$64,000 per refugee to relocate them to the US?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would rather the money go to native born Americans. We have so many homeless people here and many are AA. The US will help anyone but AA folks it seems.

Exactly how would you help them? How much max $$$ per person?

Let's start with investing $64,000 in them and see where that gets us. I bet if we put all of the resources we are putting into refugees into AA and other American poor, we would see a world of difference.

I agree with you.
I'd like to learn just how this $64,000 per refugee is getting spent...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether it's 2,000 or 200, that's a tiny number of people over the span of many years.

Why do I care?

I don't care.

As long as none of them come to your neighborhood, huh?

NP. I would welcome them to my neighborhood.

Which neighborhood? Are your neighbors on board?

?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would rather the money go to native born Americans. We have so many homeless people here and many are AA. The US will help anyone but AA folks it seems.

Exactly how would you help them? How much max $$$ per person?

Let's start with investing $64,000 in them and see where that gets us. I bet if we put all of the resources we are putting into refugees into AA and other American poor, we would see a world of difference.

I agree with you.
I'd like to learn just how this $64,000 per refugee is getting spent...

Yes if we spent the $64,000 on the 60,000 refugees we had come here in 2013, that would be $3.4 billion dollars. That could really help the water issue in Flint or improve so many schools.

[jsteele]

If we hadn't spent a trillion dollars waging a war to destroy their country, we wouldn't have to worry about refugees and we'd have a trillion dollars for Flint's water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would rather the money go to native born Americans. We have so many homeless people here and many are AA. The US will help anyone but AA folks it seems.

Exactly how would you help them? How much max $$$ per person?

Let's start with investing $64,000 in them and see where that gets us. I bet if we put all of the resources we are putting into refugees into AA and other American poor, we would see a world of difference.

I agree with you.
I'd like to learn just how this $64,000 per refugee is getting spent...

Yes if we spent the $64,000 on the 60,000 refugees we had come here in 2013, that would be $3.4 billion dollars. That could really help the water issue in Flint or improve so many schools.

Furthermore, none of the Muslim Gulf States are taking any refugees. That is a red flag to me that maybe they know something we don't about how it will turn out from experience living in the region.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:If we hadn't spent a trillion dollars waging a war to destroy their country, we wouldn't have to worry about refugees and we'd have a trillion dollars for Flint's water.

I agree with that whole heartedly! I was against going into Iraq.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would rather the money go to native born Americans. We have so many homeless people here and many are AA. The US will help anyone but AA folks it seems.

Exactly how would you help them? How much max $$$ per person?

Let's start with investing $64,000 in them and see where that gets us. I bet if we put all of the resources we are putting into refugees into AA and other American poor, we would see a world of difference.

I agree with you.
I'd like to learn just how this $64,000 per refugee is getting spent...

Yes if we spent the $64,000 on the 60,000 refugees we had come here in 2013, that would be $3.4 billion dollars. That could really help the water issue in Flint or improve so many schools.

Furthermore, none of the Muslim Gulf States are taking any refugees. That is a red flag to me that maybe they know something we don't about how it will turn out from experience living in the region.

Javier David on CNBC wrote an excellent article on this problem:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/18/gulf-states-open-their-wallets-but-not-their-doors-to-migrants.html An expert he quoted ,mentions religious and security issues. Issues not found with the SE Asians in their countries.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:If we hadn't spent a trillion dollars waging a war to destroy their country, we wouldn't have to worry about refugees and we'd have a trillion dollars for Flint's water.

I know! Those leaders had this wonderful relationship with their people, with other countries, and with the UN! Their people were living in freedom, and without fear, as were their neighboring countries. Once the US stepped in, we caused those leaders to get mean and take out their rage on their own people.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:If we hadn't spent a trillion dollars waging a war to destroy their country, we wouldn't have to worry about refugees and we'd have a trillion dollars for Flint's water.

I know! Those leaders had this wonderful relationship with their people, with other countries, and with the UN! Their people were living in freedom, and without fear, as were their neighboring countries. Once the US stepped in, we caused those leaders to get mean and take out their rage on their own people.

Which of Libya, Iraq, or Syria is better off today than it was before US intervention? Even Afghanistan is a toss-up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would rather the money go to native born Americans. We have so many homeless people here and many are AA. The US will help anyone but AA folks it seems.

Exactly how would you help them? How much max $$$ per person?

Let's start with investing $64,000 in them and see where that gets us. I bet if we put all of the resources we are putting into refugees into AA and other American poor, we would see a world of difference.

I agree with you.
I'd like to learn just how this $64,000 per refugee is getting spent...

Yes if we spent the $64,000 on the 60,000 refugees we had come here in 2013, that would be $3.4 billion dollars. That could really help the water issue in Flint or improve so many schools.

They now have ten cases of Legonaires disease there as well.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:If we hadn't spent a trillion dollars waging a war to destroy their country, we wouldn't have to worry about refugees and we'd have a trillion dollars for Flint's water.

Oh , here we go! Did we really spend a trillion dollars to destroy SYRIA? MORROCCO? TUNISIA? How about EL SALVADOR? HONDURAS?
Yes, we waged a war in Iraq and Afghanistan and they were well on their way to being desirable places when President Obama withdrew. Oops--we are now sending TONS of special forces back in (look behind his numbers) and reversing in Afghanistan. But not enough to do anything meaningful after totally dismantling/obliterating yes--the trillions we spent on infrastructure there to protect fragile democracies. Double Whoops.
So now we are responsible for the Syrian refugees from the crisis this president created? Send in Haliburton to establish safe/no flight zones between Turkey and Syria . At least that's jobs for Americans. And let's help Flynt get its water problem solved.