3 ms·
> Letting in refugees is more about helping the refugees, and less about what's best for the US. OK, but at some point it has to make mathematical sense. If y
by xienze 9y ago
> Letting in refugees is more about helping the refugees, and less about what's best for the US.
OK, but at some point it has to make mathematical sense. If you basically announce "come here and you'll have income for life!" what exactly do you think will happen? That no one will try to take advantage of the system? I mean you already have refugees passing through multiple European countries just to get to the ones with the best benefits (Germany, Sweden).
- openasocket 9y agoFor the US, the refugee visa is one of the hardest to get. It takes like 2 years on average, requires the most extensive background checks and interviews by intelligence agencies, and of course you have to prove you are in danger and have urgent need for it. Also, there is a 50,000 cap on how many refugees the US can take in per year (It was at 70,000 and Obama was pushing to raise it to 110,000, but it was cut by Trump's executive order). As for the refugee crisis in Europe, my understanding is the reason refugees try to get to Germany and Sweden isn't because they have the best benefits, but because they have the most welcoming refugee programs, and are thus less likely to deport asylum seekers.
- xienze 9y ago> Also, there is a 50,000 cap on how many refugees the US can take in per year (It was at 70,000 and Obama was pushing to raise it to 110,000, but it was cut by Trump's executive order). So the next Democrat is elected and raises the cap... Also, you're forgetting that politicians really, really want to give illegal immigrants amnesty. Guess who's eligible for BI now? > isn't because they have the best benefits, but because they have the most welcoming refugee programs Funny how having the most welcoming program and having the best benefits go hand-in-hand.