You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
Son_of_Niall
Guest
While right-wing Catholics support deporting them back to a war zone.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Do ypu have any evidence for this? Or did you just learn about hyperbole?While right-wing Catholics support deporting them back to a war zone.
S
Son_of_Niall
Guest
Go to the CAF search engine. Type in ‘refugees’. Enjoy.Do ypu have any evidence for this? Or did you just learn about hyperbole?
S
St_Francis
Guest
While many believe that allowing “refugees” into a country willy-nilly, with insufficient vetting, and in proportions which are mostly young and male, is imprudent, this does not mean that they want them to be returned to war-torn areas, but instead suggest that refugee camps be set up well, so that the people can be cared for but not be far away from their own homes and communities, as well as not creating burdens on nations which are ill-equipped to handle a huge influx of people unable to work in their country.Go to the CAF search engine. Type in ‘refugees’. Enjoy.
The fact that a huge proportion of the refugees entering Europe are young men is extremely problematic. Notice that they are not going to, nor are they welcomed by neighboring ME nations.
O
openmind77
Guest
I don’t notice any such thing.…Notice that they are not going to, nor are they welcomed by neighboring ME nations.
Lebanon has taken in over a million refugees, Jordan has 600,000 (and these are small countries), Iraq itself has received over 200,000 Syrians while having refugees of its own, Egypt over a 100,000, Turkey 1.8 million and Saudi Arabia has taken in 500,000.
Canada - 25,000 in 2 months
USA - still debating about receiving 10,000 over 12 months
S
St_Francis
Guest
You are absolutely right: I should have stated that more clearly. There are Certain ME Nations which are not taking in refugees.I don’t notice any such thing.
Lebanon has taken in over a million refugees, Jordan has 600,000 (and these are small countries), Iraq itself has received over 200,000 Syrians while having refugees of its own, Egypt over a 100,000, Turkey 1.8 million and Saudi Arabia has taken in 500,000.
Canada - 25,000 in 2 months
USA - still debating about receiving 10,000 over 12 months
And that was a bad point anyway; I should not have made it.
And the news reports about these nations may also be wrong.
So that was a bad point for me to make, and I apologize.
O
openmind77
Guest
Yes, certain countries are not taking any refugees - mainly Israel.You are absolutely right: I should have stated that more clearly. There are Certain ME Nations which are not taking in refugees.
And that was a bad point anyway; I should not have made it.
And the news reports about these nations may also be wrong.
So that was a bad point for me to make, and I apologize.
S
St_Francis
Guest
However, I would still argue that taking in refugees may not the best solution for anyone.
For example, the refugees that the US takes in are “certified” refugees. They get certified in UN–run refugees camps. Unfortunately, Christians and other non-Moslems feel threatened at those camps and tend to avoid them, resulting in a much higher percentage of Moslems being considered refugees than the situation would call for.
As to refugees themselves, looking at them in a generic way, no consideration of religion or anything, is re-locating a large number of people into a nation which is completely foreign to them a good idea? Sure, people emigrate/immigrate all the time, but they are people who have chosen to leave where they are and to go somewhere else. They have made the decision to accept the difficulties of being in a foreign place, etc.
The refugees may decide that being in a cold foreign country would be better than living in a badly-run refugee camp, but had they previously ever considered emigrating? Quite possibly not. They may have been perfectly happy being where they were, until a war or ISIS arrived on their doorstep.
It is not easy living, raising a family, adjusting to living in a foreign country. Your children grow up speaking in a way you cannot understand so it is hard to keep up with what they are doing.
There are times when the children who pick the language up faster than the parents have to act as interpreters for their parents, and this is not good family structure.
In addition to the adjustments, there is a question of the future. Do the refugees, who by definition are supposedly only temporarily in the state of needing help, work on making a new life in their host country? Or do they await their return to their native land?
How will the refugees adjust to being in a completely different country? How educated are the refugees? How qualified to work in the host nation are they? How long will it take them to become qualified, and how will things go for them in the meantime?
Then you have the host nation. Does the host nation have the resources to support the refugees until they are able to support themselves? Remember, many refugees were not planning to emigrate, and so did not prepare to live in another country, did not learn the language, did not get transferable education, etc.
What sort of plan does the host nation have to receive and care for the refugees? We see what is happening in Europe: long times in arrival centers, little housing stock, etc.
Dumping people here and there is not really a good plan, but that seems to be what is happening at various rates in receiving nations.
I can most certainly see better plans, even better plans for receiving refugees, than what is happening now, but we are about to see a huge number of people freezing to death as well as drowning as winter goes on and migrants keep coming. These are the main reasons I think that what we should be doing is to create good refugee camps rather than encouraging a deteriorating situation.
For example, the refugees that the US takes in are “certified” refugees. They get certified in UN–run refugees camps. Unfortunately, Christians and other non-Moslems feel threatened at those camps and tend to avoid them, resulting in a much higher percentage of Moslems being considered refugees than the situation would call for.
As to refugees themselves, looking at them in a generic way, no consideration of religion or anything, is re-locating a large number of people into a nation which is completely foreign to them a good idea? Sure, people emigrate/immigrate all the time, but they are people who have chosen to leave where they are and to go somewhere else. They have made the decision to accept the difficulties of being in a foreign place, etc.
The refugees may decide that being in a cold foreign country would be better than living in a badly-run refugee camp, but had they previously ever considered emigrating? Quite possibly not. They may have been perfectly happy being where they were, until a war or ISIS arrived on their doorstep.
It is not easy living, raising a family, adjusting to living in a foreign country. Your children grow up speaking in a way you cannot understand so it is hard to keep up with what they are doing.
There are times when the children who pick the language up faster than the parents have to act as interpreters for their parents, and this is not good family structure.
In addition to the adjustments, there is a question of the future. Do the refugees, who by definition are supposedly only temporarily in the state of needing help, work on making a new life in their host country? Or do they await their return to their native land?
How will the refugees adjust to being in a completely different country? How educated are the refugees? How qualified to work in the host nation are they? How long will it take them to become qualified, and how will things go for them in the meantime?
Then you have the host nation. Does the host nation have the resources to support the refugees until they are able to support themselves? Remember, many refugees were not planning to emigrate, and so did not prepare to live in another country, did not learn the language, did not get transferable education, etc.
What sort of plan does the host nation have to receive and care for the refugees? We see what is happening in Europe: long times in arrival centers, little housing stock, etc.
Dumping people here and there is not really a good plan, but that seems to be what is happening at various rates in receiving nations.
I can most certainly see better plans, even better plans for receiving refugees, than what is happening now, but we are about to see a huge number of people freezing to death as well as drowning as winter goes on and migrants keep coming. These are the main reasons I think that what we should be doing is to create good refugee camps rather than encouraging a deteriorating situation.
S
St_Francis
Guest
And your point in mentioning Israel is…?Yes, certain countries are not taking any refugees - mainly Israel.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Sounds alright to me – so long as it doesn’t turn into an opportunity to “evangelize” people who already belong to the Christian religion, e.g. Syriac Orthodox, Maronites, and so on.
J
jediliz
Guest
That’s what i am afraid of…hopefully they are strong in their faith and if that’s the type of evangelizing, they aren’t swayed.Sounds alright to me – so long as it doesn’t turn into an opportunity to “evangelize” people who already belong to the Christian religion, e.g. Syriac Orthodox, Maronites, and so on.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.