Sorry christian refugees...

[Puffnstuff]

1) Why are refugees our problem?

If we bombed them into that condition we should help them. As for the other reasons we can already see that politics become relevant in how that aid is distributed.

2) Why are Christians anyones problem?

All people should receive equal consideration and the Christian label has become synonymous with preferential treatment. This song pretty much sums it up.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

If we bombed them into that condition we should help them.

All people should receive equal consideration and the Christian label has become synonymous with preferential treatment. This song pretty much sums it up.

Wait, who exactly does "we bombed them into that condition" apply to?

If Christians thinks everyone should receive equal consideration they should start. Something about doing unto others...

But I'm going to keep asking why Christians think a government should help them when their god doesn't. Have some courage in your convictions and if you believe god can do anything then turn to him, not us. I find it hilarious that the wannabelievers stand up every Sunday and spout that "The Lord is my shepherd..." nonsense, but then go running to secular sources when they have a problem. If you don't trust your god you have no business identifying yourself as a member of ANY faith.

 

[Puffnstuff]

If Christians thinks everyone should receive equal consideration they should start. Something about doing unto others...

Its organized religion that has conjured up the notion that they should be given preferential treatment and you can see it in every facet of life. When I see businesses trying to profit by using the fish symbol or using some slogan on their adverts saying they are Christian owned its a red flag warning to me and I will not do business with them.

 

[pmv]

Wait, who exactly does "we bombed them into that condition" apply to?

Well, Cambodia springs to mind immediately as an obvious and literal example. But I wouldn't limit it to bombing. Imposing fascist regimes on them would count as well.

Do you want a complete list?

But, as I say, I wouldn't say the US has been completely remiss in giving refuge to those whose countries it has meddled in. one way or another the US has in many cases, in the end, taken people in. But don't try and pretend the US has no responsibility for any of the problems that lead to people fleeing their homelands.

 

[pmv]

When the US is compared to other western countries it fits. I cannot think of any other western country where the population is not 80%+ white.

Seriously? You want to get into the question of how black people came to be in the US? You really think that helps your argument?

 

[ivwshane]

He sure wouldn't when he's the resource provider.

You keep saying this but is it backed by reality?

The answer is no.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-do-refugees-cost-us-taxpayers-2017-6

Despite widespread accusations of being a burden on the hardworking public's tax dollar, most refugees actually end up paying thousands more in taxes than they receive in government handouts from the US.

A new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that refugees who entered the US as adults from 2010-14 paid, on average, $21,000 more in taxes than they got in any kind of welfare payments.

Are you man enough to let facts change your opinion or do you do what studies have shown humans to do and harden your position?

 

[Puffnstuff]

Are you man enough to let facts change your opinion or do you do what studies have shown humans to do and harden your position?

Just be honest with yourself and admit that you really just hate GOD.

 

[ivwshane]

Just be honest with yourself and admit that you really just hate GOD.

How can I hate something that doesn't not exist?

 

[Puffnstuff]

How can I hate something that doesn't not exist?

What would you say to him if you learned later that you were wrong and it was too late to change the outcome?

 

[pmv]

Just be honest with yourself and admit that you really just hate GOD.

What would it mean to hate God? It's a strange accusation to make. If you are defining God as being good by defintion, then you are saying they hate goodness? Surely by definition nobody hates 'the good'? If they hate it then they don't consider it good.

 

[pmv]

What would you say to him if you learned later that you were wrong and it was too late to change the outcome?

You could ask the same question of believers. What if you turn out to have believed in the wrong God and it was too late to change the outcome?

I believe in an atheist God. They don't want me to believe in them. Believers will be punished for all eternity, apparently. So I don't.

 

[ivwshane]

What would you say to him if you learned later that you were wrong and it was too late to change the outcome?

Change what outcome? Why would it be too late?

Is this your way of refusing to address the points I raised? It certainly has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[realibrad]

Seriously? You want to get into the question of how black people came to be in the US? You really think that helps your argument?

