The story of two people on one ferry - thoughts on privilege and refugees, etc

[creekland]

My youngest (currently doing a college trip/study in Greece) wrote this on his FB page yesterday:

 

The story of the cruise, and the refugees I met on board:

So we left the island of Ikaria yesterday aboard a small cruise vessel bound for Athens. On board were a few hundred refugees, mainly Afghani, going to Greece then Germany.

 

Noticing a large amount of trash on the decks, I offered to volunteer to help clean it up. What started out as picking up wrappers turned into handing out barf bags to passengers among the rows and hallways. In doing so I had the perfect opportunity to talk with a few using my mild Arabic skills and their mild English skills. The following story is of one family of twelve:

 

Asied, was born in Afghanistan, he went to Iran to study to be an ecologist. However, not being Iranian meant that Iran would not permit him to study there. After going back to Afghanistan, him and his family find it too dangerous to stay. So they left for Turkey. After hiking 16 hours through knee deep snow, at times wondering if their children had died of cold, they made it to Istanbul. After continuing to trek on to the coast, they found a smuggler who promised a ship to Greece. When it arrived, it turned out to be a12 meter boat. After getting on board, they turned around to notice the driver has abandoned ship, leaving them alone. Aseid took the wheel to find that it failed to work, 35 people were on rough seas going forward with no control. After the Greek coast guard found them and took them in, a Christian organization gave them blankets, food, and clothing. Eventually then they got tickets onto the ship where I met them.

 

I exchanged this story for a liter and a half bottle of water. They were all too eager to drink it. This is but one story.

 

Two people - same boat - such different lives - all due to the birth lottery really.

 

It really, really, really bothers me when people (esp Christians since we're told numerous times not to oppress or look down upon foreigners living among us) take advantage of others or look down upon them or turn them away or anything else similar.  No reason for those actions suffices for me.  One or two bad apples in the lot?  As if we don't already have some bad apples here?  One or two bad ones means we cast out the multitudes?  (Shudder)

 

I stand in awe of those who do so much just to try to give their family better options.  It's not just this one story.  It's a story multiplied from several world situations over the years.  I've seen others first hand at school.

 

I'll admit to wishing we'd won the Powerball last week...  Meanwhile we'll continue donating to education, medical, basics of life (food/water/etc), and Christian "good" causes as we can while trying to raise the next generation to be more aware of the world than just their little privileged section of it.

 

YMMV

[CindyH in NC]

Thanks for posting this. 

[maize]

Thank you for posting this story.

[TechWife]

Bumping because more people need to read this! 

[creekland]

Bumping because more people need to read this! 

 

Thanks.  I really wish more people could meet some who've taken similar treks and listen to their stories.  So far, I've mainly gotten to hear Bosnian and Hispanic kids relate what they've gone through - and middle son's first (planned) roommate who survived Rwanda's genocide only to die tragically one month before we got to meet in person (vs skype and fb).

 

If more people could meet others and truly listen or perhaps truly walk a mile in their shoes, I think our world would more quickly become a better place.  

 

Instead, too many believe and spread the "us vs them" propaganda totally overlooking that humans are humans.  It's almost solely the birth lottery that puts us in categories.  Too many reflect the "I've got mine - sucks to be you!" philosophy as if they've in some way earned their spot in the "winners" category.  Given a fair start, I wonder how many would stay on the winner's list.

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

This is one of many touching and heartbreaking stories about life in unstable countries and why people choose to flee.  

 

But I have never met anyone, anywhere who is unaware that refugees live desperate, dangerous lives, and are fleeing from even more desperate circumstances.  Are there really people out there who are unaware of this?  

 

I have also never met anyone who holds the sentiment, "Sucks to be you" regarding refugees.  I have met a number of people, however, who do not believe mass immigration/refugee welcoming is a long-term solution to any problem, and they have all been compassionate and coherent enough to defend their views in a humane way, whether I agree with those views or not.  Not welcoming refugees with open arms does not necessarily make a person cold and callous.  

 

Sorry, but I call straw man.  

[Ravin]

Had a FB argument recently with a BIL. As far as he was concerned, the refugees were NOT people like him. He thinks they are here to mooch social services and wilfully refuse to try to assimilate. News articles like the blogs this one refers to inform his understanding:

 

 

http://m.amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2016-01-19/blogs-stir-controversy-over-refugees#gsc.tab=0

Edited January 20, 2016 by Ravin

[Carrie12345]

This is one of many touching and heartbreaking stories about life in unstable countries and why people choose to flee.  

 

But I have never met anyone, anywhere who is unaware that refugees live desperate, dangerous lives, and are fleeing from even more desperate circumstances.  Are there really people out there who are unaware of this?  

 

I have also never met anyone who holds the sentiment, "Sucks to be you" regarding refugees.  I have met a number of people, however, who do not believe mass immigration/refugee welcoming is a long-term solution to any problem, and they have all been compassionate and coherent enough to defend their views in a humane way, whether I agree with those views or not.  Not welcoming refugees with open arms does not necessarily make a person cold and callous.  

 

Sorry, but I call straw man.  

 

Define "unaware".  Because, in my world, I'm not sure I see anyone who is devoid of awareness, but plenty who refuse acknowledgment.

 

I hear "sucks to be you" sentiments all. the. time.  In the context of mass migration, trickling migration, individual migration, and even American state-to-state/region-to-region migration.  It's a big reason why I hate people in general.

[Catherine]

The problem with compassionate people who claim they don't think mass migration is a "solution" (as if fleeing for one's survival could be considered optional) is that they offer no plausible alternative solutions.  

 

The people are real and are asking for our help.  That is the point.  Monica, what would you say to this man?

[creekland]

I have also never met anyone who holds the sentiment, "Sucks to be you" regarding refugees.    

 

Lucky you.  These types might be more prevalent in the US though.

[J-rap]

Amen!!

 

[creekland]

Define "unaware".  Because, in my world, I'm not sure I see anyone who is devoid of awareness, but plenty who refuse acknowledgment.

 

I hear "sucks to be you" sentiments all. the. time.  In the context of mass migration, trickling migration, individual migration, and even American state-to-state/region-to-region migration.  It's a big reason why I hate people in general.

 

I don't hate people in general.  I wish we could reach more with real education (not necessarily academic education).  I've seen the light go on in many once they actually "get it" and quit buying sound bites.

[Carrie12345]

I don't hate people in general.  I wish we could reach more with real education (not necessarily academic education).  I've seen the light go on in many once they actually "get it" and quit buying sound bites.

 

I'm working on my outlook. It's slow going.  ;)

[creekland]

I'm working on my outlook. It's slow going.  ;)

 

I'll admit there are people who frustrate me and make me wish we could do a cultural exchange program for a few months... let them truly experience that which they can't relate to otherwise.

