Global Refugees

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

Re: Global Refugees

Postby Sandy » Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:13 am

As always, there are two sides to every story. The students who wanted to wear the American flag T-shirts were doing it deliberately as a provocation to antagonize the Latino kids. It's the same thing as inner city gangs adopting professional sports team colors and logos so they can "represent" and claim free speech protection when schools tell them they can't wear their colors. It was a one day prohibition to prevent inciting already existing racial tension. The motives of those who planned to wear those shirts obviously had nothing to do with patriotism nor "Judaeo-Christian Principles."

That's always a good right wing line, that immigrants from other countries want to turn America into their country and bend it to their culture. There's not a jot or tittle of evidence or proof of that. They live in a place where they're free to celebrate who they are. And a good percentage of our military volunteers are either immigrants themselves or the children of immigrants and they demonstrate their loyalty to this country in many ways. Getting mad at them because they're not interested in adopting WASP culture demonstrates a lack of understanding of some basic American principles. Our constitution provides for the free exercise of religion, so there's no grounds for pressuring immigrants, or native Americans for that matter, to "unite around Judaeo-Christian principles." Some of the principles written into the constitution and into the foundational fabric of the country didn't come from "Judaeo-Christian principles" but were secular in nature, having their origin in the European Enlightenment.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Global Refugees

Postby Rvaughn » Fri Dec 21, 2018 2:16 pm

Sandy wrote:That's not my expectation. I don't expect the US to act like a "Christian nation."
For now I will assume that you do not deny that there are some who do expect it.
Sandy wrote:But I do expect it to act in accordance with its founding principles, and this attitude doesn't reflect that.
By "this attitude" do you mean the US vote against the Global Compact on Refugees at the UN?
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Global Refugees

Postby Rvaughn » Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:42 pm

Haruo wrote:I don't have any particular reason to think that those 181 countries actually all behave the way a thumbnail sketch of the accord says they should. Such agreements are more or less unenforceable.
Rvaughn wrote:Interesting thought, Leland. It would be fascinating to see a list of the 181 nations who voted for it, and compare to nations from which people are fleeing for refuge!
I couldn't find a list specific to who voted for it, but articles seem pretty consistent that 181 states/nations voted in favor of the Global Compact on Refugees, two opposed it (United States and Hungary), and three abstained from the vote (the Dominican Republic, Eritrea and Libya). Several places said there are 192 or 193 nations in the U.N., but the vote tally only adds up to 186. Anyway, by comparing the Member states we can get a pretty good idea of who voted for it. I would expect that many of this 181 have a much poorer record toward refugees that the U.S. We shouldn't be satisfied to just be better than nations who are doing poorly, but it is nevertheless a fair comparison when comparing is what the linked article in the OP is doing.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Global Refugees

Postby Haruo » Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:13 pm

The six or seven missing votes were probably accounted for by three ambassadors being in the rest room when the votes were cast, and three or four others having gone home already for the holidays.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12346
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Global Refugees

Postby KeithE » Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:54 am

Rvaughn wrote:
Sandy wrote:That's not my expectation. I don't expect the US to act like a "Christian nation."
For now I will assume that you do not deny that there are some who do expect it.

The point in this discussion is that nations should act morally no matter what their religion is or isn’t. Only the US and Hungary took the hard right stand against refugees (with a few abstaining or absent).

Our actions under Trump are worse than before in this regard especially rhetorically (Read Trump dialed it up to 10, but his predecessors often treated migrants with disdain). Read it all but here are a few excerpts:

The scene at the immigrant detention centers in Texas, tweeted attorney R. Andrew Free, was horrifying. He wrote of "the constant, violent coughing and sickness of small children, and the worry of their mothers, who stood in the sun outside the clinic all day only to be told their kids should 'drink water.'" And nearly doubling over when he saw the long line of strollers waiting outside.


Carter's seizure of hundreds of boats from the private flotilla that went to the port of Mariel to pick up the 125,000 or so Cubans freed to leave by a Fidel Castro fit of pique in 1980. "On the one hand, Carter was making this grand humanitarian gesture, welcoming everybody in, and with the other, he was behaving so vindictively, taking the boats that brought the refugees in," said Fox-Isicoff, who as a young attorney just out of law school was working as a federal immigration prosecutor.


Trump, of course, has raised contempt for the foreign born to a new level by making disdain for immigrants a centerpiece of his campaign and subsequent presidency. This has included referring to Mexican immigrants as "rapists," whipping crowds into a frenzy with his exhortations to build a wall at the southern border, imposing a travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries and appearing to use so-called "Dreamers" — young people brought here as children by their parents — as a bargaining chip to get funding for the wall, after promising that Mexico would pay for it.


And I’m sure one can find inhumane treatment of refugees all around the globe. But the “everyone-is-doing-it" excuse is specious.

