Refugees — what position should Catholics take?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ratio1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Annie said:
We have a certain amount of money, we can spend it on 1/12th of the refugees or on 12/12ths of the refugees we have money for. How is that a false dichotomy?
Click to expand...
Because the pool of “fixed amount of money” is not fixed with regard to aid to refugees. It is fixed in total, which includes all other possible expenditures, including jet skis. So while you talk about taking money away from refugee camps to provide relocation services, you can just as well talk about taking money from jet skis to provide relocation.
 
Last edited:
The government is buying jet skis? If they are, I am sure it is for some purpose like life-saving or law enforcement.

We could of course take all the money we spend on welfare and social security and spend it on bringing refugees here, or cut the military to non-existence and bring all the current refugees here, but we might run out of money for the next set of refugees caused by the lack of military action against those who are causing people to be refugees.

I don’t think the government’s budget for jet skis is high enough to make much of a dent in the refugee problem.
 
If you were the parent of a daughter in that area, I would imagine you would raise the money by begging if you had to just to get your daughter out of the area.

Maybe there are some Nigerian priests near you? Sit down and talk to one of them. They can explain the danger and the evil that is ignored by the West.
 
Annie said:
The government is buying jet skis? If they are, I am sure it is for some purpose like life-saving or law enforcement.

We could of course take all the money we spend on welfare and social security and spend it on bringing refugees here, or cut the military to non-existence and bring all the current refugees here, but we might run out of money for the next set of refugees caused by the lack of military action against those who are causing people to be refugees.

I don’t think the government’s budget for jet skis is high enough to make much of a dent in the refugee problem.
Click to expand...
Another false dichotomy. We as a people decide (somewhat arbitrarily) how much of our money we allocate to our government. Jet skis purchased privately mean less money we are willing to let the government use to aid refugees. We cannot abdicate responsibility for what our government does.

Also, much of the money to help refugees relocate is already available privately. The only thing standing in the way of their using it is the law.
 
Last edited:
Yet, no one can fish when the pond is surrounded by anti-personnel mines and there are bandits with machetes ready to rape you then chop off your hands.

Seriously, there needs to be greater understanding of what real life is for those living in this sort of danger.

Refugee camps are often attacked, they make an easy target for those set on genocide.

Talk to the Cuban refugees who have made it to Florida and have a wonderful community there.
 
Are you suggesting that every Nigerian family has a right to refugee status, simply because there’s a terrorist group active in their country?
 
I am suggesting that there are conditions in Nigeria that cause people to flee and become refugees as one example. There are conditions in Rwanda and in the Congo and on and on. Not every person in these countries will seek asylum as a refugee, but, one estimate is 1/3 of the people running for their lives live on the continent of Africa. http://internal-displacement.org/library/publications/2016/africa-report-2016/

What about Cuban refugees. During the Cold War, a Cuban simply had to make it to the US and they were granted refugee status. That law was changed by President Obama https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R44714.pdf

This thread has been eye opening to me, I did not realize that the anti-immigrant contingent of the Republican party was also anti-refugee. Trying to wrap my head around the poster who said they would put money toward college tuition before helping those who flee for their lives. I’m literally out of words.
 
Arkansan said:
Are you suggesting that every Nigerian family has a right to refugee status, simply because there’s a terrorist group active in their country?
Click to expand...
Straw man argument - exaggerating your opponent’s position to make it easier to attack.
 
Last edited:
As Catholics - HELPING refugees is important.

But helping refugees doesn’t have to mean permanently moving them to the United States or another nation.

Most refugees WANT to go back home. Helping refugees should include the following:
  1. give them SAFE shelter with food & clean water, etc - if possible in their own country
  2. help to end the crisis that is causing a refugee problem
  3. help them rebuild their homes and communities
  4. help them move back home.
Too often, nations in the West focus only on point #1, ignoring everything else.

So for me, we should be focused on the ENTIRE refugee “cycle” instead of just point #1
 
Last edited:
ratio1 said:
I never know what to think when it comes to refugees. It’s just too hard a question.

So for a first world country:

Obviously refusing to take any refugees at all is a bit cruel. But taking anyone who comes will cause problems. So I’m guessing the answer is somewhere in the middle. But where do you draw the line?

Appreciate your thoughts and comments.
Click to expand...
The UN Agreement on Refugees lays all this out and I believe is in full alignment with Church teachings. This Agreement was drafted and signed following the massive chaos of global conflicts in the 40’s.

There is an obligation to help refugees, but that doesn’t mean you must allow them to move into your spare room. It depends on circumstances.

When there is a natural disaster we are obligated to provide food, shelter and medical care. This is usually best done in the proximity of their home. We should then assist with recovery and rebuilding, so they can move back home and get on with their lives.

When there is war, we are obligated to set up safe zones or refugee camps that provide the necessities. We should then work to stabilize the conflict so the refugees can again return to their homes.

When it comes to individuals who are being persecuted for their religion, minority status, or politics, we are expected to provide them a safe harbor. We then assess if their Govt is capable of protecting them from persecution, since it is primarily their responsibility. If their Govt is not so capable or outright supports the persecution, then we must work to find this group of refugees a permanent home either in our country or another that is suitable and safe.

Economic migrants should not be confused with legitimate refugees
 
Last edited:
However, aren’t refugees fleeing their own country because of war, famine, poverty, disease, and the like? If so, how can we help them where they are when living conditions in their own country are so intolerable, especially if their very lives are in jeopardy as in the case of Syrian refugees?

I’m not suggesting the U.S. has to take in every refugee from every war-torn country. We could not do that, although we probably could do more than what we are currently. As an individual, we can help financially or otherwise in whatever way we can afford (for example, contributing to Doctors Without Borders), and if we cannot afford to do so since we may be deeply in debt or on a fixed income ourselves, then we do not. Or if we are more moved to contribute to another charitable cause, even if only a little, we can focus on that. We do what we can.
 
Last edited:
“LeafByNiggle said:
FrancisPio said:
Obviously, we should help all people. But is it more helpful to give a man a fish or to give him a fishing rod.
Click to expand...
A fishing rod is only useful if he has a river he can fish in. I know you mean that metaphorically, but even if we extend your metaphor to more practical “fishing rods” it is often the case that there is no practical amount of training or tools you can give a person that make life possible where they are. What “fishing rod” equivalent would you suggest for the people of Ghouta?
@LeafByNiggle
I actually think this thread should be closed. I am not an economist and this forum should be about the Catholic faith not economics. I do not know the best way to deal with the poor is. I suggest going to a site that promotes the socialism, capitalism, or other economic ideas that fit what you think is best. I can’t say I know what’s best. Regarding fish and fishing rods rolls eyes I think you’ll find people are more likely to fish when they are hungry, when it comes to lakes, they should learn to farm. And what I mean by that is this is not a black and white topic. This isn’t even a Catholic topic. If someone is truly starving I give them money, if they want to buy drugs I’m not as inclined.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
As Catholics - HELPING refugees is important.

But helping refugees doesn’t have to mean permanently moving them to the United States or another nation.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone here is proposing that as the only solution, but just one of several alternatives.
Most refugees WANT to go back home. Helping refugees should include the following:
  1. give them SAFE shelter with food & clean water, etc - if possible in their own country
  2. help to end the crisis that is causing a refugee problem
  3. help them rebuild their homes and communities
  4. help them move back home.
Click to expand...
That is great if it is a real possibility. But sometimes a refugee decides “enough is enough. I don’t see how I or my children can live here.” and they do want, and in some cases need, to relocate.
Too often, nations in the West focus only on point #1, ignoring everything else.

So for me, we should be focused on the ENTIRE refugee “cycle” instead of just point #1
Click to expand...
That also depends on the circumstance. Sometimes it is not within our capability to substantially affect the political and social conditions in their country of origin. Imagine, for example, how we might go about doing #2-4 in Syria. Can you imagine what the response by Russia would be if we “took control” of Syria? Of course we should try. But after we have tried and if we have not been successful, then we can only do what we can do.
 
Well we should all help refugees, the operative word being all. So all the ‘safe’ countries in the world should help all the refugees. The problem (one of them) is that only some of the safe countries help so they are or could become over burdened.
I agree that the problem in the original countries should be fixed so they can go home but of course nothing is as simple as that.
I don’t live in my birth country and would go home in a heartbeat if it were safe enough and economically viable, but by the time it is if it ever is then half my life will be here and half there or more so, just like it would be for a refugee which causes more issues.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
However, aren’t refugees fleeing their own country because of war, famine, poverty, disease, and the like? If so, how can we help them where they are when living conditions in their own country are so intolerable, especially if their very lives are in jeopardy as in the case of Syrian refugees?
Click to expand...
I am speaking in generalities. It may be in some cases people, like the Jewish refugees who resettled after WWII, cannot return to their homes for the foreseeable future. There were many other refugees in postwar Europe who we helped in the location they were at. We can’t make a blanket statement that every refugee comes to USA. We can make a plan and take a certain number of those most in need or who have a support system in USA.
 
Practical solutions that benefit everyone and avoid scandal. That means specifically solutions that just don’t make people feel good or give them to a chance to virtue-signal about Islam.

The ones currently implemented are not that.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
However, aren’t refugees fleeing their own country because of war, famine, poverty, disease, and the like? If so, how can we help them where they are when living conditions in their own country are so intolerable, especially if their very lives are in jeopardy as in the case of Syrian refugees?
Click to expand...
They are fleeing their home, but often the conflict is very localized and refugee camps can safely be set up in the region.
 
FrancisPio said:
@leafByniggle

I actually think this thread should be closed.
Click to expand...
@LeafByNiggle
Catholics don’t live in a vacuum. Catholics need to know how to respond to society’s problems using Catholic principles. I don’t see why my thread should be closed. If you want to to discuss “Catholic Faith” then i’m sure there are other topic areas. But I really don’t understand why my topic of refugees does not fit with the topic of “social Justice” on this forum.
However it you feel some people here are going off topic, I’m happy for you to tell them to go away. But don’t close my thread!
 
meltzerboy2 said:
However, aren’t refugees fleeing their own country because of war, famine, poverty, disease, and the like? If so, how can we help them where they are when living conditions in their own country are so intolerable, especially if their very lives are in jeopardy as in the case of Syrian refugees?
Click to expand...
Good post.

Perhaps they are looking for greener pasture? It is intolerable in their country and region, and maybe they just want to start a new life in a place where their future is more ascertained. Question is, does that count as refugees?

Refugees need not have to go to places many thousands of miles away but in nearby sorrounding, temporarily, until such time they can return to their country.

If the refugees should be managed in that way, which your suggestion seems to indicate (by facilitating them) then they do not need to come to the U.S. or even Europe. Money can be used to set up refugees camps with all the necessary facilities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top