Afghan Refugees: Meet Us In St. Louis - NextSTL
By - rgbose
Not sure how new of news this is, but STL is officially [one of 19 communities](https://twitter.com/AKarSTL/status/1427722942813810704) selected to resettle refugees.
I'm [donating](https://www.iistl.org/donate/) today to the International Institute.
Yes!! The international institute is amazing! I did a group project in school collaborating with their organization, they are great!
Thanks for sharing!
They are a great organization and we clearly should support them and appreciate their efforts for our region.
They helped resettle Bosnians here and shored up the Bevo neighborhood, and also put on the Festival of Nations in Tower Grove park, which is one of our country's oldest international festivals.
Thank you for the link!
This should be the top comment!
One of my best friends is an Iraqi refugee who moved here about 12 years ago. She's awesome, she came over when she was 10 years old and got her citizenship a few years ago. Now she works, goes to school, and is pursuing careers in art and computer science.
Immigration is a fantastic way to bring diversity and talent to a community. I'm all for this.
This is great news. For anyone curious in seeing an Afghanistan beyond what the media portrays watch this video https://youtu.be/J74B2jzr8iA Some of the nicest people out there
As someone who lives just across Grand from the neighborhood they'd most likely be resettled in, I'm enthusiastically in favor. My only concern was *going to be* was whether or not the International Institute could staff up Pashto-to-English instructors fast enough, only to see that Reddit served me up [this link](https://fox2now.com/news/missouri/international-institute-of-st-louis-readies-for-influx-of-afghan-refugees/) just two items down.
As a former staff member there, they’ll be ready. The only question is whether the federal money is here in time to pay for that uptick in staffing.
Yeah, that's my primary concern. This should be a national effort, and while I am happy to have my city be a place that takes in a large number, refugees do cost money, especially early on
I think another thing to consider is a lot of these people worked as translators. Possibly they could work for the organization ?
Edit : thanks for the silver kind stranger!
The Gateway Arch should be the new Ellis Island. Afghan, Haitian, Venezuelan, Hong Konger; the world over is welcome.
Seriously though. We have a capacity for what, like 900k people? Not to mention refugees’/immigrants’ propensity for opening small businesses (esp restaurants). Let me get some (more) Afghan food and hot Venezuelan sandwiches, please.
I love people from my hometown lol you guys are like HELL YEAH COMMON OVER AND BRING YOUR FOOD TOO!
We definitely don't have the capacity for that in terms of building capacity anymore. At one point we had that much but we've knocked down a ton of it and plenty more withered away. But our city could easily thrive on the increase for sure.
Another influx of people desperate for a good city and good home will only benefit everyone. Light that arch up as a shiny beacon of hope
Amen. It worked really well in the 90’s. If it’s done correctly, I’m confident it could work again. There’s already a significant Muslim population in the metro area. I have hope that the current administration will recognize the opportunity we have here.
> If the other immigrants have even half the character and work ethic he has, they would be a welcome addition to our community!
I fully understand this sentiment, but I also think that the lazy, the useless, the unhelpful, the non-character Afghan refugees should be allowed status here. But I also do recognize the logistics issue here.
Because people deserve to have a healthy and safe life, and that shouldn't be tied to production output.
Exactly this. We don't need to be turning away grannies because they don't help the bottom line.
Because people have value simply by virtue of existing, you don’t have to be a workhorse for the machine to deserve life
I also knew an Afghan immigrant a few years ago. The only issue I had with him was that he was almost too polite, the man used "sir" like it was a comma.
TBH I wish St. Louis would open its arms to refugees and immigrants from all over the world. We could use the people and we have the space. Diversity is a beautiful thing.
Shit yes, more Afghani restaurants!
Is there any volunteer work to be done to help in this matter?
Reach out to the International Institute, they will be spearheading the efforts here.
Thanks! I will do that!
I just filled out their volunteer application through this link!
Bring 'em over, i welcome more immigrants in our city.
I welcome more immigrants to the city. Bosnians helped revitalize Bevo Mill.
