Serious question: When will the US start taking in asylum seekers ?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:12:23 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Serious question: When will the US start taking in asylum seekers ?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Serious question: When will the US start taking in asylum seekers ?  (Read 7362 times)
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 10, 2015, 08:45:15 AM »

Time for the US to send charter planes to Lebanon, Turkey and Kabul to pick up the millions of asylum seekers that are now coming to Europe.

After all, the US created all this mess and mass migration because of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and the destruction of Libya.

But we* should foot the human and financial bill now ? Yeah, right ...

First bombing these places into the ground, then stealing yourselves out of responsibility.

(By "we", I mean mostly Germany/Sweden and Austria - who are taking up the bulk of the US-induced war/economic refugees).

Logged
Silent Hunter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,308
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2015, 11:56:34 AM »

The US has been taking in refugees for decades from many wars, including some it was involved in - notably Vietnam.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2015, 12:14:14 PM »

Oh, Tender, that's ridiculous, the US is talking taking asylum seekers, since decades. Don't believe all the lies of your beloved Strache.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2015, 12:18:48 PM »

...we already have been for a long time, or otherwise much of my family wouldn't be here.
Logged
Green Line
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,584
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2015, 12:23:58 PM »

"We" have been taking in refugees for decades, not to mention all those refugees that came over due to a little war that Austria had a hand in during the 1940s, or did you forget about that?  I thought this was a serious question.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2015, 12:46:54 PM »
« Edited: August 10, 2015, 12:55:14 PM by politicus »

Oh, Tender, that's ridiculous, the US is talking taking asylum seekers, since decades. Don't believe all the lies of your beloved Strache.

Sure, but measured per capita only about 1/10 of the European countries with the highest numbers of asylum seekers, such as Austria (and that is excluding Sweden, which takes roughly 25 times as many).

(2013 numbers, but 2014 would likely be even more skewed)

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/dec/02/sweden-oecds-highest-per-capita-asylum-seekers-syria

It is hard to see a solution on the refugee crisis unless the US takes a substantially larger share (like 10x as many). A US with a Sweden (or even Germany) share of refugees would really matter. And as a multicultural and highly diverse society you are far better suited for integrating refugees than Western Europe.

There are of course other wealthy countries - mainly in Asia - that are not pulling their weight, but the low American share is a problem nonetheless.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2015, 01:09:43 PM »
« Edited: September 20, 2016, 06:55:08 AM by Simfan34 »

But how has that worked out for you Europeans, socially and politically? Is a USA taking in 600,000-1,500,000 refugees a year (to which I'm not even necessarily opposed!), wise idea, a viable long term solution to your problem? All while propping up the Continent militarily? It is not a solution at all. Particularly when you tout the "need" to get our growth population "under control".

Can you imagine the political backlash? An American version of the anti-immigrant right?
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2015, 01:17:51 PM »
« Edited: August 10, 2015, 01:22:02 PM by DavidB. »

But how has that worked out for you Europeans, socially and politically? Is a USA taking in 600,000-1,500,000 refugees annually a wise idea, a viable long term solution to things? All while propping up the Continent militarily? It is not a solution at all. Particularly when you tout the "need" to get our growth population "under control".

Can you imagine the political backlash? An American version of the anti-immigrant right?
It wouldn't be really comparable. The U.S. is in and of itself much more multicultural, while for Western European countries, this is something new. The U.S. has historically been an immigration country, Western European countries haven't. In Western Europe, national identity is primarily based on ethnicity (whether people like it or not) - in the U.S., that's just not the same.

But I get what you're hinting at and you're partly right. First of all, it's not as if the amount of asylum seekers is fixed. If any country (but especially the U.S., a country that is extremely attractive) is willing to take in more people, then more people will come, because who doesn't want to live a better life in a developed country? Secondly, taking in more and more people is no long-term solution. Sure, true refugees from war-ridden countries need a place to be safe and we should treat them humanely, but in the long term, it would be better for the Western world to try and help solve the structural issues in poor/war-ridden areas instead of simply taking in many people. Lastly, and this is more a reply to Tender Branson, I disagree with the notion that "our" European refugee problem has been caused by the U.S., for the Middle East and Africa are simply no peaceful regions, regardless of any form of Western intervention.
Logged
Silent Hunter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,308
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2015, 01:27:31 PM »

"We" have been taking in refugees for decades, not to mention all those refugees that came over due to a little war that Austria had a hand in during the 1940s, or did you forget about that?  I thought this was a serious question.

Really, did you have to Godwin the thread on post five?
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2015, 02:02:05 PM »

But how has that worked out for you Europeans, socially and politically? Is a USA taking in 600,000-1,500,000 refugees annually a wise idea, a viable long term solution to things? All while propping up the Continent militarily? It is not a solution at all. Particularly when you tout the "need" to get our growth population "under control".

Can you imagine the political backlash? An American version of the anti-immigrant right?

1) As I said, you would be better at integrating refugees and the backlash would be less massive than in ethnically defined nation states.

2) Letting large numbers of refugees become immigrants in Western countries is not a viable long term solution, because it encourages economic migrants to use the refugee system - and props up human trafficking - but we have an acute crisis right now, and it needs to be solved. Long term you need to secure more repatriation (by stabilizing countries and solving conflicts) and invest in better conditions for refugees in countries bordering conflict zones - but the rich countries will always have to take a share and it needs to be better and more rationally distributed.

3) Not sure what the Europe free riding on defence has to do with this - it is two separate issues (and if you want to link them more refugees in America and more defence spending in Europe would be a sensible trade off).

4) Getting population growth under control is a global problem, and moving people to countries with very resource consuming life styles does add to CO2 emission, but refugees is one group that needs to be taking care of no matter what. Ideally (from my POV) they would crowd out other immigrants, so the net result was the same.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2015, 02:09:46 PM »

Oh, Tender, that's ridiculous, the US is talking taking asylum seekers, since decades. Don't believe all the lies of your beloved Strache.

I am not aware that Strache has said anything about the US taking in too few asylum seekers.

That is what I found out, looking at the asylum statistics:

* The US takes in 80.000 asylum seekers each year, population: 320 million
* Austria takes in 80.000 asylum seekers this year, population: 8.5 million

If the US were to take in as many asylum seekers as Austria, it would have to take up 3 million each year ...

But I'm not just attacking the US, it's other European countries as well that are stealing themselves out of responsibility. They are only for the EU and its policies if they are getting a financial benefit out of it. Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) today said exactly the same what I said for months now. This situation (=that we have to bear the burden almost alone) is becoming crazy.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/burden-sharing-on-asylum-a-disgrace-says-sigmar-gabriel-1.2312683
Logged
Hnv1
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,505


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2015, 02:17:09 PM »

"We" have been taking in refugees for decades, not to mention all those refugees that came over due to a little war that Austria had a hand in during the 1940s, or did you forget about that?  I thought this was a serious question.
Regardless to the topic many of those refugees came after the war, at the start of it when atrocities were looming ahead the US gates remain closed.

Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2015, 02:59:23 PM »

Time for the US to send charter planes to Lebanon, Turkey and Kabul to pick up the millions of asylum seekers that are now coming to Europe.

After all, the US created all this mess and mass migration because of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and the destruction of Libya.

But we* should foot the human and financial bill now ? Yeah, right ...

First bombing these places into the ground, then stealing yourselves out of responsibility.

(By "we", I mean mostly Germany/Sweden and Austria - who are taking up the bulk of the US-induced war/economic refugees).



If you mean refugees from Asia/Africa arriving without pre-clearance, than the US will be equally accessible to them as soon as EU finishes draining the Atlantic.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2015, 03:00:47 PM »

"We" have been taking in refugees for decades, not to mention all those refugees that came over due to a little war that Austria had a hand in during the 1940s, or did you forget about that?  I thought this was a serious question.

Really, did you have to Godwin the thread on post five?

True. It should have been Godwined on post 2.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2015, 03:05:24 PM »

Oh, Tender, that's ridiculous, the US is talking taking asylum seekers, since decades. Don't believe all the lies of your beloved Strache.

