Refugee Resettlement Program (1 Viewer)

[lazyike]

Beltrami county in  Northwest Minnesota voted to refuse to accept refugees. https://www.bing.com/amp/s/www.twincities.com/2020/01/07/in-a-first-for-state-beltrami-county-decides-to-refuse-refugee-resettlement/amp/ The county I am from in Mn voted to accept refugees however there is a movement to get people to attend an upcoming meeting trying to get them to reconsider. There is fear that Minnesota because of slow population growth may lose one of its 8 seats in Congress and also go from 10 electoral votes down to 9. It is my understanding that the entire state of Texas has opted out of the resettlement program as well. https://www.texastribune.org/2020/01/10/abbott-tells-trump-administration-texas-wont-resettle-refugees/ I support accepting refugees. Thoughts?

 

[Slapdash]

In general, helping refugees settle here is a great thing.  Hard to think of things more American than welcoming people that have nothing else.

 

[Mister CIA]

In general, helping refugees settle here is a great thing.  Hard to think of things more American than welcoming people that have nothing else.

My first sentiment exactly.  Come all ye Americans.

 

[Phil Elliott]

It appears the reasoning for wanting to keep accepting the refugees is focused on the population loss and MN potentially losing congressional seats and electoral votes?

 

[Summer Wheat]

Beltrami county in  Northwest Minnesota voted to refuse to accept refugees. https://www.bing.com/amp/s/www.twincities.com/2020/01/07/in-a-first-for-state-beltrami-county-decides-to-refuse-refugee-resettlement/amp/ The county I am from in Mn voted to accept refugees however there is a movement to get people to attend an upcoming meeting trying to get them to reconsider. There is fear that Minnesota because of slow population growth may lose one of its 8 seats in Congress and also go from 10 electoral votes down to 9. It is my understanding that the entire state of Texas has opted out of the resettlement program as well. https://www.texastribune.org/2020/01/10/abbott-tells-trump-administration-texas-wont-resettle-refugees/ I support accepting refugees. Thoughts?

Regardless of how anyone feels the people who live there voted. One county voted one way, one county voted another way.  Honor both results.

 

[lazyike]

It appears the reasoning for wanting to keep accepting the refugees is focused on the population loss and MN potentially losing congressional seats and electoral votes?

Actually I think its the right thing to do, the Christian thing to do.Taking them in truthfully will probably not make much difference in regards to population growth

 

[whoknew]

Texas’s horrible governor announced we will not accept refugees in 2020. 
 

These are shameful times. 

 

[AAABatteries]

What is required of a jurisdiction that votes to accept refugees?  I tried reading that article and the one linked from it but couldn’t find it.

Tangent - most online articles are just horrible to read, the ads and layout make me not want to even bother

 

[[icon]]

Allowing states to determine if they want to participate is absolutely the right way to handle this.

Seems there are plenty of "blue states" Full of folks who vehemently opposed our border policy. Here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is and invite these refugees to live as neighbors. California could easily absorb everyone in the program now. 

Problem solves itself IMO. 

 

[whoknew]

Not that it will make any difference but I will be calling Abbott's office Monday morning to let him know that he is a disgrace.

 

[jonessed]

Allowing states to determine if they want to participate is absolutely the right way to handle this.

Seems there are plenty of "blue states" Full of folks who vehemently opposed our border policy. Here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is and invite these refugees to live as neighbors. California could easily absorb everyone in the program now. 

Problem solves itself IMO. 

At least Texas is upfront about not wanting to build the capacity.  California just invites them in and dumps them on the street.  Pro-refugee, anti-housing.  

Welcome to your new home.  Locals call it the underpass.

 

[Amused to Death]

At least Texas is upfront about not wanting to build the capacity.  California just invites them in and dumps them on the street.  Pro-refugee, anti-housing.  

Welcome to your new home.  Locals call it the underpass.

They are hounded down
To the bottom of a bad town
Amid the ruins
Where they learn to fear
An angry race of fallen kings
Their dark companions
While the memory of
Their southern sky was clouded by
A savage winter
Every patron saint
Hung on the wall, shared the room
With twenty sinners

See the glory
Of the royal scam

 

[Stealthycat]

so allow refugee's because of political motive/gain ?

what is the core problem with the population going DOWN ?  

