Where Should We Resettle Refugees In The US?

[Page]

Make them citizens. Draft them immediately, and send them overseas as part of the American Liberation force liberating their wartorn homeland.

If we wouldn't declare war on a place, we shouldn't be accepting refugees from that place. If we would accept refugees from that place, they should be expected to contribute to the war effort to liberate their home.

1) America rejected Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany before its entry into World War 2 and in doing so sent thousands to their deaths. Not a good look then and definitely wouldn't be now.

2) Setting aside the cruelty of a catch-22 in which one who wants to escape violence cannot do so either way, filling a military with people who don't want to be there and aren't good at their job is a stupid move.

3) You're either assuming all refugees are fleeing America's enemies which is ignorant or saying the one's who aren't fleeing America's enemies are unworthy of being saved which is incredibly callous. You know, those millions of Syrian refugees didn't all leave because of ISIS or Assad. Many of them fled from the violence of terrorist groups that America armed and trained to overthrow Assad. Should they go fight with the people who tried to kill them? What about Yemeni people fleeing from Saudi Arabia's genocide? Are they supposed to help the Saudis perpetuate the genocide further?

[The Emerald Legion]

When did I ever imply the Golden rule was anything close to my ethical foundations? In cases where existence in another country is untenable due to tyrannical regimes we should be declaring war on said regimes and ending them with violence. The very necessity to accept refugees from a place means we have already judged that country as deficient. Is it enough then to merely help those few fortunates who manage to escape? No. No it's not. If we are going to extend THESE people help, then logically we must also believe those people still IN the country are worth helping if able. And we are more than able. Therefor, any accepting of refugees must morally coincide with the immediate declaration of war upon whatever nation it is we are accepting refugees from, with the intent of establishing a constitutionally compliant republic.

Nonsense. Violence is an intrinsic part of the human condition. War is Humanity and Humanity is War. To erase one is to erase the other.



.... Considering I do get persecution for two of those three. Thankfully I don't love, so that one isn't a concern.

So edgy. Gonna see you on the news after the next shooting.

Why would I shoot my fellow Americans? It's not their fault they've been taken in by nonsensical European propaganda.

[Loben The 2nd]

So edgy. Gonna see you on the news after the next shooting.

Why would I shoot my fellow Americans? It's not their fault they've been taken in by nonsensical European propaganda.

Ah yes, Europe. So advanced that they managed to brown nose themselves.

[Definitely Not Trumptonium]

Where the people who want them resettled live.

Beverly Hills, Manhattan, Boston, D.C. Met, Vermont, Portland, Seattle, places like that.

[Nakena]

Where the people who want them resettled live.

Beverely Hills, Manhattan, Boston, D.C. Met, Vermont, Portland, Seattle, places like that.

The best suggestion so far.

[Loben The 2nd]

Where the people who want them resettled live.

Beverely Hills, Manhattan, Boston, D.C. Met, Vermont, Portland, Seattle, places like that.

The best suggestion so far.

Don’t forget LA.

Or San Francisco, they can barely solve their homeless problems!

[Ethel mermania]

Canada.

[Costa Iswi]

We should resettle them wherever they think they can fit in economically. When we refugees opportunities like, any other people, they will benefit the country as a whole.

[Costa Iswi]

Make them citizens. Draft them immediately, and send them overseas as part of the American Liberation force liberating their wartorn homeland.

If we wouldn't declare war on a place, we shouldn't be accepting refugees from that place. If we would accept refugees from that place, they should be expected to contribute to the war effort to liberate their home.

Fascism lolllll

[San Lumen]

Or they could stay and clean up their own country.

Don't give us that drivel. I understand the problems associated with the refugee process, and I'll concede, they are significant. However, that does not negate the fact that many refugees are fleeing war-torn and dysfunctional societies. In such scenarios, it's impossible to stay and clean up "their own country" as you call it, when staying leaves a substantial risk of, well, quite frankly, death.

It's easy for us in a civilized and functional modern society to say "clean your own mess up," when that's not an option for many refugees. When you have a family to care for and you're under constant threat of having your house bombarded by crossfire, shrapnel and actual gunfire, you wouldn't think twice about relocating somewhere safe, somewhere where you have peace of mind.

I try to stay away from anecdotes on account of it's not empirical evidence. I really do. But a former coworker of mine who I worked with daily for months comes to mind. He came from Afghanistan and is a refugee in the United States. He works two manual labor jobs, one at my old job. If it weren't for his accent, religion and color of skin, he'd be no different than the archetypal blue-collar American who busts his ass at his laboring job before finally coming home late to his wife and kids. He, and other refugees I've worked with, are some of the hardest working motherfuckers I've ever had the pleasure of working alongside with. He was the only one who opened up. Kandahar was hell on earth for his family. The torment of knowing you could be killed at any second was too much. And he decided to apply for refugee status in Arizona.

For people like him, I'd love to see someone hear that story and say "hey, you know what man, you should've stayed home and "cleaned up your country," as if they want to call that their country in the first place. We all know the evidence behind refugee programs. It brings problems here and there, we can't deny that. We can't deny that and we can't ignore the fact that perhaps some restrictions should exist for the numbers of refugees one locale should have to take. That's fair.

But the argument I really, truly despise with every bone in my body is that people fleeing conflict should stay and fix their own mess. It's such a lazy, disaffected and disconnected response from reality and empathy as a whole.

Beautifully said

Where the people who want them resettled live.

Beverly Hills, Manhattan, Boston, D.C. Met, Vermont, Portland, Seattle, places like that.

Why not other states and smaller municipalities?

We should resettle them wherever they think they can fit in economically. When we refugees opportunities like, any other people, they will benefit the country as a whole.

I agree with this. We should not limit where we send refugees. If they want to go to North Dakota , Missouri, New York or Arizona, I say respect their wishes.

[Ifreann]

Let them go wherever they want to go, obviously.

---

Make them citizens. Draft them immediately, and send them overseas as part of the American Liberation force liberating their wartorn homeland.

If we wouldn't declare war on a place, we shouldn't be accepting refugees from that place. If we would accept refugees from that place, they should be expected to contribute to the war effort to liberate their home.

So when people were fleeing Haiti following a natural disaster, you think the US should have either turned them away or declared war on Haiti?

[The Emerald Legion]

Let them go wherever they want to go, obviously.

---

Make them citizens. Draft them immediately, and send them overseas as part of the American Liberation force liberating their wartorn homeland.

If we wouldn't declare war on a place, we shouldn't be accepting refugees from that place. If we would accept refugees from that place, they should be expected to contribute to the war effort to liberate their home.

So when people were fleeing Haiti following a natural disaster, you think the US should have either turned them away or declared war on Haiti?

Yep. More the former than the latter.

[Ifreann]

Let them go wherever they want to go, obviously.

---

So when people were fleeing Haiti following a natural disaster, you think the US should have either turned them away or declared war on Haiti?

Yep. More the former than the latter.

Why?

[San Lumen]

Let them go wherever they want to go, obviously.

---

So when people were fleeing Haiti following a natural disaster, you think the US should have either turned them away or declared war on Haiti?

Yep. More the former than the latter.

Your joking right? My great grandfather came to the US in 1910 with his uncle to escape the pogroms. Would you have told him go fix Romania instead of coming here?

[The Emerald Legion]

Yep. More the former than the latter.

Why?

A natural disaster is not our problem. If they want us to send them specific items that could help them get through it, gifts are always something that can be given.

But a natural disaster is one and done. That they don't feel like picking up the pieces afterwards isn't our problem.

Yep. More the former than the latter.

Your joking right? My great grandfather came to the US in 1910 with his uncle to escape the pogroms. Would you have told him go fix Romania instead of coming here?

A pogrom isn't a natural disaster. Refugees are acceptable in the case of a pogrom, but we should also be trying to kill the people doing the pogrom-ing. And given we are going to be doing that the refugees should be expected to carry some of the burden.

[San Lumen]

Why?

A natural disaster is not our problem. If they want us to send them specific items that could help them get through it, gifts are always something that can be given.

But a natural disaster is one and done. That they don't feel like picking up the pieces afterwards isn't our problem.

Your joking right? My great grandfather came to the US in 1910 with his uncle to escape the pogroms. Would you have told him go fix Romania instead of coming here?

A pogrom isn't a natural disaster. Refugees are acceptable in the case of a pogrom, but we should also be trying to kill the people doing the pogrom-ing. And given we are going to be doing that the refugees should be expected to carry some of the burden.

You could say that about anything. Your being persecuted for your religion or ethnicity? Not our problem. Your being targeted for being gay? Don’t care. Is your country embroiled in civil war? Don’t care either. Pick up a gun and fight. So easy for you to say when you’ve likely never experienced it


we should have invaded Romania? What burden should they carry?

[Ostkil]

Unrelated to the USA, but in the case of Europe, the EU should send their refugees to European Muslim nations like Albania and Bosnia and give those nation financial support until the refugee crisis blows over. They would feel comfortable in Bosnia and would have an easy time adjusting because all they have to do is learn Serbo-Croatian. Bosnia would also gain an economy boost as well.

[The Emerald Legion]

A natural disaster is not our problem. If they want us to send them specific items that could help them get through it, gifts are always something that can be given.

But a natural disaster is one and done. That they don't feel like picking up the pieces afterwards isn't our problem.

You could say that about anything. Your being persecuted for your religion or ethnicity? Not our problem. Your being targeted for being gay? Don’t care. Is your country embroiled in civil war? Don’t care either. Pick up a gun and fight. So easy for you to say when you’ve likely never experienced it

And yet I'm not saying that about anything. I'm saying that about specifically natural disasters. If the natural disaster is 'Haiti has sunk into the sea and no longer exists.' we can talk. But your shit being wrecked by a storm doesn't make your country unlivable in perpetuity. There are better ways to handle the situation, and better ways for us to lend aid than accepting refugees.

A Tyrannical Government who kills all people of certain groups IS unlivable indefinitely and thus refugees are acceptable. But it's also something that cannot be allowed to exist. It's something that demands action.

[Solanos]

I love Nation States' embrace of edgelords, tradcaths and literal fascists.

[Washington Resistance Army]

While we have tons of Americans stuck in poverty we shouldn't settle refugees anywhere.

[The Emerald Legion]

I love Nation States' embrace of edgelords, tradcaths and literal fascists.

I don't see what's edgy about "We should not tolerate the existence of genocidal regimes."

Other things I say perhaps. But not that one.

[Kowani]

While we have tons of Americans stuck in poverty we shouldn't settle refugees anywhere.

Appeal to greater problems is automatically discarded unless you are actively working against the heat death of the universe.

[Solanos]

I love Nation States' embrace of edgelords, tradcaths and literal fascists.

I don't see what's edgy about "We should not tolerate the existence of genocidal regimes."

Other things I say perhaps. But not that one.

And yet America should not be the world's police. It always results in total hegemony for fascism, as well as the rise of even more genocidal regimes. We've been down this road before.

[Ifreann]

Why?

A natural disaster is not our problem. If they want us to send them specific items that could help them get through it, gifts are always something that can be given.

But a natural disaster is one and done. That they don't feel like picking up the pieces afterwards isn't our problem.

Of course, "not our problem". I should have guessed.

[Washington Resistance Army]

While we have tons of Americans stuck in poverty we shouldn't settle refugees anywhere.

Appeal to greater problems is automatically discarded unless you are actively working against the heat death of the universe.

I fully support the human conquest of the multiverse tbqh