Russia, China and refugees

[jimnyc]

So tell me, what does Vladimir Putin know that the rest of the world doesn't? Why doesn't the international community come down on Russia, or give them a hard time for not taking in a certain quota of refugees? I did a little digging, and I agree with him to an extent. I mean, they take some in, but numbers you can count on your fingers! I don't mind helping more than Russia wants to... but the problem is theirs to fix. And it's really not just Russia. Everyone always talks about how we shouldn't get involved in crap unless our country is in imminent danger, but we all know that's never the case. Anyway, just thought this would make for a good discussion. Some dated, some not, just overall peek.

Really not much from Russia, China, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan...

---

Russia refuses to help Syrian refugees
Russia refuses to join any scheme to help Syrian refugees and blames Western powers for Europe’s migration crisis

Russia refused to join any scheme to help refugees on Thursday and blamed Western powers for Europe’s migration crisis.

The Kremlin has been the biggest supplier of advanced weaponry for Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, selling munitions that have been used to devastate large areas of the country.

A trickle of migrants have entered Russia – but the country has granted asylum to only two Syrians so far this year.

Nonetheless, Russia blamed the West for Syria’s bloodshed and for the outflow of refugees. “We expect that for the most part that expenditures [for dealing with refugees] will fall on the countries linked to causing the catastrophic situation,” said Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, according to Interfax news agency.

Asked whether Russia would join any programme to help refugees, Mr Peskov replied: “It's hardly likely.”

He confirmed that some refugees from the Middle East had tried to cross Russian territory with the aim of reaching the European Union by crossing the border into Norway. Mr Peskov warned that terrorists from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) could infiltrate groups of migrants, posing a possible security threat.

The Kremlin has recently provided Mr Assad with more military support by sending a contingent of Russian troops to Syria. Their role appears to be to protect the Russian naval facility at Tartous, on Syria’s Mediterranean coast, and provide training and expertise for the regime’s forces, which are responsible for the great majority of civilian deaths in the conflict.

"The threat coming from Islamic State is evident,” said Mr Peskov. “The only force capable of resisting it is the Syrian armed forces.”

Last week, President Vladimir Putin said that Europe’s migration crisis was “completely predictable”, adding: “These are the policies of our American partners. Europe blindly follows within the framework of its so-called duties as an ally – and then must bear the burden.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11856922/Russia-refuses-to-help-Syrian-refugees.html


Russia: Failing to do Fair Share to Help Syrian Refugees

(Washington, DC) – Russia’s contribution to meeting the needs of refugees displaced by the Syrian conflict has been negligible, while its military involvement in the conflict has been significant. Russia should use the upcoming summit meetings on the global refugee crisis to make commitments to share responsibility for refugees in line with its capacity.

The United Nations Refugee and Migration Summit will be held on September 19, 2016, followed by a Leaders’ Summit on the Global Refugee Crisis the next day.

Russia should also address serious shortcomings in its asylum system that are preventing most Syrian asylum seekers who have made it to Russian territory from receiving the protection they are entitled to under international law. Since 2011, Russia has not offered one resettlement place for Syrian refugees, and Russian officials have claimed the question of receiving Syrian refugees in Russia is “not on the agenda.”

“Russia is extensively involved in the Syrian conflict but has done virtually nothing to help the 11 million people who have lost their homes and livelihoods as a result,” said Bill Frelick, refugee rights program director at Human Rights Watch. “Russia has the resources to do much more, but it has yet to show any inclination to pull its weight.”

Rest here - https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/09/14/russia-failing-do-fair-share-help-syrian-refugees


How the five wealthiest Gulf Nations have so far refused to take a single Syrian refugee

More than four million Syrians have been forced to escape the never-ending civil war ravaging their country and the barbaric terror group carving a bloody trail across the Middle East.

The vast majority live in overcrowded refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq - all under threat from ISIS - and record numbers are making the perilously long journey to Europe.

Yet, as debate rages between politicians in Europe over how many they should take, nearby super-wealthy Gulf nations of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain have refused to offer sanctuary to a single Syrian refugee.

Amnesty International's Head of Refugee and Migrants' Rights, Sherif Elsayid-Ali, described their inaction as 'shameful'.

He said: 'The records of Gulf countries is absolutely appalling, in terms of actually showing compassion and sharing the responsibility of this crisis... It is a disgrace.'

