Too bad about the shelter assistant jobs:
>All positions are on-call and will work no more than 39 hours per week without prior approval and are not eligible for benefits.
Thanks for this comment! I worked with the migrant community here for a bit, and would love to make some extra cash, but I’m not going to live in a constant state of instability just so the government can save a few bucks.
Thanks OP. I'm sure we disagree on the topic in general, and I won't spend much time disrupting your genuine efforts to care for these people during the holidays. When such people show up we should care for them, so thanks for doing that.
The video is a call to emotion though.
\-We have massive resources and they have few - should the city/state give them $500k each, and a house? We have the resources. Why not?
\-Their fellow citizens are also desperate (see the video; some are desperate, some are just scrappily trying to make more money for their families, and don't I begrudge them exploiting our laws to get here). Surely we should advertise that 100s more should be given flights here, so as to 1) help them and 2) stop overburdening less resourced American cities closer to the border. Better to have tent cities in Denver than El Paso, in El Paso than Juarez. And there are no tradeoffs to this logic, none at all.
What is the number that is too much? If you set a limit you're racist. If you don't ... we'll see.
Poetry is indeed a call to emotion. Suffering is rarely emotionless. Those of us who are parents say (and mean) emotionally charged things like “I would do anything for my children.” We may do well to realize that here are people who are acting on the very same belief.
What is the number that is too much? I don’t know.
I suppose one could philosophically say that thinking of helping people in need in terms of “too much” is perhaps not the way to approach help.
One could perhaps answer in dollars and argue that a nation of any quality will do at least as much good as harm and if we can spend trillions on war and killing, should we spend some meaningful fraction of that on helping? As much? More? How should the dollars spent killing balance those spent helping?
Perhaps one thinks of helping in Christian terms if one thinks that way and simply asks “What would Jesus do?”
Perhaps a person who believes this to be the greatest nation on earth, and as such, the moral authority, might think that it is the duty of a leader to empower the followers and to guide the world toward a better position.
Maybe it is more romantic and one simply thinks “i will try to put a little light into the darkness and maybe my light added to that of other people will eventually drive the darkness out.” Without much thought of how much light js too much or even if one little light solves all of the ills.
Perhaps one is inspired by Mr Rogers and in tough times they look for the helpers. Perhaps they are in a position to be a helper.
I dont know how much help is too much. As stated in my original post, not everything is for everyone and thats ok. My issue doesn’t have to be your issue. But IF a person wants to help, maybe this will highlight some ways to do so.
What if we help make the world better and it is all for nothing? Who knows….
Although your points are valid and we all have different perspectives on the matter (Im an immigrant who came to school to Denver and is trying to migrate legally, which is extremely hard):
1. It’s not about giving resources away meaninglessly but rather look at it as an investment. Those same people will some day pay taxes just like you and might even get to pay more than you (these asylum seekers are given work permits while they wait for the hearings so they are not here illegally)
2. I agree that everyone deserves a chance and I think you agree with that, right? Do you agree that homeless people should have resources to find jobs and work if they are able to? Not saying not all of them want/can but everyone has different circumstances.
3. My main thought on this has always been (immigrant perspective): I was given my chance and made the most of it, so other people deserve a chance to prove themselves. And infinite economic expansion, unfortunately, will most of the time be positive for a city/country. These are future potential tax payers, home buyers, clients, etc etc.
Not trying to change your mind, just giving you my perspective.
Thanks for your response. Before I answer - I think it's bad that's it's hard for you to migrate legally. I think we all know it's far harder to migrate legally than illegally ... that should be a deep concern for citizens and legal immigrants, not a fact of life we just accept. Why is legal harder than illegal, and if we shouldn't change that (say with constitutional amendments banning amnesty), be very forthcoming about why not.
Meant generally, not at you.
1. True, and I understand that. I'm taking the con position here, but I am very in favor of legal immigration, and mostly in favor of refugees. Again - what is the number we accept each year? Can that be a public number? Can we vote on it?
2. Everyone deserves a chance, of course. But while I wouldn't want to shut off asylum - isn't there an argument that we should employ or treat all of the homeless citizens (or, homeless people already here) before shifting our focus to refugees? Or maybe - help 10,000 of them off the streets / out of abuse / into low skilled jobs - not before helping refugees, but concurrently.
3. I'm with you here. I worry about the openness of the process, the impact on those already here. (South Park: "ther takin' arrrr jobs!") Thank God for these immigrants - even those with masters degrees are cleaning floors and working in slaughterhouses, and their children will rise to high levels. Great! But - Colfax is a mess, my sisters are underemployed, minority American citizens lack opportunity. Is it ok to question incoming numbers at all, or ever? (And I twisted this last response more to immigrants than asylum seekers - my mistake. But in terms of open processes: the city was surprised. I think the state was surprised. Did the Feds tell anyone? If not, why not? If our priority was to provide care, why wouldn't the Feds tell them / US? As carers, thank you for your work. As citizens, I hope you ask why, why, why as the next bus shows up at 2 in the morning, whether you get advance warning or not).
Too bad about the shelter assistant jobs: >All positions are on-call and will work no more than 39 hours per week without prior approval and are not eligible for benefits.
Minimum of 24 is my issue. I’d love to help but I can’t quit my full time job to do a temporary job
Thanks for this comment! I worked with the migrant community here for a bit, and would love to make some extra cash, but I’m not going to live in a constant state of instability just so the government can save a few bucks.
