Ricochet Member Recommended FeedRecommended by R> Members

Solved: Refugees Settled in Blue States

 

President Trump appears to be trying to wiggle out of a deal made by his much more humanitarian predecessor to accept 1,250 refugees from one of our staunchest allies: Australia. This is consistent with his anti-refugee policy, a policy which I agree with. However, I actually think this is an opportunity to simultaneously keep a promise to a loyal ally and test out a new experimental refugee policy. It’s simple: settle these 1,250 refugees (and a few thousand more) in blue states, where they will be loved and cared for.

Now that our liberal celebrity superiors are publishing much funnier PSA’s about how mean the new refugee policy is, it’s clear that their hunger for sanctimonious self-satisfaction can only be sated by hundreds, no thousands, of refugees. We would be cruel to deny them this satisfaction. So here’s the plan: we keep our promise to Australia and immediately grant these poor refugees and a few thousand more (let’s make it 10,000 total) asylum in blue states. Let’s start by building a refugee camp near Malibu and settling 1,000 refugees there. To ease the burden on the American taxpayer and give liberal millionaires ample opportunity to demonstrate their moral superiority, I propose a homestay program in which the refugees stay with the liberal millionaires, maybe in their pool house.

Those celebrities who have voiced particularly loud opposition to the refugee policy (yes, you, Susan Sarandon) should of course be given first preference for refugee homestay placement. Furthermore, the world must know how well this new program is working and how generous and wonderful the celebrity millionaires are for opening up their homes to these huddled masses. Therefore, the Department of Homeland Security will, on a weekly basis, release the names of all celebrity millionaires who agree to accept homestay refugees and publicly shame those who cruelly decline to accept them. DHS will monitor the new refugee camps and homestay program closely, including crime statistics and complaints from both celebrity millionaires and their new refugee guests.

A reasonable objection to this policy might be that cultural differences between third world (primarily Muslim) refugees and celebrity, California millionaires will create conflict. Pish posh! Surely, any cultural differences can be bridged by joint teach-ins. Celebrity liberals and refugees can learn about each other’s culture together. For example, in one lesson, refugees can learn that in southern California, women walking around in public wearing revealing clothing are just expressing their sexual liberty. Celebrity liberals, in turn, can learn that some Muslim men express their sexual liberty by sexually assaulting and robbing scantily clad women, who in the Muslim tradition are almost certainly prostitutes who deserve no mercy. Mutual understanding will no doubt result.

I propose that this blue state refugee re-settlement program be instituted nationwide. Rich liberals from West Palm Beach to Manhattan to Hyde Park to Aspen to Georgetown (yes, Democratic Senators, you can participate too!) should be allowed to show their magnanimity, or hypocrisy (as the case may be). This way, America’s best citizens can enjoy more culturally enriched lives; refugees will thrive; our allies will be happy; and those of us who are skeptical of third world refugees will be proven hopelessly racist and small-minded in our rape-free, little flyover hick towns. Everyone wins!

There are 57 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. Member

    I wish that it were possible to elevate this beyond even the exalted status of the Main Feed. I don’t suppose that the NY Times editorial page would consider it?

    • #1
    • February 4, 2017 at 9:04 am
    • Like
  2. Member

    This is the moment when I wish the wizards of arithmetic would step up. Let’s put away all of our ideas, and let’s take out our rulers and calculators. The town has X jobs available, X classroom desks, X doctors, X police officers, and X housing units. When we are at capacity, we close the door. If we are careful with our budgets, we will have money left over to send to countries that are experiencing crises. Or we will build a new city or a new town here.

    We can’t keep cramming more and more people into our existing housing stock.

    • #2
    • February 4, 2017 at 9:13 am
    • Like
  3. Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon Post author

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    I wish that it were possible to elevate this beyond even the exalted status of the Main Feed. I don’t suppose that the NY Times editorial page would consider it?

    I suppose not. The veneer of virtue must be protected at all costs.

    • #3
    • February 4, 2017 at 9:13 am
    • Like
  4. Thatcher

    I say send this to Trump immediately. Sounds like a great plan. Better than them sleeping on sewer grates for one night.

    • #4
    • February 4, 2017 at 9:16 am
    • Like
  5. Member

    blood thirsty neocon: our liberal celebrity superiors are publishing much funnier psa’s

    That video is hilarious, well, at least the first 90 seconds was. That’s all I could handle.

    As for settling refugees in Malibu, that’s a little close to home. Have some mercy on the poor, lost souls like me who live behind enemy lines deep in the heart of lefty-land but can’t stand the progs. Just keep the refugees rapists, murderers, and terrorists out, OK?

    • #5
    • February 4, 2017 at 9:31 am
    • Like
  6. Member

    As a resident of New York State, I suggest we start with 10 or 12 refugees each to the homes of Gov. Andrew Cuomo (he doesn’t live in the Governor’s Mansion), Mayor Bill DeBlasio, and Sen. Charles Schumer (his large apartment in Brooklyn).

    • #6
    • February 4, 2017 at 9:34 am
    • Like
  7. Member

    Those celebrities who have voiced particularly loud opposition to the refugee policy (yes, you, Susan Sarandon) should of course be given first preference for refugee homestay placement.

    I see a sitcom (or perhaps a reality show) here somewhere, perhaps produced by Judd Apatow and written by Rob Long. Big Hollywood star (Sarandon) opens up multimillion dollar estate to an extended family of refugees (exasperated parents, kids, grandma) and hijinks ensue (washing clothes in the Olympic pool, etc.).

    • #7
    • February 4, 2017 at 9:37 am
    • Like
  8. Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon Post author

    The trophy wives and their hot daughters are gonna love their new guests.

    • #8
    • February 4, 2017 at 9:52 am
    • Like
  9. Thatcher

    Can I recommend the California 12th US District . Hell, take a couple of thousand males from Non-Christian Syria and let them loose on the population of Nancy’s backyard. Set them up for a couple of weeks and let entropy take its course.

    OK Mea culpa. My parents taught me better. But I did grin a bit at the thought of the incredible plastic queen whining about some evil Republican plot.

    • #9
    • February 4, 2017 at 9:54 am
    • Like
  10. Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon Post author

    Seriously, the whole pro-refugee movement is delusional. Liberals have to literally be assaulted by reality to change their minds.

    • #10
    • February 4, 2017 at 9:57 am
    • Like
  11. Member

    In the spirit of Obama’s deal with Australia, perhaps we could take some of the Rotherham defendants off the Brit’s hands and settle them with our more enlightened Hollywood types. Close interaction with Meryl Streep will undoubtedly work miracles in rehabilitating them.

    • #11
    • February 4, 2017 at 10:01 am
    • Like
  12. Thatcher

    Richard Easton (View Comment):
    In the spirit of Obama’s deal with Australia, perhaps we could take some of the Rotherham defendants off the Brit’s hands and settle them with our more enlightened Hollywood types.

    Hollywood is too close to Orange County. Send them to Northern California.

    • #12
    • February 4, 2017 at 10:05 am
    • Like
  13. Thatcher

    That is an issue I have with this stuff. There is always a lot of not in my back yard in this. The guys that make the decisions never have to live with their decisions or their consequences. If the boys and girls in DC want these camps then move the refugees to their DC neighborhoods. If the powers in California want to support these actions then to the same.

    • #13
    • February 4, 2017 at 10:25 am
    • Like
  14. Member

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):
    That is an issue I have with this stuff. There is always a lot of not in my back yard in this. The guys that make the decisions never have to live with their decisions or their consequences. If the boys and girls in DC want these camps then move the refugees to their DC neighborhoods. If the powers in California want to support these actions then to the same.

    I think Obama’s now has four homes. There’s the one in Chicago, the house he’s renting in DC, and the homes in California and Hawaii. That’s a lot of square footage that he doubtless acquired to be used to house refugees. Put five in each and he’s made a big dent at resettling the clock boy wannabes who wanted to enrich Australian society.

    • #14
    • February 4, 2017 at 10:30 am
    • Like
  15. Member

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    I see a sitcom (or perhaps a reality show) here somewhere, perhaps produced by Judd Apatow and written by Rob Long. Big Hollywood star (Sarandon) opens up multimillion dollar estate to an extended family of refugees (exasperated parents, kids, grandma) and hijinks ensue (washing clothes in the Olympic pool, etc.).

    Yes! Like the Beverly Hillbillies, only it would be the Bel-Arabs.

    • #15
    • February 4, 2017 at 10:41 am
    • Like
  16. Member

    David Wilder (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):
    In the spirit of Obama’s deal with Australia, perhaps we could take some of the Rotherham defendants off the Brit’s hands and settle them with our more enlightened Hollywood types.

