ShareThis Page
Refugees would tax resources |

Refugees would tax resources

The recent article “Peduto, Wolf stand by open door for Syrians” announces that Pittsburgh will accept 500 Syrian refugees. Peduto quotes a “long-held American principle” for accepting these refugees, but to what principle is he referring?

Self-preservation is also an American principle. Public fear of terrorism, though a valid concern, is not as frightening as the lack of feasibility and sustainability of this decision.

These politicians need to take a realistic look at resources and the financial burden that an influx of people with “needs” but no “means” will bring with them. In our rapidly growing city, there are already countless campaigns asking Pittsburghers to financially support everything from Thanksgiving Turkey funds to the Pittsburgh Food Bank, the United Way and the Dollar Energy fund, not to mention extensive wait lists for housing aid and rental assistance. How do 500 refugees who require jobs, homes and health care, fit into our resource “pool”? They simply don’t.

Our politicians have been out of the water so long, they need to be reminded that the public pool is crowded and murky with the demands of an already overburdened social assistance network.

Kristy Houck


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.