(July 22, 2016 at 11:40 pm)wallym Wrote: Another aspect of this, is just because it isn't a huge problem or likely to effect an individual personally doesn't mean it should just be ignored.

I've yet to see anyone, in this thread or in real life, argue that it should be ignored.

(July 23, 2016 at 12:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Mexico wouldn't take them...but we have plenty of for profit prisons that would.  The minute you start referring to people like importable commodities, you've lost me...and it's not like that refugee can't get a cheap ass comp sci degree......

Well, they have to learn the language.  And we'd have to give them money for a home.  And then we'd have to send them to school.  And then we'd have to have their kids go to school.  Pay for healthcare.  Hope they are smart enough to get a degree.  Etc...  Basically, you can invest a few 100k getting a refugee family up to speed, or bring in an Indian family that can hit the ground running.  

I know you don't like quantifying people like that, but there aren't infinite resources.  

It's crazy the burden on teachers/schools non-english language students are from the beginning.  And that's just kids with educated parents in good schools.  And those ESL teachers are just money that could be going elsewhere.  Whether it's more STEM stuff for the bright kids, or more teachers aides for the struggling schools.

(July 23, 2016 at 12:37 pm)wallym Wrote: Well, they have to learn the language.  And we'd have to give them money for a home.  And then we'd have to send them to school.  And then we'd have to have their kids go to school.  Pay for healthcare.  Hope they are smart enough to get a degree.  Etc...  Basically, you can invest a few 100k getting a refugee family up to speed, or bring in an Indian family that can hit the ground running.  

Sure...if they're -all- a bunch of moochers and there's -no- opportunity..we'd have to do that...perish the thought..in the richest country in the world..? It's not as if we're super generous with our welfare and assistance programs in the first place.

Quote:I know you don't like quantifying people like that, but there aren't infinite resources.  

It's crazy the burden on teachers/schools non-english language students are from the beginning.  And that's just kids with educated parents in good schools.  And those ESL teachers are just money that could be going elsewhere.  Whether it's more STEM stuff for the bright kids, or more teachers aides for the struggling schools.

I don't know that english teachers are really doing all that well with homegrown efl's....seen our scores?  I'm okay with people talking funny, using regional dialects...and even speaking in their own native language.  American english (english in general) is a bastard tongue in the first place. Yet another example of how the things that people point to as "problems" enrich our very lives.

Wondering why we're here, now...when the initial objection was "terrorists". Was the objection ever actually terrorists at all?

(July 23, 2016 at 12:40 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(July 23, 2016 at 12:37 pm)wallym Wrote: Well, they have to learn the language.  And we'd have to give them money for a home.  And then we'd have to send them to school.  And then we'd have to have their kids go to school.  Pay for healthcare.  Hope they are smart enough to get a degree.  Etc...  Basically, you can invest a few 100k getting a refugee family up to speed, or bring in an Indian family that can hit the ground running.  

Sure...if they're -all- a bunch of moochers and there's -no- opportunity..we'd have to do that...perish the thought..in the richest country in the world..?  It's not as if we're super generous with our welfare and assistance programs in the first place.  

Quote:I know you don't like quantifying people like that, but there aren't infinite resources.  

It's crazy the burden on teachers/schools non-english language students are from the beginning.  And that's just kids with educated parents in good schools.  And those ESL teachers are just money that could be going elsewhere.  Whether it's more STEM stuff for the bright kids, or more teachers aides for the struggling schools.

I don't know that english teachers are really doing all that well with homegrown efl's....seen our scores?  I'm okay with people talking funny, using regional dialects...and even speaking in their own native language.  American english (english in general) is a bastard tongue in the first place.  Yet another example of how the things that people point to as "problems" enrich our very lives.

Wondering why we're here, now...when the initial objection was "terrorists".  Was the objection ever actually terrorists at all?

I think the Death to America factor certainly pushes it over the edge.  I'm less opposed to the idea of Cuban refugees, for example. 

And the task of even teaching EFL students is daunting.  The reality is that a lot of kids who don't have support at home, and have behavioral problems on top of that, on top of some learning disabilities need 1 on 1 time.  And then they get to school, with 23 other similar kids and the Teacher has to magically get them all reading by herself, or with a part time aide.  

Gone off topic, but what our schools need, is an investment in teachers aides that are able to pull the kids into smaller groups and give individual attention.  My kid is lucky enough to go to a school where parents volunteer and basically teach other people's kids how to read.  But in that school, half the kids are already reading going into kindergarten, and getting support at home, etc...  The school my sister teaches at is just her in an impossible situation doing the best she can.

Refugees aren't shouting death to america.  They're pleading for help.  

Education is hard no matter who it is or how many there are...why then, would it be a reason to withhold the assistance that we are almost uniquely in a situation to offer?

I'll be the first to tell anyone who asks that I assume that I would find a great many refugees distasteful. Thing is, we're not even talking about refugees...we're immediately turning it into our terrorism obsession (itself more than a few miles past the mark of abject ignorance) and then pretending..or fooling ourselves into thinking..that we're talking about refugees.

(July 23, 2016 at 1:57 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Refugees aren't shouting death to america.  They're pleading for help.  

Education is hard no matter who it is or how many there are...why then, would it be a reason to withhold the assistance that we are almost uniquely in a situation to offer?

I'll be the first to tell anyone who asks that I assume that I would find a great many refugees distasteful.  Thing is, we're not even talking about refugees...we're immediately turning it into our terrorism obsession (itself more than a few miles past the mark of abject ignorance) and then pretending..or fooling ourselves into thinking..that we're talking about refugees.

I disagree on education.  But we can leave that alone.

Terrorism is a factor.  It's just another thing on the pile of reasons not to take the refugees.  Maybe it's just our culture of risk aversion.  We don't pick up hitchhikers.  We don't let our kids play unsupervised.  We tell them don't talk to strangers.  We don't like refugees from places riddled with terrorists who'd love the opportunity to kill a few American civilians.

The selling point is "But we'd be helping those people."  That's not enough for me, personally.  Even with no terrorist factor, you're probably right.  I think they're situation is such that it's in America's best interest for somebody else to take care of them.  Similar to Finland saying "How about America take care of the Cubans."  Since we have a large hispanic population already, and it's in our neck of the wood, I would agree with Finland on that.  It's Europes backyard, and Saudi Arabia/Egypt/Jordan/etc... are right there.

You keep saying that, but you haven't given any explanation as to why refugees are terrorists, more likely to be terrorists, or why you can't discuss "refugees" without -reference- to terrorists.  Or why, if you prefer, accepting refugees would open us up to terrorists any more than we are now. Any terrorist that can pass our refugee screen can just buy a ticket to the US and fly here of their own accord, that's where we're at right now...that doesn't change if and when we start accepting refugees.

All we've seen are the reasons that you fear that refugees will somehow shittify our country, domestically.   I appreciate that you have those opinions, I can at least understand why you hold those opinions.  

It seems, and this is just my opinion...that someone said "boo" and you've jumped out of your skin.  Terrorists.....actual terrorists, the majority of terrorists, the terrorists we really have...they don't even scare you.  You're casual about it.  They're "our terrorists, what can we do". Imaginary terrorists compel you to withhold the sort of aid that is a shining example of the very best ideals of our country.  I can only suggest that you examine your fears, such as they are, more carefully.

(July 23, 2016 at 2:45 pm)wallym Wrote:

(July 23, 2016 at 1:57 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Refugees aren't shouting death to america.  They're pleading for help.  

Education is hard no matter who it is or how many there are...why then, would it be a reason to withhold the assistance that we are almost uniquely in a situation to offer?

I'll be the first to tell anyone who asks that I assume that I would find a great many refugees distasteful.  Thing is, we're not even talking about refugees...we're immediately turning it into our terrorism obsession (itself more than a few miles past the mark of abject ignorance) and then pretending..or fooling ourselves into thinking..that we're talking about refugees.

I disagree on education.  But we can leave that alone.

Terrorism is a factor.  It's just another thing on the pile of reasons not to take the refugees.  Maybe it's just our culture of risk aversion.  We don't pick up hitchhikers.  We don't let our kids play unsupervised.  We tell them don't talk to strangers.  We don't like refugees from places riddled with terrorists who'd love the opportunity to kill a few American civilians.

The selling point is "But we'd be helping those people."  That's not enough for me, personally.  Even with no terrorist factor, you're probably right.  I think they're situation is such that it's in America's best interest for somebody else to take care of them.  Similar to Finland saying "How about America take care of the Cubans."  Since we have a large hispanic population already, and it's in our neck of the wood, I would agree with Finland on that.  It's Europes backyard, and Saudi Arabia/Egypt/Jordan/etc... are right there.

They are living breathing human beings that are running from the very same thing. For them, it's asylum or die. Not enough for YOU?

(July 22, 2016 at 11:57 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Terrorism is a great buzzword for fearmongering purposes.  I mean shit, did you listen to Trump's speech last night?  He made it sound like we're living in an inferno of crime, economic depression, and imminent terrorist annihilation.

Are those his campaign promises?

(July 23, 2016 at 2:53 pm)Mermaid Wrote: They are living breathing human beings that are running from the very same thing. For them, it's asylum or die. Not enough for YOU?

No.  It's not nearly enough for me.  The world has lots and lots of borders.  My family, my city, my county, my state, my region, my country, my continent, etc...  As we get further out, society more or less works that you have less and less responsibility to those people.  

I don't feel obligated to take care of every human on the planet.  You probably don't either in practice.