The Truth About The Syrian Refugee Controversy

That's the automatic title if you share this to blogger direct from youtube.  I don't know if it is all true or mostly true or what.  So -- not really my claim that you see there in the title.





The figures may or may not be accurate.  I have little doubt that the relative values are probably in line.  All he is really saying is that it is cheaper and kinder to relocate refugees in the Middle East where culture, language and many other factors represent a better fit.  And we are talking cheaper on the order of only a tenth the cost of bringing them here, and that doesn't take into account many factors.

I am not real firm regarding who comes and goes, except I do not get carting people across the globe just so we can strain the infra structure and resources of the lucky cities and towns involved.



Positions reversed, I would want to be located in a culture which is as close as possible to my own, and nearby so I can plot possible return to my home or overthrowing the riffraff.  But let's say the Chinese decide they want to show compassion by shipping me into China, where I do not know squat.  That would be bizarro, and I would not like it.



So what is the game here?  Lots of talk of widows and orphans but what is the actual demographic, and why is the US the destination?   I honestly do not know.  I don't mind immigrants in general.  I do mind people who come here, then bitch because we don't meet their expectations and demands.



I remember a Cuban lady in a store in Miami, in the 1970's, telling a middle aged American woman (known as "anglo" in local lingo), "You better learn Spanish if you want get by in OUR city!"[accent and intonation not shown]  Because the angla did not speak the refugee's language.  I cannot imagine being taken in, given refuge and more by a country, and then bitching at them, even if they were a jerk country.

But we encourage this, and people who question what is happening are painted as lacking empathy.   I understand that there are some distasteful reactions going on; suggestions that don't hit the root of the issue.  Or make good Constitutional sense or demonstrate intelligent foresight.



Simple questions ought to be answered, I would think,  Why not settle people there?  The Mid East is a large place.  North Africa is a big chunk of land.



I do disagree with the reasoning that the problem is that there could be terrorists among the multitude of immigrants.  (Even though I have no doubt this is a highway for blood thirsty lunatics as presently designed)  My thinking is that this should be a moot point, at least until we know, "why here?'.  That is not a lack of compassion.

But be careful about that "there could be a trouble maker hidden in that group of X many".  The reason I say it is that it can be turned on you.   It can be turned so we have to prove innocence more than we already do.  And that is a recipe for some people running rough shod over others, legally.

And it diverts attention form the real matter at hand; why are they seeking refuge?  Where is the closest place they can go?  How are they getting there?  What is the demographic mix here; men, women, children, families, etc.?  Approach it like any problem.  And then look rationally at moral imperative and least damaging solutions.

Some Americans are old enough to remember when we were extraordinarily hospitable to refugee groups, at great cost and sacrifice to the community.  Having those immigrants or self hating Americans claim we are lacking compassion, and that we are horrible, ignorant bigots, is not acceptable.   It is a lie and that is that.  Especially when you look at the relative scale of hospitality to refugees and riffraff alike over the decades compared to the rest of the planet.   It's a bitch relocating to most countries.  They discriminate like crazy and make it tough.  But they all find room for money.

We've been so benevolent.   I know people who graduated in certain aspects of computer science, at just the wrong time, to find themselves without opportunity.  In many cases companies hired Indians and others with plenty of experience for far less than our experienced people were getting paid, and they have a special type of work visa they get.  It is a form of corporate welfare, even though some may see it differently.  In certain a specialized IT related fields this drastically reduced the market for entry level personnel.

Not sure how I think on that particular wrinkle, however, those who prefer to feel compassionate rather than to actually be compassionate,  maybe will like that.  To them jobs and wealth are all on a seesaw. They don't quite get it, but that's OK.

The point is, what is the dang deal?  Even this stuff of checking religion and all that is nothing but smokescreen, playing on emotion and not answering the initial why questions.  I have no idea who gains by doing it how the administration wants to do it, or what is being gained.  You can be sure, though, that when a thing like this gets railroaded on appeals to everything but simple reason, a scam is afloat and the collateral damage in annoyance and costs of every ilk-monetary, emotional, moral, survival, etc.-will make waves for some time.

It may not be like huge disaster and all that.  But still, why?