[Bluegoat]

The problem with compassionate people who claim they don't think mass migration is a "solution" (as if fleeing for one's survival could be considered optional) is that they offer no plausible alternative solutions.  

 

The people are real and are asking for our help.  That is the point.  Monica, what would you say to this man?

 

Sometimes it is probably the case that there is no solution.  Or it would be - have a stable and humane government in Syria.  Well, that is easier said than done.

 

Accepting refugees, I think, does look a little different from a European perspective.  THose of us in North America are somewhat sheltered.  We in Canada have quite a few arriving at the moment, but it is essentially in our control how many they are, and who. 

 

When you have thousands of people coming across your borders with no end in sight, I suspect it doesn't look like much of a solution.

[OnMyOwn]

The problem with compassionate people who claim they don't think mass migration is a "solution" (as if fleeing for one's survival could be considered optional) is that they offer no plausible alternative solutions.

 

The people are real and are asking for our help. That is the point. Monica, what would you say to this man?

I'm not Monica and I don't know what I'd say to this man, but what would you say to the German women who were assaulted on New Year's Eve and no longer feel safe? I don't believe there has been much discussion about that on this board, but it weighs heavily on me. I've lost sleep over it. That was not an isolated incident or the case of a few bad apples. If I understand things correctly, the majority of these migrants are coming from countries where it is the cultural standard to suppress women. That is a huge clash with western culture. To let some migrate and assimilate into the western culture is one thing, but to allow millions to pour in at one time doesn't seem fair to the native women of these countries.

 

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/01/19/cologne-attacks-this-is-sexual-terrorism-directed-towards-women/

 

"Europe finds itself struggling with the horrifying possibility that Cologne was not an aberration and appears to be part of a much larger pattern of calculated, collectively-perpetrated sexual abuse played out across the continent — yet how can such a widespread phenomenon be combated if it is not acknowledged for what it is?

 

Similar group attacks of mass sexual violence took place on the same night across Germany, including in Hamburg and Stuttgart and in at least three other European countries, and very likely in Sweden at an annual festival last summer."

 

I was listening to a discussion of the New Year's Eve attacks on npr and the journalist was actually empathizing with the attackers, saying how it must be so hard for them to come to a country where the behavior of women is so different. Shocking! The only empathy should be going to the victims in this case. I wonder how the young woman journalist would have felt if she had been one of the ones to be attacked? If there has been more than a short discussion on this, then I apologize. I just don't think it's such a simple matter. I know my opinion is unpopular, but I feel it is important to voice it. More and more, I feel afraid to, so I don't. I won't respond to this thread anymore, because I'm not capable of keeping up with a debate at this point, but I can't stomach the idea that puting some limits on immigration is cold and heartless and without merit.

[marbel]

This is a difficult and heartbreaking situation.  I don't know of anyone personally with a "sucks to be you" attitude though I don't deny it exists. To me that seems like a loud minority but that may just be my perception.  I do know people who struggle to find the right answers.

 

But it is not as simple as "oh well, what are another few bad apples?"  A government is tasked with keeping its citizens/residents safe, as much as possible.  People become upset when a "bad apple" comes into the country and does harm.  

 

Yes, a stable and humane government in Syria is the best long-term solution for these people; I can't imagine they would not prefer to stay home if they could.

[*lifeoftheparty*]

Sometimes it is probably the case that there is no solution. Or it would be - have a stable and humane government in Syria. Well, that is easier said than done.

 

Accepting refugees, I think, does look a little different from a European perspective. THose of us in North America are somewhat sheltered. We in Canada have quite a few arriving at the moment, but it is essentially in our control how many they are, and who.

 

When you have thousands of people coming across your borders with no end in sight, I suspect it doesn't look like much of a solution.

I just attended a volunteer orientation for my local chapter of World Relief last night. Hundreds of refugees, from all over the world, are resettled right here where I live. And many of them are thriving, once they get past the initial culture shock/getting a job hump.

 

These people get jobs, and are hard workers- a vast majority of them do not like accepting handouts. These people become a part of the local community, and many of them give back when they are on their feet.

 

I think the solution that World Relief has come up with works just fine. They get off their asses and do something about it. And they are recruiting volunteers to get off their asses to DO something.

 

And it's working- in the past two years, our local chapter has resettled over 350 families. And they have done this with minimal resources and majority by volunteers. They pick the refugees up from the airport, help find them a home, help furnish that home, supply that home, help them find jobs, help them

open bank accounts, learn English, enroll their kids in school, get groceries, figure out public transportation- everything.

 

From where I am standing, it's a working solution that rescues these families from suffering. I wish people who are "scared" and "worried" would get the hell out of our way so we can DO what they keep saying can't be done. (I say "we" because me and a friend are going to apply to be volunteers and might be teaching English to them!)

 

If you are interested in helping, you can go to World Relief's website and see if there is an office/chapter near you. They host informational meetings for prospective volunteers every month. If you don't have time to volunteer, please consider donating money or goods, and know that they go directly to helping refugees in your community.

 

PS. World Relief is a Christian organization whose main mission is to organize churches into helping refugees- but they do not require the refugees to be Christian, nor do they prosyletize to them. Many different religions come through the program, and they talked about being respectful of their religion/customs, etc.

[creekland]

Syria is indeed a problem, but according to my guy, these refugees were Afghan...

 

There are and have been refugees since the beginning of time (more or less) from many different countries.

 

I definitely think it needs to be the world that steps up, not just a country or two.

 

Education needs to be part of it.  Law enforcement doesn't cease (should I add links to my local news about assaults to compare bad apples?).  Thinking outside the box needs to happen to get some workable solutions and, gasp, it might take some tax dollars from those of us who won the birth lottery to assist those who need it now.  The vast majority of those I've encountered are genuinely good people wanting a chance at life for themselves and their families.  It pretty much mimics the vast majority of "locals" in that aspect.

[*lifeoftheparty*]

I'm not Monica and I don't know what I'd say to this man, but what would you say to the German women who were assaulted on New Year's Eve and no longer feel safe? I don't believe there has been much discussion about that on this board, but it weighs heavily on me. I've lost sleep over it. That was not an isolated incident or the case of a few bad apples. If I understand things correctly, the majority of these migrants are coming from countries where it is the cultural standard to suppress women. That is a huge clash with western culture. To let some migrate and assimilate into the western culture is one thing, but to allow millions to pour in at one time doesn't seem fair to the native women of these countries.

 

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/01/19/cologne-attacks-this-is-sexual-terrorism-directed-towards-women/

 

"Europe finds itself struggling with the horrifying possibility that Cologne was not an aberration and appears to be part of a much larger pattern of calculated, collectively-perpetrated sexual abuse played out across the continent — yet how can such a widespread phenomenon be combated if it is not acknowledged for what it is?

 

Similar group attacks of mass sexual violence took place on the same night across Germany, including in Hamburg and Stuttgart and in at least three other European countries, and very likely in Sweden at an annual festival last summer."

