United States fact of the day

by on September 9, 2015 at 1:56 am in Current Affairs, Data Source, Law, Political Science | Permalink

Nationals of Burma, Bhutan, and Iraq accounted for more than 70 percent of refugee arrivals to the United States in 2012.

In recent years, Burmese have made up the largest share of refugees resettled in the United States.

The link is here, in 2012 more than 87,000 people were granted asylum status in the United States, here is further data on the process and who exactly is let in.

And we cannot manage 20,000 plus Syrians today?  I do not see that we are having major problems from those earlier arrivals and of course many of them, including some of the Burmese, are Muslims.

1 Cliff Arroyo September 9, 2015 at 2:09 am

Are you talking about refugees (who would be resettled as soon as possible as some kind of lasting peace is achieved)? Or are you talking immigrants?

2 Arjun September 9, 2015 at 3:07 pm

Either way, 20,000 more people is an insignificantly small number. I don’t see why you or anybody else should get their panties in a bunch over them, unless you are a xenophobic coward.

3 Cliff Arroyo September 9, 2015 at 3:54 pm

Do you really believe it would be 20,000? What about all the poor relatives and friends and relatives of friends and freinds of relatives?

4 Steve Sailer September 9, 2015 at 4:34 pm

“Either way, 20,000 more people is an insignificantly small number.”

So why is Tyler getting, uh, worked up over an insignificantly small symbolic gesture?

5 Anon September 9, 2015 at 5:56 pm

I am delighted to be able to agree with you for once.

6 Art Deco September 9, 2015 at 6:30 pm

I don’t see why you or anybody else should get their panties in a bunch over them, unless you are a xenophobic coward.

The fact the you’re obtuse does not make anyone else a coward. Everyone’s asking the following:

1. Why are not customary procedures for handling refugees being employed;

2. What principle is being applied for admitting these people when various and sundry other aspirants are denied (formally, if not substantively) admission;

3. Why is the moderator providing such manipulative arguments for what he favors;

4. Betwixt and between, what’s in it for us importing Syrians when we could provide food and shelter in refugee camps proximate to Syria?

7 Steve Sailer September 9, 2015 at 6:33 pm

If the United States wants to do something nice for 20,000 Syrians, why not subsidize them to live in Muslim Turkey, where the climate (weather, cultural, and theological) is more familiar to them than it would be in some place in the U.S. that takes in lots of refugees, like Minneapolis, MN, Burlington, VT, or Lewiston, Maine?

Isn’t that cheaper?

8 Brian Donohue September 9, 2015 at 8:44 pm

Makes sense. Surely, Turkey represents a safe haven for asylum-seekers.

It’s not a poor country, but not rich either.

Don’t they have something like 2 million refugees there already? How is that not straining the country?

Is anyone aware of any private charities that would be effective in promoting accommodation of refugees in Turkey?

9 E. Harding September 9, 2015 at 11:00 pm

I politely suggest nuking Turkey and all the refugees in it off the face of the Earth, as pretty much all the refugees in that country are traitors to their homelands. I suggest settling all the refugees who’ve escaped in southern Bulgaria, on the border with Greece.

10 Art Deco September 10, 2015 at 12:38 am

The appropriation of E. Harding’s handle is tiresome. The moderators need to do some banning.

11 E. Harding September 10, 2015 at 6:03 pm

Nope, Art, this is the real me. I do actually believe Turkey should be nuked, as pretty much all the people there are directly or indirectly genocidaires (or worthless). My handle hasn’t been appropriated since I last impersonated Cowen. I believe the moderators did some banning. Either that, or they’ve stopped.

12 Steve Sailer September 9, 2015 at 4:31 pm

What percentage is 20,000 out of all the people in the world who would like to move to the First World?

A Gallup Poll in 151 countries found that 640 million adults would like to emigrate (so call it a billion including dependent children and seniors). The U.S. was the first choice of 150,000,000 adults, while Germany was first choice of 26,000,000 adults.

13 Art Deco September 9, 2015 at 6:32 pm

The camel’s got to get at least a nostril in the tent. OPEN BORDERS.

14 Art Deco September 9, 2015 at 6:51 pm

This post is a fraud.

15 Art Deco September 10, 2015 at 12:38 am

It is not.

16 Chip September 9, 2015 at 2:12 am

Bhutan?

Are they refugees from happiness?

17 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 2:34 am

I wonder what is the deal with the Bhutanese refugees too. Such a small population. Is it the ethnic conflict? “Consequently, there has been mass emigration from Bhutan (both forced and voluntary) resulting in hundreds of thousands of people left stateless in refugee camps.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan#Ethnic_conflict Is it the (apparently regorming) dictatorship?

18 Bunker Brown September 9, 2015 at 2:43 am

The Bhutanese ‘refugees’ are ethnic Nepalis or ethnic Indians who have illegally immigrated to Bhutan over the past half-century or so. Bhutan (forcibly, natch) expelled them back to Nepal.

19 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 3:17 am

“During the late 19th century, contractors working for the Bhutanese government began to organise the settlement of Nepali-speaking people in uninhabited areas of southern Bhutan in order to open those areas up for cultivation. (…) By 1930, according to British colonial officials, much of the south was under cultivation by a population of Nepali origin that amounted to some 60,000 people.
Settlement in Bhutan of large numbers of people from Nepal happened for the first time in the early 20th century. This settlement was encouraged by the Bhutan House in Kalimpong for the purpose of collecting taxes for the government. In the 1940s, the British Political Officer Sir Basil Gould was quoted as saying that when he warned Sir Raja Sonam Topgay Dorji of Bhutan House of the potential danger of allowing so many ethnic Nepalese to settle in southern Bhutan, he replied that ‘since they were not registered subjects they could be evicted whenever the need arose”” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutanese_refugees

20 A Definite Beta Guy September 9, 2015 at 9:04 am

That’s impossible. They would’ve fully assimilated and become Bhutanese by now.

21 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 10:23 am

Really? I repeat it: “he replied that ‘since they were not registered subjects they could be evicted whenever the need arose’”
And Jews under the czars and, to a lesser extent under the Soviet regime, were treated as a separated and sometimes nocive group. I don’t know why you’d think Bhutan’s kings were a much more enlightened lot. Let’s hope 21th Century America-despite the racists’ best efforts- decides to act like 20 th Century America, not 19 th Century Russia or Bhutan.

22 A Definite Beta Guy September 9, 2015 at 11:24 am

Just-so theory.

23 A Definite Beta Guy September 9, 2015 at 11:31 am

“This group of people did not fully assimilate because X” where X is any aspect of society I do not like. Government oppression. Lack of freedom of religion. Too much freedom of religion. Government-sanctioned religion prevents the vibrant non-Christians from assimilating. Red-lining. Micro-aggressions. Lack of affirmative action. Too much affirmative action. The Sun was in Leo that day.

No different than trying to explain why the markets decline or rose every minute of every day. Like the AGW enthusiasts explain, this is a one-way natural experiment on our only habitable cultural sphere. You cannot reverse it if you are wrong.

24 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 12:20 pm

Yeah, those Jews got what they deserved!

25 A Definite Beta Guy September 9, 2015 at 12:44 pm

Clearly, doubting the benefits of open borders means supporting genocide.

26 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 1:48 pm

If they did fit in, they deserved it. No government ever wasknow to persecute minorities. If you can’t trust an absolute ruler, who will you trust?

27 Minority Bolshevism September 9, 2015 at 8:04 pm

Fully assimilated groups can be expelled.

Not assimilated groups may stay.

There are many variables.

28 Thiago Ribeiro September 10, 2015 at 4:11 am

“Fully assimilated groups can be expelled.
Not assimilated groups may stay.
There are many variables.”
And the most important one is government policy. And the Bhutanese regime is known to persecute its minorities.

29 foxy September 9, 2015 at 2:24 am

you cannot convince the nativists by presenting evidence.

30 dan1111 September 9, 2015 at 2:29 am

Of course, that is true of pretty much everyone else, too.

31 Art Deco September 9, 2015 at 8:53 am

The word ‘evidence’ does not mean what you think it means.

32 A Definite Beta Guy September 9, 2015 at 11:35 am

This is a tenured professor BLOGGING. He’s not painting the freakin’ Open Borders Mona Lisa.

33 Art Deco September 9, 2015 at 11:40 am

I take it this is another sock-puppet.

34 Gopchik September 9, 2015 at 9:11 am

If you’re hellbent on increasing the number of immigrants, why not Ukrainians or Crimean Tartars? Enslaved pygmies from Congo? Kurds and Yazidis? Are they less deserving of asylum than 20,000 Syrians safely ensconced in Hungary or in Turkey?

