarely arrested and raised high achieving children, so we look for them. Without doing the research I don't know what we'd find, but I suspect there would be some data points to work with and that could point us in the right direction. Again, I'm not saying these aren't reasonable proposals, but I think you're grossly underestimating the amount of time, effort, and money that goes into importing even one professional. The US has bilateral agreements with most of the OECD nations to ensure professionals in transit can still work in their destination country. But these agreements were established over decades, and OECD nations have stable governments, similar standards, similar professional codes, etc. The North African refugees are lucky if they they can prove they're Syrian, and I'll hug a snow leopard if the US--or any OECD nation--has a bilateral agreement with Syria on professional certification of any kind. Such measures can be put into place, even expedited, but even getting the standards and laws into place takes years. Until that happens, none of these professionals is going to be able to work in the US. As for skilled tradespeople that don't require certification, that's more realistic. I still think the time needed to sort out the logistical problems will extend well beyond the end of this particular crisis, but it couldn't hurt to at least examine a program like this--for future crises. Re a profiling-based approach to immigrant selection: I see zero political will from any quarter. A decent study would undoubtedly find strong correlations between "desirability" and factors like race, age, income, and possibly even tribe and gender. There'd be no way to spin immigrant selection on a desirability basis as anything other than profiling. Human rights advocates would despise it. Neither of the major US parties would touch it with a 40-foot pole, each for its own reason. In short, I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea but I do think it's never going to happen.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 23, 2016 20:00:15 GMT -5
Re a profiling-based approach to immigrant selection: I see zero political will from any quarter. A decent study would undoubtedly find strong correlations between "desirability" and factors like race, age, income, and possibly even tribe and gender. There'd be no way to spin immigrant selection on a desirability basis as anything other than profiling. Human rights advocates would despise it. Neither of the major US parties would touch it with a 40-foot pole, each for its own reason. In short, I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea but I do think it's never going to happen. It is blatant profiling. And frankly I wouldn't have even posted it if we hadn't just had the surprise election we've had. IMHO, the recent US election and the Brexit vote were partly based on concerns over immigration and show there is deep divide in not just our country but in Europe as well. The President-elect is not particularly concerned with being PC, and apparently a sizeable portion of the US is OK with that - so maybe it's time to start throwing out ideas like profiling refugees that take a middle ground between "ban all Muslims" and "let's take in millions of immigrants under a random lottery system".
|
|
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 20:06:43 GMT -5
Re a profiling-based approach to immigrant selection: I see zero political will from any quarter. A decent study would undoubtedly find strong correlations between "desirability" and factors like race, age, income, and possibly even tribe and gender. There'd be no way to spin immigrant selection on a desirability basis as anything other than profiling. Human rights advocates would despise it. Neither of the major US parties would touch it with a 40-foot pole, each for its own reason. In short, I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea but I do think it's never going to happen. It is blatant profiling. And frankly I wouldn't have even posted it if we hadn't just had the surprise election we've had. IMHO, the recent US election and the Brexit vote were partly based on concerns over immigration and show there is deep divide in not just our country but in Europe as well. The President-elect is not particularly concerned with being PC, and apparently a sizeable portion of the US is OK with that - so maybe it's time to start throwing out ideas like profiling refugees that take a middle ground between "ban all Muslims" and "let's take in millions of immigrants under a random lottery system". I guess we shall see.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Nov 23, 2016 20:09:27 GMT -5
Europe made a huge mistake in allowing themselves to be overrun and burdened. They brought crime and disease and no desire to assimilate whatsoever. While I can't comment on all of Europe, I can say that no matter what the people who voted for Brexit in the U.K. think, the drain on the services there aren't the immigrants, it's the citizens. When I go home, I hear screams about the polish taking all the jobs, but at the same time see tons of people living off the government. One of the issues both in the U.K. and this country is that we have huge numbers of people who seem to feel that they are entitled to a good paying jobs simply because they are breathing. And that isn't happening. Personally, most of the immigrants I know are harder working than the people who I know who are born here.
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Nov 23, 2016 20:16:17 GMT -5
I feel so sorry for many posters over here. I really, really do. GRG - Very sweet story especially during the holidays! Don't ever lose your compassion, heart, and empathy for others.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Nov 23, 2016 23:20:42 GMT -5
One problem is that all of the developed countries tend to view these immigrants as burdens on their economies, etc. It may very well be true, but what's to become of them if no country is willing to accept the burden? Do we as civilized human beings send them back? There's the concept of doing our fair share. It isn't fair to ask Europe to assimilate them if we aren't willing to as well. It's not Europe's problem alone simply because they are geographically closer. Sure, it's be nice for us as a country and society if we cherry picked only the "best." Never mind that it's hard to become a doctor or even get a basic education if you live in a war-torn society. The answer's not easy, but Alex has the right starting point. These are people.SS, do you think Europe would be willing to share our Central American immigration issues with us? We take some folks from the Middle East and they take an equal number of folks from Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico? As you said, it shouldn't be just a US problem simply because the US is geographically closer to where people are immigrating from.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Nov 23, 2016 23:38:37 GMT -5
Not sure that's a tack you want to take given that the US hasn't received much - if any - help from Europe in assimilating the estimated 11 million undocumented people from Central and South America that the US has been hosting over the past few decades. That's a fair share of people that the US has taken on and continues to struggle with. But it's been the US' problem alone simply because we are geographically closer to Central and South America... that's sort of how the logistics of illegal immigration and refugees have tended to work. Mexicans, Hondurans, Guatemalans, Salvadorans, Syrians... they're all people. I'm just not sure between the US and Europe, there are enough resources to handle 100% of the people, so to me, it makes sense to figure out how the limited resources we have can be best put to use not just for our country but for the people we'd like to help. You are probably right. I don't even begin to be an expert on this subject. I just keep thinking of that starfish story that gets told and retold. You know . . . the one where the little boy walks down the beach throwing starfish back into the ocean. His father or whoever tells him that there are thousands of starfish stranded and what he does can't possibly make a difference. The little boy say, "It makes a difference to this starfish." We can't save the world. I understand that. But Alex only wants to save one little boy. That's why I think Alex is right, and we cynical adults are inherently wrong. In seeing the "big picture," we lose sight of the individual. SS, I agree with you when you talk about the difference between the big picture and a single individual. But, to use a dramatic example, it's kind of like Ebola. A single person entering the country with Ebola is a manageable situation. We can identify, treat and care for that individual so that we do not have an epidemic. Having tens of thousands of people with Ebola entering the country would not be a manageable situation. That is why, during the worst of the Ebola scare, we closed our borders to people originating from certain areas of the world. The fact is, we really must look at the big picture. Because, the fact that we can deal effectively with a single instance of a situation does not mean that we can deal with thousands of instances of the same situation at the same time.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 11:30:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2016 8:29:45 GMT -5
One problem is that all of the developed countries tend to view these immigrants as burdens on their economies, etc. It may very well be true, but what's to become of them if no country is willing to accept the burden? Do we as civilized human beings send them back? There's the concept of doing our fair share. It isn't fair to ask Europe to assimilate them if we aren't willing to as well. It's not Europe's problem alone simply because they are geographically closer. Sure, it's be nice for us as a country and society if we cherry picked only the "best." Never mind that it's hard to become a doctor or even get a basic education if you live in a war-torn society. The answer's not easy, but Alex has the right starting point. These are people.SS, do you think Europe would be willing to share our Central American immigration issues with us? We take some folks from the Middle East and they take an equal number of folks from Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico? As you said, it shouldn't be just a US problem simply because the US is geographically closer to where people are immigrating from. I guess I'm not looking at the Syrians as strictly an immigration issue. It's a refugee issue, which is slightly different. But I honestly don't want to argue this. It's one of those issues where everyone has already made up their minds.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Nov 24, 2016 9:15:54 GMT -5
SS, do you think Europe would be willing to share our Central American immigration issues with us? We take some folks from the Middle East and they take an equal number of folks from Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico? As you said, it shouldn't be just a US problem simply because the US is geographically closer to where people are immigrating from. I guess I'm not looking at the Syrians as strictly an immigration issue. It's a refugee issue, which is slightly different. But I honestly don't want to argue this. It's one of those issues where everyone has already made up their minds. Good point. Viewing the situation as a refugee issue does alter a person's perspective a bit.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,471
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 24, 2016 9:48:44 GMT -5
The little boy below could be anyone's child at any time. From Time magazine's The Most Infkuential Photos of All Time: 3-year old Syrian boy lying dead after an ongoing war that killed some 2,20,000 Syrians.
|
|
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 24, 2016 9:56:09 GMT -5
To paraphrase an old adage in the reverse: we sometimes can't see the trees for the forest.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 24, 2016 10:04:04 GMT -5
Undocumented Central American people are also often refugees from horrific violence (mostly drug cartel and gang violence that sprung up to serve the US demand for drugs). Their issue is also a refugee issue.
Prior to the recession, immigration was often financially driven. Starting in 2012, however, there was a huge surge in undocumented immigrants from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala - many of them children traveling alone - fleeing the violence in those countries. While we hear mostly about Mexican drug cartel activities in Mexico, those same cartels and the violence and gangs associated with them moved into the other Central American countries with a vengeance, causing these countries to now have some of the highest per capita murder rates in the world. Just how bad do you think it has to be for parents to be so desperate that they're willing to save up what amounts to several years' worth of wages and send their unaccompanied child thousands of miles north in the hands of criminals (coyote smugglers who are known to victimize the people they're smuggling) in the hopes that that child might possibly be able to cross the border and maybe have a better life?
Yes, some of the undocumented Central American people come across for economic reasons, but since the recession and changes to US immigration policies and policing, that population is decreasing and being replaced with desperate people fleeing violence that ironically the US created.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 24, 2016 10:07:48 GMT -5
Fix your own country. There are still supposedly more good people than bad so take back your country.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 11:30:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2016 11:05:50 GMT -5
Maybe we should stop fucking up their countries?
|
|
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 24, 2016 11:08:20 GMT -5
Maybe we should stop fucking up their countries? Heresy!! American democracy is perfect. We need to spread it world-wide.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 24, 2016 11:53:33 GMT -5
I am totally in favor of leaving these countries alone to let them work out there own problems.
|
|
naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on Nov 24, 2016 15:48:21 GMT -5
I was illegal immigrant.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 30, 2016 18:46:24 GMT -5
This is some of what can happen if we are only looking at one side of the equation. If we are only looking to "save" the refugees and take in as many as possible but don't have the ability to house and care for them in the short term and in the long term integrate them into our society and have jobs available, then we can doom refugees to a really miserable existence. Yes, we see the horrible pictures of the dead child on the beach, but we should also take in to consideration the awful plight of some of the refugee children in the EU: www.cnn.com/2016/11/29/europe/refugees-prostitution-teenagers-athens-greece/index.html
|
|