========= legally speaking=============

Wrt our US own asylum law the Refugee Act of 1980 we are in compliance numerically but could be more generous. The law limited asylum seekers entry to 50,000 annually (it had been as much as 200,000/year) but does not have many responsibilities wrt treatment of asylum seekers. We have typically granted between 10,000 and 15,000 asylums per year since 2001.
Image
Source: http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/539/
Although the denial rate is increasing under Trump, 2018 may break our all time record for asylums granted. Perhaps Trump should be called the “acceptor in chief”. Of course rhetorically he would never say so. But facts/data often tell a different story.

I think all should agree that a nation should honor international agreements they are party to wrt the asylum treatment. In case you didn’t read it on another post thread, the link below is a strong case to say the US under Trump is not living up to the 1967 Protocol to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
Asylum Meters & Bans: Trump’s New Border Regime Violates the United States’ Duties under International Refugee Law.

While the United States is not a signatory to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, it did ratify the 1967 Protocol without reservation. This treaty bound the United States to uphold the rights of refugees as delineated in Articles 2–34 of the Refugee Convention. And the United States incorporated these international obligations into its domestic immigration law with the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980.

Summary of specific responsibilities (by specific “article”) of signatory states and refugees given at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees#Rights_and_responsibilities_of_parties_to_the_Refugee_Convention

The UN is trying to reiterate doing the right thing by the refugees by this recent "Global Pact on Refugees". It is to our shame, imo, that we will not join in with the rest of the civilized world under Trump (but at least he is not being hypocritical by signing and ignoring).

It is past high time for comprehensive immigration reform (not just asylum seekers). But the heated rhetoric will not allow it.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8917
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Refugees

Postby Haruo » Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:16 pm

Interesting that he's willing to defund TSA and the Homeland Security Department as part of his effort to get the five billion American taxpayers' dollars that Mexico reneged on.

That graph showing numbers of applicants and grantees and percentage approved is interesting. But I think a lot of it can be laid to the credit or blame of the courts, which keep telling him he's not at Burger King.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12346
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Global Refugees

Postby Rvaughn » Sat Dec 22, 2018 11:48 pm

KeithE wrote:The point in this discussion is that nations should act morally no matter what their religion is or isn’t. Only the US and Hungary took the hard right stand against refugees (with a few abstaining or absent).
I don't doubt that is the point you are trying to make. Nevertheless, part of the point of the article you linked is to compare the U.S. to other countries -- opposite of the 181 who voted for the Global Compact on Refugees and to tie us to Hungary.
KeithE wrote:And I’m sure one can find inhumane treatment of refugees all around the globe. But the “everyone-is-doing-it" excuse is specious.
You are the one who posted a link that compares the U.S. to other nations around the globe, so I think you need to "own" the comparison and not complain about comparisons. It is not about "everyone is doing it," at least that is not my point. One vote at the UN does not automatically make the US worse at treating refugees than the 181 nation who voted for the compact. That vote can have some negative consequences for our refugee program down the line. Nevertheless, one point the linked article is trying to imply is that we are worse than the 181, and as bad as Hungary, which we are not.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Global Refugees

Postby KeithE » Sun Dec 23, 2018 3:59 pm

Rvaughn wrote:
KeithE wrote:The point in this discussion is that nations should act morally no matter what their religion is or isn’t. Only the US and Hungary took the hard right stand against refugees (with a few abstaining or absent).
I don't doubt that is the point you are trying to make. Nevertheless, part of the point of the article you linked is to compare the U.S. to other countries -- opposite of the 181 who voted for the Global Compact on Refugees and to tie us to Hungary.
KeithE wrote:And I’m sure one can find inhumane treatment of refugees all around the globe. But the “everyone-is-doing-it" excuse is specious.
You are the one who posted a link that compares the U.S. to other nations around the globe, so I think you need to "own" the comparison and not complain about comparisons. It is not about "everyone is doing it," at least that is not my point. One vote at the UN does not automatically make the US worse at treating refugees than the 181 nation who voted for the compact. That vote can have some negative consequences for our refugee program down the line. Nevertheless, one point the linked article is trying to imply is that we are worse than the 181, and as bad as Hungary, which we are not.


The article was not a thoroughgoing comparison of the US and Hungary and/or other countries wrt asylum treatment. It reported how the countries voted on this UN Resolution. It did point out that the US voted with Hungary which it called
far-right Prime Minister Viktor Orban, whose administration has been accused of carrying out "a full-frontal assault on migrants and refugees"


Here are some details of what is going on in Hungary wrt to asylum seekers - they are were not feeding those waiting for asylum rulings for a short time in Sept 2018 until the European Union stepped in to help.

The original article says the US voted NO on the Resolution on the basis of:

"The U.S. said recently that it backed most of the refugee pact, but not the part aimed at limiting detentions of asylum seekers," Agence France-Presse reported. The international agreement states: "The development of non-custodial and community-based alternatives to detention, particularly for children, will also be supported."


