The Immigration Conundrum

33055

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 8:06 am

FranticFrummie wrote:

DD really wants to go visit her BFF, who lives in Sweden, on the outskirts of Malmo. I'd love her to go and travel, see her friend, and experience Swedish culture, but I'd be lying if I said I felt comfortable with it.

DD has waist length blonde hair, and so does her friend. Blondes are favorite targets with immigrants who want to show what they think of Western women.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06.....tion/
http://www.breitbart.com/londo.....almo/
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.....-rape
The last thing I want, is to end up seeing her on FaceBook.
http://www.infowars.com/sweden.....live/

Interestingly, when I did a Google search for sources, I set it for "News", so I would filter out all of the blog chatter. I tried to find non biased sources, but everything I found was from conservative or independent sources. Liberal sites seem to hardly be covering this at all!

My fear is that America will become the next Sweden, based on the common values of inclusion, tolerance, diversity, open borders - and looking the other way when facts don't fit the agenda.

FF your fears are well grounded.

I am a brunette and not a young girl, and I felt threatened when I was continually stopped by Muslims asking for money when I visited Europe last year. I didn't feel comfortable because they were persistent and in my space. They get a generous stipend. It is disconcerting to say the least. This didn't happen when I was out with DH. They have no respect for women.

wondergirl

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 9:19 am

Raisin wrote:

Yes, the United States is definitely at risk from 12 year old girls.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the......html

So I am reading this story and cant make head and tails out of it. Perhaps you can clarify something for me:

quoting from the article

Quote:

On Thursday, Ahmed Mohammad Ahmed Ali was elated: His 12-year-old daughter had just received an immigrant visa. Ali, who is 38 years old and was born in Yemen, became a U.S. citizen in 2010 and has been living in the United States since 2004. He lives with his wife and his two other daughters, all of whom are also U.S. citizens, in Los Banos, California. Ali and his wife have been trying to get a green card for their 12-year-old since 2011. Their daughter, who has never been to the U.S., has been living in Yemen with Ali’s parents. (The girl was not automatically born into citizenship because her mother had not been living in the U.S. for five years prior to the child’s birth.)

So Ali came her in 2004 with his wife who is also his daughters mother. Presumably, they came together in 2004 which means that the daughter was either not born yet or a newborn. I want to assume that she was born in america because the article states that "her mother had not been living in the U.S. for five years prior to the child's birth" but then the article also says that the daughter "has never been to the U.S. before" which means that she was not born in america so her mother would not have been here either and her "not living in the U.S. for five years prior to the child's birth" is irrelevant.

So is the article saying that the mother left an unborn or newborn baby in her home country because the U.S. refused to let an infant in when they granted the mother permission to come here? Is Ali's wife not the 12 year olds mother?

If both Ali and his wife are American citizens and at least Ali had been an American citizen since 2010, then why did they wait so long to obtain a visa for the daughter he or they left behind in Yemen?

Fox

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 9:29 am

First of all, thank you, FF, for opening a respectful and mindful thread! While this subject happens to be in the news, it is analogous to decisions each of us must make on a daily basis.

The mother who takes pride in "doing everything" for her child typically raises a child for which everything must be done. What looks like compassion and help can become a straitjacket. Every mother, whether her child is 2 or 60, tries to balance the desire to step in and make everything all right and the knowledge that her child must sometimes face difficult, painful challenges in order to become more independent.

Mass immigration is not a popular thing to do. Most people do not enjoy uprooting their lives, leaving their homes, and starting from scratch in a new land with a new language. So when mass immigration becomes a reality, it means something is seriously broken.

In the case of immigration from the Middle East and North Africa, what is broken are governments and/or economies. In Syria, there are so many "belligerents" that it's almost impossible to keep track of the relationships.

But while it might seem compassionate to take in as many immigrants as possible from broken countries and economies, it has the same effect as over-protecting a child -- the countries and regions have no incentive to solve the problems themselves, and the solutions we impose will never be truly adequate.

Forcing countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE to step up to the plate is crucial, and they will not do so if NATO and other countries are willing to do the heavy lifting.

There was a news story that received scant coverage, but I think is very important:

Saudi Arabian journalist Muhammad Aal Al-Sheikh wrote an op-ed in the official Saudi newspaper entitled The Palestinians Have No Chance But Peace. As you can imagine, the op-ed was not flattering to Israel or Jews (seems we still control the wealth in America and exert too much influence on U.S. policy).

However, he wrote,

Quote:

The Palestinian cause is no longer a top priority for them [Arabs], because civil wars are literally pulverizing four Arab countries, and because fighting the ‘Islamic’ terrorism is the foremost concern that causes all Arabs, without exception, to lose sleep. It is folly to ask someone to sacrifice [tending to] his own problems and national interests in order to help [you solve] your own problems . . .

What [Palestinians] need to understand is that the Arabs of today are not the Arabs of yesterday, and that the Palestinian cause has lost ground among Arabs.”