Left with nothing, these refugees travel thousands of miles from the Middle East, through central Europe and across the Mediterranean to reach countries like Germany and Austria.

Others have tried to sneak on boats, trains and trucks crossing the Channel to the UK.

Almost 3,000 have died trying to reach Europe by sea this year, but hundreds more attempt the same life-threatening journey with their babies and young children every single night.

The tragic death of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi who drowned trying to reach the Greek island of Kos from Bodrum, Turkey, inspired a seismic shift in the European attitude towards the 313,000 people who have reached the continent this year.

Rest here - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3222405/How-six-wealthiest-Gulf-Nations-refused-single-Syrian-refugee.html


Why China Isn’t Hosting Syrian Refugees

The civil war in Syria, now spanning almost half a decade, and the Islamic State’s territorial advances there have led to the world’s worst refugee crisis in decades. More than 4.7 million Syrians have left their homeland, pouring into neighboring countries as well as Europe. The influx of refugees has strained resources in the region and fomented xenophobia and nativism in countries throughout Europe, helping to buoy the rise of extreme right-wing parties there.

But China, the world’s most populous nation and its second largest economy, has sat on the sidelines. According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Beijing, by the end of August 2015, there were nine refugees and 26 asylum seekers from Syria in China. They were among the 795 UN-registered “persons of concern,” or displaced people, mainly from Somalia, Nigeria, Iraq, and Liberia living in China temporarily while waiting to be transferred. The East Asian giant faces complex political, demographic, religious, and economic challenges that have prevented it from considering allowing migrants inside its borders. Even so, if China is to become a responsible global power, the country must reevaluate the ideology that has prevented it from taking an active role in ameliorating a global crisis.

Chinese authorities argue that Western countries caused the meltdown in Syria that resulted in the mass exodus, making its resolution their responsibility. In an October 2015 opinion piece in Communist Party mouthpiece People’s Daily, Wu Sike, former Chinese Ambassador to Egypt and Saudi Arabia and former Special Envoy on the Middle East, argued that the Middle East “democratization” agenda of the United States and its allies lies at the root of the migrant refugee crisis. In a Feb. 15 piece in party journal Seeking Truth, Zhang Weiwei, director of the Center for China Development Model Research at Fudan University in Shanghai, contended that the “European refugee crisis is a price” that Western countries must pay for their “arrogance.” Chinese web users largely agreed. After the photos of Syrian toddler Aylan Kurdi’s body washed up on a Turkish beach went viral in September 2015, netizens in China shared in the grief and largely blamed the United States for the chaos in Syria which had led to the boy’s drowning.

Rest here - http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/26/china-host-syrian-islam-refugee-crisis-migrant/

[sear]

"what does Vladimir Putin know that the rest of the world doesn't? Why doesn't the international community come down on Russia, or give them a hard time for not taking in a certain quota of refugees? I did a little digging, and I agree with him to an extent. I mean, they take some in, but"
Xenophobia is natural.
Welcoming strangers may run counter to human nature.

BUT !!

Know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not, agree with it or not; some of the U.S.' most successful, most prosperous decades have been coincident with some of our indulgent immigration policies.
Immigration is not a drain, a negative.
Immigration enriches us.

And President Trump has jammed a finger in the eye to that source of bounty.

“The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus (the source of the inscription on our Statue of Liberty)

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles.
From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!"” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A (http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0874962.html)HYPERLINK (http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0874962.html)"http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A (http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0874962.html)0874962 (http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0874962.html).html" (http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0874962.html)0874962 (http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0874962.html)HYPERLINK "http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A (http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0874962.html)0874962 (http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0874962.html).html" (http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0874962.html).html (http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0874962.html)

[Drummond]

Xenophobia is natural.
Welcoming strangers may run counter to human nature.

BUT !!

Know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not, agree with it or not; some of the U.S.' most successful, most prosperous decades have been coincident with some of our indulgent immigration policies.
Immigration is not a drain, a negative.
Immigration enriches us.

And President Trump has jammed a finger in the eye to that source of bounty.

How many of those 'prosperous decades' you mention also mirror the security concerns which currently exist ?

Islamic terrorism ... for how many of those decades has it been a major problem, for America & / or the West ? Conditions change, and there's no wisdom in ignoring change just to slavishly follow a social preference, one fossilized from a different age !

[sear]

"How many of those 'prosperous decades' you mention also mirror the security concerns which currently exist ?"
I suspect you have an answer in mind. But I'll play.

One?

"Islamic terrorism ... for how many of those decades has it been a major problem, for America & / or the West ? Conditions change, and there's no wisdom in ignoring change just to slavishly follow a social preference, one fossilized from a different age !"
Understood.

Trump's original proposal was to halt all Muslim immigration into the U.S. -until we figure out what the ^%$# is going on-.

Then he switched to "extreme vetting", which turns out to be a continuation of Obama administration practice.

If Muslim immigrants in the U.S. we disproportionately criminals, I could understand a wish to "solve" a "problem".

But discriminating against Muslims doesn't seem to be a solution to any problem we have right now.

And those that bang that gong the loudest are captains of industry; wealthy businessmen including Bill Gates that need the influx of talent, simply because there aren't enough native Americans to fill our high-tech vacancies.

[Drummond]

I suspect you have an answer in mind. But I'll play.

One?

I think you see my point.

The case you made regarding immigrants being such a positive thing for America's prosperity is one which could be argued for a span of decades well in excess of the 'one' which you yourself state in answer to me. The fact is that, even if you had a good case, that case has been more recently tainted by present-day realities. Now, this could be ignored .. IF .. America wanted to ignore the threat which those realities poses. Such as, taking in immigrants without proper vetting taking place. Such as, ignoring the reality of certain countries exporting individuals who are highly likely to be hostile to America's wellbeing.


Trump's original proposal was to halt all Muslim immigration into the U.S. -until we figure out what the ^%$# is going on-.

Then he switched to "extreme vetting", which turns out to be a continuation of Obama administration practice.

If Muslim immigrants in the U.S. we disproportionately criminals, I could understand a wish to "solve" a "problem".

But discriminating against Muslims doesn't seem to be a solution to any problem we have right now.

Here's a thought. Just how easy is it to gain intelligence on individuals from an authority and an infrastructure under meltdown conditions courtesy of long-standing warfare ?

Now ... compare Muslim-based terrorism with sources of it falling outside Islam as an inspiration for it.

Care to give us a comparison between known cases, and known groupings, of Islamic terrorism ... and, say, Christian 'equivalents' ? Or Hindu equivalents ? Buddhist equivalents ? Shall I go on ?

Why not create lists of terrorist groups, showing us an equivalence between the numbers of Islamic terrorist groups across the globe, and other religions ? Then tell me that people such as Donald Trump have no cause to try and stem immigration from countries which are known as hotbeds of Islamic 'extremism' !

There's a saying ... 'better safe than sorry'. For my money, this could mean that taking a strong line is much, MUCH, better than taking no line AT ALL !

Perhaps 9/11 taught you nothing ?

Perhaps 9/11, and other terrorist atrocities undertaken against Americans and their interests, should NOT teach caution ? Nobody has anything to learn from them ?

Do American lives mean so little, that you have an inclination to believe this approach has merit ?

HOW MANY LIVES 'NEED' TO BE SACRIFICED UPON THE ALTAR OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ??

[sear]

"The case you made regarding immigrants being such a positive thing for America's prosperity is one which could be argued for a span of decades well in excess of the 'one' which you yourself state in answer to me. The fact is that, even if you had a good case, that case has been more recently tainted by present-day realities." D #5
In a court of law that's called "assuming facts not in evidence".

I do not believe the benefits of immigration is a lapsed reality.
There are several issues about that.

a) Welcoming immigrants has been our standard for centuries. It's who we were. And so now to fold like a cheap camera at the first sign of trouble demonstrates a spineless lack of conviction in our own principles.
By & large, it's best for us (U.S.) to define ourselves; not for us to allow others to define us.

b) Please do not infer less than I imply.
I'm NOT asserting we should continue the policy simply to be doctrinaire; no matter how much harm comes to us as a result.

You see D, Donald Trump has sold us a bill of goods. He has painted a grim picture, on immigration ("I'm gunna build a wall"), on crime, etc.
According to the stats I've read of it, things were pretty good, and getting better.
But the crisis narrative suits Trump's style of exaggeration. And thus he beat out a dozen other candidates in the Republican primary, several of whom might have been the more capable CEO of the USA.

c) The consequence here is, instead of the U.S. continuing to receive this rich infusion of talent, it'll now divert to Canada, Australia, Germany, & elsewhere.
Trump administration policy is planting the seeds of a significant back-slide, and one that may bedevil and hamper us for decades.