 

[The General]

so allow refugee's because of political motive/gain ?

what is the core problem with the population going DOWN ?  

People don’t want to, catch afford to, Probably a lot of things.

Not really a problem IMO.

 

[Zegras11]

so allow refugee's because of political motive/gain ?

what is the core problem with the population going DOWN ?  

economies crashing

 

[the moops]

There is fear that Minnesota because of slow population growth may lose one of its 8 seats in Congress and also go from 10 electoral votes down to 9.

This fear is completely unfounded. MN is ranks 20th with a 6.9% population growth over the past decade. And is ranked 25th in population per electoral vote.

And also, Beltrami county was the only county so far in the state to vote not accept refugees. I am skeptical that any of the other 24 counties who voted yes, voted so because of a fear of losing an electoral vote.

 

[huthut]

In general, helping refugees settle here is a great thing.  Hard to think of things more American than welcoming people that have nothing else.

How I read this argument from Republicans always seems to translate in my mind as "But what if they are not white?". Trump himself said he is ok if we had more immigrants from Sweden, so it is not like immigration is the core issue behind the decision. 

 

[Dickies]

so allow refugee's because of political motive/gain ?

what is the core problem with the population going DOWN ?  

Supporting the entitled boomers

 

[Stealthycat]

People don’t want to, catch afford to, Probably a lot of things.

Not really a problem IMO.

do ya think all the refugee's will ADD to the solution or ADD to the problem ? why won't they all leave in 6 months for the same reasons ?

 

[Stealthycat]

economies crashing

why ?

would adding thousands who have low skills, likely not speak English well and have a monetary COST to the communities they are brought into ?

I see many reasons to not allow refugee's ... the USA allows millions every year to come here legally, we are the most generous nation on the planet when it comes to that. Its not unlimited anymore though because of the negatives involved

I can easily see NOT wanting refugee's 

 

[Stealthycat]

Supporting the entitled boomers

I doubt they all get great paying jobs .... anyone making under what, $40K a year or more? they don't really pay income taxes, they get money BACK from the IRS

Refugee's will not be high wage earners, they'll all qualify for social care/aid almost for sure, right ?

 

[The General]

do ya think all the refugee's will ADD to the solution or ADD to the problem ? why won't they all leave in 6 months for the same reasons ?

I don’t know. It’s probably more complex than simply being “good” or “bad”.

I was commenting on the population going down being a problem.

 

[Dickies]

I doubt they all get great paying jobs .... anyone making under what, $40K a year or more? they don't really pay income taxes, they get money BACK from the IRS

Refugee's will not be high wage earners, they'll all qualify for social care/aid almost for sure, right ?

Why do you assume all refugees are unskilled?

 

[ren hoek]

There's really no good reason a human being can't migrate to and settle different parts of the earth than where they are from.  The idea of a 'good legal citizen' versus an undocumented person seems totally arbitrary to me.  I don't really give a #### if people can recall trivia about George Washington.  I think we should screen for disease and so forth but beyond that I support people seeking a better livelihood for themselves.  

I also support ending the wars and foreign intervention, which sometimes cause mass immigration in the first place.  Obama's support for the coup in Honduras and dirty war in Syria both caused immigration crises.  There's no telling the damage Trump's work in Latin America and Iran will do.  Arguments in favor of a conscious immigration system need to address the conditions that create the need for them in the first place.  

 

[the moops]

why ?

would adding thousands who have low skills, likely not speak English well and have a monetary COST to the communities they are brought into ?

I see many reasons to not allow refugee's ... the USA allows millions every year to come here legally, we are the most generous nation on the planet when it comes to that. Its not unlimited anymore though because of the negatives involved

I can easily see NOT wanting refugee's 

We should accept refugees not because they add to our GDP, but because we have the means and it is the right, moral thing to do. Not everything should revoolve around whether it means more money in our pockets. That is a sad way to live life.

And also - in 2018, Canada accepted more refugees than the US by a large margin. 28,000 to 22,900. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48696974

 

[huthut]

would adding thousands who have low skills, likely not speak English well and have a monetary COST to the communities they are brought into ?

Do you have any evidence of this? Most data I can find shows that even though they are more likely to be on social programs, they still tend to generate more tax revenue than they receive.

https://www.businessinsider.com/refugees-pay-more-in-taxes-than-they-collect-in-benefits-2017-8

 

[jon_mx]

At least Texas is upfront about not wanting to build the capacity.  California just invites them in and dumps them on the street.  Pro-refugee, anti-housing.  

Welcome to your new home.  Locals call it the underpass.

California is a mess.  You need to be selective on who is allowed in and allow them to be productive and not leeches.  

 

[parasaurolophus]

Do you have any evidence of this? Most data I can find shows that even though they are more likely to be on social programs, they still tend to generate more tax revenue than they receive.

https://www.businessinsider.com/refugees-pay-more-in-taxes-than-they-collect-in-benefits-2017-8

These studies almost never assign any infrastructure costs, agency costs, or any other costs that obviously increase with more people in the country. As far as I can tell this one doesn't either. They also didn't factor in any criminal justice costs. 

 

[huthut]

These studies almost never assign any infrastructure costs, agency costs, or any other costs that obviously increase with more people in the country. As far as I can tell this one doesn't either. They also didn't factor in any criminal justice costs. 

I would be interested in seeing a study that does provide that data if you have it available. 

 

[Philo Beddoe]

These studies almost never assign any infrastructure costs, agency costs, or any other costs that obviously increase with more people in the country. As far as I can tell this one doesn't either. They also didn't factor in any criminal justice costs. 

They also never factor in any costs at the state and local level. If we just take the State of California, About 250,000 undocumented children between the ages of 3 and 17 are enrolled in California public schools progressive education reform advocacy group

at $12,143 per pupil Student Spending they are spending over 3 billion annually just on education. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

I would be interested in seeing a study that does provide that data if you have it available. 

Those studies seem to all have their worts too, unfortunately. This is one of those issues that the desired result seems to get achieved by the studies. 

The easiest thing for me to evaluate costs is to simply look at income levels. The government runs at a deficit. So I find it completely disingenuous to conclude that people that generally fall on the lower end of income levels would be a net gain. If that were true we would not run at deficit. 

Obviously none of this is any kind of end all be all. Even if somebody draws the conclusion that it is a net cost it doesn't eliminate all other discussion of the merits of immigration.     

 

[parasaurolophus]

They also never factor in any costs at the state and local level. If we just take the State of California, About 250,000 undocumented children between the ages of 3 and 17 are enrolled in California public schools progressive education reform advocacy group

at $12,143 per pupil Student Spending they are spending over 3 billion annually just on education. 

Well sure, but again these are some of the worts I was talking about. That is illegal immigrants. We are discussing refugees which is legal immigration.

 

[huthut]

I would argue that people are also an investment. You need people to buy things, which then support other people to buy things etc to drive the economy. There are large regions of the country that are dying or will die economically because the population is shrinking and the median age is rising. If you want those areas to survive, you are going to need people, and it is not like a bunch of college graduates are going to move to rural Ohio to make an economy out of nothing.

I am not saying that there is no cost when it comes to paying for school and other social benefits for refugees or immigrants, and there might even be people that end up costing more than they generate, but as an aggregated group, the life-time of generating taxes and contributing to the local economy will more than make up for the upfront costs.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

Well sure, but again these are some of the worts I was talking about. That is illegal immigrants. We are discussing refugees which is legal immigration.

I have a hard time seeing where folks draw the line these days. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

I would argue that people are also an investment. You need people to buy things, which then support other people to buy things etc to drive the economy. There are large regions of the country that are dying or will die economically because the population is shrinking and the median age is rising. If you want those areas to survive, you are going to need people, and it is not like a bunch of college graduates are going to move to rural Ohio to make an economy out of nothing.

I am not saying that there is no cost when it comes to paying for school and other social benefits for refugees or immigrants, and there might even be people that end up costing more than they generate, but as an aggregated group, the life-time of generating taxes and contributing to the local economy will more than make up for the upfront costs.

Pittsburgh is a pretty good counter argument to the first paragraph.

Houston is a pretty good counter argument to the second. 

 

[Stealthycat]

Why do you assume all refugees are unskilled?

can you show me I'm wrong ?

 

[Stealthycat]

There's really no good reason a human being can't migrate to and settle different parts of the earth than where they are from.

except that many countries don't allow it or are so bad as far as rules/laws/human rights/violence/war etc that nobody would want to go there ...

best reason I can think of for not being allowed is what if 20 million people went to Denmark and settled next year, few of them working, all of them sucking off the free social care .... can you imagine the implosion if such a thing were to happen ? So ... its not allowed, right ? (just a gross example but the reality of the impacts of immigrants is real)

 

[Stealthycat]

We should accept refugees not because they add to our GDP, but because we have the means and it is the right, moral thing to do. Not everything should revoolve around whether it means more money in our pockets. That is a sad way to live life.

And also - in 2018, Canada accepted more refugees than the US by a large margin. 28,000 to 22,900. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48696974

we allow more to come into the USA via VISA's, work permits, students etc etc not to mention the millions of illegally here people

how does Canada stack up to those numbers?

money DOES matter .... like it or not

 

[Dickies]

can you show me I'm wrong ?

Link

Question: Do Refugees Come to the United States with Low Levels of Education?

Fact: Refugees are more likely to have a high school degree than other immigrants, and just as likely as the U.S. born to have gradu- ated from college. Seventy-five percent of ref- ugee adults in the 2009-11 period had at least a high school education—above the 68 percent rate for other immigrants but below the 89 per- cent rate for U.S.-born adults.13 Twenty-eight percent of refugee adults had at least a four- year college degree, roughly equivalent to the 29 percent of U.S.-born adults and 27 percent
of other immigrants with degrees.

 

[Stealthycat]

Link

Question: Do Refugees Come to the United States with Low Levels of Education?

Fact: Refugees are more likely to have a high school degree than other immigrants, and just as likely as the U.S. born to have gradu- ated from college. Seventy-five percent of ref- ugee adults in the 2009-11 period had at least a high school education—above the 68 percent rate for other immigrants but below the 89 per- cent rate for U.S.-born adults.13 Twenty-eight percent of refugee adults had at least a four- year college degree, roughly equivalent to the 29 percent of U.S.-born adults and 27 percent
of other immigrants with degrees.

Is that for Syrian only ?

 

[Dickies]

Is that for Syrian only ?

No, but the fact sheet says at the end that Syrian refugees are statistically even more educated than the overall pool of refugees and US-born adults.

 

[huthut]

Pittsburgh is a pretty good counter argument to the first paragraph.

Houston is a pretty good counter argument to the second. 

I have never been to Pittsburgh or Houston. Do you have any sources I can read that go into the financial problems that refugees or other immigrants are causing in those communities?

 

[lazyike]

Another situation that goes all the way back to 2015 in a small city in rural Mn with a population around 15,000. It has a turkey processing plant and the complaint by the individual is how refugees keep moving to the same area with other refugees and getting jobs that are in the production line that pays below a living wage ( current wage is about $13/ hr) and they end up getting government assistance. 

- should we assume that they will never get promoted to higher paying jobs within the company?

- Do those that oppose refugee resettlement think the turkey processing plant is a detriment to the community because it’s lowest paying jobs pay below a living wage? I bet most in the community of Willmar and farmers in the area think otherwise

-is this an argument for a $15/ hr minimum wage or should economic development groups not pursue businesses that pay workers lower starting wages?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dhiB8mtQ3Pg&feature=share

 

[parasaurolophus]

I have never been to Pittsburgh or Houston. Do you have any sources I can read that go into the financial problems that refugees or other immigrants are causing in those communities?

Pittsburgh is an example of a city that hasnt folded due to population decline.

Houston is an example of a city that had a huge immigrant population boom and sustained much greater damage from a hurricane because of it and it still hasnt recovered in most of those areas.

 

[huthut]

Pittsburgh is an example of a city that hasnt folded due to population decline.

Houston is an example of a city that had a huge immigrant population boom and sustained much greater damage from a hurricane because of it and it still hasnt recovered in most of those areas.

Thanks, I appreciate you providing some context to me about why you listed those cities, as I knew nothing about them. 