 

I was listening to a discussion of the New Year's Eve attacks on npr and the journalist was actually empathizing with the attackers, saying how it must be so hard for them to come to a country where the behavior of women is so different. Shocking! The only empathy should be going to the victims in this case. I wonder how the young woman journalist would have felt if she had been one of the ones to be attacked? If there has been more than a short discussion on this, then I apologize. I just don't think it's such a simple matter. I know my opinion is unpopular, but I feel it is important to voice it. More and more, I feel afraid to, so I don't. I won't respond to this thread anymore, because I'm not capable of keeping up with a debate at this point, but I can't stomach the idea that puting some limits on immigration is cold and heartless and without merit.

There already ARE limits on immigration (and an immigrant is NOT the same as a refugee). I learned last night that the families/people that come here as refugees have been going theough the process for YEARS. There is noone saying that we should fling our doors open and let millions of people just swarm in. Not ONE single person is advocating for that.

 

What people ARE advocating for is an increase in the amount of refugees we allow in. They would still have to come here under the processes already in place, that work just fine.

 

A refugee has to register at whatever camp they live in, then their paperwork has to be sent to the UN, and then the UN does all kinds of background checks/vetting- and THEY decide where to send them, if at all. The refugees have no choice in what country they go to. This whole process takes YEARS. The World Relief lady said the refugees that come to our county have been waiting an average of 4-8 YEARS!! For some reason, refugees from Bhutan wait in their camps for 20-30 YEARS!!! before making it over here.

 

Our situation is completely different from the one in Europe, our natural borders prevent millions of people from streaming in, and we can vet the ones coming in. ALL we are asking for, is for America to increase the number of refugees that get to come in. To refuse that, IS, in my opinion- cold hearted and callous- and not even the least bit Christian.

[creekland]

Well... millions of people are swarming in to be honest.  Granted, that's not the refugee resettling part you're talking about (that needs to be stepped up for sure)!

 

My youngest was encountering part of the swarm.  I've seen some of that at school with some of our Hispanic kids (great kids!).

 

It really is the swarm the world needs to find a workable solution for.  Telling those people they can't escape what they are fleeing is not the solution.  Spreading more out more quickly would help.  Fixing their homelands would also help, but that's easier said than done.  In the meantime, the world pitching in to provide safe travel, food, shelter, education (about customs and in general), medical care, etc, all needs to be happening and all without forgetting these are humans just like us except for their lot in the birth lottery.

 

If it continues to mimic what I see at school, treating them like real people will also prevent some of the bad apples.  Bad apples are more often created than born and usually they come from being dropped too many times.

[Pam in CT]

Carrie, I only "know" you from these boards, but, FTR, I actually don't believe you hate people.  Just sayin'.

 

 

re: difference between refugees vs. immigrants:

 

 

There already ARE limits on immigration (and an immigrant is NOT the same as a refugee). I learned last night that the families/people that come here as refugees have been going theough the process for YEARS. There is noone saying that we should fling our doors open and let millions of people just swarm in. Not ONE single person is advocating for that.

What people ARE advocating for is an increase in the amount of refugees we allow in. They would still have to come here under the processes already in place, that work just fine.

A refugee has to register at whatever camp they live in, then their paperwork has to be sent to the UN, and then the UN does all kinds of background checks/vetting- and THEY decide where to send them, if at all. The refugees have no choice in what country they go to. This whole process takes YEARS. The World Relief lady said the refugees that come to our county have been waiting an average of 4-8 YEARS!! For some reason, refugees from Bhutan wait in their camps for 20-30 YEARS!!! before making it over here.

Our situation is completely different from the one in Europe, our natural borders prevent millions of people from streaming in, and we can vet the ones coming in. ALL we are asking for, is for America to increase the number of refugees that get to come in. To refuse that, IS, in my opinion- cold hearted and callous- and not even the least bit Christian.

The US is still struggling with this distinction between refugee v. immigrant, it seems to me, and our Cold War history (during which we accepted as refugees people leaving states like the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos) has left us without a good mental model for people fleeing wholly broken-down states in Central America and elsewhere, where the circumstances being fled are more complex (and in a sense decentralized) than Organized Oppression by Intact Evil Government.  

 

It seems that we have less sympathy to people fleeing drug violence, forced induction into sexual slavery and gangs etc than we did to boat people coming out of Cuba (whose lived experience was perhaps not as extremely life-threatening as people today coming out of say El Salvador).

 

 

[livetoread]

There are European countries that have essentially thrown open their doors, while we in the US have followed a very careful and strict process. They have helped many more than we have, and have saved many more lives which is to be admired, IMO. They are willing to sacrifice much more than we are in order to help their fellow human beings.

 

However, doing this does leave them more vulnerable. At what point does the sacrifice become too much? I don't know the answer, but I do know there are plenty out there shouting their answers based not on facts or compassion, but on fear and hopes for political gain.

 

I believe most men from any of these countries are not going to molest women. I doubt the behavior of the gropers would have been tolerated or admired in their own countries. It's not like they come from countries where the favorite Saturday night activity is getting together and sexually assaulting random women. However, I do think there are also significant cultural differences that shouldn't be downplayed, especially around gender issues.

 

Helping others can bring rewards, but there are costs too. So far, some European countries have been much more willing to take those on than we have. I have been thinking lately about moral responsibility and the costs of helping others. It's complicated. If we focus too much on the costs, (which I think we are doing in the US, both real and imaginary) we don't help enough. If we downplay the real potential costs, we might end up sacrificing more than we are willing to sacrifice.

[Carrie12345]

Carrie, I only "know" you from these boards, but, FTR, I actually don't believe you hate people.  Just sayin'.

 

 

 

It actually brought a great big smile to my face to read that, lol.

I *was being rather flippant.  I love humanity.  I'm very easily discouraged by the large number of humans around me that make me question my love.   ;)

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

The problem with compassionate people who claim they don't think mass migration is a "solution" (as if fleeing for one's survival could be considered optional) is that they offer no plausible alternative solutions.  

 

The people are real and are asking for our help.  That is the point.  Monica, what would you say to this man?

 

First off, if you read my post, I am not taking sides with the people who do not want to see refugees enter first world countries.  I wrestle with the issue, personally.  What do I believe the "solution" is?  I don't believe there is a viable solution that will end human suffering.  I believe human suffering is a part of our existence, and that we will never have heaven on Earth.  This does NOT mean that I think we should do nothing to lesson or alleviate suffering, simply that I do not believe in any sort of once-and-for-all solution to the "human condition."  

 

To the man who is on the ferry, I would say, thank God you have the resources to come as far as you have.  The truth is, most refugees are NOT the worst off of the population from whence they are fleeing.  Those who are in true, desperate need are unable to flee.  Taking just this man and his family as an example:  he was apparently in a good enough position to travel in order to attempt to receive higher education, it sounds like college level education.  Think of the hundreds who cannot do even that, who are unable to seek refuge elsewhere.  

