United States accepting Syrian Refugees

[Stronger]

President Obama wants to accept up to 70,000+ Syrian Refugees, many states are against and won't allow any. Should the United States accept them or deny them?

[Stronk Serb]

Let it be decided on a state basis. I guess if he passes an executive order forcing ever state to take them, the South will revolt.

[Uniquemind]

Just accept them but restrict their movement under guard.

They cannot mesh with the rest of the population; especially until the crisis is over.

[phuckphace]

fuck off we're full

[Jinglebottom]

Have fun with them, Americans.

[Jaffe]

These are people. Individuals, like you and I. Not just some statistic.
They need a place to live, and although America would probably be their last choice, at least they would have a somewhat safer place to raise their children.
Let them come, all that can.

Refugees are people, real people

[Miserabilia]

Sick of hearing their "potential danger".
Untill you can proove it, there's not any more danger than with your people already there.

[Judean Zealot]

Sick of hearing their "potential danger".
Untill you can proove it, there's not any more danger than with your people already there.

I don't get it. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that tens of thousands of people per annum from places racked by military instability and religious fanaticism will transplant some of those problems on whatever shore they land on.

Why do you people insist on burying your heads in the sand?

[sqishy]

...tens of thousands of people per annum from places racked by military instability and religious fanaticism will transplant some of those problems on whatever shore they land on.


Religious fanaticism exists widely across central USA.
Some political instability has been caused by the USA, in my opinion.
Perhaps the USA is not so 'incompatible' as some would say, in this (warped) way of determining how well a country can take in those from another.

What do you mean by transplant some of those problems on whatever shore they land on?

Is there an assumption that victims of the said military instability and religious fanticism will actually carry that with them to another country and establish it there?

The victims are leaving precisely because they want to avoid it. I don't understand how they are carrying and establishing what they want to avoid, what they fear for their lives for.

[mattsmith48]

President Obama wants to accept up to 70,000+ Syrian Refugees, many states are against and won't allow any. Should the United States accept them or deny them?

They should accept them and put them in does racist state who dont want any just to pissed them off

[Judean Zealot]

[COLOR="Yellow"]Religious fanaticism exists widely across central USA.
Some political instability has been caused by the USA, in my opinion.
Perhaps the USA is not so 'incompatible' as some would say, in this (warped) way of determining how well a country can take in those from another.

Religious fervor as is found in America is im no way comparable to the comparable to the violent fanaticism found in the middle east. You are making a false analogy here.

Is there an assumption that victims of the said military instability and religious fanticism will actually carry that with them to another country and establish it there?

Yes, considering as in the middle east very often both sides are equally fanatical. The mere fact that they were victims of the other factions fanaticism does not in any way mean that they will curb their own.

The victims are leaving precisely because they want to avoid it. I don't understand how they are carrying and establishing what they want to avoid, what they fear for their lives for.

The victims know that America will not treat them as their enemies do. That doesn't mean that they will reciprocate in kind. Mind you, I'm not talking about the women with infants. I am talking about the opportunists who will necessarily float along.

[Miserabilia]

I don't get it. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that tens of thousands of people per annum from places racked by military instability and religious fanaticism will transplant some of those problems on whatever shore they land on.

Why do you people insist on burying your heads in the sand?

So because from the same place as religious extremist they have to be that too to some expent?

Wow, gee I don't know why "we people" do this.

Maybe because I'm not afraid of people because they look the same as terrorists I am presented with on the news, even though that is what they are going away from.

[sqishy]

Religious fervor as is found in America is im no way comparable to the comparable to the violent fanaticism found in the middle east. You are making a false analogy here.

While a self-proclaimed 'religious' organisation does not exist in the US, and violence is not to be directly found by the evangelicals/etc, their conquest-like vision for the middle east (including non-evangelical republicans and so on) can be seen to just be their violent fanaticism being outsourced elsewhere. While it is absolutely true that the US presence in the middle east is not a plain religous view, Bush and his invasion of Iraq / etc / etc was at least half-motivated by Bush's calling by god: "God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq." False analogy directly yes - not otherwise, though.


Yes, considering as in the middle east very often both sides are equally fanatical. The mere fact that they were victims of the other factions fanaticism does not in any way mean that they will curb their own.

This carries another huge view that the victims (again, refugees) are fighting a war against these agressors. That is clearly not the case, because they are refugees. The ones in conflict with the agressors are not refugees because they have not intended to escape the conflict. I do not see anything but another jump in the view here.


The victims know that America will not treat them as their enemies do. That doesn't mean that they will reciprocate in kind. Mind you, I'm not talking about the women with infants. I am talking about the opportunists who will necessarily float along.

I know many in the US do not want to be kind to the refugees. I consider the opportunists with malevolent intentions not to be refugees at all - they may have been victims like the others, but the victims I meant were the refugees. I was not talking about the opportunists.

[Judean Zealot]

Paraxiom

This whole 'refugee' business has been going on in the middle east for quite some time. The Palestinians, for one, are a fine example that one ought to expect nothing but political upheaval from refugees. Even those who do not actually cause trouble are very often sympathetic to their compatriots.

[SethfromMI]

Let it be decided on a state basis. I guess if he passes an executive order forcing ever state to take them, the South will revolt.

a lot of the northern states, including mine of Michigan, is refusing them as well

[sqishy]

Paraxiom

This whole 'refugee' business has been going on in the middle east for quite some time. The Palestinians, for one, are a fine example that one ought to expect nothing but political upheaval from refugees. Even those who do not actually cause trouble are very often sympathetic to their compatriots.

I know the refugee crisis has been going on for a long time; it feels like most of media only picked up on it majorly when it started affecting Europe's shores.

Ah. Odd you treat them as refugees, despite them having the land that Israel then colonised on what they see as their god-given right. If anything, that non-consensual moving-in caused sparked political upheavel you speak of.

[Judean Zealot]

Ah. Odd you treat them as refugees, despite them having the land that Israel then colonised on what they see as their god-given right. If anything, that non-consensual moving-in caused sparked political upheavel you speak of.

I'm not talking about the trouble they've caused in Israel. The Palestinians and us are mortal enemies, that there is unrest is hardly surprising. I'm talking about the major amounts of trouble they've caused in Jordan.

[Uniquemind]

Unfortunately the way the laws work in the US, is that governors do not have the legal authority to refuse them.

Their actions are symbolic only.

A good compromise would be to bar and track all refugees, and not allow them to have smart-technology (video game consoles, wifi, cell phone service).

Because communication technology is a large factor of why Is, is able to operate.

Give them good shelter, heating/cooling, food, and keep families together.

Do that and they'll be kind to the native peoples of the countries that let them in, because you're offering them a life that is infinitely better than what they had.

I have modified my view of how this issue should be handled, as I research the nature of this problem further.

[mattsmith48]

Unfortunately the way the laws work in the US, is that governors do not have the legal authority to refuse them.

Their actions are symbolic only.

A good compromise would be to bar and track all refugees, and not allow them to have smart-technology (video game consoles, wifi, cell phone service).

Because communication technology is a large factor of why Is, is able to operate.

Give them good shelter, heating/cooling, food, and keep families together.

Do that and they'll be kind to the native peoples of the countries that let them in, because you're offering them a life that is infinitely better than what they had.

I have modified my view of how this issue should be handled, as I research the nature of this problem further.

Cant the president just say fuck you your accepting them you racist fuck?

[phuckphace]

Cant the president just say fuck you your accepting them you racist fuck?

"Let me be clear.....I literally cannot even right now"

[Uniquemind]

Cant the president just say fuck you your accepting them you racist fuck?

No because he could drop that line of dialogue sure, but words do nothing in this case but appease those who want to see some acting on the public stage they might live vicariously through.

No the best is to just play a wiser game, stop having gut emotional reactions and treat this entire scenario like a chess game. There is no moral perfectionist answer here neither should anybody make claim to have one, lest they be called a hypocrite.

Decisions based in fear, tend to swing emotional gut reactions which is how former Pres. Bush II, got this entire chain-scenario started by destabilizing the region of the Middle East.

(In related news: Russia just admitted that plane that was crashed a few weeks ago, was due to a bomb before it left Egypt.)

So this is an international crisis, from Beirut to Russia to Paris.