For the article about Pittsburgh (and a few other listed cities), the focus is essentially how they are the exception to the rule, implying that generally with population decline you do get a negative impact on the city. It mentions Pittsburgh is seeing success for reasons that other similar cities are not due to (bolding mine):

Pittsburgh has more STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) jobs than other shrinking cities, about 80,000 or 7 percent of all jobs. 

Manufacturers of high-tech medical devices in the Pittsburgh area have doubled employment in the last 10 years. Jobs in scientific research and computer systems design also have played prominent roles in the region’s success.

The final piece of the puzzle came in the mid-2000s, when fracking in the Marcellus Shale, much of it near Pittsburgh, made Pennsylvania a top producer of U.S. natural gas.

Blue-collar jobs in natural gas plants pay an average of $65,000, according to 2017 federal pay statistics. Similar jobs at similar wages can be found in Huntington, New Orleans, Beaumont and Springfield.

“What makes places different is, do they still have manufacturing? Do they still have [energy] extraction?” said Anthony Carnevale, director of the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce. “Those are the things that tend to hold up over time.”

However, the article has plenty of discussion that goes against the idea that population decline is not bad (italics mine):

But high-paying jobs in education and health care can disappear if the population declines too dramatically.

“If you go through small towns, you’ll always see that the one with the hospital has some good jobs,” Carnevale said. “But if the population is too elderly and rural — that’s just one generation burying the last. It’s not sustainable. There’s going to be some consolidation of health care, I think, into more urban areas.”

Over the long term, however, maintaining prosperity in the face of population loss may be difficult.

John Deskins, director of the state Bureau of Business and Economic Research at West Virginia University, said that despite “bright spots” at regional hospitals and power plants, Huntington (another city described in the article with increased per capita income but a population decrease) needs to do a better job of keeping its young people, who are leaving the area for better opportunities elsewhere. Their departure inflates income per capita but is a troubling sign for long-term prosperity. The Huntington area is likely to see more population loss in the coming years because of aging and poor health related to coal mining and opioid abuse. As a result, much of the income growth will come from raises in Social Security, disability insurance and other government payments, according to projections published by Deskins’ office.

But high-paying jobs in education and health care can disappear if the population declines too dramatically.

“If you go through small towns, you’ll always see that the one with the hospital has some good jobs,” Carnevale said. “But if the population is too elderly and rural — that’s just one generation burying the last. It’s not sustainable. There’s going to be some consolidation of health care, I think, into more urban areas.”

For the Houston article, it does not seem that the increased damage from the Hurricane is specifically from the immigration boom, but more from the poor building zoning/planning that is specific to Houston and a sort of obviousness (to me) that having a higher population means higher recovery costs. If an earthquake levels Barstow in CA it will cost a lot less to rebuild than if one levels San Francisco, but I would not make the assumption that Barstow is a better or more successful city because of that. 

I am not sure I am swayed by your argument, but providing the articles has allowed me to think more about both the topic on hand and where you are coming from in your perspective, so thanks again for providing them. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

Thanks, I appreciate you providing some context to me about why you listed those cities, as I knew nothing about them. 

For the article about Pittsburgh (and a few other listed cities), the focus is essentially how they are the exception to the rule, implying that generally with population decline you do get a negative impact on the city. It mentions Pittsburgh is seeing success for reasons that other similar cities are not due to (bolding mine):

However, the article has plenty of discussion that goes against the idea that population decline is not bad (italics mine):

For the Houston article, it does not seem that the increased damage from the Hurricane is specifically from the immigration boom, but more from the poor building zoning/planning that is specific to Houston and a sort of obviousness (to me) that having a higher population means higher recovery costs. If an earthquake levels Barstow in CA it will cost a lot less to rebuild than if one levels San Francisco, but I would not make the assumption that Barstow is a better or more successful city because of that. 

I am not sure I am swayed by your argument, but providing the articles has allowed me to think more about both the topic on hand and where you are coming from in your perspective, so thanks again for providing them. 

Poor building, zoning and planning is a direct result of an immigration boom, especially on the building side. Now some of that is clouded by illegal immigration so as always it is a bit tough to differentiate, but the two seem to go hand in hand.