I’m first generation and pro-immigration, but this mewling is not “evidence”.

35 Cliff September 9, 2015 at 9:54 am

Obviously the US COULD absorb 20,000 Syrian refugees. The question is SHOULD it

36 Albigensian September 9, 2015 at 10:53 am

Western European countries have had massive immigration for decades now, and how is that working out? Perhaps the USA should consider waiting awhile to see if these countries actually work out peaceful, sustainable multicultural societies that respect certain classic enlightenment rights that most of us value (such as free speech) before following the same path?

Immigration, once done, is irrevocable. Once we’re done viewing those heart-rending propaganda photos, may we consider the risks and benefits involved to the host country and its citizens?

37 Jason Bayz September 9, 2015 at 11:06 am

What evidence did he present? It would be like giving “evidence” for why an increase in taxes is good by showing that people already pay taxes.

38 JWatts September 9, 2015 at 2:38 pm

Apparently, logical arguments aren’t foxy’s forte.

39 Lukas Hanson September 9, 2015 at 3:17 am

But why should america take in 20.000?

20000 in comparison to the millions of people that are called refugees. It does solve any problems.

But it would imply, that millions of dollars are spend on a very small group. The money could be spend much more effectively on the many refugees in the local area. What is the cost of an additional child in an america school. And how much could be done for those money for the refugees in Lebanon or Jordan.

And what about the poor people in Africa or the children living on garbage fields in Indonesia. You dont wanne help them. But the syrians – they should have a ticket to first-class in america.

If americans one day are becoming refugees, only the 1% like Tyler would want the rest of the world to behave in such a way a he proposes america should do the syrians.

40 Nathan W September 9, 2015 at 5:40 am

Why does GE even bother to assign work to anyone who works for them?

Everyone knows that every worker is a small part of the whole. As such a small part of the big picture, each individual worker may as well give up and do nothing.

Similarly, every country should accept zero refugees, since the overall problem is quite large and no single actor can accomplish everything on their own.

(More seriously though, it does trouble me that the worst off, who never had a hope in hell of affording a ticket to Germany let alone a plane ticket across America, will be consigned to the refugee camps in Jordan, etc.)

41 Anon September 9, 2015 at 6:01 pm

I agree with the first part. I think we should take the 20,000 Syrians from refugee camps in Jorden rather than an assortment of various middle class people who have made it to Germany. Let the UHCR make the determination on whatever basis (hardship, suitability) they prefer.

42 dan1111 September 9, 2015 at 5:50 am

“what about the poor people in Africa or the children living on garbage fields in Indonesia. You dont wanne help them. But the syrians – they should have a ticket to first-class in america.”

False. Tyler is in favor of greatly increased immigration, partly as a way of helping the world’s poor. Anyway, “Why do you care about X when you don’t care about Y and Z” is a pretty crappy argument. There are thousands of humanitarian crises in the world, and no one has the capacity to care about all of them, never mind campaign for action on all of them. Kudos to Tyler for caring about the plight of Syrian refugees. This is laudable, even if one disagrees about a particular policy he is advocating.

As for your arguments against resettling 20,000 refugees, they are weak. Helping some refugees is better than helping none. Also, the 20,000 number was set by others, not Tyler. His immigration preferences suggest he would favor a much higher number.

The money spent on things like schooling refugees has to be balanced against economic value created by the new arrivals. It is not clear that this policy would cost money, but even if it did it is not clear that it would be worse value for money then providing aid to refugees in the region.

43 Lukas Hanson September 9, 2015 at 6:31 am

@ Nathan and Dan

Some pretty crappy arguments you have come up with.

“Helping some refugees is better than helping none”
The alternative to Tylers proposal is NOT to do nothing. Please save the strawman for someone else.

The alternative is do to much more for many people. It truly is a crappy argument to say that the ONLY way to help refugees is by moving them to america. Most of them are in the middle east.

“There are thousands of humanitarian crises in the world, and no one has the capacity to care about all of them”

Hence we have to carefully consider how to spend our money in the most effective way. Germany is planning to spend more money on the refugees in Germany this year, than the UN is spending on refugees around the world in total.

44 James Hartwick September 9, 2015 at 7:23 am

“The alternative is do to much more for many people.”

Amen.

45 dan1111 September 9, 2015 at 10:36 am

“The alternative to Tylers proposal is NOT to do nothing. Please save the strawman for someone else…The alternative is do to much more for many people.”

So, what is the alternative, and what is the case that it is more beneficial? Yes, we should help refugees in the region…but we have already spent $4,000,000,000 of government money on that, plus private charitable organizations. Would adding a little extra to that instead of resettling 20,000 refugees provide more benefit? That would be a great thing to discuss.

46 Anon September 9, 2015 at 6:07 pm

I don’t seem to recall many past comments of yours bombarding the the pages of Marginal Revilution to propose massive increases in foreign aid and humanitarian assistance. Or indeed any concern for humanitarian issues. If you don’t like foreigners coming to the US just say so.

47 Art Deco September 9, 2015 at 6:33 pm

I don’t seem to recall many past comments of yours bombarding the the pages of Marginal Revilution to propose massive increases in foreign aid and humanitarian assistance

And he doesn’t owe you an oath of even handedness. If the subject did not come up on a day he was reading, it did not come up. Quit playing games.

48 Nathan W September 9, 2015 at 9:03 pm

Who ever argued that “the ONLY way to help refugees is by moving them to america”?

You are making things up and then attacking us for things we never said.

I suspect that your main motivation is that you don’t want brown people as neighbours. Fine, it is your right to hold that view. But if you’re main argument is “do much more for many people” then I completely agree. My view is that accepting some refugees is a part of it.

49 Harun September 10, 2015 at 1:44 am

Germany is supposed to spend 2% of GDP on Defense as a NATO member. Instead they only spend 1.1%.

So, they 0.9% of their GDP to spend on refugees if they’d like.

Also, let’s be realistic. Germany has to spend more because the refugees are in Europe. If we were just warehousing them in Jordan its cheaper. Bring in Bangladeshi staff for cost savings.

50 JC September 9, 2015 at 3:17 am

Where’s the Yanis Varoufakis NYTimes OP-ED link?

51 YetAnotherTom September 9, 2015 at 3:47 am

At least 538 asylum seekers that came to the U.S in 14 and 15 had ties to terrorist groups.

http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/2015/5/house-committee-chairmen-request-information-on-aliens-in-u-s-with-possible-terrorist-connections

52 YetAnotherTom September 9, 2015 at 3:51 am
53 Nathan W September 9, 2015 at 5:53 am

You ignore the word “possible”.

I’m not saying this is a non issue. It is absolutely a legitimate concern.

But your predisposition to make it into a bigger issue than it is is easily betrayed by your conclusion that they “had ties to terrorist groups” and completely ignoring the use of the words “may” or “possible” in the source.

54 Jan September 9, 2015 at 6:18 am

Also 538 electors in the electoral college. Coincidence? I think not! Hellary Clinton will pay for this.

55 YetAnotherTom September 9, 2015 at 1:11 pm

Sadly, the number was actually 638. I’m just glad we have anti-conservative satire and altruistic economists to deter them from acting out homicidal fantasies. I was concerned for a minute.

56 Albigensian September 9, 2015 at 10:55 am
57 So Much For Subtlety September 9, 2015 at 4:27 am

I do not see that we are having major problems from those earlier arrivals and of course many of them, including some of the Burmese, are Muslims.

There is a joke about an Irishman who committed suicide and he was over heard saying something very similar as he plummeted past the 62 floor of the Empire State Building.

So the normally peaceful, tolerant Burmese have had enough of their illegal Bangladeshi immigrants (or so they claim) so naturally it follows they will fit in a lot better in the US? What is so special about the US?

58 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 5:03 am

I can think of a few important Burmese who are neither peaceful nor tolerant.

59 Matt B September 9, 2015 at 10:58 am

Good. I think they should move in with you. I mean I assume you are a racist, but that would go some way to demonstrating that you aren’t. Still you are racist though.

60 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 2:49 pm

You can’t force me to take Burma’s leders. I pledge the third.

61 John September 9, 2015 at 3:32 pm

So what if he is a racist. Will you cry me a river, cuck?

62 asdfG September 9, 2015 at 8:36 pm

You guys are obsessed. Maybe if you weren’t such assholes your wives wouldn’t stray.

63 Los Ranchos September 9, 2015 at 4:33 am

How many Syrian economics professors would Tyler and Alex and the Mercatus Center like to offer jobs to? Here’s a chance to “make a difference” publicly.

64 Just Saying September 9, 2015 at 7:51 am

“In order to help pay for settling 20,000 Syrian refugees, I, Tyler Cowen, am willing to give up .”