 

Is it serving a purpose to move essentially the "developing world" middle class to the first world, while the developing world lower class are stuck in horrific conditions?  

 

Here are what I see as options:

- allow huge numbers of refugees to pour into first world countries.  Yes, it will be an enormous positive change for these families, and depending on numbers, only moderatey damaging to the economies of their host countries.  It will also be a drain of human capital and potential in their home counties because these do tend to be people with a minimum of education, resources, and motivation.

- Engage Western militaries to try to "fix things" in the problem countries.  Yeah, because that's been really successful in the past...  

- Take care of our own, and pray to God that others learn to do the same.  Do what we can diplomatically and through established charity lines to aid, especially in the case of sudden crisis.  

 

When I look at the USA, as someone who was born and raised there, who served in the USAF, and who fell in love with a Swiss man and moved far away... when I look to the US, I see a country in the process of self-destruction.  Our upcoming election options has me so appalled that I ask myself if democracy is all but dead.  When I look at France, and Germany, I feel the same.  And I wonder, "Is this due to our over-extending and not taking care of our own?"  There are Americans in downtown Sacramento (my home town) living on the streets under blankets made form newspapers, because our country has not seen fit to make mental heath care a priority for our Vietnam vets.  And that's just the tip of the iceberg of internal problems that need solving.  

 

Resources are limited.  I embrace G.K. Chesterton's philosophy of distributsm almost whole-heartedly.  I believe in isolationism if at all possible, and I don't think that's immoral.  

 

The money game works like this:  Government officials, elected by the minority of people who actually care enough to vote, decide to spend tax money in part on services for refugees.  This money has to come from somewhere, because we certainly can't raise taxes this close to an election!  So it gets pulled from other government services.  Am I being an upstanding, moral Christian because I pay taxes?  No.  I'm paying taxes because I don't want to go to jail.  The only possible way for me to do right by refugees is for me to personally aid a refugee, by finding out their name, giving clothing, household goods, bags of groceries, etc.  THIS would be a moral act.  

 

Mystie Winkler has a quote she uses often in her planning "Dreaming of systems so perfect, no one would need to be good." (or similar) and this is what I think most people are trying to do.  Let's dream of such wonderful SYSTEMS that we no longer need to personally be good.  

 

I much prefer Pope Francis's idea that each Parish take in one refugee family.  I think this is manageable, it's personal, it's real, and it's sustainable.  And sadly, it's less refugee families, but as we already know, the refugees who actually even manage to get here are just the tiniest fraction of the people in need.  

 

... and I'm totally rambling and should be cooking dinner.  Sorry.  I'm going to have to cut myself off.  

 

 

 

Lucky you.  These types might be more prevalent in the US though.

 

Uh, yeah.  Switzerland's populations is overwhelmingly against asylum seekers (though the government takes in a very large per-capita number anyway, despite popular opinion) and yes I've still never heard anyone speak crassly of the state of these people in flight for their lives and freedom.  

[Incognito]

There already ARE limits on immigration (and an immigrant is NOT the same as a refugee). I learned last night that the families/people that come here as refugees have been going theough the process for YEARS. There is noone saying that we should fling our doors open and let millions of people just swarm in. Not ONE single person is advocating for that.

 

What people ARE advocating for is an increase in the amount of refugees we allow in. They would still have to come here under the processes already in place, that work just fine.

 

A refugee has to register at whatever camp they live in, then their paperwork has to be sent to the UN, and then the UN does all kinds of background checks/vetting- and THEY decide where to send them, if at all. The refugees have no choice in what country they go to. This whole process takes YEARS. The World Relief lady said the refugees that come to our county have been waiting an average of 4-8 YEARS!! For some reason, refugees from Bhutan wait in their camps for 20-30 YEARS!!! before making it over here.

 

Our situation is completely different from the one in Europe, our natural borders prevent millions of people from streaming in, and we can vet the ones coming in. ALL we are asking for, is for America to increase the number of refugees that get to come in. To refuse that, IS, in my opinion- cold hearted and callous- and not even the least bit Christian.

 

As an aside, I bolded what you said about no one advocating for doors wide open and no screening, because that is exactly what Canada's New Prime Minister declared he would do and tried to do when elected to office.  His campaign promise was to let in 25,000 more Syrian refugees in a few months time - without thought to the refugees that have been working the system and waiting patiently in other nations for YEARS.  Without thought to screening.  And while he has not come through on his promise (which was an impossible promise, so of course he didn't - it was clearly a lie to pander to the social conscience of a country that prides itself on being "nice"), he has succeeded in bringing many Syrians to Canada in a short period of time.  He vows to bring in more.  

 

There is no good answer - yes, Syrian refugees are in a terrible spot, but so are the millions of other refugees that have actually been going through the process for years and years.  Should Syrians jump the queue purely because a little boy of that ethnicity drown during our election campaign?  

 

It's the dilemma of a mom in a tsunami - which child do you hold while the flood waters pull and you hold onto the tree for dear life?  Neither solution is a solution, and whatever you do is easily "wrong" in someone's eyes.  You have to do SOMETHING, but there is NO GOOD ANSWER.

 

Also, for what it is worth, I think that military intervention is an important part of an answer we can live with as a society.  Where would the world be if we were not forced to act against evil in government?  

 

ETA: I think that part of what disgusts me personally about the way the refugee crisis has centred on Syrians where I live is that it smacks of racism.  Where is the heart for the East African refugees?

Edited January 20, 2016 by Incognito

[Mimm]

This is one of many touching and heartbreaking stories about life in unstable countries and why people choose to flee.  

 

But I have never met anyone, anywhere who is unaware that refugees live desperate, dangerous lives, and are fleeing from even more desperate circumstances.  Are there really people out there who are unaware of this?  

 

I have also never met anyone who holds the sentiment, "Sucks to be you" regarding refugees.  I have met a number of people, however, who do not believe mass immigration/refugee welcoming is a long-term solution to any problem, and they have all been compassionate and coherent enough to defend their views in a humane way, whether I agree with those views or not.  Not welcoming refugees with open arms does not necessarily make a person cold and callous.  

 

Sorry, but I call straw man.  

 

I have people I know in real life posting candy analogies on facebook. "If there was a five pound bag of M&Ms but three of them were deadly poison, would you feed them to your kids?" Sorry but it's not a straw man. These are Christians I know that have an incredibly cold hearted, unloving view toward refugees and I'm ashamed of them. Comparing suffering human lives to M&Ms is quite possibly the most compassionless thing I can think of. That is very much a "sucks to be you" attitude.

[Guest]

Lucky you. These types might be more prevalent in the US though.

