Twitter Link
Full thread:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...?refreshed=yes
Sad little fucker isn't he.
Twitter Link
Full thread:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...?refreshed=yes
Sad little fucker isn't he.
Well, he's not wrong that his state is an epicenter for the border issue. We're talking about some fraction of 18,000 refugees. Objecting to that slice is as silly as claiming the objection is evil. It's utterly symbolic, nothing more.
The symbolism is important in its own right, and its importance is asymmetric - accepting these refugees is less important symbolically than rejecting them, esp. given that the decision to reject them obstructs the wishes of the mayors of several cities. So I categorically reject your characterization of this decision.
Texas has accepted a massive amount of refugees in comparison to other states in the past. Ultimately this doesn't actually change much since other states will get them anyway - this doesn't actually decrease the number of refugees America accepts so the hyperbole over the decision is a bit silly.
This is a recent change because of Trump's travel ban, California used to be the place to be until last year, and Washington still nips at texas' heels for total number of settled refugees. Hell even Florida is still up there, and that's without the wet/dry policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
There is no "massive" comparison unless you're comparing against somewhere like Hawaii. Which no one here would put past you
No it hasn't. The idea that it (or California) are taking in loads of refugees is a load of crap. It's nothing but a measure of their natural size and preexisting populations. If you want to look at who has taken in a lot of refugees, you need to factor in their size. Look at it per capita. Neither state even makes it to the top ten from that perspective (Washington does, though).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
This isQuote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
1. Untrue - Texas has not accepted a "massive" amount of refugees but, rather, a fraction of the total number of refugees, not even proportionate to its population - but perhaps proportionate to its GDP - and about a percent of the total number of people that have moved to the state.
2. Uninteresting - major cities in Texas want to continue to resettle refugees.
3. Gross - resettlement is a crucial step on the road to rebuilding a safe, stable and productive life, and you're defending a move that sought to deny these people the hope of being able to do that.
4. Dumb - refugees are good for Texas, and Texas willingly resettling refugees is good for both refugees as well as for the US govt.
I never said per capita and am not sure why that would matter. That would be like saying Japan should take more global refugees because on a per-capita basis they are taking less than say Greenland which has more space.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Well, Japan should be taking more refugees than Greenland as it can absorb more without consequence due to its greater population and economy. If they took the same absolute number of refugees, that number would have a far greater impact on the locals in Greenland Hence why per capita matters. You can blah all you want about total numbers but they're meaningless without context. If Texas has taken 1010 refugees and Vermont has taken 900 than Texas isn't holding a candle to Vermont because Texas' capacity is significantly greater. It hasn't come close to matching Vermont proportionally, regardless of marginally high absolute numbers. And this idea that Texas has taken in more refugees than anyone else is purely such an example. Marginally higher absolute numbers but fully half the states have taken more refugees in proportional terms. By VERY LARGE margins in the top tier. And without any ill-effects which might be used to suggest that they've taken too many and Texas' proportion is roughly as much as it should be expected to bear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Now it is true that a number of those states outperforming Texas aren't also dealing with large immigrant populations on top of that. Texas could try and use that as an excuse. Of course, that means California is beating its pants off since California's immigrant numbers are significantly higher than even Texas' and it's taking in just about as many refugees to boot (and not closing its doors now either). Taking that approach would also mean that Florida shows you Texans for the piss-pot misers that you are.
Texas doesn't need to make an excuse - it just decides.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy