Shootings and explosions in Paris

[derspiess]

The few Jews who fled Germany in the 30s weren't expected to go back post-1945.

And they shouldn't have been expected to go back.  But that's a bit of an extreme example.

[The Minsky Moment]

True story:
Some time ago I had a kid (19 yo) from Bangladesh as a pro bono client.  His mother had been a political activist years before and fled to the US when the kid was an infant.  The kid hung out with some rowdy sorts and once day they got into a fight with some other guys.  During the course of that fight the kid's shoe came off and he picked it up and hit someone with it (allegedly - there was some dispute over whether he made contact).  That turned out to be significant because it arguably turned it into a Class A misdemeanor, which is punishable by a year in prison.  And thus qualifies as a deportable "crime of violence."  So he found himself in an ICE jail awaiting deportation to Bangladesh.

Problem was he had never been to Bangladesh, knew no one there, had no place to go.  He spoke no Bengali, only English with a New York accent.  He had basically never been outside of Queens.

Once someone comes in as a refugee and settles in doing what our society expects - hold down a job, get educated, make a home, contribute to a community, establish roots etc. - it makes no sense to come in 10 years later when the risk in their home country has subsided and say - OK time to pull up everything and go back to this now basically foreign place.  It is like making them a refugee a second time.

[Valmy]

Once someone comes in as a refugee and settles in doing what our society expects - hold down a job, get educated, make a home, contribute to a community, establish roots etc. - it makes no sense to come in 10 years later when the risk in their home country has subsided and say - OK time to pull up everything and go back to this now basically foreign place.  It is like making them a refugee a second time.

Ok well then that is the rub isn't it? Hence why refugees are being rejected and  blocked. It might make sense to do that if that is the condition under which they can escape their home country?

But also this situation is different. This is a mass migration of people not a singular political activist. They are unlikely to fully integrated in only 10 years.

[The Brain]

Moving to an alien country isn't some kind of horrible fate that is cruel and unusual. People do it all the time.

[Berkut]

They should be fighting against whatever evil that is scaring them into leaving.

What if they have no opportunity to engage in such a fight? Should they just go and die on principle?

What if they just don't like fighting? What if they are terrible at it?

And I'm speaking specifically of Syria here.

Berkut, do you think Syrian refugees should stay here once things settle down in Syria?

I think that if you accept refugees, you should plan on allowing them to stay. Simply because it isn't possible to forsee how things might turn out in the long run, so it is better to just assume that they are not going back.

Once things do settle down, then it can be left up to them whether they want to return or not.

Or do you want them staying here?

My wants aren't really the question though.

What *I* "want" is my country to be the kind of country that is willing and courageous enough to take in those who have nowhere else to go, the kind of country that values kindness and courage such that we do not allow our fear of the people we should stand against to influence how we act to others. I want to live in a country that says "Fuck you ISIL, *you* don't get to define our refuges policy by threatening to send terrorists in with the refugees so that we compromise our values out of fear".

That is what *I* want. I don't want them to stay, or to go - I want them to have the freedom to make that choice for themselves. What I *want* is for people to not have to flee from religious maniacs who think nothing of lining them up - men, women, and children, and machine gunning them into a ditch. And I want neighbors who have the courage to take those people in even if it means we risk being attacked in our ultra comfortable homes ourselves. Especially given that at most the actual risk of that attack effecting any of us personally is a tiny, tiny fraction of the threat that those fleeing those people face by us refusing them sanctuary.

So yeah, what *I* want is for us to stand by the values that separate us from the crazy assholes creating the crisis to begin with.

  Assuming you want them to stay, is that good for the US, specifically people who are US citizens? Or does that matter to you?

Personally, I think it is good for the US, but I realize that my definition of good is likely very different from your own. I think the US is the great country it is *because* we have values that are worth some potential short term pain. I think that more and different views, different people with different ideas are good for the US, and good for the people who are US citizens. I think that being the country of last resort, the country of hope, the country of sanctuary is not just good for the people we provide that sanctuary to, but good for those of us who have already found it is as well.

Maybe more importantly, I think being the country that cannot refuse to help those who need it, that cannot turn our backs on murder, rape, and torture is good for *us*, especially given that maybe in the past we have failed to live up to those ideals. Maybe we have some payback owed, and taking in some people who are fleeing terror seems like the very least we can do.

