[B] 4.1 BILLION for Refugees [/B]
 

There are 2 ways to enslave people 1 is threw war & the other is threw Debt.

Who here thinks it's the tax payers burden to take in and Pay for these Refugees

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...on-in-fy-2017/

You know what profit on the arms US sold to the criminals who blew up these people's houses is? $4.1b is not a bad deal

Ralph: sorry I'm not getting what your pointing at can you please explain

My point is this:
Mass Refugee migration is or has destroyed eroupe. That's a fact!
Now you add in the financial cost, how much can one nation tolerate or should be expected to tolerate.
I am of the opinion, I have lived and worked in the US my entire life. I have payed into the system for 35+ years. I have never taken a dime from the system, in the form of government assistance, unemployment ect, I attend public schools, Ect and had the benefit of police and fire and basic city services how is it fair that the money I have payed into the system be used to pay for people that have not put one dime into our system? Is the US supposed to be a Bird Feeder for all of the world?

American company's sell 10billion per year of arms to the export market. These arms are used to wage war in these countries, the Collateral Damage is refugees.

If it's ok for tobacco to pay for cancer then the arms industry should be made to pay for their collateral damage, not the US tax payer.

So your saying because the US makes weapons we should have to take care of the victims of a civil war in the Middle East.

Please answer this. Why should the US take in people other MIddle East country's won't even take in.

And one more thought.
When people from the M.E start flying commercial jet liners into YOUR country's city's and killing THOUSANDS of innocent people I will care what you have to say about letting in people, to our country and how we decide to defend it but until that happens.

All I'm saying is these company's make big money selling misery, I don't see why they shouldn't help with the cost of the clean up. Maybe if they were forced to face the true cost of what they do then less killing machinery would be produced.

G, what I have been saying for a while now is these people are at war with you, they only way they can fight is with terror. You can be at war with them if you choose but at least ask yourself why they hold you as an enemy. Take a look at where they live and what has happened to their counties since world war 2, Islam is only part of the puzzel. Then maybe you can choose to defuse the bomb rather than set it off. It is only a matter of time before one of these terrorists drops an engineered virus in a major city's water supply and the casualty rate of the war will be evened up a bit. I get that you feel under siege and you have every right to feel that way but I can't see this conflict being resolved until another path is tread by the US, unless you plan on killing every last one of them the current path only leads to more conflict and death on both sides.

When did the destruction occur? Cuz I was there last summer and it was super not destroyed.

Shawn: what percentage of a country needs to be taken over by a another county's language and culture before you would call it ruend. 20% 50% 80% just wondering what your personal number is b4 you say enough is enough. Many schools in the U.K. Are 99% Muslim. Slowly but surely the U.K. Is becoming a extension of the M.E. France regrets Refugees Germany regrets Refugees Norway & Denmark all regret in fact all of Europe regrets taking in Refugees. Amsterdam had the highest acceptance rate of only 51% of people think Refugees were a good idea.

I'm sure you found parts Of Europe that were untouched and still beautiful.

He's right. Look at what refugees have done to Grant's English.

Wes that's your contribution,!

Grant is WakeWorld's own Leader of the Alt Right Richard Spencer

You know the American taxpayer is forced to pay $4B a year in welfare to Israel. And we are far from the cause of Israel's problems.

This is supposed to be a WAKEBOARDING website...

You're in the non-wakeboarding section, genius.

Travis: so because I'm TALKING about about how mass Immigration from hostile parts of ME to the US @ the Expense of the American tax payer, That makes me the leader of the Alt right?

Travis: do you know who Saul Alinsky is.

Speaking of foreign aid you brought up "Israel" the US dishes out billions in forgin aid. In many cases To country's that hate us. Example we were paying or giving forgin Aid to many ME country's to grow Wheat. Many farmers were growing poppy for heroin". It's cheaper for the US to pay the farmers to convert to wheat then fight the heroin epidemic here in the states. We were doing the same thing in Columbia, paying farmers to convert to Coffee production VS coca or Cocaine production. Not all forgin aid is bad.

It is Give and Take!

For ANY relionship to continue it must. Be mutually beneficial.

I know you community organizers don't get it but fortunately we now have someone in the White House who does!! :)

My wife has worked in 6-9 different European nations in the last 6 months and has never mentioned anything about anywhere being "destroyed". If by destroyed you mean, not 100% white, then sure. Where did you get the number about UK schools being 99% Muslim? Not buying that made up number for a minute.

Don't expect an answer. Grant's playing from the Trump handbook...
1) lie
2) lie again
3) lie fast enough that you can't be fact checked
4) change the subject and lie some more
5) cry FAKE NEWS!

So you love all those countries more than homeless vets?

It's official Wes is UnHinged!

As I said, Stanfield, don't expect an answer.

Wes: let's just say! I provided you with a link to a story or let's say 1000 story's or New agency's that proved my point? Would you stop being BUT HURT? um no I didn't think so. Ya see your new job or goal as a bleading heart Libral socal justice warrior, snowflake your new purpose in life is to punch hole's in reality. That's fine everyone needs a hobby. Yo go little buddy.

Grant you supplied a link to bribart. That is not news it's fiction. Try to get news from a real source.... Bbc, Reuters, he'll even fox is more reliable than briebart.

Exactly. Breitbart didn't even cover the horrible attacks in sweden. But they have great gear

Grant is the Milo of WakeWorld.

Breitbart did a really amazing job of cherry picking only the parts of that report that furthered their cause and then completely ignored the parts the directly contradicted their stance.

They grabbed this sentence from the study
“For the 2011-2013 period, then net cost to the state and local budgets of the first generation adults (including those generated by the dependent children) is, on average, about $1600 each.”

And then ignored the very next sentence
“In contrast, second and third-plus generation adults (again, with the costs of their dependents rolled in) create a net positive of about $1,700 and $1,300 each, respectively, to state and local budgets.” These estimates imply that the total annual fiscal impact of first generation adults and their dependents, averaged across 2011-13, is a cost of $57.4 billion, while second and third-plus generation adults create a benefit of $30.5 billion and $223.8 billion, respectively. By the second generation, decedents of immigrants are a net positive for the states as a whole”

And citing the Center for Immigration Studies and calling it non-partisan is a bit more than a stretch. The CIS has been designated an anti-immigration hate group, and remember it was them that said Global Warming was caused by immigrants entering the US. So I would take any of their reports with a big grain of salt.

Can't use facts with these people. If you rewrite your statement with a plot and fictional characters they might understand it though.

You could call it The Bible and make it about a man that loved his enemies and sacrificed for others. People could worship him and then act exactly the opposite of what he taught.

Here is a Idea: how about everyone that wants Refugees here YOU take them in Personally. You pay for them You feed them You school them. Wait What that's no good for you??? O so it's fine for the rest of us to have to pay for your Social experiment, ya see that's what's wrong with your movement, your always willing to take away from others to fund your agenda but your not willing to foot the bill yourself.

How would you do gooder's feel if your local ride spot was now filled with the very people you want here! Yup cheep boats filled with Dudes & Burkinis wakesurfing !
LOL how funny would that be. I bet you wakeworld LibraTards would be furious.

It's incredibly sad that you're comparing the hardships war refugees have to go through to crowded waterways while putting in a racist joke in there. Keep watching your pedophile.

The wake: I take it that it's a NO! on taking in the Refugees for you. You must feel so great preaching from the moral high ground.

G this is such a silly comparison.

It's like saying "want more people incarcerated? how about YOU keep them in YOUR garage!"

"Want those tax cuts for the rich? How about YOU make up the revenue shortfall from YOUR savings?"

"Want to build a wall? How about YOU opt in to pay more taxes to cover it?"

How do you trumpsters feel when you have to put your own money where your mouth is?

^ well said

Shawn: Not the same in my opinion, locking up violent criminals benefit us all so we should all pay the price. Same for Police Fire and services.
Tax cuts for the rich: Sorry brother apples and oranges.
As far as paying for a wall. Again another Item that We All benefit from. Who here knows how much the US pays out in social services to people here in the US that don't even belong here?

They just ran a Story on KTVU channel 2 saying our roads and bridges are in such bad shape that it would require what amounted to $1100 per family in california to pay for said road and bridges.

