What does a wave of immigrants do to an economy? It was fine for Florida in 1980

There is little to no hard data showing that immigrants hurt a local economy, but there are some cases where their benefits (or lack of harm) were clearly documented: http://www.npr.org/2015/10/01/444912593/when-cuban-migrants-flooded-miami-what-did-it-do-to-the-local-economy

In the case of the "Scarface" sudden influx of 125K Cubans to South FL in 1980 (incl. 25K former criminals according to the film), there was no economic evidence of negative impact. Many were processed and enrolled in jobs/school quickly, so their need for gov't services was minor. Also they served to "grow the pie" by creating more economic demand (125K refugees = 125K consumers), which resulted in more jobs and sales for Americans. Local wages did not fall. And eventually many of them got education and contributed intellectual capital to the US. Europe, with an aging population and plummeting birth rate, actually NEEDS a lot more productive young people who are willing to work manual/unskilled jobs.

I know 1980 was a different time, and many Cubans benefited from previously-migrated relatives and a familiar culture in FL. But clearly the US will not take in 100K people from the Mideast, and they won't be concentrated in one state. As we discussed before, many Syrian refugees are educated and may also speak English, so it's not like the typical Latin American migrant profile. Detractors will come up with all sorts of excuses to oppose refugee resettlement (cost, security, culture clash), but the bottom line is they have no evidence to back up those suspicions, and as a UN member we have an obligation to act. There will always been some criminals and deadbeats among any group of people, but refugees are no worse than a random sampling of Americans (in fact they're likely better).  

Refugee crisis

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-09-03/5-groups-doing-important-work-help-refugees-you-may-not-have-heard
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/migration-crisis-germany-presses-europe-into-sharing-refugees

Frankly I've been avoiding this topic because it's just too damn depressing. Being a refugee fleeing war is one of the scariest situations to me - I can't possibly imagine leaving your whole existence behind to flee to a foreign place. Because if you don't, you or your loved ones will starve/be conscripted/get raped-murdered.

The US helped many in my family who were refugees in the 1970s, but we really haven't done that recently, not since Somalia. What are the UN, US, and UK doing about the current crisis? Germany has been forced into a leadership situation and pledged to absorb 800K mostly Syrian refugees (out of a potential 4M). If we won't physically take in people, at least we can send cash and supplies to those who are.

I've already written about how the US turned its back on allies and refugees before (below). Are we complacent to hide behind our geographic isolation? The UK's excuse is that the world should focus on "improving conditions" in Syria so there isn't a need to flee. Well they aren't doing squat about that either, so what gives? I know every nations has very needy people domestically and may not be able to support many new visitors. Greece is on the front lines, and obviously is not in the best position to handle the crisis. If the US was as welcoming as Scandinavians per capita, we would be taking in 5M refugees this year. And we can, for probably the cost it takes to maintain a nuclear carrier. But we won't.

http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2014/08/children-fleeing-central-america.html
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2014/05/refugee-to-native-ratios.html
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2013/08/syria-and-responsibility-to-protect.html
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2013/10/with-friends-like-these.html

How about China too? Aren't they the #2 economy and don't they want to be respected as a global leader? Syria is a key partner - what are they doing for their friends? Like climate change, it's someone else's problem, even if the victims are innocent and the definition of deserving help.

Attack at Charlie Hebdo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zATVidAh81g

I just don't get it, why does an almighty being and his prophet need you (the gunmen I mean) to avenge their honor? If he really didn't like their Muslim jokes, can't he just use his power to smite them? Why does he need to wait for a few young men to plot and execute a cowardly attack, years after the Danish cartoons? And of all the "threats to Islam", is Charlie Hebdo really the most pressing one? At least I give ISIS and Al Qaeda more credit for going after corrupt dictators and NATO, who have killed Muslims by the hundreds of thousands. Not that I am supporting those groups and their actions either.

I think that just demonstrates the logical bankruptcy of militant religiosity (Islamic or otherwise). So god needed some inbred, corrupt monarchs to spend a ton of resources (thereby neglecting the poor and sick) to amass armies of rapists, murderers, and pillagers to retake Jerusalem on his behalf? God delivered the Jews out of Egypt with a bunch of plagues/"miracles", yet now he is counting on the IDF to use its warplanes and bulldozers to make sure all of ancient Judea is under Jewish control? I don't think religious leaders ever take the time to question how utterly ridiculous these concepts sound. If an elected public official were to say such things (without draping himself in the flag of faith), he would be laughed off stage.

I suppose freedom of expression means that we must fight to the death to permit the most despicable among us to engage in the most ugly speech known to man, and damn the consequences. But that is like a 2nd Amendment supporter feeling compelled to defend the most perverse uses of guns possible. I think we can love freedom without making a travesty out of it.