Sure, but measured per capita only about 1/10 of the European countries with the highest numbers of asylum seekers, such as Austria (and that is excluding Sweden, which takes roughly 25 times as many).


You forget the simple fact that who called a refugee is endogenous to national legislation. US, whatever its deficiencies, has many other categories of immigration that are accessible. And, of course, US has a gigantic number of "illegal"economic (and, frequently, political) migrants that are not classified in any of the legal migration categories. Comparing numbers of "refugees" between the US and Europe is comparing apples and oranges: the numbers cannot be easily compared at all.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2015, 03:56:08 PM »

Ideally (from my POV) they would crowd out other immigrants, so the net result was the same.

So you say we should give skilled immigrants the short end of the stick in favor of refugees? I say this with the utmost kindness, but I'm glad you're not in charge of our immigration policy. Smiley
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,890


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 11, 2015, 04:38:00 PM »

Hate trolling dumbsh**ts. Message boards should have votes on whether to ban them for lacking the education of a 15-year-old.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 11, 2015, 04:44:47 PM »
« Edited: August 11, 2015, 04:49:06 PM by politicus »

Hate trolling dumbsh**ts. Message boards should have votes on whether to ban them for lacking the education of a 15-year-old.

The OP may be trollish, but it points out an actual problem worth debating. Or are you talking about ag? He is among our most highly educated trolls.
Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,594
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 11, 2015, 08:02:54 PM »

I have no problem with us taking in more asylum seekers, and I believe a  majority of Americans would agree with me.

This poll here, shows that 71% of Americans believe we should offer refuge for asylum seekers.

It seems like this is a way to shift away blame for European nations societal problems with refuges onto the U.S..
Logged
Linus Van Pelt
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,144


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 11, 2015, 09:14:39 PM »

This is a very real issue. There is an annual refugee cap set in law, which is 70,000 for 2015. I agree that it ought to be raised.

In general, immigration issues aside from the legalization of illegal immigrants get surprisingly little attention in US politics.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 13, 2015, 09:44:02 AM »

Hate trolling dumbsh**ts. Message boards should have votes on whether to ban them for lacking the education of a 15-year-old.

The OP may be trollish, but it points out an actual problem worth debating. Or are you talking about ag? He is among our most highly educated trolls.

Taking a bow, flustered.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 13, 2015, 09:45:48 AM »
« Edited: August 13, 2015, 09:48:16 AM by ag »

This is a very real issue. There is an annual refugee cap set in law, which is 70,000 for 2015. I agree that it ought to be raised.

In general, immigration issues aside from the legalization of illegal immigrants get surprisingly little attention in US politics.

Yes, this is something that needs to be talked about. But not with a mocking German rightist.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 13, 2015, 10:47:00 AM »

This is a very real issue. There is an annual refugee cap set in law, which is 70,000 for 2015. I agree that it ought to be raised.

In general, immigration issues aside from the legalization of illegal immigrants get surprisingly little attention in US politics.

Yes, this is something that needs to be talked about. But not Especially with a mocking vocal German Austrian rightist centrist/center-leftist.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 13, 2015, 12:35:04 PM »

This is a very real issue. There is an annual refugee cap set in law, which is 70,000 for 2015. I agree that it ought to be raised.

In general, immigration issues aside from the legalization of illegal immigrants get surprisingly little attention in US politics.

Yes, this is something that needs to be talked about. But not Especially with a mocking vocal German Austrian rightist centrist/center-leftist.

The two are empirically and morally indistinguishable.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 13, 2015, 12:45:54 PM »

This is a very real issue. There is an annual refugee cap set in law, which is 70,000 for 2015. I agree that it ought to be raised.

In general, immigration issues aside from the legalization of illegal immigrants get surprisingly little attention in US politics.

Yes, this is something that needs to be talked about. But not Especially with a mocking vocal German Austrian rightist centrist/center-leftist.

The two are empirically and morally indistinguishable.
Do you know who was of the same opinion? Tongue
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 12 queries.