Refugee crisis

Last-12-Exit said:

ldent42 said:

I don't know why I keep opening this thread. All it does is upset me. The US should be taking in hundreds of thousands of refugees. You know how big this country is? We got sooooooooooooooo much space. The only problem is we can't just dump them in a field in Kansas because they need support, education, etc. and putting them in a homogenous community isn't going to help anyone. Personally, I hope some of them come to Queens. I want to try Syrian food.

I agree more with this train of thought. Even if we could get them here, where would you put them? Downtown Chicago? In Kansas? What about Detroit?

I would avoid Kansas (by Kansas I literally just mean empty space not actually Kansas) because it makes me think of the Indian Reservations and we all know how well those went. I don't want to advocate for a refugee community a la the res or even like Amish/Mennonite communities. I support integration, but more in the vein of what I'm used to - meaning I look forward to some portion of the city becoming a "little Syria" the way we have Chinatown, Little Italy, Little Egypt, etc. If you take every major and secondary city and put a few thousand in each one it'll even out pretty well. I like what Gimme was posting about St. Louis. I think that people could do demonstrations like that to convince politicians that we welcome them here, and go based on that. So like STL, NY, Chicago, LA, but then also like Austin and Minneapolis and like Knoxville or Nashville or whatever. Detroit I think should take in a buttload along with a big ole bag of federal money for doing so. The problem is I don't want to advocate dumping them in a situation where they fall into a culture of poverty. So for cities like Detroit and Baltimore which are struggling, they should get a bunch of money from the feds and use it for capital improvements plus taking in refugees. So they take in refugees, they get money to fix some schools. The refugees get jobs in the construction (or whatever) and then the kids get to go to a fixed up school. The roads get fixed up. The parks get fixed up. Jobs get created violence and crimes go down. That's kind of how I'm thinking

Obviously I havent done a lot of thinking but that's like a baseline.

JUST A GIRL said:

Hungary has the right idea. Beat them back until they leave.

Everyone will hate me for saying that, but when it's your town you just may agree.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/17/hungary-refugees-ban-ki-moon-eu-serbia

http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=ab4_1442363414

How very Christ-like of you.
So you use Christianity to deny rights to people, even though Christ said nothing about homosexual relations, and you say "beat them back" even though Christ said pages of material on charity for the people who suffer such as these people are suffering.
And then you whine that people are insulting your religion?

If this isn't trolling it is lunacy.

Last-12-Exit said:

PJ_Soul said:

Last-12-Exit said:

ldent42 said:

I don't know why I keep opening this thread. All it does is upset me. The US should be taking in hundreds of thousands of refugees. You know how big this country is? We got sooooooooooooooo much space. The only problem is we can't just dump them in a field in Kansas because they need support, education, etc. and putting them in a homogenous community isn't going to help anyone. Personally, I hope some of them come to Queens. I want to try Syrian food.

I agree more with this train of thought. Even if we could get them here, where would you put them? Downtown Chicago? In Kansas? What about Detroit?

They could be located all over. All it would take is some administration and money on the part of the government, and they could locate them where they could find jobs (the government could even help with that - offer initiatives for companies to hire them perhaps), and cooperate with the local governments to locate affordable housing for them. It would take man power - an actual targeted effort - but it's entirely possible. There just needs to be the will to do it.

How convenient. What's the national unemployment rate? Let's just bring in 10,000 refugees and give them jobs that unemployed Americans could have.

I think doing something about all the jobs being sent overseas is a bigger issue in that context, no? Yeah, obviously there are people in the US who could also be given jobs. I'm just saying what could be done. The other option is to throw more money at it, and simply let them fend for themselves while living on government handouts. Either way, it would be a humanitarian aid initiative, and yeah, that's separate from what's going on with other Americans. Whatcha gonna do? Anyway, it wouldn't be 10,000 jobs. It would much less, and then spaces in schools would need to be found for all the kids.

Last-12-Exit said:

ldent42 said:

I think there is more than enough money in this country to pay for it.

Where? Have you seen what the national debt is up to?

Have you seen what we spend on defense?

Last-12-Exit said:

ldent42 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

ldent42 said:

I think there is more than enough money in this country to pay for it.

Where? Have you seen what the national debt is up to?

Have you seen what we spend on defense?

Yea, and...

And BB, I would rather throw money at the refugees than Israel, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia and any other country that hates America.

And we could reduce that amount to pay for it? and a lot of other things?

ldent42 said:

Also not all of the refugees are unskilled workers.

I didn't realize anyone was assuming that.