So our infrastructure is in need of repair we don't have the money The state wants to raid our taxes to pay for these repairs BUT we can afford to pay for the Refugees? Hummm some of you are not as financially smart as you claim to be?

Grant - what are you hoping to accomplish by going to web-site that is designed for water activities and constantly push your political views? I am sure there are more appropriate avenues than wakeworld for this

Ok here we go. Just saw this on twitter and it mirrors what i was trying to say earlier. G can you please do me a favor and just give it a quick read, I don't expect it to change your mind but maybe it will soften you a bit and over time you will be a bit more open to understanding that people are people and are motivated by pretty much the same thing. Being Muslim is not the motivator for being a terrorist but part of the frame work which supports it when you have a stressful environment.
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/18/...-in-the-world/

Travis, people who post here are friends with a common interest in watersports, sometimes we like to discuss each others political views. Non-wake is the appropriate place to do that. If you don't value the discussion don't visit these threads, you have no right to try and limit our fun.

prison spending or infrastructure?
school spending or infrastructure (K-12 + higher ed in CA is like 54% of your state's budget)?
ag subsidies or infrastructure?
health insurance or infrastructure?

Grant it's called politics. When you (or I) are emperor of the universe, all decisions will be perfect and unquestionable. Until then our elected governments have limited resources and allocate them imperfectly. As much as you complain about California, you could always leave? Believe me, you'll find like-minded folks (and no state income tax) on this side of the Sierra.

I think Wakeworld Dave should keep non wake discussions off the forum snapshot. I try to comment and get other threads going but these political threads dominate what the user sees when they log onto the home page. Honestly I like having political discussions to a degree but I feel like this forum has been overrun with arguments between the same groups of people saying the same stuff on every thread.

Having lived in CA, I actually get why Grant, Markj, Delta, etc....are so outspoken about some of these issues. They get taxed to death out there. While we lived there, the company footed the bill so we didn't "feel" the higher taxes. When faced with the option to stay and start paying all of them ourselves or move out of state, we hit the road quick. CA can be a very strange place. Just as a ridiculous example, my truck, that wasn't even a daily driver had to be registered as a commercial vehicle and the registration was almost $500 a year with an increase in my insurance as well. In any other state in this country, it's just a pickup. I honestly don't know how people can and choose to afford to live in CA. It's nice, but it's not THAT NICE.

Stephan:

The USA should be charitable not a charity. The world is very good at creating refugees. And, the more messed up the region the more refugees.

1) how much should we spend on external issues when we have massive internal issues (inner cities; infrastructure).
2) how many should we accept such that we don't overburden ourselves and fail to assimilate creating new internal issues.
3) should we accept people from toxic cultures that conflict with our freedoms (women are treated like crap, religious freedom is not acceptable, people who hate america).

^^^^#3 exactly
How come we didn't see any of the Woman that marched the day after the inauguration protesting for Muslim Woman's rights? Part of my complaint is that taking in and paying for people that don't like our way of life and want us to change to their way of life. They hate our freedoms, Danes #3 as a example. We can't take care of our own Vets and our Homless problem here on US soil is crazy, why not start fixing the problems we have here at home FIRTS. And once we are stable & whole then reach out.

Maybe because Muslim women have exactly the same rights as everyone else in this nation. Why is seeing the obvious so hard? Oh I know.. because it doesn't fit your twisted narrative, which includes complaining about taxing people to spend money in this country, but support taxing people to send money to to other countries.

So if you're in abused And oppressed woman in one of these middle eastern hellholes, when you cross the border to the United States they are magically treated so much better by their peers

We should make a snowflake utopia. Take all of these "highly educated do gooder , social justice warriors, and create a magical place, where they could employ all of their liberal views and ideas. We could load it with all of these refugees and black lives matter people. And because police are so evil they wouldn't have to go into this magical utopia. I'm sure everyone would get along fabulously.

LOL lol you know what the hell hole that place would be. How long would these Libs get tired of paying for all these freeloaders before they cried uncle

GD hit the nail on the head, as I see it.
1. we have problems here that deserve priority over housing, employing and assimilating "people" into our culture. we didn't create those problems, we don't have to run to everyone's rescue and solve them.
2. we currently accept 1MM per year. plenty for me.
3. no.

gumballs and immigration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

You guys love fallacies. That entire video is one gigantic strawman. Classic.

Why do republicans always block bills that help the homeless and ESPECIALLY bills that help veterans? It is a known fact that republicans don't do **** for veterans.

Excuse me. But when our government chooses to go overseas, wage wars, and remove leaders, "WE" most certainly "did create these problems".

Equating human beings to gumballs? Let me explain to you the flaw in that. The demonstrator assumes that if you cannot help everyone, then it does no good to help the few that you can. Tell that to the family that was able to escape a tyrannical leader and live without fear.

Um help me with this saying? It's on the tip of my toung, It went something like??

Make China Great Again??? No that's not it.
Was it
Make Lybia Great Again??? No that Dosent sound right.
Was it
Make Africa Great Again? humm that Dosent ring a bell.
Could it have been
Make Iran Great Again, No I'm sure it was not that!


Oooo now I remember it was
Make AMERICA Great Again yes that's it!

So the Again in MAGA assumes a period in the past, right? Which period was it, precisely, that we were both GREAT and had no foreign entanglements?

When was the last time the US great? What period of nostalgia are you looking to return to?

Well we are getting off topic but I will answer your question. Of corse the question "When Was America Was Great" is purely subjective. But IMO America Great in the 30-50's when we made our own stuff. Example we wanted a bridge or a Aircraft carrier. Americans made it here in America. When America was a sovereign nation, we could out produce Anyone! we could out build Anyone!
When we started giving up our industry's and having other country's build our ships our bridges our airplanes and even the cars we drive and started the Globalization Approach. Don't get me wrong America has always been Great! Even with all it's flaws it's still by far the greatest nation on Earth.

Aircraft carriers are still made in Newport News, VA. America can still "out build Anyone". The problem is, we want to pay 499.00 for a 4K TV, 25.00 for a pair of jeans, etc. People want American workers to have to compete with workers in the Far East making three dollars a day. It's not going to happen chief.

Where do they get the Steel for these Aircraft Carriers?

The unemployment rate is pretty much the same now as in the 50s and A LOT lower than the 30s. Does it matter if people are in manufacturing or more hands off jobs? Why is working on a production line great?

Back on subject: please explain how the phrase ( strawman) applied to the video on migration.

The video presents a strawman argument in favor of immigration as, essentially "a way to lift all of the world's poor out of poverty." Who, other than the morons in the presenter's audience who nod along in unison, thinks that the reason or basis for US immigration is to "solve world poverty?" Does anyone think that we are going to take in every single person living in poverty from everywhere around the globe? Of course not.

So yes, the presenter refutes that argument, but it's an argument that nobody was advancing in the first place. In other words, he built a strawman, and then knocked it down.

they don't

It's simple math. All this humanitarian outreach does NOTHING besides make us feel like we're helping others.

So let's compromise our national security while we do it! :banghead::banghead:

So can you give some concrete examples of how taking in Cuban, Jewish and Vietnamese refugees over the past 60 years has compromised our national security?

I'm sure those communities would disagree about it being a waste of time.

Your argument applies to all charity.

This is especially true of the "grant a wish" program, at the end the kid dies and all that money and effort is wasted.
When we feed homeless people, the next day they are hungry again.
When you tithe at church, the next Sunday they have to pass the plate again and their costs go up (inflation) so they actually need more than when you gave them money the week before.
When you give to the NRA, they spend it on buying politicians and then those damn liberals try to take your precious toys away again just because somebody kills a bunch of kids and they need even more money to buy more politicians.

Based on your argument, we should all just keep our money to ourselves and not try to help anyone else EVER.

one significant difference: they didn't want to kill us

I'd be more in favor or tackling the issues than giving handout bandaids.
why are people homeless? drug/addiction problems? job training/education? treat them and educate them
a church is run like a business. If you don't like tithing, then don't or find another one to support.
NRA - someone has to keep the misguided powers in check

Errrr. The people who want to kill you also want to kill the Refugees. That's why they are refugees.

