The morality of allowing Syrian refugees into the USA

  • Thread starter Thread starter AFerri48
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I do not support letting in the Syrian refugees into this country. They endanger our well being since terrorists are hiding amongst them. We already have terrorists in this country and the nations whose populations of Mohammedans is increasing due to immigration have to deal more with the threat of terrorism and violence. They also bring with them a false religion.
 
To be a fool is NOT Christian. When we have mass numbers taking advantage of compassion in order to carry out their nefarious goals, then precautions are IMPERATIVE.

You think the Vatican allows just anyone in? Go ahead and explain to me why that is. Why is there massive security following the Pope around? Why is there a “Popemobile” that is bullet proof?
I agree. Why is it okay for the President and the Pope and so many others to have security, to keep people out, but we as Americans are being told we’re BAD PEOPLE, heartless, cruel, not Christian, for following their example?

I have a couple of questions about this, which are not answered by simply calling anyone who opposes the refugees ‘un-Christian.’
  1. I’m seeing pictures of loads of strong, young men–no women or children among them. Are these pictures accurate, and if so, why are there no women and children among them? This does not look like any other group of refugees I’ve ever seen.
  2. Why is there so much castigation of anyone questioning the (apparently) Muslim refugees when no one ever questioned the character of those, including Obama, who would not let in the Christian refugees?
  3. Where is the money coming from to house and feed all these refugees? The United States has always had quotas and limits to how many refugees and immigrants it can accept, and it’s ONLY NOW that it’s suddenly become a question of whether it’s a ‘Christian’ issue or not. So how are we going to house and feed THESE refugees, which as I understand are in numbers far above our normal in-coming?
  4. Not a question, but a comment: I don’t entirely trust those who are unwilling or unable to discuss an issue without resorting to attacking another’s character. This is part of what sets me ill at ease about all these refugees: that the biggest argument FOR letting them all in, despite our limits on others and our rejection of Christian refugees, is, “You’re a terrible a human being if you don’t agree with it.” Yeah, I may suck as a human being. Maybe I do. That doesn’t answer the policy questions. I DO NOT TRUST politics and policies whose main support seems to be insulting someone else’s character.
 
So, you’re worried about the prospect of Paris-style mass murder? The same style of mass murder that happens practically every other week in the United States?

Fretting over the prospect of mass murder whilst ignoring the routine mass murder that takes place in this country is the height of selectivism.
I don’t minimize the fears of those who are rightly concerned about potential for violence by refugees; or those who claim America is a “gun culture” anyway. But keep in mind legal abortion is a much, **MUCH **bigger factor in the US or France than anything coming out of the Mideast, or much worse than all the gun violence in the US.

The media’s agenda is to keep our minds fixed on Mideast style terrorism, and on the so called American gun culture, but to also make us forget about abortion.
 
I don’t minimize the fears of those who are rightly concerned about potential for violence by refugees; or those who claim America is a “gun culture” anyway. But keep in mind legal abortion is a much, **MUCH **bigger factor in the US or France than anything coming out of the Mideast, or much worse than all the gun violence in the US.

The media’s agenda is to keep our minds fixed on Mideast style terrorism, and on the so called American gun culture, but to also make us forget about abortion.
Abortion is not the subject of this thread. HOWEVER, a little perspective is always a Good Thing 👍
 
Letting in thousands of people from a different culture into your county is irresponsible. It can cause utter destruction to a country. Let us also remember that this all wouldn’t be an issue if America didn’t parade around attempting to export democracy to other countries and brewing up sedition and revolutions.
Is this the voice of experience, or something else? Is the US ruined by its mix of cultures? Are there no successful immigrant nations?
 
