Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IDK, this is probably the one topic that I agree with Trump on. I mean, isn't Syracuse already hurting? 10,000 refugees resettled there already has to have a impact on local residents when it comes to competition for jobs. Utica is now considered one of the most distressed US metros- in the same camp as Camden, NJ; Gary, IN; and Youngstown, OH. I don't see how adding more immigrants is the solution.
IDK, this is probably the one topic that I agree with Trump on. I mean, isn't Syracuse already hurting? 10,000 refugees resettled there already has to have a impact on local residents when it comes to competition for jobs. Utica is now considered one of the most distressed US metros- in the same camp as Camden, NJ; Gary, IN; and Youngstown, OH. I don't see how adding more immigrants is the solution.
It's something that's currently being studied and the results are pretty varied, though generally it's mediocre in the very short term (pros and cons basically even out) and positive in the long term. Refugee resettlement places a strong temporary strain on some municipal services, but they also generally come with added federal and private charitable aid that offsets most of that though not a direct tit for tat since some municipal agencies will be more strained than others while some agencies might see more support than others. Also, since they are registered residents of their area, they are very accurately counted within the official census taken and a lot of apportioning of federal and state funding is based on those counts so that helps (though maybe we should be doing five year census instead of ten).
For cities that have abandoned housing, which is not necessarily where all refugees get resettled, it generally means those abandoned houses get a bit of a touch up so they're safe for human habitation and doing so generally stabilizes neighborhoods that had patches of abandoned houses here and there.
It is almost across the board the case that refugees in the US start at or near the poverty line, it's also almost across the board the case that refugees seem to cross that line in a very short time as it's basically drilled into them that they are expected to be productive members of society--plus, the US, even in the struggling cities they are sometimes resettled in, is usually a lot more conducive to spending time productively than refugee camps where they basically have a hard time getting anything done so that seems to be a pretty strong pent up drive to be occupied in something.
The largest refugee resettlement programs in somewhat modern history where it's long enough ago to have a somewhat longitudinal study, but recent enough so that it's somewhat more akin to our current process of resettling refugees are probably those from the Balkans, especially persecuted Muslim Bosniaks, and the long term has been that the first generation seems to stabilize neighborhoods really well and seem more entrepreneurial than average while their kids seem to do great academically and professionally.
The bigger question for these smaller cities is how this works out in the many decades out. That stabilizing effect is good for the two decades of getting settled, raising families, and starting businesses, and refugee families generally come from a background where the kids stay close to home so that's two generations of stability, but that third generation will probably feel more comfortable leaving so will these smaller cities retain these communities or will they follow the same pathway a lot of other American immigrant communities have done where the grandkids of immigrants move to more booming regions? However, that's still decades away--maybe there will have been a shift in what cities are attractive to younger people by then.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 10-12-2016 at 09:07 AM..
It's something that's currently being studied and the results are pretty varied, though generally it's mediocre in the very short term (pros and cons basically even out) and positive in the long term. Refugee resettlement places a strong temporary strain on some municipal services, but they also generally come with added federal and private charitable aid that offsets most of that though not a direct tit for tat since some municipal agencies will be more strained than others while some agencies might see more support than others. Also, since they are registered residents of their area, they are very accurately counted within the official census taken and a lot of apportioning of federal and state funding is based on those counts so that helps (though maybe we should be doing five year census instead of ten).
For cities that have abandoned housing, which is not necessarily where all refugees get resettled, it generally means those abandoned houses get a bit of a touch up so they're safe for human habitation and doing so generally stabilizes neighborhoods that had patches of abandoned houses here and there.
It is almost across the board the case that refugees in the US start at or near the poverty line, it's also almost across the board the case that refugees seem to cross that line in a very short time as it's basically drilled into them that they are expected to be productive members of society--plus, the US, even in the struggling cities they are sometimes resettled in, is usually a lot more conducive to spending time productively than refugee camps where they basically have a hard time getting anything done so that seems to be a pretty strong pent up drive to be occupied in something.
The largest refugee resettlement programs in somewhat modern history where it's long enough ago to have a somewhat longitudinal study, but recent enough so that it's somewhat more akin to our current process of resettling refugees are probably those from the Balkans, especially persecuted Muslim Bosniaks, and the long term has been that the first generation seems to stabilize neighborhoods really well and seem more entrepreneurial than average while their kids seem to do great academically and professionally.
Yeah, it seems to be a Catch 22, as in the initial stages, it may be viewed as a con, but as time goes on, things improve. I think the issue is in terms of to what degree do said communities keep bringing in refugees. I think that is where some of the issues become exacerbated in comparison to other areas that may get little to no refugees. So, it may be a matter of shifting, which is where I think Watertown gets pulled into this and/or in terms of to what degree do refugees get taken in.
It's something that's currently being studied and the results are pretty varied, though generally it's mediocre in the very short term (pros and cons basically even out) and positive in the long term. Refugee resettlement places a strong temporary strain on some municipal services, but they also generally come with added federal and private charitable aid that offsets most of that though not a direct tit for tat since some municipal agencies will be more strained than others while some agencies might see more support than others. Also, since they are registered residents of their area, they are very accurately counted within the official census taken and a lot of apportioning of federal and state funding is based on those counts so that helps (though maybe we should be doing five year census instead of ten).
For cities that have abandoned housing, which is not necessarily where all refugees get resettled, it generally means those abandoned houses get a bit of a touch up so they're safe for human habitation and doing so generally stabilizes neighborhoods that had patches of abandoned houses here and there.
It is almost across the board the case that refugees in the US start at or near the poverty line, it's also almost across the board the case that refugees seem to cross that line in a very short time as it's basically drilled into them that they are expected to be productive members of society--plus, the US, even in the struggling cities they are sometimes resettled in, is usually a lot more conducive to spending time productively than refugee camps where they basically have a hard time getting anything done so that seems to be a pretty strong pent up drive to be occupied in something.
The largest refugee resettlement programs in somewhat modern history where it's long enough ago to have a somewhat longitudinal study, but recent enough so that it's somewhat more akin to our current process of resettling refugees are probably those from the Balkans, especially persecuted Muslim Bosniaks, and the long term has been that the first generation seems to stabilize neighborhoods really well and seem more entrepreneurial than average while their kids seem to do great academically and professionally.
The bigger question for these smaller cities is how this works out in the many decades out. That stabilizing effect is good for the two decades of getting settled, raising families, and starting businesses, and refugee families generally come from a background where the kids stay close to home so that's two generations of stability, but that third generation will probably feel more comfortable leaving so will these smaller cities retain these communities or will they follow the same pathway a lot of other American immigrant communities have done where the grandkids of immigrants move to more booming regions? However, that's still decades away--maybe there will have been a shift in what cities are attractive to younger people by then.
Current state of affairs has nothing to do with the past. Now we have both -- welfare and open borders at the same time. We don't need an oracle to tell us that 2 + 2 will equal 4.
Not sure if you know, but since 1975 we have taken in twice as more refuges as the rest of the world combined.
If refuge intake was so great, then why is Joe Biden's district or even Washington DC taking a lot less of them than other districts? Don't they want "neighborhood stabilization" as you say?
Current state of affairs has nothing to do with the past. Now we have both -- welfare and open borders at the same time. We don't need an oracle to tell us that 2 + 2 will equal 4.
Not sure if you know, but since 1975 we have taken in twice as more refuges as the rest of the world combined.
If refuge intake was so great, then why is Joe Biden's district or even Washington DC taking a lot less of them than other districts? Don't they want "neighborhood stabilization" as you say?
NYC takes a lot and does fine and so do the twin cities. I am not for open borders and that is a separate issue. There is no targeted funding or acculturation program for illegal immigrants on the same scale.
NYC takes a lot and does fine and so do the twin cities. I am not for open borders and that is a separate issue. There is no targeted funding or acculturation program for illegal immigrants on the same scale.
Not sure what "doing fine" means. People in Twin Cities and FBI might disagree with you. Secondly, you can't compare NYC with Watertown. NYC has 8 million residents, and during the day with commuters, tourists, etc it pushes up to 15-18 million. Watertown does not even have 30,000. So, yes a few hundred in Watertown might be a lot more than a few thousand to NYC.
If you notice, official literature has deleted the word "assimilation." Instead, we use "integration."
Yeah, it seems to be a Catch 22, as in the initial stages, it may be viewed as a con, but as time goes on, things improve. I think the issue is in terms of to what degree do said communities keep bringing in refugees. I think that is where some of the issues become exacerbated in comparison to other areas that may get little to no refugees. So, it may be a matter of shifting, which is where I think Watertown gets pulled into this and/or in terms of to what degree do refugees get taken in.
Yes, and it seems pretty accurate. The greenest areas in NY seem to be Albany metro, Rochester metro, and some of the eastern Finger Lakes like around Skaneateles and Cazenovia. So I'd agree with much of this. The redder areas seem to be Utica, the Catskills around Monticello and Liberty, and the area in the southwest NY, which all seem to be the areas that are more distressed in NYS.
As for the other part, there's so many people hurting in this country (heck that distress communities map is a sea of red in a lot of the country) that accepting refugees should not be happening. That's not even counting the chance for a terrorist to leak through. As has happened in Germany. Just my 2 cents.
Yeah, it seems to be a Catch 22, as in the initial stages, it may be viewed as a con, but as time goes on, things improve.
That was then. Now it is different. Back then we did not extend welfare to immigrants. Now we do. Once they step foot in our country they are eligible for many programs, and most of them do.
But we are talking about the future generation. Given the fact that our welfare system produces inter-generational dependency, what makes you think that muslims will be different from all other welfare-recipients?
So, due to welfare, given the track record, no, their children may not be better off than their parents, so things may not improve.
This also does not even account for present costs, and other hidden costs, such as unemployment, and its social costs, wage suppression (due to a flooded labor market), etc.
But I am not going to mince words here -- refuge resettlement is about importing Democratic voters at all costs. And I mean ALL costs.
That was then. Now it is different. Back then we did not extend welfare to immigrants. Now we do. Once they step foot in our country they are eligible for many programs, and most of them do.
But we are talking about the future generation. Given the fact that our welfare system produces inter-generational dependency, what makes you think that muslims will be different from all other welfare-recipients?
So, due to welfare, given the track record, no, their children may not be better off than their parents, so things may not improve.
This also does not even account for present costs, and other hidden costs, such as unemployment, and its social costs, wage suppression (due to a flooded labor market), etc.
But I am not going to mince words here -- refuge resettlement is about importing Democratic voters at all costs. And I mean ALL costs.
Oh, I had no idea there was no humanitarian aspect to it at all. How silly!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
