• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who should be granted refugee status in the USA?

Who should be granted refugee status in the USA?

  • Anyone facing religious persecution

    Votes: 13 65.0%

  • Anyone facing ethnic or racial persecution

    Votes: 13 65.0%

  • Anyone facing imprisonment as political prisoners

    Votes: 10 50.0%

  • Anyone in a region that is in war or civil war

    Votes: 14 70.0%

  • Any woman who wants an abortion where they are illegal

    Votes: 3 15.0%

  • Anyone in a region controlled by violent gangs or drug cartels

    Votes: 12 60.0%

  • Anyone in a region of severe poverty

    Votes: 3 15.0%

  • Anyone unable to obtain live-saving medical care in their own country

    Votes: 5 25.0%

  • Generally only Latinos for any I checked

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No to all above. Only allow people on a merit system beneficial to the USA

    Votes: 7 35.0%
  • Total voters
    20
J

joko104

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This list, if all checked, is probably over half the population on earth. I included the "Latinos only" option for those who want this mostly limited only to people who can get here somehow on their own - meaning you then oppose ethnic and racial diversity in immigration.
 
Who should be granted refugee status in the USA?
Click to expand...

i'd say people who will be in danger if they get sent back to their countries of origin should be first in line for refugee status.
 
joko104 said:
This list, if all checked, is probably over half the population on earth. I included the "Latinos only" option for those who want this mostly limited only to people who can get here somehow on their own - meaning you then oppose ethnic and racial diversity in immigration.
Click to expand...

Any and every person who is actually a refugee, limited by our ability to cope with the influx of people.

Edit: Of course, determining who qualifies as a refugee is the question...
And the issue with that is that each case differs.
 
Last edited:
Helix said:
i'd say people who will be in danger if they get sent back to their countries of origin should be first in line for refugee status.
Click to expand...

Any numerical limit to how many? Many people all over the world live in countries where nearly everyone in the country is in danger. Is anyone in Columbia, Syria, Somalia and near all impoverished regions of the world are in constant danger. Any woman in many Muslim countries is in constant danger. Any area of lawlessness or controlled by gangs or drug cartels is in constant danger. N. Korea, many other impoverished areas of S. American and Africa.

What would be the standard of determining the level of danger? The person's word?
 
The Mark said:
Any and every person who is actually a refugee, limited by our ability to cope with the influx of people.

Edit: Of course, determining who qualifies as a refugee is the question...
And the issue with that is that each case differs.
Click to expand...

That is a non-response. Define "refugee."
 
While I injected on partisanship into the poll, the most MASSIVE shift of the Democratic Party is a shift from supporting border security and limiting immigration, to essentially open borders, but denying that is their platform. At least 1 billion and probably closer to 3 billion people could qualify for "refugee" status if the standard is the person faces life-threat dangers of various kinds in their own country.

Nor in terms of "refugees" will the Democratic Party - nor have I ever seen any member of the forum - state a numeric limit of how many refugees we take in. Is there a limit? 100 million? 500 million? 1 billion? If it become essentially official (as it seems it nearly is) that no one will be deported that would seem to open the floodgate to the rest of the world. Most Americans in "poverty" are virtually wealthy compared to the income levels of probably half the population of the world. Anyone can say "I fear for my life" making up a story - or it may even be real danger.

I also believe open borders/immigration is the #1 driving force behind Republican voters, and to the opposite a large number of Democrat voters.

Are ANY of you willing to set a maximum number of refugees would would allow it - assuming they all legitimately are "refugees?"
 
Casper said:
List? What List?????
Click to expand...

Only list I know of is the one the president draws up annually, around this time I think, where he lists ethnicities and/or nationalities we will bring to the US from overseas and sets numerical standards. This is a year (or more) long screening process that involves screening and review of people, often after the UNHCR has already screened them. The other main category are asylum seekers, people who are here or seek entry, claiming they will face persecution if they are returned home, whose claims are examined on the border or in the interior. The former “list” rarely includes Latin Americans, to the best of my memory.
 
joko104 said:
Any numerical limit to how many? Many people all over the world live in countries where nearly everyone in the country is in danger. Is anyone in Columbia, Syria, Somalia and near all impoverished regions of the world are in constant danger. Any woman in many Muslim countries is in constant danger. Any area of lawlessness or controlled by gangs or drug cartels is in constant danger. N. Korea, many other impoverished areas of S. American and Africa.