[Sir Suomi]

Yes, let's accept thousands of foreigners from a politically and ideologically unstable reason and place them into American cities where majority of people do not want them. I mean, it's not like our own people are starving, homeless, impoverished. Especially not our own fucking veterans who risked their lives trying to stop all the shit from going down. It's not like there are 50,000 currently homeless and seeking help. Oh, and it's also not like every 1 in 5 children in America are starving. Yeah, fuck our own veterans and our children. Let's just let in people who will cause even more social conflicts.

[Uniquemind]

Yes, let's accept thousands of foreigners from a politically and ideologically unstable reason and place them into American cities where majority of people do not want them. I mean, it's not like our own people are starving, homeless, impoverished. Especially not our own fucking veterans who risked their lives trying to stop all the shit from going down. It's not like there are 50,000 currently homeless and seeking help. Oh, and it's also not like every 1 in 5 children in America are starving. Yeah, fuck our own veterans and our children. Let's just let in people who will cause even more social conflicts.

To the contrary, that would mean and add to the need and political will to actually invest in services that would help suffering citizenry, AND refugees.

It's just in the way you spin it, and instead of looking at it as more of a burden, one could change the perspective and see it as more a challenge that is headed our way regardless, and one challenge where as a country it's time to rise to the occasion and show a mix of compassion and love, with strict rules and control and order.

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[Sir Suomi]

with strict rules and control and order.



I understand the principle behind it, but restricting these "refugees" will only cause even more resentment towards we Americans. History has proven that when you treat someone like a second-class citizen, they tend to get a wee upset.

No, I stand behind my principles. I feel that we should refuse help towards those abroad until we can fix our own problems, which we've yet to do.

[Uniquemind]

I understand the principle behind it, but restricting these "refugees" will only cause even more resentment towards we Americans. History has proven that when you treat someone like a second-class citizen, they tend to get a wee upset.


No, I stand behind my principles. I feel that we should refuse help towards those abroad until we can fix our own problems, which we've yet to do.

No more or less resentment will be created by action or inaction in this scenario. With that being the case, then that means either action is consequence neutral, therefore do what you want.


There is no dividing line now between domestic problems and foreign problems. They are beginning to fuse, and that's how I've always seen the situation.

[Sir Suomi]

No more or less resentment will be created by action or inaction in this scenario. With that being the case, then that means either action is consequence neutral, therefore do what you want.

I'd argue that inaction, at least for the moment, is better than making rash decisions that could lead to harm being caused to Americans.

There is no dividing line now between domestic problems and foreign problems. They are beginning to fuse, and that's how I've always seen the situation.

I'd argue there. For example, are our own financial issues (Granted we're better than a lot of other nations) equally as pressing as a civil war being fought in a far away region? I'd say no. I'm all for helping others, but our own citizens should be prioritized way before we consider helping foreigners.

[Vlerchan]

I'm all for helping others, but our own citizens should be prioritized way before we consider helping foreigners.
I'd argue the free market is large enough for all.

I'm of the opinion that refugees should be placed in camps - not cities - and then the camps should be designated as exclusive economic zones, deregulated and the incidence of taxation on investors reduced. Firms can invest in these areas so long as these firms agree to aid in the construction of infrastructure and so on. This will be in their interests regardless. It won't require too large a space, it's quite possible to pack hundreds if not thousands of people into a square kilometre.

If this sounds like I'm promoting the construction of new cities, then the reader is on track. Building cities is something that we've been doing for centuries - and entirely spontaneously at that. It might require a small gvt. investment to begin with but the historical returns on the construction of city's is colossal - Evidenced in the fact that land values in-and-around cities tend to explode. It will of course occur under stable governance of Westerners: Urban planners, Urban and Industrial Economists. Our middle eastern friends will all be conservatives, so social excesses will be minimised.

It's also the case that movement outside of these zones for refugees won't occur except under special conditions. So our less, inclusive, let's say, peers, won't even have to se them.

History has proven that when you treat someone like a second-class citizen, they tend to get a wee upset.
If the refugees are upset about their conditions in Vlerchanatopia, I don't mind shipping them back to the middle east. Regardless it seems to be more the case that second generation immigrants tend to pose more of a threat in this regards, and I'm hoping we won't be dealing with the same situation 20 Yrs down the line.

---

I also won't get a chance to respond to criticisms of this proposal for a while.

[Jinglebottom]

The Syrian and Palestinian refugees have done nothing but contribute to the overcrowding and increasing poverty.

While some of them are genuine asylum seekers (whose homes were destroyed, families killed, and who typically came over when the war first began), the others are here just for the sake of being here, and think bullshit like "Lebanese soil is fertile" or "I can start a business in Lebanon!" are valid excuses for crossing God knows how many kilometers into OUR territory.

Heck, and they are doing themselves no favor by having 6-7 children just so they can push them into begging and working their butts off to provide them with their daily income. That is so ironic and counterproductive I can't even type my thoughts. So in order to escape poverty, you have more children... how the fuck does that make sense?

These are the very same people who inhabited areas that were not affected by the war(s) whatsoever, yet still felt the need to move into this tiny country. And their number is growing daily. Soon enough, we'll have to force the Lebanese out of their own homes to make place for them.

Maybe y'all should live in a place in which 25% of its population consists of refugees to understand what I'm saying.

TL;DR But yeah, have fun with 'em America.

[Miserabilia]

The Syrian and Palestinian refugees have done nothing but contribute to the overcrowding and increasing poverty.

While some of them are genuine asylum seekers (whose homes were destroyed, families killed, and who typically came over when the war first began), the others are here just for the sake of being here, and think bullshit like "Lebanese soil is fertile" or "I can start a business in Lebanon!" are valid excuses for crossing God knows how many kilometers into OUR territory.

Heck, and they are doing themselves no favor by having 6-7 children just so they can push them into begging and working their butts off to provide them with their daily income. That is so ironic and counterproductive I can't even type my thoughts. So in order to escape poverty, you have more children... how the fuck does that make sense?

These are the very same people who inhabited areas that were not affected by the war(s) whatsoever, yet still felt the need to move into this tiny country. And their number is growing daily. Soon enough, we'll have to force the Lebanese out of their own homes to make place for them.

Maybe y'all should live in a place in which 25% of its population consists of refugees to understand what I'm saying.

TL;DR But yeah, have fun with 'em America.

Won't other countries accepting refugees to come in actualy releive your small country of the pressure?
Because it sounds like that is exactly what you want, in which case you should be a supporter of europe and the USA allowing in more refugees.

[Judean Zealot]

Won't other countries accepting refugees to come in actualy releive your small country of the pressure?
Because it sounds like that is exactly what you want, in which case you should be a supporter of europe and the USA allowing in more refugees.

I don't think xbob18 really cares if your countries go to shit or not, he's just saying it's a bad idea for you. The same way it technically suits my own national interests that Europe is setting itself on a direct collision course with the Islamic world, yet I still say on this forum that it's a damn stupid move for them.

[sqishy]

I'm not talking about the trouble they've caused in Israel. The Palestinians and us are mortal enemies, that there is unrest is hardly surprising. I'm talking about the major amounts of trouble they've caused in Jordan.

I do not know enough about those situations, so I will leave my response here.

[Judean Zealot]

I do not know enough about those situations, so I will leave my response here.

The Palestinians tried wresting control of Jordan from the Hashemites, which resulted in them being slaughtered (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan).

[sqishy]

The Palestinians tried wresting control of Jordan from the Hashemites, which resulted in them being slaughtered (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan).

I will look into it.
(Funny that I just visited that wiki page before I came to reply.)

[Uniquemind]

The Syrian and Palestinian refugees have done nothing but contribute to the overcrowding and increasing poverty.

While some of them are genuine asylum seekers (whose homes were destroyed, families killed, and who typically came over when the war first began), the others are here just for the sake of being here, and think bullshit like "Lebanese soil is fertile" or "I can start a business in Lebanon!" are valid excuses for crossing God knows how many kilometers into OUR territory.

Heck, and they are doing themselves no favor by having 6-7 children just so they can push them into begging and working their butts off to provide them with their daily income. That is so ironic and counterproductive I can't even type my thoughts. So in order to escape poverty, you have more children... how the fuck does that make sense?

These are the very same people who inhabited areas that were not affected by the war(s) whatsoever, yet still felt the need to move into this tiny country. And their number is growing daily. Soon enough, we'll have to force the Lebanese out of their own homes to make place for them.

Maybe y'all should live in a place in which 25% of its population consists of refugees to understand what I'm saying.

TL;DR But yeah, have fun with 'em America.

So you're saying that if the refugees are accepted still, the should be sterilized to prevent that problem.

Dark point taken...unethical, but logical.

[Sir Suomi]

I'm of the opinion that refugees should be placed in camps - not cities - and then the camps should be designated as exclusive economic zones, deregulated and the incidence of taxation on investors reduced.

Out of curiosity, would you be opposed to said camps being placed in the Middle East in certain areas protected by Western powers? Although I might not agree with risking our soldiers lives (Hey that includes mine!) trying to protect them, I'd most certainly take that over actually letting them into the United States. Certainly if all these people are wanting to have is safety from ISIS, Assad, whomever, they'd be happy with this setting, correct?

It won't require too large a space, it's quite possible to pack hundreds if not thousands of people into a square kilometre.

Do you think said individuals will appreciate being packed into such a relatively small area like that? Is that not really any different than how they're being treated currently?

If this sounds like I'm promoting the construction of new cities, then the reader is on track. Building cities is something that we've been doing for centuries - and entirely spontaneously at that. It might require a small gvt. investment to begin with but the historical returns on the construction of city's is colossal - Evidenced in the fact that land values in-and-around cities tend to explode. It will of course occur under stable governance of Westerners: Urban planners, Urban and Industrial Economists. Our middle eastern friends will all be conservatives, so social excesses will be

I won't disagree that such a construction effort would have benefits. My opinion is why not simply do the same yet in another region besides America?

It's also the case that movement outside of these zones for refugees won't occur except under special conditions. So our less, inclusive, let's say, peers, won't even have to se them.

So you want to isolate them from the rest of our society? This will more than likely have a negative effect. I;e, "We're being treated as outcasts/second class citizens/etc, damn these Westerners!" Insert radicalist, and you've got a serious risk of developing a new wave of terrorists or at least terrorist sympathizers.

And are we going to have armed guards patrolling 24/7? Even then, unless we practically run the place like a prison, possibility of escape into the rest of society is extremely plausible.


Regardless it seems to be more the case that second generation immigrants tend to pose more of a threat in this regards, and I'm hoping we won't be dealing with the same situation 20 Yrs down the line.

That's actually true to a degree it seems. It's not often you see actual first generation immigrants causing too much havoc in their new societies. It's often their offspring that seem to cause the issues. I've seen plenty of situations similar with the Hispanic population within my community.

[SethfromMI]

like it or not, Obama is already bringing them over. he doesn't care what the people wants. I just wonder what type of excuse he is going to give when/if something bad happens

[Uniquemind]

like it or not, Obama is already bringing them over. he doesn't care what the people wants. I just wonder what type of excuse he is going to give when/if something bad happens

SethfromMI, something bad will always happen. Half the time their homegrown threats.

Most of the refugees are genuine suffering people, the cities should should be making a game plan rather than whineing about inaction.

It's like a 2-year old wanting what they want although they have no leverage to get the outcome they want, they gotta learn how to cope, as do these governors.

All I can say is that in this context I am pro-second amendment now.

[Miserabilia]

like it or not, Obama is already bringing them over. he doesn't care what the people wants. I just wonder what type of excuse he is going to give when/if something bad happens

lmao it's almost 2k16 and americans still think the president is some omnipotent being capable of making decisions that effect the entire country on his own.

Yes, evil obama, how dare he.
You do realize more than half your population aggrees with you if you don't want them right? If america is as all about democracy as it wants to advertise itself as, you'll get your way.

[Uniquemind]

lmao it's almost 2k16 and americans still think the president is some omnipotent being capable of making decisions that effect the entire country on his own.

Yes, evil obama, how dare he.
You do realize more than half your population aggrees with you if you don't want them right? If america is as all about democracy as it wants to advertise itself as, you'll get your way.

It's not a direct democracy. It's a republic, and it is a republic to prevent mob rule in policy based on gut emotions like fear.

[Miserabilia]

It's not a direct democracy. It's a republic, and it is a republic to prevent mob rule in policy based on gut emotions like fear.

This is true but in this case I'm not optimistic enough to think that they will continue to keep accepting refugees. USA hasn't supported refugees even in WW2.

[Judean Zealot]

It's not a direct democracy. It's a republic, and it is a republic to prevent mob rule in policy based on gut emotions like fear.

Err, not on the Franklin-Jeffersonian model it isn't.

[SethfromMI]

SethfromMI, something bad will always happen. Half the time their homegrown threats.

Most of the refugees are genuine suffering people, the cities should should be making a game plan rather than whineing about inaction.

It's like a 2-year old wanting what they want although they have no leverage to get the outcome they want, they gotta learn how to cope, as do these governors.

All I can say is that in this context I am pro-second amendment now.

and the Paris attackers were part of the refugees. we just have a very different opinion about this. I am not saying all of those people coming over are terrorists, but I am saying their are terrorists among them. ISIS has already made it clear they have targets for the US. it is not a question of is, but when it will happen

lmao it's almost 2k16 and americans still think the president is some omnipotent being capable of making decisions that effect the entire country on his own.

Yes, evil obama, how dare he.
You do realize more than half your population aggrees with you if you don't want them right? If america is as all about democracy as it wants to advertise itself as, you'll get your way.

lol you clearly don't have a clue of half of the things Obama has done or planned. so I will forgive you of your ignorance. as many people think we are a democracy we are not. and when you have someone in office, who is bent on turning the country into a dictatorship, dictators usually just don't back down because people don't like them or what they are doing

Posts merged. ~Elysium

[Judean Zealot]

lol you clearly don't have a clue of half of the things Obama has done or planned. so I will forgive you of your ignorance. as many people think we are a democracy we are not. and when you have someone in office, who is bent on turning the country into a dictatorship, dictators usually just don't back down because people don't like them or what they are doing


Don't you think that if Obama really wanted to become dictator he would've done so already?

[SethfromMI]

Don't you think that if Obama really wanted to become dictator he would've done so already?

while I see your logic, if it will happen like some people do, he is waiting for the right time. the next election won't take place till next year so he still has some time. I am not guaranteeing it will happen, but he has displayed tendencies and has done things which is not in the best interest of the American people. among them, he has sided with the enemies of Israel who are also enemies of the American people

[Microcosm]

I have no idea why the Federal Government thinks that they can impose a massive migration throughout all 50 states. Doesn't it make much more sense to let the states decide?

[Uniquemind]

and the Paris attackers were part of the refugees. we just have a very different opinion about this. I am not saying all of those people coming over are terrorists, but I am saying their are terrorists among them. ISIS has already made it clear they have targets for the US. it is not a question of is, but when it will happen



lol you clearly don't have a clue of half of the things Obama has done or planned. so I will forgive you of your ignorance. as many people think we are a democracy we are not. and when you have someone in office, who is bent on turning the country into a dictatorship, dictators usually just don't back down because people don't like them or what they are doing

Posts merged. ~Elysium



That's like saying you should throw out a perfectly good 95% test score because 5% of the answers were wrong.

The majority of the refugees are good. The question is how do you handle them that negates the ability for any of them to do bad things.


I am against integration into cities, but I would advocate internment camps, with national guard supply lines for food, shelter, water, and education.

You don't have to turn them away, you just need I control the situation, until a better long term plan can be sought out.

Have government find the people who did extreme makeover home edition, have them build a community at federal dime, to accept the 10K refugees. That's all we have to accept.


Remember if we don't do our part we look bad on the foreign policy stage, and by letting circumstantial death and suffering claim them if we refuse them, will add to the propaganda tools isis has for recruitment.

You cannot let isis win and make you fear death.


I have no idea why the Federal Government thinks that they can impose a massive migration throughout all 50 states. Doesn't it make much more sense to let the states decide?

I'm pretty sure it's some kind of treaty agreement that's being used as justification. I could be wrong but the constitution does give the President power in foreign policy matters.

[Miserabilia]

and the Paris attackers were part of the refugees.

No.. they weren't..
One of them might have been because they found greek passport and even so that would be the first case so far.
there's no advantage in posing as a refugee as an isis terorrist.


we just have a very different opinion about this. I am not saying all of those people coming over are terrorists, but I am saying their are terrorists among them.

Again, you can't proof this and there has been 1 possible case of this, IS has other ways to enter any part of the world, they won't spend time on crappy little boats and walking over borders ,this only takes more time and money.
There's no advantage in posing as refugees.





lol you clearly don't have a clue of half of the things Obama has done or planned. so I will forgive you of your ignorance. as many people think we are a democracy we are not. and when you have someone in office, who is bent on turning the country into a dictatorship, dictators usually just don't back down because people don't like them or what they are doing

yes evil obama the dictator :rolleyes:

https://www.rt.com/usa/322747-house-senate-syrian-refugees/

[Judean Zealot]

I have no idea why the Federal Government thinks that they can impose a massive migration throughout all 50 states. Doesn't it make much more sense to let the states decide?

Technically, you're right, as per the Federalist Papers, but the actual issue of States' sovereignty was screwed up for quite some time already.

[Rydar8]

I have no idea why the Federal Government thinks that they can impose a massive migration throughout all 50 states. Doesn't it make much more sense to let the states decide?

That's exactly what we should do but since we have a democratic POTUS in office and since democrats are pro-federal government then it probs wont happen.

As for my opinion I personally don't think we should be allowing them in, cant we just create a safe zone in their home country or anything else, we don't want an attack on America.

[Vlerchan]

Broadband's back. Expect posting to continue as it might have otherwise.

Out of curiosity, would you be opposed to said camps being placed in the Middle East in certain areas protected by Western powers?
That was the original intention. It becomes more ideal in the case of Europe where it reduces the amount of people making the treacherous route into Europe. However the proposal runs into significant issues on consideration:
There is a less certain return for investors and that's going to pose a substantial restraint. FDI tends to be quite elastic. I can fetch literature on expectations and investment but it seems obvious to me.
The area in question poses significant constraints on transportation and this will inhibit investment. I'd read Donaldson (2010) (http://www.nber.org/papers/w16487) for the salience of transportation infrastructure.
Obvious political concerns as to what would be outright colonialism.
It just works an awful lot better in developed countries as one might expect.

Do you think said individuals will appreciate being packed into such a relatively small area like that?
I would imagine it would seem preferable to dodging air-strikes in Homms. I understand the point though. There's nothing wrong with high population densities if resources are managed in a proper fashion.

That's the reason I'm drafting in urban planners.

Is that not really any different than how they're being treated currently?
Even if we pretend it's the exact same the fundamental difference is in this scenario there's Hope.

This will more than likely have a negative effect. I;e, "We're being treated as outcasts/second class citizens/etc, damn these Westerners!" Insert radicalist, and you've got a serious risk of developing a new wave of terrorists or at least terrorist sympathizers.
These people aren't citizens. It's also the case that their treatment is worse at the moment and it's not got violent as a result of that treatment. Though - as I argued - I expect gratitude to outweigh the weight of issues that might arise.

I also don't mind dangling a non-permanent work visas in front of people for good behaviour though regardless.

And are we going to have armed guards patrolling 24/7? Even then, unless we practically run the place like a prison, possibility of escape into the rest of society is extremely plausible.
I would hope that this is set-up somewhere with high non-arab densities - which is more-or-less most of the geographical space of the US. There is a chance some might escape though. Sure. But if we can recognise this going in then it's something that can be dealt with as it arises.

---

I have no idea why the Federal Government thinks that they can impose a massive migration throughout all 50 states. Doesn't it make much more sense to let the states decide?
First. That the supremacy of national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization, and deportation, [my emphasis] is made clear by the Constitution, was pointed out by the authors of The Federalist in 1787, and has since been given continuous recognition by this Court. When the national government, by treaty or statute, has established rules and regulations touching the rights, privileges, obligations or burdens of aliens as such, the treaty or statute is the supreme law of the land. No state can add to or take from the force and effect of such treaty or statute, for Article VI of the Constitution provides that

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The Federal Government, representing as it does the collective interests of the forty-eight states, is entrusted with full and exclusive responsibility for the conduct of affairs with foreign sovereignties.

"For local interests the several States of the Union exist, but, for national purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power."

Our system of government is such that the interest of the cities, counties and states, no less than the interest of the people of the whole nation, imperatively requires that federal power in the field affecting foreign relations be left entirely free from local interference.

Hines v. Davidowitz [1941] 312 U.S. 61 - 63. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/52/case.html)

The summarise the judgement it's fine for state gvt's to take a stand on these issues insofar as it doesn't impinge on the objectives of the federal gvt.

Technically, you're right, as per the Federalist Papers, but the actual issue of States' sovereignty was screwed up for quite some time already.
The Federalist Papers was cited with approval in Hines.

To quote the reference:

[Footnote 9]

The importance of national power in all matters relating to foreign affairs and the inherent danger of state action in this field are clearly developed in Federalist papers No. 3, 4, 5, 42 and 80.

Hines v. Davidowitz 312 U.S. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/52/case.html)

That's exactly what we should do but since we have a democratic POTUS in office and since democrats are pro-federal government then it probs wont happen.
The Refugee Act passed in a unanimous vote in the Senate (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/96-1979/s262) and with substantial Republican support in the House of Representatives. (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/96-1979/h670)

It then sat untouched under our Lord and Saviour Ronald Reagan for 8 Yrs.

[Judean Zealot]

The Federalist Papers was cited with approval in Hines.

To quote the reference:

[Footnote 9]

The importance of national power in all matters relating to foreign affairs and the inherent danger of state action in this field are clearly developed in Federalist papers No. 3, 4, 5, 42 and 80.

Hines v. Davidowitz 312 U.S. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/52/case.html)


Except that the acceptance of foreign refugees is hardly what the Federalist Papers discusses as "foreign affairs". They were referring primarily to alliances and trade agreements, and the concern was one of each state undercutting the other- a concern which has no bearing on the matter of refugees.

[Sir Suomi]

There is a less certain return for investors and that's going to pose a substantial restraint. FDI tends to be quite elastic. I can fetch literature on expectations and investment but it seems obvious to me.

I can understand that. However, would investors be extremely interested anyways? I mean apart from the initial building and construction phases, eventually (At least the hope is) the region will stabilize, and people will begin to return to where they originated from.


Obvious political concerns as to what would be outright colonialism.

I'd say that would be debatable. I think that the general consensus is that as long as we're making an effort to "keep people safe", I'd say most people would be happy, as long as you're not one of those people who think "diversity is great for a homogeneous community!", and if that's the case I say we politely tell them to fuck off.


I would imagine it would seem preferable to dodging air-strikes in Homms.

Questionable. Although yes, a good portion would be grateful for that much (mainly those who actually have families and are genuinely fleeing to save their families), most of these "refugees" are no more than economic migrants seeking to find a place that provides better income than they find in their home country. This is a main reason you see a huge chunk of males aged 18-35 who are trying to get to places like Germany who have easily accessible government handouts. I've seen plenty of film showing these types of men throwing away perfectly reasonable food, complain about poor wifi, complain that their 8 man tent is too small for 6 of them, etc etc. I can link a few of these videos for you if you can stomach it.

I understand the point though. There's nothing wrong with high population densities if resources are managed in a proper fashion.

My concern is that a restricted space will simply not please the majority of the "refugees", as I pointed out above.

Even if we pretend it's the exact same the fundamental difference is in this scenario there's Hope.

Hope, much like the resources to fund a project like this, is finite. Eventually the people will grow impatient and displeased.


I would hope that this is set-up somewhere with high non-arab densities - which is more-or-less most of the geographical space of the US. There is a chance some might escape though. Sure. But if we can recognise this going in then it's something that can be dealt with as it arises

I'm just not comfortable with the thought of these Islamic migrants, especially large portions of young men, escaping into the general population. I don't know about you, but seeing the rape statistics of Sweden rise up due to the influx of immigrants make me a little worried.

[pascaldesla]

Accept.... America was founded by refugies and should continue...

[Vlerchan]

Except that the acceptance of foreign refugees is hardly what the Federalist Papers discusses as "foreign affairs". They were referring primarily to alliances and trade agreements
The very improper power would still be retained by each state, of naturalizing aliens in every other state. In one state, residence for a short term confers all the rights of citizenship; in another, qualifications of greater importance are required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for certain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in the former, elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one state be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of the other.

No. 42 pp. 221. (http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf)
Madison is highlighting the problems inherent to he diverging statues' of foreign aliens in one state as compared to another. I understand it relates in particular to the naturalisation process but it demonstrates that the topic was of interest to the drafters when considering the federal gvt. powers and the logic can be extended to refer to immigrants and refugees.

The union will undoubtedly be answerable to foreign powers for the conduct of its members. And the responsibility for an injury, ought ever to be accompanied with the faculty of preventing it. As the denial or perversion of justice by the sentences of courts, is with reason classed among the just causes of war, it will follow, that the federal judiciary ought to have cognizance of all causes in which the citizens of other countries are concerned. This is not less essential to the preservation of the public faith, than to the security of the public tranquillity. A distinction may perhaps be imagined, between cases arising upon treaties and the laws of nations, and those which may stand merely on the footing of the municipal law. The former kind may be supposed proper for the federal jurisdiction; the latter for that of the states. But it is at least problematical, whether an unjust sentence against a foreigner, where the subject of controversy was wholly relative to the lex loci, would not, if unredressed, be an aggression upon his sovereign, as well as one which violated the stipulations of a treaty, or the general law of nations. And a still greater objection to the distinction would result from the immense difficulty, if not impossibility, of a practical discrimination between the cases of one complexion and those of the other. So great a proportion of the controversies in which foreigners are parties, involve national questions, that it is by far most safe, and most expedient, to refer all those in which they are concerned to the national tribunals.

No. 80 pp. 412 (http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf)

Here Hamilton opens up a more general considerations surrounding matters relating to foreign aliens falling within the sole jurisdiction of the federal courts and thus it would seem that the relations with foreign aliens as these existed in the U.S. were seen to fall within the remit of federal authorities.

Please note that Hamilton refers to protecting 'peace and tranquillity' the exact same term as Jay uses in No. 3. He argues on pp. 10 that "It is of high importance to the peace of America, that she observe the law of nations towards all these powers; and to me it appears evident that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government, than it could be either by thirteen separate states, or by three or four distinct confederacies" as would seem the base to Hamilton's argument.

However, would investors be extremely interested anyways?
There's a rather massive return on investment so I would imagine so. The fact that the refugees will return is immaterial. If the refugees leave then increasing capital depth will raise the wages in that area so that natives will replace them.

I think that the general consensus is that as long as we're making an effort to "keep people safe", I'd say most people would be happy[.]
Colour me sceptical on this point. I speak with particular reference to political leads in the middle east.

[...] most of these "refugees" are no more than economic migrants seeking to find a place that provides better income than they find in their home country.
I'm open to this being sourced at all.

This is a main reason you see a huge chunk of males aged 18-35 who are trying to get to places like Germany who have easily accessible government handouts.
It's rather because it tends to be rather tolerant of Muslims [i.e multicultural] - and has rather high arab densities. The same goes for Sweden and the UK. The UK also offers poor welfare.

The reason it's for the most part middle-aged men is because I would imagine most of these don't want to have their families make a treacherous trek to Europe so we can attempt to integrate them into our culture. I would imagine remittance rates will spike once this settles.

I've seen plenty of film showing these types of men throwing away perfectly reasonable food, complain about poor wifi, complain that their 8 man tent is too small for 6 of them, etc etc. I can link a few of these videos for you if you can stomach it.
I have noted before that I'm not going to accept snapshots like this esp. when most of them that get posted on this site then to take the issue out of context. Being quite honest the couple I've fact-checked have been demonstrable bullshit that issues off-camera prompted.

Like I've mentioned before though if the refugees are ungrateful we can ship them back to Homms.

My concern is that a restricted space will simply not please the majority of the "refugees", as I pointed out above.
But all of them see the glamour in welfare-scrounging.

Hope, much like the resources to fund a project like this, is finite. Eventually the people will grow impatient and displeased.
The fundamental resource in this project is the refugees themselves. It being finite is immaterial.

Except if their conditions in a state of economic investment continue to improve then it's difficult to imagine their hope petering out. It's not unless things stagnate that we'll start to have an issue.

I don't know about you, but seeing the rape statistics of Sweden rise up due to the influx of immigrants make me a little worried.
Using this logic shouldn't be just deport all muslims from the US?

I don't support rape. Do you?

[Judean Zealot]

The very improper power would still be retained by each state, of naturalizing aliens in every other state. In one state, residence for a short term confers all the rights of citizenship; in another, qualifications of greater importance are required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for certain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in the former, elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one state be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of the other.

No. 42 pp. 221. (http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf)
Madison is highlighting the problems inherent to he diverging statues' of foreign aliens in one state as compared to another. I understand it relates in particular to the naturalisation process but it demonstrates that the topic was of interest to the drafters when considering the federal gvt. powers and the logic can be extended to refer to immigrants and refugees.

The union will undoubtedly be answerable to foreign powers for the conduct of its members. And the responsibility for an injury, ought ever to be accompanied with the faculty of preventing it. As the denial or perversion of justice by the sentences of courts, is with reason classed among the just causes of war, it will follow, that the federal judiciary ought to have cognizance of all causes in which the citizens of other countries are concerned. This is not less essential to the preservation of the public faith, than to the security of the public tranquillity. A distinction may perhaps be imagined, between cases arising upon treaties and the laws of nations, and those which may stand merely on the footing of the municipal law. The former kind may be supposed proper for the federal jurisdiction; the latter for that of the states. But it is at least problematical, whether an unjust sentence against a foreigner, where the subject of controversy was wholly relative to the lex loci, would not, if unredressed, be an aggression upon his sovereign, as well as one which violated the stipulations of a treaty, or the general law of nations. And a still greater objection to the distinction would result from the immense difficulty, if not impossibility, of a practical discrimination between the cases of one complexion and those of the other. So great a proportion of the controversies in which foreigners are parties, involve national questions, that it is by far most safe, and most expedient, to refer all those in which they are concerned to the national tribunals.

No. 80 pp. 412 (http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf)

Here Hamilton opens up a more general considerations surrounding matters relating to foreign aliens falling within the sole jurisdiction of the federal courts and thus it would seem that the relations with foreign aliens as these existed in the U.S. were seen to fall within the remit of federal authorities.

Please note that Hamilton refers to protecting 'peace and tranquillity' the exact same term as Jay uses in No. 3. He argues on pp. 10 that "It is of high importance to the peace of America, that she observe the law of nations towards all these powers; and to me it appears evident that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government, than it could be either by thirteen separate states, or by three or four distinct confederacies" as would seem the base to Hamilton's argument.


I still don't see how this is relevant to the acceptance of new immigrants. As you yourself seem to point out, what Madison is referring to is a resident of a state, who will be accorded different status in each state. In our particular scenario we are talking about admittance into particular states. There will be no difference in treatment or naturalisation between states- the refugees simply would be denied entry.

No. 80, as well, is irrelevant to our particular scenario, as acceptance or rejection of immigrants is hardly an issue which forms foreign policy (unless there is a demand for extradition, which in our case there isn't).

[Vlerchan]

I still don't see how this is relevant to the acceptance of new immigrants.
If one state accepts refugees and the second doesn't then that refugee still becomes a resident of the United States. However the fact that he is barred from one state - him being ineligible to enter conferring certain statues in itself - would cause such an arrangement to fall to the Madison critique.

It seems clear to me that there's a difference in treatment here. It's possible to also take a more obtuse but literalist referral and label non-admittance in one state as setting a different set of conditions to naturalisation.

Hamilton's point catches it regardless though. His belief is that relations with foreign nations - and this would seem to refer to foreign aliens - should be dealt with at a federal level in federal courts. It would seem he's reflecting on No. 3 - No. 5 here.

[Drewboyy]

There are too many people and we have too much debt already. Can America stop being good Greg for a change, regardless of whether or not they are or are not extremists.(some of them are bound to be. I mean, 70,000? There is a lot of room for something to go wrong)
At least until some of the major problems that the US is facing currently is dealt with.

[Judean Zealot]

It's possible to also take a more obtuse but literalist referral and label non-admittance in one state as setting a different set of conditions to naturalisation. Which is my position. There is a difference between allowing a foreigner residency and naturalising said foreigner as a US citizen. And so far as I am currently aware, the debate surrounding the refugees is not one of whether to grant them citizenship, but of granting admittance.

Hamilton's point catches it regardless though. His belief is that relations with foreign nations - and this would seem to refer to foreign aliens - should be dealt with at a federal level in federal courts. It would seem he's reflecting on No. 3 - No. 5 here. He is definitely reflecting on 3 through 5 here- which is why I am not accepting your point here. The acceptance or rejection of their emigrants is hardly a matter that concerns governments, and as such I would say that this does not fall under the point by Hamilton.

Morever, I would also suggest that those fleeing anarchy are in fact fleeing from stateless societies, in the sense that the state can no longer fulfill even it's most basic duties. As such, I would argue that there is no government of origin to be concerned about.

[Vlerchan]

Which is my position. There is a difference between allowing a foreigner residency and naturalising said foreigner as a US citizen. And so far as I am currently aware, the debate surrounding the refugees is not one of whether to grant them citizenship, but of granting admittance.
I agree there's a difference. The point I was making in the quoted text was that if one is barred from being a resident in a state then one is barred from being naturalised insofar as that state is concerned. Even if the debate surrounds refugees becoming resident - at the moment refugees hold an automatic right to application to citizenship after 5 Yrs have passed. The conditions of their residence are thus of fundemental concern.

But the fundamental point of Madison's argument seems to me to be the different statues that a resident might hold as she cross amongst states. I would imagine the reason immigration isn't mention in particular is because restrictions towards that regard wasn't favoured - or discussed at all as far as I'm aware. Legislation wouldn't appear for pressing 100 Yrs.

The spirit of the argument extends towards immigrants as it might be claimed that dealings with an incident with a horse on the road extend to a car crash.

He is definitely reflecting on 3 through 5 here- which is why I am not accepting your point here. The acceptance or rejection of their emigrants is hardly a matter that concerns governments, and as such I would say that this does not fall under the point by Hamilton.
Hamilton's argument is that dealings with foreign citizens is the role of federal authorities. If the refugees are recognised as foreign citizens then it would seem to fall within the remit. His argument is intended to extend from No. 3 through 5 which as far as I'm aware make no reference to foreign citizens at all.

To emphasise: It's the premise Hamilton works from that is of importance and not the specific claims that are made in No. 3 through 5.



Morever, I would also suggest that those fleeing anarchy are in fact fleeing from stateless societies, in the sense that the state can no longer fulfill even it's most basic duties. As such, I would argue that there is no government of origin to be concerned about.
Far as I'm aware the U.S. still recognises that origin countries of these refugees as states.

Failed states are still states.

[Judean Zealot]

Vlerchan

Perhaps. I'm going to leave this as it is because for me to continue would be petty, as I concede most of your points.

In any event, lol at an Irishman and an Israeli paying more attention to the American constitution than most Americans themselves.

[qaisr]

The US refugee system works fine the way it is right now. We thoroughly scrutinize refugee accounts of demonstrated persecution and has demonstrated admissability into the US, through the USRAP. As far as resettlement goes, there are currently less than 2000 in the US. Safety and xenophobia are not the only reasons we should limit refugees from coming over to the US, taxpayers should not have to pay for those who will likely not be able to pay their taxes (i.e. those with low english proficiency, those with injuries, et al). However, regardless, we should keep in mind that the events in Paris serve is clear reminders that there are flaws within high tolerance, and the US being the forefront of Islamophobia bodes poorly for American lives in the same scenario.

[german_boy]

70.000+? You must be joking! And many states don't even want to accept them?

They estimate more than 800.000 refugees arriving 2015 in Germany.

total area Germany: 137 k mi² - USA: 3.719 mio mi²
population GER: 81.6mio - USA 322mio
population density GER: 606 people/mi² - USA 91.1ppl/mi²

It's the same for other European countries. For Europeans, 70.000 people sounds like a joke. And there are even people who don't want to accept this little number of refugees - people who need help? A country like America must be able to deal with that easily. I don't understand why they have doubts integrating the refugees. If the system works, the small number of refugees will be no problem.

"We're full"? Really? What about Europe? The refugee crisis is a global threat, not a European one. In my opinion, America wasn't exactly uninvoled in the reason why so many people have to flee in terror. Why can countries like Sweden, Germany or Austria handle with the situation and the US can't?

[Professional Russian]

Sick of hearing their "potential danger".
Untill you can proove it, there's not any more danger than with your people already there.

Potential danger is enough to deny them entry. There doesn't have to be proof. It's like searching me with probable cause. They can't prove I have everything till they find it. We have probable cause that they are dangerous and thats reason enough to deny them entry. If it was up to ms I'd close the borders, tell everyone to go fuck themselves, and put boots on the ground blowing isis apart because they threatened us.

[Vlerchan]

In any event, lol at an Irishman and an Israeli paying more attention to the American constitution than most Americans themselves.
Heh. I was going to mention this in the post before but being the optimist I'd hoped someone from the U.S. would intervene to prove me wrong. I do have this awful feeling though that the constitution has been mythicized to the extent that the average U.S. citizen find it unapproachable as a realm of discussion.

Safety and xenophobia are not the only reasons we should limit refugees from coming over to the US, taxpayers should not have to pay for those who will likely not be able to pay their taxes (i.e. those with low english proficiency, those with injuries, et al).
I noted a solution that I imagine would result in net gain for the federal gvt. in terms of monetarised returns. Of course there's something nebulously unethical about a concious and severe elevation of someone's chance of death on the basis that these people don't make a good investment.

I'm also not sure if cited-xenophobia as a reason to reject the refugees is intended.

Potential danger is enough to deny them entry. There doesn't have to be proof. It's like searching me with probable cause.
Probable cause doesn't require that the police suspect one has the potential to commit a criminal act.

For reference probable cause enables police to search individuals. This isn't a trail and there's still a presumption of innocence.

We have probable cause that they are dangerous and thats reason enough to deny them entry.
Feel free to expand.

[Professional Russian]

Feel free to expand.

How many Syrian terrorists are there? You go do the math on that...because well I'm.bust doing the math on something different

[Vlerchan]

How many Syrian terrorists are there?
The fact that a disportionate number of gangbangers are black does not mean that police officers can search all blacks on grounds of probable cause.

It's also definitional that refugees are coming from unstable regions.

[sqishy]

How many Syrian terrorists are there? You go do the math on that...because well I'm.bust doing the math on something different

http://realityrelative.tumblr.com/post/133492422178/think-progress-one-huge-chart-that-proves-taking

Here is an infographic on what I see to be relevant.

I would have the picture placed directly here, but there is more than one needed to convey the message.

[Judean Zealot]

Of course there's something nebulously unethical about a concious and severe elevation of someone's chance of death on the basis that these people don't make a good investment.

Welcome to the VT Ayn Rand nihilist klub.

[qaisr]

I noted a solution that I imagine would result in net gain for the federal gvt. in terms of monetarised returns. Of course there's something nebulously unethical about a concious and severe elevation of someone's chance of death on the basis that these people don't make a good investment.

I'm also not sure if cited-xenophobia as a reason to reject the refugees is intended.


I'm curious. Elaborate on such a plan. I am not sure what the policy is on paying for their benefits, but at what scale is it sustainable? Currently, the impact is insignificant in either direction - with less than 2000 refugees being accepted in the US, there is little to worry about lest resettlers actually do abide by extremist principles and truly do pursue acts of terror. We are certainly not in the "people" business. The issue is that there are people here who pay their taxes and in very difficult situations themselves and certainly do not benefit from resettlers. Also, I am fairly sure that their living conditions aren't going to improve significantly, other than being distanced from war.

[Vlerchan]

I'm curious. Elaborate on such a plan.
I wrote this on pp. 2 of this thread. Sir Suomi and I debate it in bursts on pp. 2 and pp. 3. I imagine - he's reading the thread at the moment - this will continue.

I'd argue the free market is large enough for all.

I'm of the opinion that refugees should be placed in camps - not cities - and then the camps should be designated as exclusive economic zones, deregulated and the incidence of taxation on investors reduced. Firms can invest in these areas so long as these firms agree to aid in the construction of infrastructure and so on. This will be in their interests regardless. It won't require too large a space, it's quite possible to pack hundreds if not thousands of people into a square kilometre.

If this sounds like I'm promoting the construction of new cities, then the reader is on track. Building cities is something that we've been doing for centuries - and entirely spontaneously at that. It might require a small gvt. investment to begin with but the historical returns on the construction of city's is colossal - Evidenced in the fact that land values in-and-around cities tend to explode. It will of course occur under stable governance of Westerners: Urban planners, Urban and Industrial Economists. Our middle eastern friends will all be conservatives, so social excesses will be minimised.

It's also the case that movement outside of these zones for refugees won't occur except under special conditions. So our less, inclusive, let's say, peers, won't even have to se[e] them.

The issue is that there are people here who pay their taxes and in very difficult situations themselves and certainly do not benefit from resettlers.
Channel the foreign aid budget into this endeavour. The U.S. foreign aid budget is channelled into commonly-recognised ineffectual development channels at a rate of 100% (Easterly 2008) (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.22.2.29), so I'm not seeing the issue.

Also, I am fairly sure that their living conditions aren't going to improve significantly, other than being distanced from war.
I would imagine there is a significant psychological boost in being distanced from the thoughts that your entire family's going to be murdered.

Though, how good do you think they have it in Syria?

[Sir Suomi]

There's a rather massive return on investment so I would imagine so. The fact that the refugees will return is immaterial. If the refugees leave then increasing capital depth will raise the wages in that area so that natives will replace them.

Interesting. I'll admit, it's plausible. However, the real question is will the refugees leave.


Colour me sceptical on this point. I speak with particular reference to political leads in the middle east.

I was referring more towards the Western nations in general. I think that if we provided a safe area for the refugees outside of the West, I think most people couldn't complain too much.


I'm open to this being sourced at all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3240010/Number-refugees-arriving-Europe-soars-85-year-just-one-five-war-torn-Syria.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424416/give-me-your-tired-your-poor-not-your-terrorists-ian-tuttle

I can give a few more, I just thought these would suffice. If you don't want to read through them, here's an important bit from the second.

Despite being billed as a “refugee crisis,” what is unfolding along Europe’s borders is a mixed migration of asylum seekers and economic migrants. The European Union’s official statistical agency, Eurostat, recorded 213,0000 arrived migrants in April, May, and June of this year; only 44,000 — 1 in five — were fleeing war in Syria. With new international attention turned to the problem over the last month, that proportion likely has changed. But even the International Organization for Migration reports that Syrians make up only 40 percent of the total migrant population. Another 11 percent are Afghans fleeing the Taliban; Eritreans fleeing their own oppressive government are 7 percent; and many thousands more hail from Iraq, Pakistan, and sub-Saharan Africa.

The reason it's for the most part middle-aged men is because I would imagine most of these don't want to have their families make a treacherous trek to Europe so we can attempt to integrate them into our culture. I would imagine remittance rates will spike once this settles.

I'm skeptical.


Like I've mentioned before though if the refugees are ungrateful we can ship them back to Homms.

Oh no, but then we're not being humanitarian! *Sarcasm*

Using this logic shouldn't be just deport all muslims from the US?

There's a dramatic difference between those who have been naturalized for several generations compared to recent immigrants or offspring of immigrants. It's hard to argue that these immigrants have not caused an issue in the country after seeing the statistics.

I don't support rape. Do you?

No, it's something I'd rather avoid. In other words, taking measures to ensure a demographic that increases the amount of rapes dramatically doesn't enter my own country is something I'd be proud to do.

Note, don't try and take that as me saying every muslim or every immigrant would be a jihadi rapist bent on installing Shariah Law into our country. I understand that many of these people are simply trying to flee persecution and wouldn't cause issues. I just want to have our own issues solved before adding more to the table.

[Jinglebottom]

Why the U.S. would allow refugees from a country that's allied with the #1 hater of America (Iran, which regularly chants the slogan "Death to America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America)") into its territory is beyond me. lololol okay then

[Judean Zealot]

Even though this isn't my discussion I'm just going to insert that Vlerchan's suggestion is what Israel employed to absorb the massive waves of Jewish refugees from Europe and the Arab countries in the 40s and 50s, with remarkable success (although government sanctioned racism against Middle Eastern and North African Jews caused decades of economic stagnation).

[Vlerchan]

Interesting. I'll admit, it's plausible. However, the real question is will the refugees leave.
If the U.S. wants to deport them, being as the refugees will be maintained in a single area, then I'm sure it will be quite simple.

However, I'm not so sure if them leaving is all that required: refugees need to be resident for 5 Yrs before then being able to make an application for citizenship. I'm sure, in that time, we'll be able to sort out the bad ones, and thus granting access to the greater-US shouldn't pose the risks that prompt of to segregate these in the first place.

I'd also recommend funding education programmes, i.e., humanist propaganda, if that were the case.

Nonetheless, it's not something I have much of an opinion on. The refugees would need to be evaluated, perhaps 4 Yrs in, before a proper judgement on the matter could be made.

I was referring more towards the Western nations in general. I think that if we provided a safe area for the refugees outside of the West, I think most people couldn't complain too much.
Oh. I agree then. Perhaps people like me will take to the internet about neo-colonialism, and such, but we'll be ignored, no worries.

Daily Mail link.
I'm not opening this because I don't feel like giving the Daily Mail more advertising revenue.

Your second link makes a sufficient point for me to deal with though.

National Review article.
"Up to the minute conservative commentary on politics, news and culture."

Oh goodie.

It's 1-in-5 statistic sources the Daily Mail, there's no link to the Eurostat report, so I decided to fact check.

We found that the Daily Mail’s and Huckabee’s statistic [as reported in the National Review] represents the situation in the three months before the Syrian migrants actually began arriving in Europe in bulk. Looking at the whole picture, asylum seekers from Syria represent half of all refugees.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/11/mike-huckabee/huckabee-most-syrian-refugees-are-not-syrian-free-/

I didn't see that coming.

Let's then look to the citation of the International Organisation of Migration. It doesn't cite their report but rather cites the Council for Foreign Relations that doesn't cite the actual report either. I'm not to keen on scrolling through the IOM's database so I'm just going to cite the UN (http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php). It reports that 51% of migrants that crossed the Mediterranean are from Syria, 20% are from Afghanistan, 6% are Iraqi, 4% are Eritrean. That's 80% coming from states that one would be hard-pressed to refer to migrants from as economic immigrants. The rest of the countries mentioned all contribute a negligible amount, though being that these face their own crisises, it's not difficult to imagine that these were displaced too.

Of course it's also implicit in the CFR report that the National Review cites that the non-Syrians are refugees too.

Then it claims that since it's men from Syria it must be for economic reasons. Please refer back to the comments I made regarding this in the last post.

Then it discusses the idea that we might be importing ISIL agents. It doesn't make reference to the U.S. at all here.

Then it turns to anti-welfarist rhetoric that is irrelevant in the context of what I propose.

I'm skeptical.
If I felt dutybound to the upkeep of my wife and children I wouldn't be taking them open a trek that poses horrific fatality-rates.

There's a dramatic difference between those who have been naturalized for several generations compared to recent immigrants or offspring of immigrants.
The U.S. has taken in 10s of 1000s of Islamic refugees in the last decade. It's not led to a rape crisis. The National Review cites Minneapolis as hen taken in a considerable amount of Somalian refugees since 2008 but it's rape statistics still remain on the same trend - that's still quite ridiculously high, though.

It's hard to argue that these immigrants have not caused an issue in the country after seeing the statistics.
Swedish rape statistics doubled after 2005 because it considerably widened its definition of rape. It reports individual rapes that might have occurred within a series of rapes, as separate events in themselves, which more or less no other state does. This reporting also occurs when it is first brought to the attention of police - which is unusual.

There is an argument that Muslims do have a higher rate rape but that immigration is feeding into en endemic is overblown.

No, it's something I'd rather avoid. In other words, taking measures to ensure a demographic that increases the amount of rapes dramatically doesn't enter my own country is something I'd be proud to do.

Note, don't try and take that as me saying every muslim or every immigrant would be a jihadi rapist bent on installing Shariah Law into our country. I understand that many of these people are simply trying to flee persecution and wouldn't cause issues. I just want to have our own issues solved before adding more to the table.
So, if a group has a higher median rate of some offence than the average citizen, then all members of that group should be barred from the U.S., if not deported. That seems to be the logical extension of this argument - But perhaps I'm reading an extreme interpretation into it.