    Hollywood is too close to Orange County. Send them to Northern California.

    This works for me.

    • #16
    • February 4, 2017 at 10:41 am
    • Like
  17. Member

    … to Georgetown (yes, Democratic Senators, you can participate too!)

    You are hilarious. But I do think Trump should do it. Liberalism crashing into reality is so amusing.

    • #17
    • February 4, 2017 at 10:44 am
    • Like
  18. Inactive

    I absolutely love your idea… But here comes the

    But…

    I live in Central Texas in a County next to sanctuary county of Travis County.

    The problem with your idea is Illegals don’t stay put. The invasion of my county has caused me to move as far away from Travis County as I possibly could, short of buying a farm out there on the edge. I’m a City Boy so that’s not happening.

    Every low-rent house, every low-rent apartment complex, is filled with Illegals. Go to any coin-operated laundry and you’ll find dozens. Stop by any 7-11 in the morning and all the “day-laborers” are there, waiting to take a job that should go to an American. It is bad – really bad.

    So those folks you put there would just spread outward as fast as their feet and hitchhiking thumbs can get them out. It is hard for an Illegal to get a job in a stagnant economy, which is an alias for a Democrat-controlled State. So they’ll head to a State where jobs are plentiful, AKA a Republican-controlled State.

    • #18
    • February 4, 2017 at 10:50 am
    • Like
  19. Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon Post author

    David Wilder (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):
    In the spirit of Obama’s deal with Australia, perhaps we could take some of the Rotherham defendants off the Brit’s hands and settle them with our more enlightened Hollywood types.

    Hollywood is too close to Orange County. Send them to Northern California.

    Vote with your feet, good buddy. You’re welcome in the big red wall.

    • #19
    • February 4, 2017 at 11:08 am
    • Like
  20. Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon Post author

    JcTPatriot (View Comment):
    I absolutely love your idea… But here comes the

    But…

    I live in Central Texas in a County next to sanctuary county of Travis County.

    The problem with your idea is Illegals don’t stay put. The invasion of my county has caused me to move as far away from Travis County as I possibly could, short of buying a farm out there on the edge. I’m a City Boy so that’s not happening.

    Every low-rent house, every low-rent apartment complex, is filled with Illegals. Go to any coin-operated laundry and you’ll find dozens. Stop by any 7-11 in the morning and all the “day-laborers” are there, waiting to take a job that should go to an American. It is bad – really bad.

    So those folks you put there would just spread outward as fast as their feet and hitchhiking thumbs can get them out. It is hard for an Illegal to get a job in a stagnant economy, which is an alias for a Democrat-controlled State. So they’ll head to a State where jobs are plentiful, AKA a Republican-controlled State.

    The idea is to propose the policy and watch rich liberals either show their hypocrisy or shut their sanctimonious mouths.

    • #20
    • February 4, 2017 at 11:19 am
    • Like
  21. Member

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    I see a sitcom (or perhaps a reality show) here somewhere, perhaps produced by Judd Apatow and written by Rob Long. Big Hollywood star (Sarandon) opens up multimillion dollar estate to an extended family of refugees (exasperated parents, kids, grandma) and hijinks ensue (washing clothes in the Olympic pool, etc.).

    Yes! Like the Beverly Hillbillies, only it would be the Bel-Arabs.

    We have a title!

    • #21
    • February 4, 2017 at 11:44 am
    • Like
  22. Member

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):
    That is an issue I have with this stuff. There is always a lot of not in my back yard in this. The guys that make the decisions never have to live with their decisions or their consequences. If the boys and girls in DC want these camps then move the refugees to their DC neighborhoods. If the powers in California want to support these actions then to the same.

    This is an issue that commentators have noted through the recent presidential election – who bears the cost of large-scale refugee influx, or of immigration? To the stereotypical wealthy “liberal,” immigration means more maids and cooks and ethnic restaurants. But, those wealthy “liberals” live in places different from where the refugees and immigrants (and their cliques and gangs) would live, and will not be competing with them in the labor market.

    Welcoming lots of refugees and immigrants may be the right policies, but too many of the people advocating for those policies are well insulated from the potential social costs of such policies.

    • #22
    • February 4, 2017 at 11:45 am
    • Like
  23. Member

    JcTPatriot (View Comment):
    I absolutely love your idea… But here comes the

    But…

    I live in Central Texas in a County next to sanctuary county of Travis County.

