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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have some empathy that you or your family members could be in that situation and you'd want someone to help you? Our "homeless" and vets are far better taken care of than most. Our poor get food stamps and benefits - its the working that really need the help as they do not make enough to live on but too much for benefits. Yes, we need to do more to help in the US but that would mean major government overhauls to accomplish it and no one is willing to put the time or money into doing it properly. I'm all for bring some of the refugees over.[/quote

We give more than our fair share in foreign aid. We need to take care of our own by spendi,f the same amount if money on US citizens and LEGAL immigrants already in the country. Sr. Citizens social security was not increased this year and many barely have enough to live in. Charity begins at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read that the government believes we need refugees too because our citizens aren't having enough babies. Highly insulting. DH and I wanted a large family but can't afford it on a middle class salary with no maternity leave and expensive daycare. Obviously if the government wanted more children it could do more to help its own citizens.

Did you read this inside your tinfoil hat?

Not PP and I agree the government isn't actively pursuing it for this reason but its definitely true. Japan (no immigrants) has like 1.3 births per couple and the population has a pretty grim future prediction. Same for europe. Immigration is the only reason the US birth rates are sustaining our population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a misleading statistic. It may cost 64k per refugee to get them established but it's been proven time and time again that once established refugees more than pay for the INVESTMENT we made in them by growing the economy.

Case in point, Steve Jobs is the child of a Syrian Immigrant. Apple alone has put enough into the US economy to pay for every refugee we might take (from every country this year!). Could the next Steve Jobs be among them?

From all accounts relocating refugees is an investment in the US economy, not an addition to debt.

Like they did in Germany? Sweden? England ?

The investment isn't returned overnight. History says that it WILL improve those countries. Not in the middle of the migration, but in the next 10-20 years when they make roots and have children and start businesses etc.

It hasn't helped France. Over the past twenty years, France has had a large influx of North African and ME immigrants. Those immigrants currently reside in the ghettos of France.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone else read this? I don't think this is fair for us to be able to come up with money to pay $64,000 per refugee to relocate them to the US when we have so many homeless families and Vets here already and so many poor people here already struggling to eat. Does anyone else agree with this?

http://freebeacon.com/issues/resettling-middle-eastern-refugees-costs-taxpayers-64370-per-refugee/

Um, no.

The "Center for Immigration Studies" that they cite is a known racist, anti-immigrant front group that is well known for spewing a ton of false information and fearmongering about immigration. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/15/inside-the-center-for-immigration-studies-the-immigration-false-fact-think-tank.html

Zero credibility to anything they have to say. But no surprise that a right wing media outlet like Free Beacon would happily be shills for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a misleading statistic. It may cost 64k per refugee to get them established but it's been proven time and time again that once established refugees more than pay for the INVESTMENT we made in them by growing the economy.

Case in point, Steve Jobs is the child of a Syrian Immigrant. Apple alone has put enough into the US economy to pay for every refugee we might take (from every country this year!). Could the next Steve Jobs be among them?

From all accounts relocating refugees is an investment in the US economy, not an addition to debt.

Like they did in Germany? Sweden? England ?

The investment isn't returned overnight. History says that it WILL improve those countries. Not in the middle of the migration, but in the next 10-20 years when they make roots and have children and start businesses etc.

It hasn't helped France. Over the past twenty years, France has had a large influx of North African and ME immigrants. Those immigrants currently reside in the ghettos of France.

I am unfamiliar with French immigration law so can't really formulate a response to this. But I will say that part of why it is expensive to bring refugees here is that we set them up for success. There are a lot of organizations set up to help them resettle. If France doesn't provide similar infrastucture for their resettlement then its not that surprising that they are having more issues.

Also of relevance is that France is a MUCH more insular ethnocentric country than the US. The French don't like the non-french, at least not living in Paris with them so I imagine the migrants have a much more difficult time assimilating than they do here in the US.

[Anonymous]

A shoddy relocation process is bad for us. It's that simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A shoddy relocation process is bad for us. It's that simple.

Except its not shoddy. The news is just stoking fear by claiming it is shoddy. No one knows what they're talking about. NO REFUGEE resettled here since 9/11 has committed an act of terror.

NONE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A shoddy relocation process is bad for us. It's that simple.