All I can say to my Palestinian brethren is that stubbornness, contrariness and betting on the [support of] the Arab masses are a hopeless effort, and that ultimately you are the only ones who will pay the price of this stubbornness and contrariness.

Apparently the U.S. isn't the only country thinking about boundaries -- either literal or metaphoric.

When countries operating on broken governmental or economic models truly realize that Europe and North America cannot and will not solve their problems -- including taking in all of their dispossessed or discontented citizens -- they have a great deal more motivation to act responsibly, and in turn, their citizens will have greater hope.

Of course, we should accept refugees and immigrants. Unlike Japan, homogeneous ethnic identity is not a national value. But we must be realistic about our own safety and the long-term effects on the countries of origin. Having Europe and North America serve as helicopter parents to the world is not a good solution, even though it may look compassionate in the short-term.

Laiya

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 9:45 am

Raisin wrote:

Yes, the United States is definitely at risk from 12 year old girls.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the......html

To be clear, I think allowing free immigration is not a great idea either. I definitely think there are big problems in the Swedish and German models.

Nothing wrong with what the USA had previously. Immigration with security checks.

I was in both Germany and Sweden in the last five years and I don't recall any problems with immigrants. Maybe it got worse in the last year or two.

Plenty of muslim immigrants where I live, mostly young families. They seem pleasant and I have had no negative interactions.

There were concerns expressed by the intelligence community under Obama that what the US has had until now, wasn't adequate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com.....d3822

The plan is to come up with new terrorist vetting procedures. This ban is meant to be temporary, pending that.

I also just saw that Obama, GW Bush and Clinton each banned immigrants six times during their tenure, and Reagan four, as did Carter in 1980.

Germany let in over a million new immigrants in the last year or so iirc.

marina

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 9:51 am

Quote:

What if you let those 100 people in, and one actually was a terrorist. The terrorist goes on and stages an attack. You've let in 99 people and saved their lives, but the terrorist killed 100 people in the attack. Was it worth it?

What if the terrorist killed 200 people?

What if some of the people killed were your friends or family? Still worth it?

First, this entire discussion is not a data-driven one.

What if I choose to drive to work and get into a fatal car accident? Hey, I could have chosen to live within walking distance, but opted to live further out instead. The chances of you dying in a car accident because you chose to live within driving distance instead of walking distance is ASTRONOMICALLY higher than of anyone you know getting killed in a terror attack perpetrated by refugees.

Yet, we all drive to work. That risk is worth it for us. Which brings me to my next point.

Second, not only is this discussion statistically flawed, it also disregards moral imperatives.

Sometimes we have no choice but to drive, as dangerous as driving is. Ambulance drivers, firefighters. Well technically we have a choice, but saving lives or helping people is so important to us that we disregard the risk. Like when I drive my friend to the hospital for her surgery, we could all crash and die. But I do it anyway.

During WWII so many people actually hid Jews in their homes. They risked their very lives and those of their children because in many situations hiding Jews was punishable by death. I cannot understand that level of self sacrifice. It is completely beyond me.

But it's also completely beyond me the level of selfishness one must have to agitate against allowing war refugees safe harbor - not in your home - just in your country.

How can you stand idly by? How can you look yourself in the mirror and say, "well yes there was a 1 in 3.5 million chance that I would be killed by a refugee and so I refused to save any refugees, condemning them all to death and suffering," but I wanted some pizza so I drove to the pizza store even though the chance of me dying in a car accident was 1 in 45K?

How do you sleep at night?

To me there is no difference between choosing to drive someone to the hospital, knowing we could all die in an accident or choosing to allow refugees into our country, knowing one of them may blow someone else up. It's not a real choice, if you want to sleep at night.

(And if the actor is the piece bothering you, please change the analogy to caring for a mentally unwell relative, like a child with a serious illness. Always a chance they will murder you in the middle of the night, but you care for them anyway, unless the risk becomes too high. If the risk is 1 in 3.5 million, it's not too high.)

Laiya

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 10:04 am

marina wrote:

Quote:

Wouldn't the higher moral imperative be to help stabilize these countries from within, so that no one needs to run anywhere?

SixOfWands

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 10:13 am

wondergirl wrote:

Presumably, she was born outside the United States, while her parents were visiting relatives or friends. Perhaps she was born prematurely.

SixOfWands

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 10:23 am

FranticFrummie wrote:

13yo DD is becoming very politically aware these days. She may not be in school, but she's keeping on top of social studies!

Today she asked me about the "Muslim Ban".

I told her, what if there were 100 people in a country, where you were sure that they were going to die if they stayed there - but there was a good chance that one of those 100 was a secret terrorist? Is it worth the risk?

What if you let those 100 people in, and one actually was a terrorist. The terrorist goes on and stages an attack. You've let in 99 people and saved their lives, but the terrorist killed 100 people in the attack. Was it worth it?

What if the terrorist killed 200 people?

