3 ms·

It's basically raising the point that there are a lot of refugees and we can't take all of them. The US currently has a cap of 50,000 refugees a year (after Tru

It's basically raising the point that there are a lot of refugees and we can't take all of them. The US currently has a cap of 50,000 refugees a year (after Trump's executive order; Obama pushed for a 110,000 cap) but there are something like 60 million refugees in the world today. So even if we increased our already large efforts to help refugees it's still a drop in the bucket. So they advocate reducing our refugee cap further, since it's a financial burden that doesn't make a serious impact. It also points out that if we take the successful people from other countries and allow them to come here, then the rest of the world will get brain-drain. I think that's a fair characterization of their argument, but I think it's wrong. It's the classic Nirvana fallacy: because something isn't perfect there's no point in trying. Like arguing there's no point in having seatbelts because you can still die in a car crash. We may not be able to help all refugees, but we can help some of them. And that may not seem that important in the big picture, but it means a hell of a lot to the ones we do help.

exabrial 9y ago
I agree, that's a fair characterization. But please don't say I said: "it's not worth doing." Re-read my original comment. My point is we're not solving any sort of world crisis with immigration, so by people selling immigration as "we're changing the world" we have the potential to put refugee countries in far worse positions than they are now.
- openasocket 9y ago
  True, you didn't say it's not worth doing, but you called it "100% political pandering," which certainly makes it sound like you don't like the refugee program. I agree immigration isn't going to "change the world". And I understand the argument that general immigration programs could potentially cause brain drain for these countries, but not the refugee program. Refugee visas are given based on need, it doesn't prioritize the smartest and the most successful like other visa programs, so it can't cause that brain drain effect. Also, I am skeptical of the argument that refugee programs incentivize people to stay in refugee camps in hopes of being relocated as NumbersUSA claims. Refugee camps are pretty terrible places, few people would stay in one if they didn't have to. And the odds of being selected for resettlement are extremely rare.

exabrial 9y ago

I agree, that's a fair characterization. But please don't say I said: "it's not worth doing." Re-read my original comment. My point is we're not solving any sort of world crisis with immigration, so by people selling immigration as "we're changing the world" we have the potential to put refugee countries in far worse positions than they are now.

openasocket 9y ago
True, you didn't say it's not worth doing, but you called it "100% political pandering," which certainly makes it sound like you don't like the refugee program. I agree immigration isn't going to "change the world". And I understand the argument that general immigration programs could potentially cause brain drain for these countries, but not the refugee program. Refugee visas are given based on need, it doesn't prioritize the smartest and the most successful like other visa programs, so it can't cause that brain drain effect. Also, I am skeptical of the argument that refugee programs incentivize people to stay in refugee camps in hopes of being relocated as NumbersUSA claims. Refugee camps are pretty terrible places, few people would stay in one if they didn't have to. And the odds of being selected for resettlement are extremely rare.