Syrian Refugee Crisis

[Anomaly]

So not white trash, just trash outright. I feel much better now - thanks. 

why ask tham to stay?   Or why force a nation to accept them as citizens? What moral obligation is there for this stance? If we do everything else but stop short of that?

Why would it be wicked to request the refugees to go through the legal process of immigration? Why would they, by moral grounds, be given a free pass? Why would the well being of current citizens be ignored and only those of the refugees be considered?

My choice of pejorative would be more anatomical, not value based.  

Ask to stay or allow to stay?  

Allow to stay as a resident alien?  Allow to stay as subject to our laws?  Allow to stay with opportunity to apply for citizenship?

IMO. Absolutely!

Discuss and debate the extent and terms of subsidies and help.  Discuss and debate the involvement of private charities.  This should not be all tax payer provided.  I'm not advocating no border security and would insist on registered immigrants subject to lawful punishment and recourses including expulsion from the US.  

 

You are talking in hysterical extremes.  Nobody has proposed granting automatic citizenship.  But keep on resisting a modicum of decency with your hysterical claims and the result is the other side clamoring for automatic citizenship so they would get treated decently or just ignoring legal immigration options and we get anarchy.  

Thats what we've done with our southern border.  Instead of allowing ample legal immigration for those seeking asylum (and having to qualify for assistance) and distinguishing those seeking better opportunity without assistance, we've allowed an undocumented mob without distinction or alternatives. 

Edited October 1, 2015 by Anomaly

[CrossCuT]

Didacus, it doesnt seem like youre approaching this topic from a Catholic perspective. 

Would you consider yourself a Catholic before an American? That the tenants of your Catholic faith trump the tenants of a political institution? Are we not to view all humans as made in the image of God? That they are our brothers and sisters? In the eyes of God, there are no Americans or Syrians. We are all just his children. Why cant they come into the US? Even if there were no crisis on our hands, why wouldnt we rejoice in the company of our fellow humans? Why wouldnt we want to SHARE our heritage with them? Welcome them with joy and charity?

 

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Isnt that something you believe? If there was a great catastrophe happening in the US where bombs were being dropped on your neighborhoods, people were threatening your life and your families life, and if you were left with no other option than to run for you life...wouldnt you hope and pray that someone would welcome you to a safe haven? Where you could rest?

 

These people are running to survive. Dont turn them away. Jesus is in each and every one of them and we should welcome them with joy and charity. 

[Anomaly]

Didacus, it doesnt seem like youre approaching this topic from a Catholic perspective. 

 

Appeal or justification on a religious basis makes me uncomfortable.  They are heathens/heretics/infidels/unbelievers/etc.Itdoesn'ttakea stretch to justify ignoring or dehumanizing them from a theological basis.  Look what's been done to Christianize other peoples including Jewish children escaping the holocaust.   

Its basic humanitarian principles along with reason and logic that argues for and justifies a welcoming attitude.  I'm always up for getting a great hummus or savory kebab with little effort.   

Edited October 1, 2015 by Anomaly

[NadaTeTurbe]

The fact that the citizens of countries who have been entirely built by immigration and migrants (and the, real, systematic destruction of the native population) are against migrants and immigration never cease to make me laugh. 

 

[CrossCuT]

Appeal or justification on a religious basis makes me uncomfortable.  They are heathens/heretics/infidels/unbelievers/etc.Itdoesn'ttakea stretch to justify ignoring or dehumanizing them from a theological basis.  Look what's been done to Christianize other peoples including Jewish children escaping the holocaust.   

Its basic humanitarian principles along with reason and logic that argues for and justifies a welcoming attitude.  I'm always up for getting a great hummus or savory kebab with little effort.   

Dash it all Anomaly! (While I agree completely) I was trying to appeal to his core belief system. From my point of view, if you are extremely against tainting the US with other races/nationalities etc etc...it doesnt seem on par with Catholic social teaching. 

The fact that the citizens of countries who have been entirely built by immigration and migrants (and the, real, systematic destruction of the native population) are against migrants and immigration never cease to make me laugh. 

 

Cheers my friend

[Anomaly]

The fact that the citizens of countries who have been entirely built by immigration and migrants (and the, real, systematic destruction of the native population) are against migrants and immigration never cease to make me laugh. 

 

Are you commenting on the Norman conquerors of the Welsh Homeland?

 I believe Didacus is a Frog Cannuck.  

Syrians are a melange of Arabs, Persians, and Turks.  