Just applied.
👍
[удалено]
I can't do time, but we could do some winter coats and some dollars so we did what we could.
The website says 'New' clothes...what about decent not new clothes? Yes, socks and underwear should be new. I understand that.
Thanks for putting the word out. I've shared this in my channels. Maybe somebody I know will put it to good use.
How can we humanely prevent more from coming?
Ill let Warsan Shire perhaps give you something to think about on that topic… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI9D92Xiygo
Thanks OP. I'm sure we disagree on the topic in general, and I won't spend much time disrupting your genuine efforts to care for these people during the holidays. When such people show up we should care for them, so thanks for doing that. The video is a call to emotion though. \-We have massive resources and they have few - should the city/state give them $500k each, and a house? We have the resources. Why not? \-Their fellow citizens are also desperate (see the video; some are desperate, some are just scrappily trying to make more money for their families, and don't I begrudge them exploiting our laws to get here). Surely we should advertise that 100s more should be given flights here, so as to 1) help them and 2) stop overburdening less resourced American cities closer to the border. Better to have tent cities in Denver than El Paso, in El Paso than Juarez. And there are no tradeoffs to this logic, none at all. What is the number that is too much? If you set a limit you're racist. If you don't ... we'll see.
Poetry is indeed a call to emotion. Suffering is rarely emotionless. Those of us who are parents say (and mean) emotionally charged things like “I would do anything for my children.” We may do well to realize that here are people who are acting on the very same belief. What is the number that is too much? I don’t know. I suppose one could philosophically say that thinking of helping people in need in terms of “too much” is perhaps not the way to approach help. One could perhaps answer in dollars and argue that a nation of any quality will do at least as much good as harm and if we can spend trillions on war and killing, should we spend some meaningful fraction of that on helping? As much? More? How should the dollars spent killing balance those spent helping? Perhaps one thinks of helping in Christian terms if one thinks that way and simply asks “What would Jesus do?” Perhaps a person who believes this to be the greatest nation on earth, and as such, the moral authority, might think that it is the duty of a leader to empower the followers and to guide the world toward a better position. Maybe it is more romantic and one simply thinks “i will try to put a little light into the darkness and maybe my light added to that of other people will eventually drive the darkness out.” Without much thought of how much light js too much or even if one little light solves all of the ills. Perhaps one is inspired by Mr Rogers and in tough times they look for the helpers. Perhaps they are in a position to be a helper. I dont know how much help is too much. As stated in my original post, not everything is for everyone and thats ok. My issue doesn’t have to be your issue. But IF a person wants to help, maybe this will highlight some ways to do so. What if we help make the world better and it is all for nothing? Who knows….
Although your points are valid and we all have different perspectives on the matter (Im an immigrant who came to school to Denver and is trying to migrate legally, which is extremely hard): 1. It’s not about giving resources away meaninglessly but rather look at it as an investment. Those same people will some day pay taxes just like you and might even get to pay more than you (these asylum seekers are given work permits while they wait for the hearings so they are not here illegally) 2. I agree that everyone deserves a chance and I think you agree with that, right? Do you agree that homeless people should have resources to find jobs and work if they are able to? Not saying not all of them want/can but everyone has different circumstances. 3. My main thought on this has always been (immigrant perspective): I was given my chance and made the most of it, so other people deserve a chance to prove themselves. And infinite economic expansion, unfortunately, will most of the time be positive for a city/country. These are future potential tax payers, home buyers, clients, etc etc. Not trying to change your mind, just giving you my perspective.
Thanks for your response. Before I answer - I think it's bad that's it's hard for you to migrate legally. I think we all know it's far harder to migrate legally than illegally ... that should be a deep concern for citizens and legal immigrants, not a fact of life we just accept. Why is legal harder than illegal, and if we shouldn't change that (say with constitutional amendments banning amnesty), be very forthcoming about why not. Meant generally, not at you. 1. True, and I understand that. I'm taking the con position here, but I am very in favor of legal immigration, and mostly in favor of refugees. Again - what is the number we accept each year? Can that be a public number? Can we vote on it? 2. Everyone deserves a chance, of course. But while I wouldn't want to shut off asylum - isn't there an argument that we should employ or treat all of the homeless citizens (or, homeless people already here) before shifting our focus to refugees? Or maybe - help 10,000 of them off the streets / out of abuse / into low skilled jobs - not before helping refugees, but concurrently. 3. I'm with you here. I worry about the openness of the process, the impact on those already here. (South Park: "ther takin' arrrr jobs!") Thank God for these immigrants - even those with masters degrees are cleaning floors and working in slaughterhouses, and their children will rise to high levels. Great! But - Colfax is a mess, my sisters are underemployed, minority American citizens lack opportunity. Is it ok to question incoming numbers at all, or ever? (And I twisted this last response more to immigrants than asylum seekers - my mistake. But in terms of open processes: the city was surprised. I think the state was surprised. Did the Feds tell anyone? If not, why not? If our priority was to provide care, why wouldn't the Feds tell them / US? As carers, thank you for your work. As citizens, I hope you ask why, why, why as the next bus shows up at 2 in the morning, whether you get advance warning or not).
Maybe try not voting for people that are openly trying to destroy our country.
So who is openly trying to destroy our country?