Obama Allowing Refugees Stay In America

[AFPheonix]

As for me, well, I don't agree with his policies. Mainly his speech about how Americans should get their spending in line...and then he goes and spends several million for his inauguration...but then his Valentine's Day dinner. Yep, he spent taxpayer dollars (again) to fire up Air Force One and fly to Chicago for dinner. Hypocrite?

A majority of the money for inauguration parties and balls and whatnot was donated. I know that's been mentioned here before. It was not taxpayer money.

And a flight on Air Force One to Chicago is a helluva lot shorter than a flight on Air Force One to Texas, which Bush took quite often. Hell, I don't see you bitching about him taking a flight on the former Air Force One to go home that one last time. Was that a waste of taxpayer money?
Are you expecting them to fly coach?

[protege]

Bush also didn't make a televised speech telling Americans to cut back... Also, sure he had some donated cash, but not all of it was donated.

[Evandril]

Bush also didn't make a televised speech telling Americans to cut back... Also, sure he had some donated cash, but not all of it was donated.

Yes, how dare he use the *exact* same amount allowed to any President? The horror! Yes, America needs to cut back...So that should translate to not going on vacations or the like, correct? I'm still planning on taking one, m'self, even though I've been trying to cut back on my spending. From the sound of the article in question, he also had the audacity to talk to people, and play the politics game while he was out...What sort of example is that for our President?

[Seshat]

How about we help United States citizens first? Or do the US citizens just have to fend for themselves? Too f-ing bad for the other nations. We don't have the money or resources to help them.

If America doesn't, who does?


Check that link, and also go down the bottom and check the two 'per capita' variations on the GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._GDP_(nominal)
(I looked at the 2008 CIA World Factbook figures.)


Yes, there are a few countries with significantly higher per capita GDP - Iceland, Norway, and some of the tiny European Union countries. Qatar is on the list too, surprisingly enough.

But there seems to be a distinct gap: there's Iceland, Norway, Qatar and the tiny European countries with a GDP per capita of six figures.

Then there's other First World countries, with GDPs between 70K and 30K per capita - mostly centered around 50K. The USA is one of them, so is Australia.

The tiny European countries don't have the space to put refugees. Iceland and Norway have more space, but I suspect the unoccupied space in those countries is either tundra or mountain. Those countries could (and probably do) contribute to the refugee issue with funding. (I don't know for sure, but I'd be surprised if they didn't.)

Which leaves the cluster of countries in the 70K to 30K range. I know Australia accepts as many refugees as we can house without shoving them into the desert or the bushfire zones. I hear that the UK does as well.

So yeah... if America is too poor, I presume the rest of us in the 70K to 30K range are too.

So .. um. Who should be helping them, then?

[Boozy]

The US really doesn't have to be looking at this like charity.

American politicians have fed so much special-interest fuelled anti-immigration baloney down the throats of the public for so long that the average citizen is ready to close the borders.

That's zero-sum thinking about a positive-sum issue. These refugees might be highly skilled. They also might be low skilled. Either way, immigration is almost always good for the economy. Even in tough times. Trade and immigration protectionism is the last thing the US needs to do right now.

[daleduke17]

So yeah... if America is too poor, I presume the rest of us in the 70K to 30K range are too.

So .. um. Who should be helping them, then?

How many of the rest of the countries have a failing economy, are trillions of dollars in debt, a crumbling infrastructure on many fronts (power grid, roads, communications for example), and is so far overstretched in different warzones that they shouldn't be in (Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, different places in Africa - which all are contributing to the aforementioned debt problems)?

It's nothing about being poor, it's about not being fiscally able to do it.

[Amethyst Hunter]

American politicians have fed so much special-interest fuelled anti-immigration baloney down the throats of the public for so long that the average citizen is ready to close the borders. Trade and immigration protectionism is the last thing the US needs to do right now.

But if we don't, then the OMGTERRORISTS might get us. You know those nutty Mexicans and those wacky Canadians. Before long, we'll all be dancing 'La Cucaracha' and eating moose pie with maple syrup. Or something.

Nevermind that the fuckers who did 9/11 were here *legally* - had driver's licences, the whole caboodle. The assholes aren't likely to draw attention to themselves by coming in here illegally because then that'd thwart their viledoings.

I agree that something needs to be done about the immigration system, I'm just not sure that slamming fences all around is the answer we should be looking at. :/ (Besides, they'll just tunnel under the fence anyway if they really want to get past it bad enough)

[Evandril]

Either way, immigration is almost always good for the economy. Even in tough times. Trade and immigration protectionism is the last thing the US needs to do right now.

IMO, that should read *legal* immigration, but am aware that is my personal opinion.

[AFPheonix]

I agree that something needs to be done about the immigration system, I'm just not sure that slamming fences all around is the answer we should be looking at. :/ (Besides, they'll just tunnel under the fence anyway if they really want to get past it bad enough)

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head would be ending automatic citizenship granted to children born on US soil to illegal immigrants. I would support that at least.

[IDrinkaRum]

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head would be ending automatic citizenship granted to children born on US soil to illegal immigrants. I would support that at least.

I completely agree with this. If the parents can't come up with documentation that they are here legally, then guess what? Their kids aren't legal residents either.

Or, and this would just add to the already over-burdened child services divisions and there would be huge protests, is this:

Oh, you came to America illegally so your kid can be an American Citizen? Congratulations! Your kid is a legal citizen. Since you're here illegally, making you a criminal, you can't take care of the child, so we're putting it up for adoption to be adopted by American citizens. Good Day.*






*I am being sarcastic and in no way supporting the second option of this post. Just saying some might actually support this. And by some, I mean in the general population, not those on the board. That is all.