Just read some stats which claim the crime rate for refugees is lower than the general populous and that they are GDP positive after the first generation. Looking for a better source before posting.

Here is an example of the media in NZ which resulted in the govt taking in an extra 750 refugees due to public pressure, talks about economic cost:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...economists-say
Scaled to the US it would be 75,000 people. Keep in mind that this is a special influx above the normal 1,000 per year (100,000 scaled).

Ok to crime, using Germany as an example:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immi...ime_in_Germany

The point is, when you have POTUS stating that refugees are destroying Europe, raping and killing locals lots of people just accept it because it sounds right without actually checking for themselves. You expect somebody in his position would be well informed and tell the truth. But no, POTUS tells this narrative because he knows rednecks are just looking for an excuse to hate someone from another country and it allows him to be the white knight saving everyone from the evil foreigners.


So G, I ask you specially since you started the thread, if the numbers show refugees are actually a net economic benefit after an extended time (20 years or so) and statistically the crime rate is not significantly different from the local populous are you still against helping these people?

So let's play a game.

My name is Mohammed Akbar bin Ladin, I have 100 soldiers in my radical islamic compound. There 1.6 billion muslims worldwide, but mine are nuts. We train hard everyday to take down that evil western empire, America. We shoot AKs in the air and behead people on the regular. It's what my family has done for 1000 years. I hope to honor Allah with more death, including my own if it furthers our mission.

America: we love refugees!!!

Let's see, if I wanted to get a few guys into America, how would I go about doing that?

Find ones with US passports, or barring that, EU passports. You know, citizens of countries not subject to the travel ban.

That's the dumb thing about these blanket bans, they keep out non sophisticated operators. Truely dangerous, well resourced professionals have access to false documents and procedures to circumvent controls like this.

I've been a member of WW since 2001. I haven't posted any comments in many years but reading all of the political threads on this site and elsewhere on the internet has motivated me to ask a few questions. First of all I am a registered republican and I voted for Donald Trump in the recent election. I am not a racist, mysoginist, nor a xenophobe. I was unhappy with the direction that our country was headed after the past 8 years so I voted for the change that President Trump promised.

With that being said, I am not opposed to indviduals immigrating to the United States legally nor am I opposed to accepting refugees from warn torn countries throughout the world. All that I ask is that individuals who want to immigrate to the United States do so through the proper channels. As for the refugees, I am willing to welcome those indivduals to the United States after they have been properly vetted. I don't think an extensive background check is an unfair prerequiste to impose upon anyone that wants to come to the United States, but it seems to me that many of the liberals in the United States believe that we should have open borders that allow any and everyone to enter the United States without any screening process whatsoever.

Do the individuals on this board that would classify themselves as liberals believe that it is in the best interest of the security of our nation to accept refugees from any country in the world without some sort of screening process?

Do you believe that the process for legal immigration to the United States is unfair? Do you believe that anyone that simply walks across the border without proper documentation should be welcomed with open arms?

I understand that our nation was built by immigrants, but there is a correct pathway to legal immigration. Why are the liberals in this country upset with our new administration for enforcing the laws that are currently in place?

As for the deportations that are taking place, this is something that took place in much greater numbers under President Obama but I don't recall anyone protesting about the immigration policies of the past administration so why are you protesting now?

It seems to me that many of the liberals in the United States aren't protesting the enforcement of the law but rather they are protesting the fact that they are unhappy that their candidate did not get elected.

If we can't come together as a nation and find a middle ground, then I fear we are headed for a period of great civil violence that we may not recover from for years.

"I am not a racist, mysoginist, nor a xenophobe."
Just curious, would anyone who is ever admit to it? Or necessarily even be aware/acknowledge it in themselves?

"Do the individuals on this board that would classify themselves as liberals believe that it is in the best interest of the security of our nation to accept refugees from any country in the world without some sort of screening process?"
Who here has ever, ever argued in favor of something like this? The screening/vetting process for refugees is strong and has served the US well. What idiot would argue for the silly scenario you posit?

