And how much would it cost to get the refugees here, house them, give them health care, and make sure they are fed? You're talking about hundreds of millions. You don't think that money could be better spent
I assumed this would be combined with private sponsorship, which is already a program that is set up....
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I understand the humanitarian aspect of this. I just don't think its a good idea to throw a lot of people into this country that don't know the langauge or the culture and expect there not to have major issues. What happens if the majority don't feel the need to work? If they hear that the American government will pay their way through life with welfare?
I'd be more supportive of sending money to the countries in Europe that are willing go take these people in. It is a hell of a lot more convenient for the nearby countries to do this. It doesn't make sense to ship people 4,000 miles away when there are countries a lot closer that can.
The biggest decline in the us workforce is manufacturing. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm Manufacturing employment decreased by 17,000 in August, after changing little in July (+12,000).
I understand the humanitarian aspect of this. I just don't think its a good idea to throw a lot of people into this country that don't know the langauge or the culture and expect there not to have major issues. What happens if the majority don't feel the need to work? If they hear that the American government will pay their way through life with welfare?
I'd be more supportive of sending money to the countries in Europe that are willing go take these people in. It is a hell of a lot more convenient for the nearby countries to do this. It doesn't make sense to ship people 4,000 miles away when there are countries a lot closer that can.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
I understand the humanitarian aspect of this. I just don't think its a good idea to throw a lot of people into this country that don't know the langauge or the culture and expect there not to have major issues. What happens if the majority don't feel the need to work? If they hear that the American government will pay their way through life with welfare?
I'd be more supportive of sending money to the countries in Europe that are willing go take these people in. It is a hell of a lot more convenient for the nearby countries to do this. It doesn't make sense to ship people 4,000 miles away when there are countries a lot closer that can.
I didn't claim they were threatening my way of life. I said I don't think it's cost effective to bring them here.
I understand the humanitarian aspect of this. I just don't think its a good idea to throw a lot of people into this country that don't know the langauge or the culture and expect there not to have major issues. What happens if the majority don't feel the need to work? If they hear that the American government will pay their way through life with welfare?
I'd be more supportive of sending money to the countries in Europe that are willing go take these people in. It is a hell of a lot more convenient for the nearby countries to do this. It doesn't make sense to ship people 4,000 miles away when there are countries a lot closer that can.
I didn't claim they were threatening my way of life. I said I don't think it's cost effective to bring them here.
You're right. You just implied that they would be welfare sucks. When all evidence proves otherwise.
I understand the humanitarian aspect of this. I just don't think its a good idea to throw a lot of people into this country that don't know the langauge or the culture and expect there not to have major issues. What happens if the majority don't feel the need to work? If they hear that the American government will pay their way through life with welfare?
I'd be more supportive of sending money to the countries in Europe that are willing go take these people in. It is a hell of a lot more convenient for the nearby countries to do this. It doesn't make sense to ship people 4,000 miles away when there are countries a lot closer that can.
I didn't claim they were threatening my way of life. I said I don't think it's cost effective to bring them here.
You're right. You just implied that they would be welfare sucks. When all evidence proves otherwise.
I understand the humanitarian aspect of this. I just don't think its a good idea to throw a lot of people into this country that don't know the langauge or the culture and expect there not to have major issues. What happens if the majority don't feel the need to work? If they hear that the American government will pay their way through life with welfare?
I'd be more supportive of sending money to the countries in Europe that are willing go take these people in. It is a hell of a lot more convenient for the nearby countries to do this. It doesn't make sense to ship people 4,000 miles away when there are countries a lot closer that can.
I didn't claim they were threatening my way of life. I said I don't think it's cost effective to bring them here.
You're right. You just implied that they would be welfare sucks. When all evidence proves otherwise.
I understand the humanitarian aspect of this. I just don't think its a good idea to throw a lot of people into this country that don't know the langauge or the culture and expect there not to have major issues. What happens if the majority don't feel the need to work? If they hear that the American government will pay their way through life with welfare?
I'd be more supportive of sending money to the countries in Europe that are willing go take these people in. It is a hell of a lot more convenient for the nearby countries to do this. It doesn't make sense to ship people 4,000 miles away when there are countries a lot closer that can.
I didn't claim they were threatening my way of life. I said I don't think it's cost effective to bring them here.
You're right. You just implied that they would be welfare sucks. When all evidence proves otherwise.
I understand the humanitarian aspect of this. I just don't think its a good idea to throw a lot of people into this country that don't know the langauge or the culture and expect there not to have major issues. What happens if the majority don't feel the need to work? If they hear that the American government will pay their way through life with welfare?
I'd be more supportive of sending money to the countries in Europe that are willing go take these people in. It is a hell of a lot more convenient for the nearby countries to do this. It doesn't make sense to ship people 4,000 miles away when there are countries a lot closer that can.