Sadly it is part of US and the world's history. The reason you do not see the numbers in Europe like you do in the US and in the Americas is because historically Blacks were excluded from the homeland countries. That, however, was not my point. I was talking about the people that come into Europe. If you look at say Germany you see there the majority for a long time that came in were whites from other countries. The U.K. has its links to colonies and as such many non whites moved into the U.K. which changed its ratios. But, my point was that the US has a lot more diversity when it comes to immigration vs its white majority.

Now, Mexico still dominates and it has for a while, but when you compare other "Western" countries you see a lot more "Whites" than what the US brings in.

 

[pmv]

Sadly it is part of US and the world's history. The reason you do not see the numbers in Europe like you do in the US and in the Americas is because historically Blacks were excluded from the homeland countries.

Not really. The reason you don't see numbers in Europe like the US is (a) because slavery was not a domestic affair in those countries (which is not to absolve them from moral responsibility for the slave trade, of course, in no sense). For European countries race was primarily an international issue, a question of imperialism, and the exploitation occurred overseas. Black people were not excluded, they simply weren't forcibly imported in large numbers.

Furthermore, of course, the US started off from a position of very low population density and everyone (bar the American Indians...unless you employ excessively long time scales) was an immigrant. Other races, barring the enslaved, arrived there the same way white Europeans did. Indeed if it weren't for the racial restrictions the US imposed at various times, the US would be far more diverse than it is.

I don't think there's any comparison between the US and Germany, say, as the majority of Germans are descended from people who have been in Europe for far longer than white Europeans have been present in the Americas.

The moral case for liberal immigration laws for the UK, in my opinion, is the history of Empire. "They" can come here because "we" went there (and did them over). For the US the moral calculus is different.

Also, I still ultimately think that immigration is not defacto a good thing or a purely natural phenonemon. It's a consequence of political and economic choices made by those with power. I'd rather see a world organised such that people didn't feel the need to move about so much.
(For example, the recent substantial influx of southern Europeans to the UK is a consequence of specific policies of the Eurozone and of the UK government, it's not an inevitable natural phenomenon)

 

[realibrad]

Not really. The reason you don't see numbers in Europe like the US is (a) because slavery was not a domestic affair in those countries (which is not to absolve them from moral responsibility for the slave trade, of course, in no sense). For European countries race was primarily an international issue, a question of imperialism, and the exploitation occurred overseas. Black people were not excluded, they simply weren't forcibly imported in large numbers.

England, as was most of the world, was very racist and explicitly and implicitly kept non whites out. Hell, even as recently as the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 the UK tried to keep non whites out.

Furthermore, of course, the US started off from a position of very low population density and everyone (bar the American Indians...unless you employ excessively long time scales) was an immigrant. Other races, barring the enslaved, arrived there the same way white Europeans did. Indeed if it weren't for the racial restrictions the US imposed at various times, the US would be far more diverse than it is.

Agreed.

I don't think there's any comparison between the US and Germany, say, as the majority of Germans are descended from people who have been in Europe for far longer than white Europeans have been present in the Americas.

I'm not sure I understand this part.

The moral case for liberal immigration laws for the UK, in my opinion, is the history of Empire. "They" can come here because "we" went there (and did them over). For the US the moral calculus is different.

Maybe today it is, but its not always been that way, and as I said before not too far back you can see this.

The key events leading to the hurried introduction of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 were the independence of, first, Kenya and, later, Uganda and Tanzania. Each of these countries at independence had an established minority population of Indian origin, some of whom had been introduced into East Africa by Britain which, as colonial power, had employed them on construction projects. Many had left India before its independence and before the creation of Pakistan, and their only citizenship was that of the UK and Colonies.

