A Compromise on Refugees

The left want to bring third-world refugees to first-world countries so they can show compassion. The right wants to keep them out so their daughters don’t get raped. so why not a compromise? Why don’t we create a sponsorship program?

In the sponsorship program a particular citizen can sponsor a refugee (or a legal immigrant, we can apply this to all immigration). The sponsor then becomes legally responsible for the new immigrant. When the immigrant/refugee first enters the country, the sponsor is responsible for providing housing, food, clothing, and other such necessities to their sponsored immigrant until the immigrant is able to do so themselves.

Once the immigrant is established, he can never access any public service during his life time; if the immigrant ever requires welfare, subsidized housing, health care, public schooling, etc., the sponsor is responsible for providing such services for the immigrant. If the immigrant ever does access a public service, the sponsor is shall owe the state for the cost of the service.

If the immigrant ever commits a crime, the immigrant will be immediately deported, while the sponsor receives any punishment (including jail time and/or the death penalty) that the immigrant would have received in the immigrant’s place.

I think this is a fair compromise.The left is allowed to display their compassion for the world to see, and the right doesn’t have to worry about immigrants being parasites on taxpayer dollar or leftists importing criminal immigrants who will rape their daughters. I’m sure the left will gladly open their own homes and wallets to help these poor refugees, and I’m sure being responsible for the immigrant’s criminal activities will never inconvenience the leftist as all these refugees are peaceful and law-abiding.


  1. This is actually how I get visas to work all over the world. Organizations sponsor their foreign hires and will take responsibility for them while they are in the country. Oddly, they seem more inclined to sponsor qualified professionals with clean records than paperless goatherds.

  2. FN,

    The Left is big on virtue-signalling, not actual virtue. They will be very happy for ‘others’ to do this, but it will be a long wait before they themselves do it

  3. I hope you’re not serious. This is just about the least humane way to deal with the immigration problem. Full sponsorship of a refugee or asylum seeker in place of guilt-driven mass importation makes good sense, but all that nonsense about never accessing public services, full legal responsibility and penalty transferrence is hardly a fair compromise. What you’re advocating here is not only slavery but cuckoldry of the devil. A higher order evil is hard to imagine.

  4. @ Jacob

    I don’t follow your logic at all. If Person A wants to bring Person B into the country, then Person A should take responsibility for the consequences. I’m responsible if my dog bites someone. I’m responsible for my children’s behavior at school. I’m responsible for keeping my vehicle in good repair if I want to drive on public roads. Let people (including government officials personally) be responsible for their actions and society will improve by an order of magnitude.

  5. If your child kills someone, the death penalty doesn’t pass to you. That’s ridiculous.

    Under this plan the refugee gets to murder someone and the worst thing they get is a free trip home. Surely the idea of passing someone’s sentence to another party as morally fraught is obvious. What happens if the sponsor dies? The potential sentence passes to the heir?

    The refugee should serve their sentence and be deported.

    As for social services, my compromise would be no assistance after some time, say 5 or 10 years.

  6. You can’t give the sponsors that much responsibility without granting them authority as well – decoupling the two is a guarantee of failure.

    To that end, your proposal needs one additional element – the sponsor needs to be able to exercise authority over the patron so as to impose discipline over the patron at a preventative level and for transgressions that still violate the social order but don’t rise to the level of crimes.

    You still have the problem of the patrons leaving descendants and the proper socialization of them. The same relationship between the sponsor and patron should apply to the children of the patron.

    At some point a patron could prove himself responsible enough to not have supervision and pay some kind of indemnity to the sponsor and no longer be in a patron / client relationship. An authority would have to approve this transaction to ensure that the sponsor isn’t dumping bad actors on the public or conversely is shirking his responsibility for the health and safety of his patron (such is in case of illness or old age).

  7. I’m with jacob and jacobsson. Nothing is less American than exempting somebody from obeying the law. Even parents are not responsible for their child’s actions. They’re responsible for the child’s upbringing, which isn’t the same thing.

    As for the proposed compromise, our leaders have already agreed to it. Flooding their own countries with tens of thousands of hardline Muslims is political suicide yet they’re willing to do it anyway.

  8. You’re being too clever. This is not what the refugee situation is about, nor is the dealing with it meant to do anything than bring down the West, which is being accomplished at the highest levels. What the slaves do is irrelevant.

  9. I agree there should be at least some kind of moral responsibility for the immigrants. It’s completely ridiculous that Christian groups bring people to the USA, and after a crime is committed, pretend they are not morally responsible in any way.

  10. Not to derail everyone debating the finer points of why it does/doesn’t work, but I’m 99% sure the suggestion is tongue-in-cheek, to remind everyone that the people bitching about “the need for compassion” or whatever are hypocrites who would not be willing to have their own SWPL lifestyles disrupted for the sake of helping the poor downtrodden refugees (who just happen to be 80% military-aged males). So if you see a mewling editorial in the Pravda about mean old Viktor Orban and his razor-wire fence, make sure to do your duty and troll those f*ckers!

  11. “The Left is big on virtue-signalling, not actual virtue”

    True story:

    My Sister, years ago: Oh, there are so many people in the world, it would be irresponsible for me to create any more. But I’d adopt kids if I weren’t so broke!

    (Then our childless spinster aunt dies — wow, she had a *lot* of money and she left it all to us!)

    Me: Now that you can afford it, will you be adopting?

    My Sister: No.

  12. It’s a good idea, but you have to remember: Leftists are generous only with other people’s resources, never their own

  13. Test? Did my huge and amazing post just get eaten, or did it go to moderation? It said that your side closed the connection without sending a response.

  14. While this idea is not perfect, it is certainly a step in the right direction. His point – that the bleeding-heart left is happy to spend other people’s money but not their own – is germane.

  15. This is brilliant… Aren’t their enough of us in the world to stop this left-wing non-sense? Are we all so afraid of being ostracized by a select few that disagree with common sense that we keep our mouths shut? In order to change things all of us here need to speak publicly of our disdain for the Cultural Marxist filth that has infected America and Europe. This can be done at work, the bar, at church and school. My guess is that their will be a vast majority that side with you and your views compared to the immigrant welcoming, color-blind gays. Stand up for yourself and your beliefs. The proverbial pot is about to boil over if we’ll just turn up the heat.

Leave a Reply