Otherwise though there's an open debate on whether or not reducing the suffering of one group would be offset - or not - through the harm that groups brings. That debate we can have.

---

Why the U.S. would allow refugees from a country that's allied with the #1 hater of America (Iran, which regularly chants the slogan "Death to America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America)") into its territory is beyond me. lololol okay then
The U.S. is making a pivot towards Iran. Because Iran has gas that can help feed European demand for U.S. goods, esp. Considering the proposed TPP.

Of course this mess arose through the Syrian's rising up against Assad, so.

[Miserabilia]

Potential danger is enough to deny them entry.

Then why isn't that same potential danger enough reason to deport pretty much half the population? OR just everyone? Since everyone is a potential danger.
For me the chances of my native friends and family being terrorists are higher than a fugitive entering right now statisticly.
Irrational fear, irrational argument.

There doesn't have to be proof. It's like searching me with probable cause. They can't prove I have everything till they find it. We have probable cause that they are dangerous and thats reason enough to deny them entry. .

what "probably cause"

[phuckphace]

I really think this whole issue is artificial and a big waste of time to bicker about in the political system.

I have yet to see an actual, sensible justification for taking in even one immigrant that isn't basically "free market is hungry, we must feed it" and/or my fuzzy feels. if we're not collapsing, it's because we sealed the borders and got busy with bringing the native populace up to speed instead. we've seen how great things work out when we've got a sane, functioning, small population.

you guys really ought to get a job dealing with call-center Indians on a regular basis, not that you'll need to wait much longer. there's one reason and one reason only why CEOs are lobbying hard for more H1B Indians - they're absurdly cheap and look good on investor reports. it doesn't matter that their gross incompetence, faked credentials and cartoonishly-bad English is turning your customers into Trump/Hitler voters. it doesn't matter that the company will be broke in 5 years because you get to ca$h out early anyway.

back to the Syrian refugees, there's barely even an economic argument to be made since they are poor randoms fleeing and have zero useful skills, aside from a unique dedication to running shitty corner stores that defraud the state government by accepting EBT for non-food purchases (tank u com ageen!) so the only argument left is my fuzzy feels. unnecessary cash spent "screening" them (as if the Left wouldn't neuter it to hell anyway) unnecessary cash spent resettling them, and more unnecessary cash spent cleaning up their messes. why?

oh and lol at the German with his 800K tally up there - it may look like your wheel-o-the-feels highscore but it's actually a "how insane are your elites" score which as you'll note is through the roof. I can just see them huddled around a laptop at ECB HQ as Merkel loads unlimited_shekels.ct into CheatEngine and then stands back, forming the Merkel-Raute as the cackling grows louder

[Kahn]

Should the United States accept them or deny them?

Personally, I don't see any good reason we should, aside from goodwill. However, having personal experience with refugees, the ones that can afford to come here usually have a nice financial cushion to lean on. Otherwise they're emigrating to Europen countries simply due to their limited resources and travel distance.

I worked with a Syrian refugee in 2013, he was a really nice dude. Kind of brash and he had trouble understanding sarcasm, and it was hard to understand him at first, but we got along pretty well. His father was extremely successful back in Syria, I guess, and the kid played on the under 18 national soccer team before shit went down. I visited their home (which was nicer than mine) once and immediately when I stepped through the door, they handed me a glass of whiskey and a huge bowl of popcorn. I tried to explain to them the 21 years old law (and the fact that I didn't want to have to have a huge bowl of popcorn after just eating at Subway) but, they didn't want to have any of it, and I didn't want to deny their hospitality, so I accepted and consumed responsibly.

While we were talking, he showed me around their property and he brought me to this little art house they had in their backyard. It was his mom's, and she was a sort of internationally renowned artist, preparing for an art show in Chicago. The painting she was working on when we found her was a man crying tears of blood. My coworker was acting all light hearted about everything and they were joking when we discussed the painting (the alcohol I'd presume), but it really hit me there how terrible it must be to have your home sacked or leveled by a domestic extremeist group, or a foreign colossus.

That experience is purely anecdotal and I didn't keep in touch with my former coworker, but I wish I had, so I could ask him his feelings on this.

I don't think the United States should bring over 70,000 refugees, or even 15,000 refugees, who can't support themselves, simultaneously.

[Porpoise101]

I have yet to see an actual, sensible justification for taking in even one immigrant that isn't basically "free market is hungry, we must feed it" and/or my fuzzy feels.
What's wrong with fuzzies? When dealing with ethics and people's lives then the all powerful fuzzy is really useful.

[phuckphace]

What's wrong with fuzzies? When dealing with ethics and people's lives then the all powerful fuzzy is really useful.

fuzzies are for things like kittens and chinchillas (both have better hygiene too)

all jokes aside though it's not a good enough justification for importing thousands of young males from Middle Eastern countries that don't like us. I know a guy irl who came here on a green card from Morocco who tells me (with a stricken look on his face) that Syrians are crazy-deadly with their religion and letting them in is a very bad idea. he explained that back home in Morocco, he and his family could get away with being openly non-religious but doing the same in Syria would get them in seriously deep shit (eating during Ramadan, etc.) he doesn't like Trump very much, Sanders crew and all but agrees with him fully on the refugee situation which I thought was interesting. sometime I'll have to post the rest of our political conversations, it's actually fascinating to hear about it from someone who's been there.

[Porpoise101]

fuzzies are for things like kittens and chinchillas (both have better hygiene too)

all jokes aside though it's not a good enough justification for importing thousands of young males from Middle Eastern countries that don't like us. I know a guy irl who came here on a green card from Morocco who tells me (with a stricken look on his face) that Syrians are crazy-deadly with their religion and letting them in is a very bad idea. he explained that back home in Morocco, he and his family could get away with being openly non-religious but doing the same in Syria would get them in seriously deep shit (eating during Ramadan, etc.) he doesn't like Trump very much, Sanders crew and all but agrees with him fully on the refugee situation which I thought was interesting. sometime I'll have to post the rest of our political conversations, it's actually fascinating to hear about it from someone who's been there.
What about a previously mentioned idea about importing thousands of families? One of my closest friends is a Syrian. His cousins only just made it into Britain, but one of his uncles is still stuck there. I think that at the very least the families and children should come over. They need to be helped and indoctrinated into the humanist ways of the West.

[Jinglebottom]

Syria is a dictatorship.

[phuckphace]

Porpoise101 - see my previous points on the unnecessary nature of the whole thing. re: indoctrination, what would actually happen in practice is that some bleeding heart humanist would get hired to write a bunch of "multikulturalism is cool, don't listen to nativist Neonazis who tell you to speak English" drivel, integration would not occur, and everyone lives crappily never after. remember, bigot, that it's literally 2015 and we're all immigrants anyway so telling someone who got here just a mere 175 years after you did to speak "your" language is nativist and I think I need to sit down 'cause I just can't even.

Syria is a dictatorship.

the wrong kind, sadly. if only they could join VT and learn from the best.

[Judean Zealot]

I've been thinking about it. Why not a Kindertransport or a Titanic style 'women and children first'? Allow one adult male to accompany the family, and the rest can try to come via green card.

[Jinglebottom]

the wrong kind, sadly. if only they could join VT and learn from the best.
It's broken far beyond repair at this point. I'm just impatiently waiting for the eventual crash and fall, while quietly watching from a distance (literally).

[Porpoise101]

It's broken far beyond repair at this point. I'm just impatiently waiting for the eventual crash and fall, while quietly watching from a distance (literally).
May not be enough distance though..

[Jinglebottom]

May not be enough distance though..
Since I'm not allowed to approach the borders to Syria (duh), I'm just going to look for the tallest building I can find and watch the fiasco from there. :D

[Judean Zealot]

Since I'm not allowed to approach the borders to Syria (duh), I'm just going to look for the tallest building I can find and watch the fiasco from there. :D

Over the summer I went to the Golan Heights, and I was able to see the smoke rising from the fighting.

[Jinglebottom]

Over the summer I went to the Golan Heights, and I was able to see the smoke rising from the fighting.
Rumor has it that inhabitants of Lebanese border villages are kept awakened at night from all the chaos and bombs going off.