All you did in #56 was twist my words with your interpretation of what you wanted them to really mean.
In #80 you quote my response to your post about giving refugees the abandoned houses in Detroit. Then go into people who are in favor of accepting refugees, which I never disputed, in fact said do it right. Topping it off with a quote from a Syrian who is happy in the suburb of Garden City which is a far fucking cry from the abandoned houses in Detroit.
So once again, your post #46 was an ill conceived idea to which I respond...
Quote:
There was a lot of bitching about the Vietnamese refugees also, because the prolonged war which affected almost everyone. But they had money, and the skills to succeed in a better financial climate.
Syrians, work where? The jobs that allow vacant houses to be rehabbed and pay taxes on the result, have gone to China, Mexico, India. So you bring in refugees with nothing but the shirt on their back, may or may not speak English, then expect them to support themselves and rehab real estate? Lofty goals indeed. There has to be a plan to address those issues if you expect them to integrate and be successful. Otherwise they become destitute and desperate... prime for recruiting by terrorists.
I'm not saying keep them out, I'm saying do it right.
|
There's no need to cherry pick and twist what I'm saying, it's plain English, and I stand by it.