Eric Holcomb pushing for refugee resettlement in Indiana?

[jamil]

They cant figure out how to get resettlement aid but can figure out how to get an audience with US senate staffers?

The question started with an "if", which is important to the meaning of the question, which I think you knew already. But in case you didn't, I'll fill in the blanks. "If refugees don't get public aid, then why do they need help finding out how to get public aid that they are not supposed to get?"

That's how I took the question, and it seems like a reasonable question. There seems to be plenty of source that tend to disprove that they don't get public aid. I'm just seeing claims that say they don't. A proper response to that question, assuming that's the intent of the question, would be something that explains how that public aid isn't actually funded by tax revenues. Again, that's been claimed without much else. It's reasonable to ask. But regardless, I have no problem with them receiving public aid if it helps them become productive Americans who are compatible with existing cultures. I kinda don't like culture wars.

 

[jamil]

What is regular America, if you can't describe it without racism that is very sad.

Maybe you could look for a more charitable interpretation than racism. If you think it's natural for people to want to be around other people like them, then this isn't any different from that. And if you don't think that it shouldn't matter for the people saying what TT said to want to be around people like themselves, then you have to apply that to everyone else too.

 

[Ingomike]

WOW Jamil,

Quite a string of well thought out replies.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jamil again.

 

[jamil]

OK, let's do that.



You have done an excellent job at crushing an argument that we both agree I didn't make. Why do you hunt the straw man?

I did not say that the U.S. has a moral debt to refugees from Myanmar. I said that the U.S. played a role in creating refugees among Hmong people in Vietnam and among people in Central America, specifically Honduras. A lack of debt to one party does not mean a lack of debt to every possible party. After all, should I be able to use the fact that I don't have a mortgage to get out of paying a credit card bill?

Just to clarify then, are you saying you only approve of taking refugees in who were displaced because of actions taken by the US government? Because it seemed implicit in other posts that you favor taking in refugees regardless, but especially that we have a moral duty to help people we've had a hand in creating their situation.

 

[jamil]

WOW Jamil,

Quite a string of well thought out replies.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jamil again.

Well, I have to apologize to INGO for post-whoring. I got really far behind because I was too busy binging Star Wars Rebels to bother keeping up with INGO. I'm almost caught up with this thread. I'm just glad at least one person read any of that.

 

[bwframe]

The libs throw the race card around when they cannot make a case for their beliefs. It is sad that there are those among us that do the same. Is this what they teach in school now?

 

[Trigger Time]

C'mon man. You're not enslaved. As far as "immigrants don't belong here" did the first generation in your family tree to immigrate here "belong" here? I don't think the discussion should be whether we should allow people from other countries to come here, but it's fair to put some rules around what what we expect of immigrants once they're here and how we should protect existing cultures from upheaval.

The overtaxation in this country is a form of slavery and im sticking by my statement.
The majority of my ancestors were here well before this was a country.

 

[nonobaddog]

Just to clarify then, are you saying you only approve of taking refugees in who were displaced because of actions taken by the US government? Because it seemed implicit in other posts that you favor taking in refugees regardless, but especially that we have a moral duty to help people we've had a hand in creating their situation.

Are you suggesting these people were having a great life in their respective countries and then the US stepped in and totally changed their situation to intolerable? Or were they already in a crappy situation before and without any US involvement?

 

[jamil]

The overtaxation in this country is a form of slavery and im sticking by my statement.
The majority of my ancestors were here well before this was a country.

You have to redefine slavery then. Slaves are property. Slaves are forced into servitude. You can say you're unfairly taxed and not violate the definition of slavery. You can say you're not properly represented and not violate the definition of slavery. Over-taxation is not a form of slavery. But you can say it's a form of oppression. I would give you that without complaint.

 

[Ingomike]

It's very un-American to think we should be an assimilated society. I would live among them.

Projection: A way to blame others for your own negative thoughts by repressing them and then attributing them to someone else.

It is actually un-American to think that new residents of our country do not have to join into the existing American culture and accept the norms of the culture that invited them in to their home.

 

[jamil]

Are you suggesting these people were having a great life in their respective countries and then the US stepped in and totally changed their situation to intolerable? Or were they already in a crappy situation before and without any US involvement?

No, I'm saying that if the US has caused their situation, whatever it was, to become existentially catastrophic, then the US would have a moral obligation to do something about it. But as I've said repeatedly, I think the best outcome would be first to do what we can legitimately do to help them live in their own land among their own people. To me this is one of those signal/noise things. The US shouldn't drag its bid dick all over other countries. I'd much prefer we mind our own business, until that business becomes something existential for us.

