Refugee Crises

[stfoskey15]

I've been reading on the news lately about issues with refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria and trying to come to Europe. It seems like Germany is open to allowing refugees, but many other countries are not. Many people feel they're country has a moral obligation to accept refugees, but others think it is too expensive. These issues seem to be being discussed throughout Europe and to a lesser extent in North America.

The New York Times has an article describing the Syrian refugee crisis as well as ones in Ukraine, Myanmar, and Central Africa: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ysia-iraq.html

Someone from the Wall Street Journal blames the Syrian crisis on the American withdrawal from Iraq: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-west...sis-1441561678

The Guardian claims UN agencies need funding: http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-broke-failing

And the Washington Post has an article about the pope urging the Catholics of Europe to take in refugees: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...362_story.html

What are your thoughts?

[Sam]

Resettling refugees, especially during crisis points like this, is a moral imperative. Dylan Matthews at Vox.com says it very well, I think:

Source: The best way the US could help Syrians: open the borders. Dylan Matthews. Vox.com.

The sentiment here is admirable, but the conclusion is dead wrong. What Rothman means is that the United States should have gone to war years ago to intervene more forcefully in the Syrian civil war — a costly undertaking that likely would have failed. The US's real shortcoming isn't an undue hesitancy to help Syrians by dropping bombs. It's our refusal to let Syrians help themselves by allowing more refugees to move to the United States — a solution that would certainly work, would carry little in the way of short-term financial costs, and that would likely provide a powerful boost to the US economy and drastically increase the living standards of Syrians who were able to relocate.

If we're actually serious about helping Syrian people — both people who've stayed and refugees — it's not enough to identify an intervention that seems like it could make things better and then declare that it's the only viable solution. You have to compare it with alternative plans, and see which produces the most good at the least cost. And it's very, very hard to argue that the kind of intervention that could have plausibly prevented the bloodshed of the past four years would have done more good, at lower cost, than simply issuing green cards to every Syrian who wants one — or even issuing them to just 1 million, or 500,000 — and providing airlifts to bring people here.


Let's take immigration to start. The potential benefits to Syrians are enormous. For one thing, we would avoid the huge humanitarian toll associated with existing refugee migration. Many fewer boats would capsize. Many fewer children would drown. Many fewer people would suffocate in the back of trucks.


The economic benefits are massive, as well. According to research from economists Michael Clemens, Claudio E. Montenegro, and Lant Pritchett, a worker born in Egypt but living in the United States makes 12 times as much as an identical worker still in Egypt. A worker born in Yemen makes more than 15 times as much as his counterpart who stayed behind. Even in Jordan, Syria's substantially richer neighbor, migrants make almost six times as much.

© Copyright Original Source

Matthews goes on to argue that the cost of resettlement for the USA would likely be very small, referencing studies indicating that "immigration spikes" like the kind we'd see in resettling over 500,000 refugees, show neutral or even slightly positive results to employment and wages.

I would hope that Obama uses the Pope's upcoming visit to announce an expansion of the Syrian resettlement program but it's unlikely that he can unilaterally expand it to a sufficient degree. And I have no faith that Congress would act to settle hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East anytime in the near future. So the practical options in the here and now are probably limited to supporting current relief efforts by the World Food Programme and/or private efforts, such as World Partners.

[seanD]

You know what they say about karma.

[klaus54]

You know what they say about karma.

Yes. It's delicious on popcorn.

BTW for Sam -- Vox.com = "great" source for "Progressive" propaganda.

[Darth Executor]

Resettling refugees, especially during crisis points like this, is a moral imperative.

I agree. Agree that for every resettled Syrian one American liberal has to give up his or her citizenship and leave the first world. It seems like a great trade-off and it's one way in which you and your fellow progressives can make up for the Mexican invasion you aided and abetted.

[klaus54]

Not sure how accurate this is, but if true, it's scary.

I'm sure that Alec and Sam would like this since it comes from a conservative site. But Sam used Vox.com, so tit-for-tat.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...go-on-rampage/

[klaus54]

And this "rumor" that the six richest Gulf nations (all Muslim of course) refuse to take in refugees.

This_image_made_a_political_point_about_how_few_Syrian_refugees_-a-68_1441378782983.jpg

[Sam]

And this "rumor" that the six richest Gulf nations (all Muslim of course) refuse to take in refugees.

The majority of Syrian refugees currently reside in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq, as that article notes, and all are predominately Muslim nations. Most the six Gulf states referenced are extremely small, although Saudi Arabia could certainly be resettling many more Syrians (in addition to the ~500,000 already in the country).

Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar do provide aid; Kuwait is #3 (behind USA and UK), Saudi Arabia and UAE #5 and #6, and Qatar #10.

Image 1441650754-001.jpg

[klaus54]

The majority of Syrian refugees currently reside in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq, as that article notes, and all are predominately Muslim nations. Most the six Gulf states referenced are extremely small, although Saudi Arabia could certainly be resettling many more Syrians (in addition to the ~500,000 already in the country).

Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar do provide aid; Kuwait is #3 (behind USA and UK), Saudi Arabia and UAE #5 and #6, and Qatar #10.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]9475[/ATTACH]

So what?

Western Europe will soon have the majority of these -- many without passwords and some of questionable background, maybe even some ISIS.

Why do you ALWAYS miss the crux of every even slightly conservative post?

[klaus54]

Waiting for a response to #6 and #7 not from someone left of "Crazy Bernie" Sanders.

[Sam]

So what?

Western Europe will soon have the majority of these -- many without passwords and some of questionable background, maybe even some ISIS.

Why do you ALWAYS miss the crux of every even slightly conservative post?

If the crux of your post is about refugees of "questionable background" residing predominately in Europe, it would seem appropriate to have at least some reference to refugees of "questionable background". As it was written and as the included graphic implied, it seemed more about wealthy Gulf states "standing by" and refusing to help refugees.

I don't know how the "(all Muslim of course)" reference was supposed to tie into the purported crux of your post.

[klaus54]

The cruces of my posts were 1) the reports of violence, entitlement, and hate of some the refugees (post #6), and 2) the FACT that six of the richest Muslim nations are so far no willing to take any refugees -- "their own kind" as it were.

The entry of ISIS-friendly undocumented hiding among the refugees is a hunch that's not beyond a smidgen of reality.

Still looking for someone who is not an anti-Western culture person to respond.

Nice chart though, Sam!

We can always count on you.

[firstfloor]

Not sure how accurate this is, but if true, it's scary.

I'm sure that Alec and Sam would like this since it comes from a conservative site. But Sam used Vox.com, so tit-for-tat.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...go-on-rampage/

This is definitely rubbish. Do you not have decent unbiased news coverage where you are? I recommend you check your story with the BBC or NPR or the like.

[stfoskey15]

Not sure how accurate this is, but if true, it's scary.

I'm sure that Alec and Sam would like this since it comes from a conservative site. But Sam used Vox.com, so tit-for-tat.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...go-on-rampage/

But that article seems to be about non-refugees who are unfairly taking advantage of the situation, not the refugees themselves.
Part of the problem seems to be that the many governments aren't quite sure how to handle the situation.

[klaus54]

But that article seems to be about non-refugees who are unfairly taking advantage of the situation, not the refugees themselves.
Part of the problem seems to be that the many governments aren't quite sure how to handle the situation.

I didn't see anything about the troublemakers being non-refugees.

Did I miss something?