Thoughts on Sanctuary Churches

[joeybaggz]

If you are referring to China, our economic relations are as much a matter of national security as it is trade. A billion and a half people with no work, without hope of leading a better life with a job even if it is low wage, may be convinced to pick up a gun and take what they want. By making China a more ‘capitalistic’ consumer oriented society helps make the threat of armed conflict more remote. A people who have a decent place to live, a job, and amenities as found in the west, are not likely to want any armed conflict.
Just a thought.

 

[Arkansan]

Why should we screw over our own working class to keep the Chinese government stable?

 

[pnewton]

The Church is the Body of Christ in the world, being the hands of Jesus to those in need. One of the admonishions in Matthew 25 is helping the stranger. It is part of our mission. Offering sanctuary, even for a short time, is part of the mission of the Church. I see long term sanctuary as unsaleable though. No parish is an apartment building. The spiritual needs of the parish are the paramount concern.

I would flatly refuse to cooperate with any law enforcement that attempted to violate this sacred mission, even though I have reported a whole lot of folks to ICE when the situation warranted it.

 

[phil19034]

While I’m not personally a fan of any group hiding illegal immigrates who are facing deportation, I do support the idea that a Church should be a sanctuary for anyone in there. Meaning, under normal circumstances, law enforcement should not enter a Church to arrest someone who is peacefully in there (unless the clergy ask law enforcement to remove an individual or individuals).

This should not just be for illegal immigrants, but even murders, etc. Any wanted criminal should be able to pray as long as possible and receive the sacraments in Church without disruption.

God bless

 

[joeybaggz]

Why should we screw over our own working class to keep the Chinese government stable?

Maybe because we don’t really want a hundred million of them coming ashore at Santa Monica beech carying AK 47s ???

 

[Arkansan]

I think it’s safe to say that we’ve moved into the realm of paranoid fantasy here. Unemployed people in China aren’t going to spontaneously acquire machine guns and move across the ocean to attack us.

 

[joeybaggz]

Fantasy?? All throughout history, starving, deprived people have easily been convinced to forcibly take what other have and won’t share. When you have nothing to lose…

 

[Arkansan]

Instability in China could theoretically result in an overthrow or rebellion against the Chinese government.

You still haven’t explained why we should sacrifice the good of our people to prevent that from happening.

 

[joeybaggz]

Peasants with sticks and rocks against the Red Chinese military. Now who is delving into fantasy?

Didn’t really intend to offer a macroeconomic explanation. However, it is in the best interest in a free trade economy to have as many trading partners as possible. And it is to the benefit to have those trading partners affluent as a nation. Much of the loss of American jobs can be traced to mostly Democratic (party) laws passed restricting business and forcing corporations to raise prices and become untenable in the marketplace. Add in the unrealistic demands of labor unions and is it any wonder that company after company decided to close up shop in the U.S. and manufacture in countries where labor is cheaper and the company’s products are thus competitive in the marketplace?
My hometown of Pittsburgh is a great example. In the mid to late 70’s steelworkers in the large open hearth mills were demanding upwards of $32.00 per hour. In Korea, they were making steel by paying $1.50 per hour, American. Is it any wonder the steel industry went to hell in the Burgh? And that happened without shipping one American job to Seoul.
Like it or not, this is a global economy and a global marketplace. It is up to the individual to adapt and thrive. Just sitting on one’s a** and moaning about the situation doesn’t do any good. And the government trying to orchestrate the market is a disaster.

 

[Arkansan]

Peasants with sticks and rocks against the Red Chinese military. Now who is delving into fantasy?

Chinese peasants rising up and starting conflicts was your scenario.

Didn’t really intend to offer a macroeconomic explanation. However, it is in the best interest in a free trade economy to have as many trading partners as possible.

It’s to the benefit of wealthy corporations. The workers not so much.

My hometown of Pittsburgh is a great example. In the mid to late 70’s steelworkers in the large open hearth mills were demanding upwards of $32.00 per hour. In Korea, they were making steel by paying $1.50 per hour, American. Is it any wonder the steel industry went to hell in the Burgh?

It’s not surprising at all. That’s why we need to have trade protection.

 

[tstor]

Instability in China could theoretically result in an overthrow or rebellion against the Chinese government.

Of course. Or before it got to that point, China could become openly hostile. Cutting off economic ties with China would not only be disastrous for the US, but it would also be disastrous for China. Trade dependencies reduce hostility. If one very powerful country (China) were to be actively attacked on an economic level by another very powerful country (US) and there were no dependencies between the two, what would prevent confrontation?

You still haven’t explained why we should sacrifice the good of our people to prevent that from happening.

It depends on what you mean. Outsourcing jobs does not always hurt the US working class. In fact, it often helps it by providing cheaper products and better services. Of course, outsourcing can become a problem eventually. That has not only never happened, but it probably never will. There is always going to be a balance between jobs in a parent country and jobs that are outsourced, regardless of protectionist policy. Protectionism generally only hurts the working class.

 

[joeybaggz]

]It’s not surprising at all. That’s why we need to have trade protection.

I imagine you are talking about government backed trade protection. Well here’s an example of that.
In 1977 the American Automobile industry was being financially disemboweled by the Japanese. The suits in Detroit appealed to the Carter Administration for help. The democrats passed a law restricting the number of Japanese cars allowed into the United States. So what did Detroit do: Put more people to work building more cars to return to profitability? NO, NO, NO. Detroit simply built fewer car and charged more money for them.
A free market can only work when it is free of artificial efforts to control it. It is up to the individual to work hard, educate himself and be attractive to different opportunities. Highly competent workers will always be in demand. Relying on the government is simply economic whistling past the graveyard.