Our city has a great, diverse immigrant community. So long as they can understand, and will follow, our laws there's no reason why we shouldn't welcome them with open arms.
I will welcome them with open arms.
I’d love to see them make St. Louis their new homes.
I am proud. Not one racist remark. Good job St.Louis!
Give it time.
7 hours after your comment I’m only 3 threads deep but I’ve seen several of the veiled dog whistles about bullshit like “the taliban are just posing as immigrants to attack us!”
Too good to be true. JESUS people can yall stop being racist for 5 minutes. FFS
What I’m hoping that since the immediate reaction was to call Biden inhumane for personally kicking refugees off of that C-17, the far right is stuck being nice to them as long as they think that’s sticking out to the libs.
What I’m predicting is that once they get here a convoy of F-250s from wentzville is going to run them out of town.
> a convoy of F-250s from wentzville is going to run them out of town.
Four or five years ago, I would’ve laughed at that. Today, not so much.
Having said that, settling Bosnian refugees here in the 90s worked rather well. I’m confident it could work that way again, with a little luck.
Republicans are pretty split on refugees. You have the xenophobes who just hate immigration, but you also have a fairly significant group that strongly support expanded legal immigration including refugees. Both groups rail against illegal immigrants, but towards different end goals. (I think you could even split them as Trump republicans and Bush republicans.)
From my experiences of being Latino in Latino immigrant heavy Democratic areas (not St Louis), xenophobia is bi-partisan, especially if the immigrant group in question is perceived as being strongly religious/socially conservative.
Thank you for clarifying that. I’ve been exposed to the first group so much lately, I keep forgetting there might be others who feel a bit differently.
Thanks, admittedly I have been inundated with the actually-crazy Category 1 Republicans today and let my frustrations out. There *is* nuance.
>personally kicking refugees off of that C-17
Didn't know Biden showed up in person and kicked them off one by one.
>F-250s from wentzville is going to run them out of town.
As long as they are assured that the refugees will remain in the city, I think they will remain in Wentzville.
I mean, they're already scared to go to the city anyways...
We should take every single Afghan refugee the government will allow.
I'm confused at the idea that the Afghanis who worked for us were corrupt and just doing it for the money, and when the time came weren't willing to do anything but surrender, and then at the same time that these are the kinds of people we should take into our country.
Might not be understanding your point but why were you under the impression they were corrupt? They aided the US military in an effort for their country against the Taliban. Those folks are (hopefully) the first out on Special Immigrant Visas. Others are those at direct and immediate risk due to their identity or advocacy efforts in Afghanistan.
You might be thinking the ANA members which I don't think make up a significant portion of these refugees (or at least not intentionally). They weren't really corrupt just ill-qualified, unwilling to take training seriously, and faced a nearly impossible threat broadly speaking.
Afghani is the currency, Afghan are people and things from Afghanistan.
> Might not be understanding your point but why were you under the impression they were corrupt?
The Afghanistan papers revealed the utter level of corruption and that just about everybody who was working for us was just in it for the paycheck.
If my job stopped paying me, I stop working because I am just in it for the paycheck.
They were still getting paid when they all decided to collapse and give their equipment to the Taliban.
Who is they? Refugees? Translators? Army personnel? Afghan government personnel?
Got a source for what you are talking about?
Corruption was a pretty major problem
I think that something we need to understand as well is the level of violent threats that exist between the Taliban and civilians.
Yes, an Afghan national may have taken gear that the US supplied and given it to the Taliban. However, we do not fully understand the motivation. Maybe they were threatened. Maybe they weren't but they still feared reprisal. On doesn't need to be directly threatened to understand the punishment for non-compliance there.
Yeah, the entire thing was a shit show that we should have never been involved with. I don't think many people will disagree with that. Doesn't mean we shouldn't take refugees because the government officials were corrupt.
Yea for sure, we should definitely take refugees. But corruption was a massive problem. The article series and the documents attached are very good.
I do my job for the paycheck. Am I corrupt too, Greg?
Who is Greg?
But anyways, if we take every single refugee, how are we going to keep out thousands of Taliban?