Edited October 1, 2015 by Anomaly

[NadaTeTurbe]

Because it is not. 

First Principle: People have the right to migrate to sustain their lives and the lives of their families. 

At the end of World War II, with the fall of the Nazi empire and the subsequent creation of the Soviet "Iron Curtain," Europe faced an unprecedented migration of millions of people seeking safety, food, and freedom. At that time, Pope Pius XII wrote Exsul Familia (The Emigre Family), placing the Church squarely on the side of those seeking a better life by fleeing their homes. 

When there is a massive movement of people such as during a war, natural disaster, or famine, the lands that receive these displaced people may be threatened. The influx may make it impossible for the native population to live securely, as the land may not have enough resources to support both. Even in more orderly migrations, such as in the United States, citizens and residents of the land may fear that newcomers will take jobs, land, and resources, impoverishing the people already present. 

Because of the belief that newcomers compete for scarce resources, immigrants and refugees are at times driven away, resented, or despised. Nevertheless, the first principle of Catholic social teaching regarding immigrants is that people have the right to migrate to sustain their lives and the lives of their families. This is based on biblical and ancient Christian teaching that the goods of the earth belong to all people. While the right to private property is defended in Catholic social teaching, individuals do not have the right to use private property without regard for the common good. 

Every person has an equal right to receive from the earth what is necessary for life—food, clothing, shelter. Moreover, every person has the right to education, medical care, religion, and the expression of one's culture. In many places people live in fear, danger, or dehumanizing poverty. Clearly, it is not God's will that some of his children live in luxury while others have nothing. In Luke's Gospel, the rich man was condemned for living well while the poor man starved at his doorstep (Lk 16:19-31). 

The native does not have superior rights over the immigrant. Before God all are equal; the earth was given by God to all. When a person cannot achieve a meaningful life in his or her own land, that person has the right to move. 

Second Principle: A country has the right to regulate its borders and to control immigration. 

The overriding principle of all Catholic social teaching is that individuals must make economic, political, and social decisions not out of shortsighted self-interest, but with regard for the common good. That means that a moral person cannot consider only what is good for his or her own self and family, but must act with the good of all people as his or her guiding principle. 

While individuals have the right to move in search of a safe and humane life, no country is bound to accept all those who wish to resettle there. By this principle the Church recognizes that most immigration is ultimately not something to celebrate. Ordinarily, people do not leave the security of their own land and culture just to seek adventure in a new place or merely to enhance their standard of living. Instead, they migrate because they are desperate and the opportunity for a safe and secure life does not exist in their own land. Immigrants and refugees endure many hardships and often long for the homes they left behind. As Americans we should cherish and celebrate the contributions of immigrants and their cultures; however, we should work to make it unnecessary for people to leave their own land. 

Because there seems to be no end to poverty, war, and misery in the world, developed nations will continue to experience pressure from many peoples who desire to resettle in their lands. Catholic social teaching is realistic: While people have the right to move, no country has the duty to receive so many immigrants that its social and economic life are jeopardized. 

For this reason, Catholics should not view the work of the federal government and its immigration control as negative or evil. Those who work to enforce our nation's immigration laws often do so out of a sense of loyalty to the common good and compassion for poor people seeking a better life. In an ideal world, there would be no need for immigration control. The Church recognizes that this ideal world has not yet been achieved. 

Third Principle: A country must regulate its borders with justice and mercy. 

The second principle of Catholic social teaching may seem to negate the first principle. However, principles one and two must be understood in the context of principle three. And all Catholic social teaching must be understood in light of the absolute equality of all people and the commitment to the common good. 

A country's regulation of borders and control of immigration must be governed by concern for all people and by mercy and justice. A nation may not simply decide that it wants to provide for its own people and no others. A sincere commitment to the needs of all must prevail. 

In our modern world where communication and travel are much easier, the burden of emergencies cannot be placed solely on nations immediately adjacent to the crises. Justice dictates that the world community contribute resources toward shelter, food, med 
ical services, and basic welfare. 

(from : http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/catholic-teaching-on-immigration-and-the-movement-of-peoples.cfm ) 

Apart from this, my mom was on the phone with some cousin who live in Liban. Liban have 4 milions of inhabitants, little monney, and they received 1 millions of migrants, wich is the source of a lot of trouble (my cousin can't have water or electricity every day). Meanwhile, my country, one of the richest in the world, with 63 millions of people, don't want to welcome more than, oh my gooooodness, 28 000 migrants because it is so much people. 

