The proper course is to accept refugees subject to checks to rule out or minimize the possibility that those claiming to be refugees are in fact not. Some countries, in accepting irregular arrivals (refugees) at their borders, detain such persons pending security checks and other investigations to confirm they are in fact refugees. That is sensible. The same cautions can be applied when accepting refugees via the UNHCR.I’m curious to what your opinions are on this as of right now. On one hand, we have reason to believe that any of these Syrians could cause a terrorist attack, while on the other… they are refugees.
How do you feel about this?
Would you fly on an aircraft that “allows” Moslems / Syrians to also fly? One wonders where the thinking underlying your post will lead.I agree with you. Don’t take them in. There may be only one or two bad apples in the barrel, but all it takes is one or two bad apples to spoil the entire barrel.
Here is my study of the moral dilemma. I welcome constructive thoughts!!
Seems most fall into one of two camps:
1.) HELP refugees — regardless of the unintended consequences
2.) DON’T HELP refugees — b/c very real consequences exist
Both sides agree upon the “ACT” and “INTENTION” font*. Since both sides agree upon the “ACT” and the “INTENTION”; then the division is over the third font, (aka. “CIRCUMSTANCE”). The circumstance is settled by determining if the reasonably anticipated positive outcomes outweigh the reasonably anticipated negative outcomes.
What is reasonably anticipated?
*]Grass-root Terrorism
*]Immediate suffering of refugees
*]Economic cost, cultural effects, social welfare strain, etc. Are probably remote effects given refugees < 500,000.
We can be reasonably certain some level of unintended consequences will arise. Some levels of grass-root terrorist activity is reasonably certain, although major terrorist activity is uncertain. On the flip-side, we are beyond reasonably certain that immediate suffering is taking place.
***My take: Given the reasonably anticipated outcomes, can Christians ignore immediate suffering due to the possibility that a negative consequence may later arise from it? No, we must help the refugees although there is likely to be negative consequences later from the action. ***
*What do I mean by both sides agree upon the ACT/INTENTION? Both sides agree the act of helping someone in desperate need is a good action and both sides intend for the good to occur, not the bad outcome.
An attack on one member of NATO is an attack on all of NATO. France was attacked and its president has said that his country is at war with ISIS. Consequently, all of NATO is at war with ISIS.I’m curious to what your opinions are on this as of right now. On one hand, we have reason to believe that any of these Syrians could cause a terrorist attack, while on the other… they are refugees.
How do you feel about this?
I understand. It is more in relation to US as you explain it .The US never accommodates refugees temporarily. We either take them in and let them live here or refuse them entrance.
ISIS has made it very plain that they want to commit acts of terror in the US. The only reason they haven’t done so since 9/11, with the exception of the Boston Marathon bombers, is because US security is so good. It is not, however, perfect. Young people, often no more than children, are radicalized in a matter of weeks, and even their families are totally unaware of what is happening. The Internet has made it easy for them. Once here and radicalized, they could go into hiding just as they did in France and Belgium.
I hate to say it, but I am against taking them in, and I do live in one of the 27 (so far) states whose governor says he wants no more Syrian refugees in his state.
A no-fly zone is not really the answer to what is happening on the ground. ISIS is not bombing people from the air.An attack on one member of NATO is an attack on all of NATO. France was attacked and its president has said that his country is at war with ISIS. Consequently, all of NATO is at war with ISIS.
Now, is it really the case that the 28 nations of NATO cannot create a no-fly zone in Syria and provide a flood of humanitarian assistance directly to the refugee camps that could be established in that safe haven?
So, we can and should do all that we can to assist the refugees by providing security and supplies…but we do it over there while maintaining our own security over here.
My apologises, I was thinking of people like Jihadi JohnnyThat isn’t known. Only three of the seven dead have been identified, as far as I’ve read. Two of those three were from Syria and Egypt. One was a resident of France, but that hardly makes him “homegrown.” The eighth individual, the one still alive was from Belgium, but hardly “homegrown,” whatever we take that to mean.
That makes two out of four that were “refugees” with four yet unidentified.
If you had a bag of skittles and knew that there might be a skittle that’d make you sick somewhere in the batch of 10k bags it was with and you have a moral obligation to eat them would you consider doing it?I feel our government has an obligation to protect our citizens first and there is no way to screen these refugees. They need shelter and aid there, not here.
If you had a bag of skittles, and you knew one of them was poisoned and would kill you, would you be confident enough to eat out of the bag? I would not.
I think the current administration is trying to actively destroy our country and I pray God will protect us and help us get through this. I pray that our country survives to see another President who will pull us through this mess.
Actually it has been shown that people who flee religious violence are much less likely to be radicalised than people who are converts or came so young that they don’t remember it.I think this is an important point. If it is relatively easy for ISIS to recruit thousands of “radicalized” Islamists from western countries, why would we think that recruiting radicals from cultures which are traditionally Islamic wouldn’t be much easier?
This point made earlier about “home grown” terrorists is a bit confused, I think, because if “home-grown” individuals can do this to their own people in those “home” lands, why a presumption that millions migrating into foreign and alien, to them, countries wouldn’t be more likely to commit terrorist acts?
For every “home grown” terrorist, shouldn’t we expect a number of foreign born ones? And if we have a problem preventing those who are born and raised in a western culture from becoming radicalized, why expect those who come in from a radicalized culture to NOT be?
I quoted your post, but many people have said the same thing.Like Obama has said, to refuse them due to Islamophobia is to show fear. I personally don’t mind them coming in, as long as there are strict background checks. I love all people and I will be more than happy to help them.
We do have an obligation to help. We do *not *have an obligation to bring them here (US) or to let them in.My apologises, I was thinking of people like Jihadi Johnny
If you had a bag of skittles and knew that there might be a skittle that’d make you sick somewhere in the batch of 10k bags it was with and you have a moral obligation to eat them would you consider doing it?
We have a moral obligation to help refugees and the fear that some of them might possibly attack the US in some capacity does not override our Christian obligation to help them.
Actually it has been shown that people who flee religious violence are much less likely to be radicalised than people who are converts or came so young that they don’t remember it.
We must also remember that the West not helping Syrian refugees helps Daesh.
vox.com/world/2015/11/17/9747042/paris-attacks-isis-refugees
I agree that is a great long term goal. But it would be several years before that goal is reached.I don’t think anyone wants to turn his or her back on Middle Eastern widows and children, but I think we should concentrate on making their homeland safe for them, not bring them here…
Seriously? We’re talking about women, children, sons, men, torn from their country, having lost many loved ones to violence, and that would be your suggested Catholic response to caring for them? You’re casting judgment on them out of fear from actions taken by those who have chased these same people from their homeland. We share the same enemy here.What if we were to lock them all in a maximum security prison? This is not a joke. Until we know for sure that they aren’t associated with terrorism or plotting terrorism, keep them locked up somewhere if we take them in.
This might be true if it were not for the fact that now ISIS is using the “fleeing” of refugees as a cover for exporting the violence into the countries that are accepting refugees. The question is, “To what extent is ISIS doing this?”Actually it has been shown that people who flee religious violence are much less likely to be radicalised than people who are converts or came so young that they don’t remember it.
Right. There seems to be a disconnect between those who are clamoring to have this be a Christian nation, and their choices in which Christian principles to apply. We either have faith and trust in our Lord, and follow his teachings, or we don’t. Can’t have it both ways. If we pick and choose, this is where we becoming vulnerable.Man, why can’t we just well, not be afraid? I don’t know where y’all get your news from, but if it’s CNN or any American brodcasting system, keep in mind that they are not telling the entire story of the situation. Look at the Jews during the Holocaust. There were many people who wanted to immigrate to the U.S to get away from Hitler but they were turned back or were not granted permission into our nation-keep in mind that American was Anti-Semitic at the time, just like how Conservative America is Islamophobic. They ended up getting killed later. It’s sad really.
Stereotype threat is a dangerous thing. ISIS wants us to shun Muslims from society and to look down on them. It would leave them at a dilemma, having only two choices: leave the faith or radicalize. Helping these refugees assimilate into society will counter ISIS. Many of Westerners state that Muslims seem to only assimilate within themselves- it’s because Middle Eastern culture is collectivist. It’s a cultural psychology term which means that the community is like a family, everyone looks after the community and they help each other out. It’s not that they aren’t willing to “integrate”. Look at Malala Yousafzai. She is a Muslim who won the Nobel Peace Prize and is an advocate for peace. She seeked asylum and is living in the UK. I would never ever consider her a terrorist.
If we DON’T “pick and choose” then we make ourselves indistinguishable from the “blind leading the blind.”Right. There seems to be a disconnect between those who are clamoring to have this be a Christian nation, and their choices in which Christian principles to apply. We either have faith and trust in our Lord, and follow his teachings, or we don’t. Can’t have it both ways. If we pick and choose, this is where we becoming vulnerable.
We are also now talking about women suicide bombers.Seriously? We’re talking about women, children, sons, men, torn from their country, having lost many loved ones to violence, and that would be your suggested Catholic response to caring for them? You’re casting judgment on them out of fear from actions taken by those who have chased these same people from their homeland. We share the same enemy here.