I’m reminded of the entire Holy Family, Jesus, His mother Mary and Joseph,** seeking refuge in an inn. They could not find a room**.
They were not ‘refugees.’ They were travelers. They had a home, and left it only to go for the census. This is not a refugee at all.
Well actually the Holy Family
were refugees. Remember when they went to Egypt? That wasn’t just to bone up on a few choice texts at the Library of Alexandria and have someone paint quick portraits of them doing goofy things in front of the pyramids.
It is this kind of sarcasm and snark that is unbecoming of any of us as adults and especially as those who claim to practice the Catholic faith. It is belittling and insulting and really does nothing to move any conversation forward. Moreover, if you actually care about convincing someone of your view, I would suggest you’ll have better luck treating them with respect, instead of acting as if anyone who doesn’t agree with you must be a fool and worthy only of belittling sarcastic comments and eye rolls.
I am well aware they were in Egypt, and in fact was just discussing that with my son before I ever saw this thread. However, Sy Noe is clearly referring to the trip to Bethlehem, when there was no room in the inn and they couldn’t find a room. Every meme calling them ‘refugees’ has been of them in the stable, or her pregnant on a donkey. So if we want to talk about their stay in Egypt, why do we continue to talk about Bethlehem, which was clearly not a refugee situation?
Genuine security concerns in this kind of situation are understandable and an open door policy on refugees wouldn’t be necessarily very helpful for anyone; and while it may not actually make the threat of an attack somewhere worse, its reasonable to consider the risk that it might.
That said - especially given that Thanksgiving is around the corner which in essence marks a moment when a group of starving people pitched up in a place far from home and needed help from the locals (thank goodness the Puritans weren’t religious fanatics!) - a slightly more charitable attitude (though one tempered by prudence) might be called for…
Your first paragraph is the kind of conversation we should be having. These conversations–all over the internet, not just here–might actually be more productive if more people would acknowledge there IS a security problem, and that there are reasons the US has NEVER had an open door policy, that in fact, this is not about racism, but concerns that have always existed and informed our policies.
However, sadly, your second paragraph takes it right back to saying that it’s an issue of charity–of character. What I understand from your words is that a person of charity and character would let them in, and those who oppose it are of less character. This slides right back into personal attacks in place of discussion.
There are questions that must be answered that have nothing to do with mine, or anyone else’s character:
What is the way to be charitable AND prudent?
Where is the money coming from to care for these people until they’re on their feet?
Where are they going to live? Are there going to be jobs for them? If not, will we simply continue raising taxes on working Americans to feed them? How high can taxes be raised to feed more and more immigrants before we consider how ‘charitable’ it is to those who work more and more hours at the expense of their own children?
Why are we not crying ‘uncharitable’ over the Christians who were turned away and sent back to persecution and death? Why the difference?
Are the pictures showing hordes of young, buff men accurate? If so, where are all the women and children, and explain to me why the lack of them shouldn’t raise questions about whether these are really ‘refugees.’ If the picture is not accurate, then who is lying to us with this picture, and why, and what does the group of refugees really look like?
And ‘look like,’ has nothing to do with race or color. Upthread, it was asked, what if it was you fleeing your country. And this is what raises the question. If it were most of us, we would not be leaving our children behind. Men would not be fleeing and leaving their wives, children, mothers, and sisters to their fate.
If indeed 10% of them, or 5%, are deliberately infiltrated terrorists and we have a major bombing killing hundreds as a direct result, when we were told upfront it would happen–is that really charitable toward the men, women, and children who die in that bombing, that we decided we were willing to risk *their *lives? On what basis do we decide these lives are of less worth than those coming in?
Is it fair for a country or a family to take care of its own first?
This is the problem with just dismissing others as uncharitable. It cuts both ways. I’m not sure it’s ‘charitable’ to deliberately take such a big risk with others’ lives, either.
