I propose that the USA sail a bunch of
naval ships over to Europe and Turkey. We load up one million Syrian
refugees and bring them back to the United States.
But what do we do with them then?
Note: Some of the ideas I am proposing
should not only apply to the refugees, but should also be made
available to the currently unemployed in our country who have been
unable to find work.
Housing: The government works with
banks. Currently banks own a ton of foreclosed properties on which
they are losing money. The government, along with some NGOs, works
out a rent structure. Basically the refugee (or unemployed) family is
placed in the house for a reasonable rent that doesn't make a profit
for the bank but eliminates their losses. The government is paying
this rent.
Food/clothing/life: In addition to the
rent, the government is providing each family in the program with a
stipend. The total value of the stipend (with the rent included as
part of the total) should be about a gross of $800/week. Of course
income taxes are taken out of this amount. (I know, the government
taking taxes on money from the government? But that's the way it
works now, so it should for these families as well.) The amount
should be adjusted though depending on how many adults in the family
are working in one of the programs below.
English: Every refugee is required to
attend rigorous courses in English as a second language. The
government will work with NGOs, universities, and colleges who
already have such programs to get the refugees enrolled. By
August/September 2016, every school age child who comes over on this
program needs to have enough English ability to attend public school.
The adults may take longer. But I believe that in two years, they
could have enough ability in English to function well without
translation assistance.
Work: We are not giving all of this
away for free. And remember, this part applies to Americans who are
unemployed as well. Depending on aptitude, physical ability, and
years left in the workforce, those enrolled in my proposed program
will be split into different tasks.
Many will be required to work on
infrastructure projects. The United States has crumbling
infrastructure. Our bridges are becoming unsafe. Our water mains are
old and bursting in many cities. We need to lay fiber optics
throughout the nation. I'm sure you can find plenty of infrastructure
projects in your own community that desperately need work. My program
will provide the labor for these projects. Yes, we will need many
translators in the first year, but a ready supply of unskilled labor
is being provided to municipalities, states, and the federal
executive branch. It's time for a comprehensive update of our
infrastructure, with the labor costs managed ahead of time. This will
make it more affordable for various governments to move forward with
these needed repairs.
Others, who have the aptitude and
interest, are going to be enrolled in nursing schools. We have a
critical shortage of nurses already. And as the Baby Boomers reach
the ages where more and more medical care will be necessary, an
already strained system is going to be overloaded. We will provide
unemployed Americans and new refugees with the educations needed to
obtain BSN degrees. We're not guaranteeing anyone a job at the end of
it, but getting the degree without debt will at least not put them
into a disadvantageous position. And given the many dire projections
about our health care workforce, there should be jobs for them when
they finish. Also, by that point, their language skills should pose
no barriers.
I realize that I am not giving every
individual every possible alternative they might prefer. But if
someone has the skills to get a different job and make the money
themselves that they were getting in the stipend, great! They can
continue to contribute to the economy and work their way to becoming
citizens. And while not every option is available, this is an option
by which people can move to a place where they are safe from war and
bombings and provide food and shelter for their families.
After four or five years, I hope this
program will come to a natural end. Hopefully we have addressed the
many infrastructure problems we have. And by that time, those in the
program will have new work skills or degrees and be able to find
other work and other accommodations. Maybe some of them can even buy
the homes they were living in from the banks.
Okay, so obviously, there are some
major objections to this proposal. Let me deal with those now. And I
think you are going to gasp at #1.
- Erich, this is going to cost a lot! Yes, you are correct. But I have an idea to pay for it. First, Congress needs to pass a comprehensive infrastructure bill. This is true whether or not my program goes into effect. But second, before we put the plan into action we are going to make a deal with the European Union. Currently, they have way more refugees than they know what to do with. We are going to offer to take these one million refugees. We are even going to send our own ships over to Europe to get them. All the European nations need to do is to get the refugees to the ports. And in exchange, the European Union is going to pay the United States 100 billion dollars. (This number could change, but it covers the salaries being paid assuming about one quarter of the refugees are the working adults, the education costs, plus costs for transportation and other logistics.) Would the EU balk at that amount? I'm not sure they would. It is only $10,000 per person. And their current costs must easily be that.
- Erich, this will take a lot of resources. True, but the government would have to work together with NGOs, universities/colleges, and with private industries. Sometimes those partnerships haven't been perfect in the past. But in this case, it's win/win. The NGOs get to fulfill their missions with much of the cost being paid from the government. The universities and colleges are making money educating the refugees. And the private industries, like the construction industry, are getting lots of work.
- Erich, this seems politically unattainable in our current environment. Sadly, I don't know the way around that. We are in a shockingly xenophobic state at present. And our politicians are either falling into fear unbecoming of Americans, or they are pandering to pressures of prejudice among voters. They need to have the courage of their convictions, and I haven't yet figured out how to help them to do that. But maybe my plan has enough positive consequences that they can move past that.
So please, tell me, what are the other
major objections to this idea? Or, if you like it, how do I move it
forward? Do I write to congressmen? Do I start a petition? Your help
would be greatly appreciated.
Erich, some of that reminds me of the Civilian Conservation Corps which FDR instituted almost a hundred years ago. Did you borrow from him? :)
ReplyDelete(And you HAD to pick nursing? You couldn't think of any other healthcare careers that need an influx of people but who don't have J&J to put billions of ads out to recruit?)
Connie
Something of the nature of the New Deal was in my mind, yes. Using federal dollars to rebuild the country and help refugees.
DeleteYou're right, of course. Many other health care professions have shortages. And so people should be able to choose others. But nursing is the easiest to explain and sell, wouldn't you agree? Do most people know what Allied Health Professionals do? With explanation, yes, but just by saying the name of the profession, probably not.
Erich, the whole thing depends on the assumption that Congress will fund repair of our crumbling infrastructure. That won't happen in any comprehensive way for political reasons that have nothing to do with xenophobia.
ReplyDeleteAs proof I offer the following: Many, if not most, of the infrastructure problems relate to roads and bridges, i.e. transportation. More than enough money could be raised by simply adjusting the federal gas tax for inflation (it hasn't been increased since 1993!). But this is politically impossible even though gas prices are now so low (<$2.00/gallon in many places), and fluctuate so frequently, that no one would even notice a 10 cent increase.
Any program that involves spending money and raising any tax is dead on arrival in this Republican-controlled Congress.
Anyway, as liberal as I am, I wouldn't favor bringing 1 million Muslims into the U.S. They aren't terrorists now, but they can become ones. It is a demonstrable fact that some Muslims who seem assimilated can become radicalized, so why import such a substrate? Why can't the Sunni Syrians go to Sunni Saudi Arabia?
I am not about to argue about Congress and their unwillingness to fund infrastructure repairs. Sadly, they really need to do it, whether it involves immigrants or not. Because if they don't, we are going to have some serious problems in our country over the next few decades.
DeletePerhaps it is true that new Muslims might become terrorists, but first, let's not fear what might be with no evidence that indicates that it is probable. (I strongly wish that I could convince people to understand not just the magnitude of a "disaster" but also the probability of it occurring.) Plus, I don't think Muslims are any more likely to become radicalized than any other group. And if it were in a country where they had been given an opportunity instead of a death sentence or tent camp, I would think it might be less probable.
I don't know why Sunni Syrians can't go to Sunni Saudi Arabia. I agree that makes sense, and I don't know why Saudi Arabia wouldn't let them in. But I wasn't really proposing ideas for Saudi Arabia. And regardless of what Saudi Arabia does, the United States should still do what it can to help people in need.
(Note, this is Erich, even if it says it is Alrica posting.)