i am against migrants coming to seek refuge in the usa. their culture is the main reason i am against it. but i always said we can help other countries who do decide to help them. you might even call it 'bribing' them. we see there are only so many migrants out there.
"Moreover, most of the growth in the global population of international migrants has been caused by movements toward high-income countries, which host 64 million of the 85 million migrants added since 2000. The number of international migrants includes 26 million refugees or asylum seekers, or about 10% of the total.Dec 18, 2017"
what if we paid whatever country that takes them, two dollars a day to pay the refugees who can then spend the money? that quote that i think that there are only between one and two million migrants per year. the math comes out to maybe one or two billion dollars in cost. the payments can be temporary until those economies can assimilate the migrants.
see, i think the global population will eventually level out, as many expect. just like happens in developed countries. what we have in the mean time, though, is food insecure places with people needing to find secure places to go. instead of just casting these people to lala land, we help the free market take it all in. see, i'm not against immigration, i'm just against large amounts beyond what we already do, because that could be disruptive.... it has to be gradual. eventually, the world populations will level out. i'm sure we can't all live like americans do now, but atl east people will be able to live.
i suppose if i'm willing to pay other countries to take them, it might be easier to just pay two dollars a day to people where they live to stimulate those economies. they say we only need to spend around thirty billion a year to solve hunger. that's a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend, with our GDP being over twenty trillion.
there are of course kinks that would need to be worked out. but this is all a good start, isn't it?