Oh, and today I learned I did not have the right to speak about migration because I'm the grand-daughter of a migrant, so I'm not "objective". Seriously.

Anomaly, I was speaking about every people coming from US and Canada (and Australia also I guess ?). I mean, unless you're a native, you come from migrants families. 

[CrossCuT]

Because it is not. 

First Principle: People have the right to migrate to sustain their lives and the lives of their families. 

At the end of World War II, with the fall of the Nazi empire and the subsequent creation of the Soviet "Iron Curtain," Europe faced an unprecedented migration of millions of people seeking safety, food, and freedom. At that time, Pope Pius XII wrote Exsul Familia (The Emigre Family), placing the Church squarely on the side of those seeking a better life by fleeing their homes. 

When there is a massive movement of people such as during a war, natural disaster, or famine, the lands that receive these displaced people may be threatened. The influx may make it impossible for the native population to live securely, as the land may not have enough resources to support both. Even in more orderly migrations, such as in the United States, citizens and residents of the land may fear that newcomers will take jobs, land, and resources, impoverishing the people already present. 

Because of the belief that newcomers compete for scarce resources, immigrants and refugees are at times driven away, resented, or despised. Nevertheless, the first principle of Catholic social teaching regarding immigrants is that people have the right to migrate to sustain their lives and the lives of their families. This is based on biblical and ancient Christian teaching that the goods of the earth belong to all people. While the right to private property is defended in Catholic social teaching, individuals do not have the right to use private property without regard for the common good. 

Every person has an equal right to receive from the earth what is necessary for life—food, clothing, shelter. Moreover, every person has the right to education, medical care, religion, and the expression of one's culture. In many places people live in fear, danger, or dehumanizing poverty. Clearly, it is not God's will that some of his children live in luxury while others have nothing. In Luke's Gospel, the rich man was condemned for living well while the poor man starved at his doorstep (Lk 16:19-31). 

The native does not have superior rights over the immigrant. Before God all are equal; the earth was given by God to all. When a person cannot achieve a meaningful life in his or her own land, that person has the right to move. 

Second Principle: A country has the right to regulate its borders and to control immigration. 

The overriding principle of all Catholic social teaching is that individuals must make economic, political, and social decisions not out of shortsighted self-interest, but with regard for the common good. That means that a moral person cannot consider only what is good for his or her own self and family, but must act with the good of all people as his or her guiding principle. 

While individuals have the right to move in search of a safe and humane life, no country is bound to accept all those who wish to resettle there. By this principle the Church recognizes that most immigration is ultimately not something to celebrate. Ordinarily, people do not leave the security of their own land and culture just to seek adventure in a new place or merely to enhance their standard of living. Instead, they migrate because they are desperate and the opportunity for a safe and secure life does not exist in their own land. Immigrants and refugees endure many hardships and often long for the homes they left behind. As Americans we should cherish and celebrate the contributions of immigrants and their cultures; however, we should work to make it unnecessary for people to leave their own land. 

Because there seems to be no end to poverty, war, and misery in the world, developed nations will continue to experience pressure from many peoples who desire to resettle in their lands. Catholic social teaching is realistic: While people have the right to move, no country has the duty to receive so many immigrants that its social and economic life are jeopardized. 

For this reason, Catholics should not view the work of the federal government and its immigration control as negative or evil. Those who work to enforce our nation's immigration laws often do so out of a sense of loyalty to the common good and compassion for poor people seeking a better life. In an ideal world, there would be no need for immigration control. The Church recognizes that this ideal world has not yet been achieved. 

Third Principle: A country must regulate its borders with justice and mercy. 

The second principle of Catholic social teaching may seem to negate the first principle. However, principles one and two must be understood in the context of principle three. And all Catholic social teaching must be understood in light of the absolute equality of all people and the commitment to the common good. 

A country's regulation of borders and control of immigration must be governed by concern for all people and by mercy and justice. A nation may not simply decide that it wants to provide for its own people and no others. A sincere commitment to the needs of all must prevail. 

In our modern world where communication and travel are much easier, the burden of emergencies cannot be placed solely on nations immediately adjacent to the crises. Justice dictates that the world community contribute resources toward shelter, food, med 
ical services, and basic welfare. 

(from : http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/catholic-teaching-on-immigration-and-the-movement-of-peoples.cfm ) 

Apart from this, my mom was on the phone with some cousin who live in Liban. Liban have 4 milions of inhabitants, little monney, and they received 1 millions of migrants, wich is the source of a lot of trouble (my cousin can't have water or electricity every day). Meanwhile, my country, one of the richest in the world, with 63 millions of people, don't want to welcome more than, oh my gooooodness, 28 000 migrants because it is so much people. 