It’s certainly not his tenure, or his salary, or his security. It’s easy for rich people in gated communities to preach to the rabble.

65 Anon September 9, 2015 at 6:16 pm

Assuming it costs $1 million dollars to settle one refugee. Then I bet Tyler will more than happy to forge the $62.00 it will cost each of us to settle 20,000 Syrian refuges.

66 UncleMartyPants September 9, 2015 at 4:37 am

TC is relentless on this subject. I wish he had this much heart for the victims showed in the most recent planned parenthood videos. Unfortunately, I don’t think those tragedies were mentioned on this site.

Anyway, I find it extremely courageous of those young refugee mothers choosing to give birth to their children despite their daunting futures.

67 Just Saying September 9, 2015 at 7:52 am

When you say victims, you mean the courageous workers who support women’s health despite lies and slander being waged against them, right?

68 Cliff September 9, 2015 at 10:45 am

Abortion is not women’s health (and I am pro-choice)

69 Bob from Ohio September 9, 2015 at 11:33 am

“Abortion is not women’s health ”

Its especially hard on the health of the females who are killed.

70 Brian Donohue September 9, 2015 at 12:58 pm

Also the males who are killed.

71 just Saying September 9, 2015 at 1:19 pm
72 Poe's Law September 9, 2015 at 10:56 am

And to think I almost stepped out for a mid-day constitutional.

73 JC September 9, 2015 at 4:43 am

Maduro, who recently expelled over 15,000 Colombians from Venezuela has offered shelter to 20,000 Syrians, whose dictator he vividly supports…

I wonder how many Syrians will endure the odyssey of crossing the Atlantic to reach Venezuela by boat once Maduro is not sending any planes to Kobani, Turkey or Hungary…

On the other hand, who’s getting the Boko Haram refugees (over 2 million)? Seems to me a Western country offer on the table could alleviate poor countries like Cameroon and Chad…

74 Horhe September 9, 2015 at 4:54 am

Of course, having received many in the past, and with no discernible reason like common history, language, culture or traits, the same country would, logically, skyrocket to the front of the pack for receiving more. Because it has already shown itself to be a good mark. This should disabuse people of the notion that if they take some now, they’ll be spared others later.

75 dan1111 September 9, 2015 at 5:52 am

Who are these people who have the ability to force America to receive refugees?

76 Horhe September 9, 2015 at 5:59 am

Special interest groups in America itself and their ideological helpers elsewhere. Forcing America to do something is a misstatement. You only have to get a subset of leaders and bureaucrats to agree to something and the will of even a majority of people will not matter. So, the special interest groups reap the rewards, even if they are just moral prestige and warm feelings, while the bill, both financial and intangible (crime, dissolution of social capital, future political shifts), borne by the majority. Socializing costs and privatizing profits is the business model of the century, from polluting companies to different lobbies.

77 dan1111 September 9, 2015 at 6:07 am

The language of being “a good mark” suggests that some external group is going to trick or coerce America into taking more refugees. If accepting some refugees sways public opinion/the political climate to accept even more refugees, that is quite a different thing from what you first stated. And it is not really clear why this would be the case.

Your analysis assumes without evidence that these refugees will cause harm to America.

It also callously ignores the benefit to the refugees themselves, which is the primary reason for doing this. Alleviating suffering is certainly a “discernable reason” for doing this.

78 So Much For Subtlety September 9, 2015 at 6:19 am

dan1111 September 9, 2015 at 6:07 am

The language of being “a good mark” suggests that some external group is going to trick or coerce America into taking more refugees.

Many groups are already claiming that having signed a variety of conventions, written in a different time and under different assumptions, the West is obliged to take these people. Even though those conventions have been re-interpreted beyond recognition.

Your analysis assumes without evidence that these refugees will cause harm to America.

How much more evidence do you need? There is no reason to think that these people will bring any benefit to America. The economic benefits of immigration are roughly zero. And that is without counting the costs of things like the Rotherham rapes or the murder of Bobby Kennedy.

It also callously ignores the benefit to the refugees themselves, which is the primary reason for doing this. Alleviating suffering is certainly a “discernable reason” for doing this.

It would be a benefit to the Third World if you followed Peter Singer’s advice and handed over all your cash except for the minimum you need to stay alive. I am assuming you will not do that. Your argument ignores the massive costs to future generations of introducing these populations. Ask the dwindling Christians of Syria how that worked out for them.

It also ignores the pull factor. When Germany takes refugees, it makes people who would otherwise stay at home risk their lives on boats. Some will die. Many will suffer. It is not in the interests of anyone, not even Syrians as a whole, to incite them to leave their homes for an uncertain and dangerous future.

We have no obligation to these people. We should take none.

79 dan1111 September 9, 2015 at 6:41 am

@SMFS

“Many groups are already claiming that having signed a variety of conventions, written in a different time and under different assumptions, the West is obliged to take these people.”

And yet we haven’t just rolled over and taken these refugees “because we have to”, despite these claims. The fact that there is a huge political debate about 20,000 refugees now, even though we have received many more refugees in the past, belies the slippery slope argument that is being made here. The U.S. has accepted more refugees than any other nation, yet clearly there is nothing automatic or inevitable about expanding our policy.

“How much more evidence do you need?”

Well, more than you have provided, actually. We should close the doors because an immigrant killed someone in 1968? Really? Anecdotal cases of immigrants doing bad things do not constitute evidence.

“It would be a benefit to the Third World if you followed Peter Singer’s advice and handed over all your cash except for the minimum you need to stay alive.”

I agree with this, and it is my own failure that I am not able to make such a large sacrifice. Still, we should try to make what sacrifice we can. And in this case, no one has made any convincing argument that these refugees will be anything other than a very small cost to America.

“Your argument ignores the massive costs to future generations of introducing these populations. . Ask the dwindling Christians of Syria how that worked out for them.”

Again asserted without evidence. Unless you count evidence that assumes modern refugees must be the same as an invading force in A.D. 634. And wait…did you just claim “dwindling Syrian Christians” are part of the case against?

“It also ignores the pull factor. When Germany takes refugees, it makes people who would otherwise stay at home risk their lives on boats. Some will die. Many will suffer. It is not in the interests of anyone, not even Syrians as a whole, to incite them to leave their homes for an uncertain and dangerous future.”

Don’t help anyone! Giving people hope might make them do something stupid! What a terrible moral case. Also, I’m sure this would fail cost-benefit if you did a serious analysis. Accepting 20,000 would provide a quite large amount of benefit, including increased life years, and it would only slightly increase the motivation to get on boats (if at all).

“We have no obligation to these people.”

I don’t think we have an obligation. However, I think we could provide great help to these refugees at very little cost to ourselves, and that would be a great thing to do.

80 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 8:00 am

“And that is without counting the costs of things like the Rotherham rapes or the murder of Bobby Kennedy.”
Never forget Mckinley (OK, Mr. Obama, never mind). Down with the Polish-Americans. They came here to kill our presidents!

81 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 8:03 am

“Some will die. Many will suffer. It is not in the interests of anyone, not even Syrians as a whole, to incite them to leave their homes for an uncertain and dangerous future.”
Castro made exactly the same case regarding granting asylum to Cubans.

82 Horhe September 9, 2015 at 8:07 am

One group, by itself, will not do much harm. But things add up and there is reason to be concerned.

1. We are operating under a system where no one can guarantee that asylum will not turn into backdoor immigration. I doubt any of the Syrians going to Germany will want to return when the fighting is done and I doubt Mother Merkel will have the heart to send them away. The system also guarantees that one vetted or accepted person will be the gateway for many others, with less vetting and control, based on family reunification.
2. We have already established that existing treaties and conventions, or the will of individual nations do not matter at all and everything will be reinterpreted to suit the prevailing consensus of accommodating anyone with a pulse who can squeeze out a sob story, even if he had already been given refuge in another safe place but wants an upgrade. The little drowned Syrian boy had been with his family in Turkey for years…. in Bodrum. I’ve vacationed in Bodrum.
3. The distinction between migrant and refugee is blurring. Regardless of our impulse to help others, we should refrain from it or moderate it to ensure that the citizens of our particular country or their posterity will not be affected unduly. Making sure that Germany will have Kurdish and Syrian minorities until the end of time because the childless old women of Germany have leapfrogging loyalties that encompass the world at the expense of their fellow Germans is just the kind of thing anyone in their right mind should prevent.
4. The result of the current precedents being set will be that every middling crisis will be an opportunity for millions to stealthily emigrate as refugees towards Europe. There are 5.5 billion people in countries with less GDP/capita than Mexico. They might not all want to come, but it only takes a few tens of millions with their dependents. Incidentally, those people have already been polled. Boko Haram has already displaced 2 million people in Nigeria. I bet some of them are already here. This is not socially prudent.
5. We have also made it a moral imperative that people blowing up their country and themselves should get automatic tickets to the most developed places on Earth, regardless of culture and their ability to assimilate.
6. “The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future. ”

I read Ann Coulter’s recent book where she says that it is the asylum system that is the most comically defrauded in the US and one of the least selected for public scrutiny.