What are your thoughts on this organized migration
Organized? Who organized it?
Why all of them (most of them) directed to Europe? How did that happen?
If you were in their shoes, where would you go?
Isn’t that a big question that is not being asked? I want you to think about that, the idea of the Trojan Horse strategy.
It is a possibility. The refugees from Syria receive more intensive scrutiny than any other group for this very reason. The only thing more we could do is to refuse all of them altogether.
I want you to also remember what 19 men did with out a gun. The point is that it does not take much.
And how many of those 19 men were refugees? It seems if we wanted to prevent another 9/11 you would sooner want to ban all student visas and travel from Saudia Arabia.
What is the point of all that? Well, it seems to me that IF this country (or any country for that matter) allows say 100,000 refugees in…
…we are only considering 10,000…
and 1% of them are indeed jihadists…
Where did you get the number 1%? Why not choose 0.02% instead? Remember, we currently do not let in all who apply. 20% of those recommended by the UN are currently refused by the US when screening is not satisfied. Is it not likely that most of the 1% or 0.02% would be included in that 20% that is refused? It seems we are currently refusing many borderline applicants just to weed out those bent on harm. How much more restrictive do you want to make the screening process? What do you know about that screening process that makes you so doubtful of its effectiveness?
Does it annoy you in any way when people of the Christian faith guilt trip us into making us think if we do not want this influx of mass migration that we are guilty of some kind of mortal sin?
First of all, 10,000 refugees into a country of 318,900,000 is hardly a mass influx. It is more like a trickle. (1 refugee for every 31,000 residents). If every small town took just one refugee, that would do it.

And no, I am not annoyed by those who remind us of the Christian duty of hospitality as expressed in the Catechism, paragraph 2241.
I for one am offended by people that would even attempt to guilt trip me with such tactics and use the old “eternal hell” threat. What arrogance. What absolute arrogance.
No one should tell you you are bound for hell, but most of the comments I have seen don’t do that. They just cite the Catechism. Do you find the Catechism offensive?
I am assuming here that the Lord does not want us to be fools and be manipulated in such ways.
Remind me again where that is expressed in Church teaching?
BTW, why hasn’t the world community or the mass media (all controlled by the evil one and that is scriptural) come down on Saudi Arabia for not utilitzing their 100,000 air conditioned tents that could house 3 million refugees that are currently empty?
Ah, the old “we may be bad but others are worse” cliche!
How in the world did this mass migration start? Why to Europe?
As I said before, where would** you** go in their situation?
Why are they condemning America, who gives more to charitable causes than all of the countries in the world combined?
Who is condemning America? I certainly am not. As for your other point, imagine the good Samaritan coming down the road and finding the man beaten by robbers, and saying, sorry, Bud, I gave to “Save the Cedars” last week and I am good for a while now!
They have flat out stated they will be attacking this country.
Not the same “they”.
 
As I said before, where would** you** go in their situation?
That would depend entirely upon having an adequate grasp of what “their situation” truly is and whether what you presuppose is “their situation” actually is, would it not?

On the surface of it, we have no good grasp of why they want to leave “their situation” to begin with, so why would we presume to put ourselves into “their situation?”
 
The focus should be on getting the refugees to return to their homes, not ship them half way around the world
  • we should provide food, shelter, medicine etc to the refugee camps
  • we should work with Syria’s neighbors to restore stability to the country, so refugees can return home.
 
That would depend entirely upon having an adequate grasp of what “their situation” truly is and whether what you presuppose is “their situation” actually is, would it not?
How adequate a grasp do you think is sufficient to believe that there are many people involuntarily displaced from their homes and have no reasonable alternative within Syria? I think the basic facts of the consequences of that war is pretty much understood by everyone. Are you seriously suggesting that all these refugees could reasonably stay in Syria?
On the surface of it, we have no good grasp of why they want to leave “their situation” to begin with…
On the contrary, I think “on the surface of it”, the situation is exactly what it looks like. It would take some extraordinary evidence to convince me of the extraordinary fact that this civil war and its consequences is just some grand deception.
 
The focus should be on getting the refugees to return to their homes, not ship them half way around the world
I’m sure lots of people have been focusing on how to end the civil war in Syria. If you have some magic solution, please call the State Department and tell them about it.
  • we should provide food, shelter, medicine etc to the refugee camps
And schools? And hospitals? And farmland? Even under the best of circumstances, a refugee camp is no place to raise a child.
  • we should work with Syria’s neighbors to restore stability to the country, so refugees can return home.
You think we are not trying to do that? Once again, if you know of a way to do it, please tell someone.
 
Is this the voice of experience, or something else? Is the US ruined by its mix of cultures? Are there no successful immigrant nations?
Right. The US already is a melting pot.

What does the Catholic Church mean by “unity through diversity?”
 
It is a dark and stormy night. You are home alone with your two children. You hear a knock on the door. You look thru the peephole, and you see a man standing outside. You ask him what he wants. He says his car has broken down and asks if he can come in to use the phone.

What would you do?
Better analogy: it is a dark and stormy night. You are gathered at the community hall with neighbors, some you know and some you don’t. You are feeling grateful that on a dark and stormy night a few years ago, when your family was starving after fleeing a potato famine, they knocked at the community hall door and someone opened it and let you all in.

Suddenly, there is a knock at the door. You look through the peephole and see a woman and her two children. They are hungry and scared. They beg you to let them come in too. What do you do?
 
Better analogy: it is a dark and stormy night. You are gathered at the community hall with neighbors, some you know and some you don’t. You are feeling grateful that on a dark and stormy night a few years ago, when your family was starving after fleeing a potato famine, they knocked at the community hall door and someone opened it and let you all in.

Suddenly, there is a knock at the door. You look through the peephole and see a woman and her two children. They are hungry and scared. They beg you to let them come in too. What do you do?
A woman and two children? No problem. But that’s not what my analogy was.
 
A woman and two children? No problem. But that’s not what my analogy was.
But your analogy was your private home–not a public place. Which is more akin to what most of our ancestors experienced.
 
How adequate a grasp do you think is sufficient to believe that there are many people involuntarily displaced from their homes and have no reasonable alternative within Syria? I think the basic facts of the consequences of that war is pretty much understood by everyone. Are you seriously suggesting that all these refugees could reasonably stay in Syria?

On the contrary, I think “on the surface of it”, the situation is exactly what it looks like. It would take some extraordinary evidence to convince me of the extraordinary fact that this civil war and its consequences is just some grand deception.
There is no “extraordinary evidence” that will convince you because you are not in the position to access that amount of evidence. The question is whether the indicators are sufficient to at least give the possibility a hearing – which individuals in power are loathe to do, at this time. Which raises the question of, “Why are they?”

There are people who do have access but are not being listened to and in fact are being discredited. Again, the question is why?

Give a fair hearing and then explain why the evidence ought not be at least given consideration and a fair hearing.

youtu.be/SCQWaV2hSwY
 
There is no “extraordinary evidence” that will convince you because you are not in the position to access that amount of evidence.
OK, then if I don’t have access to the evidence of an extraordinary situation, it makes sense to assume the situation is not extraordinary, that is that there are refugees who have been displaced by the civil war.
The question is whether the indicators are sufficient to at least give the possibility a hearing – which individuals in power are loathe to do, at this time. Which raises the question of, “Why are they?”
That depends on the cost of the hearing. If the hearing costs very little in terms of time and delay of assistance, then of course we should do it. If the hearing amounts to an indefinite halt to assistance to people whose lives are in turmoil, then the cost in terms of lives ruined is not worth it, and that kind of hearing should not stand in the way.
There are people who do have access but are not being listened to and in fact are being discredited. Give a fair hearing and then explain why the evidence ought not be at least given consideration and a fair hearing.
This video does not appear to be about the refugees of the Syrian civil war. If the speaker ever does get around to presenting evidence that the refugee crisis in Syria is not real, please tell me how many minutes in that is.
 
This video does not appear to be about the refugees of the Syrian civil war. If the speaker ever does get around to presenting evidence that the refugee crisis in Syria is not real, please tell me how many minutes in that is.
I will, very soon, do you the favour of transcribing the portions of the video to present his case in summary text form for you to attempt a rebuttal.

In the meantime, I will provide an alternative video (only 8 minutes long) that would seem to better fit your time and attention constraints.

The video is of Aayan Hirsi Ali, a young Muslim woman who was traumatized at the hands of extremists and who is now calling for the reform of Islam. Unfortunately, her efforts to speak at universities has been opposed by ostensibly “moderate” Muslims – a Muslim student association – who don’t want her to have any audience whatsoever. Her talk at Brandeis University was canceled because of the pressure from this group. Yet, if these “moderate” Muslims are really interested in NOT permitting the extremists to have the upper hand within Islam and if the extremists are not the true representatives of Islam, why are these supposedly “moderate” students continually putting obstacles in the way of allowing her to be heard? What is their interest in having her muzzled?

youtu.be/pEP_22dIUM8
 
But your analogy was your private home–not a public place. Which is more akin to what most of our ancestors experienced.
I think a far better analogy is that a nation is more like a living organism such as a human being or complex biological animal. The “cells,” tissues and organs of that body have integrity when they all work together for the good of the body. The components of the body must intend the same ends - the well-being of the organism in order for the body to remain healthy.

Notice that “discrimination” occurs when a biological animal brings into its body foreign substances – nutrients and such – that are used to build its body mass or assist in the processes of the body. SOME foreign bodies are determinably good for the body, while many are not.

Notice, too, that the body has a number of defensive systems that fight off dangerous foreign agents by promoting a constant vigilance in terms of not permitting dangerous foreign agents to breach the integrity of the body at all because – AND THIS IS IMPORTANT IN THE ANALOGY – even a small cut or bit of tainted food can bring in a tiny contingent of deadly bacteria or viruses that, once in, can wreck havoc on the cells and organs in the body.

There are antibodies and white blood cells that act as internal warriors to fight off viruses and bacteria and organs that clean out and expel these from the body.

But here is the rub…

For the immune system of any healthy body to function well, it must continually DISCRIMINATE between what is “good” for the body and what is determinably “bad.” That means, however, that what is good or bad MUST BE correctly identified as such when it is outside the body or inside, but that capacity to DISCRIMINATE must be present and effective or the body’s defenses will be breached.

Any living organism that has convinced itself that this kind of DISCRIMINATION is inherently bad is an organism exhibiting some kind of immune deficiency issue and will very likely succumb to even a small infection or infestation of some deadly foreign agent or other because it has lost the capacity to recognize what is good for it and what is bad.

When we have politician “cells” and networks whose main work is to convince every cell and organism in the body that to discriminate between good and bad is, itself, a “bad” thing, that would seem to be a sign that some kind of immuno-deficiency has become manifest.

And when politician and judicial “cells” – those cells whose main job is to protect and defend the body against foreign invader cells – go out of their way to silence and destroy the vigilant cells who are trying to warn the body of the potential danger of permitting noxious foreign agents into the body – and the entire body goes along like a well-heeled puppy – then it would seem the body, itself, has a full blown case of AIDS, would it not?

The telltale sign would be the insistence in the media and among the social and cultural elite that every kind of DISCRIMINATION is inherently wrong – and that it is ONLY some kind of PHOBIA that makes anyone even try to discriminate in the first place – thus leaving the body completely vulnerable since it cannot possibly distinguish what is good for it from what is bad. If every act of the body, every foreign agent entering the body, and every cell in the body (even the cancerous ones) are deemed “inherently good” by the immune system of the body and there are no distinctions to be made whatsoever because… well… THAT would be DISCRIMINATION then it would seem that the immune system of the body has been irreparably breached and disabled because the body has rendered itself completely defenseless.
 
I will, very soon, do you the favour of transcribing the portions of the video to present his case in summary text form for you to attempt a rebuttal.

In the meantime, I will provide an alternative video (only 8 minutes long) that would seem to better fit your time and attention constraints.
Don’t bother, because you are barking up the wrong tree again - i.e. changing the subject. Recall that this particular exchange goes back to my post 244, where I said

Where would you go in their situation?

at which point you challenged my knowledge of the “situation” the refugees find themselves in. I said it was clear they were fleeing a civil war. Rather than defend your admittedly indefensible claim that we cannot know they are in “that situation”, you are now apparently going back to an earlier exchange we had about moderate vs extremist Muslims. I guess we can talk about that again if you want, but first please admit that you were wrong to question why refugees would go to Europe, because that is where you would probably go to if you were in their situation.
 
The telltale sign would be the insistence in the media and among the social and cultural elite that every kind of DISCRIMINATION is inherently wrong – and that it is ONLY some kind of PHOBIA that makes anyone even try to discriminate in the first place – thus leaving the body completely vulnerable since it cannot possibly distinguish what is good for it from what is bad.
As far as I know, the media are not doing that. They have no problem with appropriate forms of discriminating against those that are breaking the law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top