Really? I can't say I know too many gainfully employed and normal American adults who don't see major issues with so many countries in the world and the desperate circumstances their citizens are in. Most have compassion for that human suffering. But somehow pointing out the impact of the supposed solutions means one is less compassionate than the individual unwilling to think through the long term consequences for the immigrants AND native citizens and just act out of emotion.

 

That drives me up the wall.

[Carrie12345]

I have people I know in real life posting candy analogies on facebook. "If there was a five pound bag of M&Ms but three of them were deadly poison, would you feed them to your kids?" Sorry but it's not a straw man. These are Christians I know that have an incredibly cold hearted, unloving view toward refugees and I'm ashamed of them. Comparing suffering human lives to M&Ms is quite possibly the most compassionless thing I can think of. That is very much a "sucks to be you" attitude.

 

Before the media washed the entire argument in terrorism, FB was exploding with "What about our people who are suffering?"  I don't discount terrorism as a concern, but I do see it being used as an add-on argument against "other".

[Bluegoat]

I just attended a volunteer orientation for my local chapter of World Relief last night. Hundreds of refugees, from all over the world, are resettled right here where I live. And many of them are thriving, once they get past the initial culture shock/getting a job hump.

 

These people get jobs, and are hard workers- a vast majority of them do not like accepting handouts. These people become a part of the local community, and many of them give back when they are on their feet.

 

I think the solution that World Relief has come up with works just fine. They get off their asses and do something about it. And they are recruiting volunteers to get off their asses to DO something.

 

And it's working- in the past two years, our local chapter has resettled over 350 families. And they have done this with minimal resources and majority by volunteers. They pick the refugees up from the airport, help find them a home, help furnish that home, supply that home, help them find jobs, help them

open bank accounts, learn English, enroll their kids in school, get groceries, figure out public transportation- everything.

 

From where I am standing, it's a working solution that rescues these families from suffering. I wish people who are "scared" and "worried" would get the hell out of our way so we can DO what they keep saying can't be done. (I say "we" because me and a friend are going to apply to be volunteers and might be teaching English to them!)

 

If you are interested in helping, you can go to World Relief's website and see if there is an office/chapter near you. They host informational meetings for prospective volunteers every month. If you don't have time to volunteer, please consider donating money or goods, and know that they go directly to helping refugees in your community.

 

PS. World Relief is a Christian organization whose main mission is to organize churches into helping refugees- but they do not require the refugees to be Christian, nor do they prosyletize to them. Many different religions come through the program, and they talked about being respectful of their religion/customs, etc.

 

I'm involved in refugee resettlement already, I'm a member of a private sponsorship group.  I agree that refugees can do very well when given the proper support.

 

But it doesn't really seem to me that really is any kind of response to what I said.  There is a big difference between settling 350 families and a country accepting - or simply being flooded with, hundreds of thousands, or more.

 

There are significant practical issues - where to put so many people, how to feed them, how to give them language skills so they can work.

 

And there are also cultural limits.  Communities have a fabric, and if they are a strong community they can accommodate and integrate newcomers well.  But to think that significant cultural differences can't affect how well that works to me doesn't make sense, we can see that causes friction even in established communities. 

 

I think we have an obligation to try and help people that want a new place, I consider it not to be a charitable obligation where we are doing something nice, but one based on the nature of land ownership.  I think especially in North America or in other places where we are not easy destinations for refugees, we need to help relieve those places that are being overwhelmed. 

 

But I can easily understand why people in Europe are worried, and I think in general it is a good thing when refugee numbers can be controlled so that people can be integrated into communities effectively.

 

And I think it's also important to realize its a band-Aid in most cases.  We will never painlessly be able to resettle a whole nation.  And many people would rather live in their homeland anyway.

[creekland]

Really? I can't say I know too many gainfully employed and normal American adults who don't see major issues with so many countries in the world and the desperate circumstances their citizens are in. Most have compassion for that human suffering. But somehow pointing out the impact of the supposed solutions means one is less compassionate than the individual unwilling to think through the long term consequences for the immigrants AND native citizens and just act out of emotion.

 

That drives me up the wall.

 

I'm missing the bolded.  How is that happening?  Who is the individual unwilling to think through long term consequences, etc?  I've seen some/many suggest "keep them where they are" (referring to Syria & Latin America) which is pretty much equivalent to "sucks to be you" and their usual reasons are worries about crime or destroying "what we have here" (meaning jobs/lifestyle/religion). Some get annoyed that "they don't even speak English" as if that were some sort of requirement to be a good human being.

 

I have not seen anyone advocating or assisting with allowing them in who have not thought out ideas for long term deals like housing, education, & jobs. 

 

Mostly, I've seen oodles of examples of success stories from both refugees and not-necessarily-legal immigrants.

 

Another poster mentioned the drain of the middle or wealthy class from native areas.  Granted, this is a problem.  Cote D'Ivoire had such a thing happen during their civil war (recently) when the majority of their doctors left and didn't return.  What hasn't been addressed is whether it would have been better for the doctors to have stayed and died instead?  Is that the answer?  If so, how is it not the same problem with the loss of brainpower?

 

How many of us (US/Canadians) would live where we are now if somewhere along the lines our ancestors hadn't chosen to move?  If one goes back far enough, this is true for Europe as well.  Humans have always opted to move in order to take chances on a better life.  There's no sin in that.  I also see no sin in ignoring man-made borders...  We are all citizens of Planet Earth.  Should I not like my place in the future, moving is one of the first things that comes to mind.  I've already moved more than once from my place of birth... and we picked where we live today because we thought it would be a great place to bring up our guys.

 

There's no way I'm willing to tell anyone, "It worked for me, but you can't do it."  That would be the height of hypocrisy. 

[poppy]

Really? I can't say I know too many gainfully employed and normal American adults who don't see major issues with so many countries in the world and the desperate circumstances their citizens are in. Most have compassion for that human suffering. But somehow pointing out the impact of the supposed solutions means one is less compassionate than the individual unwilling to think through the long term consequences for the immigrants AND native citizens and just act out of emotion.

 

That drives me up the wall.

 

The most common viewpoint I've seen locally (in MA) and in my family (in PA) is that the Syrian refugee crisis is a trick to sneak ISIS fighters into the US.   I have seen so many photos of refugee families on Facebook with sarcastic captions like "Look at that muscles on that guy, I'm sure he's STARVING and suffering *eyeroll*"  

 

I used to press against this. I'd say, look, there are kids.  They say, that's sad but there are suffering kids everywhere.  This is not our problem.

 

I say, wow that sounds a lot like what the US said about Jewish children who were refugees from Europe in the 1930s-40s.  They reply, well, the Jews weren't all trying to murder Americans.

Google it, this conversation has happened over and over all over the internet. And tell me where the compassion plays into it.