What can I say? Thank God I’m poor enough to not be a target?

83 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 8:39 am

“because the childless old women of Germany have leapfrogging loyalties that encompass the world at the expense of their fellow Germans.”
Those damn Germans, they ruined Germany! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K5lYXaVkA0U

84 Horhe September 9, 2015 at 8:44 am

+10 that made me laugh.

85 duxie September 9, 2015 at 6:26 am
86 Chip September 9, 2015 at 6:57 am

The west needs to stop patting itself on the back for tokenism and do something serious and practical.

Offering refuge to 20,000 mostly young and healthy males who seem to have access to cash for European travel and – for anyone knows – a history of being involved in said civil war, is just cheap moralizing.

Crush ISIS and save the millions of truly vulnerable who are really suffering.

Everything else is just the equivalent of billionaires at a cocktail party boasting of their favorite charities.

87 dearieme September 9, 2015 at 7:50 am

“Crush ISIS”: that’s the ISIS that the US has done so much to arm. That ISIS?

88 joe September 9, 2015 at 8:38 am

Yes, that one.

89 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 2:10 pm

There must be someone we can arm to deal with ISIS!

90 ibaien September 9, 2015 at 8:15 am

as soon as anyone advocates ‘crushing’ armed insurgent group ‘x’ as a solution to the instability in the Middle East (paying special attention to the fact that at least half the time we previously delivered arms to ‘x’ either directly or through third parties) I immediately write them off as a profoundly unserious thinker.

91 ibaien September 9, 2015 at 9:18 am

let the Turks, Iranians, Israelis, Saudis, et. al. put their blood and treasure on the line if they are feeling threatened. as for ‘the treasures of antiquity’, they’ve been getting looted and smashed by barbarians since, uh, antiquity. that’s just what barbarians do. would you send your child to die in defense of some falling-down temple to a dead god?

92 Bob from Ohio September 9, 2015 at 10:40 am

Why bring the Israelis into this? They are just in the neighborhood.

Are there Jews at risk? Of course not because they already became refugees.

93 asdfG September 9, 2015 at 11:00 am

Is the software here too difficult for you to figure out?

94 Al September 9, 2015 at 12:09 pm

If push came to shove, no I wouldn’t send my own kids. And I wouldn’t ask someone else to send their kids.

The US led carpet bombing during the first Iraq war (in the early 90’s) is thought to have destroyed a lot of interesting but not yet excavated archaeological sites (ancient villages).

95 Cliff September 9, 2015 at 10:52 am

Sounds like pretty poor reasoning

96 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 8:29 am

“Crush ISIS and save the millions of truly vulnerable who are really suffering.”
It worked so well the last two times, right? Well, while you are at it, you should crush al Qaeda (again), the Taliban (again), ISIS in Iraq too and the guys wrecking Somalia. You probably will have to “crush” Assad, the Pakistanis and whoever may be America’s puppet in Afghanistan now.

97 Shameless Troll September 9, 2015 at 10:07 am

Yes, it is essential to understand the Administration’s farsighted geopolitical strategy here. If we just ethnically cleanse the Levant by taking in as refugees all of ISIS’s enemies then ISIS members won’t get such sore arms from having to saw off so many heads and will be much more cheerful and easy to deal with. And if a couple dozen or so ISIS members make it into the US, so much the better! They just might do us all a favor and dynamite the faces off that kitschy Mount Rushmore.

98 A Definite Beta Guy September 9, 2015 at 9:29 am

Liberals really need to put down their medicinal marijuana on this one. American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan has produced demonstrably better results than American lack-of-intervention in Syria and Libya. Obama Foreign policy successfully created two civil wars in Syria and Libya and nearly created a third one in Egypt until the Army correctly told Obama to screw himself and simply threw the entire Muslim Brotherhood in jail. The entire time from the 2009 Iran protests to present is a complete repudiation of the entire Liberal foreign policy delusion.

Direct deployment of American soldiers is not required. American military support is synergistic with local forces, which is why the Kurds can push back ISIS despite receiving only close air support. The Croats ended the Balkan War successfully by breaking the Serb Army and effective threats from Bill Clinton did the rest by 1999. Making the world safe for democracy is more effective than simply importing the entire damn planet to the United States, and, yes, we can do the job, WITHOUT deploying American troops everywhere.

99 A Definite Gamma Guy September 9, 2015 at 10:13 am

“American military support is synergistic with local forces”

Worked really well for us in Vietnam, didn’t it?

100 Cliff September 9, 2015 at 10:54 am

Actually it did. Even with “Vietnamization” the South Vietnamese were winning. Then we withdrew due to a lack of popular support.

101 Matt B September 9, 2015 at 11:03 am

It’s amazing what people don’t know about Vietnam. I mean it’s not like Nixon resigning from office and the Democrat sweep of midterm elections in 1974 is some kind of gnostic knowledge unavailable to the uninitiated. It’s all right there to see. A Left-wing Congress gutted Vietnamization out of spite.

102 A Definite Beta Guy September 9, 2015 at 11:41 am

Cliff is correct. The ARVN was able to defend itself with nothing more than American support. Linebacker halted the NVA offensive cold, and Linebacker II practically obliterated what was left. It took North Vietnam years to recover from American bombing, and even then, the North Vietnam leadership was so obscenely terrified of America that most of the leadership refused to launch an offensive against the ARVN.

Bombs work.

103 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 2:19 pm

“A Left-wing Congress gutted Vietnamization out of spite.”
I guess it sounds better in the German original.

104 toxophilite September 9, 2015 at 2:36 pm

Thanks for bringing up Vietnam. Great new novel about Vietnamese sleeper agents among the refugees accepted into the US written by a disgruntled refugee who has been scarred! scarred! by the degradation of assimilation into US culture:
http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-viet-thanh-nguyen-20150412-story.html

But at least his grievance mongering is making him rich! Can’t wait for the day when we can all live off the royalties from our denunciations of native US culture.

105 J1 September 9, 2015 at 3:15 pm

Today they’re the strongest supporters of free-market capitalism in the world, not to mention pretty strong opponents of high taxation, so maybe it did.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/10/09/emerging-and-developing-economies-much-more-optimistic-than-rich-countries-about-the-future/#free-market-seen-as-best-despite-inequality

106 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 3:51 pm

“We lost so we could win.”

107 Al September 9, 2015 at 4:35 pm

It’s interesting to contrast Noam Chomsky’s view of US goals during the Vietnam War with what is presented here.

Chomsky’s view is that US goal was not to defeat North Vietnam, but South Vietnam itself.

The Vietminh were on the road to building a government independent of Western, and particularly American, spheres of influence. And it looked like they might succeed at keeping popular support without being destroyed, which could pave the way for other small nations to do the same.

Very definitely at odds with the typical viewpoint on this board.

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/198210–.htm

Flame on….

108 A Definite Beta Guy September 9, 2015 at 4:44 pm

Yes, the goal of the Vietnam War was to stop the communist insurgency in South Vietnam, which would collapse the entire region to Communism. This isn’t a secret, it was the stated goal at the time. Destroying North Vietnam was never an objective.

109 Al September 10, 2015 at 1:05 am

I don’t think that’s quite the same view Chomsky held, right or wrong.

Chomsky wasn’t saying that the US goal was to attack the communist insurgency per se.

He was saying that, in his view, the true underlying US goal was to prevent South Vietnam from successfully exiting the Western/American sphere of influence, no matter what form (communist, anti-French, anti-Japanese, etc) that exit took.

He was saying that US leaders wouldn’t allow US influence and control in the Asian Pacific region to be diminished by a small upstart nation such as Vietnam. It would set a bad precedent which other nations in the region (e.g. Thailand or even Japan) might follow. The US goal was to maintain the post WWII leadership role it had assumed in Asia.

At least, that’s my reading of Chomsky.

110 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 10:55 am

“The entire time from the 2009 Iran protests to present.”
A missed opportunity. They would welcome us as liberators too. Sadly, the good idea took a detour to Iraq.
“… and, yes, we can do the job, WITHOUT deploying American troops everywhere.”
Tell that to ISIS, the Taliban and the Pakistanis. Every time the cat’s away, the terrorists come back to play.

