The Great Somali Welfare Hunt

[MMMMMM]

Coming to America:
The Great Somali Welfare Hunt
by Roger D. McGrath
The Refugee Act of 1980 brings new multicultural joys: welfare treks, clitorectomy, and, in Maine, a public housing crunch.

This article definitely has a conservative slant, but just what is going on and is this phenomenon going to increase dramatically? Can our small hometowns be forced to accept and support thousands of refugees? Apparently so...details in this article and an interesting story which raises some provocative issues.

http://www.amconmag.com/11_18/cover4.html

[HDPM]

I think the article has a racist slant. If it were a conservative writing he might suggest towns and states with liberal welfare laws should attract deadbeats. But his whole point is about race. He constantly harps on it. He didn't bother to look at places with white refugees like where I live. We have a lot of Bosnians and Romainians here who are refugees. They seem to get along in society. I thought it was a pointless article.

[MMMMMM]

Perhaps the author does have a bit of a racist slant, but if he does, I didn't think that was the point of the article.

I thought the point of the article was about refugees being admitted to the USA, and about towns being forced to accept them in large numbers, and that this could increase even more in years to come due to federal policy. I thought he was saying that the current immigration system is significantly flawed and that in his view many Americans don't agree with it. He also seemed to be concerned that political correctness and "U.N.-type" thinking was causing our federal policies on such matters to be other than what is best for our country.

The author also seemed disenchanted with the increasing lack of homogeneity in our cities and towns. Does this necessarily imply racism? I don't think so (although in the author's case it might). The reason I don't think it necessarily implies racism is because race and culture are not the same thing. Being disenchanted with a continually increasing influx of poor folk from other cultures is not the same thing as racism. And frowning on horrible practices of backwards cultures (like the practice of clitorectomies) is not racism either. Do I want people who practice clitorectomies and systematically abuse the welfare system moving into my hometown en masse? No I don't. Do I want the federal government telling us that we have to accept and support them? No. Do I think that immigrant Muslims/Arabs are more likely than immigrant folk of other religions to present a potential danger to us in view of today's terrorism? Yes, and I think our immigration and visa policies should be reconsidered with this in mind--not to the point of excluding all Muslims or Arabs, but SOME significant adjustments should be made. We don't need a lot more people in this country anymore anyway--we have enough already at 280 million or so--look at the traffic problems--so why not allow in only the best and the least likely to cause trouble or burdens for us? We CAN'T support the entire world anyway.

[MMMMMM]

Now in re-reading the article I think you are probably right and that the author does have something of a racist slant. I still think the issues are important and the story is interesting, but I wish it had been authored a bit differently. I'm tempted to try and delete the post but I doubt that would delete the thread. On the other hand, maybe the issues could be considered on their own merits, and the racial overtones ignored.

[whiskeytown]

it is a toughie question...there are many Somali's here in Minneapolis...(where welfare is almost a given right, unless you're a single white male...at which point the unemployment forms come back stamped red in a big ol' [censored] YOU)

many live in the projects (on the West Bank) and many live in my suburb, where Western Union instructins are printed in Swahili -

at the same time, I've seen pics of what Som. was like during the war and insurrection with the warlords...who the hell can blame someone for wanting to get away from that...

I wish they could integrate better with US society and so forth...but they seem destined to form subcultures here in the US, live off of benefits, and generally get pissed when we bomb Muslim countries...:)

ah well, maybe the next generation..

RB

[nicky g]

"look at the traffic problems". that's brilliant.
by the way somalis aren't arabs and female genital mutilation is not in any way a tenet of islam. nor are arab and muslim synonymous terms; not all arabs are muslim, and the largest muslim population is in indonesia, a good long way from the middle east.
best,
NG.

[andyfox]

"Being disenchanted with a continually increasing influx of poor folk from other cultures is not the same thing as racism."

But it usually is. When Californians claimed Chinese immigrants were taking their jobs, when East Coast elites claimed East European immigrants were "backwards cultures" and were bringing in "horrible practices," when southerners claimed it was a violation of states rights to insist on integration of schools, housing and public transportation, there was certainly a racist element involved. In fact the racist element was probably paramount.

And if the welfare system is being abused, it is because it is abusable. This would be an argument to reform the welfare system, not to eliminate people who are using/abusing it.

[IrishHand]

""Being disenchanted with a continually increasing influx of poor folk from other cultures is not the same thing as racism."

Absolutely correct. I couldn't care less what race they are - poor, uneducated people with no reason to be in this country shouldn't be in this country. Our immigration laws - and laws tend to be a general reflection of the populace's wishes - say so.

Educated immigrants? Immigrants with money? Sure - they tend to contribute to this nation's economy and development. If you look at Canada, their immigration policy is much more in line with my sentiments. If you have a lot of money or education, you get the green light. If not, better truck yourself south into the US where it's easy for illegals to not only survive, but to take advantage of various government programs. Heck, have yourself a kid while on US soil and you're set! But back to the point - Vancouver, for example, has greatly increased in size and economic standing over the past 20 years due in large part to (wealthy) Asian immigration. I think that's great. Great for Vancouver, great for Canada. I went to school at Notre Dame and there were a ton of (exceedingly intelligent and motivated) foreigners in the math and science departments. The vast majority of them stayed in this country after graduation. That's great. Great for them and great for the US.

I think that immigration is fine so long as there is some vague benefit for the country. However, when you have waves of people who do little more than take up space and consume resources because it's nicer here than back in their hut back home - that, I'm not so fond of.

[brad]

i think if we revive dna wise or whatever neanderthals we should put the tribe in bangor maine in honor of steven king.

