Refugees — what position should Catholics take?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ratio1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a mess of refuggee situations…not every refugee sails across the Mediterranean for Heaven 's sake…
Hee is another case: first hand. Venezuela. They gather what the family may give to flee.
Here they have no garantors for housing. Stetching your hand a bit and then in time they will be able to move on…
When there is war or persecution,life is life and people all care for their lives alike…
Some may flee further ,some may not…
 
Last edited:
I think you are confusing economic migrants and refugees, as was mentioned above.

Anyone arriving to the US with refugee status IS here legally and, after processing, CAN work here legally. Refugees actually have to go through a lot and there are very specific criteria to qualify for refugee status. You can’t just sign up.

Undocumented immigrants who come for economic reasons are not the same, so don’t try to lump them all together. I suppose you could be referring to the refugees arriving by boat in Europe, which is a whole different issue. Doesn’t change the fact that those arriving with refugee status are legal and should be treated respectfully. They’ve already been through enough.
 
Last edited:
Arkansan said:
If someone voluntarily sells all their property to become an economic migrant, they are certainly responsible for their resulting situation.
Click to expand...
If you read more carefully you will see I was referring to those fleeing persecution. Even people with modest means can be victims of persecution with their very lives in danger. And that is the case for people fleeing Syria, for example, and other war-torn areas.
You did not understand what I wrote. Suppose that it is necessary that these people be given asylum in Europe, why can they not apply for admission from another part of Africa? Why must they illegally cross the Mediterranean?
Click to expand...
Unless you are living their lives you can’t possibly know what options a refugee has. Perhaps the road to a neighboring nation is controlled by their persecutors. Perhaps they can’t walk that far before starving to death. I don’t know because I’m not a refugee, and I doubt that you know either.
 
They were referring to the refugee camps. Now, I do think that the refugee camps need to be set up in a better way, so that refugees are not simply languishing, but I do think we can do that.

We certainly can’t bring in every refugee. Is it fair to spend a lot of our resources on a few?
 
The US should take in as many refugees as Saudi Arabia & Mexico do

we are trying to run a nation here (which btw is teetering on bankruptcy) not an orphanage
 
Last edited:
My point is that refugees were not planning to move to another country halfway around the world. So they are very different from immigrants, who made a plan and presumably prepared to go live in the nation they up up in.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Unless you are living their lives you can’t possibly know what options a refugee has. Perhaps the road to a neighboring nation is controlled by their persecutors. Perhaps they can’t walk that far before starving to death. I don’t know because I’m not a refugee, and I doubt that you know either.
Click to expand...
Because I can read maps, I know that it’s physically impossible to flee from Sub-Saharan Africa to Europe without crossing through other countries.
 
brian_custer said:
The US should take in as many refugees as Saudi Arabia & Mexico do
Click to expand...
I thank you God that I am not like that publican over there.
we are trying to run a nation here (which btw is teetering on bankruptcy) not an orphanage
Click to expand...
Even taking our debt into account, we still have the fourth highest average net worth of all the nations on earth. We are nowhere near as poor and most other nations.
 
Even within a family, resources must be allocated. Is it better to take care of a few refugees by bringing them here, or a lot of refugees in place?

Imagine it was your family member who was not cared for because other refugees were chosen to go.
 
Annie said:
Even within a family, resources must be allocated. Is it better to take care of a few refugees by bringing them here, or a lot of refugees in place?
Click to expand...
What is better? To spend $5,000 on a jet ski or spend $5,000 on improving refugee camps? You see the fallacy of excusing not helping refugees by framing the question as choice between that and other things?
 
This sounds different. Or at least to me,Annie
Yes.
If you read what Pope Francis wrote,it is also trying to integrate and respect the dignity of every person.
Yes,it has to be the best one can for those we receive.
But there is a saying,we know well from our homes experience: where three can eat,four can eat also…
And frankly,when one receives somebody,it takes moving the chairs a bit.
 
Last edited:
using $5,000 to pre-pay your mortgage, accelerate your car payment or fund YOUR OWN childrens’ college tuition

that is the best way i can think of to spend 5K

trust me; i’ve been there

charity begins @ home, shipmate…
 
Last edited:
oh, btw, the roof in my parish church is leaking

hmmm; if i had 5k burning a hole in my pocket (which i don’t have) ; should i give it to my pastor or “doctors without borders” ??

let me think on that for exactly one micro-second…
 
Last edited:
Sorry I’m not understanding your point.
Even if they have no prior preparation regarding language and culture etc are you suggesting that a reason to not accept them?

My parents were immigrants (not refugees) and they came to Australia with zero English and my mum still speaks very limited English to this day but that hasn’t stopped her from sharing the values of Australia or contributing etc.

Many immigrants have come to Australia without English skills so naturally even more so for refugees.
I don’t think that should be a prerequisite to accepting them and they can learn English once they are living in the new country.
It might be more ideal to help some refugees in their home country but is this always realistic or practical because if (for example) they come from Syria and their hospitals are always being bombed, or they are threatened to comply with the “ways of life” of Isis or be killed,then they are in a state of emergency and relocating to a safe place/another country may be the only immediate option.
I have heard that a lot of Syrian refugees would like to stay living in Syria if it was safe so maybe one solution would be temporary “asylum” in other countries while at the same time addressing the problems/violence/instability in their home country.

At the same time though I’m not sure how realistic this is either because who can say how long wars/fighting etc will go on for and uncertainty about citizen status etc can affect refugees mental health:(
 
Last edited:
The Catholic Church does not have an answer to all medical, environmental, or economical problems that happen in this world.
Obviously, we should help all people. But is it more helpful to give a man a fish or to give him a fishing rod. Should we bring everyone over from a country that is corrupt, or say enough is enough and force them to take a stand against their tyrannical government and be that needed change that their country needs. I guess it all depends on the situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top