I didn't claim they were threatening my way of life. I said I don't think it's cost effective to bring them here.
You're right. You just implied that they would be welfare sucks. When all evidence proves otherwise.
I understand the humanitarian aspect of this. I just don't think its a good idea to throw a lot of people into this country that don't know the langauge or the culture and expect there not to have major issues. What happens if the majority don't feel the need to work? If they hear that the American government will pay their way through life with welfare?
I'd be more supportive of sending money to the countries in Europe that are willing go take these people in. It is a hell of a lot more convenient for the nearby countries to do this. It doesn't make sense to ship people 4,000 miles away when there are countries a lot closer that can.
I didn't claim they were threatening my way of life. I said I don't think it's cost effective to bring them here.
You're right. You just implied that they would be welfare sucks. When all evidence proves otherwise.
"This will not be painless or cost-free, either for the refugees or for the host countries."
"The operative word in all of this is "could."
"There is nothing automatic about their success, either in the labor market or in society as a whole."
This article is far from evidence of anything.
Not a surprise that you picked what you wanted out of the article. Confirmation bias and all. I doubt you took the time to look at the links provided in the article.
I understand the humanitarian aspect of this. I just don't think its a good idea to throw a lot of people into this country that don't know the langauge or the culture and expect there not to have major issues. What happens if the majority don't feel the need to work? If they hear that the American government will pay their way through life with welfare?
I'd be more supportive of sending money to the countries in Europe that are willing go take these people in. It is a hell of a lot more convenient for the nearby countries to do this. It doesn't make sense to ship people 4,000 miles away when there are countries a lot closer that can.
I didn't claim they were threatening my way of life. I said I don't think it's cost effective to bring them here.
You're right. You just implied that they would be welfare sucks. When all evidence proves otherwise.
"This will not be painless or cost-free, either for the refugees or for the host countries."
"The operative word in all of this is "could."
"There is nothing automatic about their success, either in the labor market or in society as a whole."
This article is far from evidence of anything.
Not a surprise that you picked what you wanted out of the article. Confirmation bias and all. I doubt you took the time to look at the links provided in the article.
No, I did not look at all of the links provided. I am simply showing that in the article you cited, the author does not feel that it is a guarantee that the refugees entering the work force will work out. Plus, he was talking about European countries accepting the refugees. Which I've said I would be supportive of American dollars being pumped into the countries that are taking them in.
What That the article does not do is show how it would be economically feasible for the US to pay for the refugees to be transported to the US and implanted into American society. That has been my point from the beginning. If one of the links within the article shows this, then please cite it instead.
I understand the humanitarian aspect of this. I just don't think its a good idea to throw a lot of people into this country that don't know the langauge or the culture and expect there not to have major issues. What happens if the majority don't feel the need to work? If they hear that the American government will pay their way through life with welfare?
I'd be more supportive of sending money to the countries in Europe that are willing go take these people in. It is a hell of a lot more convenient for the nearby countries to do this. It doesn't make sense to ship people 4,000 miles away when there are countries a lot closer that can.
I didn't claim they were threatening my way of life. I said I don't think it's cost effective to bring them here.
You're right. You just implied that they would be welfare sucks. When all evidence proves otherwise.
"This will not be painless or cost-free, either for the refugees or for the host countries."
"The operative word in all of this is "could."
"There is nothing automatic about their success, either in the labor market or in society as a whole."
This article is far from evidence of anything.
Not a surprise that you picked what you wanted out of the article. Confirmation bias and all. I doubt you took the time to look at the links provided in the article.
No, I did not look at all of the links provided. I am simply showing that in the article you cited, the author does not feel that it is a guarantee that the refugees entering the work force will work out. Plus, he was talking about European countries accepting the refugees. Which I've said I would be supportive of American dollars being pumped into the countries that are taking them in.
What That the article does not do is show how it would be economically feasible for the US to pay for the refugees to be transported to the US and implanted into American society. That has been my point from the beginning. If one of the links within the article shows this, then please cite it instead.
While a huge number of refugees could potentially strain host countries' capital and resources, a growing pool of research suggests refugees aren't necessarily the economic leeches they're often made out to be.
In Cleveland, for example, local refugee services agencies spent about $4.8 million in 2012 as they helped refugees get established in the area, according to a study conducted by Chmura Economics & Analytics. But the economic impact those refugees had on the community weighed in at about $48 million, roughly 10 times the initial resettlement costs.
"Refugees are more likely to be entrepreneurial and enjoy higher rates of successful business ventures compared to natives," the report said. "At the local level, refugees provide increased demand for goods and services through their new purchasing power and can be particularly revitalizing in communities that otherwise have a declining population."
Also worth noting: Research has shown annual earnings growth among refugees living in the U.S. has outpaced pay increases among economic immigrants, or individuals who haven't been displaced by disaster, persecution or violence.
"I find that refugee immigrants in 1980 earned 6 percent less and worked 14 percent fewer hours than economic immigrants," Kalena Cortes, who was then a postdoctoral research associate at Princeton University, wrote in a 2004 study that compared refugee and economic immigrant labor market performance. "By 1990, the two groups had made substantial gains; however, refugee immigrants had made greater gains. Refugees in 1990 earned 20 percent more, worked 4 percent more hours, and improved their English skills by 11 percent more than economic immigrants."
7. Summary and Conclusions The Cleveland area has proven to be an inclusive and hospitable place for refugees to settle. The refugees in the region have experienced average to superior results in a variety of socioeconomic indicators—such as household income, employment, and reliance on public assistance—as compared to national norms as well in depth research on refugees in other large metropolitan areas. At the same time, in keeping with the experience of other major cities that have accepted a significant amount of refugees, Cleveland has benefitted from the arrival of these refugees. The arrival of these refugees has worked to bolster the county’s population, increase demand for local housing as well as locally produced goods and services, and boost the regional economy via their employment and entrepreneurship. All of this economic activity generates substantial taxes for the region that it would otherwise forego. Similarly, the region benefits in untold ways from the natural increase in cultural and ethnic diversity that accompany accepting new residents from around the world.
Despite misconceptions, the Cleveland area refugee community relies relatively little on public assistance and what public benefits they do receive serves largely as an influx of federal funds into the Cleveland area, which without these refugee arrivals would be diverted to other cities that welcome new refugees. In fact, this study finds that the annual $4.8 million of funding—predominantly funded out of federal programs—which support the refugee service agencies effectively generates $48 million in total annual economic activity, supports 650 jobs in Cuyahoga County, and generates nearly $2.8 million in taxes to the state and local authorities. The foundation of these impressive economic findings is rooted in the industriousness and entrepreneurship of the refugees’ themselves. This is a community that quickly finds work—be it part-time, full-time, or seasonal—and works together, many times in concert with other local refugees, to forge a new life and to establish their households in this area. The results speak for themselves—nearly $30 million spending from refugee household earnings and refugee-started businesses generating employment and taxes for the Greater Cleveland economy.
The Cleveland area has a legacy of being a top destination for new refugees arriving in America, and while that legacy has eroded in the past decade it can be revived. Data from the past ten years indicate that refugees continue to find Cleveland an accepting and supportive environment to begin their new lives. As this report’s case studies demonstrate, additional benefits—not quantified in the report—await the Cleveland area as a new generation of Americans, born of refugee parents, begin to flourish, learn, and thrive in our community. The benefits of this generation on the Cleveland area stand to build even further upon the achievements of their parents.
Not that it matters, but where are all of these refugees coming from that are in Cleveland? Are they all syrian? How is that even calculated?
Check page 20 of the paper I cited. It has a breakdown.
Refugees settled in the Cleveland area have come from all corners of the world. Of the total refugees settled, the largest group (1,973 refugees) came from Asian countries. In number of refugees by country, the Asian nations of Bhutan ranked the first and Burma ranked third. The next largest group (1,433 refugees) came from Europe, primarily from former communist countries such as Ukraine, Russia, and Bosnia & Herzegovina. African countries contributed 1,101 refugees to the Cleveland area over this period, from counties including Somalia, Sudan, and Burundi.
Not that it matters, but where are all of these refugees coming from that are in Cleveland? Are they all syrian? How is that even calculated?
Check page 20 of the paper I cited. It has a breakdown.
Refugees settled in the Cleveland area have come from all corners of the world. Of the total refugees settled, the largest group (1,973 refugees) came from Asian countries. In number of refugees by country, the Asian nations of Bhutan ranked the first and Burma ranked third. The next largest group (1,433 refugees) came from Europe, primarily from former communist countries such as Ukraine, Russia, and Bosnia & Herzegovina. African countries contributed 1,101 refugees to the Cleveland area over this period, from counties including Somalia, Sudan, and Burundi.
So you're talking about roughly 5000 people total? How many syrian refugees do you want to put in Cleveland at once? How does a city get picked if the US decides to transport the Syrians here?
Comments
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
And BB, I would rather throw money at the refugees than Israel, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia and any other country that hates America.
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
A truly good christian would follow the lead of jesus and do whatever they could to help these people.
Jesus would have brought them food and water and a place to lay their heads.
Remember.....do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Namaste
I'd be more supportive of sending money to the countries in Europe that are willing go take these people in. It is a hell of a lot more convenient for the nearby countries to do this. It doesn't make sense to ship people 4,000 miles away when there are countries a lot closer that can.