[Bluegoat]

As an aside, I bolded what you said about no one advocating for doors wide open and no screening, because that is exactly what Canada's New Prime Minister declared he would do and tried to do when elected to office.  His campaign promise was to let in 25,000 more Syrian refugees in a few months time - without thought to the refugees that have been working the system and waiting patiently in other nations for YEARS.  Without thought to screening.  And while he has not come through on his promise (which was an impossible promise, so of course he didn't - it was clearly a lie to pander to the social conscience of a country that prides itself on being "nice"), he has succeeded in bringing many Syrians to Canada in a short period of time.  He vows to bring in more.  

 

There is no good answer - yes, Syrian refugees are in a terrible spot, but so are the millions of other refugees that have actually been going through the process for years and years.  Should Syrians jump the queue purely because a little boy of that ethnicity drown during our election campaign?  

 

It's the dilemma of a mom in a tsunami - which child do you hold while the flood waters pull and you hold onto the tree for dear life?  Neither solution is a solution, and whatever you do is easily "wrong" in someone's eyes.  You have to do SOMETHING, but there is NO GOOD ANSWER.

 

Also, for what it is worth, I think that military intervention is an important part of an answer we can live with as a society.  Where would the world be if we were not forced to act against evil in government?  

 

ETA: I think that part of what disgusts me personally about the way the refugee crisis has centred on Syrians where I live is that it smacks of racism.  Where is the heart for the East African refugees?

 

THis is simply untrue - refugees coming to Canada are going through all the normal processes and checks.  (The processes for being on the list are rather fraught, but that is not new.) And 25,000 isn't flinging the doors open, it will leave a great many people behind.  Arguably the focus on only one country is a problem - however after years of ignoring our international obligations, it is hard to think we are worse off than before.

 

 

[*lifeoftheparty*]

As an aside, I bolded what you said about no one advocating for doors wide open and no screening, because that is exactly what Canada's New Prime Minister declared he would do and tried to do when elected to office.  His campaign promise was to let in 25,000 more Syrian refugees in a few months time - without thought to the refugees that have been working the system and waiting patiently in other nations for YEARS.  Without thought to screening.  And while he has not come through on his promise (which was an impossible promise, so of course he didn't - it was clearly a lie to pander to the social conscience of a country that prides itself on being "nice"), he has succeeded in bringing many Syrians to Canada in a short period of time.  He vows to bring in more.  

 

There is no good answer - yes, Syrian refugees are in a terrible spot, but so are the millions of other refugees that have actually been going through the process for years and years.  Should Syrians jump the queue purely because a little boy of that ethnicity drown during our election campaign?  

 

It's the dilemma of a mom in a tsunami - which child do you hold while the flood waters pull and you hold onto the tree for dear life?  Neither solution is a solution, and whatever you do is easily "wrong" in someone's eyes.  You have to do SOMETHING, but there is NO GOOD ANSWER.

 

Also, for what it is worth, I think that military intervention is an important part of an answer we can live with as a society.  Where would the world be if we were not forced to act against evil in government?  

 

ETA: I think that part of what disgusts me personally about the way the refugee crisis has centred on Syrians where I live is that it smacks of racism.  Where is the heart for the East African refugees?

 

Well, I'm in the US, and don't pay much attention to Canada, unfortunately- but I agree that his solution is not the best answer. But I dunno, that's what they did during the mass immigration to the US in the 19th century, and that worked out. And I know that this modern issue is very different, because of terrorism/ISIS- so that's why I think the current vetting system is a good compromise, though I wish they could hurry the process along, so families aren't living in camps for 5+ years...

 

We went to the US Archives the other day, and saw lots of old media articles about the way Americans have treated foreign immigrants/refugees in the past- always with suspicion, always with superiority. Chinese, Italian, Irish, Jewish, Vietnemese- doesn't matter- they have always been viewed as "less than" and undeserving of a slice of our American pie. There is nothing new under the sun and all that.... the World Relief lady said that we used to let in around 200,000 refugees a year, but it got less and less and then the process completely stopped after 9/11. We HAVE taken in much more than we are right now- it's not impossible, or unfathomable to increase the numbers to 200,000 again....

 

World Relief does help East African refugees- several families from the Sudan have been resettled here. There are refugees coming from all over- and that wouldn't stop if we increased numbers to allow some Syrians in as well.

 

Personally, I think we would have PLENTY of funds to take care of our own AND some outsiders if there wasn't so much government waste and corruption- THAT is what must be halted. THAT is what must be stopped. All these politicians making millions, CEO's making billions- but let's stop aiding the suffering because it costs too much money- what BS. I think the top 1% has got to stop hoarding all the money for their over the top lavish lifestyles, so that there is more to go around to help EVERYONE with basic survival.

 

 

[*lifeoftheparty*]

The most common viewpoint I've seen locally (in MA) and in my family (in PA) is that the Syrian refugee crisis is a trick to sneak ISIS fighters into the US.   I have seen so many photos of refugee families on Facebook with sarcastic captions like "Look at that muscles on that guy, I'm sure he's STARVING and suffering *eyeroll*"  

 

I used to press against this. I'd say, look, there are kids.  They say, that's sad but there are suffering kids everywhere.  This is not our problem.

 

I say, wow that sounds a lot like what the US said about Jewish children who were refugees from Europe in the 1930s-40s.  They reply, well, the Jews weren't all trying to murder Americans.

Google it, this conversation has happened over and over all over the internet. And tell me where the compassion plays into it.

 

I've had the exact same conversations on my facebook, and in real life.

[Carrie12345]

I'm involved in refugee resettlement already, I'm a member of a private sponsorship group.  I agree that refugees can do very well when given the proper support.

 

But it doesn't really seem to me that really is any kind of response to what I said.  There is a big difference between settling 350 families and a country accepting - or simply being flooded with, hundreds of thousands, or more.

 

True

 

There are significant practical issues - where to put so many people, how to feed them, how to give them language skills so they can work.

 

True

 

And there are also cultural limits.  Communities have a fabric, and if they are a strong community they can accommodate and integrate newcomers well.  But to think that significant cultural differences can't affect how well that works to me doesn't make sense, we can see that causes friction even in established communities. 

 

Mostly true

 

 

 

BUT, I find it curious that these are being considered new factors.  The United States has been managing tens of thousands of refugees every year for years.  I did not hear any loud push back until this particular crisis in which the US seeks to increase their yearly average by, what? 20-30% for 2016? (I honestly forget the exact numbers.)

[*lifeoftheparty*]

I see all these people posting about "How great is our God" and "Faith can move mountains!" and "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me!"

 

But apparently that only applies to sticking to reading their devotionals every morning, or finding their car keys, or getting through motherhood.... those answers aren't applicable to helping refugees... apparently their God isn't that big.

But MINE is....

