Eric Holcomb pushing for refugee resettlement in Indiana?

[Ggreen]

That's not a feature, that's a bug. If they're that different, they should not be sent here/come here without a demonstrable desire to adopt/adapt to their new home. Like people have said, if the old country wasn't working out don't bring the same problems to a new country. This also applies to Californians intra-US

Well when the old country has foreign backed militias force breeding your daughters and conscripting your pre pubescent sons into military service against their own family fueled by a need for drugs from forced heroin and cocaine use.... These families know pain we won't even put on the movie screens. But hey like the good book says, if bad things are happening to people f it, not our problem.

 

[BugI02]

1) As much as you might like to omit tax-support of our native underclass in favor of the more-desirable (to you) foreign ones, that's not how it works. We get _both_. It's not an either-or exam question. As Jamil noted up-thread, you don't get to choose which boxes you check off on the "social malaise" section of this exam.

2) The second bold-face entry is simply false. Our system of deciding how many & what type of refugees we'll accept at the Federal level is not based on whether they have jobs lined up. This is not the H1-B program. The availability or non-availability of jobs or American citizens to fill them has no official bearing on it.

This^^^ The existence of 'jobs Americans are unwilling to do' should not be an excuse to bring in 21st century coolies, it should be solved by reducing onerous working conditions and/or raising pay until enough workers can be attracted from within the system. Coupled with a no work/no pay form of transfer payments (I personally favor a model that enables a percentage of eligible benefits in proportion to the percentage of full time work the recipient does. Full time gets 100% of the available assistance, 20 hrs per week gets 25%, no work gets 0%) I think capitalism can go a long way to solving both problems if the borders are shut to no/low skilled emigres

 

[rkwhyte2]

Well when the old country has foreign backed militias force breeding your daughters and conscripting your pre pubescent sons into military service against their own family fueled by a need for drugs from forced heroin and cocaine use.... These families know pain we won't even put on the movie screens. But hey like the good book says, if bad things are happening to people f it, not our problem.

I'm truly sorry that this is happening but in the end it really isn't our problem. We can't/shouldn't be the worlds police force and we sure can't continue to bring in people with no viable skill set.

 

[Ggreen]

I'm truly sorry that this is happening but in the end it really isn't our problem. We can't/shouldn't be the worlds police force and we sure can't continue to bring in people with no viable skill set.

Not true, they are employed pretty rapidly. Legal refugees pay taxes and are authorized to work. Many of the classes they attend on English focuses on vocational and conversational English skills.

 

[JettaKnight]

Pretty much no HS graduate has a "viable skill set", (unless they did some vocational stuff) so that really shouldn't be a litmus test, especially for refugees.


And from what I can tell, refugees in NE Indiana are gainfully employed, unlike a lot of American born folks who just want to sit around and get high.

 

[jamil]

Yes.
With caring and understanding.
Because being a good person is the meaning of life.

What “Being a good person” means is subjective, and that it is the meaning of life is subjective. About caring and understanding, from what you’ve said in this thread, your caring and understanding go just one way. And you seem to be claiming ownership of moral high ground that isn’t yours.

 

[Ggreen]

What “Being a good person” means is subjective, and that it is the meaning of life is subjective. About caring and understanding, from what you’ve said in this thread, your caring and understanding go just one way. And you seem to be claiming ownership of moral high ground that isn’t yours.

When did I claim it? If you're fine with not helping feel free to vote that way.

 

[BugI02]

Disagree.

We cannot declare funding a military coup in Honduras (which the U.S. did as recently as the Obama administration) as equivalent to people in America being frustrated with new neighboring who speak a don't language, keep their yard differently, cram 20 people into a single-family house, etc. Even if you want to classify accepting refugees as an inherent negative, I simply can't agree that anything refugees have done in the U.S. is a moral equivalent to atrocities of supporting colonialism or inciting civil war. They are not on the same level.




I think the #1 priority should be making sure that our policies do not create more refugees.

[To me this is a bit disingenuous and a variation of the climate change argument (as in, we should stop doing the things thought to engender climate change). Both arguments ignore practicalities that affect choices made and seek to inject morality (most often the arguer's version of morality, not an agreed upon interpretation) into what is at heart a cost/benefit analysis. As evidence, I point to argumentation about how my continuing choice to drive an ICE vehicle is making flooding worse in Bangladesh or wildfires worse in Australia or Cali or the cause du jour. Your blame America only version of Honduras and El Salvador's recent history (post 1969) mirrors the feel-good solutions offered to combat overhyped problems with ineffective solutions. I would agree that we might be able to formulate less injurious policies in such countries, but that usually is not a primary concern. We are adjusting the situation only as much as necessary to acheive desired results, whether those results are to contain the Nicaraguan communists or the indigenous drug runners]

I agree that the way refugees have been introduced into the U.S. for the last few decades has been imperfect (and we'll agree that's understating it). That by itself cannot be the reason to stop accepting all refugees.

I don't have a great solution for providing justice to the refugees we have already created, but I am listening.

If country X does not want the US to meddle in their affairs, they would do well to make sure how they conduct their affairs does not have effects that spill over onto/into the US

 

[BugI02]

There is a difference, but I think part of the problem here is you guys are talking past each other. Refugees are different from illegal immigrants, but thanks to the Obama administration, the two have become inexorably mixed-up in the minds of many people. Obama changed administrative procedures to allow people to stay in the country while their asylum claims were being processed. Then, he set an artificial time limit on how long the detention centers could hold them, after which time, they were cut loose and remanded into the hands of compassionate people I'm going to casually refer to as "people like you." Once the word got out that this was happening on our end, it led to rampant abuse of the asylum process among border crossers.

Stuff like this leads people to be sick of the issue, not care about the difference between illegals and asylum-seekers, and just want to see them all stopped. You have to acknowledge the role that excessive compassion-seeking plays in creating the attitudes you are arguing with here. Americans are generous people, but it has its limits. And the previous administration exceeded those limits.

Now, maybe I'm wrong about you. Maybe you don't defend this practice as encouraged by the Obama administration. Maybe you're not one of the ones shouting at the Trump administration for "splitting up families" at the border. But somehow, I seriously doubt it. You sound like precisely the sort of person who had "no problem" with what Obama was doing, and who are shouting at the top of their lungs about the Trump administration "splitting up families?" Care to correct me?

I would only add that some NGOs have been guilty of openly encouraging asylees to game/abuse the system and providing coaching in how to do so. To me, the question of whether there was a 'wink, wink, nudge, nudge' arrangement with the Obama admin desire to admit overwhelming numbers of such people without much regard to how this would affect every day Americans has an obvious answer. The two sets of behaviors interlock nicely, or look at TPS

Caring fatigue is absolutely a thing, especially when one side's answer to the problem of more resources, more tax money, more more more never seems to make a dent in actually solving the problem

See:War on poverty (the original endless war)

 

[BugI02]

Well many people say chicken tastes better cold. Either way it has nothing to do with what Holcomb or this thread is discussing. I absolutely advocate helping legal refugee families find peace and security here, while standing firmly against illegal immigration and all the human trafficking that comes along with it.

And I firmly advocate for our elected representative to be able to set limits on how many refugees/asylees will be accepted, and to set that level at zero if that is what the people want. That seems to be the big disconnect here. The man on the spot who has to deal with a problem should have the most input into how the problem is addressed, otherwise it is like farmers being constrained in how they treat coyotes because people in California think they are doggies

 

[indyjs]

Because being a good person is the meaning of life.

That's nonsense.

 

[JettaKnight]

That's nonsense.

Don't let the United Methodist hear you say that.

 

[jamil]

When did I claim it? If you're fine with not helping feel free to vote that way.

When? Some of your posts drip with it. And why do you think helping is a binary option? You seem to agree with the way it’s done now. So I must either agree with you or I just don’t want to help at all?