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Manufacturing employment decreased by 17,000 in August, after changing little
in July (+12,000).
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/isis-smuggler-we-will-use-refugee-crisis-to-infiltrate-west/
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
Godfather.
Lot's of links in the article posted.
"The operative word in all of this is "could."
"There is nothing automatic about their success, either in the labor market or in society as a whole."
This article is far from evidence of anything.
What That the article does not do is show how it would be economically feasible for the US to pay for the refugees to be transported to the US and implanted into American society. That has been my point from the beginning. If one of the links within the article shows this, then please cite it instead.
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
In Cleveland, for example, local refugee services agencies spent about $4.8 million in 2012 as they helped refugees get established in the area, according to a study conducted by Chmura Economics & Analytics. But the economic impact those refugees had on the community weighed in at about $48 million, roughly 10 times the initial resettlement costs.
"Refugees are more likely to be entrepreneurial and enjoy higher rates of successful business ventures compared to natives," the report said. "At the local level, refugees provide increased demand for goods and services through their new purchasing power and can be particularly revitalizing in communities that otherwise have a declining population."
Also worth noting: Research has shown annual earnings growth among refugees living in the U.S. has outpaced pay increases among economic immigrants, or individuals who haven't been displaced by disaster, persecution or violence.
"I find that refugee immigrants in 1980 earned 6 percent less and worked 14 percent fewer hours than economic immigrants," Kalena Cortes, who was then a postdoctoral research associate at Princeton University, wrote in a 2004 study that compared refugee and economic immigrant labor market performance. "By 1990, the two groups had made substantial gains; however, refugee immigrants had made greater gains. Refugees in 1990 earned 20 percent more, worked 4 percent more hours, and improved their English skills by 11 percent more than economic immigrants."
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/09/15/would-syrian-refugees-be-an-economic-boon-or-burden
The Cleveland area has proven to be an inclusive and hospitable place for refugees to settle. The refugees in the region have experienced average to superior results in a variety of socioeconomic indicators—such as household income, employment, and reliance on public assistance—as compared to national norms as well in depth research on refugees in other large metropolitan areas. At the same time, in keeping with the experience of other major cities that have accepted a significant amount of refugees, Cleveland has benefitted from the arrival of these refugees. The arrival of these refugees has worked to bolster the county’s population, increase demand for local housing as well as locally produced goods and services, and boost the regional economy via their employment and entrepreneurship. All of this economic activity generates substantial taxes for the region that it would otherwise forego. Similarly, the region benefits in untold ways from the natural increase in cultural and ethnic diversity that accompany accepting new residents from around the world.
Despite misconceptions, the Cleveland area refugee community relies relatively little on public assistance and what public benefits they do receive serves largely as an influx of federal funds into the Cleveland area, which without these refugee arrivals would be diverted to other cities that welcome new refugees. In fact, this study finds that the annual $4.8 million of funding—predominantly funded out of federal programs—which support the refugee service agencies effectively generates $48 million in total annual economic activity, supports 650 jobs in Cuyahoga County, and generates nearly $2.8 million in taxes to the state and local authorities. The foundation of these impressive economic findings is rooted in the industriousness and entrepreneurship of the refugees’ themselves. This is a community that quickly finds work—be it part-time, full-time, or seasonal—and works together, many times in concert with other local refugees, to forge a new life and to establish their households in this area. The results speak for themselves—nearly $30 million spending from refugee household earnings and refugee-started businesses generating employment and taxes for the Greater Cleveland economy.
The Cleveland area has a legacy of being a top destination for new refugees arriving in America, and while that legacy has eroded in the past decade it can be revived. Data from the past ten years indicate that refugees continue to find Cleveland an accepting and supportive environment to begin their new lives. As this report’s case studies demonstrate, additional benefits—not quantified in the report—await the Cleveland area as a new generation of Americans, born of refugee parents, begin to flourish, learn, and thrive in our community. The benefits of this generation on the Cleveland area stand to build even further upon the achievements of their parents.
http://www.hias.org/sites/default/files/clevelandrefugeeeconomic-impact.pdf
Refugees settled in the Cleveland area have come from all corners of the world. Of the total refugees settled, the largest group (1,973 refugees) came from Asian countries. In number of refugees by country, the Asian nations of Bhutan ranked the first and Burma ranked third. The next largest group (1,433 refugees) came from Europe, primarily from former communist countries such as Ukraine, Russia, and Bosnia & Herzegovina. African countries contributed 1,101 refugees to the Cleveland area over this period, from counties including Somalia, Sudan, and Burundi.
Have a good night!
The PDF is really easy to navigate