The closest I could get to a "source" for this quote was "a reporter".
I think you are being fed a line of BS here Sass. This woman has been repeatedly interviewed in Canadian media and her story has been consistent and never said anything about the mans' dental needs.

I've seen her interviewed. The bit I quoted turns out to have been a little abbreviated, but it's definitely genuine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZUuoaq1MLM

If you get past the rather distasteful "The family are to blame" message that whoever posted this to youtube felt the need to tack onto the beginning, you can see the full interview.

I should add in the interests of fairness that it isn't 100% clear from this whether he was after free dental care or simply looking for a way to get to a place where it would be more straightforward for his sister to send him money. Either way though, he was definitely looking for a dentist.

I'm beginning to rethink elements of my original position on the influx of Syrians (immigrants) to Europe, namely for two reasons.....

1. Pope Francis has challenged my thinking and I take this pope's opinions quite seriously as a Roman Catholic.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000003746696/pope-requests-more-help-for-migrants.html

and also due to a comment twice mentioned by Danivon, namely that,

2. "maybe the Germans are more organized than we know." or something along those lines.

When I first saw this comment I thought it was laughable. However, yesterday I heard a report from National Public Radio asserting in some detail the same premise. I've looked but can't seem to find a link to the report I heard so you'll just need to take my word for it or look for such a report on your own.

I am still concerned about the eventual security risks that will result from the crisis but for now I'm very curious to continue reading about Germany's infrastructure for absorbing such numbers both now and in the near future...

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/09/05/437727526/with-eyes-on-europe-iraqis-line-up-to-leave-baghdad

Freeman:

Do you really think RJ that if 11 million illegals were in some magical fashion to be immediately deported that the US would be better off?

Oh, we would definitely be worse off. I agree with you that most people who come here do so out of economic necessity and not to commit crimes. In fact, I agree with much of what you wrote.

Freeman:

Why are Republicans who don't live in border states like Arizona, Texas and California so concerned about this issue?

In general people want laws to be respected. It is a slippery slope. Laws keep us together as a society.

My sense from people in border states is that they are very frustrated that the establishment (Washington) doesn't deal with the issue even though they are closer to it and have to live with the consequences.

You should look more deeply into your claim that there is no net illegal migration from Mexico. Some of it is illegals becoming legal. Some of it is that illegals die (just like the rest of the population) but their offspring are legal. Also, with the improving US economy and 5% unemployment, it is no longer true. Here's an interesting article on the subject.

http://cis.org/Immigrant-Population-Hit ... ter-2015#3

Exactly RJ. I want the law followed just like I want the law followed in Rowan county. The clerk was doing something illegal by not giving the license for marriage, and someone entering the country is not following the law either.

Slippery slope indeed.

sass

I should add in the interests of fairness that it isn't 100% clear from this whether he was after free dental care or simply looking for a way to get to a place where it would be more straightforward for his sister to send him money

Fair enough.
I would have thought that escaping barrel bombs and ISIS would have been sufficient to justify his desperate escape plans.

rayjay

I agree with you that most people who come here do so out of economic necessity and not to commit crimes.

In the past; most probably would not have made the journey unless there was evidence that US employers would readily hire them. What many skip over here is the complicity of large companies who hired illegals in order to reduce wages. And who continue to fight against e-verify or, in the case of the US Chamber of Commerce, in states punishing companies who do not comply...
http://immigrationreform.com/2015/03/12 ... ctiveness/
As these businesses are the one's who would suffer most from a forced deportation of 11 million.... perhaps they should be part of a solution? Sponsoring long term employees who are illegal in their effort to become legal? The meat packing industry is one industry that would suffer enormous labor shortages if illegals were all forced out. Agriculture too....
In recent years, where most of the illegals came from central America, they are escaping violence that is comparable to the violence refugees face in war torn countries. They haven't been welcomed as refugees however...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/d ... lee-mexico

I would have thought that escaping barrel bombs and ISIS would have been sufficient to justify his desperate escape plans.

The point is that he'd already done that by moving to Turkey. He'd been living and working there for three years.

There probably isn't a lot of reason to belabour this point I guess, but a lot of people seem to be using the death of Aylan Kurdi as evidence that western immigration policies are somehow responsible for children drowning. The actual facts of this case appear to be rather different. The father chose to take a risk with the lives of his wife and children when he wasn't under any personal threat at the time because he calculated that his life (in this case his access to quality dental care) would be better in Europe. I don't necessarily blame him for this, or indeed any of the other economic migrants who are currently flooding through Europe. People do what they think is best for themselves and their families and sometimes those things are risky. I do think it's important to take emotion out of the equation when determining public policy though, and this case ought to, but probably won't, be a salutary lesson.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:

Are there examples of modern societies that have been harmed long-term by accepting and settling large numbers of immigrants?

Geo, what do you mean by long-term?

All I was getting at is that immigration is generally a net positive for the receiving nation. It may take 10 20 or even more years for that net positive to take effect, but can you imagine Canada, the USA or Australia without the massive immigration which have shaped and continue to shape those countries. Of course, it may be different for tiny nations with huge burdens, like Jordan today.

By chance, I was on Ellis Island this weekend and was reminded who the American immigrant was during that period. Generally, the poorest, the least desirable, the exile, the other, those with nothing to lose. I'd love to see 100,000 Syrians (and others) settled in my old hometown of Detroit. I mean, it's not like we don't have room for them and, long-term, they could do amazing things.

The indigenous populations of Canada, America and Australia may disagree about the beneficial effects...

Sassenach wrote:The indigenous populations of Canada, America and Australia may disagree about the beneficial effects...

By the time of the mass immigrations of the late 19th C and later, it was pretty much moot.

sass

The point is that he'd already done that by moving to Turkey. He'd been living and working there for three years

1. He was still in Damascus 3 years ago. Then moved to Aleppo and traveled for a while looking for security. So I think this is an exaggeration.
2. Also "Living and working" is perhaps a generous way to describe their life in Turkey. Existing is a better description.

http://syrianrefugees.eu/?page_id=80

I don't think its surprising that people, forced into the circumstances of the refugee camps will take what seem like unreasonable risks or put their trust in people whom they shouldn't. (In Kurdis case the Turk who sailed the yacht into the surge.) And I don't think that most people are blaming western immigration policies for the death of Aylan...
But his death is a symbol of our inability to respond adequately to the needs of the refugees. And powerful symbols communicate ideas effectively and persuasively.

I think one thing that is being missed here, is that the response of the rich Arab countries has been particularly shameful. One outcome of this migration will be an undoing of the Arab collective. At one time these refugees thought of themselves as Arabs first, then Syrians. (Or Iraqis). With the failure of the Arab nations to respond when the West (The Christian West to Muslims) does respond, it will be understood that the Arab brotherhood had little meaning when it counted. .
As much as the Saudis are afraid of unsettling the balance in their kingdom with an influx of refugees, by turning back their brethern, the concept of an Arab brotherhood is shattering.

Palestinians have been living in refugee camps (1.5 million of them in 58 camps) for decades.
http://www.unrwa.org/palestine-refugees

Perhaps familiarity with their plight makes the current batch of Arab refugees anxious to find a quick way out of the Turkish camps? And certainly a generous response to their plight by the West (The Christian West) will do much to defeat the ideology of the conservative Sunnis and Shiites and help end the religious conflicts in the region before long..
The refugees will be most open to new ideas, including secular societies, democracy and more... And they will retain contact with their homeland and surviving relatives. In the long term, a generous response may help fundamental change arrive in the region. So, besides the moral reason to respond generously there is a political one as well.

Sassenach wrote:The indigenous populations of Canada, America and Australia may disagree about the beneficial effects...

Good and important point. I was thinking, however, of modern, western societies more relevant to the issue at hand.

Yes, I realise that, I was being facetious really.

In answer to your real question,I can think of a few examples of where mass immigration has had a damaging effect. Lebanon is the obvious one. It used to be a prosperous, liberal society until it took in huge numbers of refugees from neighbouring Arab countries. Beirut was the Paris of the East. Lebanon today is racked with sectarian strife and religious fundamentalism, and has been for a very long time with no end in sight. I'd question whether mass migration of Algerians into France has really produced any benefits either. Sure, it's improved their football team no end, but it's also created a permanent, resentful underclass which has never bought into French culture and which is now driving the rise of the French far right as a major political force.

I'd also add that most of the mass migration into America, Canada and Australia came from advanced European nations. Mass migration from the third world has proven to be much more problematic historically.

sass

I'd also add that most of the mass migration into America, Canada and Australia came from advanced European nations

Most of the migrants were indentured workers, therefore not the creme de la creme of European society. Really just economic refugees akin to the Mexican and central Americans sneaking into the US over the last three decades. Mostly they worked off their indentures and became farmers... So I don't know that coming from "advanced societies" has that much application.
Plus; the second largest source of migrants into the US prior to 1790 was Africa.

After the 1790s there wasn't much immigration into the US until the 1830s .
And after that each region of the world had a go...
Mexicans and South Americans by annex and the California Gold Rush in the 1840s.
Russians Poles Greeks and poor Italians in the 1880s. Again, not exactly advanced nations, and the migrants were pretty much peasants only.

The difference between migration then and the economic refugees of today is simply that North America and Australia were pretty much empty. The places where refugees are landing today are long occupied and developed. There is no immediate need for hundreds of thousands to start farms or lumber camps or serve in factory jobs.
I think the best example of a failed refugee migration was the Palestinian exodus as you've said. They haven't been fully absorbed and their influence is destabilizing as a result.

The other important point to note is that migrants to America were not moving to a modern welfare state with cradle to grave healthcare provision, unemployment benefits, pensions and free schooling for all. There wasn't really any direct cost to the taxpayer resulting from these people, and because the land area was so huge it was easy for them to find space to move into. As such I don't think it's a particularly good point of comparison.

Sassenach wrote:The other important point to note is that migrants to America were not moving to a modern welfare state with cradle to grave healthcare provision, unemployment benefits, pensions and free schooling for all. There wasn't really any direct cost to the taxpayer resulting from these people, and because the land area was so huge it was easy for them to find space to move into. As such I don't think it's a particularly good point of comparison.

Perhaps they were moving to the US for the political environment?