I believe in "Land of the free, home of the brave", not "Land of the free, home of those terrified of refugees".

I think that is true both in philosophy, and good in practical economic terms as well.

[dps]

What *I* "want" is my country to be the kind of country that is willing and courageous enough to take in those who have nowhere else to go

I'll agree here;  the attitude of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is what built this country.

[derspiess]

What *I* "want" is my country to be the kind of country that is willing and courageous enough to take in those who have nowhere else to go

I'll agree here;  the attitude of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is what built this country.

It sure did and we're all better for it.  Time and a place for everything, though.  Time to move on.

[Berkut]

What *I* "want" is my country to be the kind of country that is willing and courageous enough to take in those who have nowhere else to go

I'll agree here;  the attitude of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is what built this country.

It sure did and we're all better for it.  Time and a place for everything, though.  Time to move on.

Just what the Know-Nothings said back when they were arguing against immigration then as well.

"Sure, immigration was OSSUM when my parents immigrated, but not anymore!"

[Eddie Teach]

Like Seedy says, there's enough traffic already.

[alfred russel]

What *I* "want" is my country to be the kind of country that is willing and courageous enough to take in those who have nowhere else to go

I'll agree here;  the attitude of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is what built this country.

Note that the statue of liberty was erected and that dedication inscribed at a port of entry of primarily white christian and jewish immigrants. No such monument was on the other coast, where the chinese exclusion act was in effect.

Were it not for those policies, the racial and religious makeup of the country would likely be quite different.

[dps]

What *I* "want" is my country to be the kind of country that is willing and courageous enough to take in those who have nowhere else to go

I'll agree here;  the attitude of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is what built this country.

Note that the statue of liberty was erected and that dedication inscribed at a port of entry of primarily white christian and jewish immigrants. No such monument was on the other coast, where the chinese exclusion act was in effect.

Were it not for those policies, the racial and religious makeup of the country would likely be quite different.

Your point?  As I mentioned in a couple of other current threads, we haven't always lived up to our ideals, and our immigration policy hasn't always been what I'd consider the right thing to do.  I don't see the fact that we discriminated against Orientals in immigration policy for a long time as justifying discriminating against Muslims now and going forward.

[alfred russel]

Your point?  As I mentioned in a couple of other current threads, we haven't always lived up to our ideals, and our immigration policy hasn't always been what I'd consider the right thing to do.  I don't see the fact that we discriminated against Orientals in immigration policy for a long time as justifying discriminating against Muslims now and going forward.

I don't really have a point. Just the history nerd in me combined with what CdM would call assburgers.

However, I don't think that you can look at the plaque on the statue of liberty and say those reflected our national ideals for all people everywhere. If you look at government policy which may be the best reflection we have of "national public opinion" of that day, ie the ideals of the time, we were okay with mass immigration of poor people so long as they were europeans of a judeo christian background.

[dps]

Your point?  As I mentioned in a couple of other current threads, we haven't always lived up to our ideals, and our immigration policy hasn't always been what I'd consider the right thing to do.  I don't see the fact that we discriminated against Orientals in immigration policy for a long time as justifying discriminating against Muslims now and going forward.

I don't really have a point. Just the history nerd in me combined with what CdM would call assburgers.

However, I don't think that you can look at the plaque on the statue of liberty and say those reflected our national ideals for all people everywhere. If you look at government policy which may be the best reflection we have of "national public opinion" of that day, ie the ideals of the time, we were okay with mass immigration of poor people so long as they were europeans of a judeo christian background.

I don't particularly disagree with your interpretation of our policy at the time;  I'm just saying that it should be one of our national ideals.

[Razgovory]

What *I* "want" is my country to be the kind of country that is willing and courageous enough to take in those who have nowhere else to go

I'll agree here;  the attitude of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is what built this country.

It sure did and we're all better for it.  Time and a place for everything, though.  Time to move on.

When is the cut off date?

[derspiess]

What *I* "want" is my country to be the kind of country that is willing and courageous enough to take in those who have nowhere else to go

I'll agree here;  the attitude of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is what built this country.

It sure did and we're all better for it.  Time and a place for everything, though.  Time to move on.

When is the cut off date?

How about 1945.