What if some of the people killed were your friends or family? Still worth it?

Think again of the 99 innocent lives you've saved, on the chance that none of them would be terrorists. Think of the repercussions. It's the Devil's Arithmetic, in a nutshell.

I have no answers. There are no easy answers. I'm glad that I'm not in the position to have to make those kinds of choices, and literally decide who lives and who dies. All I can do, is daven to Hashem to guide the hearts and minds of our leaders, and pray for the safety of the innocent, no matter where they come from.

Does your opinion change if in fact out of 784,000 refugees settled in the US since 9/11, only 3 have been charged with plotting terrorist acts? So the risks are not 1%, but .0004%. (I fully recognize that there is a risk that there are more who have not been caught.) The odds of being hit by lightning in your lifetime are 1/3000, or .033%.

Perhaps we should be more concerned with lightning strikes.

Or as one article pointed out, if you want to attack the US, its a whole lot easier to use a radicalized American, or radicalized European, than to send an Arab to the US.

33055

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 10:28 am

ora_43 wrote:

I'm not saying I'm OK or not OK with it, just, again, that there are positive aspects to immigration.

We can't just look at the bad things that might happen - we also have to look at the benefits, and see where the best balance is.

And, of course, risks need to be weighed against risks in the existing population (ie, if 1% of immigrants are terrorists and 2% of natives are terrorists, letting in immigrants is a net gain re: the terrorist/non-terrorist ratio).

The net financial gain is in later generations. The current immigrants as a whole cost more than they bring in. You must look towards future and the benefit to the immigrants.

It is just silly to think these immigrants are diluting the threat of terrorism in the native population. I don't think you really mean that example.

moonstone

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 10:35 am

ora_43 wrote:

Excuse me, you honestly don't care if 1 in 100 immigrants are terrorists? I'm speechless. Frankly, I couldn't care less if the 1% of immigrants who are terrorists results in a net gain in the terrorist /non-terrorist ratio. What difference does that make??? When one of that 1% blows himself up in a shopping mall, do you think the victims' families will find any consolation in that statistic?

Emigrating to the US is not a God-given right to which everyone is entitled. If the US is being put upon to accept so many people, then they have every right to take some extra time (and we're talking about a few months here, Trump hasn't slammed the doors shut forever) and vet the people coming from the countries that are producing the most terrorists. Anyone been following the news in Europe the last several months? One terrorist attack after another. These are scary times we're living in, and I would think that people would be glad that Trump is trying to make sure the same thing doesn't start happening in the US.

One might also wonder why the US is being castigated for not taking in enough immigrants, when these immigrants' Middle Eastern neighbors (right next door instead of half a world away) don't want to be bothered taking in any. But that's another thread.

allthingsblue

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 10:36 am

Wow, marina, that is such a thought provoking point you made about the people who hid Jews in the holocaust despite the life threatening danger. I never thought of it in that light. And in fact, people accuse those who just stood by and watched of being heartless when in fact it must have taken superhuman strength to risk one's life to save a Jew.
The one difference is that there was never a fear of the Jew himself attacking the savior, but there is a fear of the Muslims we save turning around and killing us. Not that I think that fear should preclude us from saving the majority of them.
I don't like this ban. I think they should just use a better vetting process.
Thanks for giving me food for thought.

tichellady

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 10:36 am

marina wrote:

Quote:

I'm with Marina on this. Feel sick to my stomach about this and am not sure what to do. I'm also surprised that no one has mentioned (unless I missed it) that this is affecting tons of people who are not muslims, that most of the terrorists in the world are not Muslim, that the terrorists who attacked the US are not from these countries, and that this affects many people who helped the US army in Iraq and were promised safe passage to the US so they wouldn't be killed for their actions in Iraq. It seems like fear is our most important value.

33055

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 10:42 am

marina wrote:

Quote:

It is not just the risk of death in a terrorist attack. It is all the disgusting behavior of terrorists attacking the children and women for zex. What of the article the poster brought up of one single day in Germany when 1200 women were attacked? Do we really want this kind of rampaging in our country?

We have 3200 car deaths a day in the US. If we extrapolate Germany's population to the US population that would bring the 1200 women attacked to 4800 proportionately - a much greater danger than dying in a car accident. In our country we flip out over one attack. How can we invite this in? Driving is a necessity and part of our society. We need it and are willing to accept the risk.

I don't want DD near men who can't respect boundaries. I don't want refugees unless they are vetted.

tichellady

Mon, Jan 30 2017, 10:42 am

allthingsblue wrote:

Victor frankel talks about the gentiles who saved Jews and how he didn't blame those who didn't want to take the risk. Pretty honest for him to say!
You do know that there was tons of propagranda and widely held beliefs since the Middle Ages that Jews are violent and kill Christian children. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean that people didn't believe it and that people had to choose to not believe it in order to see the humanity in Jews. We forget that nazi Europe thought thet were healing the world by destroying the Jewish people.