Anonymous
Post 01/12/2016 12:02     Subject: $64,000 per refugee to relocate them to the US?
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/


The link to what free beacon is commenting on has us spending .25million per each household and has numbers showing it is far less costly to settle them in countries near their own in US dollars.

So we send 65k instead of ie 2k per person? In WW2 displaced and fleeing French joined our war efforts. Should Syrians not be made into fighting brigades ?

In the late 1930's France captured about 1000 Luftwaffe pilots. Churchill wanted to detain/imprison them in the UK. France released them and that hurt the UK and the USA.
Anonymous
Post 01/12/2016 12:00     Subject: $64,000 per refugee to relocate them to the US?
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?
Anonymous
Post 01/12/2016 11:44     Subject: $64,000 per refugee to relocate them to the US?
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.


That is more to do with larger statistical trends. The current population is generally more educated and statistically speaking more educated people have less children. Immigrant influxes tend to be less educated and tend to be more religious and tend to have a lot more kids.

But I really agree that we could do a lot to promote citizens wanting to have kids. But that would necessitate people being ok with things like subsidizing paid maternity leave or more tax breaks for childcare costs and a republican congress will never do that because culturally we call things like that 'handouts for lazy people' instead of 'investing in our future'


I think schools matching working hours would be a huge improvement. I don't want it to be paid for by the government. Even preschool that started at 3 would be a huge development like most European countries have
Anonymous
Post 01/12/2016 11:42     Subject: $64,000 per refugee to relocate them to the US?
Again, anyone who trusts anything put out by the CIS does so at their own risk. They're right up there with Trump in terms of fact-based reality.
Anonymous
Post 01/12/2016 11:35     Subject: $64,000 per refugee to relocate them to the US?
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.

The Muslim invasion didn't just start in England. London has been looking like Little Arabia for at least a generation. Stop deluding yourself.


And is the London economy suffering? They're doing great, way better than the rest of Europe.

If your point is that immigrant influxes can create changes in a country's demographic distribution than you are right about that but that would not be a financial problem.
Anonymous
Post 01/12/2016 11:34     Subject: $64,000 per refugee to relocate them to the US?
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.


That's right - having children like the California couple with the 6 month old baby did and he had a good job here too but they still hated Americans and killed us?


There are examples of people of every ethnic group doing something horrible. Congratulations you picked an example of a Muslim. There have been a few examples of that. Also a few examples of crazy white guys shooting a bunch of people, or of black people shooting individuals, or whatever. It doesn't speak to the nature of their entire races.
Anonymous
Post 01/12/2016 11:31     Subject: $64,000 per refugee to relocate them to the US?
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.


That's right - having children like the California couple with the 6 month old baby did and he had a good job here too but they still hated Americans and killed us?
Anonymous
Post 01/12/2016 11:30     Subject: $64,000 per refugee to relocate them to the US?
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.

The Muslim invasion didn't just start in England. London has been looking like Little Arabia for at least a generation. Stop deluding yourself.
Anonymous
Post 01/12/2016 11:26     Subject: $64,000 per refugee to relocate them to the US?
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.


That is more to do with larger statistical trends. The current population is generally more educated and statistically speaking more educated people have less children. Immigrant influxes tend to be less educated and tend to be more religious and tend to have a lot more kids.

But I really agree that we could do a lot to promote citizens wanting to have kids. But that would necessitate people being ok with things like subsidizing paid maternity leave or more tax breaks for childcare costs and a republican congress will never do that because culturally we call things like that 'handouts for lazy people' instead of 'investing in our future'
Anonymous
Post 01/12/2016 11:23     Subject: $64,000 per refugee to relocate them to the US?
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.
Anonymous
Post 01/12/2016 11:11     Subject: $64,000 per refugee to relocate them to the US?
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.
Anonymous
Post 01/12/2016 11:11     Subject: $64,000 per refugee to relocate them to the US?
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 ?
Anonymous
Post 01/12/2016 11:05     Subject: $64,000 per refugee to relocate them to the US?
we need Asians not these people or south of the border
Anonymous
Post 01/12/2016 11:03     Subject: $64,000 per refugee to relocate them to the US?
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.


Imagine what that $1.6 billion we would spend on 25,000 refugees could do if we invested it in Appalachia or in Southeast DC or Native American reservations? Why not invest in our own people - millions who are struggling?


It's a much less promising investment TBH. Immigrants are, historically, much more proven to revitalize the larger economy.

Also, propose what it is you want to do in Appalachia or SE DC? How are those places entitled to federal dollars when Detroit and Boise aren't? That is kind of the inherent difference between state and federal governments. Why isn't North Carolina investing in Appalachia? The federal government governs the entire country, which is why they handle immigration.

You can't ask for smaller government on one hand and then want them to cherry pick struggling parts of the country to invest in with federal dollars as well.
Anonymous
Post 01/12/2016 11:02     Subject: $64,000 per refugee to relocate them to the US?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Give refugees the chance to stabilize themselves in US, then they can go back to home country when they have money.

Why not allow them to rebuild their own country? Who will do that? Americans?

Sounds like musical chairs on an international level.


We would probably spend the same amount of money doing that. And the country would only be "rebuilt" for as long as we are pumping money.

I think, personally, there are a lot of Syrians here in the US. I think their families should step up and contribute money to relocating their distant relatives. I know a lot of Syrians who would be more than willing to do that.