The potential numbers of those eligible to travel to the UK created alarm, and the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 was rushed through Parliament. The new Act provided that British subjects would be free from immigration control only if they, or at least one of their parents or grandparents, had been born, adopted, registered or naturalised in the UK. The issue of a passport by a British High Commission thus ceased to be a qualification for entry free of control. For those subject to control, another voucher system was introduced. This one was based on tight quotas. The 1968 Act directly, and deliberately, favoured white commonwealth citizens more likely to have British ancestry. Cabinet papers released in 2002 showed that the thrust of the legislation was designed to have this effect.

Also, I still ultimately think that immigration is not defacto a good thing or a purely natural phenonemon. It's a consequence of political and economic choices made by those with power. I'd rather see a world organised such that people didn't feel the need to move about so much.
(For example, the recent substantial influx of southern Europeans to the UK is a consequence of specific policies of the Eurozone and of the UK government, it's not an inevitable natural phenomenon)

So long as immigration has the purpose of improving the life of the individual, its a defacto good thing. Immigration was a key reason the US is the leader it is today. When immigrants are allowed to come and compete we are all better off.

The natural state of people is to improve their lives, and as such humans have moved around a lot. The only reason we did not see it as much in the past is due to limitations of the ability to do so.

 

[soulcougher73]

All people should receive equal consideration and the Christian label has become synonymous with preferential treatment. This song pretty much sums it up.

For people who cant understand growling 🙂

"Propheteering"
You fed them your lies and you stole all their earnings away.
You made a market for those that want to be saved.
What you're doing isn't something new. Religion is an ancient form of revenue.
Your pockets fill as you betray their trust. Your gaudy cross encased in rust.
The needy starve while you take your fill. Eyes to the sky with your hand in the till.
You spread the plague while you sell the cure, a modern day zealot entrepreneur.
You take advantage of those who seek the help, by selling pardons from hell.
Your scripture says give up what you own, but yet you preach from a golden throne.
Without sin, they'd have no reason to buy into belief turned enterprise.
You lie. You steal. You'll be dragged down by your greed. You're nothing more than a pious thief.
You'll never admit, you only bow to the gilded profit.
You spread the plague while you sell the cure, a modern day zealot entrepreneur.
You take advantage of those who seek the help, by selling pardons from hell.
Your scripture says give up what you own, but yet you preach from a golden throne.
Without sin, they'd have no reason to buy into belief turned enterprise.
You hoard every dollar you find, but if you practiced what you preached you'd leave it all behind.
You can't pull your riches through a needles eye. You can't save us from a falling sky.
You spread the plague while you sell the cure, a modern day zealot entrepreneur.
You take advantage of those who seek the help, by selling pardons from hell.
Your scripture says give up what you own, but yet you preach from a golden throne.
Without sin, they'd have no reason to buy into belief turned enterprise.

 

[pmv]

So long as immigration has the purpose of improving the life of the individual, its a defacto good thing. Immigration was a key reason the US is the leader it is today. When immigrants are allowed to come and compete we are all better off.

The natural state of people is to improve their lives, and as such humans have moved around a lot. The only reason we did not see it as much in the past is due to limitations of the ability to do so.

But people don't improve their lives in a vaccum or a 'natural state'. They do so within a context that is itself a consequence of political choices. So whether 'improving their lives' involves going somewhere else or not depends on larger political and economic factors. Many migrants would probably have rather stayed in their homelands, but were driven to leave by economic conditions or war or oppressive regimes or cultures.

And there's a price for constant large scale relocations of people, within nations as much as between them. I'm not really making a big practical point, just that I'm not inclined to 'celebrate' immigration as such and that I'd rather see some solutions found to the situations that drive people to leave their homelands.

In particular I cite the immigration from Southern Europe, which is a consequence of the Euro being a bit of a fiasco.