111 A Definite Beta Guy September 9, 2015 at 11:53 am

ISIS? ISIS arose in Syria where the United States refused to intervene and refused to arm the moderates. We said we wouldn’t arm them because extremists would get weapons and it would come back to haunt us.

Surprise, surprise, that’s what happened ANYWAYS.

Re: Taliban. The Taliban is not in control of Afghanistan. There is a continuing fight between the government and the Taliban. US presence in Afghanistan will continue but is at a minimum. What’s your point?

112 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 12:36 pm

You must tell the Iraqis everything is fine, it is a Syrian problem. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Iraq. By the way, is the synergistic military thing working in Iraq already? It is hard to tell. Any day now…
About ISIS’ weapons, well…
http://www.globalresearch.ca/bidens-admission-us-allies-armed-isis/5406539
http://theweek.com/speedreads/448373/arms-kurds-iraq–fight-usarmed-isis
But don’t worry, now your good friends will do the job with no American boots in place, just a little hand holding.

113 A Definite Beta Guy September 9, 2015 at 1:07 pm

I’m glad you asked! it looks like the US-armed and US-supported Kurdish army have smashed the Saudi-and-Turkish created ISIS and expelled them from all of Hasaka, after heroically enduring the Siege of Kobani, which was broken by US Close Air Support and air-dropped supplies by our brave pilots.

US military force has prevented the creation of an additional 30 million refugees among the Kurdish population. A victory vastly greater than all of Europe and Open borders combined.

USA! USA! USA!

114 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 1:45 pm

Yes, the Kurds and America’s pilots are doing a fine job, given the circumstances, but neither your Shia regime nor your Sunni friends will fight, so what do you propose, making the Kurds (one almost regrets selling them to Saddam, right?) the gendarmery of Iraq? By the way, I will not stand here hearing you slandering those fine Saudi and Turkish leaders. America would never back people who back people who kill, rape and enslave civilians. Stop “blaming America first”, you Commie.
Have the USA after 36 years finally found in the Kurds an ally which will not backstab it? Maybe it all was worth it.

115 A Definite Beta Guy September 9, 2015 at 2:57 pm

Turkey and Saudi Arabia have their own foreign policy objectives that do not directly overlap with America’s. This sometimes happens, like when France armed Hutu extremists in Rwanda that went on to kill a million people when the US armed the Tutsi-dominated RPF.

The alternative to supporting Turkey and Saudi Arabia is the loss of the Middle East during the Cold War, which is far worse than the current counter-factual.

116 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 4:02 pm

“The alternative to supporting Turkey and Saudi Arabia is the loss of the Middle East during the Cold War, which is far worse than the current counter-factual.”
Maybe we should make peace with Brezhnev if the price of fighting the Cold War is to keep aiding and abetting the Saudis. By the way, you should tell the 9/11 victims’ families that it was worth it to annoy the Soviets. How did it go again? The terrorists were the equivalents of the Founding Fathers. Our “gallant Afghan allies”.

117 A Definite Beta Guy September 9, 2015 at 4:39 pm

Is that before or after my trip to the Kathryn Steinle gravesite?

118 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 5:19 pm

As you see fitter. I can not help noticing how much more produtive our Saudi friends are. Can’t Mexicans learn to fly? At lest, America did lose Afghanistan to Pakistan, not to the Soviet Union. God knows the kind of attack on American soil Brezhnev could have launched from there.

119 The Original D September 9, 2015 at 2:33 pm

Crush Isis and replace them with what? Creating a vassal state is hard work.

120 Anon September 9, 2015 at 2:46 pm

We should wake up and realize that Assad is the best that can be hoped for. We should tell the Iranians and Soviets that we don’t care what he does as long as the country is under control and the refugees can come back.

An iron fisted rule by Assad will be far better than the other alternatives. Society will function and fewer people will die.

121 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 2:55 pm

“We should wake up and realize that Assad is the best that can be hoped for.”
So was Saddam. Anyway the answer can be different for other values of “we”. How exactly you propose America help Assad to kill his own people (and let’s be blunt, it is wht we are talking about here)?

122 Anon September 9, 2015 at 3:08 pm

Saddam was far far better than what we unleashed. I predicted that from the beginning. Saddam maybe killed 1000 people a year keeping Iraq under control, and the Kurds had their own state.

Yes, Assad has to kill his own people to keep them from massacring each other. Those are the rules in the region. I think just telling the Iranians and Russians they have free hand, and not doing anything to help rebels, is plenty. Superior firepower and the inevitably of Assad’s victory will do the rest. I don’t much care about Iranian regional supremacy. I think Persians are in then end pretty reasonable and will sell us the oil at a decent price. After that, what happens is their business. Israelis are good at taking care of themselves, not my worry.

123 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 3:26 pm

As far as I concerned, yes, it is the best deal we can get. May God have mercy on us.

124 Anon September 9, 2015 at 6:30 pm

Your estimate of Iraqi deaths is out by at least one order of magnitude and the Kurds only had a separate state because of direct western intervention. Hardly an arguements against intervening in Syria

125 Just Saying September 9, 2015 at 7:53 am

Why don’t we follow TC’s advice he gives on charity at every opportunity, and just give them money directly?

126 Cliff Arroyo September 9, 2015 at 8:32 am

Because if we give them money now where they are, then how on earth are they going to start up restaurants in strip malls featuring previously unknown Syrian culinary status markers to preen over? They need to be here! Tyler wants those restaurants and he wants them now, so get moving!

127 Al September 9, 2015 at 11:49 am

ha!

128 anon September 9, 2015 at 6:10 pm

So true. You are joking, but Tyler’s preening is all about his status at the cocktail parties.

I think he should just turn the Mercatus Center into a super awesome ethnic food bazaar and be done with it.

129 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 7:53 am

“Crush ISIS and save the millions of truly vulnerable who are really suffering.”
It worked so well the last two times, right? Well, while you are at it, you should crush al Qaeda (again), the Taliban (again), ISIS in Iraq too and the guys wrecking Somalia. You probably will have to “crush” Assad, the Pakistanis and whoever may be America’s puppet in Afghanistan now.

130 DCBob September 9, 2015 at 8:00 am

It’s a rather sad statement about us that our immigrant share (14%) is roughly similar to that of the western European countries (Germany, France, Holland & the U.K. all around 12%, Spain 14%, Sweden & Austria 16%) while our Anglo-Saxon cousins have vastly larger shares (Canada 21%, Australia 28%, New Zealand 25%). Hell, even Ireland has a larger share at 16%. And the political split seems interesting too, since there are strongly pro- and anti-immigration forces in both parties.

131 Horhe September 9, 2015 at 8:11 am

I know, right? You’re falling behind in the race to the bottom. It doesn’t matter that you are literally bigger than most of those countries put together and that one can live all his life in one place in the US and never leave Mexico.

132 ibaien September 9, 2015 at 8:27 am

yes, Australia New Zealand and Canada have ‘raced to the bottom’ so subtly that no one at all noticed. I mean they’re all in the top 8 of global HDI, but I’m sure they’re secretly full of brown people doing bad stuff.

133 Horhe September 9, 2015 at 8:43 am

Brown people being themselves is quite enough for social isolation, lower community ties and growing resentment, without the occasional bad person or criminal. But let’s not restrict it to brown – it’s the same for all colors of the spectrum, including white. Notice that Balkan refugees are also a worry, though they are maybe easier to assimilate in time. Even the best countries and the “best” peoples can experience and be a source of tension and conflict because of innate tribalism and cultural incompatibilities (even for slight deviations and the narcissism of small differences). I am from a source country of migration myself and am embarrassed when I read about criminality among my compatriots, though I am aware that it is only a minority of people. Shame is a good thing. It’s too bad Westerners have replaced it with guilt as a controlling mechanism. I would rather not lose my people to the world through migration, and would prefer to develop my country until we are closer to an even footing. That is hard to do when the people leaving are in the prime of their working lives, and many of them qualify as brain drain.

134 Cliff September 9, 2015 at 10:56 am

They have a points-based immigration system and not a family reunification-based system like the U.S., so they attract a much higher class of immigrant

135 JWatts September 9, 2015 at 2:53 pm

Precisely, all three of those countries don’t except many immigrants who aren’t obviously useful.

136 Nick September 9, 2015 at 10:05 am

When you say Ireland has 16% immigrants, are you counting people from Northern Ireland/Great Britain? Because if so, that’d be like lauding Canada for being so diverse as to have American immigrants. Actually, who are the Canadian immigrants?

137 Cererean September 9, 2015 at 3:46 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Ethnic_origin

Yes, they (seem to – going by ethnic origin isn’t much use when it comes to Britain or France) have a large share of immigrants, but since those immigrants are from the mother country of the people presently living there, it’s not really the same, is it?

