(November 21, 2015 at 12:06 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(November 21, 2015 at 8:35 am)KevinM1 Wrote: Again, I have to ask what is the long term plan for the refugees? The debate is focused on whether or not to let them in at all, but I haven't heard much in the way of what the plan is once they're here. Once the immediate humanitarian crisis is addressed, then what?
I must admit I don't have an answer for that. I don't know. All I know is that these people are fleeing for their lives and they need help. We have to help them. At least take them in first so they are out of the immediate danger, and then work together to figure out how best to handle it once their lives aren't in danger anymore.
Yeah, I don't mind helping them. I'm just not a fan on trying to figure out what to do with them on the fly. I mean, really, 48-72 hours after they're settled into some kind of housing, the crisis portion is over and then it's long term care. Winging it brings the risk of people falling through the cracks, both in terms of their own well being and our security for the inevitable bad ones that make it through. Remember: government moves at, well, the speed of government. Being agile and being able to respond rapidly isn't really its forte at any administrative level.
I just want to be confident that we can actually help them without screwing anyone - them or us - over. It's not so much the cost (although I wouldn't be happy with merely supporting them indefinitely), but the logistics of having a colony of 10,000+ people just kind of there. Is it an internment camp? Will they be able to work towards learning English and getting jobs if they wanted? Or are we expecting refugees to be taken in by families?
In other words, I'm curious/concerned about the shape of the help. There are so many ways it can backfire for all involved.
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
