Biden raising yearly refugee cap to 125,000
By - Civ_Fan77
Why not 125,000 trillion? 😡🧐
Way, way too high. America cannot sustain those levels of immigration.
10 billion at most.
Is this that overton window the kids are talking about?
Silence anti immigrant! 😡
At least 10000000000
I don't think any aliens want to immigrate to Earth; I think they call it a shithole planet
Every atom in the universe has to become American
it's just absolutely bonkers that the refugee cap is in the control of the President but the green card cap isn't.
glad for them, sad for myself. what a mess
Kinda makes sense since events can change the number of refugees who need to be resettled from year to year, but green card demand is stable, so congress should pick the amount of green cards available, and let the president adjust refugee numbers as needed
> Kinda makes sense since events can change the number of refugees who need to be resettled from year to year
I mean not to any degree that it would matter to this programme. There are 10s of millions of refugees that need resettling this year, last year, 10 years ago, 10 years in the future. The only question is how many America wants to take in, there is never going to be a supply shortage of refugees...
The rest of the worlds still got room to take them in
Most of the developed world is taking in relatively many more refugees than America is. But yes, there are some that take in almost none, e.g. Japan.
I mean, it's stable, but the cap is nowhere near the demand. There's like 1 million+ just Indian foreign nationals in the employment-based backlog.
Yes. Sadly that is by design of Congress. Can't have to many icky brown people and their wierd religion in MURICA
Immigrants cant vote until they become naturalized, which is like a 5 year process. And why would we limit China and India. They should be the largest immigrant groups since they are the highest population. Set it on a per capita basis.
Why does the number of nations the immigrants come from matter?
These people would have to leave here for more than a decade before they can vote... Until then they work and pay taxes. That should assuage your concern
What's the difference between a million from a hundred nations, and a hundred million from a single nation though?
> These 100 cultures probably won't vote in a similar way
Neither will 100 million from a single country, it's not like people within a nation are a monolith (case in point, a certain country went from first black president to Trump in 8 years).
But anyway, you're basically making the case for a cap on total immigrants and not immigrants per nation. Do you disagree?
**Rule II:** *Bigotry*
Bigotry of any kind will be sanctioned harshly.
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
What's just as bonkers is the idea that if congress has a power then it's hopeless. We shouldn't have to rely on the president to get everything done.
You're preaching to the choir here
Yup, as a legal immigrant here almost 8 years, paying taxes, and looking at 30 years more to get a green card... its bonkers!
But good for them refugees
same and I'm behind you in the queue
I’ve seen some greencard categories are over 120 year wait.
Bruh that’s crazy?
How long would it take to naturalize?
The waiting lists for India are such that based on current progress every year (and considering so many GCs are wasted every year) it would take 50 years more for me on EB2.
If all unused greencards are allocated to those backlogged, it would go a long way in alleviating this issue.
But since H1B are legal immigrants, neither them, nor their children are usually beneficiaries of attention as they are seen as privileged. So they are not good virtue signalling candidates. Eg Obama gave DACA protection to children of illegal immigrants who came here with their parents. On the other hand, children of H1Bs who came here legally as kids but aged out had to leave the country unless they had a F1 visa etc.,
That is why from our standpoint, Biden and Trump are very similar when it comes to our rights. The only difference is that the former is not scheming everyday to throw us out.
Student VISA. So they could stay back if they got admission in a USA university and got student VISA. Otherwise they would have to leave
How hard would it be to claim economic refugee status? We used to block black families from getting FHA home loan subsidies, I think it would be possible to argue that certain people in other countries are economically oppressed and should be allowed here
Economic reasons are explicitly not considered for refugee status. Otherwise half the world would be eligible for refugee status.
The lottery system is dumb. Have a point based system for skilled workers for god's sake
Put them all in West Virginia
Alabama has apparently lost population this year due to COVID. Could put them there!
Well, that and sustained out-migration. Alabama has no built-up urban areas. It's pretty much Alabama and Mississippi as eastern states without cities per se.