It's a reference from the movie 'Meet the Parents.' The main character, Greg, says you can milk anything with nipples and his gf's dad says, "I have nipples, can you milk me, Greg?"
I appreciate you.
I think many of the refugees we're talking about aren't even Afghan fighters but translators and their families who aided US forces during the 20-year campaign. These are folks who effectively worked as members of the US military, developed strong and trusting friendships with US troops, and undoubtedly saved US lives with the information they provided. Many of these folks are publicly known to have aided the US and in grave danger under Taliban rule, and they have been trying to get visas to emigrate for years (with the help of US troops they served with) but have been held up by red tape. If anything, by abandoning these folks in particular, we run the risk of further fueling the narrative that the US is an unreliable ally and making recruiting even easier for anti-US terrorist groups.
> I think many of the refugees we're talking about aren't even Afghan fighters but translators and their families who aided US forces during the 20-year campaign
Sure, I'm all for bringing them, but the comment here was that we should take every single one that the government will allow. Now perhaps its not clear which gov't was beging referred to.
He was obviously meaning the U.S. government because they will be the ones helping determine where refugees go. He's saying STL should basically volunteer for as many of the refugees the U.S. is bringing.
I didn't think it was obvious, but regardless, if he meant the US gov't then I am in agreement.
Why would Taliban members come here? They just achieved the organization's only goal, and have a country to run.
Why would islamic terrorists infiltrate the united states? Thats your question?
The first people who would report a terrorist are the Muslims immigrants/refugees who are already here. Remember- the terrorists are the same motherfuckers they were running away from in the first place.
If we don't do something, because we're afraid of the terrorism, doesn't that mean they are accomplishing their goal?
Shouldn't be doing this to spite them?
_Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me_
Why would someone who just came to supreme political power in a country immediately leave to go to a country where they have nothing and no one?
Maybe you have a point in worrying about uneducated, religiously and culturally conservative refugees coming here and not integrating in a meaningful way, but then we resettled lots of Vietnamese boat people and Bosnians without a lot of long-term problems.
> Why would someone who just came to supreme political power in a country immediately leave to go to a country where they have nothing and no one?
I dunno, why did the 9/11 hijackers come?
Whoa whoa whoa, nobody whatabouts me.
So we should reject thousands of refugees because a handful *might* be terrorists. Meanwhile white, US citizen terrorists still hold official positions in our government.
**Greg is a masculine given name, and often a shortened form of the given name Gregory. Greg (more commonly spelled "Gregg") is also a surname.**
More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot)
I too am only in my job for the paycheck?
So they should have worked for us because of what other reasons, exactly? Lol expecting loyalty from another country's citizens that we started a war in is some absolute Americocentric bullshit. Try putting yourself in their shoes.
Oh I understand why they did what they did, I just don't see then why we owe them anything if it was a simple transaction, and let's face it, these people by and large aren't exactly going to like the lifestyle in the grove.
I think they saw the writing on the wall. They knew that there was no way they can hold off the Taliban without US air and intelligence support. What's the point of getting killed and potentially putting your family on the line. The Taliban are ruthless and brutal. Revenge killings are already happening in outside rural areas. Better to surrender, grow a beard and take a chance.
Most of the individuals who were corrupt and doing it for the money are not the people who would be leaving the country to find a new life (high level leadership like the President are an exception). Most of the Afghan people who would be coming here would be a benefit to the community.
>Most of the individuals who were corrupt and doing it for the money are not the people who would be leaving the country to find a new life
How do you know this?
The people who cut deals to roll over for the Taliban don't need to leave the country.
Oh I didn’t realize it was the Afghan government we were accepting
Yes, it’s clear that you are confused.
It’s Afghans not afghanis, afghanis is the currency not the people.
Fuck yeah, bring them here. We have the space.
We have the space because no one wants to live in St. Louis.
Then fuck off
You are classic wallowing pathetic St. Louisan. Congrats.
No one did in the 90’s either. Bosnian refugees managed to revitalize the city.
It would be cool if there was a way to sponsor Afghan refugees directly. Like pay for a set of school supplies so the children displaced can have a fresh start here. It's heartbreaking seeing kids who want to learn turned away.
If they can get status and make the transition the seeds of your wish might come true.
Bring them over, we owe them that much.
I don’t get how this would work in any kind of timely manner. The 12,000 homes STL owns are so dilapidated that it would take a long time and a lot of money to fix them up. I don’t think the federal government is just going to give STL the money and resources to finally fix up these houses after ignoring this city with this problem that they have had for decades.
It was one idea. Initially, I think that refugees would be settled elsewhere, and would buy homes to fix up as time goes on. A lot of Bosnians did that in the Bevo area, and it worked reasonably well.
We have an organization that is part of a national network dedicated to refugee integration and funded via [public-private partnership with the U.S. Department of State.](https://refugees.org/refugee-resettlement/)
Here is the local [International Institute](https://www.iistl.org/frequently-asked-questions/) FAQ
Refugees are very few in number; these Afghans are entering via a [special visa program](https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/special-immg-visa-afghans-employed-us-gov.html)
if it's like syrian refugees who got resettled here, they will be put in north st louis to be menaced by the natives lmao
And the Iraqi and sub-Saharan Africa refugees before them. They move to south city ASAP.
Fine by me, plenty of space in South City for them.
[the riverfront times literally did an exposé on that practice in 2018:](https://www.riverfronttimes.com/stlouis/syrian-refugees-escaped-war-only-to-land-in-one-of-st-louis-toughest-neighborhoods/Content?oid=18913586)
>Apparently still shocked by the violence they've witnessed in north city, the group ticks off a list of what they've experienced collectively at the Garden Apartments in the last two years: the beating of their teenagers, a holdup at gunpoint, two cars smashed in by baseball bats, a chilling attempted kidnapping of one of their daughters, a rock thrown through their living-room window, kids hit with baseball bats, a stolen bicycle, a man creeping around with a stocking mask on (two weeks ago), men breaking into their living room wielding a Taser (one week ago). The wives stay awake until their husbands get home, sometimes as late as 2 a.m. They've called 911 so many times that dispatch provided them with a special number to call.
We need a young and able-bodied workforce. These people have shown intense commitment to the United States.
Insane how many American politicians voted against us helping these people, and it's the politicians you would expect...
I think you are referring to the special immigrant visa (SIV) vote, aka Afghan Allies Protection Act? The 16 who voted against that... I just don't see how you can possibly justify that. It might not be the politicians you would expect: none of them were from Missouri.
Sadly, the embassy shut down in July and stopped taking SIV applications, so only about 2,000 visas have been issued out of the 30k+ capacity. (The vote was to add more capacity, which was not really needed yet, but also to expand eligibility, which was badly needed.) The military is evacuating the 20k+ people who applied but had not been issued visas yet.
That said, SIV applicants are not refugees. That's a different visa program and the military is urgently acting to help get them and their families out.
>The Republicans who voted against the resolution were: Andy Biggs of Arizona, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Mo Brooks of Alabama, Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee, Jeff Duncan of South Carolina, Bob Good of Virginia, Paul Gosar of Arizona, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, Jody Hice of Georgia, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Barry Moore of Alabama, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Bill Posey of Florida, Matthew Rosendale of Montana and Chip Roy of Texas
Uhh no it's exactly the guys that I would expect
The same people who also supported the withdrawal and are now upset by our “failure”
It's possible to support ending our involvement in Afghanistan, while also being horrified at the absolute shit-show our government has made of it.
Then can mosey on down 55 south a little bit too if they want. Just saying. Open arms down here too
Always love welcoming new immigrants. I can only pray they find decent living situations. So many end up in Hodiamont.
Better 'Hoodiamont than College Hill. But I agree, generally speaking. We really need to work harder to undo the legacy of redlining and segregation in this city and I think integrating a new immigrant/refugee population into neighborhoods like Woodson Terrace or Breckenridge Hills would give them a much needed leg up on a new life here in the US.
