Where Should We Resettle Refugees In The US?

[San Lumen]

Let me remind you if your home was destroyed and your country was in the middle of violent conflict, you would probably flee your country.

"My country sucks" is not grounds for asylum unless the nation that sucks is Marxist or an ally (e.g. Venezuela, Vietnam after the war).

"My people/culture/faith/family is undergoing systematic, state-endorsed extermination/suppression/oppression", however, is grounds for asylum.

I can think of several groups that should be welcomed en-masse as refugeees or asyulum seekers: Kurds, Yazidis, Manicheans, Zoroastrians, pretty much any and all Christians from persecution areas (especially Middle Eastern and Chinese Christians), Fulan Gong cultists, Venezuelans, Coptics, Jews, and countless more.

The problem is not refugee resettlement. The problem is that we are resettling people from terror hot beds and savage cultures. Why does ANYONE want a person from the Democratic Republic of the Congo in their nation? The Congo literally has incest cults of armed rapists that tie down and violate their grandparents in a gang rape. The Belgians treated the Congolese better and Somalia has a similar rate of crime when you resettle "refugees".

The same goes with Muslims from Syria. They are here to dominate and conquer, not flee. It's an invasion and is done in deceit and without violence, much like the Hijrah. Somalia is even worse.

I say we close the door to the Muslims, especially those of the Middle East (e.g. Syria), quarantine the Congo, and swing the door open to minority religions and Christians, as well as all the parties listed above. As a general rule, one should have to be persecuted or expelled by a state to be a refugee.

As for illegal aliens forging asylum because "I'm poor and my country is trash", turn them down if they can't prove actual state persecution exists. For aliens we have here, I go for my longstanding belief: Build the Wall, secure the borders, deport aliens with further criminal records, and amnestize the rest.

You merely made generalizations. Not everyone from Congo is a racist and not every Muslim wants to dominate and conquer. I don't get where you get the latter from.

[Vetalia]

In general nowhere in the US, refugees should be resettled first and foremost in the countries that border the afflicted areas so that they can quickly return to their home country when the conflict is over. I can see exceptions for particularly sensitive situations but this should generally be the case.

[San Lumen]

In general nowhere in the US, refugees should be resettled first and foremost in the countries that border the afflicted areas so that they can quickly return to their home country when the conflict is over. I can see exceptions for particularly sensitive situations but this should generally be the case.

and what if those countries are just as bad as the ones they are leaving? It some cases the conflict or persecution has been going on for years. Returning home isnt possible for some

[The Two Jerseys]

So you're fine with unoccupied skinny skyscrapers now?

Not the topic

Funny how anything pointing out your hypocrisy is always "not the topic"...

[Cuba-Venezuela]

I dont want our nation involved in endless wars. Its not our job be to the police force of the world.

I never said we should have open borders. Allowing in refugees doesnt mean open borders

It's not our job to be the world's homeless shelter either.

What country would be stupid enough to bring homeless people here? We're literally the best at making people homeless...

[San Lumen]

Not the topic

Funny how anything pointing out your hypocrisy is always "not the topic"...

Skyrcrapers aren't relevant to the topic of refugees.

[Bear Stearns]

It's not our job to be the world's homeless shelter either.

What country would be stupid enough to bring homeless people here? We're literally the best at making people homeless...

Cuba did exactly that in 1980...

[Vetalia]

In general nowhere in the US, refugees should be resettled first and foremost in the countries that border the afflicted areas so that they can quickly return to their home country when the conflict is over. I can see exceptions for particularly sensitive situations but this should generally be the case.

and what if those countries are just as bad as the ones they are leaving? It some cases the conflict or persecution has been going on for years. Returning home isnt possible for some

That's exactly what I meant by my disclaimer to the general rule. E.g., back in the 1970s it made sense to provide sanctuary to the Hmong refugees from Vietnam and Laos for that reason, the entire region was in chaos and they would be no safer in the bordering nations than they were at home. On the other hand, there is no reason why the US should be resettling Somali, South Sudanese or Central American refugees when stable, secure nations exist in much closer proximity to accommodate them until circumstances improve at home.

[The Two Jerseys]

Funny how anything pointing out your hypocrisy is always "not the topic"...

Skyrcrapers aren't relevant to the topic of refugees.

Why should people who don't want skinny skyscrapers built in their city be forced to allow developers to build them? Answer the fucking question.

[San Lumen]

and what if those countries are just as bad as the ones they are leaving? It some cases the conflict or persecution has been going on for years. Returning home isnt possible for some

That's exactly what I meant by my disclaimer to the general rule. E.g., back in the 1970s it made sense to provide sanctuary to the Hmong refugees from Vietnam and Laos for that reason, the entire region was in chaos and they would be no safer in the bordering nations than they were at home. On the other hand, there is no reason why the US should be resettling Somali, South Sudanese or Central American refugees when stable, secure nations exist in much closer proximity to accommodate them until circumstances improve at home.

I will remind you that Massachusetts was founded by people fleeing religious persecution.

Where you suggest Somali, South Sudanese or Central American refugees go? Mexico has a lot of problems too.

[The Two Jerseys]

What country would be stupid enough to bring homeless people here? We're literally the best at making people homeless...

Cuba did exactly that in 1980...

And the Haitians fleeing that oppressive earthquake...

[San Lumen]

Skyrcrapers aren't relevant to the topic of refugees.

Why should people who don't want skinny skyscrapers built in their city be forced to allow developers to build them? Answer the fucking question.

This is not the topic!

[The Two Jerseys]

Why should people who don't want skinny skyscrapers built in their city be forced to allow developers to build them? Answer the fucking question.

This is not the topic!

Is it because you don't want to expose your hypocrisy?

[Bear Stearns]

Cuba did exactly that in 1980...

And the Haitians fleeing that oppressive earthquake...

The Mariel Boatlift caused so much crime that it helped launch Al Pacino's career!

[The Two Jerseys]

And the Haitians fleeing that oppressive earthquake...

The Mariel Boatlift caused so much crime that it helped launch Al Pacino's career!

Dude, The Godfather came out a decade before that...

[Cameroi]

unarmed and otherwise law abiding civilians, whatever their origin, have an absolutely right,
to park themselves any place on the planet (or off it for that matter) they are willing to risk themselves doing so.

its not up to anyone, to "resettle" anyone anywhere, nor bar their crossing of the borders of any nation at any location, at any time, for any reason.
but to avail all persons within the boundaries of any nation, the same services, and likewise the same restrictions, as anyone else, within the jurisdiction of its sovereignty.

now if we were talking about an armed, uniformed invasion force, now of course that would be an entirely different matter.
or even an organized group shipping arms to itself clandestinely across borders.

of course a nation, any nation, has a right to protect itself from armed invasion.
but get real, unarmed civilians are nothing of the sort.

and as for "not sending their bast people", the european invasion of the western hemisphere 500 years ago, did NOT "send their best people" either.

(oh and the poll needs an option for "anywhere they damd well feel like it themselves")

[Vetalia]

I will remind you that Massachusetts was founded by people fleeing religious persecution.

That isn't really a good example of the benefit of letting in refugees considering what happened to the Native Americans afterwards.

Where you suggest Somali, South Sudanese or Central American refugees go? Mexico has a lot of problems too.

Mexico has problems, sure, but by and large it's more than stable and prosperous enough to accommodate refugees from across the border. It's not like, say, Burma or Cambodia in the 1970s.

Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states could certainly accommodate the Somali refugees given their shared religious heritage, vast wealth and close proximity to the country. The South Sudanese could be protected by Ethiopia, which is a stable nation with a booming economy and a history of African leadership. Central Americans could be resettled in Colombia even if Mexico was not a problem, and certainly other South American nations could step up as well given their common linguistic and cultural ties.

[Bear Stearns]

That's exactly what I meant by my disclaimer to the general rule. E.g., back in the 1970s it made sense to provide sanctuary to the Hmong refugees from Vietnam and Laos for that reason, the entire region was in chaos and they would be no safer in the bordering nations than they were at home. On the other hand, there is no reason why the US should be resettling Somali, South Sudanese or Central American refugees when stable, secure nations exist in much closer proximity to accommodate them until circumstances improve at home.

I will remind you that Massachusetts was founded by people fleeing religious persecution.

Yeah, and they had to fight a war to keep the locals from killing them, which ended up turning into a bloody conquest where they established a theocracy.

[Cekoviu]

Seconded. Besides why should communities and states that don't want the refugees have said refugees forced on them?

Evangelicals don't have more value than Muslims. Throw them in together.

What the fuck does religion have to do with this?

[Bear Stearns]

Seconded. Besides why should communities and states that don't want the refugees have said refugees forced on them?

Evangelicals don't have more value than Muslims. Throw them in together.

What?

[San Lumen]

I will remind you that Massachusetts was founded by people fleeing religious persecution.

That isn't really a good example of the benefit of letting in refugees considering what happened to the Native Americans afterwards.

Where you suggest Somali, South Sudanese or Central American refugees go? Mexico has a lot of problems too.

Mexico has problems, sure, but by and large it's more than stable and prosperous enough to accommodate refugees from across the border. It's not like, say, Burma or Cambodia in the 1970s.

Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states could certainly accommodate the Somali refugees given their shared religious heritage, vast wealth and close proximity to the country. The South Sudanese could be protected by Ethiopia, which is a stable nation with a booming economy and a history of African leadership. Central Americans could be resettled in Colombia even if Mexico was not a problem, and certainly other South American nations could step up as well given their common linguistic and cultural ties.

I never said to let in everybody. There has to be limits

Ethiopia is a de facto one party state. I dont know much about it but there is a reason they dont go there.

Why would Somalis go to a repressive place like Saudi Arabia? Many of the Gulf states are very repressive.

I bet some Central Americas do go to Colombia

[Bear Stearns]

That isn't really a good example of the benefit of letting in refugees considering what happened to the Native Americans afterwards.



Mexico has problems, sure, but by and large it's more than stable and prosperous enough to accommodate refugees from across the border. It's not like, say, Burma or Cambodia in the 1970s.

Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states could certainly accommodate the Somali refugees given their shared religious heritage, vast wealth and close proximity to the country. The South Sudanese could be protected by Ethiopia, which is a stable nation with a booming economy and a history of African leadership. Central Americans could be resettled in Colombia even if Mexico was not a problem, and certainly other South American nations could step up as well given their common linguistic and cultural ties.

I never said to let in everybody. There has to be limits

Hey! Now we're laying track. What sort of limits?

[Cekoviu]

Skyrcrapers aren't relevant to the topic of refugees.

Why should people who don't want skinny skyscrapers built in their city be forced to allow developers to build them? Answer the fucking question.

A more relevant question that I'd ask of you is: should a community be able to prevent black people from entering with a simple majority? If not, why? If so, why?

[Bear Stearns]

Why should people who don't want skinny skyscrapers built in their city be forced to allow developers to build them? Answer the fucking question.

A more relevant question that I'd ask of you is: should a community be able to prevent black people from entering with a simple majority? If not, why? If so, why?

1) If the town is private property (i.e. a commune or company town, yes absolutely)
1b) If the town is a regular town then they shouldn't be able to deny them public services but private institutions can still freely discriminate
2) All communities, public or private, should have the right to discriminate based on citizenship and legal residency - so you can bar illegal immigrants from settling down

[San Lumen]

A more relevant question that I'd ask of you is: should a community be able to prevent black people from entering with a simple majority? If not, why? If so, why?

1) If the town is private property (i.e. a commune or company town, yes absolutely)
1b) If the town is a regular town then they shouldn't be able to deny them public services but private institutions can still freely discriminate
2) All communities, public or private, should have the right to discriminate based on citizenship and legal residency - so you can bar illegal immigrants from settling down

Refugees arent illegal immigrants. That said if a community decides no one from Africa can move here that should be there right?