IIRC there was a paper that showed middle class immigrants/refugees better assimilated when they were in a sizable community of their same cultural background/ethnic group but poor immigrants/refugees assimilated better when they were isolated from their cultural background/ethnic group.
So logically West Virginia is still the right place for them
Whoever replaces Manchin will make you miss Manchin.
Who are they voting for? The Republicans? I’m sure I saw some research that said they vote somewhat like black folks in that most aren’t very liberal but hate the republicans.
Muslims as a whole vote Democrat by a wide margin.
**Rule III**: *Bad faith arguing*
Engage others assuming good faith and don't reflexively downvote people for disagreeing with you or having different assumptions than you. Don't troll other users.
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
Restricting freedom of movement bad, actually.
Cruel and unusual.
Havent they suffered enough
Now THIS is pod racing
One thing I like about the people on this subreddit is that they just throw out random quotes from movies but somehow it just works.
You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, /r/neoliberal/, and I won't have it!! Is that clear?!
So let's say you opened _two hundred_ Wonka bars. Now, apart from being dreadfully sick, you would have used up twenty percent of one thousand, which is fifteen percent half over again...
Quiet... A whale is in trouble! I have to go!
Why is there a cap
Still a bit low by an order of magnitude, but I'll take it.
200k in 2023 inshallah
Sub of incremental change
Good start, but he forgot a zero.
O N E B I L L I O N A M E R I C A N S
E V E R Y Y E A R
A little bit at a time.
How is it unsustainable?
We could add 700,000,000 people and still be 1/9 as dense as England. No problemo.
> 1/9 as dense as England
NINE BILLION AMERICANS
Yeah, but populations don't spread evenly. I'm not even agreeing with that dude above, but this isn't a very helpful metric.
Definitely not, and I don’t think Matthew Yglesias really meant for that many people. The point of that number was to show we could definitely handle more people as long as we did it with smart and sustainable planning using technology and strong cities.
*I* was saying One Billion Americans
If California could get density right, it could easily hold the whole nation's population comfortably, without ripping up the national parks. One billion really isn't that much with this much land.
Edit: Just did some back-of-napkin math for funsies. California could fit 400M people into about 30% of it's land, if it were as dense as Oakland. That would avoid major parks, fire zones and otherwise unusable terrain.
Good news! Newsome just abolished single family zoning! Density HO!
Just make sure housing can be built unimpeded
Unimpeded isn't the way to go. You need to take some things into account.
Let’s start with upzoning and densifying on a large scale before we take up too much more land with housing.
Every city in America gets a skyscraper.
The free market economy can handle it. Miss me with that socialist bullshit 😤
Unless we make entire systems more sustainable, increasing population means increasing GHG emissions.
The point of recognizing this isn’t to demonize immigrants or immigration. I’m down for a billion plus Americans 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸.
They just need to be coming into a system that’s cleaner and more sustainable, which is up to us (current generations of Americans and soon to be Americans).
[current immigration policies will increase the effort needed to reach this target. Based on past experience, these policies will add three-quarters of a per cent to Canada’s population every year so that in 2030, all else being equal, the country’s population and total GHG emissions will be 7.5 per cent above what they would have been otherwise.](https://populationinstitutecanada.ca/connecting-immigration-to-higher-emissions/)
[The estimated CO2 emissions of the average immigrant (legal or illegal) in the United States are 18 percent less than those of the average native-born American.](https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-United-States-and-WorldWide-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions)
[However, immigrants in the United States produce an estimated four times more CO2 in the United States as they would have in their countries of origin.](https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-United-States-and-WorldWide-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions)
[U.S. immigrants produce an estimated 637 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually — equal to Great Britain and Sweden combined. The estimated 637 tons of CO2 U.S. immigrants produce annually is 482 million tons more than they would have produced had they remained in their home countries.](https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-United-States-and-WorldWide-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions)
[If the 482 million ton increase in global CO2 emissions caused by immigration to the United States were a separate country, it would rank 10th in the world in emissions.](https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-United-States-and-WorldWide-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions)
[The impact of immigration to the United States on global emissions is equal to approximately 5 percent of the increase in annual world-wide CO2 emissions since 1980.](https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-United-States-and-WorldWide-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions)
You are right, caps this low mean that sustaining economic growth and prosperity will be impossible.
Still too few. 1 million afghans when?
Even having a refugee cap is abhorrent but this is a good start.
We also take in about 1M legal immigrants a year (and who knows how many undocumented immigrants). We take in more immigrants than anyone else and have for quite a while (raw numbers). Note: This is a good thing.
For a mostly empty continent-sized country it's actually disappointing. Inflows per capita the US is not even in the top of developed countries
For comparison the EU receives nearly 3 millions a year
We could handle at least a million and probably far more than that.
If we allocated billions more dollars for it and the idea had broad support among the voting public. If it can’t get the votes in Congress and implementing it would lead to a reactionary government taking power than no we can’t handle it.
You're 100% right, but there aren't enough words in English to describe how much I hate that you are.
Happy cake day!
That's all, that's the comment.
Oh, hey. I didn't realize it.
*looks at housing prices*
Think of how many houses a million refugees could build
God I love this subreddit
Make it so every refugee brought in results in one square mile of low density housing in suburbia upzoned.
Win win for literally everyone
That's why we send them to West Virginia not California.
>That's why we send them to West Virginia
Why do you hate the global refugee?
If they can't find jobs in WV they'll move to Columbus like everyone else.
There might be a limit, but it's probably closer to like 12,500,000/year than it is to 125,000, and the limit probably vanishes after the first few years of letting in so many refugees.
It's really hard to tell the *levels* of refugee status
How do you decide which family is in more danger? We would love to take everyone, but this must be done slowly or we risk the pendulum swinging back the other way just as hard, as it has many times in the past.
I know people hate baby steps, but it's the most responsible way to move forward so you can monitor unintended consequences.
Meanwhile, in FY2021 (where Biden also raised the refugee cap to 125,000), we've only admitted 7,600 refugees so far. And the fiscal year ends in a couple weeks. So don't be surprised if we end up actually admitting far fewer than 125,000 refugees next year.
Based but still way too damn low
Not even close to enough.
TIL theres a refugee cap. Like wha? And its tiny.
>According to a report released Monday by the State Department in conjunction with the Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services, the cap for fiscal 2022 is expected to include 40,000 refugees from Africa, 35,000 from the Near East/South Asia, 15,000 from East Asia, 15,000 from Latin America/the Caribbean, and 10,000 from Europe/Central Asia.
The projected breakdown, for anyone wondering
You gotta pump those numbers up, those are rookie numbers.
ONE BILLION AMERICANS LETS FUCKING GOOOOO
While that's great we haven't come close to hitting the old cap.
There shouldn’t be a cap
There’s limited resources to process refugees, so it makes sense to have at least some sort of cap
If you don't have the resources to process a refugee, they won't get processed. It *would be* the soft cap. If I can only process 100,000 refugees, it doesn't matter if the hard cap is 125,000 or 500,000 I can only process 100,000.
The only thing a hard cap does, is that it stops you processing refugees *despite having the resources to do so*. Say we *are* able to process 500,000 refugees but we've set a limit at 125,000.
I think the idea of a de facto cap decided by capacity is great that both you and the person you are replying to would agree with. However there is a separate hard cap that is being adjusted by Biden and every other President.
Add more processing resources, immigrants more than pay for themselves.
There's still friction to how quickly those resources can actually be deployed in a meaningful way
Unless you expect us to tax the refugees as they cross the borders, then the revenue still has to come out of the existing tax base. The return on investment is good, but it's still an investment, not free money.
There should be a limit to how many refugees are accepted but I don't know if a cap is the right way to do that. I also think that a country of the size and resources as the US should be able to accept more refugees than any single European country. In Germany there is no cap and it worked out reasonably well, parts of the conservative ruling party (the more conservative ones) want a limit of 200.000 refugees per year and Germany is a country of 83 million with an total area smaller than Montana.
I'd prefer to see the limit based on what the various organizations around the US think they are able to settle that year.
It's already the de facto limit, since that's what can be resettled, and it's somewhat independent of arbitrary number choices by the sitting president.
This sub is very reasonable until it comes to immigration.
we can fit one trillion americans
Delete all borders. Make Hillary GEOE. Remove all trade barriers. Throw all NIMBYs into a densely packed mixed use residential neighborhood. Convert existing single family housing into mini nuclear power plants. Trust the Manchin cycle. Fuck France. I wish Pete Buttigieg would fuck me.
Probably doesn't need to be said, and yet...
This, but unironically.
He won’t, because you’re being ironic, and Pete doesn’t fuck quasi-chuds who lack imagination.
This is insane. Any reasonable calculation shows that.
America has an area of 9.834 million km². Manila has a density of 41,515 people per km². Adding in a 10x factor since America can afford buildings way taller than anything in Manila and we get **4 trillion**, not one trillion.
If we take the US, divide it into plots with an equal area to the average house area in the US, 2,301 square feet, multiply by 4 people, multiply by 100 floors, you get **18.4 trillion**.
The US could literally be Coruscant if we opened the borders, as any reasonable person knows.
At the order of magnitude of Trillions of people, other concerns than space become limiting factors. From a previous post of mine:
Well yielding staple crops have a photon to chemical energy conversion ratio of about [one](https://www.britannica.com/science/photosynthesis/Energy-efficiency-of-photosynthesis) percent, however that is with the plant only using 1/3 of the available spectrum. So for an optimized spectrum that's about 3% photon to chemical conversion. 2500 kcal diet is about 3kwh per day, or 125 watts per person in food energy. At 3%, you're looking at 4166.6 kw, then high quality LED grow lamps are [80%](https://www.gardenmyths.com/led-grow-lights-the-myth-about-watts/#:~:text=A%20good%20LED%20is%20about,cheap%20and%20others%20are%20expensive.) efficient, so 5208 watts.
Primary energy consumption in the US is [309 million btu](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=85&t=1) anualy, which is 10,341watts. So, add those together, and you've got 15549 watts required per person.
Once you completely shade the earth from the sun with orbital power collectors, you'll have the entire current energy budget of the earth to work with (energy flux from the core is less than 0.01% of that received by the sun, so ignore). The total power received from the sun is about [1.73 x 10^17 watts](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant) but once you multiply by 0.7 to account for the [30%](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_energy_budget) light that gets reflected, you've got 1.21 x 10^17 watts available for humans.
1.21 x 10^17 / 15549 = 7.79 x 10^12, which is 7.8 Trillion humans assuming no new technological progress, and no new major infrastructure, particularly constructing an orbital ring shell world with external radiators, which are 100% achievable with modern technology given sufficient desire to construct them, and while there presumably is a limit to the population in that scenario based on the efficiency of heat conduction. If I remember correctly, thermal superconductors may be possible, but I'm not really sure what the physical limits to transferring heat into thermal superconductors would be (other than gravitational collapse).
If we are extra generous and say each person needs about 100 m^2 (900 SQ ft) of living space plus 900 m^2 for commercial/industry, infrastructure, and common space (parks, tennis, etc) that's 1000 m^2 (9000 ft^2) per person. That would be a total floor area required would be 7.79 x 10^15 square meters.
The world contains about [5 x 10^14 ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area) square meters of land, and the US has about 9 x 10^12 of those. So the floor area ratio needed to house and economize 7.8 trillion people spread across the world's land area (no sea) would be (7.79 x 10^15) / (5 x 10^14), or a floor area ratio of about 15.6. The floor area ratio of the US would be 865.5, sadly a little more challenging than the other figure. We also have to take into account though, that the internal useable area of a building is not it's land plot area times it's number of floors. We need a figure called net internal area.
[This one random building in Dubai](http://wikimapia.org/501628/The-Index-Building) has 86 floors with a floor area ratio of a bit over 0.7. So, we'd need 22.285 stories (15.6 / 0.7) if the whole world was a building, and that allows plenty of room for internal parks, because i picked what seemed to me like a much larger area budget than people actually need (think about how much land we have zoned residential vs commercial/industrial at the same density). With a Net internal area requirement for our land at only 22.285, the density requirement is actually quite low. At 100 - 150 floors (depending on net internal area for these taller structures) you're looking at only taking up 25% or so of the land surface, and this height is already achievable today. Though, in this scenario, there isn't any energy budget left over for ecology, so leaving that land unused is maybe pointless.
So really, the final limit for how many people we can have on earth comes down to how much power we use in the future per capita.
> So really, the final limit for how many people we can have on earth comes down to how much power we use in the future per capita.
Not really - once we institute a carbon tax, we'll have a Dyson sphere within years. The free market will provide the expertise.
Trust in the market.
This isn't a limit to the total number of humans, just the number on earth. The idea here is that we can only use (in total, from earth production or import) roughly the same power as we receive from the sun, or else the surface temperature will climb, even while blocking 100% of the sun's light. We could strip some greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere to raise that power budget a bit higher, but if you want an order if magnitude higher or more, we'd have to start building space radiators
that seems awfully low
Or nuking the suburbs
I can’t tell how much of that is truly held beliefs and how much is satire.
I feel like most people recognize that suburbs are worse for the environment, but I still like suburban living and getting rid of suburbs isn’t popular among normal Americans
It’s all satire. Nuking the suburbs would make the land unusable and this sub hates inefficient use of land. Firebomb the suburbs is a truly held belief.
Napalm is the compromise.
God I love this subreddit. 😎
Ending single family zoning isn't abolishing the suburbs, it's just not legally requiring that level of density even when it doesn't make sense. If people are willing to pay the true value of the land, not altered by limiting its usage to low density housing, then they can have a single family home if they want.
Neither can I, and neither can outside observers. I do think disincentivizing suburbanism is a good idea, but that any drastic change would be politically infeasible and just causes backlash that hinders other good ideas.
Here’s a spicy take for you. I bet 90% of users here grew up in the suburbs and that is a significant reason for the resentment
Pls nuke my home
Alternatively we are incredibly reasonable when it comes to immigration, but nativist morons are ascendant and prominent and warp perceptions.
Did they ugh, actually get those resources? That was the prior reason for it being low
There should be a baseball cap. And a tiny flag. Both should be given out for free with a green card the moment one gets off the plane. And by green card I mean a green index card that just says "welcome". That's the immigration cap I want.
bruh can you not use the pings to start shit
Joe Biden is racist because he's a cracka 🙄
Pinged members of IMMIGRATION group.
[About & group list](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/userpinger/documentation) | [Subscribe to this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Add%20yourself%20to%20group%20IMMIGRATION&message=addtogroup%20IMMIGRATION) | [Unsubscribe from this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20group%20IMMIGRATION&message=unsubscribe%20IMMIGRATION) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe%20)
u/comradequicken how you gonna spin this into Biden being a secret racist or something
I don't know you lack the ability or the retention to make a relevant point. I have repeatedly said that I think it's unlikely Joe is racist, secretly or not, I believe he purely views others as less simply because they were not born in America, yes it's correlated with race but I don't think that's the motivation. A good argument could also almost certainly be made that Joe is too tolerant of existing structurally racist policies but I don't know if calling that racist is necessarily productive.
As I have also said countless times to Joe raising the refugee cap, albeit incredibly slowly, is that I'm not surprised, when he tried to maintain the Trump cap congressional leadership and other prominent members were incredibly upset and insisted he raised it. Had the cap raise come unprompted I would give Joe serious plaudits but since he basically had to be threatened into it, I find it hard to give him any real credit.
>I don't know you lack the ability or the retention to make a relevant point. I have repeatedly said that I think it's unlikely Joe is racist, secretly or not, I believe he purely views others as less simply because they were not born in America, yes it's correlated with race but I don't think that's the motivation.
That is not the vibe I get from your comments at all. Communicate better then.
>A good argument could also almost certainly be made that Joe is too tolerant of existing structurally racist policies but I don't know if calling that racist is necessarily productive.
I would argue that that is wrong and borderline bad faith at least in how you argue them
>As I have also said countless times to Joe raising the refugee cap, albeit incredibly slowly, is that I'm not surprised, when he tried to maintain the Trump cap congressional leadership and other prominent members were incredibly upset and insisted he raised it. Had the cap raise come unprompted I would give Joe serious plaudits but since he basically had to be threatened into it, I find it hard to give him any real credit.
I guess that’s fair enough but ultimately it was his decision and the fact that he listened to those people as part of his coalition shows he takes their criticisms seriously enough to change his mind.
I just take the opposite interpretation.
My general joke is you get really riled up and post bad takes on Biden and I’m shitting on you for that. I do that with lots or regular users here.
> I would argue that that is wrong and borderline bad faith at least in how you argue them
I think it would be pretty easy to argue that most everyone in the federal government is as well, in the past let's say 15 years I don't think Joe is any moreso than the median policymaker, expect perhaps by virtue of his greater power, the crime bill is another story.
>My general joke is you get really riled up and post bad takes on Biden and I’m shitting on you for that. I do that with lots or regular users here.
Not too pressed, generally just don't enjoy getting many pings especially not back to back.
I would argue that that is wrong and borderline bad faith at least in how you argue them
>I think it would be pretty easy to argue that most everyone in the federal government is as well, in the past let's say 15 years I don't think Joe is any moreso than the median policymaker, expect perhaps by virtue of his greater power, the crime bill is another story.
This is reductive and ignores nuance. Biden and the democrats obviously have been pushed to the left on race and Biden is saying and proposing things on race unthinkable a decade ago
It’s all a sliding scale.
>Not too pressed, generally just don't enjoy getting many pings especially not back to back.
I didn’t mean to ping u twice I just deleted a comment because I felt it was rude to include that in a ping that was 100% mb
Democrats in general have pushed forward on race, as president Joe has not followed.
don't worry too much about it.
I disagree personally I think he’s moved along with the party median
now do something about the refugees on the border right now
Not high enough. Make it a million - floor
Jesus that's so low. If the US took in as many per-capita as we (Canada) do it'd be like 300k
Not sure the cap matters when they aren't actually letting in that many people
> But from October through August, only 7,637 refugees were admitted to the US, according to the Refugee Processing Center.
Wait, you're quoting people being turned away from before the refugee cap was raised?
The cap for this year is 62,500
As was always expected.
One of my bigger wake up calls was seeing all the nonsense in the spring about refugees - the logic behind the narrative in the media and this sub was completely unhinged.
Everybody took ‘we are not raising the refugee cap today’ as ‘we will never raise the refugee cap’ for some unknown reason and the game of telephone ended up with people being like SEE WE PRESSURED THEM INTO DOING THE RIGHT THING! Except their position didn’t change at all, it was just that time is a thing.
Let's wait for the 125,000 to actually be let in before celebrating
Yeah, I remember how bad this sub was back then. Everybody saying Biden was a monster and how they all regretted their vote for him all of a sudden. It was crazy, and I still wonder if some of those comments were from actual users here or if the sub got brigaded around that time.
How about he start with the thousands of Hatians that are being harrased at the US/Mexico border
He's missing a few zeroes
It’s a joke get the fuck over yourself and your need to control how people act outside of Actual controversial or problematic action.
The EU has 31 millions. More importantly it takes 2.7m a year compared to 1.1m for the US.
US numbers appear great due to its absolute size and coasting on past policies, but the trend is reversing
There’s more to it than just the headline. Biden isn’t really doing that good at all when it comes to immigration: https://twitter.com/mhackman/status/1440115262901084163?s=21
And yet he's rounding up Haitians in Texas with lassos. This man is hella confusing.
Hopefully with this he can open up the option for more refugees from down south
Blow that refugee cap out of the sky!
Not satisfied until its infinity plus one refugees.