Stop it! Refugees are NOT a problem!

It's pure political theater.

Look at the stats. In FY 2018, we received 30 thousand refugees. in the first 7 months of FY 2019, we received 15 thousand. This is in all points of entry.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/refugees-and-asylees-united-states

This is pathetic if you compare it to other countries.

Our colleague @Jestsayin was kind enough to point us to an article that should put us all to shame. In it, we are shown how a small, underdeveloped nation, Costa Rica, in four months (April to August 2018, when the article was written) processed 8 thousand refugees in their northern border alone, and 15 thousand more were given appointments for later processing.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/01/amer...ed-nicaraguan-asylum-seekers-unhcr/index.html

Costa Rica receives refugees from the Northern triangle, from Nicaragua, from Venezuela, Colombia, Cuba, and many other nations in Latin America.

Of course they're overwhelmed. This is a country with less than 5 million population. Roughly the size of West Virginia. But they still do it! And they do Ok. They have universal healthcare. Universal free education K-12. Free college for low income individuals. One of the highest levels of literacy rates in the world (beating us by a mile)...

A small country should put Trump's supporters to shame as an example of humane treatment of fellow human beings.

 

Apples and oranges. It isn't the number of refuges we "receive". It is the number of people crossing our border illegally which is around a million a year more or less.

 

Stop it! Refugees are NOT a problem!

Damn, your RIGHT for once. Refugees are NOT a problem, its the illegal border crossing invaders and the as$holes who let them in this country who are...

 

Hey, in Australia they just set themselves on fire. Bowerbird hides from this one as he/she/alphabet whines about US treatment of illegals.
https://www.breitbart.com/national-...mself-on-fire-in-australian-detention-center/

 

Refugees and illegal immigrants are a problem. If you cannot see it, then you are blind. The only reason a person should be admitted to the US is that they understand and want to assimilate into our culture. That culture is defined by the Declaration of Independence and the principals of liberty set forth in the writings of our forefathers. The first and foremost of the values they should have for admittance is respect for our laws which rules out all illegals.

 

They cross the border illegally because we don't process them. How is it that Costa Rica can process them, and we can't?

 

And they absolutely should meet a self-supporting criteria. If they can't support themselves (and any family they bring) for at least 5 years without recourse to any kind of assistance, they should not be granted entry.

 

You can better serve those 15,000 refugees in their own surroundings (or nearest neighbour). They should not have to make dangerous journeys to a very alien nation to receive your help. They don't WANT to leave behind all that is familiar, they just want to stay alive. That's what 'refugee' means, it means they are under immediate threat.

As for economic migrants, forget them. They're no more your problem than any other foreign national is. Build your wall ASAP.

 

They are not refugees, they are criminals and a serious problem

 

illegal refugees are a problem.... fulstop. legal refugees and legal migration is how it should be done... LEGAL being the keyword...illegal should clue you in to the fact that they are doing something ILLEGALLY

Stop breaking the law

 

How many are crossing the border illegally in Costa Rica?

 

Refugees.

Lol.

Wtf.

 

I agree. Our immigration policy needs a complete overhaul, but that doesn't excuse breaking the law.

 

Oh! Way to kill a thread bro, are you happy now

 

Well I would imagine that would be a better choice, I mean honestly, look what the Aboriginals have had to endure and still are presently, and Christ, they were there first!

 

Nice try bro I think I would have just disappeared soon as I realize there was no way to salvage that train wreck

 

And racists.... Don't forget xenophobic racists. Those are a problem too....

 

Democrats have no clear strategy for when these people are inside the US. Asylum applications takes what... 6, 8 maybe 10 years? How will these people support themselves... will the government give them money and how much will that cost American taxpayers?

If no payments are given to these people they will have to;

a) work illegally or
b) resort to crime

If Democrats want open borders they need to make their case for supporting these people once they are in, how much will it cost, will they be able to work or are they just going to sit around or worse resort to crime simply to survive. What are terrorism, gangsterism and drug dealer risks and what will they do to manage these. How will this open border policy affect the screening process and by undermining the screening process how much risk is this to American citizens. How will the mass amounts of inbound refugees affect current infrastructure and how will this affect the 40 million Americans currently going hungry and those who are currently homeless. Will this open border policy discriminate against skilled and current legal refugee applications... migrants who support themselves or are sponsored when they enter the US. Will there potentially be squatting issues and land disputes.

Currently there's no credible debate about any of these issues and it's because Democrats have not bothered to even consider what their open border policy will do to their country and their fellow countrymen.

 

How are you proposing to measure that?

 

By doing an in depth independent study on the matter, there are many qualified people who can do this. If you can't answer those questions, you should not be opening the door.

I will add that what is most frustrating to many in this debate is the immediate labelling of some form of discrimination, when many people are most concerned about their country and these types of issues that should be answered by those who want an open border policy

 

Yes, requiring that long for asylum processing is preposterous and inhumane.

I don't know of any Democratic open door policy, so the rest of you post seems like a partisan swing and a miss.

The last serious proposal for immigration reform was the bipartisan reform bill that came during the Obama administration. It passed the Senate and would have passed the House Republican majority House had Speaker Boehner not blocked it.

If you don't like that bill, please explain.

 

I am not familiar with this bill, however none of the most crucial issues that affect illegal immigration is addressed and perhaps THAT is why he blocked it... insufficient information.. The only thing happening today is smearing and labelling of anyone who opposes allowing refugees into the country and NONE of the issues that concern them most about how this will affect their country is addressed.

An example is your attitude which sucks, because you know I am right, you KNOW these things are important and you KNOW they should be answered FIRST.

 

The bipartisan immigration reform bill created during the Obama administration did not "open the door".

If you want to assume what others are proposing, you're going to have to do better than make assumptions that huge.

 

Great ship them to Costa Rica for processing

 

Yes, it's important. In fact, I pointed to a bipartisan answer!! And, I stand by what I said above, by the way.

Above you make claims as to why the bill failed. BUT, I told you why the bill failed. And, it certainly had nothing to do with insufficient information.

I hope you do discuss immigration, but let's start out be moving away from the assumptions and get down to actual ideas and real life proposals.

The bipartisan immigration reform bill under Obama was a very serious effort that I don't necessarily like in its entirety, but which DOES create a full solution that is worth understanding - a bill that passed in the Senate, was promoted by Rubio among others, and would have passed in the House had the Republican Speaker allowed it to come to a vote.