Of course, I would be very happy for the Anglosphere to have free movement of citizens between them (though being an Anglo-American, I can already move to the US). Be warned, it will mainly be us Brits moving from our overcrowded island to seek better opportunities elsewhere…

Although of the non-native (including Métis) and non-Anglosphere (or French, because of those Québécois) ethnic groups, there are still large proportions. Given the data (which adds up to more than 100%) in the article, I count 19.13% from non-British or French Western Europe. 7.85% are from Eastern Europe, 2.02% Filipino (they’re not all the girlfriends of foreign men twice their age, surely?), 3.55% East Indian, 4.53% Chinese, 1.68% Russian, and there’s a 0.94% Jewish population.

So whilst Canada may have large amounts of immigration, the bulk of that is adding more white Europeans to the mix. It’s hardly an argument for the success of immigration from poorer countries with very dissimilar cultures…

138 Tarrou September 9, 2015 at 8:35 am

20k? Sure, we could handle that as a society. But we aren’t being asked to handle 20k syrians. We’re being asked to handle 25 million mexicans and central americans, with another hundred million or so on the way, plus several million syrians, most of Africa, most of the middle east, plus anyone in asia who happens to be having a rough go of it.

The Syrians are just what’s on the table right now, and they’re being resisted for only two reasons, first being that the losers of an ethno-religious civil war are likely to include a lot of very bad actors, and the second being that this is a wedge issue being used to pry open the doors even further for the countless billions of people in the world who would rather live in America than where they are. We can take 20k, but that’s not what’s being asked. We cannot take two billion, and that IS what is being asked, just in a very dishonest way.

139 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 10:40 am

“first being that the losers of an ethno-religious civil war are likely to include a lot of very bad actors.”
Wait until you see the winners.

140 Sam Haysom September 9, 2015 at 11:07 am

The winners aren’t askin to come here. You really are comically incapable of logical thought.

141 Thomas Taylor September 9, 2015 at 12:19 pm

Maybe we should grade “bad actors” on a curve (like Adam Sandler?), that is what I am saying. Compared to the winners and some of America’s good friends, the losers are, on average, a decent bunch. If we can trade some Americans for them, America can even get ahead.

142 Art Deco September 9, 2015 at 11:42 am

The Syrians are just what’s on the table right now,

Aye. It boils down to that.

143 Brian Donohue September 9, 2015 at 8:36 am

Great post. Excellent links.

Perspective. Very helpful. Thanks.

144 bulbous September 9, 2015 at 8:42 am

No worries for Syria. Putin is here to save the day. With strong Russian leadership, the world will soon be a much better place. http://news.yahoo.com/huge-russian-military-planes-land-syria-221502659.html But yes, in the meantime, sure we should allow asylum seekers who really want to come here to do so, but will they be happy? Many immigrants will never feel like they belong and will face lifelong struggles to understand the inscrutable natives: http://www.businessinsider.com/sotomayor-doesnt-feel-like-she-belongs-on-the-supreme-court-and-that-might-make-her-its-most-valuable-justice-2015-9

145 Bob from Ohio September 9, 2015 at 10:31 am

Putin is welcome to waste his military in Syria. I’m sure the conscripts will do as well as their fathers did in Afghanistan.

146 Trimegistus September 9, 2015 at 8:52 am

Yeah, we’ve never had any trouble with unassimilated Muslims in this country. That’s just crazy to think about. Tomorrow I’m going to a Muslim-Jewish Friendship celebration at Windows on the World — it’ll be great to eat fancy snacks and look out over New York from the top of the Trade Center.

147 Joël September 9, 2015 at 2:08 pm

I just can’t figure out if this post is ironical or not. Taking it at face value, I agree. It is astonishing how there is little trouble with unassimilated Muslims in this country, as compared to Europe. One of the American miracle.

148 ibaien September 9, 2015 at 2:16 pm

if it helps clarify, there’s a “patriots for peace” luncheon at the Murrah building cafeteria in beautiful Oklahoma City the next day…

149 JWatts September 9, 2015 at 2:56 pm

Exactly, it would be ridiculous to claim that right wing militia’s had never caused any problems in the US, when they clearly have.

150 Art Deco September 9, 2015 at 8:52 am

There is no justification for taking any ‘refugees’ from a congenially governed country like Bhutan bar a one-off here or there. As for Burma, there used to be refugee camps in Thailand for the Karen. What happened to them? Iraq is a more justifiable, because the flow is high, the proximate countries are hostile or small, and they are a client. You’re argument is what, that we were foolish three years ago and therefore it’s in for a dime, in for a dollar?

As for the Syrians, if the news reports I’m reading are not in error, only a minority of the ‘refugees’ flooding Europe are from there. Most are young men from a grab bag of African and Near Eastern countries.

Open borders advocates will grasp at any straw.

151 Cliff Arroyo September 9, 2015 at 1:26 pm

“only a minority of the ‘refugees’ flooding Europe are from there. Most are young men from a grab bag of African and Near Eastern countries”

well as it turns out, Tyler had childhood friends from a grab bag of African and Near Eastern countries, so it’s all good!!!!

152 Ricardo September 10, 2015 at 1:18 am

“There is no justification for taking any ‘refugees’ from a congenially governed country like Bhutan bar a one-off here or there. As for Burma, there used to be refugee camps in Thailand for the Karen.”

You should do some basic research on these topics. Google them and you will be able to answer your own questions.

153 Jan September 9, 2015 at 9:04 am

The Detroit area alone could handle that many Syrians. The community exists, the living is cheap and if they wouldn’t be willing to go there, we turn them away.

154 Detroit Tigers September 9, 2015 at 9:22 am

Kinda sounds like Escape From New York, we just build a moat around Detroit so they can’t leave?

155 Jan September 9, 2015 at 9:35 am

Most would actually stay there. People immigrating with refugee status are given some “start-up” supports when they arrive, and those could be limited to an assigned geographic area. Anyway, I’d bet that the Detroit area is still the number one destination for middle easterners coming to the US, refugee and otherwise.

156 Matt B September 9, 2015 at 11:11 am

I you were actually wiling to bet you’d put some effort into researching your assertions before slopping them out there.

We’ve done this before with the Boat People refugees don’t stick where you plant them.

157 Jan September 9, 2015 at 12:04 pm

If the Detroit area is where many of the current and former Middle Eastern immigrants have chosen to end up anyway, it is also a place where many of them will stay. That is basic logic. As a share of the population, the Detroit area has far more middle easterners and arabs than anywhere else.

158 Al September 9, 2015 at 12:30 pm

“if they wouldn’t be willing to go there, we turn them away”

The US government would have the will, the audacity, the resources, the steel-plated, teflon-coated resolve to carry out the deportation of a Syrian refugee who decided, after a week or so, to move away from Detroit to, say, San Francisco?

That just sounds completely unrealistic to me. I believe that particular policy proposal is an example of “sounding tough” but in reality doing nothing. It just wouldn’t happen.

159 FredR September 9, 2015 at 9:17 am

This is getting bizarre. Instead of restating the same position fifty different ways, I think it would be better to either engage with the other side or move on.

160 ibaien September 9, 2015 at 9:28 am

TC: ‘America should accept Syrian refugees’. Nativist Commentariat: ‘Refugees will do bad things to our country’. TC: ‘Here are a bunch of examples of successful assimilation of refugees and immigrants’. NC: ‘Yes but we’re still afraid they’ll do bad things’. I’m not sure what else you expect either side to say. people who support immigration generally trust immigrants and people who don’t, don’t.

161 FredR September 9, 2015 at 9:46 am

Tyler’s “examples of successful assimilation”, weirdly enough, haven’t included an awful lot of data on assimilation (and of course sloppily conflating different immigrant groups [even different Syrian immigrant groups] is not very helpful).

162 Art Deco September 9, 2015 at 10:02 am

I think we’re supposed to be uninterested in such data because if we have big hearts they’ll all be swell childhood playmates and concert pianists. (Not that he remembers his playmates all that well).

163 Cliff September 9, 2015 at 11:00 am

Pretty racist to refer to immigrants as one monolithic group. Please stop your microaggressions.

164 Art Deco September 9, 2015 at 9:35 am

His first argument was that two childhood playmates were ethnic Syrians, ergo we should ‘manage’ 20,000 Syrian refugees. Maybe his arguments are improving from post to post. (He has apparently not spoken to these women since 1969; one of them appears to be a composite, 3/4 of their ancestry is French Canadian and white bread, and the Syrian immigrants in their family tree consist of a pair of great-grandparents who immigrated in 1893 and 1904, respectively, so you can see their situation was just precisely analogous).

165 Urstoff September 9, 2015 at 9:46 am

Tyler’s probably writing for the people who read but don’t comment. He’s not going to convince people who don’t want to be convinced that letting in 20,000 Syrian refugees will not spell the end of American civilization as we know it.

166 Art Deco September 9, 2015 at 9:49 am

He’s not going to convince people who don’t want to be convinced that letting in 20,000 Syrian refugees will not spell the end of American civilization as we know it.

And you know bloody well that scarcely anyone has made that argument. The argument they’ve made is that he’s advocating bad policy with bad arguments.

167 Urstoff September 9, 2015 at 9:53 am

Quite a few people harp on the poor cultural qualities of Syrians without ever mentioning policy.

168 Art Deco September 9, 2015 at 10:00 am

So what? A discrete mass importation of a jumble of humanity is not going to incorporate the screens which make selective and voluntary immigration a net benefit for the receiving country. That’s going to be true whatever the qualities of the country of origin are. As is, Syria has been for decades a hotbed of political revanchism, has been an economic failure, has been a political failure, and is largely populated with Muslims. The trouble with this last datum is that it’s warranted, given a measure of uncertainty, to adhere to the view that Muslims are non-Muslims are tragically incompatible when the non-Muslim elite takes on a particular character. The occidental elites in our time have that character.

169 Urstoff September 9, 2015 at 10:29 am

Making it a net benefit for the receiving country is not a criterion of mine. Cultural conflict that can be dealt with in a country with rule of law is a humanitarian improvement on being in the middle of an actual war.

170 Jason Bayz September 9, 2015 at 10:35 am

Well, some people think the “poor cultural qualities of Syrians” should factor into policy.

171 Cliff September 9, 2015 at 11:02 am

Every U.S. policy should be a net benefit for U.S. citizens. If charity is your interest, taking refugees really makes no sense. Just spend the money on them where they are so they are helped without hurting the U.S.

172 Art Deco September 9, 2015 at 11:46 am

Making it a net benefit for the receiving country is not a criterion of mine.

Fine. You’re not the only one who lives here and not the only type who should influence policy (the pretensions of academe and the appellate judiciary to the contrary).

173 Urstoff September 9, 2015 at 12:41 pm

No matter how hard I try, I can’t find where I claim otherwise.

174 Art Deco September 9, 2015 at 10:46 am

Have you considered that maybe the point is to drive away the assholes?

175 Art Deco September 9, 2015 at 11:43 am

This is another fraudulent post.

176 chronomitch September 9, 2015 at 12:21 pm

But s/he makes a good point. Consider the Strassian reading.

177 E. Harding September 9, 2015 at 11:03 pm

Art Deco, I suggest either using my verification option (linking to screenshots of your clock hosted on your own blog, updating with a new one for each comment) or, alternatively, impersonate Tyler Cowen, as I did. It’ll at least get our host to notice the problem (all my Cowen impersonation comments were deleted).

178 Urstoff September 9, 2015 at 9:39 am

People will grasp at any excuse, no matter how remote, to keep the “barbarians” out. Of course the US can (and should) take in 20,000+ refugees, probably more. Indeed, taking in refugees that want to come to the US is the purest humanitarian response that accords both with isolationist and internationalist politics.

179 Art Deco September 9, 2015 at 9:55 am

What ‘excuse’? That you cannot think two moves ahead is no excuse for impugning the intellect or the integrity of anyone who can. Your interlocutors on this board understand the distinction between ‘immigrant’ and ‘refugee’, understand what are customary practices for feeding and housing refugees, and understand why such a distinction might be maintained. You do not.

180 Urstoff September 9, 2015 at 10:02 am

Apparently thinking two moves ahead is just making references to Rotherham and potential ethnic enclaves, neither of which seem to justify turning away people for humanitarian reasons. If you’d like to present a better definition of “thinking to moves ahead”, be my guest.

181 Art Deco September 9, 2015 at 10:04 am

Thinking two moves ahead is crafting a policy which is a guide to future action and is scalable.

182 Urstoff September 9, 2015 at 10:27 am

I haven’t seen too many (any?) people doing that here. Please point them out if you see them.

183 Cliff September 9, 2015 at 11:03 am

Because leftists don’t care about child rape if its committed by brown people. Only catholic priests.

184 Cliff Arroyo September 10, 2015 at 2:59 am

“leftists don’t care about child rape if its committed by brown people. Only catholic priests”

Well if the priests are just non-white enough I’m sure they’d stop caring about that too. Back in 1986 P.D. James wrote about “anti-racism” in the UK as a religion which wasn’t any more rational than any other. “you could get a way with any amount of insubordination, indolence or stupidity if you were sound on this essential doctrine”

The police ignoring what was going on in Rotherham was simplly a manifestation of religious observance

185 Urso September 9, 2015 at 10:29 am

20,000? Per wikipedia, “In early August, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said that 250,000 migrants had arrived in Europe by sea so far in 2015.” No doubt we can take in 20,000 refugees. Can we take in 500,000 per year?

186 Bob from Ohio September 9, 2015 at 10:37 am

“of course many of them, including some of the Burmese, are Muslims”

All Muslims are identical! No cultural differences at all.

People are objecting to Mid Eastern Muslims where there is a track record of 12th century social mores and violent extremism.

187 Ricardo September 10, 2015 at 2:52 am

Of course, your sarcastic second sentence undermines your third. “The Middle East” is a very diverse place with huge differences between countries and communities. The Levant is very different from the Arabian Peninsula. Damascus (to say nothing of Beirut) is not Riyadh.

188 Tom Warner September 9, 2015 at 10:48 am

Arguing over whether the US can take 20,000 or not is totally beside the point. There are going to be several million coming to Europe over the next several years. This is just getting started. Syrians have too little hope for a return to humane conditions in Syria.

Fred Hiatt at the Washington Post had a great piece on Obama and Syria a few days back. The same could be written on Ukraine. The point is it’s not just about Obama, or Bush, or the combined effect of one after the other. Above all it’s about what happens when Americans swear off responsibility for global security.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-syria-achievement/2015/09/06/961b416a-50de-11e5-8c19-0b6825aa4a3a_story.html

189 Harun September 10, 2015 at 1:39 am

So where are the Ukrainian refugees?

190 Joël September 9, 2015 at 10:50 am

Political correctness prevents many people, like Tyler, to understand the problem with the refugee crisis. So they attack straw men, such as the idea that the US could not or should not admit refugees in general.

For one thing, the problem is in Europe, not in the US. The US is a very large country, with a large and growing population, a growing economy, a relatively small population middle-eastern origin, and generally speaking no major difficulty in assimilating migrants. The could take 20,000 or even 200,000 Syrian migrants without any serious problems.

Second, the problem is who are the migrants. Specifically, the problem is not that they are Muslims in general, or Syrians in general, but that they are, for a large part, Muslim Sunni Arabs. The others refugees (Christians, Yezidis, Kurds, etc.) are no problem and most in Europe are ready to welcome them in large numbers. What is the problem with Muslims Sunni Arabs? It is not that they are inferior in any sense, or not able to succeed, or anything like that. It is that the dominant political vision in this group (the large majority of Arabs) is deliberately anti-democratic, anti-western, anti-semitic, and, one could say, imperialistic. This political vision has had different forms, from Nasser to ISIS through Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida, but all those forms have in common the same core, considering as their mission the reunification (under their rule) of the Arab people, the reestablishment of its dominance over the Muslim word, and the continuation of his territorial and cultural expansion (beginning, of course, by the crusade-like obsession with re-taking Jerusalem). I am not saying that all, or even the majority, of Sunni Arabs share this view and these objectives, but that there are no major alternative political forces. The saddening failure of the Arab Spring, excepted so far in the little Tunisia, are witness of this.

It is a fact that this ideology is not abandoned, but on the contrary reinforced, among the arabic immigrant population in Europe. For instance, in the last Tunisian elections, islamists got a much larger share of the
French-Tunisian votes (who voted in the consulates of Tunisia in France, and here were counted separately) than of the Tunisian votes as large. More generally, everyone who knows anything about current France, for example ho has read the recent paper in the New Yorker, knows that there is a large part of the Arab immigrant population (even second or third generation) that consciously refuses the French ideology, refuses to learn the history of France (especially parts concerning Jews) at school, are openly hostile to French secularism, etc. The fact that a small minority of them become Jihadists or terrorists does not help, but is not the main problem.