    The problem with your idea is Illegals don’t stay put. The invasion of my county has caused me to move as far away from Travis County as I possibly could, short of buying a farm out there on the edge. I’m a City Boy so that’s not happening.

    Every low-rent house, every low-rent apartment complex, is filled with Illegals. Go to any coin-operated laundry and you’ll find dozens. Stop by any 7-11 in the morning and all the “day-laborers” are there, waiting to take a job that should go to an American. It is bad – really bad.

    So those folks you put there would just spread outward as fast as their feet and hitchhiking thumbs can get them out. It is hard for an Illegal to get a job in a stagnant economy, which is an alias for a Democrat-controlled State. So they’ll head to a State where jobs are plentiful, AKA a Republican-controlled State.

    Yep I live in Travis County.

    • #23
    • February 4, 2017 at 11:50 am
    • Like
  24. Member

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    The idea is to propose the policy and watch rich liberals either show their hypocrisy or shut their sanctimonious mouths.

    Yes! It would be fun to watch their reaction to the mere proposal and get it all on tape. Oh the soundbites.

    • #24
    • February 4, 2017 at 11:51 am
    • Like
  25. Member

    Send ’em to Chicago. They’re used to dodging in a war zone already. They’ll fit right in.

    • #25
    • February 4, 2017 at 11:55 am
    • Like
  26. Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon Post author

    I’m open to starting this policy on a small scale, maybe just 100 refugees in a nice quiet liberal neighborhood. I would also add a voluntary affidavit of support option. Rich liberals can do what I and all other US citizen spouses who sponsor a spouse for permanent residency have done: sign an I-864. It basically says that if the intending immigrant has no money, the US citizen spouse has to support them.

    The failure of a limited pilot program like this would serve as a political victory to Trump. If no one offers to help the refugees when given different options for doing so, then Spicer or whoever speaks for the administration can just refer to the undeniable proof of liberal hypocrisy that the program’s failure represents.

    • #26
    • February 4, 2017 at 12:08 pm
    • Like
  27. Member

    This is sheer genius!

    Sadly, you’re two steps behind the Obama administration when it comes to strategic placement of refugees to score political points if Refugee Resettlement Watch is to be believed.

    As Breitbart News reported previously, the Obama administration has resettled 25,671 refugees in the country during the three month period beginning October 1, 2016 and ending December 30, 2016. This is almost double the number of refugees resettled in the United States during the same period in the prior fiscal year, FY 2016.

    More than 85 percent of these refugees arrived from just eight countries: the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Burma, Ukraine, Bhutan, and Iran.

    […]

    The consequence of the availability of low skill, low wage refugees to fill jobs in the meat packing and related industries has been to keep wages down and limit employment opportunities in those industries for low skilled American citizens living near those meat packing plants. The plants also need a steady supply of new healthy workers to replace the workers whose hands are eventually damaged by the rapid repetitive motions required in the high-speed, low-tech slaughterhouse line.

    A number of communities have experienced this problem over the past decade, including Shelbyville, TennesseeLiberal, KansasFort Morgan, ColoradoAustin, Minnesota; and Grand Island, Nebraska.

    The Left has a head start on resettling them in the heartland. Bel Air? Not so much.

    • #27
    • February 4, 2017 at 12:29 pm
    • Like
  28. Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon Post author

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    A number of communities have experienced this problem over the past decade, including Shelbyville, Tennessee; Liberal, Kansas; Fort Morgan, Colorado; Austin, Minnesota; and Grand Island, Nebraska.

    The Left has a head start on resettling them in the heartland. Bel Air? Not so much.

    You’re exactly right, I used to live in Louisville, Kentucky and it was refugee city. We had Cubans, Somali’s, and tons of Bosnians. If anyone in blue states complains about the new refugee policy, we got the numbers to prove that we’ve born the brunt of it. It’s only fair for the blue states to take some of the burden.

    • #28
    • February 4, 2017 at 12:43 pm
    • Like
  29. Thatcher

    Go for it! The entire Bluetopia as a safe zone…Travel permitted, but restricted to aforementioned zone, please/thanks.

    • #29
    • February 4, 2017 at 12:56 pm
    • Like
  30. Member

    I wonder whether there ever will be American refugees?

    • #30
    • February 4, 2017 at 1:04 pm
    • Like
  1. 1
  2. 2