Oh, and today I learned I did not have the right to speak about migration because I'm the grand-daughter of a migrant, so I'm not "objective". Seriously.

Anomaly, I was speaking about every people coming from US and Canada (and Australia also I guess ?). I mean, unless you're a native, you come from migrants families. 

Ah!! Thank you for this! Didnt realize they was official stuff stating it.

 

 

Anyone who turns a blind eye to any of these situations is doing so out of their base inclination toward nationalism and not their Catholic faith. A fair conclusion would be to say they are not fulfilling Catholic social teaching and they are not acting in a pro-life manner. 

Edited October 1, 2015 by CrossCuT

[Anomaly]

Ah!! Thank you for this! Didnt realize they was official stuff stating it.

 

 

Anyone who turns a blind eye to any of these situations is doing so out of their base inclination toward nationalism and not their Catholic faith. A fair conclusion would be to say they are not fulfilling Catholic social teaching and they are not acting in a pro-life manner. 

Silly Catholicism!  You can't pick and choose.   

 Read Principle 2 what you quoted from Nada  

 Didacus is NOT out in left field as far as Catholic social teaching.   Rein in the indignation.  

Edited October 1, 2015 by Anomaly

[CrossCuT]

Silly Catholicism!  You can't pick and choose.   

 Read Principle 2 what you quoted from Nada  

 Didacus is NOT out in left field as far as Catholic social teaching.   Rein in the indignation.  

I guess Id disagree with it then. Still, the US has done very little so far, we can do better.

[Anomaly]

I guess Id disagree with it then. Still, the US has done very little so far, we can do better.

As an US fanboy of decidedly immigrant leanings, I'd frame it positively. 

"The US can show you how to do it responsibly since they aren't swarming our border.  We haven't done so well with our border crossers either."  

 

I totally get the urging to be Catholic AND do Catholic or don't be Catholic (my choice).  But you just poked Did for essentially doing what yourself is comfortable doing?

[CrossCuT]

As an US fanboy of decidedly immigrant leanings, I'd frame it positively. 

"The US can show you how to do it responsibly since they aren't swarming our border.  We haven't done so well with our border crossers either."  

 

I totally get the urging to be Catholic AND do Catholic or don't be Catholic (my choice).  But you just poked Did for essentially doing what yourself is comfortable doing?

In my mind, the earth and all its resources dictate everything. The earth is indifferent to who is using them so long as its done responsibly. I dont care who is scuttling over borders because IMO, there shouldn't be any. It ties into my idealistic view of having a resource based economy. 

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

The fact that the citizens of countries who have been entirely built by immigration and migrants (and the, real, systematic destruction of the native population) are against migrants and immigration never cease to make me laugh. 

 

If anything what happened to the natives is the perfect case for why immigration laws should be upheld. Also there is a theory that the Native American's ancestors were also migrants.  

http://time.com/3964634/native-american-origin-theory/

Regardless I don't view refugees as being immigrants simply because refugees would have stayed in their own country had it not been for the threat of death and persecution.  Saint Joseph would have never went into Eqypt if it wasn't for Herod.  Just imagine how difficult it was for St. Joseph to move to another country and start his business from scratch! You know the business he had was from word of mouth in his home town.  Going to a place were no one knew him, not to mention he was Jewish, must have made providing for Mary and Jesus extremely difficult. 

[NadaTeTurbe]

If anything what happened to the natives is the perfect case for why immigration laws should be upheld. Also there is a theory that the Native American's ancestors were also migrants.  

http://time.com/3964634/native-american-origin-theory/

Regardless I don't view refugees as being immigrants simply because refugees would have stayed in their own country had it not been for the threat of death and persecution.  Saint Joseph would have never went into Eqypt if it wasn't for Herod.  Just imagine how difficult it was for St. Joseph to move to another country and start his business from scratch! You know the business he had was from word of mouth in his home town.  Going to a place were no one knew him, not to mention he was Jewish, must have made providing for Mary and Jesus extremely difficult. 

I did not know it, thank you ! 

You're right about your distinction between refugees and immigrants. 

[Didacus]

There is nothing hateful or extreme in what I present:

1. Help the needful. 

2. If the refugees wish to become citizens let them follow due process lawfully in place. 

3. Help in addressin the source of the problem in their respective homeland

 

It is unfortunate that a balanced and sensible approach is met with accusations and derison.