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

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This is just fundamentally untrue Tender.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Most Western countries should take more asylum seekers, the US included.

[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 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?

And we too conveniently forget that his belief was amply sustained in practice.

[ag]

Most Western countries should take more asylum seekers, the US included.

For once we are in full agreement.

[Tender Branson]

This is just fundamentally untrue Tender.

The numbers speak the truth though:

The US is not doing its fair share in taking up asylum seekers during this crisis (which they helped to create, by constantly meddling in other countries business - such as in Iraq/AfPak/Syria/Libya).

The US takes in only 80.000 asylum seekers a year, the same amount as Austria this year. But: The US is 40x bigger than Austria. So, something is wrong ... don't you think ?

[Tender Branson]

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.

No, that's wrong and (I hope) you know it: Both Austria and the US have comparable high rates of [legal] [economic] immigration - per capita.

But what we are facing right now is something more extreme: On top of the legal immigration (50.000 a year, which is huge) - there are now 80.000 asylum seekers coming in.

Our population is expected to increase by 1.5% this year ...

That's equivalent of the US taking in 3.2 million asylum seekers a year - ON TOP of it's legal immigration of 1 million.

Just to get the facts straight ...

[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).

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.

No, that's wrong and (I hope) you know it: Both Austria and the US have comparable high rates of [legal] [economic] immigration - per capita.

But what we are facing right now is something more extreme: On top of the legal immigration (50.000 a year, which is huge) - there are now 80.000 asylum seekers coming in.

Our population is expected to increase by 1.5% this year ...

That's equivalent of the US taking in 3.2 million asylum seekers a year - ON TOP of it's legal immigration of 1 million.

Just to get the facts straight ...

Yeah, this would have been a valid counterpoint 10 years ago, but not so much today.

[Jacobtm]

The U.S. should take in zero refugees, or limit the number as much as possible.

There are billions of people doing poorly in the world, many countries torn apart by war. It does us no favorsto  bring them here. Witness all the problems caused by Somali refugees for instance.

http://newobserveronline.com/somalis-in-america-a-horror-story-of-crime-violence-and-now-terrorism/

Finding a country full of problems with people who want to flee, and allowing them into your country, just transfers problems to you.

No more refugees.

[MaxQue]

The U.S. should take in zero refugees, or limit the number as much as possible.

There are billions of people doing poorly in the world, many countries torn apart by war. It does us no favorsto  bring them here. Witness all the problems caused by Somali refugees for instance.

http://newobserveronline.com/somalis-in-america-a-horror-story-of-crime-violence-and-now-terrorism/

Finding a country full of problems with people who want to flee, and allowing them into your country, just transfers problems to you.

No more refugees.

Well, if I follow your logic, we just get rid of problematic people.

Which country want racist Jacobtm? USA don't want it anymore, who wants it? No one? How can we improve USA if we are stuck with people like him?

[Zioneer]

The U.S. should take in zero refugees, or limit the number as much as possible.

There are billions of people doing poorly in the world, many countries torn apart by war. It does us no favorsto  bring them here. Witness all the problems caused by Somali refugees for instance.

http://newobserveronline.com/somalis-in-america-a-horror-story-of-crime-violence-and-now-terrorism/

Finding a country full of problems with people who want to flee, and allowing them into your country, just transfers problems to you.

No more refugees.

Ah, so you're a racist moron who doesn't understand what America stands for. Okay.

[Yeahsayyeah]

Isn't "asylum seeker" a genuine European judicial status, that doesn't apply to the US? Or are there similar terms and states?

[ag]

Isn't "asylum seeker" a genuine European judicial status, that doesn't apply to the US? Or are there similar terms and states?

The status is regulated by the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. So, a version of the status exists in most countires of the world. If a person, arriving into a country claims the refugee status, s/he is entitled to a substantive consideration of her/his case. And, the fact is, if that person comes from Syria, or Afghanistan, or Yemen, or.... it is pretty likely to be a valid claim.

The main difference between Europe and the US here is purely geographical.

It is pretty hard for most Mexicans to demonstrate persecution that would entitle them to a refugee status (there are exceptions, but, mostly, Mexico is reasonably non-persecuting of its own citizens). Of course, the same is true of most Turks. But whereas US almost only has Mexico and a few Central American/Caribbean countries to deal with - pretty much everyone else would have to first get TO Mexico or Canada, and that is a tall order for purely geographic reasons - Europe also has much of Asia and Africa reasonably close.

