So I found an article on Schaarbeek and Molenbeek to get a sense of what you’re talking about. I think this pretty much sums it up:
In Brussels, the socioeconomic gaps have continued to widen. “How many people realize that half of our Moroccan community lives in poverty — compared to 15 percent of the Belgians without migration background. Yet, one cannot detect any sense of urgency among our decision-makers,” Jozef De Witte, former director of the Belgian Equal Opportunity Centre, told the De Morgen newspaper in 2014.
Molenbeek and Schaerbeek are stark examples of the consequences of economic and social segregation combined with government failure to monitor violent Islamist radicals. The demographics that distinguish these neighborhoods are not isolated to Brussels. Across the world, there are marginalized communities pushed to the fringes, facing diminishing economic opportunity, and young people who are increasingly vulnerable to targeted recruiting by terrorist organizations.
There are wrong ways to do immigration. I agree on that.
But I find public discussion about this kind of issue really frustrating because rather than ask “how do we do the right thing without harming our own country?” conservatives just want to say “Not in our country! To hell with those fucking Muslims!” and if any are let in, they complain a lot about any associated costs.
Again, refugees are not normal immigrants. They’re escaping a war. They need help, hopefully it’s temporary, and then they can go back. They’re not necessarily a useless drain on the economy — they brought skills with them; many have university degrees. But often they don’t speak the language, so they should be taught it aggressively. That might be a weak point in Canada based on this anecdote about a family resettled in Canada one year ago:
Alsakni began language classes some five months ago
Um, no, they should have been enrolled in language classes on day one. Mandatory.
Edit: and particularly for males, they should be explicitly taught about our values regarding women and other topics.
Canada does have a great program of “private refugee sponsorship”, though, which seems to be working well enough that the government is trying to export it with the help of a man my mother inexplicably hates, George Soros (as a conservative she hates a lot of thtings…).
Private sponsorship means that the sponsor actually agrees to provide (or pay for) food, a place for the refugee to live, and other “care” for 12 months — as a gift, asking nothing in exchange. Only about 1/4 of refugees in Canada had private sponsorships, i.e. about 9,000 Syrian refugees have been privately sponsored (and there is a cap on the number of sponsors which IIUC has already been reached). This is not a new program either, it started in the 70s. If the U.S. had a program like that, and if it also had as many generous citizens as Canada (which I doubt), the U.S. could have taken in 90,000 refugees in one year, with the government spending almost nothing. Again, that’s several times more than the U.S. actually accepted.
Finally I would point out how silly it is to imply something like “Germany accepted too many refugees, therefore the U.S. shouldn’t accept more”. Germany has taken in about 1 refugee for every 130 Germans. Per capita that’s about 636% as many as Canada and 14,000% as many as the U.S. Maybe Germany took too many, but Canada did not. And if the U.S. accepted more, it could take them from Germany and other “brimming” countries, to lighten their load.