[creekland]

We went to the US Archives the other day, and saw lots of old media articles about the way Americans have treated foreign immigrants/refugees in the past- always with suspicion, always with superiority. Chinese, Italian, Irish, Jewish, Vietnemese- doesn't matter- they have always been viewed as "less than" and undeserving of a slice of our American pie.

 

What's even more ironic is that most folks will universally say, "Wow, that was wrong.  We won't ever let that happen again!"  

 

Then follow that with "Send all the Mexicans back home.  They're taking our jobs!" or "Don't let those Muslims in (regardless of actual religion - it seems to be a regional thing)!  They're all terrorists!"

 

I wish many could meet real people, not just a handful featured on TV.

 

The absolute best care nurse my grandmother had in her nursing home was a refugee from Sudan... Some of our hardest working students are from Mexico.  One of our most dedicated new Americans hails from Bosnia.  He plans to join the military after high school because he appreciates what our country has done for his family (saving their lives).  Real people.  Real stories.  They just don't make the news because they're too common and not flashy enough.

 

Oh, a couple of years back we had some students beat a homeless man to death.  They were native born gems.  That didn't make national news either.  Way too common.

[*lifeoftheparty*]

We have, in the past, accepted around 200,000 refugees a year.... 400,000 after WW2....

http://www.rcusa.org/history

[Incognito]

THis is simply untrue - refugees coming to Canada are going through all the normal processes and checks.  (The processes for being on the list are rather fraught, but that is not new.) And 25,000 isn't flinging the doors open, it will leave a great many people behind.  Arguably the focus on only one country is a problem - however after years of ignoring our international obligations, it is hard to think we are worse off than before.

 

Ah, they DO follow the process (but have been "fast tracked" in front of other nationalities), but that is not what our Most Honourable Prime Minister intended to do when he made his promises.  Or if he did, he was doing it with NO forethought.  How can you promise to bring in that many people in that short of a period of time and think you can do it through the normal channels?  You can't.  It was either a blatant lie, pandering to the emotions of the populace, or it was a hugely ignorant promise - and making promises you are going to be unable to keep may be how one gets into office, but it isn't a good way to run a country.

 

Years of ignoring our international obligations - obviously we come from different ends of the political spectrum.  Each party does focus on different areas and uses different tactics to approach issues.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Incognito

[Bluegoat]

BUT, I find it curious that these are being considered new factors.  The United States has been managing tens of thousands of refugees every year for years.  I did not hear any loud push back until this particular crisis in which the US seeks to increase their yearly average by, what? 20-30% for 2016? (I honestly forget the exact numbers.)

They aren't new.  The US isn't pulling its weight.  THough TBH, I wouldn't be keen live there if I was Muslim or might be mistaken for one.

 

My post however, the one that was quoted, pointed out that the situation around the refugee crises looks a lot difference from Europe than it does from NA.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Bluegoat

[Guest]

I see all these people posting about "How great is our God" and "Faith can move mountains!" and "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me!"

 

But apparently that only applies to sticking to reading their devotionals every morning, or finding their car keys, or getting through motherhood.... those answers aren't applicable to helping refugees... apparently their God isn't that big.

 

But MINE is....

Well that is rather unfair. There is a balance of wisdom and stewardship in there with the faith, especially for those entrusted with things an monumental as the safety and integrity of a society. Borders and sovereignty are crucial for a lawful and functioning society. Controls on resettlement and immigration are there to protect the parent country.

 

It isnt so straightforward as saying a good Christian will do _______. One could argue, from the same scripture, that protecting one's own family and people comes above all else. I don't think it has to be either/or, and that is where wisdom comes in. What works for your family, or that country, doesn't universally apply to everyone else. The balance of serving one's primary charges and helping others looks different in each circumstance.

[marbel]

<snip>

How many of us (US/Canadians) would live where we are now if somewhere along the lines our ancestors hadn't chosen to move?  If one goes back far enough, this is true for Europe as well.  Humans have always opted to move in order to take chances on a better life.  There's no sin in that.  I also see no sin in ignoring man-made borders...  We are all citizens of Planet Earth.  Should I not like my place in the future, moving is one of the first things that comes to mind.  I've already moved more than once from my place of birth... and we picked where we live today because we thought it would be a great place to bring up our guys.

 

<snip>

 

I'm not arguing against helping refugees/immigrants resettle so they can live in a stable, safe place.   I think it is worth spending time and money to help desperate people.

 

But you really can't compare a person who is in need of complete social, language, and financial support to survive in a new country with someone who is able to make the choice to move from one place to another and just do it without needing all those social supports.

 

It is simply not the same.

 

Mea culpa if you were fleeing from a dictatorship, famine, or war, or moved for some reason more sinister than "not liking [your] place." 

 

 

[Guest]

To those wishing for larger resettlement, to what end? What is your goal and end success you're aiming for?

 

Is it that if enough people leave these regions the problems will cease? That there will be no consequences or suffering of only they move and are assimilated into a new country? That this solves the birth rate issue in the first world? Makes despotism and famine and resource misallocation cease? Increases the freedom and safety of some of not all (and is that not the same argument used by those who want to control the numbers more tightly)?

 

Explain where you see this going, because I genuinely wonder what the goal is and can't see it. Where does this compassion lead in practical terms of numbers and results five or fifteen or fifty years from now? Let's leave aside the obvious good of helping an individual in trouble - we all agree on that.

[Carrie12345]

They aren't new.  The US isn't pulling its weight.  THough TBH, I wouldn't be keen live there if I was Mulsim or might be mistaken for one.

 

My post however, the one that was quoted, pointed out that the situation around the refugee crises looks a lot difference from Europe than it does from NA.

 

Well, that's what I get for thinking America-centric.  :o

[Bluegoat]

I think that one of the things to keep in mind about the large immigration waves to North America is that in many cases, they weren't all that smooth.  The situations people found themselves could be pretty rough, ad there was actually a lot of conflict between groups, even in cases where they came from Europe.  I think when we have cases of mass immigration today, we'd see much the same thing.

[Pam in CT]

re: number of refugees allowed into the US:

BUT, I find it curious that these are being considered new factors.  The United States has been managing tens of thousands of refugees every year for years.  I did not hear any loud push back until this particular crisis in which the US seeks to increase their yearly average by, what? 20-30% for 2016? (I honestly forget the exact numbers.)

 

According to data compiled by this non-profit (the State Department publishes the year-by-year data; the chart in Figure 1 if you scroll down a bit summarizes it in an easy-to-read way), the US "ceiling" for refugees has sharply declined since a high in 1993:

 

"After the most recent peak of 142,000 in 1993 (largely as a response to the Balkan wars), the U.S. annual refugee admission ceiling steadily declined. In 2008, however, the ceiling was raised by 10,000 to accommodate an expected increase in refugee resettlement from Iraq, Iran, and Bhutan. From 2008 to 2011, the annual ceiling remained at 80,000; it was reduced to 76,000 in 2012, and further reduced to 70,000 since 2013 (see Figure 1)."