What would be the standard of determining the level of danger? The person's word?
Click to expand...

the vetting process seems pretty thorough. i don't worry about it that much. i'm much more likely to be killed by a car or a clogged artery. also, the people who are most worried about immigrants are the same ones who decided that it would be a good idea to let Trump run the country. that's ****ing insane.
 
Persecution for being LGBT also should be on the list, but only 10 are allowed. In probably over half the world LGBTs are persecuted to various degrees. Should we give refugee status to every Muslim in a country that persecuted gays merely for the person saying "I'm gay?" The same for many Muslim countries if you do not strictly practice Islam. That alone could apply to at least 10 million people.

What about Palestinians? Give all Palestinians refugee status? White South Africans?
 
Helix said:
the vetting process seems pretty thorough. i don't worry about it that much. i'm much more likely to be killed by a car or a clogged artery. also, the people who are most worried about immigrants are the same ones who decided that it would be a good idea to let Trump run the country. that's ****ing insane.
Click to expand...

I suppose you can try to make this another thread to rant against Trump. Overall your message asserts a strawman not stated. In my opinion, the "dangers" are not "crime," but economic. The wages of blue collar American workers has fallen as much as over 50% in spending power over the last few decades and most trade unions are dead. Massive numbers of cheap labor immigrants in largely the cause. How much debt can the USA take on to care for all the desperate people of the entire world?

Maybe it would make more sense to have them stay in their own country and send them food, housing and medical care money in their own country, plus money to move to a safer area? Just put the entire world onto the USA's social programs, since that is what illegal migration is largely about.
 
joko104 said:
That is a non-response. Define "refugee."
Click to expand...
Someone who has untenable difficulties imposed upon them by others for reasons which are bull****.
Difficulties they cannot overcome in the environment of their home.

More simply, people who are persecuted directly by their government, or indirectly by it's inaction.

People fleeing wars and other forms of violence, generally.
 
joko104 said:
That is a non-response. Define "refugee."
Click to expand...
m

The legal definition is a person outside their country and unable or unwilling to avail themselves of its protection due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on (or on account of) their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
Something close to that.

As you might imagine there are guidelines and legal interpretations of all the terms included in the definition.
 
joko104 said:
This list, if all checked, is probably over half the population on earth. I included the "Latinos only" option for those who want this mostly limited only to people who can get here somehow on their own - meaning you then oppose ethnic and racial diversity in immigration.
Click to expand...
How about we use what we already have
 
joko104 said:
I suppose you can try to make this another thread to rant against Trump.
Click to expand...

happy to do so because **** that cult.

joko104 said:
Overall your message asserts a strawman not stated. In my opinion, the "dangers" are not "crime," but economic. The wages of blue collar American workers has fallen as much as over 50% in spending power over the last few decades and most trade unions are dead. Massive numbers of cheap labor immigrants in largely the cause. How much debt can the USA take on to care for all the desperate people of the entire world?

Maybe it would make more sense to have them stay in their own country and send them food, housing and medical care money in their own country, plus money to move to a safer area? Just put the entire world onto the USA's social programs, since that is what illegal migration is largely about.
Click to expand...

what i posted :

Helix said:
the vetting process seems pretty thorough. i don't worry about it that much. i'm much more likely to be killed by a car or a clogged artery. also, the people who are most worried about immigrants are the same ones who decided that it would be a good idea to let Trump run the country. that's ****ing insane.
Click to expand...

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...he-problem-of-automation-for-american-workers

as for the real threat to workers, it's automation. i don't see a good way to address that. however, sending central Americans back home to be killed sure as **** won't do it. i don't worry that much about refugees taking my job.
 
Automation displaces the same jobs ‘refugees’ will.
 
