Why not spend the $16,000 per refugee in Turkey?
invite response
2015 Nov 22, 5:06pm 1,712 views 6 comments
Comments 1 - 6 of 6 Search these comments
MisdemeanorRebel
2015 Nov 22, 6:08pm
Absolutely Correct. The Turkish per capita GDP (PPP)is about $19,000, so this is right on the money.
Jordan is $11,500, so even more bang for the buck.
curious2
2015 Nov 22, 6:13pm
Why not spend the $16,000 per refugee in Turkey?
Because Turkey and Jordan are already Muslim. The Saudis have an obligation of Jihad and "charity," so the refugees must go to Europe and America, where the Saudis can donate mosques for them.
Or is there some other goal to importing large numbers of Muslims?
It's an export/import business. The middle east has more Muslims than it needs, so the Saudis want to export them to Europe and America. The American and European politicians are funded by the military industrial complex, and the security contractors, and (especially in the case of the Bush family but also in the case of the Clinton Foundation) the Saudis, so the choices are (D) import Muslims here so it becomes necessary to spy on everyone to find the terrorists or (R) send ground troops over there, to support the booming procurement budgets. Of course, in the spirit of bipartisanship, both will happen, as happened in Iraq.
zzyzzx
2015 Nov 23, 9:38am
When you put out the bird feeder, you get more birds. Paying people to stay in Turkey is only going to encourage even more of them, and anyone else who happens to be in the area to claim to be a "refugee". I'd like to know how much extra it would cost to simply patrol the waters on the Mediterranean properly instead. I'm sure we have enough ships and personalle to do it, it would just cost more in fuel, maintenance and ordinance.
The idea makes lots of sense economically. Though I think that trying to avoid the Muslims by sending them to other areas of the world would not really help foster out relationship with them. I understand that people feel threatened by recent events, but taking it all into account, Muslims from Syria are no more of a threat than any other Muslim from other parts of the world. Radical Muslims from all over the world can AND have joined ISIS. The problem is way greater than people think. Simple fixes are no solution to long term problems; we all know that. Your solution to keep Muslims away seems to encourage racial/cultural/geographical segregation. You could argue that you're not segregating people if you just keep them away from America, but the idea is there. I understand you speak in economic terms, but there is a reason behind it all. I thought that for the most part we (america) are trying to move away from segregation???? We now speak in terms of a global economy, different races/cultures are more able to live and travel to different areas of the world. Isolating ourselves from others, or others from ourselves is no solution to our problems.
resistance
2015 Nov 23, 5:19pm
trying to avoid the Muslims by sending them to other areas of the world would not really help foster out relationship with them
you cannot foster a relationship with a religion that demands that democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion be exterminated.
Given that the refugees could get far better services and food for $16,000 per person in Turkey (where most of them are starting out) or pretty much any other country in the middle east, why not simply provide humanitarian services for the over there?
Certainly the cost of providing those services over here in the US is much higher, and if they stay over there we don't need to pay for 10,000 flights for them either.
So as a practical humanitarian matter, it's not efficient to bring them here. We could help more of them over there.
Or is there some other goal to importing large numbers of Muslims?