Printable View
The morning newspaper includes a thoughtful essay about the desirability of settling Syrian refugees in the city of Detroit. The authors have given thought to many of the chief concerns. However, I would be surprised if many local elected officials moved rapidly to attract Syrian refugees to the Detroit area.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/op...ht-region&_r=0
I saw that too and also found it intriguing. One would think with a well-established metro Arabic population, Muslim and Christian, that it would be a good fit, maybe re-energizing the declining 7 Mile - John R community.
However I likewise agree that the politics of it seem unlikely. Between the aggressive tax foreclosure and water shutoffs our own internal refugee issue is rising. The optics of helping a foreign refugee group establish in neighborhoods where others are being squeezed out would be glaring.
Optics? I prefer reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
On that subject, here's article from today's NYTimes about our prejudice in what we think we see: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/ny...se-memory.html
I think this is a well-intentioned but severely flawed proposal. It may or may not make sense to settle Syrian refugees in the Detroit area for their own well-being due to the existing middle eastern population [[but this is like saying that British and Dutch immigrants would make good neighbors because they're from Europe). However, the settlement of those immigrants does not really address the flaws of Detroit [[and the Detroit area) and why it and the region isn't a natural migration hub. If settling a bunch of Syrian refugees would fix that then it would've been fixed the last time they did it with Iraqi refugees in the 1990s...
GREAT Idea to settle them in Detroit.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
It isn't government census data, it is all headline and not so much data, but
WalletHub rates Detroit as the worst city in the United States to start a career.
That's exactly what most of these immigrants will be doing when they get here.
A good handful of Texas cities are rated the best to start a career. I think
recent immigrants should be placed on a case by case basis - and these days
there is social media and Dish network to stay in touch - so if Detroit is a good
fit in terms of family connections and beginning career opportunities, then great.
urban Detroit could stand to be more ethnically diverse- Caribbean, Sub-Saharan African, Central & South American/Brazilian, South Asian, Southeast Asian, Central Asian, etc. Fund programs to promote cross-cultural entrepreneurship, cooperative economic programs. Bring companies from these other world regions to set up a Detroit hub. Hire local people. Have english classes, as well as language classes of the newer ethnic folks. Newer ethnic folks bring new foods to taste, they bring religious traditions; potentially building new houses of worship, new opportunities for local community service. There are already a billion storefront evangelical churches; the Council of Baptist Pastors still gets to enjoy substantive political sway locally; Detroit proper could stand to have some more mosques, Eastern Orthodox Christian churches, Coptics, Buddhist and Hindu temples.
As "afrocentric" as many individual council members, pastors and mayors have been in the past 40 years, it's rather glaring that little or no outreach by city leaders was done to African-diaspora countries to bring companies here as others left in droves. Oh, well..
This is already happening. Metro Detroit is already, by far, the #1 destination of U.S-bound refugees from the Middle East. But they won't be moving to the City of Detroit, for fairly obvious reasons. They would be energizing Hall Road and the Sterling Heights housing market, most likely.
Outreach isn't valuable if your house isn't in order. We've cared too much about 'who' in Detroit, and not enough about 'why'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypestyles
As to Syrian refugees, I'm all in favor of a land-grant program where any property that is behind on taxes can be settled.
There are already many Syrians in Detroit. Northwest near/in Hamtramck and Southwest near/in Dearborn. I can see those two areas growing further.
I don't understand why anyone would think that thousands of Syrian refugees living in the well organized, efficient, Zaatari Refugee Camp in Jordon, where they have already started 3500 businesses, would want to relocate to Detroit.
Really? Jordan has a per-capita income of about $5000. Even adjusting for purchasing power, it isn't much more than twice that. Poor as Detroit is, it is way richer than Jordan. And dangerous as people around here seem to think Detroit is, it isn't nearly as dangerous as Syria. I believe that there are currently about four million Syrian refugees [[not all in that camp, obviously) My guess is that if you made the offer, you would get hundreds of thousands who would take it.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3WC
I don't think there's any question that Syrian [[or other) refugees would happily move to the U.S. [[or another developed nation). The question is why would they move to the City of Detroit?Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
There are already lots of Mideast refugees in Metro Detroit and they tend to live around the existing community and existing support networks, in places like Sterling Heights. Just as almost no one without family/friend connections randomly moves to a Detroit hood like Dexter Davison, it would not be realistic to think a refugee would choose such a location. There's plenty of dirt-cheap housing in safe burbs with decent schools and services.
Presumably because that is what the conditions of their visa required? I thought it was a hypothetical--I see little prospect of the US allowing the resettlement of large numbers of Syrian refugees, given that we have allowed less than 400 so far. Also, there isn't "plenty" of dirt-cheap housing available if you moved hundreds of thousands of people to the area--you'd use up everything available pretty quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
I see great prospects. There is more energy behind the idea of absorbing refugees than there ever has before. And let's not forget that the US has played a part in creating the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
I would guess that the refugees in these camps are much less prosperous than the immigrants who have moved into Detroit' suburbs. An abandoned house in Detroit is likely a lot more appealing than a refugee camp in Jordan.
The US has the resources to absorb some of these refugees. There's no excuse for not helping -- both with immigration and financial support. We are citizens of the world, aren't we?