Jewish Refugees vs Syrian Refugees

[RunMan]

So there are a lot of people who support banning all immigrants from places like Syria, Iraq, and other war-torn countries. Most of these people are in desperate need of refuge and help. Does the US have a moral obligation to help these people out? Would these same people have supported banning all Jewish immigrants from Germany and Eastern Europe during World War II and the late 30’s? Are these two issues connected or the same at all and how do you not compare the two? Just a question I was having trouble answering and thinking about.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Every nation has the right to chose who they are willing and not willing to let in. I don’t think you can make a comparison between Jewish refugees during the holocaust and Syrian refugees, the situations are much different. This more or less sounds like a guilt tripping tactic.

 

[Lea101]

To be fair, you wouldn’t know. People would say that they would support Jewish refugees back then NOW, but if you go back in time, they might want them out as well. So that comparison can fail

 

[Hereiam]

don’t think you can make a comparison between Jewish refugees during the holocaust and Syrian refugees, the situations are much different.

Perhaps you are a Holocaust survivor and can speak of the situation of Jewish refugees in the 1930s and 40s, so if you are, you may chose to ignore this comment.

However, telling a Syrian that his miseries are “different” from those of the past doesn’t seem accurate or compassionate.

 

[JamalChristophr]

I think we can do it. I don’t know about the details, really. But Catholics, anyways, ought to welcome the stranger, particularly the refugee, I think. (within reason, of course.)

Fair disclsure: My father was Syrian. We’re a pretty decent lot, for the most part.

“I was a stranger and you welcomed me…” -Matthew, Last judgment

 

[CoeurRempli]

Not trying to guilt trip here, but the truth is those who didn’t want Jewish refugees would have made the exact same arguments. It is our right to decide. They do not fit into our culture, they can cause problems, take our jobs, leech off of society. I don’t see the difference.

By your argument, we shouldn’t help anyone, because there is always a possibility that they may take advantage. Anyone could leech off of society or become a terrorist. It could be a refugee, it could be one of your family members.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Not trying to guilt trip here, but the truth is those who didn’t want Jewish refugees would have made the exact same arguments.

Nope, you’re clearly trying to guilt trip, which is something liberals constantly do.

By your argument, we shouldn’t help anyone, because there is always a possibility that they may take advantage. Anyone could leech off of society or become a terrorist. It could be a refugee, it could be one of your family members.

Not at all, we need to look at each group, see what they contribute and if they’re good.

 

[CoeurRempli]

I’m sorry, but I think I know my intentions better than you do. I am simply making an observation. I have nothing to gain by making you feel guilty.

 

[redbetta]

I don’t think anyone opposes helping someone who genuinely needs help. But screening is a big issue, in addition to considering how well they can assimilate. A lot of the supposed child refugees that have gained entry into Europe are adults who lied about their age.

Besides, it is unreasonable for the US to absorb the world’s refugees. The quality of life in the US would drop to that of their countries of origin if we tried to. I think the best we can do is to help people to help themselves and put pressure on governments to clean up their acts.

 

[CoeurRempli]

I agree that screening is important and no country should be expected to accept anyone and everyone. But banning all refugees from a particular country is a poor way to screen, and making unfair generalizations about refugees is not very welcoming.

 

[ATraveller]

Once they leave Syria and end up staying in Lebanon, Jordan or Turkey, they are in safe zones. There are no obligations to take in Syrian refugees. However, many of those safe countries are also reaching their breaking points especially Lebanon.
Now it becomes a numbers game for other countries. How many? Also, why aren’t rich countries like the UAE or Qatar taking in their fair share of refugees? Or the Saudis or Iranians who have been stirring things up? Then you run into another issue, do they stay permanently or do they have to return?

Now there’s a parallel in Bangladesh. I haven’t heard many calling for other countries to take in Rohingyas. I think that might be because the camps there are much better managed than in the above.

Would these same people have supported banning all Jewish immigrants from Germany and Eastern Europe during World War II and the late 30’s?

Who knows. We can guess 'til the cows come home.
I think many who don’t want any immigration from war-torn places have the right to express it and they aren’t by default racist. The thing is most people don’t want mass migration. It’s chaotic and most people don’t like chaos. Many fear of a permanent change to their country’s culture so if assimilation is important then mass migration doesn’t help. Many don’t see Syrian culture as compatible with their Western country’s (or Japan, they accepted no more than 20 in the past 5 years IIRC because of that reason). With 9/11, there’s also a fear of letting in terrorists by accident. Some of the events in Europe haven’t helped assuage them.

 

[redbetta]

Are you serious? I wouldn’t you screen people about to enter this country?

 

[gcshapero]

Jewish Refugees and Syrian Refugees are two different subjects. The Jewish refugees were escaping tyranny from an outside source. Syrian Refugees may or may not be the tyrannical force itself and has many times backfired.

Much of Europe is paying for it. Rape and murder have gone up drastically. Ghettos have been propped up – and while the governments and the EU have implemented subsidies, the refugees have abused those subsidies. Sweden has become almost the rape capital of the world – many of the victims being young children. And speaking out against this there is considered hate speech and many times has resulted in fines and arrests to those who did speak up.

London’s mayor (who called terrorism “part and parcel to city living”) just implemented Knife Control because machete attacks have become so common (they already have gun control).

Poland has worked very hard to not bring in refugees until the vetting process is more under control.

We should pray constantly for all of them, because there is a lot of damage on that end.

 

[phil19034]

While one can make a comparison between Jewish Refugees and Syrian Refugees, the situations are different. It’s practically comparing apples and oranges.