Except its not shoddy. The news is just stoking fear by claiming it is shoddy. No one knows what they're talking about. NO REFUGEE resettled here since 9/11 has committed an act of terror.

NONE.

Wasn't the shooter in CA a refugee?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A shoddy relocation process is bad for us. It's that simple.

Except its not shoddy. The news is just stoking fear by claiming it is shoddy. No one knows what they're talking about. NO REFUGEE resettled here since 9/11 has committed an act of terror.

NONE.

Wasn't the shooter in CA a refugee?

No, they were an immigrant on a K-1 visa. Nothing to do with the refugee process at all. Generally less rigorous because K-1 applicants have someone in the US sponsoring them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A shoddy relocation process is bad for us. It's that simple.

Except its not shoddy. The news is just stoking fear by claiming it is shoddy. No one knows what they're talking about. NO REFUGEE resettled here since 9/11 has committed an act of terror.

NONE.

Didn't the fbi just arrest two Iraqi refugees for plotting a terrorist attack on the USA. One had r ceny spent time fighting in Syria. Weren't the Boston bombers refugees from Georgia the country not the state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A shoddy relocation process is bad for us. It's that simple.

Except its not shoddy. The news is just stoking fear by claiming it is shoddy. No one knows what they're talking about. NO REFUGEE resettled here since 9/11 has committed an act of terror.

NONE.

Didn't the fbi just arrest two Iraqi refugees for plotting a terrorist attack on the USA. One had r ceny spent time fighting in Syria. Weren't the Boston bombers refugees from Georgia the country not the state.

Refugee or immigrant or tourist visa - a citizen of a foreign country is admitted to the USA. Back in 2013 I was amazed that as this article calls it there were more red flags about Tsanoev than there are in Moscow for the May Day parade. Time to look at all red flags.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/346464/what-boston-means-immigration-policy-editors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A shoddy relocation process is bad for us. It's that simple.

Except its not shoddy. The news is just stoking fear by claiming it is shoddy. No one knows what they're talking about. NO REFUGEE resettled here since 9/11 has committed an act of terror.

NONE.

Didn't the fbi just arrest two Iraqi refugees for plotting a terrorist attack on the USA. One had r ceny spent time fighting in Syria. Weren't the Boston bombers refugees from Georgia the country not the state.

I think so and CNN reports that the attack today in Turkey was committed by a Syrian Refugee as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A shoddy relocation process is bad for us. It's that simple.

Except its not shoddy. The news is just stoking fear by claiming it is shoddy. No one knows what they're talking about. NO REFUGEE resettled here since 9/11 has committed an act of terror.

NONE.

Wasn't the shooter in CA a refugee?

No, they were an immigrant on a K-1 visa. Nothing to do with the refugee process at all. Generally less rigorous because K-1 applicants have someone in the US sponsoring them.

The shooter in the Paris police station definitely was a refugee that had previously been staying in a German refugee camp.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A shoddy relocation process is bad for us. It's that simple.

Except its not shoddy. The news is just stoking fear by claiming it is shoddy. No one knows what they're talking about. NO REFUGEE resettled here since 9/11 has committed an act of terror.

NONE.

Didn't the fbi just arrest two Iraqi refugees for plotting a terrorist attack on the USA. One had r ceny spent time fighting in Syria. Weren't the Boston bombers refugees from Georgia the country not the state.

The answer to all of your questions is "no". The two men who were arrested where Palestinians. While one had spent time fighting in Syria, he fought against the Assad government on behalf of a group that is supported by US allies. Neither was accused of planning an attack against the US. The Boston bombers were not refugees and were not from Georgia.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A shoddy relocation process is bad for us. It's that simple.

Except its not shoddy. The news is just stoking fear by claiming it is shoddy. No one knows what they're talking about. NO REFUGEE resettled here since 9/11 has committed an act of terror.

NONE.

Didn't the fbi just arrest two Iraqi refugees for plotting a terrorist attack on the USA. One had r ceny spent time fighting in Syria. Weren't the Boston bombers refugees from Georgia the country not the state.

I think so and CNN reports that the attack today in Turkey was committed by a Syrian Refugee as well.

Someone -- perhaps you -- keeps posting this. CNN reported that the bomber was a Syrian member of ISIS. They did not report that he was a refugee.