Previously, Europe was isolated from the flow by a bunch of reasonably stable dictatorships, which blocked off the coasts. But that has now changed. Much of the discussion that we are seeing here, in fact, is reducible to trying to figure out how to reestablish the old isolation. Well, I guess, setting up a bunch of dictatorships along the Mediterrainean coast is the most realistic prospect.

[Clark Kent]

I have no problem with taking in more refugees, but Europe should also handle its share.

[Simfan34]

It's a bad idea to be letting in immigrants who commit more than their fair share of crimes, have lower IQs, are drains on government resources, make neighborhoods unsafe, and are in every way a burden to our society.

In no way do they help us, they only harm us and cost us. Yet people like you want to welcome them in.

America has throughout its history had different levels of immigration. We're about due for a period of cutting it off completely and trying our best to assimilate the people we have here, lest our country be torn apart in a hundred directions by all the different groups of the world fighting over imposing their norms on us and taking our resources for themselves.

You make some unpopular but pertinent points, but please do not repeat this "ethnic IQ variation" claptrap.

[DavidB.]

I have no problem with taking in more refugees, but Europe should also handle its share.

You think Europe doesn't "handle its share"?

[Jacobtm]

You make some unpopular but pertinent points, but please do not repeat this "ethnic IQ variation" claptrap.

Different human populations have different IQs. This is of paramount importance in thinking about the world in general. If you do not think about this, your understanding of the world will be confused, and based on lies.

The idea that there is no IQ variation among different groups is an essential lie propagated by liberals, and swallowed by most Republicans, which allows their nonsense to go on unchallenged.

There are many fine books out there on it, you might start with IQ and Global Inequality:
http://www.amazon.com/Global-Inequality-Richard-Lynn-Vanhanen/dp/1593680244/ref=pd_sim_sbs_14_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=193KS2MMYMPBZGNE6WTJ&dpSrc=sims&dpST=_AC_UL320_SR214%2C320_

Or simply The Bell Curve:
http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/ref=pd_sim_sbs_14_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=193KS2MMYMPBZGNE6WTJ&dpSrc=sims&dpST=_AC_UL320_SR210%2C320_

This thought that IQ differs and that this is responsible for a large part of varying levels of social/economic development around the world is strictly un-PC. If you want to fit into PC/Progressive society you cannot say this. If you won't accept it, it's a sign you're still well within the PC/Progressive fold and can not bear to think a thought that they do not approve of.

[Хahar 🤔]

It's a bad idea to be letting in immigrants who commit more than their fair share of crimes, have lower IQs, are drains on government resources, make neighborhoods unsafe, and are in every way a burden to our society.

In no way do they help us, they only harm us and cost us. Yet people like you want to welcome them in.

America has throughout its history had different levels of immigration. We're about due for a period of cutting it off completely and trying our best to assimilate the people we have here, lest our country be torn apart in a hundred directions by all the different groups of the world fighting over imposing their norms on us and taking our resources for themselves.

You make some unpopular but pertinent points, but please do not repeat this "ethnic IQ variation" claptrap.

When you agree with racists you have to come to terms with the fact that you deal with racists. If you're a white nationalist, then embrace it.

[Tender Branson]

The US has now agreed to take in 8.000 Syrian aslum seekers next year.

8 friggin' thousand.

That's what Austria now takes in each month, a country with the population of New Jersey ... on top of the regular high immigration (that's similar to the US level on a per capita basis).

Where's the Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama when you need him ?

[Clark Kent]

I have no problem with taking in more refugees, but Europe should also handle its share.

You think Europe doesn't "handle its share"?

I'm sure it does. I'm replying to people like Tender who seem to imply that it should take significantly less than it does now.

[Jacobtm]

It's a bad idea to be letting in immigrants who commit more than their fair share of crimes, have lower IQs, are drains on government resources, make neighborhoods unsafe, and are in every way a burden to our society.

In no way do they help us, they only harm us and cost us. Yet people like you want to welcome them in.

America has throughout its history had different levels of immigration. We're about due for a period of cutting it off completely and trying our best to assimilate the people we have here, lest our country be torn apart in a hundred directions by all the different groups of the world fighting over imposing their norms on us and taking our resources for themselves.

You make some unpopular but pertinent points, but please do not repeat this "ethnic IQ variation" claptrap.

When you agree with racists you have to come to terms with the fact that you deal with racists. If you're a white nationalist, then embrace it.

Sim,

Republicans will always be called "racist", "sexist", bigot by liberals. Nothing you can do, distancing yourself from Trump or me, marrying a black woman and living in a black area, having black friends, nothing will guard you from cries of "racist" "bigot" "sexist" "homophobe".