At the same time though, that would just be further diversifying an already diverse area in the city. So the question then becomes: Do we enhance diversity of already-diverse areas, or do we try to diversify LESS diverse areas where it's almost guaranteed the refugees are going to have a hard time? (Either in high crime areas with a fair bit of xenophobia, or in high-cost-of-living areas with a TON of xenophobia)
I think south city or the south-of-the-airport region are probably our best bets, but that's just me, a layman.
The US has only taking 500 refugees from Afghanistan, and not expected to exceed 3,000 total....
Besides the stunning policy failure this represents (Biden cut the refugee cap relative to pre-trump numbers, and then the Biden refugee administration choose to only use half that cap this year too), this also means that all Afghan refugees will almost certainly be placed as a group in a single city or a very small number of cities. This might be St Louis, but St Louis is an unlikely choice now given the current levels of violence here.
On the bright side, most of the refugees being accepted are translators (over 700), which should greatly smooth integration of that refugee community into their new city or cities. I hoping for a successful transition based on that, even if it will be too little too late for a huge number of people.
Added a caveat above. Biden increased the numbers relative to Trump (but only after a bunch of backlash when he first kept the ridiculous trump numbers of 18k per year). But relative to everyone else since Reagan it is a cut (62.5k compared to 70k+ for all of GWB and Obama and 120k-240k for Reagan and GHWB). Here is a nice illustration of that.
Here are some key articles on the original numbers:
And the changes:
And then here's a Reuters article out today about how, even with the increased numbers, Biden administration is on track to only admit 10k refugees, lower than even the worst Trump year.
I’m going to get downvoted hard here but see Gothenburg, Sweden as a case study for why we should tread carefully on this.
It is more of a case study of what to do to make things go wrong:
Land 100,000 asylum seekers in one city (regardless of size).
Have the majority of those asylum seekers be unaccompanied minors.
Join that up with a huge number of undocumented and rejected asylum seekers who end up living as a shadow population with no direct support.
Any idea if there is data on the max size of a refugee population to be settled in a city of a given size? Seems like you'd need enough to have a community to help newcomers get plugged in, but small enough that said community can't become self-sufficient or insular enough to be forever resistant to assimilation.
That is my naive and uninformed hot take.
Gothenburg, Sweden is a case study in how the news reports the worst of any situation without providing a balanced perspective of the overall situation. We should tread carefully when commenting our hot takes online.
Hey, there's this case study from this small city in America called St Louis and Bosnian Refugees. Seems like it has worked out pretty good for them.
is it impossible to see both sides of this agrument?
Sure, there's data showing that Refugees and immigrants generally increase the value of property, bring jobs, and in doing so increase the tax base of the city.
I mean, a quick scan on the news for Gothenburg Sweden shows me that maybe there's more gun crime? I mean, they are coming to St Louis. I don't think that we would even notice a pop or two more in the night.
Have you ever looked into the “no-go zones” in Sweden? While I would like this to be a productive conversation, I can tell from your tone that you’ll prolly disregard what I’ll say.
Basically the picture you’re painting is that they only bring positives to the community? And some possible gun violence as the negative side effect.
But really the golden part of your statement is how YOU implied that immigrants would increase crime in STL. Lol, that’s not a good look. All I said was there’s two sides to every argument. So why do you think these immigrants would shoot off guns in the night? An extra “pop” in the night, no worries!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6UgjgCSbf8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6UgjgCSbf8) I'm sure if you would have shown this snopes article to those people, everything would have turned out great!
St. Louis has already resettled 5000 Somali refugees, long since. And you didn't even notice, did you? You know why not? Because they came here, brought money with them from the home country, invested it in job creation, hired each other, sent their kids to school, and settled in as great neighbors.
Just like the Bosnians. And, for that matter, like the Palestinians before them. Refugees have, on average, lower crime rates than the natives. Yes, even the Muslim ones.
I'm guessing you don't live anywhere near the International Institute in south St. Louis. You know how I know that? Because I've never met a St. Louisan who freaked out about refugees who'd ever seen, let alone met, let alone lived near a refugee. It's always the people living in the far suburbs, or in rural areas, who'll never ever see a refugee who freak out that refugees are coming. Because if you'd ever seen one, you'd realize that they're just people, same as everybody else. Except that these particular people want trouble even less than the average person, because they've seen enough trouble for ten lifetimes.
