Refugees get SSI, SNAP, housing, free college, etc.. This is not fair to countless Americans who don't get these benefits. Also, why are we bringing people here when there are no jobs? Do we need these new, pampered welfare cases? No wonder these people want to be refugees and get to the US or Europe where they can live the good life.
Welfare for refugees`
- Thread starter Accuro
- Start date
They sign up to vote democrat
One thing's for sure, the first thing that comes to mind when I hear "refugees" is pampered!
Gulp. Can't believe I'm answering this. But here we go.
So, the better answer is to let them die in their former countries? To be a refugee, you have to come from some very dire circumstances. Unless you're Cuban... And I'd bet that changes before too long.
Serious question. And I'd love to see a link of some kind supporting your assertion. I'd guess that these are temporary things, designed to help them acclimate to living here.
What happened to America being the "shining city on a hill"? Aren't we supposed to be different? Shouldn't we strive to help those less fortunate? Aren't we a nation composed of immigrants, unless you're 100% Native American?
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
First of all there are jobs. I have several friends in the energy sector and they can't find enough workers which leads to paying their existing roughnecks insane wages with all of the overtime they have to pay.
Second of all, refugee is not a synonym for immigrant. A refugee is someone with an emergency need to leave their country. Do you think these people have the means to support themselves? Would you prefer they be allowed into the nation and then kicked into the homeless population?
This is actually a better argument than the boogeyman terrorist one on the other thread.
It's estimated to cost somewhere in the $60k range per refugee to resettle in the US. Considering most are fairly low educated, it's likely they'll need public support for some significant time, as well.
I don't think it's unreasonable to have the discussion about the significant financial cost. As I understand it, we could fund 12 refugees to resettle in other mid east nations for the cost of bringing one to the US.
I agree with most of what you say here, but refugees shouldn't be getting college money.
I believe in having a system where our government will lend a temporay hand to anyone who might need it. I also believe every such system is rife with abuse, and therefore also requires people like accuro to provide a check against the groups who continually cry for more.
The whole, "we are a nation of immigrant" argument is never a really good one. Since the federal government took over immigration in the late 1800s, there has been, more often than not, restricted immigration, sometimes rather severe. That line seems to be thrown out to attack any suggestion of limiting immigration, stifling discussion. As twenty02 notes, it would probably be more cost efficient and better to perhaps set up a Marshall Plan for the mideast. INranger27 ask if it would be better to let them in and be homeless. The better way is not let them in at all and assist them where they are at. Of course, it cannot be done in dire circumstances. You could certainly help more where they are at, with a long-term goal of stabilizing their local situations to where they will not need assistance.
Thanks for bringing facts and context to the original statement. Much appreciated.
This problem will get much worse. And by problem I mean mass exodus out of war-torn areas. Right now, obviously that's primarily the Middle East.
And, compared to most Western European nations, we take in relatively few refugees. While I admire what Germany has done, that's going overboard.
And I disagree that there aren't any jobs. The reason that there are so many illegal immigrants now is because they are typically very willing to do the jobs that American citizens just won't do. In South TX, things just wouldn't get done without them now. And the whole "build the wall" thing is comical. Because migrants from Mexico have decreased over the past several years.
The real "job stealers" are the technical workers that come over on work visas. It appears they're necessary- or the programs wouldn't exist. It seems our lack of investment in education, especially the technical arena, has come back to haunt us.
And I think folks fail to realize that productivity has gone way up- and the rest of the world has caught up to us in terms of being able to make things. And there's a whole lot more of them than there are of us. And they're willing to take much lower wages. In short, our manufacturing jobs have been replaced by service industry jobs. Which, almost by definition, are worse jobs in every conceivable way.
All the talk about bringing jobs back is silly. They're gone- and aren't going to come back unless dramatic changes are made. Remember, a corporation's highest duty is to make its shareholders and investors money. And it's simply cheaper to take your business outside the US.
Americans love cheap goods- but complain about the effects of having those cheap goods available. That's why I really really try hard to avoid shopping for anything at a place like wal-Mart. Even though I'm sure my alternatives are probably no better.