As to the Chinese peasant situation. The upshot of what I’m saying is starving, downtrodden people will eventually rise up and attack the perceived enemy. People with homes, jobs, full bellies, and entertainment outside work and home don’t want any armed conflict.

 

[joeybaggz]

It’s to the benefit of wealthy corporations. The workers not so much.

Wealthy Corporations are beholding to the stockholders. Where do you think pension money is invested? Your widowed grandma has a pension on which she can live because her late husband’s pension contributions are invested in the market through mutual fund vehicles that provide her a decent addition to social security.

 

[Arkansan]

Of course. Or before it got to that point, China could become openly hostile. Cutting off economic ties with China would not only be disastrous for the US, but it would also be disastrous for China. Trade dependencies reduce hostility. If one very powerful country (China) were to be actively attacked on an economic level by another very powerful country (US) and there were no dependencies between the two, what would prevent confrontation?

Military power is what generally deters hostile nations from attacking.

It depends on what you mean. Outsourcing jobs does not always hurt the US working class. In fact, it often helps it by providing cheaper products and better services.

People need jobs. they don’t need cheap iPhones.

The claim that products or services are better in quality because they are provided at a lower price is unsupportable.

I imagine you are talking about government backed trade protection. Well here’s an example of that.
In 1977 the American Automobile industry was being financially disemboweled by the Japanese. The suits in Detroit appealed to the Carter Administration for help. The democrats passed a law restricting the number of Japanese cars allowed into the United States. So what did Detroit do: Put more people to work building more cars to return to profitability? NO, NO, NO. Detroit simply built fewer car and charged more money for them.

I’m not familiar with that example, but the obvious response is that, if there’s an artificially low number of goods being produced, then other manufacturers (in America) will be incentivized to enter the market.

As to the Chinese peasant situation. The upshot of what I’m saying is starving, downtrodden people will eventually rise up and attack the perceived enemy. People with homes, jobs, full bellies, and entertainment outside work and home don’t want any armed conflict.

Hypothetical disgruntled Chinese peasants would be a problem for China’s internal stability. You still haven’t answered, why should we make our workers worse off to keep China stable?

 

[tstor]

Military power is what generally deters hostile nations from attacking.

Not when both nations have powerful militaries and powerful allies. A war between the US and China, for example, would prove to be pretty much crippling for both nations. Germany and Austria in WWI both recognized the threat of foreign militaries. They still went through with their decisions. And why not? They were self-sufficient for the most part. War would be costly, but they at least would have everything they needed. If Germany and Austria were economically dependent on Russia and France, then they more than likely would have been deterred.

People need jobs. they don’t need cheap iPhones.

It is odd that you chose iPhones as the example. People may not need cheap iPhones, but they certainly do want cheap iPhones. There is a consumer demand for cheap iPhones. People don’t need cheap produce, but there certainly is a demand for it.

Regarding the necessity of jobs, I agree. People generally need jobs to get along in this world. But they also want affordable products and services. There is a balance that has to be struck.

The claim that products or services are better in quality because they are provided at a lower price is unsupportable.

Well, no one said that. However, customer service generally improves with outsourcing. Many companies outsource their customer service providers to countries such as India because it is cheaper. As a result, they can employ more representatives to answer phone calls or send emails at a lower cost.

 

[Arkansan]

Not when both nations have powerful militaries and powerful allies. A war between the US and China, for example, would prove to be pretty much crippling for both nations.

Which is an effective deterrent to either starting a war.

It is odd that you chose iPhones as the example. People may not need cheap iPhones, but they certainly do want cheap iPhones. There is a consumer demand for cheap iPhones. People don’t need cheap produce, but there certainly is a demand for it.

I chose iPhones as the example because it’s representative of the sort of products we get from China. We don’t get food from them. Food is different in principle because people actually need to have it.

However, customer service generally improves with outsourcing.

Anyone who has actually interacted with outsourced customer service knows this to be false.

 

[tstor]

Which is an effective deterrent to either starting a war.

Historically it has not.

I chose iPhones as the example because it’s representative of the sort of products we get from China. We don’t get food from them. Food is different in principle because people actually need to have it.

While the report I am providing is a bit dated (2008), I believe it successfully refutes your statement. The US imports a lot of food from China. You are quite naive if you believe electronics is the only “sort of products we get from China.”

People may need food to survive, but they do not need cheap food to survive. Nor do they need so many options. But there is a high demand for cheap food and many options. So, the market satisfies those demands.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34080.pdf

Anyone who has actually interacted with outsourced customer service knows this to be false.

I know it to be true. 24/7 customer service, lower wait times, etc. I know we have all had the occasional long waits, but that is generally an exception. The biggest hitch is overcoming language barriers, such as accents, but that is hardly an issue for most people.

 

[PetraG]

Maybe because we don’t really want a hundred million of them coming ashore at Santa Monica beech carying AK 47s ???

I don’t think the Chinese want to invade the United States.

Ask yourself, after all: how much has China been into colonialism? It wasn’t for lack of ability.

 

[PetraG]

While I’m not personally a fan of any group hiding illegal immigrates who are facing deportation, I do support the idea that a Church should be a sanctuary for anyone in there. Meaning, under normal circumstances, law enforcement should not enter a Church to arrest someone who is peacefully in there (unless the clergy ask law enforcement to remove an individual or individuals).

This should not just be for illegal immigrants, but even murders, etc. Any wanted criminal should be able to pray as long as possible and receive the sacraments in Church without disruption.

God bless

This puts it very well. It isn’t as if the churches are physically going to harbor a lot of scofflaws indefinitely.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

That’s actually exactly what would happen. Every war ever fought, was fought over resources. We can either exchange them through trade or fight to take them by force.