Y'all actually aren't voting hard enough.

Don't know why we are excluding Myanmar which was 160. Syria 80, Afghan, 126.

It was about 15% of net migration, 5500. Equivalent to the US accepting ~400,000 legal immigrants which is about half what the US actually takes in although... legal immigration tot he US is a hard stat to google... maybe I am just tired.

Making me dig hard into stats :P

http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7930#

Oddly enough we have more native born people who don't feel like they belong than immigrants who feel that way. Yay stats

A little easier to vet and track ~200 vs. 400,000.

http://www.enz.org/migrants.html

But if you like them so much, take them.
 
A little easier to vet and track ~200 vs. 400,000.

http://www.enz.org/migrants.html

But if you like them so much, take them.

Lol I was off by a factor of ten. Or immigration is equivalent to the US taking in 4 Million.

America has 100 times the resources to vet and track so it shouldn't be that hard. 600 vs 70000 total asylum seekers.

Since October 2011, California has received the most Syrian refugees, 257, followed by Texas, with 240, and Michigan, with 210, according to the State Department.

Really straining the system huh?
 
Lol I was off by a factor of ten. Or immigration is equivalent to the US taking in 4 Million.

America has 100 times the resources to vet and track so it shouldn't be that hard. 600 vs 70000 total asylum seekers.



Really straining the system huh?


Why limit yourself to Syrian migrants? You are doing a Zippyjuan.

Take them all.
 
I think the biggest factor here is not actually structural incentives, but actual beliefs of intellectuals.

Ever notice how the beliefs of most intellectuals happen to justify policies which serve the interests of the powerful?

;)
 
Back
Top