Trump administration officials, under pressure from the White House to provide a rationale for reducing the number of refugees allowed into the United States next year, rejected a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than they cost.I am not surprised one whit. You can bet that whichever goon The Donald put in HHS will have massaged things so it comes out the way that Trump wants.
He'll call the conclusion that he doesn't like "liberal thinking". Sort of like how biologists were denounced in the USSR as "fly-lovers" and how, in another country, particle physics was dismissed as "Jewish science".
23 comments:
So those unskilled, 85 IQ refugees from northern Africa somehow come here and become incredibly productive and taxpaying citizens and don't use Welfare, Food Stamps and Free Obamacare? All those ghettoes in Minnesota and Detroit would say otherwise.
Ghettoes=black refugees...B., your slip is showing.
Call me whatever you want. Next time be honest about it though. Doesn't change the facts.
Those folks from Somalia score, on average, 85 IQ. and they have zero skills that are useful when they get here. What would you call the areas they live in. Ever seen those neighborhoods? What else would you call them?
Call me a racist. Doesn't change the truth.
We have a bunch of them in Fremont, and I would call it a neighborhood.
-Doug in Oakland
Look at the bright side, B. If we let them in and they become citizens, with their low IQ they'll be the perfect voters for the Republicans from hence forth.
B.:
"those folks", "they have", "they live in", "call them", "doesn't change the truth"
So, every one of those phrases is used by racists, sexists, white supremisits and their ilk. You've just catagorized a whole group of people as unacceptable, based on perceived stereotypes, what else can we say about you? Take an honest look in the mirror, my friend, look long and hard and see if you can truly say those phrases about any group without admitting that you are stereotyping...in much the same way you berate "liberals". Except, that in this case, you are consigning a whole people to the scrap heap based upon another stereotype.
Interesting twisting there, CP. Is there anything I can say that would satisfy you? Is there any thing I can say (that you don't agree with) that you won't perceive as racist? You find racism wherever you can, don't you?
I do thank you for the well written reply without rancor though. That is refreshing. I will consider what you wrote.
Understand, however, that stereotypes exist for a reason. (and one could say the same thing in your characterization of conservatives and Republicans, BTW).
I never said that those immigrants from Somalia should be on the scrap heap. I did dispute that they are a net gain to the United states when they are dumped here with no skills and no way to support themselves.
You use "Racism" as an excuse to deflect from having to admit the things you don't like to think about. At this point, that card is very very worn and tattered. And other folks use those sort of words in their arguments and conversations with others. Even you, my friend. They, those, etc are used to describe others.
What language would be acceptable to you? I'm serious. How would you have written the comments in order to not offend you? Perhaps I can learn how to not offend someone who is looking be offended when I disagree with 'em?
I do have a question for CP:
Where were you when TTB used obviously racial terms towards me in the ethnic cleansing comments? Or does he get a pass because he is a liberal? Why didn't you call him out as easily as you call me?
Oh, and CP: just to be clear:
"A ghetto is a part of a city in which members of a minority group live, typically as a result of social, legal, or economic pressure"
From Wikipedia.
That is the term I used, and the definition I mean it to be percieved as. If you think Ghetto only means "black" then you may need, perhaps to either learn more or check your own racist preconceptions.
It was, after all, originally (many hundreds of years ago) used for jewish segments of a city, but has become used in the form I posted above for most of the 1800, 1900, and up to today. There were polish ghettos, Italian ghettoes and ghettoes of nearly every nationality that emigrated here.
To answer your questions B.
You do this on a regular basis. Even your discussions of how you have tried to help "them" are sprinkled with this coded talk. TTB shows disregard for all the interlopers equally. The most disappointing thing is you refuse to acknowledge that you have used language that is clearly in the racist mainstream but continue to argue that you aren't racist because...
As for your use of ghetto, you clearly placed those "ghettoes" in two locations where the clear context was black residents.
With regard to referring to people, why not refer to them as individuals or refugees from XXX rather than groups with loaded pronouns like "they" and "them". It is your grouping that makes it clear how you view "those folks", to borrow your own words.
As for your language, you dismissed the report offered without addressing it, the same thing you accuse others off. You are, I assume, aware that entrepreneurs occur at a greater rate in the immigrant and refugee community that in the native (as in born in the U.S., not the more proper use, TTB) born population!
As for the Somali refugees you would not consign to a scrap heap, you lament their "dumping here", while failing to acknowledge that the U.S. is doing little to help establish the refugees with basic skills in America. The success of a number of programs by various charities that support Somali refugees as they get the feet under them in Minnesota invalidates your thesis.
"Ghetto", in modern usage, has become a short-handed term for "an urban neighborhood where poor minority folk live". The term implies that the area is high-crime and a dangerous place, with poverty being a definig characteristic.
Nobody, for example, calls the Hamptons or North Salem a "white ghetto". Scarsdale isn't a "Jewish ghetto" (these are all towns in NY state).
Also, what happens in one thread stays there. I shut of the thread in ethnic cleansing because people were getting nasty. If that fight carries over here, I'll do the same.
I think it's great that there are people who disagree and can argue their points. But I will not tolerate nastiness towards one another.
Not here, at any rate.
Would it be nastiness to point out that the assertion of Somali refugees or Somalis in general having an "85 IQ" isn't supported by facts or research of any kind whatsoever?
CP: I agree that "dumping" those Somalis and other refugees without any method for them to integrate into our society or teach them skills is indeed a bad idea.
You perceive my use of "ghetto" as racist, I did not mean it in any way to be racist, but rather used the term as it is defined above. Sorry you imputed something else. I will try to be more specific in my terminology in order that those with lesser educations can understand. After all, it takes two of us to communicate, so apparently I am not doing my part to be clear enough. Same with using "they" and "them". when referring to folks I had previously defined in the same conversation. I'm not sure how to fix that so you won't perceive that usage as racist, but I will try. Will you give me the benefit of the doubt and not start from the premise that I am racist and look at everything I post here is from a racist viewpoint and try to not let your preconceptions skew your view of what I say? I make the attempt to look at what you post with an open mind, can you provide me with the same courtesy and not look for "coded" racism that doesn't exist? I'm pretty plain spoken. You don't need to interpret what I say.
As to the report, I did not dismiss it, I read it and simply pointed out that the refugees from Somalia (was that better?) had no way to contribute to the society that was now sheltering them at great cost. Their children likely will, in 15 or 20 years as they will be better integrated and educated. But not at this time. Yes, there are a greater percentage of successful people in our immigrant population than in people who were born here. (my grandfather used to say that the "weak sisters" stayed in Europe and the best and brightest came here to have a better chance to succeed, and there is likely some truth to that)...This is what has made America the greatest and most productive nation. But I think you miss the reason why: Previous immigrants *chose* to come here on their own dime (often at great sacrifice) as it were, and make a new life for themselves. They generally had a support system in place here that helped them find jobs and integrate into the predominant culture and interact with the (as it were) natives when they arrived (not sure how to phrase this in a way you won't perceive as racist). The method used today does not make that support system happen, and refugees are not supported, but just tossed into neighborhoods as a group and supported with social safety nets. They (those refugees) don't easily become "Americanized" and remain isolated. This happened in the Italian and Polish immigrant communities as well at the end of the 1800's and early 1900's to an extent, but back then, a man who was willing to labor, or a woman who was willing to work, could do so with little education, simply with sweat, and work for, and interact with the "Americanized" folks that came before them. Not so in today's society. Further, one HAD to learn the dominant language, while today that is much less so. The problem with the article is that it combines *immigrants* from countries like India and China who are better educated and are more able, because of their home societies and educations, to integrate more easily into the American way of life and society as a whole, than the *refugees* (and there is a difference).
I don't know the solution. I wish I did.
You still haven't shown that they have an 85 IQ, B. Where did you get that figure from?
I was wrong. For that I apologize.
The average is 68.
https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country.
(I think this one uses the same data set and the above, so it is redundant)
https://photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html
(And since y'all accept the Times as a source more often than not for some reason, but not Breitbart (even though they BOTH have an agenda):)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/health/study-links-autism-and-somalis-in-minneapolis.html?mcubz=1
I honestly think the average of the Somali refugees and immigrants I have met was higher than 68. It wasn't. however, 100. I've never tried to measure anyone but I do know what I observe.
Now, make no mistake, these people (and there I go again, being racist and all) are pretty high functioning, not stupid, and many are quite successful persons. So, for what it is worth, IQ is only a part of the picture.
I don't think the lower IQ makes them any less, just different... and that they have a harder time integrating into our "normal (however you define that) society.
And finding these took *seconds* using Google. Next time do your own research and get off insisting that I do it for you. Or refute my statments with your own links.
We have an estimated 38,000 African immigrants in the greater Bay Area as of 2009, and among them are a few communities of Somali refugees, mostly in San Jose and Fremont.
They're not all being supported by the damn government.
In fact, there's a private organization run by and for African immigrants to help them navigate the very sort of productive assimilation you don't seem to believe them to be capable of.
From the East Bay Times, July 6, 2009:
"Traore’s organization launched in San Francisco in June (2009). Controlled and run by immigrants who speak 11 languages, it is designed to help African immigrants throughout the Bay Area adjust and integrate socially and economically through counseling, referrals, legal help, business networking and by creating closer links between small ethnic organizations.
“We figure once we got past the linguistic barrier, there’s no excuses for not working with each other,” operations director Larry Saxxon said.
Annual census estimates show that the region’s population of African immigrants grew by 31 percent in the first half of the decade, to a total of about 38,000, although many advocates believe the real number is much higher.
Eritrean and Ethiopian businesses line North Oakland’s Telegraph Avenue corridor. Many Ugandans have settled in or near Hayward. Moroccans and Algerians are fast-growing ethnic groups in San Francisco, and the Silicon Valley is a hub for Somali refugees."
They were still going strong as of August of last year, the last update listed for the story.
This just mirrors the same sort of networking and support displayed my almost every "group" of immigrants to the US, such as my Irish ancestors, the Italians, the Poles, the Germans, and any number of Asian communities we have thriving and contributing to the society and economy here in the East Bay,
They're just people.
I don't remember being born with the skills I used to contribute to the society and economy, but I feel that I was a good investment of the resources spent on my education and upbringing, and I do not see a Somali refugee as any less of a sound investment.
And again, we need immigrants right now, as our workforce is not replacing itself fast enough to support the society they are living in.
You may or may not believe the answer to that is tearing down that society so as to make it less costly, but I believe we can not just maintain it, but continue improving it as we have been for longer than I have been alive.
In other words, our economy is not a zero-sum system, and someone else having something does not, in fact, take that thing away from you.
-Doug in Oakland
B., I genuinely believe you believe what you say, but I suspect you feel "White Man's Burden". That is to say that you consciously or unconsciously believe that it is your duty to civilize those "others". Additionally, such civilization consists of them acting just like you. I disagree with the suggestion that you were simply using "they/them/those" as other had, the context doesn't scan correctly.
68 implies they can barely take care of themselves in their native environment. That doesn't make sense. Thanks for allowing me to point out the flaw in your so-called data.
Oh, and B., you might want to read the notes on some of those studies. Peer reviews found gaps big enough to drive trucks through...including estimating IQ's from neighboring countries and a systematic error in his process that suppressed the results for sub-Saharan Africa by at least 20-30 points.
Couple of points:
D:Those immigrants still get government help via Welfare, Food Stamps, rent , etc. And neither they, nor their ancestors have contributed to our society nor our "Safety Nets". THose charities you were referring to: Great help for those immigrants who want to assimilate. Not so much for those who don't. If you look at the first chart I posted, the Ugandans, the Algerians, and the Moroccans all score in the mid 80's. A bit different than 68.
CP: I don't expect to "civilize" those "others". I do expect that when they come to another country, in this case the US, they will learn and adopt the culture, mores and attitudes of their new home....Otherwise it is not immigration, but rather colonization. So far, the "refugees" haven't adapted. The immigrants have, for the most part.
I'm sorry you feel you have to assume I am racist because you see "hidden codes" in what I say. Again, I give you the benefit of the doubt, why can't you give it to me? If you don't then you are prejudging me, and we cannot have a conversation because you cannot really hear what I said.
Dark Avenger: You asked for a cite, I gave you 2. One is a "Peer Reviewed" study, and it has held up to scrutiny except by those who don't like the conclusions. I see no others which refute that with any SCIENTIFIC data nor conclusions. Again, feel free to find one that (scientifically and/or logically) can be used to refute the one I cited. I did (just this once) as you asked and gave a cite. If you are going to refuse to accept it just because you don't like the conclusions, why bother to ask for one?
CP: the "gaps" weren't peer reviews, just folks who didn't like the conclusions. Read the notes. I did. Again, show another scientific study which refutes this data.
Now, go ahead a flame away. This has drifted from the original post that I commented on and is now simply you 3 slamming me and me defending myself. It isn't gaining anything. I was asked for proof and a cite, I gave one. You accuse me of racism because I used terms like "those" to refer to some group that I had mentioned previously. Yet you can't (with the exception of Dinthebeast) come up with any cogent argument.
I are done on this thread.
Slam me all you wish.
ment to refute wha
Ha, ha, ha. The map accompanying that average-iq-by-country link says it all. All--not the majority, not the preponderance, but all--the lowest IQs*, (<80) are in sub Saharan Africa. Imagine that. All--not the majority, not the preponderance, but all--the 100 or greater IQ countries are North American/Northern European countries plus Australia.
I call three things. I call BS on the conclusions.
I call nonsense on the distribution of values of average IQs, since IQ results are established with the statistical mean on the order of 100. By definition, any group tested is likely to score "on average" 100. What a gross misrepresentation of what IQ scores mean and how they can be used.
And I call racism on the conclusions one might draw on that distribution map. What a self serving load of dung for white supremacists.
LRod
ZAU, ORD, ZJX retired
Nothing scientific in an IQ level 2 points below the level required for being declared incompetent for trial due to low intelligence in American courts.
If you think that makes any kind of sense, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to tell you about......
B., sorry if using your own words to highlight a concern as to your mindset is "slamming" you. I just feel that you are missing the forest for the trees, I know I did for quite some time.
Post a Comment