And trickle down economics proved to be a disaster. Folks that make more money keep that money- the extra money they receive from less taxes doesn't ever leave their bank accounts- or are re-invested in forms of passive income. That's not the type of thing that ends up helping the average manual labor American wage earner.
Great topic- after it's been re-framed by twenty.
That 60K number does, however, include money the U.S. pays into the UN's refugee program. I'm not sure what portion of it includes that, but it's fair to ask whether it's really accurate to include that number, since that program does a lot more than just ship refugees to America.
How about we fund refugees through private donations and keep the government out of it? That way if there is a demand to help Syrians (or any other people from an area that is war torn) the people in this country who choose to help can help. We are the worlds most generous nation and donate the most money and time to deprived nations. Many people I know have done mission work through their church for example. Our federal government doesn't need to be redistributing money to other people at the discretion of some government official. The people who choose and want to help refugees should be able to pitch in and help that way, rather than a government program.
On the second issue of the neighboring nations helping Syrian refugees, we are supporting many of these countries financially. This is a regional issue and there is no need to bring people all the way over here when the nations of that region should be providing regional stability and humanitarian relief.
The "shining bunch of suckers on a hill" is more like it. Those people could be helped in other countries for a lot less money until they are able to return home. They just want to get on the gravy train. Plus, like I said, it is grossly unfair to countless Americans who don't get these benefits.
Those oil jobs vanished with low gas prices. This country has over twenty million unemployed people. You can take care of refugees in other countries for a lot less money. No need to bring them here.
A government official doesn't decide, Congress does. Do you understand how federal spending works?
The executive branch has some level of discretion in how to grant funds within their program, but the overarching appropriation level funding is done by Congress.
And yes, we have congressionally approved funding for things like this, we always have. In the scope of Gov't spending it is a rounding error, but that doesn't mean we can't debate the policy of how to best help the most people.
We're talking about 10k people, originally. Spread across the country....it's infinitesimal. But I'd rather resettle 120k people within the ME with the same amount of money.
This is all bassackwards
Yeah, we should allow refugees whose lives are in danger in their former countries. Except that is not what we are doing. Instead, we are bringing in refugees who are in search of a "better life". That should not be the standard for refugee status. We offer a better life than probably 80% of the world's populations have now. We can't possibly accommodate refugees who merely look for a better life.
When Reagan spoke of the shinning city on the hill, he was talking about the US being an example for the rest of the world to look to and imitate to help bring better lives to where those people are. Except we get that bassackwards also. The reflexive impulse often shown by our leaders is that we (and Western Civilization in general) are responsible for much of what has been historically wrong in the world, and what is wrong now. That is not Reagan's shining city on the hill stuff. That is Howard Zinn stuff, the author of the highly negative and influential Peoples History of the United States.
With Democrats in charge the refugee program will soon include many already here in this country. BHO has done so well at managing the demise of the nation. More debt,more unemployed and more minorities than ever out of the work force yet they still vote Democrat. Why? Free hand outs. Democrats buy votes with taxpayer dollars all in the name of compassion. And minorities suffer more than any other group.
I totally agree....but we're a million miles from Reagan.
It's Midnight in America per the NewGOP.
You're a dumbass. You don't get to makeup facts. I spent years mocking liberals for making up emotional based fictional realities....now it's those on the new right that make shit up.
Most people are better off than they were 6 years ago, that's just a reality. I know I am. I know almost everyone I know is. I got into this with my parents, life long small business owners, and diehard Republicans that watch way too much Fox News. I asked them to compare their personal financial situation now to what it was in 2009 or 2010, and at least admit that it's a lot better off (because it wasn't close).
My own situation has improved dramatically in those same years. Most others have as well. I don't blame W for a massive recession, and I don't credit Obama for the recovery. I do believe that active Federal support in 08/09 improved our situation exponentially. I don't want to think of what our situation would have looked like without TARP, QE, auto bailouts, etc.
Compare that with, say Europe, that spent years fiddling around the edges v before finally copying our policy years layer.