For example, we didn't have to install the Shaw of Iran as the puppet leader of Iran. But we did. And then that created an unstable situation. Shaw got deposed. Radicals came to power. And that created a refugee situation. I worked with some of those refugees in the workplace, and they were fine Americans, and they were good engineers. I'm quite alright with the extent to which we helped them become Americans here. I've also had many Vietnamese coworkers. And with the exception of one particular *******, they became good Americans too. And the ******* may have been a good American. I just didn't like him because he's an *******.

 

[Trigger Time]

WOW Jamil,

Quite a string of well thought out replies.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jamil again.

I got him. I agree. Very well worded and thought out arguements. He did good at saying what I'd like to but can't put into words right.

If I have a choice I just enjoy being around people #1 that I feel safe around and trust. Then that I share the same interests with. Frankly NO I wouldnt hang out with people who are against guns. I know some people do have friends like that and thats their business not mine.
Also I want to have friends with at least moderate to conservative political views. Far left just isnt gonna fly. It just wont. Why set our friendship up for failure? Like Ggreen, those refugee views would just eat at me and I just couldn't take it.
Also, language, I want to be around english speaking people. I dont mind accents but you need to speak english period. Dress with some self respect and be groomed, this is not that hard, you dont have to wear fancy clothes. I dont care if you are rich or poor as long as you try your best in life and aren't a slacker. I dont hang around people who have problems with obeying the law. I just do not want to take chances with my or my families freedom and safety.
I don't want to be around people with violent tendencies. If you are ready to smash someone in the face for taking your parking spot we probably aren't going to stay friends.
If you like baseball, race cars, bourbon, hunting, fishing, or any combination of those then those are all pluses too. SHOCKER, skin color wasn't a condition of being my friend. But being a legal resident or citizen and not a refugee yeah that would be important to me.
I mean i think these are the basics and just off the top of my head. I dont care what you look like.

 

[nonobaddog]

No, I'm saying that if the US has caused their situation, whatever it was, to become existentially catastrophic, then the US would have a moral obligation to do something about it. But as I've said repeatedly, I think the best outcome would be first to do what we can legitimately do to help them live in their own land among their own people. To me this is one of those signal/noise things. The US shouldn't drag its bid dick all over other countries. I'd much prefer we mind our own business, until that business becomes something existential for us.

For example, we didn't have to install the Shaw of Iran as the puppet leader of Iran. But we did. And then that created an unstable situation. Shaw got deposed. Radicals came to power. And that created a refugee situation. I worked with some of those refugees in the workplace, and they were fine Americans, and they were good engineers. I'm quite alright with the extent to which we helped them become Americans here. I've also had many Vietnamese coworkers. And with the exception of one particular *******, they became good Americans too. And the ******* may have been a good American. I just didn't like him because he's an *******.

Thanks. The way that was originally brought up was like if there was any US involvement it automatically entitled the people there to be considered refugees and we have this obligation to do everything in the world for them. I'm just saying that if the US had some involvement somewhere and it helped the people of that area (with a more stable government or disaster recovery or whatever) then we do not automatically have some feely good responsibility to babysit them in our country.

 

[Twangbanger]

...The fact that I dont have a refugee sleeping on my couch right now isn't an argument. Itd be akin to me telling you you're a hypocrite if you advocate for and financially support Riley's childrens hospital, but don't personally go administer chemo to the kids.

That is one lousy analogy. If someone supports Riley, it's very different from supporting programs which use public funds to bomb large numbers of refuges onto communities. The analogy about having them sleep on your couch isn't a perfectly-solid one, either, but it's getting at the idea of people using public programs and resources to foist social engineering upon others.

It is particularly galling to the people "on the ground" next to that engineering, when the people supporting that re-engineering are perceived as not being particularly involved in the consequences of it.

Now, your justification for using public means rather than private, may be

because government programs are larger/more efficient/more effective than discrete individual action (the argument for things like Medicaid, etc.). But the point is that you are foisting situations upon other people, with public force, where you may not have much skin in the game. ​

​

 

[jamil]

I got him. I agree. Very well worded and thought out arguements. He did good at saying what I'd like to but can't put into words right.

If I have a choice I just enjoy being around people #1 that I feel safe around and trust. Then that I share the same interests with. Frankly NO I wouldnt hang out with people who are against guns. I know some people do have friends like that and thats their business not mine.
Also I want to have friends with at least moderate to conservative political views. Far left just isnt gonna fly. It just wont. Why set our friendship up for failure? Like Ggreen, those refugee views would just eat at me and I just couldn't take it.
Also, language, I want to be around english speaking people. I dont mind accents but you need to speak english period. Dress with some self respect and be groomed, this is not that hard, you dont have to wear fancy clothes. I dont care if you are rich or poor as long as you try your best in life and aren't a slacker. I dont hang around people who have problems with obeying the law. I just do not want to take chances with my or my families freedom and safety.
I don't want to be around people with violent tendencies. If you are ready to smash someone in the face for taking your parking spot we probably aren't going to stay friends.
If you like baseball, race cars, bourbon, hunting, fishing, or any combination of those then those are all pluses too. SHOCKER, skin color wasn't a condition of being my friend. But being a legal resident or citizen and not a refugee yeah that would be important to me.
I mean i think these are the basics and just off the top of my head. I dont care what you look like.

See? None of this is racist. This is all personality. Most people like being around people who are like them. Some people like being around at least people who are different from them. The problem with the latter is that they seem to think it's a moral issue. That they're being especially tolerant of "diversity". That's kinda bull****.

 

[jamil]

Hard turn. I've said previously I give money to different charities I believe in but something like refugee resettlement, by it's very nature, has to go through the state department and will involve govt. Funds.

The fact that I dont have a refugee sleeping on my couch right now isn't an argument. Itd be akin to me telling you you're a hypocrite if you advocate for and financially support Riley's childrens hospital, but don't personally go administer chemo to the kids.

If it's true that whatever the US spends in settling refugees comes from private donations, as was claimed, then apparently you can donate to that. But if that's not true, if it does have to involve government funds, it's fair for the people being impacted by immigrants to complain about having to pay for it, and especially, asking the people who support it, to pay for it. And maybe it's not all that far off to ask the people who feel particularly passionate about it to bear the brunt of the impact, to the extent that's possible. Don't you think?

 

[jamil]

That is one lousy analogy. If someone supports Riley, it's very different from supporting programs which use public funds to bomb large numbers of refuges onto communities. The analogy about having them sleep on your couch isn't a perfectly-solid one, either, but it's getting at the idea of people using public programs and resources to foist social engineering upon others.

It is particularly galling to the people "on the ground" next to that engineering, when the people supporting that re-engineering are perceived as not being particularly involved in the consequences of it.

Now, your justification for using public means rather than private, may be

because government programs are larger/more efficient/more effective than discrete individual action (the argument for things like Medicaid, etc.). But the point is that you are foisting situations upon other people, with public force, where you may not have much skin in the game. ​

​

People tend to be way more compassionate with other people's money.

 

[CampingJosh]

Just to clarify then, are you saying you only approve of taking refugees in who were displaced because of actions taken by the US government? Because it seemed implicit in other posts that you favor taking in refugees regardless, but especially that we have a moral duty to help people we've had a hand in creating their situation.

I personally favor taking in some refugees from many crises, including some of those that the United States had no role in causing.

I think that we have a moral obligation to help people whose crisis was caused by U.S. government actions. That may include taking some of those people as refugees.

We can help people even when we lack the moral obligation in a particular instance, but I have intentionally not made the case that we should take refugees from every situation because we do not have the obligation to every refugee.

 

[Twangbanger]

I personally favor taking in some refugees from many crises, including some of those that the United States had no role in causing.

I think that we have a moral obligation to help people whose crisis was caused by U.S. government actions. That may include taking some of those people as refugees.

We can help people even when we lack the moral obligation in a particular instance, but I have intentionally not made the case that we should take refugees from every situation because we do not have the obligation to every refugee.

Ok. Thank you for that, and I was just making sure. (I don't think that's GGreen's position...).

 

[CampingJosh]

Ok. Thank you for that, and I was just making sure. (I don't think that's GGreen's position...).

I think his position is a lot like mine: in favor of taking many refugees. But he can certainly speak for himself.

I was making the moral case only in response to the members in this discussion who were saying that the U.S. should never take any refugees. (But with this many people in the discussion, it's easy for that to get lost, so I needed to clarify.)

We can pleasantly debate how many to take and from which situations; Taking none is, in my view, a categorically wrong answer.