1. The Jews were being deliberately exterminated by the evil Nazis. Then, after World War II was over, many people in Europe didn’t want the Jews to return, so many went to Israel and the United States.
2. With Syria, the people are not the primary targets, however, since you have a corrupt govt and many of the rebels are no better, there is fighting in civilian zones. So the people are being displaced. Most still relocated within Syria, but millions are being evacuated from Syria.
3. The Jewish Refugees were mainly that, Jewish Refugees. However, UNFORTUNATELY, Islamists from places outside of Syria are infiltrating the Syrian Refugee groups in order to plant sleepers in other nations. Many Islamist and Jihadist groups (ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc) see the refugee crisis as the perfect opportunity to invade Europe. And they are very patient. They see the refugee crisis as the perfect way to relocate enough Muslims into European nations, where they can eventually (due to birth rates) become the majority can turn several European nations into Islamic States though democracy.
4. When the Jews migrated to Israel, the Muslims and Arabs there saw them as an invading force. So in the minds of many Islamists, they are using the Syrian Refugee crisis to invade the West the same way they believe the Jews “invaded” their land.

Truth is, Europe handled the Jewish refugee crisis horribly after World War II; so they are tying to make up for it (esp Germany). But without proper vetting & planning, they are letting the situation get out of hand.

In my opinion, if the refugee situation was being handled correctly; it would be primarily women and children being resettled outside of Syria. However, it seems that there are far too many young adult men, in their physical primes.

My point: we DO have a moral obligation to help the refugees. But that doesn’t mean we can’t be smart and strategic about it. Women & children should be prioritized. Then, non-Muslim Syrians who are targeted for extermination by groups like ISIS.

Refugee camps outside of Syria should NOT be filled with 18-35 year old men. They should be filled with women & children. The young men should be resettled within Syria so they can be ready to rebuild their country.

God Bless

 

[blackforest]

Again, you’re attempting to guilt trip, as well as appealing to emotion to make an argument. The simple fact of the matter is is that each nation has the right to decide, and there is no moral obligation for countries to have to open their borders to these people who could potentially cause many problems within a country perhaps unless there is systematic genocide.

Well, we’re each responsible for our own emotions, and I’m seeing a moral case being laid out, not a “guilt trip.” As somebody who works in the trenches of refugee resettlement, I would make the case that it’s morally wrong in every way to send families back to to see their children sprayed with bullets “just in case” the U.S.'s rigorous vetting process missed something evil about them.

Take a look at some of the slums in Paris caused by these refugees, they look like the craphole countries these refugees came from (as our President says). It looks more like Pakistan than is does France. Paristan? Lol.

This is a failing of the French government, not the people they’ve let in. Paris has an egregious cost of living and housing crisis, and refugees not knowing the language usually must take on jobs that make it hard to pay the rent.

Some of these “refugees” like to leech off of society and do nothing, and they cause many more problems than anything.

Wait a moment. Either they work low-paying jobs and end up in “craphole” poverty or they’re “leeches?” It’s like they can’t win, or something.

Some become terrorist and shoot up whole blocks of cities, or ram cars through crowds. I don’t want that. Nobody wants that.

[/quote]

Where in the U.S. has this happened?

 

[Crusader30]

A nation has a right to accept anyone or reject anyone they choose.

I personally would only approve of my nation accepting Eastern Catholic or Eastern Orthodox refugees.

 

[blackforest]

Also, if the refugee situation was being handled correctly; it would be primarily women and children being resettled outside of Syria. However, it seems that the majority tends to be young adult men, in their physical primes.

Could you provide a link for this? The data that we’ve been given at Catholic Charities indicates that refugees are primarily families.

My point: we DO have a moral obligation to help the refugees. But that doesn’t mean we can’t be smart and strategic about it. Women & children should be prioritized. Then, non-Muslim Syrians who are targeted for extermination by groups like ISIS.

What about Muslim families who were targeted by ISIS? One Muslim family I work with nearly lost their 6-year-old when a mortar went off in their living room. Does his life value less than a Christian’s? Remember, this is a thread referencing the Holocaust, a time when lives of different people were considered expendable.

Refugee camps outside of Syria should NOT be filled with 18-35 year old men. They should be filled with women & children.

Can you provide evidence that these camps are “filled with” these young men? The 18-35 year old men are rarely alone, except when their families have been slaughtered. Young men in Syrian culture typically live with their families until marriage.

The overwhelming majority of terrorists come from Saudi Arabia, a wealthy nation that isn’t currently bleeding refugees. Where America's Terrorists Actually Come From - The Atlantic

My parish does so much for refugees that I’m a little baffled to read this thread from Catholics. Perhaps some of you would do best to take an example from His Holiness. Vatican Takes In More Syrian Refugees, Following Pope Francis' Lead

 

[blackforest]

A nation has a right to accept anyone or reject anyone they choose.

Nobody here will argue that they don’t have this right. This is a thread about whether they should, not whether they can.

 

[blackforest]

But screening is a big issue, in addition to considering how well they can assimilate.

Please tell me which specific component of the federal vetting process is falling short in your eyes.

Your arguments about assimilation were used against your and everybody else’s ancestors. Somehow our nation survived foreigners coming in. We always will.

Besides, it is unreasonable for the US to absorb the world’s refugees.

Nobody is demanding this. Plenty of other countries are taking them, as well.

 

[Crusader30]

I honestly don’t think that they should too much of a risk of allowing ISIS inside their borders