May 28, 2007

This week's question:

It now seems clear that many Hagerstown and Washington County citizens don't want refugees resettled in this area. Assuming they would be persecuted or killed if they were sent back, what should happen to them?

Your responses:

Tim Rowland made some good points in his column Sunday, however, he does not take into account ongoing costs. I personally have no problem using $15,000 of taxpayer money to help these people out. The real cost of the resettlement does not lie with this small request. The real cost to the community is the additional money needed to pay for the free medical coverage, the costs of attempting to educate children that do not speak English and a host of other expenses associated with supporting these people over a long period of time.

That's a big assumption "that they would be persecuted or killed if they were sent back." Hagerstown already has problems with gang members being released from nearby prisons and taking up residence in low-rent housing downtown (because they can't leave the area due to terms of parole, etc.). There are other various socio-economical problems in our community that the downtown area especially has to deal with. Why must this area take on more?


Refugees seeking political asylum are one thing, but convicted criminals, thugs and illegal aliens are a totally different matter. I really don't have a problem with having refugees in this country - or the county for that matter. What I do have a problem with is that this religious organization brings them to America with no stable plan for where they'll go or how they'll get on until they get adjusted and settled somewhere.

Put them on a ship send it out in the ocean and sink it.

Before you make your decision, you should take a trip to California and see how they have ruined good areas of California. They don't pay taxes, they clog our schools, they fill our hospitals with their sick and dieing. They don't carry car insurance, American kids are forced into learning Spanish. The list goes on and on. But most of all they commit crimes cause they think they can get away with it. If I have to pay more taxes, it should be for something I believe in.

The hypothesis in the first sentence is wrong. The assumption in the second sentence shows a lack of common sense. The truth is that local citizens do not want too many refugees resettled in this area. Since the refugees are legal immigrants, the assumption that they could be sent back lacks common sense.

Those in control who are killing and persecuting these people are the bad guys, right? Let's bring in all those who are being persecuted- the good guys. Then drop neutron bombs on the homeland. When the bad guys are all dead, send the good guys home.

Tim's article was awesome - his best ever. I think people in this area would welcome these legal immigrants without the hostile attitudes we've seen and heard if there was not the huge larger context of illegals. It is sort of like being asked to give to a very worthy charity right after you've filed your taxes (and had to pay extra into a system you often disapprove of) and also already recently given to a bunch of other charities.

More typical compassionate posts. Leena Vargas just did a spot on NBC-25 about revitalizing downtown, interviewing longtime whitebreads about how difficult it is. No wonder. Truth is, a real city is about diversity of cultures. It will be a long time before Hagerstown realizes that. If you dont carry the universal BPOE/GOP/KKK/NRA card, know the Freemason handshake and adore NASCAR, good luck being accepted here.

They should be resettled in the area where their sponsors are. The people who bring them over need to take responsibility for them.

Who cares - send them back where they came from! We don't want them here! Population control!

It seems to me that if the Native Americans had access to this poll hundreds of years ago, they would have been saying some of the very same things about the infiltration of whites who kept showing up in ships! The immigrants who are coming into our country today haven't committed even half of the crimes that some of our ancestors committed against the Native American people. We came here, we saw, we kicked butt, we moved in, we moved them out, end of story. If we send them back home, then I guess we should go back to our native lands as well.

The essential problem is the sponsoring parties want the public to pony up monies they should have raised themselves. Sort of like saying, I need a TV, therefore rather than buy one, I will go into the nearest home and take theirs. There is no fiat for the local government to use tax money to pay for this. It is not the duty of the local government to give to this "charity." It is up to the individual citizens - it is called charity for a reason.

The Herald-Mail Articles