Probably Charlie Hebdo was fairly tame in the grand scheme of things - they weren't that blasphemous and they definitely weren't hatemongers. But I really wish there was a way to defend freedom without protecting the most irresponsible beneficiaries of that freedom. Like we would oppose any sort of bigotry and persecution of course, but if a party "incites" anger/conflict from unwise behavior, well then - they made their bed and they can lay in it. We obviously don't want to see them killed, but we are not going to risk more lives to protect them. It's like if you violate the terms of your insurance, you void your policy and coverage.

I know it's not so simple, but I don't see the point in risking a lot to protect some fringe uses of freedom by a minority that may not represent the general interests and opinions of the public. I don't think Charlie Hebdo is a fringe case, but maybe "The Interview" was - a crappy film that added no value to society, and we have thousands of other films to take its place.

----

Regarding "what were they thinking?" type questions towards religious fanatics there is a quote "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" or something similar.  Logic has no place in a fanatical religious organization.  Sad but true.

The other thing is I REALLY REALLY don't like the idea you are pushing that annoying, inconvenient, ugly, etc uses of freedom of speech are somehow less worth protecting.  The ounce of legitimacy this brings to the crazy (as in literally crazy) people who think it is ok to kill someone bothers me but it also smells an awful lot like the first step on a slippery slope.  Look at abortion for example.  A legal right of women that, in some states, has walked its way back to practically illegal under the guise of women's health and safety.  That is how rights are taken from us, one step at a time, slowly.

So if we don't have people who stretch comfort in the other direction then the fanatics and the extremes of the viewpoints get to keep pushing the line.  Already no major network will show/print images of Mohammed (CNN took down the cartoon the Titanic showed earlier today, southpark episode still not shown on comedy central, etc etc).  

---

That is a pretty good quote, thx for sharing. How do we "unteach" religious extremism and fundamentalism then? They have some "Jihadi rehab" in Afghanistan - not sure how successful they've been. Sometime folks didn't volunteer for extremism, but were pushed in that direction by others. For some stories about NK defectors or Mormon cult escapists, what seemed to mentally "set them free" was the truth and asking questions. So logic has a part in that. Those folks were brainwashed at some point, but their experiences and thoughts got them out of it. It's probably not easy though.

I do feel that some speech is inherently more "valuable" than others. The Pentagon Papers and Declaration of Independence were subversive, maybe "illegal" publications. So are child porn and neo-Nazi materials (in some nations). I just think it's more reasonable to ask journalists and others to put their lives on the line to protect the ideas in documents like the DOI and PP (and make sure the world knows of them), rather than the other type. Think about the cop assigned to guard Charlie Hebdo who was murdered - is it much comfort to his family that he died protecting their right to make religious cartoons? I wouldn't want my loved ones to die protecting a porn peddler or neo-Nazi. But for the brave folks who risked/gave their lives for civil and labor rights, or for blowing the whistle on gov't/corporate crimes, at least their sacrifices led to greater justice and living conditions for all.

It's not like we have absolute freedom of speech now, and that Muslims, NK, and bleeding-heart liberals are slowly chipping away at it. We already can't threaten or slander people, we can't lie about some products, we can't pitch stocks without a license, etc. Maybe it's because the potential harm from speech like that outweighs the loss of freedom from prohibiting it. Societies make trade-offs all the time; I'm not saying that the status quo is perfect, but what degree of prohibited speech should we be comfortable with? I do think blasphemous speech should be legal. But if such speech has a high probability to elicit a violent reaction from extremists, maybe it is in the public interest to consider restrictions. Maybe that is the crazies holding us hostage and we cowardly agree to censorship, or maybe it's just prudence.

If we hold firm and protect free speech, are we prepared to also protect the people who may be at risk? Because we can't be everywhere at once; some terrorists are well trained, patient, and know how to exploit soft targets. So if we believe in free speech, we have an obligation to oppose extremism and dissuade people from using violence to express their anger and get even. But hate speech is still speech, so where does that leave us? Seems like a paradox. 

 

----

 

I don't want to get into semantics on how free "free speech" is wrt to slander and such.  I don't think there is any merit to the argument that because those aren't allowed blasphemous speech is on the table.  But we can go there if you choose.

As to dying for a dutch cartoonist, that seems silly to me.  Should be feel better or worse than the person who did for Pepsi as a trucker?  Or for Mott's as a farmhand?  Or for Exxon as a rig worker?  People die all the time for no reason, bad reasons, etc.  And they aren't in professions that expect to be in harms way.  So why should anyone feel extra bad given how he died?  Why should the cartoonist share any blame?  You think he enjoys requiring armed security?

And ultimately if we accept that extremists aren't logical, then what insult can we be sure won't become dangerous?  How can anyone shirt and say one is ok to die for and another is not?  Boko haram (sp?) Kills to stop women from being educated in the name of Islam, can we criticize them?  Are we only allowed to criticize them in word not picture?  

I guess I don't really believe we get any safer by restriction.  Do you really believe those terrorists exist only because of a dutch cartoonist?  Any contrivance will do to recruit and kill.  And REALLY don't believe the govt is good at choosing where that line is.  Think post 9/11 and how it has taken nearly 14 years and we still can't get rid of some of the bad decisions made as a result.

Oh yeah and I have no clue how to un-religious-ize fanatics. 

---

Thanks, I think this is a very nuanced and important issue (sorry that my responses are pretty long). Ideally, speech should be unrestricted and everyone is sufficiently civil to not get violent over disputes. And the courts exist to sort out matters of slander, deception, etc. So the threat of lawsuits or other punishment does deter some people from criticizing/lampooning certain people/entities - is that already too much censorship? I do think it is in the public interest to preempt some dangerous speech before it has a chance to cause widespread harm (overt fraud like claiming some poison is actually a miracle diet pill that thousands of people will want to try). Obviously the gov't is not the ideal decision maker in terms of judging speech, but unfortunately we don't have a better enforcer at this point.

Sorry, maybe it was a bad argument for me to claim that dying for certain forms of free speech would be more or less valiant. As you said, workers in most jobs expect to be safe as they perform their jobs. Sure, some crazy accidents happen, and those who perform explicitly hazardous work usually sign some waivers and are comped accordingly. It is possible (but unlikely) that an average worker at a gas station will be killed by an environmental fanatic, or a federal paper-pusher will be killed by an anti-gov't nut. I suppose there is always some reason why a violent, imbalanced person would want to kill us over our profession, and fortunately we live in a society where many people understand that it's unacceptable to use violence that way.

So I agree that speech is not inherently the problem, but instead we need to teach some people that violence is not an appropriate means of self expression. Maybe those terrorists would "still exist" if Charlie Hebdo didn't exist, but they would focus their hate on other targets (Assad, Israel, the US military, etc.). I do not think mere cartoons "created" those killers; maybe a range of factors created them - Jihadist brainwashing and military training, lack of civic education, socioeconomic marginalization. But the cartoons may have incited them to action, or at least gave their imam/mentor a straw man to blame and preach hate against.

It's like a raging bull - the animal is out of control and wanting to gore someone. There's a crowd of people nearby who see the bull coming for them. Many will run away and disperse, and the bull might eventually settle down or chase some other poor chap instead. But it would be pretty silly for some in the crowd to start waving red flags and taunting the bull, right? Especially if the bull might also gore innocent bystanders who happen to be next to the guy with the red flag.

Does our desire to exercise free speech entitle us to put associates in harm's way, when they may or may not agree with our actions? Some in France and all over the world are standing by Charlie Hebdo in solidarity, even making new cartoons mocking the killers and vowing that they will not be silenced. That is brave I suppose, and well within their rights. But now France is more of a target for Jihadis (they already were somewhat, for their actions against ISIS, treatment of immigrants, etc.). I am sure there are some in France who don't want this extra attention and would rather keep a lower profile. But since they are French, they are also targets because of the actions of their countrymen. Is that fair? Maybe some cartoonists are willing to put themselves at risk for their art and politics. But can/should they speak for their whole society, and condemn all of them to a higher level of danger? Even though these killers were born in France, it's possible that other angry killers in Muslim nations may now preferentially target French tourists, etc. France put its embassies on high alert. All I'm saying is that there are global repercussions; it's not just a simple cartoon and the exercise of free speech.

As you said, maybe restrictions are not the answer (I concede that censorship could be a knee-jerk reaction to our revulsion over violent incidents like what we just saw). We outlaw speech X, and some other crazies will get upset over speech Y. It's whack-a-mole, and I don't know where it ends. For people who are willing to engage in violent terrorism, they will always be able to find a target or someone that they disagree with if they want to look hard enough. We live in a fairly free speech society, but billions of other people don't. They may not agree with our values, they may not have good education systems and rule of law, and they have access to weapons and training. Some spiritual and political leaders fill their heads with misinformation, telling them that it's their duty to defend the faith and kill blasphemers. So we become targets, even though we really meant those people no harm.

How do we deal with that? We can't interfere in the affairs of so many other nations, and we can't force them to adopt our values. Maybe tolerance and rejection of violence are universal human values, but no one can enforce that globally, and violations abound. So until we figure all that out, we do our best to protect our freedoms and our people, and accept that sometime violent extremists will attack us? This is just the cost of our way of life? I know some people are more than willing to bear that cost, but others among us are not. I guess that is why we have civil debate and a gov't of the people, so we can collectively decide what degrees of risk and freedom we want for ourselves?