These words are just words liberals use to shut down anyone who disagrees with them. You will never get approval from a liberal, stop seeking it. Stop letting these silly words shut you down. Speak the truth, speak what you actually believe, don't let some sh**tlib who will never like you control you. They want nothing but to flood our country with third world migrants, teach your children that white men are the cause of all evil in the world, teach them that heterosexuality is oppressive, etc. They want to destroy our whole society, and then you're worried about looking bad in their eyes.

Don't be a cuck, stop caring about the opinions of those who hate you and what you value.

[ag]

The US has now agreed to take in 8.000 Syrian aslum seekers next year.

8 friggin' thousand.

The US took 1.3 mln. Indochinese refugees. How many did Austria take?

[Vosem]

It's a bad idea to be letting in immigrants who commit more than their fair share of crimes, have lower IQs, are drains on government resources, make neighborhoods unsafe, and are in every way a burden to our society.

In no way do they help us, they only harm us and cost us. Yet people like you want to welcome them in.

America has throughout its history had different levels of immigration. We're about due for a period of cutting it off completely and trying our best to assimilate the people we have here, lest our country be torn apart in a hundred directions by all the different groups of the world fighting over imposing their norms on us and taking our resources for themselves.

You make some unpopular but pertinent points, but please do not repeat this "ethnic IQ variation" claptrap.

When you agree with racists you have to come to terms with the fact that you deal with racists. If you're a white nationalist, then embrace it.

Sim,

Republicans will always be called "racist", "sexist", bigot by liberals. Nothing you can do, distancing yourself from Trump or me, marrying a black woman and living in a black area, having black friends, nothing will guard you from cries of "racist" "bigot" "sexist" "homophobe".

Simfan is black.

[Zioneer]

It's a bad idea to be letting in immigrants who commit more than their fair share of crimes, have lower IQs, are drains on government resources, make neighborhoods unsafe, and are in every way a burden to our society.

In no way do they help us, they only harm us and cost us. Yet people like you want to welcome them in.

America has throughout its history had different levels of immigration. We're about due for a period of cutting it off completely and trying our best to assimilate the people we have here, lest our country be torn apart in a hundred directions by all the different groups of the world fighting over imposing their norms on us and taking our resources for themselves.

You make some unpopular but pertinent points, but please do not repeat this "ethnic IQ variation" claptrap.

When you agree with racists you have to come to terms with the fact that you deal with racists. If you're a white nationalist, then embrace it.

Sim,

Republicans will always be called "racist", "sexist", bigot by liberals. Nothing you can do, distancing yourself from Trump or me, marrying a black woman and living in a black area, having black friends, nothing will guard you from cries of "racist" "bigot" "sexist" "homophobe".

These words are just words liberals use to shut down anyone who disagrees with them. You will never get approval from a liberal, stop seeking it. Stop letting these silly words shut you down. Speak the truth, speak what you actually believe, don't let some sh**tlib who will never like you control you. They want nothing but to flood our country with third world migrants, teach your children that white men are the cause of all evil in the world, teach them that heterosexuality is oppressive, etc. They want to destroy our whole society, and then you're worried about looking bad in their eyes.

Don't be a cuck, stop caring about the opinions of those who hate you and what you value.

Nice strawman argument.

[Jacobtm]

Simfan is black.

And what are black right-wingers called? Uncle Toms, race traitors, House N... etc. I would bet Sim has been called a number of things for daring to not support the left, and doing so shows he's at least willing to buck some trends and not follow the crowd.

In the post I was responding to he had "racist" and "white nationalist" flung vaguely in his direction so it shows you that being black is no protection from being called these words.

The truth remains that he'll always be called names by liberals for not following their rules, and seeking their approval is a losing battle. Leftists use their name-calling to shut down opposing thought. If you're a right-winger, don't let liberal name-calling shut you down. They won't approve of you, so stop caring about what they think.

[Tender Branson]

The US has now agreed to take in 8.000 Syrian aslum seekers next year.

8 friggin' thousand.

The US took 1.3 mln. Indochinese refugees. How many did Austria take?

Austria took 300.000 refugees from Yugoslavia in the early 1990s.

That's equivalent of the US taking 12 million refugees on a per capita basis.

And this is just one example: Austria also took in 100.000s of asylum seekers during the 1950s and 1960s when the Soviets invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

The thing is that the US isn't doing its fair share now: Just stirring up the hornets nests in AfPak, Syria and Iraq - but then stealing themselves out of responsibility when the human toll comes up and leaving that to the Europeans (or some of these countries) ... that's not how it should work. Obama did not get his Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing.