Qcmbr: I should probably just stay away from this one but I can't help myself.
What is missing from this discussion is a focus on the big picture.
The big picture question is: What are the consequences of taking in X refugees?
That leads to subquestion: How do we quantify these changes (change in BNP, change in crime, change in incidences of terrorism, etc.).
I agree with the right-wing media that there are reasons to raise the big question about consequence and take it seriously. The question is often brushed aside by left-wing media because it is uncomfortable. The right wing media is calling out that as being about political correctness, failure to look reality in its eye, etc. etc. I agree with that critique.
My annoyance is that the right-wing media raises the question, but then seem to completely fail to care about actually answering it. Rather we go to specific cases, like a riot, a murder, etc. etc.
You can't answer questions about consequences by looking at specific instances of crime... in fact that will only create fear due to well-known psychological biases in all humans. When that is brought up the right-wing media goes bananas in an emotional response (you are blinded, look at the riots! look at the burned out car! why are you making excuses? etc. etc.) without understanding the irony.
What we can learn from Sweden is what happens if a small country takes in a truly ridiculous amount of refugees.The numbers is about 110'000 for Sweden (population 9.6M) and 16'000 for the US (population 320M).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War
What has happened in Sweden is, as far as I can tell, a slight increase in some forms of crime, in particular, the gang crime currently affecting Malmoe in southern Sweden, however, the correlation is not very strong and the total effect is not all that big -- not denying it isn't there but I would like to see the numbers.
This experience can be contrasted with the experience of e.g. Denmark, who took in 19'000 Syrian refugees (population 5.6M) and nothing of importance happened. This is about 67 times as many refugees than the US per capita if I did the math right.
So another way to frame the situation is like this:
- If you take in 67 times as many refugees as the US is currently taking just about nothing happens.
- If you take in about 230 times as many refugees per capita than the US something along the lines of a rise in some forms of crime happens, but the statistical evidence is not that well understood.
This is not to say that I think anyone should replicate the Swedish model (I certainly don't), but I think it would be very good to have a discussion about the impact based on numbers and studies.