This is probably due to the fact that right now the US is using custodial detentions of children with over 12,000 children in detention centers many/most separated from their parents.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8917
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Refugees

Postby KeithE » Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:25 am

This is for Aaron Weaver (if he is still lurking here):

Some of the discussion above in this thread revolves around the fact that some say the Separation of Church and State (SoCaS) (or that we are not officially a “Christian nation”) implies that our country should not be advised by Christian ethics while doing policy. Thus appealing to scripture or the Spirit to advocate for welcoming to the strangers in one’s land (or whatever cause you have, be it right or left) is not appropriate in some people’s view. It seems like we use scripture if it helps our political view and claim SoCaS if it doesn’t. Let’s call this a conundrum.

An Aside to show how I think: To me Christian ethics is just plain ethics applicable to all people - "law written on our hearts”. In my view, the Spirit trumps the written words, but I often use scripture to 1) prompt the Spirit and/or 2) convince inerrantists of some ethical/policy point.

I see you have a new book A Baptist Vision of Religious Liberty & Free and Faithful Politics released Nov 28 (congrats, btw). I am hopeful that the reason for adding "Free and Faithful Politics” to the title means that Dunn (or you) discuss the conundrum in the paragraph above. But the Amazon description of the book:

From his days as a pastor in the mid-1950s until his death in 2015, Dr. James M. Dunn was a tireless advocate and activist for soul freedom: the freedom, ability, and responsibility of each individual to respond to God for herself or himself. During his ministry in Texas and Washington, D.C., Dunn established himself as the public heir of E. Y. Mullins and those before him who insisted that an unfettered conscience and uncoerced faith—born out of a direct personal experience of God and without reliance on ecclesiastical leaders—represented the authentic Baptist tradition.To countless Baptists, James Dunn was an instrumental influence. His wit, wisdom, and fight moved generations of Baptists to better live out our faith, value our freedom, and never take our shared heritage and liberty for granted. Aaron Weaver’s collection of the words and writings of James Dunn will help present and future generations of Baptists, as well as other people of faith, remember, learn from, and live out his vision of religious liberty and free and faithful politics.


doesn’t really promise that. Does it discuss the conundrum mentioned above?

Lacking that what do you think?
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8917
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Refugees

Postby Haruo » Tue Jan 01, 2019 3:09 pm

When "the sin of Sodom" is explicitly spelled out in the Bible, it turns out not to involve sex particularly, gay or otherwise. Yet some of the same people who object to letting Biblical principles inform our political stances on welcoming of foreigners and treatment of the disadvantaged want their reading of Genesis and Jude to inform our political stances on treatment of gender minorities. Interesting.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12346
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Global Refugees

Postby Jon Estes » Wed Jan 02, 2019 6:11 am

Haruo wrote:When "the sin of Sodom" is explicitly spelled out in the Bible, it turns out not to involve sex particularly, gay or otherwise. Yet some of the same people who object to letting Biblical principles inform our political stances on welcoming of foreigners and treatment of the disadvantaged want their reading of Genesis and Jude to inform our political stances on treatment of gender minorities. Interesting.


Who are these "some of the same people"?
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:14 am

Re: Global Refugees

Postby Haruo » Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:04 am

Nobody on here, at least nowadays. And I don't recall the names.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12346
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Global Refugees

Postby KeithE » Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:00 am

Jon Estes wrote:
Haruo wrote:When "the sin of Sodom" is explicitly spelled out in the Bible, it turns out not to involve sex particularly, gay or otherwise. Yet some of the same people who object to letting Biblical principles inform our political stances on welcoming of foreigners and treatment of the disadvantaged want their reading of Genesis and Jude to inform our political stances on treatment of gender minorities. Interesting.


Who are these "some of the same people"?


Jon,

Are you one of those “same people”? After all you are against LGBT behavior (they are sinful in your opinion) and you support a non-welcoming stance for refugees. Just do not know if you do so due to your understanding/application of the Bible in both cases.

I can find the case against LGBT behavior in the Bible (e.g. Romans 1:26-27, Leviticus, Jude). But I find the case against long hair on men as well with much of the same terminology (it is not “natural") by Paul (1 Cor 11:14-15). Not being an inerrantist I can take science’s word on it - that most species have homosexual minority subsets from birth and thus I have a more understanding attitude towards these minorities.

I cannot find a case for poor treatment of foreigners, the poor, the disadvantaged, the sick in the Bible. Love rules throughout. I do understand (but do not approve) of the idea that the Bible does not mandate civil authorities to help the foreigners, the poor, the disadvantaged, the sick. Even government is subject to the law written on our collective hearts, imo.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8917
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Refugees

Postby Haruo » Sat Jan 05, 2019 4:38 pm

Cinco de Mayo is not a Mexican national holiday. It is more like Washington Admission Day (which is Nov. 11 so a lot of people get it as a paid holiday). It is locally celebrated in Guadalajara. But it is a bigger deal in the USA (among Anglo beerdrinkers and beer-and-tortilla-chip advertisers mostly) than in Mexico. FWIW.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12346
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Global Refugees

Postby Jon Estes » Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:50 am

KeithE wrote:
Jon Estes wrote:
Haruo wrote:When "the sin of Sodom" is explicitly spelled out in the Bible, it turns out not to involve sex particularly, gay or otherwise. Yet some of the same people who object to letting Biblical principles inform our political stances on welcoming of foreigners and treatment of the disadvantaged want their reading of Genesis and Jude to inform our political stances on treatment of gender minorities. Interesting.