"As for the deportations that are taking place, this is something that took place in much greater numbers under President Obama but I don't recall anyone protesting about the immigration policies of the past administration so why are you protesting now?"
Again, haven't seen anyone here protest against the deportation actions. Personally I'm fine with it. From a logistical/financial standpoint, however, I would say that the Obama approach of focusing resources/personnel on violent criminals is better than the broad focus that is happening now (wasting time on moms and dads vs the baddies). The people who *are* actually protesting deportations were doing so vehemently during the Obama years as well (but Obama's detractors were too worried about crying over his birth certificate to take note, perhaps).

Stephen*

Wes, I guess my stating that I am not a racist, etc...was a preemptive statement in an effort to eliminate the name calling that seems to be common for anyone that voted for Donald Trump. It probably wasn't needed. I base my opinions of individuals on my personal interaction with that individual. I don't make judgements on entire sections of the population as a whole but rather as individuals.

The purpose of my post was to gain an understanding of the other side of the immigration and refugee arguments. It wasn't to be belittled by some internet troll. Now I remember why I stopped posting on this site.

"but it seems to me that many of the liberals in the United States believe that we should have open borders that allow any and everyone to enter the United States without any screening process whatsoever."

Where did you get that impression? I have yet to meet anyone who believes that the borders should be open and uncontrolled. Does it seem that way to you because you actually know people who make that argument. Or does it seem that way because the people who you respect have been feeding you a line of crap? Because I have heard that line of crap come from the executive office.

"The purpose of my post was to gain an understanding of the other side of the immigration and refugee arguments. It wasn't to be belittled by some internet troll."

If that's really the case, then maybe you should reread your post/language and rethink your assumptions.

Don't be scared off by robust replies, the banta is fueled by passion.

Anyway to break it down for you:
Currently you have vetting which has been in place for a long time and when you look at the numbers seem to be doing a good job, the number of refugees which have committed terror acts in the US is zero.

"Liberals" think the system is working and is a balanced response too the danger.

Trump whips up some hysteria that there is no vetting and thousands of terrorists are pouring in to the country using the refugee back door and creates new "temporary" law which bans people from a selected bunch of countries from entering the country, even if they are US citizens.

"Liberals" point out that the new law is unconstitutional and doesn't make the country any safer. Republicans point out they are snowflakes and they lost.

I think i covered everything.

Wes and John,

My "assumptions" are based upon the stories that I see everyday on the news and on the internet. Everyday there are stories that illustrate various protests to the executive order that was signed by President Trump regarding immigration and I would like to understand what the individuals that are protesting are against?

Are they against the fact that he specifically named seven countries that are predominantly Muslim? Are they protesting the halt of refugees into our country until a revised vetting process can be implemented?

When a section of our country feels that it is necessary to initiate a "Day without Immigrants" in protest of the executive order I would like to understand what they are protesting against?

I don't believe that the current administration is looking to eliminate immigration nor the acceptance of refugees. I believe that the new administration simply wants to enforce the current immigration process and eliminate the flood of illegal immigrants entering our country every day. They are willing to continue to accept refugees from countries all over the world. They simply want to refine the screening process before continuing to accept said refugees.

Perhaps the individuals on this board don't share the same opinions as the indivduals that are shown on the news everyday. If that is the case, then I will have to look for answers to my questions elsewhere.

Rob, I think you can find discussion of these points in the Trump thread.

As one of the "liberals" posting, I agree that Wes's response was a little harsh from the get go.

I also have to say that the harshness is easily explained if you see how many times he has posted links to reputable sources discrediting some ridiculous claim from the GOP and has gotten the response "libtard"


Most of the questions you asked have been answered in the Trump for Prez thread. but I'll be glad to rehash it if you find something that doesn't make sense to you.

The short version is we protesting wasting our money. The wall is financially idiotic. Deporting all the illegals is financially idiotic. We have one of the most comprehensive vetting processes on earth right now and are not taking near the refugees that most of the european countries are taking. Do I want them here? Not really, but since we made most of the stupid decisions that lead to their fleeing their homes it does seem right to help them out.

If your neighbors house gets burned down because you sold fireworks to a guy you knew was crazy and likely to burn down your neighbors house, it seems like you should be willing to help them out a little after the fact.