The Mark said:
Someone who has untenable difficulties imposed upon them by others for reasons which are bull****.
Difficulties they cannot overcome in the environment of their home.

More simply, people who are persecuted directly by their government, or indirectly by it's inaction.

People fleeing wars and other forms of violence, generally.
Click to expand...

A couple billion people would qualify.
 
joko104 said:
Persecution for being LGBT also should be on the list, but only 10 are allowed. In probably over half the world LGBTs are persecuted to various degrees. Should we give refugee status to every Muslim in a country that persecuted gays merely for the person saying "I'm gay?" The same for many Muslim countries if you do not strictly practice Islam. That alone could apply to at least 10 million people.

What about Palestinians? Give all Palestinians refugee status? White South Africans?
Click to expand...

Gays would qualify for refugee status as members of a “social group,” one of the protected classs in refugee law. Don’t understand the”only ten are allowed” comment.

In practice, not all people who are persecuted in a particular country come to one country or another. The US was very generous to people fleeing communist countries during the Cold War, stingy to people fleeing right wing dictatorships. But neither type approached the US in numbers suggested by your post. There is a general principle of “burden sharing” with respect to refugees, with, say, Thailand accepting so many refilugees in the 1970s from Vietnam with the understanding that the US and other countries would take many of them in. Same thing probably applies nowadays with Syrians, though Trump may have upset things in that case.
 
Helix said:
happy to do so because **** that cult.



what i posted :



https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...he-problem-of-automation-for-american-workers

as for the real threat to workers, it's automation. i don't see a good way to address that. however, sending central Americans back home to be killed sure as **** won't do it. i don't worry that much about refugees taking my job.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm not posting about what you worry about.

I was a union steward in a packinghouse and saw what illegal migrants did to the packinghouse industry. The actual butcher's union went broke and shut down. Wages in packinghouses now are less than 50% in spending power than they were 3 decades ago. This was the result of huge packinghouses opened in Missouri and Iowa that employed illegal migrants at wages that in real terms were less than minimum wage.

Few entry level blue collar jobs involve any automation.
 
Nickyjo said:
Gays would qualify for refugee status as members of a “social group,” one of the protected classs in refugee law. Don’t understand the”only ten are allowed” comment.

In practice, not all people who are persecuted in a particular country come to one country or another. The US was very generous to people fleeing communist countries during the Cold War, stingy to people fleeing right wing dictatorships. But neither type approached the US in numbers suggested by your post. There is a general principle of “burden sharing” with respect to refugees, with, say, Thailand accepting so many refilugees in the 1970s from Vietnam with the understanding that the US and other countries would take many of them in. Same thing probably applies nowadays with Syrians, though Trump may have upset things in that case.
Click to expand...

Only 10 polls questions allowed.

People should deal with problems within their own countries. By taking in refugees we are in effect protecting evil, corrupt governments by being the bleed off valve for opposition.

Vietnam was different because our presence is what made the risk to Vietnamese who supported our efforts and mistakenly relied upon our promise to remain until victorious.
 
joko104 said:
Only 10 polls questions allowed.

People should deal with problems within their own countries. By taking in refugees we are in effect protecting evil, corrupt governments by being the bleed off valve for opposition.

Vietnam was different because our presence is what made the risk to Vietnamese who supported our efforts and mistakenly relied upon our promise to remain until victorious.
Click to expand...

Refugee law and principle are based, morally/spiritually if you will, among other things on the lessons of the holocaust, when Jews fleeing Germany were turned away, sent back and died. The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (1948) specficallyvwrtten in response to the events of WWII, states that everyone has the right to leave their country and to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution in other countries. Firemen don’t send people back into a burning building with buckets of water and instructions to put out the fire. Are you suggesting that Mary, Joseph and Jesus should have stayed and fought Herod rather than flee to Egypt? Get real.
 
Nickyjo said:
Refugee law and principle are based, morally/spiritually if you will, among other things on the lessons of the holocaust, when Jews fleeing Germany were turned away, sent back and died. The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (1948) specficallyvwrtten in response to the events of WWII, states that everyone has the right to leave their country and to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution in other countries. Firemen don’t send people back into a burning building with buckets of water and instructions to put out the fire. Are you suggesting that Mary, Joseph and Jesus should have stayed and fought Herod rather than flee to Egypt? Get real.
Click to expand...

Do YOU live by that standard you moralize about? How many homeless people have you taken in? What have you given up for illegal migrants?

I'll ask you the same question: What numerical limit - if any - do you set on how many refugees should we allow into the USA? Give a number total and per year?
 
joko104 said:
Do YOU live by that standard you moralize about? How many homeless people have you taken in? What have you given up for illegal migrants?

I'll ask you the same question: What numerical limit - if any - do you set on how many refugees should we allow into the USA? Give a number total and per year?
Click to expand...

I don’t set the standard. As I remember it from 17 years ago when I worked in the field, each year the prez sends a memo to the Department of State indicating regions of the world and the numbers and nationalities of refugees the US might admit in the coming fiscal year. Back then it seemed to be 50-80,000. You might be able to get past yearly totals from the DOS website.

The international system seemed to work fairly well, with aid going to refugees in camps through the UNHCR or other agencies, and various countries pitching in to resettle various numbers. The US was traditionally very generous and played a leadership role in urging others to live up their pledges to share the burden of resettlement and the prohibition of forcible return.

As to my wn efforts, I worked for 20 years helping asylum seekers who were mostly illegals, visited about 30 detention facilities, prisons and jails to interview then and reported on conditions. I contributed to the efforts of many others who urged major changes in the asylum system that came about in the first Bush administration, did some training of US officials charged with deciding asylum claims from certain countries, testified in immigration court a couple of times and submitted written testimony to a Senate committee. This was based on my experience reviewing up to 1200 asylilum claims per year representing several dozen countries, and writing a few hundred opinion letters on the claims. It was a great experience, and I still cherish the thank you letters from refilugees and their attorneys.

As to the homeless, I live in an area that is fairly generous to homeless and am happy to pay the property taxes to make this possible. We all do our part.
 
Nickyjo said:
I don’t set the standard. As I remember it from 17 years ago when I worked in the field, each year the prez sends a memo to the Department of State indicating regions of the world and the numbers and nationalities of refugees the US might admit in the coming fiscal year. Back then it seemed to be 50-80,000. You might be able to get past yearly totals from the DOS website.

The international system seemed to work fairly well, with aid going to refugees in camps through the UNHCR or other agencies, and various countries pitching in to resettle various numbers. The US was traditionally very generous and played a leadership role in urging others to live up their pledges to share the burden of resettlement and the prohibition of forcible return.

As to my wn efforts, I worked for 20 years helping asylum seekers who were mostly illegals, visited about 30 detention facilities, prisons and jails to interview then and reported on conditions. I contributed to the efforts of many others who urged major changes in the asylum system that came about in the first Bush administration, did some training of US officials charged with deciding asylum claims from certain countries, testified in immigration court a couple of times and submitted written testimony to a Senate committee. This was based on my experience reviewing up to 1200 asylilum claims per year representing several dozen countries, and writing a few hundred opinion letters on the claims. It was a great experience, and I still cherish the thank you letters from refilugees and their attorneys.

As to the homeless, I live in an area that is fairly generous to homeless and am happy to pay the property taxes to make this possible. We all do our part.
Click to expand...

Good response!
 
joko104 said:
Actually, I'm not posting about what you worry about.

I was a union steward in a packinghouse and saw what illegal migrants did to the packinghouse industry. The actual butcher's union went broke and shut down. Wages in packinghouses now are less than 50% in spending power than they were 3 decades ago. This was the result of huge packinghouses opened in Missouri and Iowa that employed illegal migrants at wages that in real terms were less than minimum wage.

Few entry level blue collar jobs involve any automation.
Click to expand...

"Illegal migrants" didn't do it. Management did it with the help of workers foolish enough to vote for anti-labor Republicans. And yes, automation is the real threat now for many, many jobs.
 
Other Mideast countries should take in Mideast refugees. Other South American countries should take in South America refugees. We should adopt merit based immigration like other sensible countries have done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom