Maine’s Largest City Strains Under Asylum-Seeker Influx

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by eschaton

In general I think it's the case that immigrants are always smarter and more self-motivated than the average for their home country. After all, in order to get out you need to either have connections (be somewhat successful or come from a successful family) or be really, really wily and determined.

Originally Posted by Acajack

I know you're not slagging me, but I wanted to clarify that my point was not to imply that refugees are inherently "low quality" individuals.

Rather, my point is that there is basically no "filter" applied to them other than their personal situation relative to internationally accepted criteria for seeking and obtaining asylum.

You are correct that in some cases the more educated affluent people are the ones most likely to make it to the U.S. or Canada, but that isn't always true. There are some pretty glaring examples of this in the region where I live.

Well, there still is some filter not zero, since not all people are able to leave and it's likely the people who left are still different than those who could not or did not leave and were stuck behind.

The filter might not be the same as for economic migrants (eg. selected based on wealth, education or qualifications on paper). But it could be something like the aforementioned self-motivation, boldness or risk-taking (or having connections overseas), just like say pioneers in the American west, or emigrants to the New World in the past were not necessarily better educated but could still have strong, bold personalities, cleverness or quickness to adapt to new conditions or other qualities that might help them survive vs. those who didn't take the leap.

For instance, when the Great Famine in Ireland happened a million people died and a million people emigrated, together that dropped Ireland's population by 20-25%.

While the emigrants weren't selected by skill as we know it today in the 1800s, the million that emigrated likely differed in some advantage or characteristic, relative to the one million that starved on the island.

I suspect something like that is still going on with the Haitians, or Somalis, or Hondurans in North America (US and Canada) vs. those still stuck in the villages back home.

[Capsicum]

I suspect that almost all voluntary migrations have some selection (even if the selection is slight) based on the personality of the migrants if there are some people that are actively "choosing" to leave, and others not choosing to leave but stay. Even if war displaces a people, motivation and drive to survive in the new land, and even choice of where to settle (the more risk-taking or advantaged can travel farther) are still filters.

I'm guessing the exceptions would be genuine cases where the migrants were not voluntary choosing their destinations but actually physically brought places by conquest en masse (eg. descendants of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, like African Americans, Afro-Latin Americans etc., relocated Native Americans from the Trail or Tears, or people like the Acadians relocated by the British to Louisiana after the French-and-Indian War).

[Acajack]

Although in some cases, as in large chunks of Syria, almost the entire population flees. So you have taxi drivers, homemakers, doctors, unemployed people and small business owners all represented in your pool of refugees.

[CastleScott]

It would be nice to be the shining city on the hill again (referring to the US). Send us your poor, your huddled masses, etc. We should try to be America. Asylum-seeking is awkward but it's part of what makes us (most of the time) a great country.

^ I remember when President Ronald Reagan refferred to America as the "shining city on the hill", too bad we're such a divided country now...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by CastleScott

^ I remember when President Ronald Reagan refferred to America as the "shining city on the hill", too bad we're such a divided country now...

I'd argue the U.S. has always been divided to a fairly significant degree. Though the current divides do seem to have certain particularities that seem unique.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I'd argue the U.S. has always been divided to a fairly significant degree. Though the current divides do seem to have certain particularities that seem unique.

Yes ,it was divided on a handful of hot button issues but now, the country are divided on just about everything. It's a cultural schism.

[mousquet]

I've always liked the US, so that's why I can afford to be harsh to them from time to time.

Qui aime bien châtie bien, they say here.

That means those who really like you will be harsh to you, while those who don't just don't care and will leave you to your issues.

As far as I know, the US was precisely made of divides.
See these, the better known instances:

Catholics vs Protestants.
Blacks vs Whites.
Irish vs English.
Italians vs the world (lol).

All these should be familiar to any American, cause their nation was built upon those divides, all along...

Anyway, there's no such thing as "yesterday was better".
Yesterday, people stinked. That's all.
Tomorrow is always better.

[The Best Forumer]

but why? it's too cold up there...