"Care to give us a comparison between known cases, and known groupings, of Islamic terrorism ... and, say, Christian 'equivalents' ? Or Hindu equivalents ? Buddhist equivalents ? Shall I go on ?"
Yes please.
Don't stop there.
We should look at them ALL. But not anecdotally. Statistically.
- Some "terrorists" (criminals) migrate.
- Some "terrorists" (criminals) are native born.

Of all that I've read of it over the decades, what I have read of it indicates immigration, even illegal immigration, is a net benefit.
The xenophobes will tell you illegal aliens take American jobs. True.
Some xenophobes claim illegal aliens are a NET drain on our economy.
I wouldn't know.
But those that do (they're called "economists") generally report that illegal immigrants are NOT a net drain on our economy. And even if some of them are on "welfare", or are receiving some other benefit, as a group they contribute more than they receive.

Migrant crop harvesters is the obvious example. They do difficult work for low wage, and help keep the U.S. food supply fresh, safe, and cheap.
Illegal aliens provide similar market benefits in housing, not only construction, but child care, etc.

"HOW MANY LIVES 'NEED' TO BE SACRIFICED UPON THE ALTAR OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ??"
I'm not POTUS. But I'll settle for zero.

Know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not; you and I are on the same side on this one.
YOU want what's best for the U.S.
I want what's best for the U.S.

IF you have a valid point show that statistics to support it.
Show us the numbers that demonstrate immigrants from Muslim countries have in the past year or two (since Trump started campaigning on it) infused a disproportionate number of problems that (for example) Trump's wall that Mexico is gunna pay for will solve.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So tell me, what does Vladimir Putin know that the rest of the world doesn't? Why doesn't the international community come down on Russia, or give them a hard time for not taking in a certain quota of refugees? I did a little digging, and I agree with him to an extent. I mean, they take some in, but numbers you can count on your fingers! I don't mind helping more than Russia wants to... but the problem is theirs to fix. And it's really not just Russia. Everyone always talks about how we shouldn't get involved in crap unless our country is in imminent danger, but we all know that's never the case. Anyway, just thought this would make for a good discussion. Some dated, some not, just overall peek.

Really not much from Russia, China, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan...

---

Russia refuses to help Syrian refugees
Russia refuses to join any scheme to help Syrian refugees and blames Western powers for Europe’s migration crisis

Russia refused to join any scheme to help refugees on Thursday and blamed Western powers for Europe’s migration crisis.

The Kremlin has been the biggest supplier of advanced weaponry for Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, selling munitions that have been used to devastate large areas of the country.

A trickle of migrants have entered Russia – but the country has granted asylum to only two Syrians so far this year.

Nonetheless, Russia blamed the West for Syria’s bloodshed and for the outflow of refugees. “We expect that for the most part that expenditures [for dealing with refugees] will fall on the countries linked to causing the catastrophic situation,” said Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, according to Interfax news agency.

Asked whether Russia would join any programme to help refugees, Mr Peskov replied: “It's hardly likely.”

He confirmed that some refugees from the Middle East had tried to cross Russian territory with the aim of reaching the European Union by crossing the border into Norway. Mr Peskov warned that terrorists from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) could infiltrate groups of migrants, posing a possible security threat.

The Kremlin has recently provided Mr Assad with more military support by sending a contingent of Russian troops to Syria. Their role appears to be to protect the Russian naval facility at Tartous, on Syria’s Mediterranean coast, and provide training and expertise for the regime’s forces, which are responsible for the great majority of civilian deaths in the conflict.

"The threat coming from Islamic State is evident,” said Mr Peskov. “The only force capable of resisting it is the Syrian armed forces.”

Last week, President Vladimir Putin said that Europe’s migration crisis was “completely predictable”, adding: “These are the policies of our American partners. Europe blindly follows within the framework of its so-called duties as an ally – and then must bear the burden.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11856922/Russia-refuses-to-help-Syrian-refugees.html


Russia: Failing to do Fair Share to Help Syrian Refugees

(Washington, DC) – Russia’s contribution to meeting the needs of refugees displaced by the Syrian conflict has been negligible, while its military involvement in the conflict has been significant. Russia should use the upcoming summit meetings on the global refugee crisis to make commitments to share responsibility for refugees in line with its capacity.

The United Nations Refugee and Migration Summit will be held on September 19, 2016, followed by a Leaders’ Summit on the Global Refugee Crisis the next day.

Russia should also address serious shortcomings in its asylum system that are preventing most Syrian asylum seekers who have made it to Russian territory from receiving the protection they are entitled to under international law. Since 2011, Russia has not offered one resettlement place for Syrian refugees, and Russian officials have claimed the question of receiving Syrian refugees in Russia is “not on the agenda.”

“Russia is extensively involved in the Syrian conflict but has done virtually nothing to help the 11 million people who have lost their homes and livelihoods as a result,” said Bill Frelick, refugee rights program director at Human Rights Watch. “Russia has the resources to do much more, but it has yet to show any inclination to pull its weight.”

Rest here - https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/09/14/russia-failing-do-fair-share-help-syrian-refugees


How the five wealthiest Gulf Nations have so far refused to take a single Syrian refugee

More than four million Syrians have been forced to escape the never-ending civil war ravaging their country and the barbaric terror group carving a bloody trail across the Middle East.

The vast majority live in overcrowded refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq - all under threat from ISIS - and record numbers are making the perilously long journey to Europe.

Yet, as debate rages between politicians in Europe over how many they should take, nearby super-wealthy Gulf nations of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain have refused to offer sanctuary to a single Syrian refugee.

Amnesty International's Head of Refugee and Migrants' Rights, Sherif Elsayid-Ali, described their inaction as 'shameful'.

He said: 'The records of Gulf countries is absolutely appalling, in terms of actually showing compassion and sharing the responsibility of this crisis... It is a disgrace.'

Left with nothing, these refugees travel thousands of miles from the Middle East, through central Europe and across the Mediterranean to reach countries like Germany and Austria.

Others have tried to sneak on boats, trains and trucks crossing the Channel to the UK.

Almost 3,000 have died trying to reach Europe by sea this year, but hundreds more attempt the same life-threatening journey with their babies and young children every single night.

The tragic death of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi who drowned trying to reach the Greek island of Kos from Bodrum, Turkey, inspired a seismic shift in the European attitude towards the 313,000 people who have reached the continent this year.

Rest here - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3222405/How-six-wealthiest-Gulf-Nations-refused-single-Syrian-refugee.html


Why China Isn’t Hosting Syrian Refugees

The civil war in Syria, now spanning almost half a decade, and the Islamic State’s territorial advances there have led to the world’s worst refugee crisis in decades. More than 4.7 million Syrians have left their homeland, pouring into neighboring countries as well as Europe. The influx of refugees has strained resources in the region and fomented xenophobia and nativism in countries throughout Europe, helping to buoy the rise of extreme right-wing parties there.

But China, the world’s most populous nation and its second largest economy, has sat on the sidelines. According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Beijing, by the end of August 2015, there were nine refugees and 26 asylum seekers from Syria in China. They were among the 795 UN-registered “persons of concern,” or displaced people, mainly from Somalia, Nigeria, Iraq, and Liberia living in China temporarily while waiting to be transferred. The East Asian giant faces complex political, demographic, religious, and economic challenges that have prevented it from considering allowing migrants inside its borders. Even so, if China is to become a responsible global power, the country must reevaluate the ideology that has prevented it from taking an active role in ameliorating a global crisis.

Chinese authorities argue that Western countries caused the meltdown in Syria that resulted in the mass exodus, making its resolution their responsibility. In an October 2015 opinion piece in Communist Party mouthpiece People’s Daily, Wu Sike, former Chinese Ambassador to Egypt and Saudi Arabia and former Special Envoy on the Middle East, argued that the Middle East “democratization” agenda of the United States and its allies lies at the root of the migrant refugee crisis. In a Feb. 15 piece in party journal Seeking Truth, Zhang Weiwei, director of the Center for China Development Model Research at Fudan University in Shanghai, contended that the “European refugee crisis is a price” that Western countries must pay for their “arrogance.” Chinese web users largely agreed. After the photos of Syrian toddler Aylan Kurdi’s body washed up on a Turkish beach went viral in September 2015, netizens in China shared in the grief and largely blamed the United States for the chaos in Syria which had led to the boy’s drowning.

Rest here - http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/26/china-host-syrian-islam-refugee-crisis-migrant/




Why China Isn’t Hosting Syrian Refugees

The civil war in Syria, now spanning almost half a decade, and the Islamic State’s territorial advances there have led to the world’s worst refugee crisis in decades. More than 4.7 million Syrians have left their homeland, pouring into neighboring countries as well as Europe. The influx of refugees has strained resources in the region and fomented xenophobia and nativism in countries throughout Europe, helping to buoy the rise of extreme right-wing parties there.

But China, the world’s most populous nation and its second largest economy, has sat on the sidelines. According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Beijing, by the end of August 2015, there were nine refugees and 26 asylum seekers from Syria in China. They were among the 795 UN-registered “persons of concern,” or displaced people, mainly from Somalia, Nigeria, Iraq, and Liberia living in China temporarily while waiting to be transferred. The East Asian giant faces complex political, demographic, religious, and economic challenges that have prevented it from considering allowing migrants inside its borders. Even so, if China is to become a responsible global power, the country must reevaluate the ideology that has prevented it from taking an active role in ameliorating a global crisis.

Chinese authorities argue that Western countries caused the meltdown in Syria that resulted in the mass exodus, making its resolution their responsibility. In an October 2015 opinion piece in Communist Party mouthpiece People’s Daily, Wu Sike, former Chinese Ambassador to Egypt and Saudi Arabia and former Special Envoy on the Middle East, argued that the Middle East “democratization” agenda of the United States and its allies lies at the root of the migrant refugee crisis. In a Feb. 15 piece in party journal Seeking Truth, Zhang Weiwei, director of the Center for China Development Model Research at Fudan University in Shanghai, contended that the “European refugee crisis is a price” that Western countries must pay for their “arrogance.” Chinese web users largely agreed. After the photos of Syrian toddler Aylan Kurdi’s body washed up on a Turkish beach went viral in September 2015, netizens in China shared in the grief and largely blamed the United States for the chaos in Syria which had led to the boy’s drowning.



^^^^^^^ Utter bullshit--China is not taking in the muslims because they are not stupid and gullible as are we. An because the globalist cabal can not force them to do so. Just simple...
They know the muzzies are a damn cancer and they have enough trouble already!!

Why the hell don't we know that??-Tyr

[sear]

I don't know of anyone that denies our newspaper headlines prominently feature the continuing Islamist bloodbath around the world.

BUT !!

Can any poster here offer statistically significant evidence that U.S. immigration of Muslims provides an infusion of criminals into the U.S. population in excess of the prevailing ratio?

[Drummond]

In a court of law that's called "assuming facts not in evidence".

I do not believe the benefits of immigration is a lapsed reality.
There are several issues about that.

Don't forget -- there are two sorts of immigrants to be counted (in so far as such a count is even possible). LEGAL immigrants, and ILLEGAL immigrants.

Illegal immigrants cannot said to be a 'benefit'. They are criminals just by being present in the US in the first place.

As for the legal ones, I don't deny that there may be reputable people among them. What I do say is that, these days, it's sometimes very hard to tell who are the 'worthwhile' ones and who are not. Some will see the US as a country they can leech off of. Some will be, whether you like it or not, hostile to what America is and stands for.


a) Welcoming immigrants has been our standard for centuries. It's who we were. And so now to fold like a cheap camera at the first sign of trouble demonstrates a spineless lack of conviction in our own principles.
By & large, it's best for us (U.S.) to define ourselves; not for us to allow others to define us.

It's definitely best for the US to fully acknowledge today's realities !! Immigrants, in today's climate, HAVE to be assessed, HAVE to be vetted. Not doing so, or being incapable of doing a proper job of it, risks harm. Possibly considerable harm.

Can I also suggest that even America's resources are't infinite ? You must have finite limits on what can be tolerated in terms of sheer numbers, State-by-State.


b) Please do not infer less than I imply.
I'm NOT asserting we should continue the policy simply to be doctrinaire; no matter how much harm comes to us as a result.

.. in which case, you should be heeding the concerns that President Trump is trying to address !!

Bette to be safe than sorry .. which was always Mr Trump's position.


You see D, Donald Trump has sold us a bill of goods. He has painted a grim picture, on immigration ("I'm gunna build a wall"), on crime, etc.
According to the stats I've read of it, things were pretty good, and getting better.
But the crisis narrative suits Trump's style of exaggeration. And thus he beat out a dozen other candidates in the Republican primary, several of whom might have been the more capable CEO of the USA.

Let me reverse it. YOU prove to ME that things are so much better than President Trump would have you believe.

Here's the thing. As I've already pointed out, there are both LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigrants. It's in the very nature of illegal immigration that no precise figures can be attributed to the numbers of illegals actually in the US at the present time. Therefore, your reference to 'stats' becomes nearly meaningless -- how do you calculate numbers without data on them, to refer to ??

But regardless, illegals ARE a fact of life. And .. if some are terrorists, some of those will be facts behind deaths, too.

... and not only terrorists, either. Examine these links ....

http://www.fairus.org/issue/examples-of-serious-crimes-by-illegal-aliens

http://www.fairus.org/issues/illegal-immigration

http://www.fairus.org/issue/criminal-aliens


c) The consequence here is, instead of the U.S. continuing to receive this rich infusion of talent, it'll now divert to Canada, Australia, Germany, & elsewhere.

Trump administration policy is planting the seeds of a significant back-slide, and one that may bedevil and hamper us for decades.

My links above answer you adequately. There ARE concerns to be addressed. Just ignoring them - and even spinning propaganda to negate any recognition of the reality of those concerns - is decidedly harmful.

President Trump wants to tackle such issues. Neither he, his Administration, nor American citizens, need to be blinded to those concerns, just because Left-leaning individuals would prefer it that way.


Yes please.
Don't stop there.
We should look at them ALL. But not anecdotally. Statistically.
- Some "terrorists" (criminals) migrate.
- Some "terrorists" (criminals) are native born.

Native born ones - one would hope - are more easily trackable (though the Westminster terrorist WAS native-born, but still, he managed the terrorist act that he did).

But it's not possible to 'look at them all'. Some will be illegals. Some will be inactive, unidentified as what they truly are.


Of all that I've read of it over the decades, what I have read of it indicates immigration, even illegal immigration, is a net benefit.

This is just Leftie propagandising, complete with hallmark irresponsibility.

Illegal immigrants ARE CRIMINALS. They commit a criminal act by just being present. There's no 'net benefit' from encouraging or even tolerating criminality !!

.. or are you of a mind that says there are some laws which people can be free to break, just because there are some who'd prefer it that way ?


The xenophobes will tell you illegal aliens take American jobs. True.
Some xenophobes claim illegal aliens are a NET drain on our economy.
I wouldn't know.
But those that do (they're called "economists") generally report that illegal immigrants are NOT a net drain on our economy. And even if some of them are on "welfare", or are receiving some other benefit, as a group they contribute more than they receive.

How do you prove that case, anyway ?

I say that you can't. An identified illegal alien is someone who can and should be deported, because said alien HAS NO RIGHT TO BE ON US TERRITORY.

An unidentified illegal alien is someone you cannot ascribe measures of 'success' or 'failure' to .. because you don't know who you're talking about !


Migrant crop harvesters is the obvious example. They do difficult work for low wage, and help keep the U.S. food supply fresh, safe, and cheap.
Illegal aliens provide similar market benefits in housing, not only construction, but child care, etc.

You're trying to justify illegality. Who else but a Left-winger would dream of trying to do such a thing ???


Know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not; you and I are on the same side on this one.
YOU want what's best for the U.S.
I want what's best for the U.S.

NOPE.

I am on the side which says that American law should count for something ... NOT that you ignore it, as and when it's convenient to your 'cause' to do so.

I suggest to you that a citizen who's law-abiding, who thinks the law must be kept to, is better serving the People of America than one who'd pick and choose which laws can be disregarded !! An illegal alien is ILLEGAL, is a LAW BREAKER, and there is no argument which can justify his or her presence in territory they have no right whatever to be living within !!!

[sear]

"- there are two sorts of immigrants to be counted (in so far as such a count is even possible). LEGAL immigrants, and ILLEGAL immigrants." D #9

I think this is an extremely important point.
And one of the key distinction between them is vetting.

"Illegal immigrants cannot said to be a 'benefit'. They are criminals just by being present in the US in the first place." D #9
Understood.
But the bulk of economist's whose opinion / analysis I've read on it indicate even the illegal aliens in the U.S. are a net plus for the U.S. economy.
The U.S. food supply is among the safest and lowest cost in the world, in part due to illegal migrant crop harvesters.

"you should be heeding the concerns that President Trump is trying to address !!" D #9

Yes. But it's not a binary; either Obama's way, or Trump's.

For obvious example:
I thought Trump's wall was a bad idea, even when he was claiming Mexico would pay for it.
Then it became the U.S. consumers & tax payers would pay for it.
And now it seems Trump's fishing around for the funding directly in congress.

bad, bad, bad

"Bette to be safe than sorry .. which was always Mr Trump's position." D #9

-If you guard your toothbrushes and your diamonds with equal zeal, you'll lose fewer toothbrushes, and more diamonds.- paraphrase McGeorge Bundy
The information reaching New York about it is that illegal immigration, and to some extent legal immigration has slowed, for various reasons, but perhaps chiefly President Trump.

Mexico's economy is picking up. They don't have to go to Detroit or Kentucky for a job.

Let's not get suckered here D.
If Trump ends up spending $80 $billion on a wall to keep mostly farm workers from Central & South America out; that'll be $80 $Billion less we'll have to screen Syrian refugees, fight ISIL, etc.
And how many terrorists have entered the U.S. across the U.S. / Mexico border? Zero?
I can't name one.

"This is just Leftie propagandising, complete with hallmark irresponsibility."

It's not a static picture.
In some places it may be a negative.
In some places it may be a plus.

According to what I've read, nationwide, the U.S. economy benefits from illegal immigrants and legal immigrants alike. I searched it, and found these hits:

Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_Unite d_States

The economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States is challenging to measure and ... Net immigration from Mexico to the U.S. has stopped and possibly reversed since 2010. At its peak in 2000, about 770,000 immigrants arrived ...
Is Illegal Immigration an Economic Burden to America? - Illegal ...

immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000788

Jan 24, 2017 ... "The economic impact of illegal immigration in the U.S. is costly and ... "[T]he net fiscal cost of immigration ranges from $11 billion to $22 billion ...
Do Illegal Immigrants Actually Hurt the U.S. Economy? - The New ...

www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html

Feb 12, 2013 ... Undocumented workers represent a classic economic challenge with a fairly ... The impact on everyone else, though, is surprisingly positive. ... of Brooklyn, undocumented immigrants impose a substantial net cost to local and ...
Illegal immigrants benefit the U.S. economy | TheHill

thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/203984-illegal-immigrants-benefit-the-us-economy

Apr 23, 2014 ... There are few subjects that evoke as much emotion as immigration reform, especially since future laws could result in a path to citizenship for ...
The Thorny Economics of Illegal Immigration - WSJ

www.wsj.com/articles/the-thorny-economics-of-illegal-immigration-1454984443

Feb 9, 2016 ... Arizona's economy took a hit when many illegal immigrants left for Mexico, but benefits also materialized, including jobs and higher wages for ...
The Fiscal and Economic Impact of Immigration on the United States ...

cis.org/node/4573

Basic economic theory predicts that immigration should create a net gain for natives, .... Illegal immigrants with little education are a significant fiscal drain, but ...
The Effects of Immigration on the United States' Economy — Penn ...

www.budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-effects-of-immigration-on-the-united-states-economy

Jun 27, 2016 ... Immigration also has a net positive effect on combined federal, state, and local budgets. But not all taxpayers benefit equally. ... whether documented or undocumented — are net positive contributors to the federal budget.
Immigrants Are Makers, Not Takers - Center for American Progress

www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/02/08/52377/immigrants-are-makers-not-takers

Feb 8, 2013 ... And the truth is that the cost-benefit analyses that immigration ... Immigrants are a net positive to the economy ... A 2011 study by the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy found that undocumented immigrants paid $11.2 ...
Study: 'Undocumented' Immigrants Pay Billions in Taxes | US News

www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes

Mar 1, 2016 ... A new report suggests immigrants in the country illegally provide local ... The study from the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy found that ... believed to pay into the U.S. Social Security system (a system of benefits they wouldn't ... some research still pegs them as a net drain on government resources.