What should the United States do about the Syrian refugee crisis?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:56:31 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  What should the United States do about the Syrian refugee crisis?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: What should the United States do about the Syrian refugee crisis?  (Read 1495 times)
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
« on: September 09, 2015, 01:28:49 PM »
« edited: September 09, 2015, 01:33:47 PM by Simfan34 »

Serious proposal: we should accept around 3 million refugees over the next five years, giving preference to persecuted Christians, Kurds, and members of the middle class, and resettle at least 500,000 in Detroit, where there is cheap housing and a large Levantine population. Other economically deprived regions would also be targeted for refugee inflow. They benefit, we benefit.

For personal political purposes, this would ideally be carried out by a Republican administration, but I acknowledge that's not happening unless Donald Trump suddenly developed a fondness for the idea.
Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2015, 06:48:41 PM »

I like this idea; we certainly have enough room, and despite what fear-mongers say, refugees and immigrants almost always assimilate very well in American society within a generation or two.
Logged
SNJ1985
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,274
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.19, S: 7.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2015, 07:48:08 PM »

Serious proposal: we should accept around 3 million refugees over the next five years, giving preference to persecuted Christians, Kurds, and members of the middle class, and resettle at least 500,000 in Detroit, where there is cheap housing and a large Levantine population. Other economically deprived regions would also be targeted for refugee inflow. They benefit, we benefit.

For personal political purposes, this would ideally be carried out by a Republican administration, but I acknowledge that's not happening unless Donald Trump suddenly developed a fondness for the idea.

Trump has actually endorsed the U.S. taking in some Syrian refugees:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34192834
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 #3 on: September 10, 2015, 10:45:08 AM »

How would you do this, in practical terms? Giving preference to people with college degrees?

I think this is a bit of a sketchy criterion, because it's not as if middle-class people are significantly more unsafe than lower-class people (on the contrary, probably), which makes this very different from taking in Kurds and Christians.
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2015, 03:44:23 PM »

Serious proposal: we should accept around 3 million refugees over the next five years, giving preference to persecuted Christians, Kurds, and members of the middle class, and resettle at least 500,000 in Detroit, where there is cheap housing and a large Levantine population. Other economically deprived regions would also be targeted for refugee inflow. They benefit, we benefit.


LOL, no. How the hell would we benefit?!

I would accept a very limited number (with the number that Obama has proposed being tops) with preference given to people who have college degrees.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 10, 2015, 04:09:51 PM »


LOL, no. How the hell would we benefit?!

I would accept a very limited number (with the number that Obama has proposed being tops) with preference given to people who have college degrees.

A bit surprised by that coming from you. Could you elaborate. IIRC you are generally pro-immigration.
Logged
WVdemocrat
DimpledChad
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 954
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 10, 2015, 04:29:51 PM »

We should accept a few million. And NO preferences for people with college degrees or Christians - everybody over there is being oppressed 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 #7 on: September 10, 2015, 05:47:43 PM »

How would you do this, in practical terms? Giving preference to people with college degrees?

I think this is a bit of a sketchy criterion, because it's not as if middle-class people are significantly more unsafe than lower-class people (on the contrary, probably), which makes this very different from taking in Kurds and Christians.

I agree. I hear much about these "middle class refugees" so I assume they have some method of telling them apart.

We should accept a few million. And NO preferences for people with college degrees or Christians - everybody over there is being oppressed nonetheless.

Well the preferences are there for 3 reasons--

1) To make the refugee flows more palatable to the general population
2) These groups are being targeted for particular persecution
3) My personal biases
Logged
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,817
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2015, 09:21:51 PM »

We should accept a few million. And NO preferences for people with college degrees or Christians - everybody over there is being oppressed nonetheless.

While I support, the US and other countries, including Australia taking in more refugees, i believe we should give preference to people with college degrees and the severity of the amount they have been damaged.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 11, 2015, 09:19:57 AM »

Here's the current policy disclaimer:

http://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/receptionplacement/index.htm

The policy seems reasonable already.

The cap for all refugees is currently 70 thousand per year.  We could raise that cap, and probably should, to maybe 100 thousand, but Syrians should not be more than half of that.  We do have moral commitments to other refugees. 

As an aside, what Germany is doing makes sense for them.  It's like that Star Trek episode where one group has knowledge, high technology, libraries, and a well-developed economy but cannot have proper children because their DNA has atrophied.  The other group is poor, but are healthy and they can have healthy children.  They find a home together and everyone wins. 

Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 11, 2015, 10:05:03 AM »
« Edited: September 11, 2015, 10:17:05 AM by politicus »

Here's the current policy disclaimer:

http://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/receptionplacement/index.htm

The policy seems reasonable already.

The cap for all refugees is currently 70 thousand per year.  We could raise that cap, and probably should, to maybe 100 thousand, but Syrians should not be more than half of that.  We do have moral commitments to other refugees.  

As an aside, what Germany is doing makes sense for them.  It's like that Star Trek episode where one group has knowledge, high technology, libraries, and a well-developed economy but cannot have proper children because their DNA has atrophied.  The other group is poor, but are healthy and they can have healthy children.  They find a home together and everyone wins.  


You do not win by having your genes crowded out.

Germany takes those refugees for ideological/humanitarian reasons (influenced with historical guilt), not because they need immigrants (in that case they would recruit from different parts of the world).
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 11, 2015, 10:07:17 AM »

Here's the current policy disclaimer:

http://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/receptionplacement/index.htm

The policy seems reasonable already.

The cap for all refugees is currently 70 thousand per year.  We could raise that cap, and probably should, to maybe 100 thousand, but Syrians should not be more than half of that.  We do have moral commitments to other refugees.  

As an aside, what Germany is doing makes sense for them.  It's like that Star Trek episode where one group has knowledge, high technology, libraries, and a well-developed economy but cannot have proper children because their DNA has atrophied.  The other group is poor, but are healthy and they can have healthy children.  They find a home together and everyone wins.  


You do not win by having your genes crowded out. Why write this incendiary crap? It is enough to have ag trolling these threads.

...what?
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 11, 2015, 02:46:14 PM »
« Edited: September 11, 2015, 03:09:10 PM by DemPGH »


LOL, no. How the hell would we benefit?!

I would accept a very limited number (with the number that Obama has proposed being tops) with preference given to people who have college degrees.

A bit surprised by that coming from you. Could you elaborate. IIRC you are generally pro-immigration.

I'm actually not that passionate about the issue, tbh, but I would probably fall on the more conservative side, actually. But I was reacting more to the OP's suggestion that we drop half a million people on a city like Detroit, which is struggling to say the least. There aren't, for e.g., enough Wal-Marts or gas stations in the region to give a fraction of those people jobs. Three million people dumped on the country is just silly. We may have the space, but I don't see that we can economically sustain that kind of approach, and there may be a security risk. So, people with college degrees, relatives here, able to support themselves should be the criteria.

I am fairly passionate about the fact that I don't think the USA can/should just shoulder the world's problems and crises, though, to include aid, intervention (I don't think we should intervene militarily unless we are directly threatened), refuge, etc. We just have too many mouths to feed here. And we are in a different hemisphere, so I think we should take advantage of that. Inviting people to come here and blow up buildings or hijack airplanes is really the last thing we should be doing.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 13, 2015, 12:29:50 AM »

All Western countries should come together and share refugees in proportion to their population and GDP.
Logged
PJ
Politics Junkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,789
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 13, 2015, 02:41:22 AM »

We should be accepting as many refugees as we can, ideally in an international coordination. The OP's proposal is mostly reasonable, although the population should be more spread out across the country. I'd be absolutely to a bias towards middle class refugees. Regardless of the ambiguity of the term "middle class," this would essentially screw over the poorest and most vulnerable refugees in what seems to be an attempt to make xenophobes more comfortable with the prospect of accepting refugees themselves.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,875


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 13, 2015, 04:50:13 PM »

Anyone who wants to come to America (who isn't a criminal or a terrorist or whatever) should be able to.
Logged
Frozen Sky Ever Why
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 13, 2015, 05:40:35 PM »

Nothing. This is a nation, not a homeless shelter.
Logged
PJ
Politics Junkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,789
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 13, 2015, 06:13:41 PM »

Nothing. This is a nation, not a homeless shelter.

*dislike*

This has to be one of the least humane positions out there on any issue. People are desperately trying to escape one of the most brutally inhumane and dangerous terrorist organizations in history, and you propose to force them to return to their home country (basically a death sentence) in the name of what? "Cultural preservation" or some other nonsense? DIAF.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.047 seconds with 12 queries.