Clementine
Platinum Member
- Dec 18, 2011
- 12,919
- 4,825
- 350
Fewer innocent refugees will be helped under the current plan. We could help 12 times as many, but Obama has chosen not to do that.
For every single refugee we relocate, it takes up resources that could have helped eleven more. We have limited resources and many in need of help. By simply spending the money to help them there, we would not only prevent some ISIS members from entering our country, but help more innocents at the same time.
What is the real reason Obama is bringing all these refugees here when he knows that thousands are likely ISIS supporters or ISIS members? It would make more sense to keep them near home instead of bringing them to a strange land. We know ISIS wants their people here, so this is a golden opportunity.
Looking at the whole picture, it doesn't seem that the reason Obama is bringing them here is to help them. Fewer will be helped and ISIS will have the advantage of infiltrating countries. If the goal is to help innocents, the current plan is all wrong.
"But the goal of refugee assistance is not to make us feel good. It is to assist as many people as possible with the resources available. And resettling a relative handful of them here to help us bask in our own righteousness means we are sacrificing the much larger number who could have been helped with the same resources. The difference in cost is enormous. The Center for Immigration Studies, which I head, recently calculated that it costs twelve times as much to resettle a refugee in the United States as it does to care for the same refugee in a neighboring country in the Middle East. The five-year cost to American taxpayers of resettling a single Middle Eastern refugee in the United States is conservatively estimated to be more than $64,000, compared with U.N. figures that indicate it costs about $5,300 to provide for that same refugee for five years in his native region.
In other words, each refugee we bring to the United States means that eleven others are not being helped with that money. Faced with twelve drowning people, only a monster would send them a luxurious one-man boat rather than twelve life jackets. And yet, with the best of intentions, that is exactly what we are doing when we choose one lucky winner to resettle here."
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427153/refugee-resettlement-immoral?S2Obzlp2ZbRmwLtg.01
For every single refugee we relocate, it takes up resources that could have helped eleven more. We have limited resources and many in need of help. By simply spending the money to help them there, we would not only prevent some ISIS members from entering our country, but help more innocents at the same time.
What is the real reason Obama is bringing all these refugees here when he knows that thousands are likely ISIS supporters or ISIS members? It would make more sense to keep them near home instead of bringing them to a strange land. We know ISIS wants their people here, so this is a golden opportunity.
Looking at the whole picture, it doesn't seem that the reason Obama is bringing them here is to help them. Fewer will be helped and ISIS will have the advantage of infiltrating countries. If the goal is to help innocents, the current plan is all wrong.
"But the goal of refugee assistance is not to make us feel good. It is to assist as many people as possible with the resources available. And resettling a relative handful of them here to help us bask in our own righteousness means we are sacrificing the much larger number who could have been helped with the same resources. The difference in cost is enormous. The Center for Immigration Studies, which I head, recently calculated that it costs twelve times as much to resettle a refugee in the United States as it does to care for the same refugee in a neighboring country in the Middle East. The five-year cost to American taxpayers of resettling a single Middle Eastern refugee in the United States is conservatively estimated to be more than $64,000, compared with U.N. figures that indicate it costs about $5,300 to provide for that same refugee for five years in his native region.
In other words, each refugee we bring to the United States means that eleven others are not being helped with that money. Faced with twelve drowning people, only a monster would send them a luxurious one-man boat rather than twelve life jackets. And yet, with the best of intentions, that is exactly what we are doing when we choose one lucky winner to resettle here."
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427153/refugee-resettlement-immoral?S2Obzlp2ZbRmwLtg.01