Just pointing out snopes ain’t reliable. That is all.
Have you looked into No Go Zones? Beyond reading some headlines on right wing media sites? Have you followed up on the sources they are citing? They are generally posts to one man band blogs with names like sharia law creep or shit like that with anecdotes that have no backing.
Immigrants are people. Scared and vulnerable people. Crime will happen, because they are human beings generally not well off. Otherwise they wouldn't be escaping. Probably similar shit to what your fairly recent ancestors did.
The shit about the gun violence was tongue in cheek. By capita, I would expect crime to go down because people who are immigrating for one reason or another generally don't have to resources or hook ups to start doing the crimes. Again, this is backed up by data.
Your reactionary bullshit is just drivel that's been pouring out of propaganda machines since hominids started speaking. Your feels aren't reals. They just feel that way because people who want you scared of the "other" are stealing from you because you are too busy watching them with a magnifying glass.
If you say so boss. Another perfect example constructive conversation. Disregarded everything I say. The assumptions you have made about me are laughable. Again all you have shown is the assumptions you make about other people. How can I have a productive conversation with anyone if they assume they already know my ideas and feelings. The people on the opposite side of whatever side you’re on. Arnt usually the evil people they are people who have lived and experienced different things than you.
But sure go ahead and tell everyone how I feel about people. You are the problem with our society. Your heart is in the right place but you seem to have misplaced your ears.
You know I can read your previous posts.
Only reason I am even arguing with you is not that it will pierce your skull but that it may pierce someone else's.
If you want a constructive conversation just don't spam the talking points that are blasted into your face. Begging both sides and saying No Go Zones... What about crime? You don't have anything to add to the conversation except "what aboutism". That is why I call you a reactionary. You aren't constructing anything. What do you expect from conversations like that?
"Begging both sides and saying No Go Zones... What about crime? You don't have anything to add to the conversation except "what aboutism".
I'm not sure I understand. The whole conversation on this thread is about Sweden, thus the no-go-zones? What was the spam I blasted out?
I would expect you to at least address the point rather than saying it's "bullshit." Finally, I expect a conversation. Just remember all I said was they "is it impossible to see the other side?"
However, you DID answer my question; you just never intended on it!
I am sure you don't understand.
It's really hard to disregard what you're saying because you jumped straight to crying about being persecuted.
Is there a difference between having assumptions made about you vs being persecuted?
Is there a difference between having assumptions made about you vs being persecuted? How is pointing that out saying I’m being persecuted? Also where did I say that at all? Isn’t making assumptions about people you don’t know generally looked at as a bad thing?
Okay. How about you elaborate a little bit. Here is what you said before you started complaining:
>is it impossible to see both sides of this agrument?
Not really much to go off there. How about you explain what you think the two sides of the argument are and how you feel about them.
/r/Imaretard is leaking
The key is education and preventing segregation.
My family are immigrants all over the world. They love having their immigrant neighborhoods where they have support groups, familiar food, etc.
Imo, one of the biggest issues is when host snd immigrant cultures’ values dont align. Ie treatment of women, violence or sexual minorities (or whatever the current term is)
> They love having their immigrant neighborhoods where they have support groups, familiar food, etc.
Oh, I think that's fantastic. I just know one of the problems (especially in Europe) is immigrant communities end up becoming ghettos (in the original sense of the word) with little to no interaction with the outside community.
In the US, we have a rich history of predominantly immigrant neighborhoods that become draws for the outside community (such as The Hill). I'm just curious what makes the difference between a healthy immigrant community and one of seclusion.
Good point and great question. I dont know the answer, but Im sure there are numerous factors.
Perhaps a difference is that Sweden had an influx of economic migrants (often pretending to be refugees) who didnt intend on assimilating to western culture.
With this potential small influx of Afghan immigrants, they are fleeing the Taliban’s culture and they are more likely to be willing to assimilate into Western culture.
Why not the Muslim countries take them in? Plenty of nice places like Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Pakistan. Here come the govt subsidies.... Sad
Yeah the gulf states are wealthier per capita than the US and the refugees would integrate smoothly into their already Islamic culture. Probably better for all parties involved.
Yeah good luck with convincing this subreddit that it might be a bad idea.
You're stuck in the wrong decade. America loves muslims now, especially when the muslims in question hate China.
Terrified it took so Long to see a rational comment in this thread
Will they be fully vaccinated and vetted before entering this country?
Come from your bombed out country to a city that merely looks bombed out due to decades of malicious neglect
Is this how desperate we are for a population boost?
It worked with the Bosnians. I welcome any Afghani refugees.
The short answer is yes. If the city can't grow through internal migration, then it should accept as many immigrants as it can get.
Donkeys and elephants both failed the Afghan people for decades. The *bare minimum* is for the US to accept every willing refugee.
cant be any worse than the locals
The city needs some fresh blood, badly.
Lol at the down votes
Probably way more money than he was living on back home.
Oh man this thread will go well.
Why would they want to move to a place worse than where they came from?
People don't get beheaded here
How many times that happened to you?
You can ask the same question to adult Afghans about beheading.
When people shoot others they go to jail for like 20 years or more here. The people beheading folks over there face no consequences since they're in charge now. Do you see the difference? Or are you stupid?
You are so clever.
I work downtown and see homeless people on a daily basis:
under bridges, overpasses, living in tents.
What can be done about that?
I’m sure that will go over like a fart in church in red state Missouri.
It's literally been happening every 15-20 years-ish throughout the history of St. Louis.
Wave of refugees come in, settle in some of the poorest neighborhoods. A couple of years of integration (and usually an associated mini crime wave as they adapt to the culture), then they start opening businesses that serve their communities needs.
After a couple of years the community gets a bit of wealth, and starts opening restaurants. Add another couple of years, those restaurants begin attracting patrons from other communities. Once that happens, wealth begins to pour into the area, and they use it to fix up the neighborhood. Property values rise, the neighborhood gentrifies, and the community disburses a bit into other neighborhoods.
So many local neighborhoods have been brought up this way over the centuries, it's been a massive impact on the city. Also one reason why the food is so good here.
I say welcome them with open arms to STL, let's do it again.
I do too. I’m just saying we live in a red state with red state thinking.
Nah. We live in St. Louis. The red state thinkers are scared to come here for anything other than sports events.
Yeah but they’ll hear about it and throw a fit.
Mmmm, we're a state that's been a "red state" for a couple of decades mostly due to the GOP side of the aisle getting major local funding and building a coalition to get rural Reps talking to City reps statewide, and building the infrastructure to better coordinate campaigns.
At the same time, we also saw the Dems slowly lose touch with the electorate and the loss of the rural Union voting block with the death of most Missouri mines.
However, the Rep coalition that was built in the 90s has been fracturing of late: the main guy funding it died in 2016, the the Tea Party cracked the relationships it built, and the Hawley and the MAGA takeover widened those cracks.
Meanwhile the Dems have seen a bit of a progressive revival.
While the Reps still have a major advantage in this state, we are drifting slowly but surely back towards a more purple shade of red. And considering some of the reps will think that they are saddling us with an economic drain, not helping us out with the refugees, I think they might let it slide.
Still, do have a good point that quite a few of them would not want more 'brown people' in their state.
I'd feel more optimistic if we'd been able to vote down Prop 3. That was a setback.
The problem with "getting there" is that it is not "there now".
There is nothing wrong with having a differing opinion. I'm elated to have immigrants coming in however I'm also fairly conservative politically. My biggest issue with blue voters is that typically they shout about tolerance, acceptance and so on. Then trash, bash and detest others with a differing opinion and label them certain ways. All for simply thinking different or having an opinion. Case and point. This.
Anyway. Hopefully the Afghani people are welcomed and enjoy St. Louis.
Bosnians seemed to work out okay. Hell, I live in Jefferson County and my neighbors are Bosnian.