[andyfox]

"If as a nation we have the right to keep out infectious diseases, if we have the right to exclude the criminal classes from coming to us, we surely have the right tothat immigration which reeks with impurity and which cannot come to us without plenteously sowing the seeds of moral and physical disease, destitution, and death."

"Alien in manners, servile in labor, pagan in religion, they are fundamentally un-American."

The Chinese "are not a desirable population. They are not good citizens."

Remarks by Senators Blaine, Representative McClure, and Senator Sherman during debates about the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

No doubt they would agree with you that we should exclude people who take up space and consume resources.

[IrishHand]

Your idea of refuting my points is to quote a trio of dead Senators that I've never heard of and have vastly different opinions and reasons for them than I do?

No clue how to respond to that other than to say I don't agree with them (the dead Senators), nor, likely, do I agree with you since you seem to think this refutes my arguments. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[MMMMMM]

no kidding. Why would you assume I didn't know all that; that is basic stuff. Care to comment on the actual issues??

[MMMMMM]

Fine...but those cultures which practice female genital mutilation ARE backwards cultures. Islam also oppresses women so that they live in virtual slavery and this is supported in great detail in the Koran. It is a backwards culture, really. And I don't see why we should permit a massive influx of poor people from a truly backwards culture who will not only burden our system and resources, but who for the most part hold truly different values from ours. All cultures are NOT equal but different. Islamic cultures--particularly those which are so backward as to practice female genital mutilation (in order that women can never achieve orgasm)--are not just different from ours, they are backwards and barbaric and they do not share many of the values we hold most precious. Housing a great many in our small towns at our expense is not something I think will likely benefit us.

Many people don't realize that many cultures worldwide simply don't share our values. Many cultures don't value human life as highly as we do, don't value personal freedoms, and tend to be ideologically hostile to those cultures which do. Islam is not only non-secular, it is ANTI-SECULAR. Secularism is not acceptable to Islam--nor is separation of church and state--nor are other religions.

Now, I'm certainly not saying that all Muslims are hostile to us, or anything like that, but I am saying that my understanding is that Islam at its core is ideologically quite hostile to many of our values. So when it comes to importing many thousands of poor people, who are so backward as to practice female genital mutilation, and who are from a background which is in many ways ideologically hostile to ours, I think there is room for thinking twice and I don't think that's racism.

[nicky g]

My apologies: When you followed a long post about Somali immigrants with a discussion of the undesirability of "Muslim/Arab" immigrants, I assumed you were conflating all three groups. As I now understand it, you just think they're all similarly backwards.

You say that: "Islam also oppresses women so that they live in virtual slavery and this is supported in great detail in the Koran." I'm sure there is plenty in the Koran that is unfavourable to women. The same is true of the Bible. If you look at the fundamentalist/extremist fringes of any number of religions, including all sorts of branches of Christianity and Judaism, they can always find scriptural evidence to suppress women, and to support all sorts of bizarre practices. And yet, Pakistan, which is a deeply Muslim society, had a female President only a few years back. Indonesia has a female President. Sounds like more than the US can boast. Muslim women do not as a rule live in virtual slavery in Islamic countries. They certainly did under the Taliban, for example, but they're hardly representative of mainstream Islam.
Islam is not anti-secular. Extremist interpretations of Islam are anti-secular. The majorty of Muslims live in secular states. Islam is not any more backward than any other of the great religions. Many governments in muslim countries ARE repressive and "backwards"; but they're dictatorships, not chosen by the people, and as often as not propped up by the US and friends (eg Saudi Arabia).

Certainly practices such as female genital mutilation are barbaric. It isn't coincidental that they happen in the poorest countries in the world, where education and health care are virtually non-existent (and the last vestiges of which have been cut by western-imposed economic reforms and to pay off ludicrous interest rates on their debts to us). such practices would not, and would not be allowed to, flourish amongst immigrant communites offered education and opportunity.
as for "our" respect for life, which muslims apparently don't share, get real. the US has the highest murder rate in the world, one of the highest execution rates, and has dropped more bombs since 1945 than all the other countries of the world combined. it's gone to war more than any other country since then too, not including several dozen proxy wars. more bombs were used on laos and cambodia alone than were used in the whole of the second world war; and war wasn't even declared on thos countries. us governments supported the murder of two million left-wingers in indonesia under suharto, innumerable death squads in latin america, and as i remember vetoed a UN resolution condemning saddam hussein's gassing of the kurds. some respect.

whatever happened to bring me your tired, hungry and oppressed? the country's full up because you're too lazy to think of alternatives to travelling by car? magnificent.

[MMMMMM]

You really need to do some research and reading if you don't know that Islamic societies today oppress women FAR, FAR more than do any Western societies.

Your understanding of Islam is quite flawed and uninformed. I will be posting some FACTS about both the Koran and about Islam as it is practiced today, sometime before the end of the year (after I get my computer back and have time to assemble the information in an orderly fashion).

All religions are NOT equally repressive, and all ideologies are not different but morally similar at heart. If you look deeper into Islam I think you will be quite surprised. What you state about Islam would be nice if it were true, but it isn't. If you are still posting/lurking through the end of the year, you will have the opportunity to read some of the surprising facts (surprising anyway to liberals who think religions are all the same at their core).

[nicky g]

i agree that there are muslim countries that oppress women far more than western ones. but i don't agree that this is a necessary characteristic of islam or muslim countries. there are plenty of muslim countries where women are not routinely oppressed, and plenty of examples of non-muslim countries where women have been and are treated terribly. in london where i live there is a large muslim population and there are plenty of muslim women who lead normal lives.
i will be interested to see your points. i don't think all religions are the same t their core. i'm a christian because i believe in the christian message, not the muslim/jewish/hindu etc one. but i don't think islam is more backwards or immoral than others. and i certainly don't think muslims value life less than westerners.