That’s a bug, not a feature, unless the average Syrian is qualified to do more than unskilled labor in the US.
If they are representative, about 10-20% will be illiterate even in Arabic. Agriculture is about 20% of Syria’s GDP, so many of them will be farm workers. Unemployment is high in Syria, so many of them couldn’t find work in Syria, and are thus less likely to find work in the US.
It’s fine to say “Sure, bring them in”, but I would like to see a realistic plan for what to do with them when they get here. The governors who are objecting have a point - immigration is controlled by federal policy, and creates state-level issues. I mean, come on - dump 10,000 non-English speaking immigrants into North Dakota and say “you got six months to get settled, then you’re on your own”.
I think this is probably true. Large immigration waves tend to mainly consist of people who are poor by the standards of the country they immigrate to. So it is not unreasonable to assume, that they will form or add to a social “underclass”. (That is not exclusive to Muslim immigration by the way.) And yes, that underclass in most countries is where you find the higher rates of violence, extremism and the like. The flip side is, that western economies tend to *require *an underclass. We need cheap labour. With rising living standards there are more and more jobs that the middle class will not want to do but that still need doing. So immigration will bring you hazards and opportunities. You will not get the latter without the former.
Maine’s current governor is among that camp, claiming he’ll oppose any attempts to settle refugees in Maine. What can he actually do to oppose besides grandstanding? Once they are legal immigrants, can’t they live wherever they want?
I’d like to think the majority of Mainers don’t feel the way he does. We’re far more live and let live up here than our governor would let on. And before any anti’s say anything: yes, I’m fine with a family of refugees moving right across the street from me.
If, as you say, “many of them couldn’t find work in Syria,” that is because, as you say, “unemployment is high,” i.e., no jobs for them, not because they were unqualified to do any work. Unemployed != unemployable; they’ll be as employable as any other immigrant population.
No, significantly less employable. If they can’t find jobs in a country where they speak the language, and where unskilled labor is more in demand, they are less likely to find jobs in the US, where neither is true.
Vetting what? What portion of these people does anyone believe have accurately documented background information? Prove you’re not a terrorist? Puhleez, way more questions than answers, strident liberal calls for fairness and equality notwithstanding.
Unemployment is high in Syria because they’re in the middle of a civil war and the government and other institutions have largely collapsed. In the decade leading up to 2010 Syrian unemployment hovered between 8 and 12%.
This is not a traditional immigration wave. It’s refugees fleeing a war. These people will be about as “typical” a migrant population as the white people who fled Zimbabwe.
I have seen no real evidence that they are largely skilled workers and therefore likely to be employed in their trades in the US. I would like to see the plan for integrating these non-English speaking, largely unskilled laborers, into the US six months after they arrive.
Do we accept 100,000 of them as the Obama administration says for 2017? How will that be dealt with, and is there any plan to deal with the problems that the governors mention?
I understand that Syria is at war. Maybe we should feel morally obligated to accept some of the refugees. How do we do that efficiently? So far, all I have heard is Hillary and Obama saying Yes, we need to accept tens of thousands of them, and 27 governors saying NIMBY. That’s not a plan.
That seems like rather a lot. So if you take in 100,000 refugees, you’re letting in 13,000 potential ISIS supporters, the majority of which are young males.
What could go wrong?
And let’s not forget that this is not hypothetical. The Tsarnaev brothers who perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombing were from a family of asylum seekers. Major Hassan who shot up a military base was the child of refugees. In 2011, a terrorist plot was foiled involving Iraqi refugees. At least one of the Paris killers was a Syrian refugee.
An intellectually honest position would be to say that you recognize you are increasing the risk of domestic terrorism, but humanitarian concerns trump that and we should take the risk. But trying to claim that there is no additional risk here is just crazy.
As for vetting… The best the U.S. can do for vetting is to check if a person is already identified by the military or police as a terrorist or as abetting terror. If the record is simply blank, then the best you can say is that we have no evidence that the person is a terrorist, not that we can positively state that he’s not.
When this many people are flooding out of country that isn’t exactly sharing its criminal records and which cannot be trusted anyway, that means any vetting process is bound to have huge holes in it. And if ISIS is actively embedding people with the refugees, it seems like obvious common sense that they would choose people who are not yet known to authorities as being involved in terror. That makes the vetting process rather useless.
This is the answer. The belittlement of very real fears and concerns that people have about their own safety, and the safety of families and communities, seems nearly as heartless and shortsighted as those who want to turn away desperate people who are fleeing for their lives.
I recently noticed a Facebook argument between a friend, and people I assume were in the small conservative town he is from. He tried and tried to convince them that every bit of the potential danger in accepting Syrian refugees was unfounded. He just couldn’t do it, and finally they convinced him that there was some truth behind the concerns. He then did something very brave, he admitted he had been wrong, but said that still, he was not going to be ruled by fear, because that is what ISIS wants. That even if he ended up being killed by a jihadi who had snuck in with the refugees, that it would be worth it in order to stand up for his morals and help desperate people in their time of need, rather than abandon his values in favor of fear and the darkness that accompanies it.
The Clarion Project is highly biased. Fox News looks “fair and balanced” in comparison.
The Marathon bombers were only 15 and 11 when they came to this country. The bombing was 9 years later.
Major Hassan was born here.
The Syrian passport was fake. All the attackers were European nationals.
I definitely want to err on the side of humanitarianism and favor a liberal immigration policy in general and particularly with regard to immigrants.
That said, I wonder how effective vetting and background checks can really be. These are people, many of them very poor with no history of employment or education, coming from an area where civil society is in shambles and basic public records may not be readily accessible, especially to the US government. I would think that a great number of perfectly legitimate refugees would be unable to produce much in the way of a paper trail with regard to their basic biographical data, much less their political and religious views. Am I missing something here?
What this tells me is that the danger of allowing immigrants from communities with such a high incidence of extreme views can persist for a very long time. Not particularly reassuring.
yes imagine what a horrible race of people which the58% majorityapproves of usage of torture against *suspected *enemies, my god they are not part of the civilized world and countries, and are the base savages…
It is okay otherwise, Sam Stone, the humanitarian that supported finding the WMDs that never existed only wishes to separate the Syrian families from their young men, perhaps it can be made more easy if they tattoo them numbers to not lose track.
If, as you say, “many of them couldn’t find work in Syria,” that is because, as you say, “unemployment is high,” i.e., no jobs for them, not because they were unqualified to do any work. Unemployed != unemployable; they’ll be as employable as any other immigrant population.