 

(ETA: as noted upthread while I was posting, there were other times, going even further back, that the ceiling was even higher than the 142,000 in 1993... including just after WWII.  Pity it couldn't have been higher in the late 1930s when it would have made a difference to the Jewish refugees turned away.  But I digress.... sorta.)

 

 

 

Late last year, in the face of the Syrian crisis, the President issued an executive order to lift this ceiling by 10,000 (this "increase" -- which is relative since even with the still-controversial additional 10,000 the ceiling is still well below levels it has been at various points of US history -- is among the items being contested in the Texas v. US suit that the SC agreed yesterday to hear).

 

 

To put the US figure of 70,000 or possibly 80,000 in context, here is The Atlantic's summary of UNHCR data on global refugees as of end-2014: 59.5 million displaced people total, of whom 19.5 MILLION met UNHCR vetting criteria as "refugees" and the remainder were either internally displaced or were still awaiting vetting (which as noted above can take a very long time).  For stat-geeks, here is more UNHCR data breaking it down by country of origin.

 

 

lifeoftheparty's point upthread, that just about every major immigrant group that's come into the US over our history -- Polish & Irish & Italian Catholics, Jews, Chinese, etc -- being reviled and resisted at the time before we settled down into a New Normal, has a lot of truth to it.

 

I do think though that in recent history -- say, since the Cuban crisis -- there's been a far greater public willingness here to empathize with people fleeing organized state systems that we deemed "oppressive" (Cuba, USSR, Vietnam/Laos) through a Cold War lens, than with people fleeing civil wars and other domestic, but life-threatening, chaos.  

 

Even in cases where, as Colin Powell memorably stated, a "You break it, you own it" ethic applies to some of those chaos problems.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Pam in CT

[*lifeoftheparty*]

Well that is rather unfair. There is a balance of wisdom and stewardship in there with the faith, especially for those entrusted with things an monumental as the safety and integrity of a society. Borders and sovereignty are crucial for a lawful and functioning society. Controls on resettlement and immigration are there to protect the parent country.

 

It isnt so straightforward as saying a good Christian will do _______. One could argue, from the same scripture, that protecting one's own family and people comes above all else. I don't think it has to be either/or, and that is where wisdom comes in. What works for your family, or that country, doesn't universally apply to everyone else. The balance of serving one's primary charges and helping others looks different in each circumstance.

 

Nope. Sorry. This is the exact carp that people who are writing their congress people to ask for completely HALTing the taking in Syrian of refugees are using to justify their fear based callousness.

 

A good Christian will do what they can to feed the hungry, help the widows, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless and love their neighbor as they love themselves- as Jesus commands us to do. HALTING the process by which other Christians are already doing these things, is not even minutely Christ like. If you think it is, you do not know Him.

 

These refugees ARE being brought in safely. The borders are still in tact. Society is still in tact. Life goes on every day with most people (including myself until a few months ago) having NO idea that refugees are being aided in resettlement all over the country by churches/Christians, as well as, other private groups. It is completely safe and not one act of terrorism has been committed on US soil by someone arriving here under the Refugee resettlement program. Not one. There have been a couple arrested for PLANNING such things, but none have been carried out. I'll take those odds any day.

 

And no, I will not go digging for the source where I read those statistics- if this is your rebuttal- please find me a source that proves that an act of terrorism has been carried out by someone who came here under the Refugee resettlement program.

 

We have more to worry about from uneducated American citizens living in poverty, who are killing other American citizens every day, than we do from refugees from any country.

[Carrie12345]

I think that one of the things to keep in mind about the large immigration waves to North America is that in many cases, they weren't all that smooth.  The situations people found themselves could be pretty rough, ad there was actually a lot of conflict between groups, even in cases where they came from Europe.  I think when we have cases of mass immigration today, we'd see much the same thing.

 

For the US, specifically, I think it would be quite worse in some respects than it was for, say, the Irish and Italians, given the circumstances.  Especially if we're talking in terms of hundreds of thousands.  But I don't believe those kinds of numbers are anywhere near the table here.

 

It's only just occurring to me now, how aware are these refugees of American (or other) fears and prejudices?  I can only guess that, even if they are clear, it's better than their alternatives.

[creekland]

I'm not arguing against helping refugees/immigrants resettle so they can live in a stable, safe place.   I think it is worth spending time and money to help desperate people.

 

But you really can't compare a person who is in need of complete social, language, and financial support to survive in a new country with someone who is able to make the choice to move from one place to another and just do it without needing all those social supports.

 

It is simply not the same.

 

Mea culpa if you were fleeing from a dictatorship, famine, or war, or moved for some reason more sinister than "not liking [your] place." 

 

True, but hubby and I have had talks.  We've had them (as education discussions) with our boys too.  If problems happened here as happen elsewhere, we'd do the exact same thing those folks are doing and pack up what we could carry and move, esp if kids are involved.  It actually amazes me that anyone would not choose to do the same.  Therefore, I can't blame those who are doing it.  One does not have to BTDT to realize what would be happening.  We've moved for lesser things.  Of course we'd move for greater things.

 

To those wishing for larger resettlement, to what end? What is your goal and end success you're aiming for?

 

Is it that if enough people leave these regions the problems will cease? That there will be no consequences or suffering of only they move and are assimilated into a new country? That this solves the birth rate issue in the first world? Makes despotism and famine and resource misallocation cease? Increases the freedom and safety of some of not all (and is that not the same argument used by those who want to control the numbers more tightly)?

 

Explain where you see this going, because I genuinely wonder what the goal is and can't see it. Where does this compassion lead in practical terms of numbers and results five or fifteen or fifty years from now? Let's leave aside the obvious good of helping an individual in trouble - we all agree on that.

 

Whoa!  Why toss that aside?  That IS the end goal.  And as we help each one, collectively they add to our nation/world in diversity, in knowledge, and in personality.  The one moves into many and the many who are more educated, well fed, and living a good life continue to help themselves, their communities, and our planet.

 

Perhaps not five, but fifteen or fifty years from now you get a stronger world as well as having helped each individual.

 

Some may be bad apples (just as some in almost any country are, though the US tends to seem to have a larger scale), but the majority are not.  It's the majority that tend to make our world a better place to live - if they keep a "world" mindset and not a "me" mindset.

 

The Hive is a great place to hang out because of our diversity of life experiences.  There may be a troll or two every so often.  The moderators clean it up.  But the majority of us help each other to a better living and/or understanding of life.  My guys have been able to do quite a bit more due to my gleaning from the experience of the Hive.  The world is better off when everyone has a chance to live to their potential.  "Everyone" is hypothetical, of course.  We live in the real world.  But each one we can help is one more toward a better world.  Those individuals add up.  We can't toss that aside!