US Taking in Fewer Refugees Than Rest of World

[Ben]

My subject line was written to mimic what I think these jokers were trying to slide by - that the US was taking in fewer refugees than other individual countries. What it says, and this is something that I didn't know, is that the US had been taking in more refugees than ALL other countries in the world combined. Now we're taking in fewer refugees than ALL the other countries of the world combined.

Seems like it's high time these 1% countries paid their fair share. I don't see how it's reasonable to expect us to take in even 25% of what all other countries combined take in. Especially with the overly liberal definition of "refugee" these days.

https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2019/12/23/pew-announces-that-the-us-has-recently-taken-in-fewer-refugees-than-the-rest-of-the-world-combined/

[Hawkmoon]

I don't know why it's necessary for the United States to take in any refugees. Some of the refugees we take in are grateful but, these days, it seems the majority are not. They don't want to come here and become Americans -- they want to come here and have us support them while they turn the United States into a carbon copy of whatever shithole place they just left. Why would we want anything to do with that?

[Perd Hapley]

I don't know why it's necessary for the United States to take in any refugees. Some of the refugees we take in are grateful but, these days, it seems the majority are not. They don't want to come here and become Americans -- they want to come here and have us support them while they turn the United States into a carbon copy of whatever shithole place they just left. Why would we want anything to do with that?

I know what you're trying to say, but I think you're exaggerating. Have the refugees been polled about their opinions?

[Hawkmoon]

I know what you're trying to say, but I think you're exaggerating. Have the refugees been polled about their opinions?

Which refugees? The few who are actually at significant risk of being persecuted by the government of their native country (which is what the political refugee program is supposed to be about), or the "refugees" who make nebulous claims about how bad things are wherever they came from while studiously avoiding providing much (if any) verifiable information?

I don't think I'm exaggerating.

[Ben]

Which refugees? The few who are actually at significant risk of being persecuted by the government of their native country (which is what the political refugee program is supposed to be about), or the "refugees" who make nebulous claims about how bad things are wherever they came from while studiously avoiding providing much (if any) verifiable information?

I don't think I'm exaggerating.

Yes, this is key. All those Central American "refugees" heading here earlier this year were not being persecuted in any way, nor were their lives in danger (I submit that gang violence in Chicago is on par with gang violence in Central American cities - you can move out of those areas in most countries). What most of them wanted was to get either free stuff or get paid $10/hr instead of $1/hr. That's a migrant looking for economic opportunity (or free stuff), not a refugee.

Also, the point is not made enough that refugees are supposed to seek asylum in the first free country they enter. Those truly in fear of their lives would do that, versus insisting on traveling 1500 or so more miles past that country.

[cordex]

I am only aware of one actual refugee family personally but the entire family are beyond grateful and both husband and wife became American citizens as soon as they were able. Sample of one for sure, but just thought I would throw that in.

[zxcvbob]

I am only aware of one actual refugee family personally but the entire family are beyond grateful and both husband and wife became American citizens as soon as they were able. Sample of one for sure, but just thought I would throw that in.

That's probably because they were refugees instead of "refugees".