But our economy is much stronger and more robust than anything the Federal govt can do. The govt can bump a skidding canoe back into the current, but the river that's our economy will take care of the heavy work.
That's what's missing from the NewGOP. Nothing but ignorant pessimism, and a longing for some prior utopia that never existed. Tell me what to look forward to. Tell me why to be excited to wake up in the morning and get to work. This shit is depressing.
Better off? Have you asked the 23 million workers looking or so discouraged that they quit looking for work? Have you asked those that under BHO's failing health care mandate are now part time instead of full time? The 19 trillion debt bother you? The minority community that has somewhere around 20% unemployment bother you? I guess not since you are better off everyone must be. Get your head out of that dark space and do some research. There are over 90 million people not working right now. Some were forced into retirement and some have returned to school. Some may be disabled. But surely you can see that the unemployment rate is not close to 5%.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Wrong. I'm talking about natural gas. 1000s of jobs that nobody wants to take. I go to military recruiting fairs on behalf of my employer and I hear the same thing from every gas company each time. They can't get anybody to take the jobs. These roughnecks earn $100k a year with OT and they cannot find enough people.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
90 million people? Are you familiar with the English word "retirement"?
Friend, you're in over your head here. You're going to need to bring more to this game than Sean Hannity punch lines.
Given his rectal cranial impaction, his waistline is currently over his head.
Please read something other than Brietbart and Drudge.
Morons like you have been using that bullshit 90 million number for at least 3 years. At LEAST. Somehow the number never changes. The dumbass talking point never changes. You are a parrot. I listen to Sean Hannity too, so I know all the talking points.
How many economic classes have you taken? Do you understand employment statistics whatsoever? If so, please provide a basic primer. If not, then stop embarrassing yourself.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
By the way, I get a 12oz royalty every time someone uses NewGOP. I like (D)IPA.
I'd rather cut that spending from the budget, however infinitesimal it may be.
And I thought I knew how government worked until Obama started issuing executive orders. I can't imagine what Hillary would do with those "powers."
Just a question, do the jobs they are looking for require any special skills and are they willing to train someone who is eager to work but maybe does not have that particular skill set? I had to do the job hunt thing back in 2012 and again (under some different circumstances) in 2014. I found that many employers wanted you to be able to come in with exactly experience in exactly what the job was posted for. And by exactly, I mean that I had skills working in the same field (insurance) doing the same job (claims) but for instance if I had worked personal lines and they were doing commercial, they would barely give you a second look. Nevermind over a decade of experience doing basically the same job, I had not worked specifically in their line so they were not interested in even the miniscule amount of training it would have taken to get someone like me up and running.
Most of the businesses in our country that complain about a lack of workers to do the specific job they want are also those businesses who are completely unwilling to invest in training someone to do that very job.
You mean the people it government has shit on for several centuries? Reservations have some of the worst living conditions in the country, but I never hear anyone speaking up for these people.
It's always let's help the Syrians.
I'm not suggesting both cannot be helped, but it's stupid to act like America cares about its own people and puts their needs above those of foreigners. That's clearly not happening and hasn't since inception.
The problem with your proposal is these bleeding heart liberals want to take money from everyone else to do their projects. They have no desire to put their own money in the pot. For an example look at Bernie's 2014 tax return. He has over $200,000 income and $8,500 in donations. Just another liberal hypocrite.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
It's entirely physical labor in harsh conditions in a somewhat dangerous environment. Essentially, working a frac site is the new steel plant job environment. The only special skills they need are the ability to lift objects and speak clear English as communication on the site is imperative.
The top complaint that the recruiters give me is that guys just don't want to do the physical work out in the cold. I get it...but let's be careful when we say there are "no jobs."
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
You're calling him a hypocrite for donating 4% of his income? How much do you donate? 4% is pretty freaking generous.
Not to step across the line, but would have to agree. 4% is pretty good and could pat him on the back for that. The whole point to me that no one needs to mandate that I give to others. My choice to give is an individual thing, not something that should be mandated. Even if it's $.01