 

[nonobaddog]

Everybody is helping anyhow, whether they want to or not - I should say everybody that works and pays taxes is already helping.

 

[Twangbanger]

How about seeing a little "chain migration" in action, right in the heart of the Hoosier state?

Narrator is our native-son millionaire author and A-list Obama elbow-rubber John Green:



[video=youtube_share;sEGUrcseJo8]https://youtu.be/sEGUrcseJo8[/video]

 

[Ggreen]

When? Some of your posts drip with it. And why do you think helping is a binary option? You seem to agree with the way it’s done now. So I must either agree with you or I just don’t want to help at all?

I made my stance as a supported, and backed it up. As did the other side, yet when I disagree and touch on insecurity i get burnt at the stake

 

[jamil]

I made my stance as a supported, and backed it up. As did the other side, yet when I disagree and touch on insecurity i get burnt at the stake

You see it as insecurity? This is why you can only see your side of it. And you’re not being burnt at the stake. All I said was that you seem to like making yourself appear to be the moral side if it. Both have moral positions.

As far as supporting it, you said stuff. Anyone can say stuff. I kinda suspect that the stuff you said was just from your own perspective without much regard for other perspectives.

You think that dropping a large population of people into an area that is not all that culturally compatible overrides the social consequences. I think that’s immoral. We should be able to figure out a way to relieve suffering in a way that is moral to both sides. Maybe that means not a lot more than thinking more about how they’re located and distributed.

 

[drillsgt]

How about seeing a little "chain migration" in action, right in the heart of the Hoosier state?

Narrator is our native-son millionaire author and A-list Obama elbow-rubber John Green:



[video=youtube_share;sEGUrcseJo8]https://youtu.be/sEGUrcseJo8[/video]

Not sure if this is our Ggreen but everybody's welcome on INGO. Unlike some others here at least Ggreen actually posts outside the politics forum, some on here I actually wonder if they are even gunowners.

 

[Ggreen]

You see it as insecurity? This is why you can only see your side of it. And you’re not being burnt at the stake. All I said was that you seem to like making yourself appear to be the moral side if it. Both have moral positions.

As far as supporting it, you said stuff. Anyone can say stuff. I kinda suspect that the stuff you said was just from your own perspective without much regard for other perspectives.

You think that dropping a large population of people into an area that is not all that culturally compatible overrides the social consequences. I think that’s immoral. We should be able to figure out a way to relieve suffering in a way that is moral to both sides. Maybe that means not a lot more than thinking more about how they’re located and distributed.

It's not a large population. Housing depends on a number of factors such a access to public transportation, jobs, multi family housing, availability, etc..

The only arguments against increasing legal refugee intake have been either riddled with racism, anecdotal, or just misinformed as to what a legal refugee is. If anyone here could provide any actual evidence that it is the burmese refugees lowering home values and not the declining housing market as a whole, or Congolese refugees committing crimes at a higher rate than any other group of people im all ears.

If a refugee commits a crime they can face immediate revocation of their refugee status and face immediate deportation. Some do have trouble adapting and can get into trouble, but it's not a pandemic or even very common.

I'm no more righteous in any of my statements than any of the emotional cries to forsake them.

 

[Trigger Time]

Not sure if this is our Ggreen but everybody's welcome on INGO. Unlike some others here at least Ggreen actually posts outside the politics forum, some on here I actually wonder if they are even gunowners.

no i dont think these are the same people. But I completely agree and have said the same before too. I think a lot of the people who post here are just trolls who dont even own a gun. I may disagree with ggreen completely on this issue but atleast he is a gun owner. Same with campingjosh. We disagree but he is a gun owner and Ive actually met him in person and he is a great dude. Same with Kutinupe, he and I disagree on many things but I consider him a friend and have met him. I like him a lot actually and respect him.
People who dont own guns and come here with opinions, meh, move on. Get a girlfriend. Get a gun.

And with that, I'm done with the politics threads for a while again. Pointless.