Who are these "some of the same people"?


Jon,

Are you one of those “same people”? After all you are against LGBT behavior (they are sinful in your opinion) and you support a non-welcoming stance for refugees. Just do not know if you do so due to your understanding/application of the Bible in both cases.

The bible is clear on the LGBTQ sinfulness, so no need to rehash that.

I'm not against the refugees and saying so is a misrepresentation of my position. I am welcoming to them if they would simply enter into the country legally. Looking at this on a personal level, I am not sure anyone here would just welcome someone that was homeless into their home uninvited. I don't think you would... I could be wrong. If I am wrong, let me take the thought a step further. How many people would you welcome into your home before you say... no more? If that point came... does that make you unwelcoming?

Maybe we are different. I love my family and just don't let strangers nice or un-nice (like I would know if they were a stranger) just enter my home unannounced. To protect my family, I would do whatever I believed necessary to defend them. Yeah, I would even do things others may say I as ungodly for doing. I think it would be ungodly to not protect and defend my family from strangers coming into my home.


I can find the case against LGBT behavior in the Bible (e.g. Romans 1:26-27, Leviticus, Jude). But I find the case against long hair on men as well with much of the same terminology (it is not “natural") by Paul (1 Cor 11:14-15). Not being an inerrantist I can take science’s word on it - that most species have homosexual minority subsets from birth and thus I have a more understanding attitude towards these minorities.

I cannot find a case for poor treatment of foreigners, the poor, the disadvantaged, the sick in the Bible. Love rules throughout. I do understand (but do not approve) of the idea that the Bible does not mandate civil authorities to help the foreigners, the poor, the disadvantaged, the sick. Even government is subject to the law written on our collective hearts, imo.

It sure is amazing how these collective hearts disagree so much with themselves. You would think that if with such disagreement among the collective hearts of people there would be a place to turn.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:14 am

Re: Global Refugees

Postby KeithE » Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:39 pm

Keith said:
I cannot find a case for poor treatment of foreigners, the poor, the disadvantaged, the sick in the Bible. Love rules throughout. I do understand (but do not approve) of the idea that the Bible does not mandate civil authorities to help the foreigners, the poor, the disadvantaged, the sick. Even government is subject to the law written on our collective hearts, imo.

Jon said:
It sure is amazing how these collective hearts disagree so much with themselves. You would think that if with such disagreement among the collective hearts of people there would be a place to turn.


What do you mean by “there would be a place to turn”? If you are referring to the Bible to answer such questions, then you would be for helping the foreigners, the poor, the disadvantaged, and the sick. Trump is not enthusiastically into doing any of these things and in fact has limited Obama’s programs to do so (e.g. Dreamers, food stamps, ADA laws and is actively sabotaging ObamaCare).

So why are you supporting Trump being a “bible believer” ?????
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8917
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Refugees

Postby Jon Estes » Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:05 pm

KeithE wrote:Keith said:
I cannot find a case for poor treatment of foreigners, the poor, the disadvantaged, the sick in the Bible. Love rules throughout. I do understand (but do not approve) of the idea that the Bible does not mandate civil authorities to help the foreigners, the poor, the disadvantaged, the sick. Even government is subject to the law written on our collective hearts, imo.

Jon said:
It sure is amazing how these collective hearts disagree so much with themselves. You would think that if with such disagreement among the collective hearts of people there would be a place to turn.


What do you mean by “there would be a place to turn”? If you are referring to the Bible to answer such questions, then you would be for helping the foreigners, the poor, the disadvantaged, and the sick. Trump is not enthusiastically into doing any of these things and in fact has limited Obama’s programs to do so (e.g. Dreamers, food stamps, ADA laws and is actively sabotaging ObamaCare).

So why are you supporting Trump being a “bible believer” ?????


So the doors of your home are wide open to any and all who want a place to live and call home? If not, I guess you really don’t want to help and be all in. Put your home where your beliefs are.

I will support American families taking the refugees in as the follow their collective hearts. Will you volunteer first?
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:14 am

Re: Global Refugees

Postby Sandy » Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:43 pm

Jon Estes wrote: I'm not against the refugees and saying so is a misrepresentation of my position. I am welcoming to them if they would simply enter into the country legally. Looking at this on a personal level, I am not sure anyone here would just welcome someone that was homeless into their home uninvited. I don't think you would... I could be wrong. If I am wrong, let me take the thought a step further. How many people would you welcome into your home before you say... no more? If that point came... does that make you unwelcoming?



Most of the issues regarding "border security" come down to the issue of whether those who are crossing are doing so "legally" or illegally. Until recently, under the existing law, it was legal to cross the border into the United States and then remain while a claim for assylum was processed. There's a major difference between someone who does that and someone who just crossed into the US undetected, without papers, to live and work here, or to benefit from the drug running business.

What Trump wants to do is based on the lies he tells. He's not just interested in shutting off the illegal crossings, which are really not anywhere close to being the problem he exaggerates it to be. He wants to put a stop to refugee immigration by changing the law to make it next to impossible for genuine refugees to get into the US. He kept making wild claims during the campaign that Hillary wanted to flood the country with Syrians and every time he made it, the number he claimed she was advocating for kept changing, from 60,000 to 600,000 to "millions." I believe her actual number was 60,000 more than the current immigration quotas allow, which would be a total of 70,000. There are 1.5 million in Jordan, and at least that many more have crossed Turkey into Europe. And the country known as the haven of the world's oppressed, and the richest of all, proposes to take 60,000 and its conservative political party leadership fights and screams about even taking that many? So much for belief in the sanctity of human life. In addition to that, our neighbor to the north, Canada (secular, liberal country with socialized medicine) is making a special effort to offer sanctuary to Syrians who, because of religious or political situations, might be particularly vulnerable to the wrath of one of the outlying rebel groups or on the Assad government's hit list, including most Christian groups. That while many Christians in the US side with a president who doesn't want to admit any refugees from the middle east, period, and especially not Syria, Christian or not.

Your analogy of welcoming the homeless into your home is not a valid comparison here. Even so, my wife and I have opened our home to homeless individuals and to those who needed a place to stay until they were able to get things together and support themselves. My parents did the same when I was growing up. We did it within the limits of space and resources we had available. If you extend that out to the United States as a whole, this is a country that has the resources, the space, and the economic wherewithal to care for several million refugees until they are able to get on their feet and make a new life for themselves. We did it for large numbers of Vietnamese refugees following that war. We've always taken in the Cubans who made it across the water. The problem with the Central Americans is that their countries aren't communist, they are banana republic dictatorships propped up by the US, no less cruel and repressive than the Communists but it's not politically popular for conservatives who support Central American dictators to face the truth when the refugees show up on our doorstep.

Shutting down illegal entries is a matter of enforcing existing laws, not building a wall that will be ineffective long before it is finished. Refugees are another matter, whether it is in God's eyes, or simply in the long tradition of American existence as a refuge from oppression, a self-claimed virtue.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Global Refugees

Postby Jon Estes » Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:17 am

Sandy wrote:
Jon Estes wrote: I'm not against the refugees and saying so is a misrepresentation of my position. I am welcoming to them if they would simply enter into the country legally. Looking at this on a personal level, I am not sure anyone here would just welcome someone that was homeless into their home uninvited. I don't think you would... I could be wrong. If I am wrong, let me take the thought a step further. How many people would you welcome into your home before you say... no more? If that point came... does that make you unwelcoming?



Most of the issues regarding "border security" come down to the issue of whether those who are crossing are doing so "legally" or illegally. Until recently, under the existing law, it was legal to cross the border into the United States and then remain while a claim for assylum was processed. There's a major difference between someone who does that and someone who just crossed into the US undetected, without papers, to live and work here, or to benefit from the drug running business.

The videos of those who have been where the tear gas been used are not trying to cross at an entry point. The law is not about claiming asylum after crossing the wall at a place not designed to be crossed. I am fine withthe entries of those trying to cross legally. Thus the term - illegal.

What Trump wants to do is based on the lies he tells. He's not just interested in shutting off the illegal crossings, which are really not anywhere close to being the problem he exaggerates it to be.

So says Sandy and some others. How many illegal crossing, make it a problem? Isn't it the ones who cross illegally the ones we ought to be targeting to keep out? Trump speaks of those crossing illegally. Those who want to bring the conversation to those who work through the system do so to deflect.

He wants to put a stop to refugee immigration by changing the law to make it next to impossible for genuine refugees to get into the US. He kept making wild claims during the campaign that Hillary wanted to flood the country with Syrians and every time he made it, the number he claimed she was advocating for kept changing, from 60,000 to 600,000 to "millions." I believe her actual number was 60,000 more than the current immigration quotas allow, which would be a total of 70,000. There are 1.5 million in Jordan, and at least that many more have crossed Turkey into Europe. And the country known as the haven of the world's oppressed, and the richest of all, proposes to take 60,000 and its conservative political party leadership fights and screams about even taking that many?

So what number would you support to being too many? Everyone has a number and what makes yours the right one?

So much for belief in the sanctity of human life.

This comment is stupid. Such a comment would fit you if "Person A" who thinks whatever number you choose is too few... leaves you uncaring for and no belief in the sanctity of human life concerning those not accepted by.

In addition to that, our neighbor to the north, Canada (secular, liberal country with socialized medicine) is making a special effort to offer sanctuary to Syrians who, because of religious or political situations, might be particularly vulnerable to the wrath of one of the outlying rebel groups or on the Assad government's hit list, including most Christian groups. That while many Christians in the US side with a president who doesn't want to admit any refugees from the middle east, period, and especially not Syria, Christian or not.

So, do you want open borders? How many from Nigeria do we let in... from the Congo? From Cameroon? From Syria? Or any downtrodden people on the earth. How many Sandy?

Your analogy of welcoming the homeless into your home is not a valid comparison here. Even so, my wife and I have opened our home to homeless individuals and to those who needed a place to stay until they were able to get things together and support themselves. My parents did the same when I was growing up. We did it within the limits of space and resources we had available. If you extend that out to the United States as a whole, this is a country that has the resources, the space, and the economic wherewithal to care for several million refugees until they are able to get on their feet and make a new life for themselves. We did it for large numbers of Vietnamese refugees following that war. We've always taken in the Cubans who made it across the water. The problem with the Central Americans is that their countries aren't communist, they are banana republic dictatorships propped up by the US, no less cruel and repressive than the Communists but it's not politically popular for conservatives who support Central American dictators to face the truth when the refugees show up on our doorstep.

I am proud of you for opening your home. Let me ask though.. How many came in uninvited? Or if someone did... would your hospitality be the same?

We have a system that needs to be followed and those who break the law need to be held accountable.


Shutting down illegal entries is a matter of enforcing existing laws, not building a wall that will be ineffective long before it is finished. Refugees are another matter, whether it is in God's eyes, or simply in the long tradition of American existence as a refuge from oppression, a self-claimed virtue.

The wall helps inforce the current law.

Let the refugees work through the existing system. That is not happening in too many cases.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:14 am

Re: Global Refugees

Postby KeithE » Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:32 am

Jon Estes wrote:
KeithE wrote:Keith said:
I cannot find a case for poor treatment of foreigners, the poor, the disadvantaged, the sick in the Bible. Love rules throughout. I do understand (but do not approve) of the idea that the Bible does not mandate civil authorities to help the foreigners, the poor, the disadvantaged, the sick. Even government is subject to the law written on our collective hearts, imo.

Jon said:
It sure is amazing how these collective hearts disagree so much with themselves. You would think that if with such disagreement among the collective hearts of people there would be a place to turn.


What do you mean by “there would be a place to turn”? If you are referring to the Bible to answer such questions, then you would be for helping the foreigners, the poor, the disadvantaged, and the sick. Trump is not enthusiastically into doing any of these things and in fact has limited Obama’s programs to do so (e.g. Dreamers, food stamps, ADA laws and is actively sabotaging ObamaCare).

So why are you supporting Trump being a “bible believer” ?????


So the doors of your home are wide open to any and all who want a place to live and call home? If not, I guess you really don’t want to help and be all in. Put your home where your beliefs are.

I will support American families taking the refugees in as the follow their collective hearts. Will you volunteer first?


Avoid to answer my question and nastily assume that I would not 'put my home where my beliefs are'. Pretty bad Jon.

And I also note that just like Trump who characterizes all dems as for “open borders”, I see you create another false dichotomy that homes must be always “wide open” or always closed.

Truth is we have let 4 people live in our house for as much as 6 months. They were young people from families we knew - they just needed help and we substantially helped 3 of those and still hope to have an effect on the fourth.

It has never happened to me, but if some unknown person were to knock on my door and ask for housing or food, I would not dismiss housing out of hand and give food immediately. It would not matter whether that person was a US Citizen, or an illegal/legal immigrant. After all, I am a Christ-follower, Spirit-led, bible-informed disciple. Here is list of over 100 verses that point towards generosity specifically as applies to foreigners (8 of those verses are words directly from Christ). I would invite them in, talk to them about their problem, and if the Spirit led (and my wife agreed), I would let them sleep in a spare bedroom.

I am not unaware of pitfalls that could occur. In fact, my sister has written a book (Getting Off the Niceness Treadmill) mostly about some misadventures along this line.

Now answer my question if you will - Why do you (a supposed bible believer) support Trump when his attitudes are so unbiblical (on the refugee/foreigner issue and many others).
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8917
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Refugees

Postby Sandy » Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:01 am

I think that's the question, "How many illegals make it a problem?" According to the Trump administration's own Department of Homeland Security, illegal crossings have declined substantially since the early part of the Obama administration, and continue to remain low, well below previous "tolerable" thresholds according to previous administrations (back to Reagan at least). Is the goal to prevent every single illegal crossing? Not happening. Is it a crisis now? No, at least not according to the information that has been provided by Trump's own department of homeland security. The idea that the country is being overrun by "terrorists" in "the thousands" from Central America and Mexico is a lie. But this conversation and discussion isn't about "illegals." No one that I observe is advocating for open borders or amnesty for everyone who manages to cross the border regardless of how, that's another Trump lie. This conversation is about global refugees who are, under existing US law, able to enter the country and stay until their request for asylum has either been approved or denied.

As I said before, the analogy of having someone homeless come into your house is a false one. This is a democratic republic, a nation "of, by and for" its people. It's not just your house, it's the people's house collectively. Laws are made and passed by those elected who represent the will of the people and current laws allow for individuals to come to the US and remain in the country while applying for asylum as refugees. Refugees do not always have the luxury of being able to assemble all of their papers and documents and get visas before they flee, in most cases for their lives. So they do not always have the luxury of presenting themselves at a border crossing and asking for permission to enter without documents. Trumps actions and executive orders are going against the will of the people as reflected in current immigration laws, and in the court rulings that have put a stop to his bigoted, ridiculous executive orders.

What number is too many? Jordan, a county with 10 million people, a GDP of just under $100 billion, has taken in about 1.5 million Syrians. Refugees are, for the most part, limited by geography. Any Syrians who came to the US seeking asylum would have to find a way to get here. I doubt we'd ever have to consider more than the 60,000 proposed by Clinton. I know an Orthodox church in Pennsylvania that worked to bring 10 families here, getting them out of ISIS controlled territory. They don't cost the government a dime, the church raised the money to support them, helped them find housing and jobs to earn a living. Shouldn't be a problem if the economy is booming like Trump says it is.

Your use of the term "stupid" is inappropriate. My contention that this is a sanctity of life issue is based on fact. Refugees, in most instances, are in mortal danger when they flee. What number of abortions is low enough to be acceptable to pro-lifers? Or are unborn Americans simply worth more in the value of life than Syrian or Honduran refugees?
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Global Refugees

Postby Rvaughn » Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:04 pm

Sandy wrote:Your analogy of welcoming the homeless into your home is not a valid comparison here.
To this I'd say yes and so. What you or I or Jon or anyone else might do about this does not set what is right & wrong, and it does not impact or change the laws that govern either immigration or the refugee program. On the other hand, it can be a good "heart question," asking us personally whether we are willing to do what we say is right for others. Sandy's point though is, I think, much the same as what I said previously. The nation's conscience -- as a nation -- is to follow its laws:
Sandy wrote:As I said before, the analogy of having someone homeless come into your house is a false one. This is a democratic republic, a nation "of, by and for" its people. It's not just your house, it's the people's house collectively. Laws are made and passed by those elected who represent the will of the people...


Sandy wrote:Shutting down illegal entries is a matter of enforcing existing laws, not building a wall that will be ineffective long before it is finished. Refugees are another matter, whether it is in God's eyes, or simply in the long tradition of American existence as a refuge from oppression, a self-claimed virtue.

Sandy wrote:...being able to assemble all of their papers and documents and get visas before they flee, in most cases for their lives. So they do not always have the luxury of presenting themselves at a border crossing and asking for permission to enter without documents.
I think there is some difficulty in this discussion by our conflating immigration (legal and Illegal) and the refugee program -- which are different and governed by different laws.

What follows is some information about refugees from the American Immigration Council web site.
According to it:
  • Under U.S. law, a “refugee” is a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country because of a “well-founded fear of persecution” due to race, membership in a particular social group, political opinion, religion, or national origin.
  • The President, in consultation with Congress, determines the numerical ceiling for refugee admissions each year. The State Department and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are the primary agencies that assess the viability of different refugee populations for admission, as well as the capacity of U.S. government officials to process them.
  • Refugees who pass their security screening, and who fall within the numerical limits of a given year’s refugee admissions ceiling, become eligible for resettlement within the United States.
  • Individual eligibility for refugee status is determined through interviews conducted by officers in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which is part of DHS.
  • [Three principal] categories only impact who can apply for refugee status, but do not guarantee that an applicant will be admitted to the United States. Before admission to the United States, each refugee must undergo a rigorous interviewing process to ensure that the individual meets the “refugee” definition. U.S. law requires prospective refugees to prove their individual case of “well-founded fear,” regardless of the person’s country, circumstance, or classification in a priority category. In addition, individuals generally must not already have “firmly resettled” in any other country.
  • By the end of Calendar Year (CY) 2017, the U.S. government had resettled about 33,000 refugees, while other nations collectively resettled a total of 69,000. When the population size of the nations in which refugees are resettled is taken into account, Canada was the resettlement leader in CY 2017 at 725 refugees resettled per one million residents, followed by Australia (618), and Norway (528). In comparison, the United States resettled 102 refugees per one million U.S. residents.
It is not clear to me who makes the final determination of the refugee's status, but it seems it is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which is part of Department of Homeland Security.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Global Refugees

Postby Rvaughn » Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:07 pm

Also, I found that two different terms are used to distinguish by location the person seeking safety in the United States:
In the United States, the major difference between refugees and asylees is the location of the person at the time of application. Refugees are usually outside of the United States when they are screened for resettlement, whereas asylum seekers submit their applications while they are physically present in the United States or at a U.S. port of entry. Refugees and asylees also differ in admissions process used and agency responsible for reviewing their application.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Global Refugees

Postby Jon Estes » Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:05 am

KeithE wrote:Avoid to answer my question and nastily assume that I would not 'put my home where my beliefs are'. Pretty bad Jon.

Nothing nasty here. Taking my point about opening our homes to the uninvited or those who come by proper means and taking it on its logical path.

Maybe you're having a bad day. In another thread you wanted Hauro to delete a post.


And I also note that just like Trump who characterizes all dems as for “open borders”, I see you create another false dichotomy that homes must be always “wide open” or always closed.

And paralleling the open borders to open homes... the time is to keep our borders the way we keep our homes. Shutting out all the uninvited and tell them to come in the proper way. Border - stop climbing over and under the fence /// home - stop climbing through the windows when I am not looking.

Truth is we have let 4 people live in our house for as much as 6 months. They were young people from families we knew - they just needed help and we substantially helped 3 of those and still hope to have an effect on the fourth.

Good for you and I would support such but I do think you would not be so hospitable if they just snuck into or barged into your home wanting what was yours.

It has never happened to me, but if some unknown person were to knock on my door and ask for housing or food, I would not dismiss housing out of hand and give food immediately.

That is not the issue. I am speaking of those who enter your home illegally. Reverting to the means of entering legally (by invite through the front door when given permission).

It would not matter whether that person was a US Citizen, or an illegal/legal immigrant. After all, I am a Christ-follower, Spirit-led, bible-informed disciple. Here is list of over 100 verses that point towards generosity specifically as applies to foreigners (8 of those verses are words directly from Christ). I would invite them in, talk to them about their problem, and if the Spirit led (and my wife agreed), I would let them sleep in a spare bedroom.

If they enter without an invite? I am speaking and have always spoken concerning the illegals... not those who do things properly. Do you see the difference?

Now answer my question if you will - Why do you (a supposed bible believer) support Trump when his attitudes are so unbiblical (on the refugee/foreigner issue and many others).

As far as I know and have heard, Trump is not trying to stop those coming legally. He is also trying to weed out the bad among the good before he leets them in. Something our laws allow.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:14 am

Re: Global Refugees

Postby Jon Estes » Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:08 am

Sandy wrote:I think that's the question, "How many illegals make it a problem?" According to the Trump administration's own Department of Homeland Security, illegal crossings have declined substantially since the early part of the Obama administration, and continue to remain low, well below previous "tolerable" thresholds according to previous administrations (back to Reagan at least). Is the goal to prevent every single illegal crossing? Not happening. Is it a crisis now? No, at least not according to the information that has been provided by Trump's own department of homeland security. The idea that the country is being overrun by "terrorists" in "the thousands" from Central America and Mexico is a lie. But this conversation and discussion isn't about "illegals." No one that I observe is advocating for open borders or amnesty for everyone who manages to cross the border regardless of how, that's another Trump lie. This conversation is about global refugees who are, under existing US law, able to enter the country and stay until their request for asylum has either been approved or denied.

As I said before, the analogy of having someone homeless come into your house is a false one. This is a democratic republic, a nation "of, by and for" its people. It's not just your house, it's the people's house collectively. Laws are made and passed by those elected who represent the will of the people and current laws allow for individuals to come to the US and remain in the country while applying for asylum as refugees. Refugees do not always have the luxury of being able to assemble all of their papers and documents and get visas before they flee, in most cases for their lives. So they do not always have the luxury of presenting themselves at a border crossing and asking for permission to enter without documents. Trumps actions and executive orders are going against the will of the people as reflected in current immigration laws, and in the court rulings that have put a stop to his bigoted, ridiculous executive orders.

What number is too many? Jordan, a county with 10 million people, a GDP of just under $100 billion, has taken in about 1.5 million Syrians. Refugees are, for the most part, limited by geography. Any Syrians who came to the US seeking asylum would have to find a way to get here. I doubt we'd ever have to consider more than the 60,000 proposed by Clinton. I know an Orthodox church in Pennsylvania that worked to bring 10 families here, getting them out of ISIS controlled territory. They don't cost the government a dime, the church raised the money to support them, helped them find housing and jobs to earn a living. Shouldn't be a problem if the economy is booming like Trump says it is.

Your use of the term "stupid" is inappropriate. My contention that this is a sanctity of life issue is based on fact. Refugees, in most instances, are in mortal danger when they flee. What number of abortions is low enough to be acceptable to pro-lifers? Or are unborn Americans simply worth more in the value of life than Syrian or Honduran refugees?



SMH
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:14 am

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest