Francis: Countries should accept only as many refugees as they can integrate

  • Thread starter Thread starter dmar198
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jediliz said:
Yeah, i wish he had said this before germany accepted so many…a lot less assaults would have happened.

How many are actually WILLING to assimilate is the question…
Click to expand...
Germany accepted so many immigrants because the powers that be hate German culture the same as they hate any other culture in Christendom. They know the migrants won’t assimilate. That is their plan.
 
exnihilo said:
Germany accepted so many immigrants because the powers that be hate German culture the same as they hate any other culture in Christendom. They know the migrants won’t assimilate. That is their plan.
Click to expand...
This may have been the outcome, but attributing this outcome as the motive seems very far-fetched speculation.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
This may have been the outcome, but attributing this outcome as the motive seems very far-fetched speculation.
Click to expand...
How is it far fetched? The French Revolution and communist revolutions had destroying Christian culture as a goal. Some political leaders are inspired by these ideologies. The real powers behind the politicians are inspired by basic Machiavellian motives of power and wealth. It isn’t far fetched at all.
 
exnihilo said:
How is it far fetched? The French Revolution and communist revolutions had destroying Christian culture as a goal. Some political leaders are inspired by these ideologies. The real powers behind the politicians are inspired by basic Machiavellian motives of power and wealth. It isn’t far fetched at all.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, consciously or not i think many political players do have that mindset. Hopefully sanity prevails earlier rather than later…
 
exnihilo said:
How is it far fetched? The French Revolution and communist revolutions had destroying Christian culture as a goal. Some political leaders are inspired by these ideologies. The real powers behind the politicians are inspired by basic Machiavellian motives of power and wealth. It isn’t far fetched at all.
Click to expand...
It is far fetched because there is no data to support your claim that German leaders who favor sheltering immigrants are doing so to destroy Christianity - instead of the more straightforward reason of human compassion. If you have data on what is motivating this act, go ahead and present it. With the Communists, we had data. It was right there in the writings of Karl Marx. Where is the data supporting your hypothesis?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It is far fetched because there is no data to support your claim that German leaders who favor sheltering immigrants are doing so to destroy Christianity - instead of the more straightforward reason of human compassion. If you have data on what is motivating this act, go ahead and present it. With the Communists, we had data. It was right there in the writings of Karl Marx. Where is the data supporting your hypothesis?
Click to expand...
Just because someone doesn’t overtly state his intentions doesn’t mean something is far fetched. You could say there is no evidence to support my claim. Of course that wouldn’t be true since the immigration itself is evidence. But it isn’t at all far fetched. Far fetched means to be beyond belief because it is improbable. This isn’t improbable as I demonstrated with evidence of past plans to destroy Christianity. You may not believe this is what is going on, but it isn’t far fetched.

It is like with Hillary and her emails. You aren’t going to find a notarized document laying out her plan to have a private email server in order to conduct illegal activities and avoid scrutiny. It is not often evil plans are sketched out. Communism and the French Revolution are likely the exception and not the rule.
 
exnihilo said:
Just because someone doesn’t overtly state his intentions doesn’t mean something is far fetched. You could say there is no evidence to support my claim. Of course that wouldn’t be true since the immigration itself is evidence. But it isn’t at all far fetched. Far fetched means to be beyond belief because it is improbable. This isn’t improbable as I demonstrated with evidence of past plans to destroy Christianity. You may not believe this is what is going on, but it isn’t far fetched.
Click to expand...
If you insist, I will restate my point by simply saying there is no evidence for your claim. Forget about “far-fetched”. I retract it. You claim is just unsupported.
 
Pathological altruism is delusional especially when there’s evidence that a policy has failed.

How many refugees are actually refugees fleeing war? How many are grateful that they have a safe location and a fresh start?

Look at Sweden. Look at Germany. Look at France and Italy.

Turning a blind eye to failure.
 
EIF5A said:
Pathological altruism is delusional especially when there’s evidence that a policy has failed.
Click to expand...
Calling something “pathological” does not make it so. And you did not present any evidence that the policy of welcoming the immigrant has failed, except to list off some country names, as if we are supposed to “just know” what you mean by failed. And as long as we are talking about this as a failed policy, I would ask what criterion you use for success or failure of an immigration policy? If the criterion is the economic success of the host country, with no consideration given to the welfare of the immigrant, I would not call that a very moral criterion. After all, the Good Samaritan was economically worse off for having helped the stranger beaten by robbers. But I would not say his personal policy was a failure. And judging by the way Jesus used the story, I would say Jesus did not think it was a failure either.
 
EIF5A said:
Pathological altruism is delusional especially when there’s evidence that a policy has failed.

How many refugees are actually refugees fleeing war? How many are grateful that they have a safe location and a fresh start?

Look at Sweden. Look at Germany. Look at France and Italy.

Turning a blind eye to failure.
Click to expand...
Pathological altruism, I like that.

So, I take the pope at his word and in the case of Islam if they like sharia law they can keep their sharia law some place that will accept their sharia law. NIMBY
 
stevegravy said:
Pathological altruism, I like that.

So, I take the pope at his word and in the case of Islam if they like sharia law they can keep their sharia law some place that will accept their sharia law. NIMBY
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, I did not come up with that term

en.metapedia.org/wiki/Pathological_altruism
Pathological altruism is sincere attempts to help others that instead harms others or oneself and where this harm could have been reasonably anticipated. It is often caused by cognitive and/or emotional biases that blind people to the potentially harmful consequences of their actions.
Click to expand...
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Calling something “pathological” does not make it so. And you did not present any evidence that the policy of welcoming the immigrant has failed, except to list off some country names, as if we are supposed to “just know” what you mean by failed. And as long as we are talking about this as a failed policy, I would ask what criterion you use for success or failure of an immigration policy? If the criterion is the economic success of the host country, with no consideration given to the welfare of the immigrant, I would not call that a very moral criterion. After all, the Good Samaritan was economically worse off for having helped the stranger beaten by robbers. But I would not say his personal policy was a failure. And judging by the way Jesus used the story, I would say Jesus did not think it was a failure either.
Click to expand...
You mean the violence, including sexual violence against women, that goes unreported in Sweden and Germany? The lack of assimilation?

Again, we’re not talking about all refugees/migrants. It’s about unregulated, “everyone is welcome, let’s get together and sing songs” mentality. It’s not practical. Not sustainable. It will only cause self-harm when left unregulated.

Very few countries, if any, can sustain the level of unrestricted immigrants pouring into countries, especially when they are at cultural odds.

Good Samaritan: ONE PERSON.

Current situation: Many, many, including those that seek to cause harm and displace the people and culture.
 
Trad_Catholic27 said:
In the United States we need to create strict immigration laws to keep out criminals

No nation is under any reason to accept a massive amount of immigrants

I am happy that the Holy Father Francis has made this clear hopefully the democratic party gets the message
Click to expand...
We don’t need new laws, we need to simply enforce our existing laws. And better vetting of immigrants entering to keep out criminals.
 
Isn’t this what the Pope has always said but the liberal media ran with “Pope commands Europe to tear down it’s borders”
 
stevegravy said:
Here what happens to criminal immigrants:

This stance on illegal immigration by Republican politicos and pundits is obviously light-years from the experience and position of many ordinary people. Take McCain’s oft-repeated trope of “living in the shadows.” Seriously? Illegal alien young people openly protest on live television, knowing they are not going to be deported. Millions visit emergency rooms for free, and wrangle food stamps, welfare transfers, school lunches, and all sorts of largess, all the while they live protected by “sanctuary cities.” And “living in the shadows” doesn’t deter them from committing felonies, given that even if caught, convicted, and deported, they’ll soon be back. Remember Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, the illegal alien deported five times, who murdered Kate Steinle? Or Angel Gilberto Garcia-Avalos, another five-time deportee who just this month started a $61 million fire in Sequoia National Park? He had just been released from the Kern County Jail, but could not be deported because of California’s lunatic sanctuary city law, which prohibits a sheriff from contacting federal agents.

truthrevolt.org/commentary/thornton-how-trump-happened
Click to expand...
The number is zero.
 
Vouthon said:
He said nothing about deporting desperate people.

Quite the opposite, he has labelled the Mediterranean Sea a “graveyard” for the number of fleeing refugees from Syria who have drowned there trying to get to Europe and characterised the failure to accommodate these people as being some sort of collective stain upon the moral conscience of Europe.
Click to expand...
How are the Italians and Greeks supposed to accommodate people who die on their way there? Those who are dying have not been deported, they are trying to get to Europe.
Of course, a country or a continent must exercise discretion about who we let in.
Click to expand...
But if someone is in desperate need and already living in our country, charity surely demands that we do not simply deport them.
Click to expand...
Do we starve them until they are put aboard a plane which we pay for?
Here is what the Pope said and did back in April about the European deportations:
Click to expand...
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/Pope-Francis-makes-provocative-trip-to-Greece-amid-EU-deportations/articleshow/51854526.cms
Click to expand...
From your linked article: *Hours before Francis arrived, the European border patrol agency Frontex intercepted a dinghy carrying 41 Syrians and Iraqis off the coast of Lesbos. The refugees were detained and brought to shore in the main port of Mytilene. *

Mytiline is in Greece. Europe is rescuing people who make a foolish decision to cross a large, rough body of water on overloaded boats and *bringing them to Europe, *not returning them to where they came from. The plight of people crossing the Mediterrenean is an issue separate from deportation.
 
In a related matter, it’s less than 3 weeks to New Year’s Eve. Wonder how that will go down in Germany this year. Will we see a repeat of last year, or will a massive police operation be required to make the refugees behave within the bounds of decency ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top