Sunday, September 6, 2015

Refugee Crisis: What to Do

Open Mic time.  What do you think we in America should do to help?

CNN Refugee Crisis
CNN Pope Calls for Mercy
CNN Photos

29 comments:

Laurie said...

I think we should accept some refugees from the Iraq and Syrian wars.

John said...

Laurie,
What is your rationale?
How many are some?
What should we do to stem the flow of refugees from the Middle East and Northern Africa?

Sean said...

We certainly could have allowed more Iraqi refugees, given our responsibility for creating the circumstances that required their resettlement. Per Wikipedia, we've taken in less than 100,000 Iraqis (compared with over 800,000 Vietnamese we took in following that war, for instance).

John said...

In Vietnam we lost and the Communist government took over. Which left many allies who needed political asylum.

In Iraq we won and gave the citizens of the country self control. Who exactly are we going to give them political asylum from?

Also, please note that Iraq has a smaller population than Vietnam had.

John said...

It is strange that Iraq's population is still growing rapidly. Apparently they make a lot of babies and/or things are not as bad as we hear.

Sean said...

We know that many folks who assisted our troops or worked for the provisional governments have been targeted (as well as their families). We know that many folks of minority religions in that country have been targeted. We know that there has been significant Sunni on Shia (and vice versa) violence.

Laurie said...

Maybe we should take 65,000 refugees from Syria.

Senate Dems call on Obama to resettle 65,000 Syrian refugees

John said...

I am fine letting them legally immigrate here. However I think the GOP should demand further military efforts to stabilize the region.

Moving everyone here that lives in a worse place is not a viable option. We need to help them improve where they come from.

Sean said...

OK, John, what's your plan for improving the situation in Syria?

John said...

Since Obama has let it spiral so far out of control in Iraq / Syria, I am not sure.

I would think the NATO nations would be willing to work together the Americans to stabilize the region. What did we do in the Balkans / Yugoslavia?

John said...

Even Russia may be convinced to help with the stabilization efforts.

Sean said...

In Yugoslavia, though, we kept our ground troops out of the middle of an active civil war. In Bosnia, we bombed targets, but didn't put troops on the ground. And we didn't put troops on the ground in Kosovo until after a diplomatic agreement was made (and you had a provisional Kosovo government who was anxious for Western intervention and ready to work with us).

Syria is a whole other ballgame -- you've got a three-sided civil war, and none of the three sides particularly like us. You're not going to be able to pacify the country without a major military intervention.

John said...

Do they dislike the EU also? It seems to me that the EU should be the main arm twister. I mean those refugees are a long long way from the American borders. If the EU does not want to invest money, troops and effort equal to the USA, then I guess they can receive and keep the refugees.

I keep hearing how great the Northern European social system is... And how wealthy Norway is...If they don't want to help stop the problem, then they can help those fleeing from it.

Sean said...

Sweden, Denmark, and Norway have agreed to take in about 75,000 refugees in total. Those countries have a combined population of about 21 million. With our population at about 320 million, we're taking in 1,500.

I guess all your talk about how American liberals should be worried about helping people in other countries instead of our own unvirtuous poor was just talk.

John said...

Personally I like to help people help themselves.

Taking in everyone in need around the world is kind of like welfare. An arbitrary reward given to some in order to make soft hearted people feel better. Often at the expense of others who need to pay for it.

The problem with welfare and taking in refugees is that neither help to fix the root cause of the problem, and both can support making the problem worse.

John said...

NG Map of the World
Peace Map

Sean said...

"Taking in everyone in need around the world is kind of like welfare."

Who, specifically, has suggested this? (Answer: no one.)

Let me know when you're ready to address the actual argument.

John said...

So let's do some math.
Possible Target = 75,000/21X320 = 1,107,143 refugees

There are ~7,000,000,000 humans on Earth. Many living in poverty, over population or in unsafe areas. How many do you want to bring to the USA? Would it not be better to spend money and military muscle helping them fix their home countries? Thoughts?

By the way, I am travelling to New Delhi India for the first time on Sunday.

Sean said...

You said earlier today you didn't know how we could fix Syria. Why should we spend money and military muscle on a mission that may be impossible (and even if it is possible, it will take years and cost billions of dollars and thousands of American and Syrian lives) when we know we can immediately help a portion of the people displaced by this crisis?

John said...

That is a choice... Treat the symptom or treat the disease?

Of course, we see what happens when the EU let's 1,000 stay. Then 10,000 more are motivated to risk their lives and those of their children to come. Then when that 10,000 are allowed to stay... Then 100,000 are motivated to risk their lives and those of their children... etc. etc. etc.

The same challenge we face on our weak Southern border, and those who want to reward border violators who budge in line in front of legal immigrants.

Why should the good people fight for their country if they can just leave for a better country at will? It reminds me of all the folks who ran from the inner city communities and schools, leaving them to decay.

John said...

This quote by Edmund Burke seems appropriate here...

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Maybe we should add... "or run away and forsake their community / country."

John said...

Apparently the USA takes in approximately 1,000,000 new legal immigrants each year.

What rate would you like to see? What criteria should be used? Remembering that 100's of millions of people would love to live here.

Sean said...

"Why should the good people fight for their country if they can just leave for a better country at will? "

Yes, nothing's cushier than the life of a refugee.

"What rate would you like to see? What criteria should be used?"

I don't know that I have a specific number in mind off the top of my head. What we should do, though, is make it far easier for high-skill immigrants to enter this country. That means busting up state licensing schemes that make it hard for doctors/lawyers, etc. to come over and practice as well as reducing the power of organizations like the AMA to control the number of residencies available for training doctors.

We're also capable of taking in refugees in situations like this. There's no doubt Europe should be taking the lead on this situation, but we're taking in 1/9 the number of people that Denmark is. Australia is taking in 25,000. Sweden is taking in over 60,000. We can do more than what we're doing today.

John said...

It seems the Administration is hesitant to take the refugees or solve the problem. Fox News 5000

John said...

As for the AMA / Licensing. Are you willing to cap the lawsuits? If not, who in the world will voluntarily ease the "due process" that absolves them of some liability?

Currently the politicians and healthcare administrators can claim they took no shortcuts by hiring a questionable Doctor / Nurse. Just like the State of MN and their not accepting Teachers from other states.

Sean said...

"As for the AMA / Licensing. Are you willing to cap the lawsuits? If not, who in the world will voluntarily ease the "due process" that absolves them of some liability?"

Why should lawsuits be capped?

The answer to the licensing problem is simple: establish a national standard for physician licensing. At the very least, states should be incented to recognize licenses from other states. This works well currently in the EU.

John said...

In the EU regulations/standards and tort law are very different from in the USA.

If one follows the regs/stds in the EU, legally liability is minimized.
If one follows the regs/stds in the USA, legally liability is whatever a jury thinks the victim deserves.

So Doctors, Hospitals, Nurses, Medical Device companies, etc have excessive rules, processes, etc to make sure risk is minimized. What incentive do they have for reducing the hurdles?

They start accepting Doctors from other countries, next the Liberals will say they are scrimping to increase profits and putting the patients at risk.

Sean said...

The biggest problem in the U.S. medical malpractice system is that most victims of malpractice don't get any compensation. The societal costs of medical errors far outpace what doctors spend on malpractice insurance.

Republican "reforms" like capping damages don't do anything to address these problems with the current system, rather, they just indemnify doctors for their errors.

A real solution to this problem would be to have national standards of care (again, something Republicans have fought -- even seeking to defund things like IPAB), which would enable malpractice claims to move to more of an administrative function than a judicial function. Think of workers comp as a rough analogy.

"They start accepting Doctors from other countries, next the Liberals will say they are scrimping to increase profits and putting the patients at risk."

Um, it's been conservatives who have fought this. The Conservative Nanny State by Dean Baker has an extensive discussion of this particular issue.

John said...

Since both the Doctors and Lawyers are against improving the system... I guess we keep what we have.

It is kind of like since the Teacher's Union is against a free flow of lower cost high quality Teachers into MN... I guess we keep the procedure walls in place to the detriment of the unlucky kids.

Bummer for the needy.