With this in mind, it is easier to understand the current migrant crisis. Europe as a whole is very conscious about these problems, and is afraid of letting in millions of new Sunni Arabs, with no guarantee that they will behave any differently than the ones already here. In France, in particular, it is clear that a majority refuses this perspective. So, multiplying examples, as Tyler does, of community Christian Lebanese refugees that do well in their new country is completely missing the point.

191 Thomas Taylor September 9, 2015 at 12:12 pm

“The could take 20,000 or even 200,000 Syrian migrants without any serious problems.”
Wonderful, shall we begin? Or is there another excuse on the way?

192 Joël September 9, 2015 at 12:28 pm

Yes, we can and should begin. Let just not guilt Europe to do the same. Its situation is very different.

193 Thiago Ribeiro September 9, 2015 at 6:54 pm

Fair enough.

194 A Definite Beta Guy September 9, 2015 at 12:24 pm

“For one thing, the problem is in Europe, not in the US.”

I see this as the principal issue. Europe needs to figure out how to resolve their own issues collectively. The US cannot step in and solve every issue for Europe, or else Europe will never figure out how to solve issues on their own.

195 The Anti-Gnostic September 9, 2015 at 11:34 am

These are young, healthy men. They actually outnumber ISIS. Tell them to go back and fight for their country.

My suspicion is their mullahs have told them go populate the infidel West with themselves (they are surplus men where they are located) and that they are being paid to leave by somebody–perhaps the Saudis, who will plant mosques across Europe, or perhaps even Russia/Iran/Assad regime, to rid the country of fighting-age Sunnis.

We have no more moral obligation to these people than we do to host a homeless person in the spare room in our house. Syrian Sunnis don’t know the language and despise our history and institutions. America is just a strip mall to them at best, and my prediction is they’ll never pull their own weight, except for Tyler’s 145 IQ concert pianist and his parents (who I assume are ineligible for Medicare, right?).

It’s hilarious how all the gimlet-eyed economists become Kantian moral philosophers when the topic is immigration (which is apparently, by some reasoning that eludes me, a categorical imperative).

196 Thomas Taylor September 9, 2015 at 12:09 pm

“perhaps the Saudis, who will plant mosques across Europe, or perhaps even Russia/Iran/Assad regime, to rid the country of fighting-age Sunnis.”
Perhaps the Saudis (our good friends would never do it to us), perhaps Putin, perhaps Assad, perhaps Obama. So … perhaps it is a Wahhabist plan, perhaps it is a Shia plan and perhaps it is a former KGB guy plan (if you can attribute a plan to any of two groups in a life or death struggle, it may not be a great plan, you know)? On a unrelated note, have the Jews been poisoning your wells and invoking Satan in your backyard lately?

197 The Anti-Gnostic September 9, 2015 at 12:32 pm

Neither clever nor funny. We are dealing with people who think several moves ahead.

This civil war has been dragging on for four years and all of a sudden hundreds of thousands of healthy young men with cell phones and hipster t-shirts show up, and there are ZERO questions to ask? I’d prefer more critical thought out of our purported leaders rather than ‘muh feelz.’ I vote for government to advance the national interest, not indulge in dubious moral crusades with other people’s money.

198 Reader September 9, 2015 at 2:45 pm

I like how you people move seamlessly from they are all inbred low IQ maybe-not-even-full-humans to they are evil super geniuses without blinking an eye.

199 A Definite Beta Guy September 9, 2015 at 3:08 pm

This isn’t “Evil Genius.” It’s standard evangelical behavior. It’s literally the plot to the Book of Mormon.

Let’s see the first thing that pops up when I google “Madrassa.”

“A madrassa is an Islamic religious school. Many of the Taliban were educated in Saudi-financed madrassas in Pakistan that teach Wahhabism, a particularly austere and rigid form of Islam which is rooted in Saudi Arabia.”

200 JWatts September 9, 2015 at 3:09 pm

“I like how you people move seamlessly from they are all inbred low IQ maybe-not-even-full-humans to they are evil super geniuses without blinking an eye. ”

That’s an odd comment, since he didn’t say any of those things.

201 Thomas Taylor September 9, 2015 at 5:29 pm

Yes, some guys are thinking several moves ahead, but I doubt it is the “maybe the Syrians, maybe the Shias, maybe the Saudis, but I am sure every problem is due brown people plotting” crowd. Again, are the Saudis trying to weaken Sunni Islam or are the Shias trying to make Sunni Islam conquer the West? Does it matter as ling as youhave an excuse for racism?

202 Harun September 10, 2015 at 1:34 am

Some of the hipster T-shirts are just factory rejects.

I saw a migrant with a Ramones shirt. I doubt he’s really a fan.

203 Anon September 9, 2015 at 6:55 pm

There is a much more simple reason that doesn’t require some complex conspiracy theory. In the early part of the war most Syrians believed that the war would end in the foreseeable future. This is no longer true.
Life in refugee camps or as a non person in Lebanon or Turkey is extremely difficult (at least in part because the camps are not properly funded) add to this the fact that Europe has no desire/ability to enforce border controls and the result is inevitable.
I would be a lot more sympathetic to the commenters who can’t stand the thought of refugees being given asylum if they had in the past (or even going forwards) advocated increasing support the various program’s to provide for the millions of displaced Syrians. The world food program just cut it’s food rations for Syrian refugees due to a <150 million dollar shortfall.

204 Harun September 10, 2015 at 1:33 am

I think you are right, but I suspect there was also a trigger. Probably a viral video or a rumor/fact about Germany being open for asylum. I read in a comment that Germany created a video in Arabic about how awesome Germany was for asylumees.

The same happened with the Central American kids. They just don’t suddenly know the word “permiso” and a deep understanding of American procedures.

205 Peri September 9, 2015 at 12:31 pm

At this point, in all “farsightedness,” shouldn’t the US ask Mexico what it wants us to do with these Syrians et al?

206 Los Ranchos September 9, 2015 at 2:05 pm

We Will Be Greeted as Liberators Part N:

“Refugees along the march said they had fled the school because they were angry with how they were being treated in Denmark.

Umm Mohammad, a Palestinian refugee from the Yarmouk camp in Syria, was traveling with her son and daughter.

“We flipped twice in a boat, and we suffered at the hands of gangs, for them to bring us here and fingerprint us?” said Ms. Mohammad, 45. “We’ll only fingerprint in the country we want.”

207 Harun September 10, 2015 at 1:30 am

I wonder if legal foreigners in Syria had to offer up finger prints for their work visas.

I know I had to do that in two Asian countries.

208 Milo Minderbinder September 9, 2015 at 2:13 pm

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/the-pulse/68662-new-health-insurance-options-present-immigrants-with-opportunities-challenges-

Great! Non-English speaking Bhutanese and Burmese refugees get ACA polices that cost less than $1 (Not a typo) a month

209 Harun September 10, 2015 at 1:29 am

A high school acquaintance pays $20 / month.

I pay $ 1350 for my family of 4.

He’s not dumb. He just wants to live the goth DJ lifestyle in the bay area.

He’s not hard up – he drinks and eats out more than I do. He goes on road trips and flew to Wisconsin for vacation.

I have to wonder if the money isn’t under the table. $20/month is amazing.

210 Minority Bolshevism September 9, 2015 at 8:23 pm
211 Minority Bolshevism September 9, 2015 at 8:24 pm

Wahabi road – does it look familiar?

http://punditfromanotherplanet.com/2015/03/30/wahabi-road/

212 Harun September 10, 2015 at 1:24 am

I don’t get the frisson on either side. Obama will nudge the number accepted up, mainly to try to paint the Republicans as racists. (Might work, too.)

One reason America shouldn’t be so burdened by Syrian refugees is that in our partnership with Europe, we have usually supplied the muscle and the EU has supplied the “soft power.”

We should gladly help Germany take some Syrians…but could we see a German defense budget at 2% of GDP, please?

No? You don’t want to spend another 1% of GDP on tanks and planes? Well, then, spend it on refugees.

If we are taking refugees, I think we have more of a moral case to take Libyan and Iraqi refugees rather than Syrians.

But why not? Its really a drop in the ethnic bucket. They may in fact promote assimilation. I have a theory that if your city has a Russian, a Mexican, and a Vietnamese (and now a Kurd) they will end up speaking English far more than if LA becomes 75% Hispanic.

213 Artimus September 10, 2015 at 4:41 am

You guys are STILL arguing and getting pissed off over Tylers pro immigration stance??? You all have been doing this all through the holiday weekend and now into the work week. Why are you wasting your time endlessly trying to convince a few dozen other commenters to change their minds. It’s almost like you guys don’t have a life…

214 Miko September 11, 2015 at 2:05 am

Trading is the best buddy in making my monthly earnings bigger. Google Superior Trading System if you want to know how to trade successfully.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: