WaPo Editorial Board: America has accepted 10,000 Syrian refugees. That’s still too few.

[DonViejo]

IN THE face of the most calamitous refugee crisis since World War II, the United States has finally begun granting refuge to displaced Syrians on a pace that, while still unequal to the problem’s scale and the United States’ capacity, at least starts to acknowledge that a crisis exists.

In an announcement Monday, the White House said the administration had met its goal of granting asylum to 10,000 Syrians in the current fiscal year, which ends in a month. Officials said they expect to continue accepting asylum applications in coming weeks and months.

The modesty of the numerical goal is incommensurate with the weight of the challenge posed by some 5 million Syrian refugees, including roughly 1.1 million already in Europe. Measured against resettlement programs on behalf of refugees by Germany, France, Britain and other Western countries, to say nothing of those by Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, America’s own efforts are meager. Canada, with a population barely a tenth the size of the United States’, has resettled three times more Syrian refugees since last fall. And Washington’s goal for the next fiscal year, starting Oct. 1, is no greater than its goal for the current year.

National security adviser Susan Rice heralded the arrival of the 10,000th refugee by releasing a statement lauding the “important message” President Obama had sent. Given the craven resistance to any resettlement, especially among some Republican governors, the self-congratulation was understandable. Yet the United States could do much more.

-snip-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/america-has-accepted-10000-syrian-refugees-thats-still-too-few/2016/09/02/470446e2-6fc0-11e6-8533-6b0b0ded0253_story.html?utm_term=.0889e6bc80a0&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

[FLPanhandle]

1. The government has to take into account public opinion

Based on polls, the US citizens don't want more refugees. So the US government has two options:
1) Work to change public opinion,
2) Abide by what US citizens want.

[True Dough]

2. And what if citizens of every country held that opinion?

It would have made a terrible and dire situation that much worse. We can't save them all, I get that, but 10,000 is truly underwhelming for the world's richest nation.

[FLPanhandle]

4. It's the duty of a government to do what it's citizens demand

If the citizens think the situation is so terrible that they demand their government to help, then that's great.

If the citizens do not want to help, then the government can go against it's own citizens (thus being removed from power), or it can abide.

The issue isn't the Obama administration, it's the citizens of this country.

[COLGATE4]

5. Yep. Just like when the citizens of the U.S. decided that we really

didn't want any more Jews in the U.S. so we started turning away desperate Jewish refugees from Hitler's Germany who were fleeing for their lives.

[True Dough]

9. That's right

there's a moral argument to be made here for sure!

[FLPanhandle]

13. No one is saying citizens always make the right choice

It's just that as soon as an elected government starts thinking "We know better than all you unwashed masses", then that government gets thrown out.

Obama has limited the refugees to 10,000 and that is all the US citizens are willing to take. Hillary is going out on a dangerous limb by suggesting more than people want.

[pampango]

21. "Most Democrats, 74 percent, said they would accept Syrian refugees while most Republicans, 82%,

said they should be banned from the U.S. A majority of independent voters said Syrian refugees should be blocked as well.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-majority-opposes-accepting-syrian-refugees-into-u-s/

The majority of Democrats, 57%, approve of the plan for the U.S. to take the refugees, but a far larger majority of Republicans, 84%, disapprove.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/186866/americans-again-opposed-taking-refugees.aspx

Frankly I am not afraid to do what a majority of Democrats think is the right policy even is a majority of republicans oppose it. That is what winning elections is all about.

[davidn3600]

8. But we have our own problems too

We are one of the richest countries but we still have homeless on our streets. We have kids who go to bed hungry. We still have poverty. We have racial inequality. We have a lot of people who can't find a job. We got people who can't afford healthcare. We are better off than most, but we got problems that deserve a lot of money too.

If you are dedicating tons of tax payer money to immigrants and refugees, you'll eventually reach a point where people start asking why we are not putting our own people first?

That's what's happening in Europe. And it's why the EU is now cracking and Merkel's political coalition in Germany is in serious jeopardy. You can't just throw open the gates like Europe has done and not have political consequences. You start facing serious logistical and financial questions. And if the government cannot adequately answer those questions, don't be surprised when the democracy throws you out.

[True Dough]

10. What nation doesn't have it's own problems?

And many of them far more severe than the U.S.

There will always be homeless people and racial inequality. It doesn't mean you can't work on those issues while still helping foreigners in crisis. It's not an "either or" situation, unless you make it one.

Look at how you make a leap to "dedicating tons of taxpayer money to immigrants and refugees" and "throw open the gates." I haven't tried to make a case for welcoming a million or more refugees. Hillary Clinton is calling for another 55,000 to be settled in the U.S. That, I think, is a reasonable starting point and it's not going to have a significant impact on U.S. coffers. Besides, most of the refugees become productive citizens who are at least net zero in terms of economic gains or losses overall.

[davidn3600]

12. And where will they get a job?

It's not easy getting a job in America. It's even more difficult for an immigrant. And It's damn near impossible if you can't understand the language. And that's true with every country.

Will the government be responsible for supporting them forever? Even in Germany (and other EU countries) are considering laws that make it a requirement to learn the language if the refugees want to stay long term. Would you say a law like that is unreasonable?

[True Dough]

15. There are employment challenges, education challenges, housing challenges...

That's all part and parcel with accepting refugees. If it was easy, every country would willingly do it without batting an eye. But there are sacrifices involved.

But your concern is largely unfounded, davidn3600. This is the from the Bureau of Labor Statistics in May of this year:

The unemployment rate for foreign-born persons in the United States was 4.9 percent
in 2015, down from 5.6 percent in 2014, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported
today. The jobless rate of native-born persons fell to 5.4 percent from 6.3 percent in
the prior year.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/forbrn.nr0.htm

Most immigrants that I know are among the hardest working people I've met in my life. Many of them work two or three part-time jobs to piece together a lifestyle and some still send a portion of their earnings to family members in their native countries. Talk about sacrifice!!! And a good number of these immigrants have degrees from their homelands that unfortunately aren't recognized in the U.S. or Canada. I have encountered numerous cab drivers who spent 10 or 20 years as engineers and doctors but because their credentials aren't recognized here, they would have to spend years upgrading. They just don't have that time or luxury, so they work multiple minimum-wage jobs instead.

As for the inability to speak English, the vast majority do embrace the language. You want to make it a requirement for them to do that in order to stay long-term? I don't have any major objections. It's only a fraction of newcomers who refuse to grasp English.

[davidn3600]

19. Those stats are based on our current immigration flow, which is sustainable

But when you go to Europe, where immigration is now flooding these countries faster than the economies can keep pace...the unemployment is far higher for those immigrant populations.

This is not necessarily jeopardizing jobs for the native population like some on the right-wing claim. However, there are only so many jobs available for migrants.
If you were to vastly increase the number of Syrian migrants, it's not going to effect the jobs in the middle or upper class in the host country. The people in America most effected will be other immigrants from South and Central America since they will be essentially competing for the same jobs. So if you vastly increase the immigration flow....that unemployment statistic you quoted is inevitably going to rise.

We are a rich country with positive GDP growth. However, our economy is not growing very fast. Can we increase the numbers of Syrians coming here? We can a little bit. But we can't do anything close to what Germany is doing.

[True Dough]

23. Again you jump to Europe

Did we not establish earlier that no one within reason is calling for 1 million or more refugees to be accepted in America? I suggested that Hillary Clinton's 55,000 boost to the first 10,000 is a good starting point. Perhaps that's what you are referring to when you write "Can we increase the number of Syrians coming here? We can a little bit."

By the way, the popular opinion is that European countries that have accepted large numbers of refugees are screwed economically but that's not necessarily the case.

In the short term, the IMF says the refugee surge is likely to lead to a “modest” increase in GDP growth, due to both the extra money spent by governments to support asylum seekers and the expansion of the labor supply, and it will be concentrated in the main destination countries: Austria, Germany and Sweden.

The medium- to longer-term impact will depend on how well refugees are integrated. The IMF advocates putting few restrictions on taking up work and subsidizing employers for providing employment to refugees.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-the-turkish-german-experience-says-about-the-economic-impact-from-refugees-2016-01-21

And Angela Merkel has taken the long view by allowing so many refugees to come to Germany. Although she is forfeiting political capital now by permitting so many foreigners to enter the country, she knows they represent a crucial workforce in the decades to come.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-economy-idUSKBN0TT24Z20151210

[Humanist_Activist]

25. Can the opinions of the public in certain localities take precedence?

I live in St. Louis, we have had positive experiences in accepting Bosnian Muslim refugees, we have over 10,000 or so, I could see us easily handling adding all the Syrian refugees under consideration to the mix. The Bosnians helped stabilize the city a bit with its population loss and revitalize it economically. I don't see how adding the Syrians would hurt.

[True Dough]

26. Bravo, sir

I commend you for your open-minded and pragmatic stance.

[Humanist_Activist]

28. I think most St. Louisans would take this stance, at least closer to the city core...

and hence closer to where the Bosnians live, we have a "Little Bosnia" that settled around south city and Affton(St. Louis suburb), they even gave St. Louis a gift for its 250th anniversary.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/in-little-bosnia-a-gift-from-immigrants/article_e9f1f910-41f6-5335-ae9d-59181f8db4be.html

Hell, I have a Bosnia and Herzegovina flag I bought at Walgreens during the height of football(real) season. With the way the NFL has treated us lately, MLS(Major League Soccer) is probably going to get a big push. It helps that its already popular here, thanks to Bosnians.

The think people forget is that these refugees aren't like the majority in Europe, those are largely unvetted, we are already settling 500 refugees in St. Louis so far, but with much of north city being empty, we can accept a lot more. Of course, being optimistic, what we would really like to hope for is that, being given permanent resident status, these refugees decide to stay in St. Louis, and when ISIS is gone and Syria is settled for a more peaceful time, they have opportunities to have family and friends immigrate here as well. This is what happened with the Bosnians, some left after the war to go rebuild, many other stayed and increased the immigrant population around here by reunited with family and friends. Now, apparently, they like it here, maybe its because of the toasted ravioli? Lol.

[True Dough]

29. I hear what you're saying

and I concur. Not so much about St. Louis because I don't know the city, but in regards to refugees having more of a positive impact than a negative one. Since you brought up vetting, here's a post I wrote earlier in the week on this same topic. Seems like a constant battle to convince the paranoid:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1561406

[Humanist_Activist]

31. Shoot, I wrote a similar post late last year...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027352822

Great minds. lol.

The advantage we have is that we've been through the process before, and while you don't know the city, I do, its supposed to be a city of close to a million people that's only about a third that size due to depopulation, suburbanization and white flight. It was hit hard as a rust belt city, in the 1960s on up. Now things are looking up, with depopulation kinda stabilizing, white flight being slightly reversed, what we need is a larger tax base in the city.

That means we will need more people living and working in and around the city who are motivated to stay and create something new. No one is more motivated that refugees from what I can tell. I think it might be having the rug pulled out from under them in their home countries, but, at least for the Bosnians around here, they really put down some quick and deep roots almost immediately, and while there is some tension between neighbors, things have definitely improved.

We aren't the perfect place for the refugees, no place is, we have a huge racial divide and conflicts to a large extent, i.e. Ferguson, but that's no excuse for doing nothing, and the refugees may actually help there as well. We need integration here, we have a huge segregation problem that is only slowly being talked about.

[True Dough]

32. A couple of your comments resonate

"That means we will need more people living and working in and around the city who are motivated to stay and create something new. No one is more motivated that refugees from what I can tell."

Refugees and immigrants often possess or quickly develop a remarkable appetite for upward mobility. They frequently hold down multiple low-end jobs, sometimes while taking college courses with an eye on entering a career that will propel them into middle-class status. Some existing citizens feel threatened by that, I believe.

"We aren't the perfect place for the refugees, no place is, we have a huge racial divide and conflicts to a large extent, i.e. Ferguson, but that's no excuse for doing nothing..."

Bingo! Sure beats living within the confines of a refugee camp in the desert. You're right, there is no ideal place for refugees. There's just a desire among the refugees to succeed and the desire of good-hearted people, people who look beyond skin color or stereotyping, to make it work within our own borders.

[Humanist_Activist]

33. Yeah, and I know its not scientific...

but looking at the reactions and comments from locals here:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/st-louis-could-resettle-almost-syrian-refugees-by-end-of/article_721ac5a3-bf44-523a-801b-d19e225d2cdd.html

And here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/StLouis/comments/50v1ee/st_louis_could_resettle_almost_300_syrian/

Is illuminating, I will say, with experience, that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch website usually is very reactionary, especially when it comes to racial issues, it attracts an older, white audience. A joke on r/StLouis is "don't read the comments!". But on this subject, it seems majority favors the refugees settling here.

Now r/StLouis is one of the less shitty subreddits, far less right wing, so no surprise, but widespread support with most of the posts, even cries that mirror mine, that we can take a lot more than just 300.

What aggravates me is all this talk that these people are just asking for a handout, first off, its very rare for anyone to just want handouts. Yes, such completely unmotivated people exist, but they are always a small minority among all populations. What the refugees need is stability, something they are lacking in camps and countries that don't allow permanent status, even for refugees, the United States does, as a matter for course, permanent residency and opportunity for employment. Once they have that foundation to build on, the rest is gravy.

That's the other reason why I think my city is well equipped, we have infrastructure here to provide the foundation, an Institute that will help with settling and job placement, Academies that are familiar with the needs and wants of refugees and their children, etc.

[True Dough]

34. St. Louis sounds like it's well suited to meet refugee needs,

to give them the foundation that you speak of.

The comments in the sub-reddit were largely positive. The Dispatch comments start off with a response that I've grown so weary of: Oh, we're going to help a bunch of foreigners when we still have homeless people and suffering veterans here at home!?!?

As if every numerous agencies don't already exist to assist those individuals. As if we'll ever make those issues disappear completely. As if numerous challenges -- accommodating citizens and newcomers -- cannot be worked on simultaneously. It's all just a cop out, an attempt to avoid accepting any refugees until all internal problems are cleared up first, which is never going to happen.

[dembotoz]

3. As st Louis all over again

We never learn

[Humanist_Activist]

24. What's that supposed to mean? The Bosnians helped revitalize St. Louis...

I live surrounded by Bosnian Muslims, is that supposed to be a bad thing?

Our mayor is actively lobbying to have Syrians move here, we have the room, we can rebuild blighted areas that are literally uninhabited still. More people means more opportunities, more jobs, more economic activity and more variety in food.

[smirkymonkey]

6. How about the Gulf States start taking in some refugees?

I still don't see anybody demanding that. Why is that such a problem? They are much closer to home and culturally more alike.

[Calculating]

7. It should be up to the public

If the majority of the public don't want refugees, we don't take refugees.

[romanic]

11. Yes the U.S. could do much more...

...such as providing mental health services and opportunities for the homeless and Veterans of our country.

I'm sorry but taking in more people than the (broken) system we have here now isn't going to help anyone. 10,000 refugees is more than enough for the US to take in when we still can't even take care of our own citizens first.

[Calculating]

14. This 100%

Take care of our own first.

[Quantess]

16. I live in Sweden. Sweden took in 40% of all the Syrian refugees in the past year.

Do you think anyone is happy? No.

Was it Sweden who created all the problems in the Middle East?

No, you mean it wasn't Sweden who started all these unwarranted invasions? Really, what a shocker.

Whose fault was it that there is a giant war in Syria, and why does Sweden have to support all these refugees with its' overly-generous welfare system that we swedes as taxpayers cannot afford?

What would Americans say if they lived in Sweden? If they saw what is going on here.

[Calculating]

17. I would say

That sweden shouldn't have taken in all the refugees. Just say no!

[FLPanhandle]

18. I'd say the Swedish government was pretty short sighted

and if they did that without the consent of a vast majority of their citizens, then the Swedish government is incredibly stupid too.

Good luck paying for all that.

[Quantess]

20. The media here tries to downplay all the enormous problems here

Last edited Sat Sep 3, 2016, 03:58 PM - Edit history (2)

But the voters are catching on, and sadly there is a new rise in Right Wing Nationalism.

Miljöpartiet as an example, has really a lot of power that they have no right to. A very small percentage of basically nobody in Sweden voted Miljöpartiet, like 3%. But yet, they have the authority to act and speak for us?


We have no real democracy here either. Miljö partiet has nothing to offer, not even environmental protection!

[pampango]

22. Wish we could be more like liberal Canada: "poll finds huge support for 25,000 Syrian refugees"

About two-thirds of Canadians support taking in 25,000 or more Syrian refugees, and even more said they are “uncomfortable” with Donald Trump’s proposal to ban the immigration of Muslims to the United States.

The Nanos Research survey for CTV News found 37 per cent agreed that the Trudeau government’s decision to take in 25,000 Syrians was “about right.” Another 28 per cent said Canada should take even more than that.

The Liberals originally promised to have 25,000 in Canada by New Year’s Day, but revised that earlier this month to 10,000, with 15,000 more by the end of February. As of Dec. 21, only 1,869 have arrived, and Immigration Minister John McCallum said Wednesday there’s no guarantee the government’s timeline can be met.

The poll also asked about Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump’s widely publicized proposal to ban Muslim immigration to the U.S. More than two-thirds (68%) agreed they were “uncomfortable with the U.S. having a policy that would ban Muslim immigration,” and another 10 per cent were “somewhat uncomfortable.”

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/exclusive-poll-finds-huge-support-for-syrian-refugees-1.2712799

25,000 refugees in a country with 10% of our population. This kind of welcome must give Trump supporters nightmares. Fortunately for them, they have convinced too many Americans to be afraid of refugees so the idea of accepting 10,000 is 'scary'.

Donald needs to take a quick trip up to Ottawa and convince Canadians that refugees are scary people whom rich Western countries should stay far, far away from.

[True Dough]

27. Canada is actually up to 28,000 Syrian refugees accepted since last October

I'm proud of my country's efforts, but many of us feel like we shouldn't stop there. We could absorb some more desperate foreigners even though we're in another economic downturn. You notice how there's never really a good time to accept refugees? When things are good, there's still no appetite for those opposed to open the doors. It's like tax reform. It doesn't get done in good times or in bad unless a leader with a damn strong will makes it happen.

[mwrguy]

30. We can make it 100,000 next year