 

[Puffnstuff]

For people who cant understand growling 🙂

"Propheteering"
You fed them your lies and you stole all their earnings away.
You made a market for those that want to be saved.
What you're doing isn't something new. Religion is an ancient form of revenue.
Your pockets fill as you betray their trust. Your gaudy cross encased in rust.
The needy starve while you take your fill. Eyes to the sky with your hand in the till.
You spread the plague while you sell the cure, a modern day zealot entrepreneur.
You take advantage of those who seek the help, by selling pardons from hell.
Your scripture says give up what you own, but yet you preach from a golden throne.
Without sin, they'd have no reason to buy into belief turned enterprise.
You lie. You steal. You'll be dragged down by your greed. You're nothing more than a pious thief.
You'll never admit, you only bow to the gilded profit.
You spread the plague while you sell the cure, a modern day zealot entrepreneur.
You take advantage of those who seek the help, by selling pardons from hell.
Your scripture says give up what you own, but yet you preach from a golden throne.
Without sin, they'd have no reason to buy into belief turned enterprise.
You hoard every dollar you find, but if you practiced what you preached you'd leave it all behind.
You can't pull your riches through a needles eye. You can't save us from a falling sky.
You spread the plague while you sell the cure, a modern day zealot entrepreneur.
You take advantage of those who seek the help, by selling pardons from hell.
Your scripture says give up what you own, but yet you preach from a golden throne.
Without sin, they'd have no reason to buy into belief turned enterprise.

And that's exactly how I see organized religion and its exactly what Jesus warned the church would turn into at the end of the age which he calls the "great falling away". Each time I pass by a church and see a huge facility adorned with niceties I think of them as cathedrals of wealth and monuments to men.

 

[1prophet]

How can I hate something that doesn't not exist?

For someone that doesn't believe in the existence of God you and many apologists like you sure are eager to bring in many thousands of middle eastern religious right types along with their misogynistic, homophobic, anti-secular beliefs to add to the Roy Moore/Jerry Falwell/other native religious zealot types you love to rail against as a threat to women/democracy/gays, etc.

Instead of resettling these refugees in conservative nowhere towns in Idaho and Maine for example how about putting them in more affluent communities like Simi Valley, Martha's Vineyard, Georgetown , and other rich liberal enclaves so they can experience the so called liberal love and tolerance first hand while you convert them to freedom loving tolerant democrat voting hipsters.

 

[ivwshane]

For someone that doesn't believe in the existence of God you and many apologists like you sure are eager to bring in many thousands of middle eastern religious right types along with their misogynistic, homophobic, anti-secular beliefs to add to the Roy Moore/Jerry Falwell/other native religious zealot types you love to rail against as a threat to women/democracy/gays, etc.

Instead of resettling these refugees in conservative nowhere towns in Idaho and Maine for example how about putting them in more affluent communities like Simi Valley, Martha's Vineyard, Georgetown , and other rich liberal enclaves so they can experience the so called liberal love and tolerance first hand while you convert them to freedom loving tolerant democrat voting hipsters.

Sure, why not? Just because I'm not religious doesn't mean I think people shouldn't be able to practice their religion. I welcome anyone who wants to live here and be apart of this country.

Maybe that's your problem and why you come of as an idiot; you think your beliefs are how everyone should think and those who don't should get the f out.

 

[BoomerD]

For someone that doesn't believe in the existence of God you and many apologists like you sure are eager to bring in many thousands of middle eastern religious right types along with their misogynistic, homophobic, anti-secular beliefs to add to the Roy Moore/Jerry Falwell/other native religious zealot types you love to rail against as a threat to women/democracy/gays, etc.

Instead of resettling these refugees in conservative nowhere towns in Idaho and Maine for example how about putting them in more affluent communities like Simi Valley, Martha's Vineyard, Georgetown , and other rich liberal enclaves so they can experience the so called liberal love and tolerance first hand while you convert them to freedom loving tolerant democrat voting hipsters.

They can't afford to live amongst "right-thinking" people...only among the deplorables.

 

[realibrad]

But people don't improve their lives in a vaccum or a 'natural state'. They do so within a context that is itself a consequence of political choices. So whether 'improving their lives' involves going somewhere else or not depends on larger political and economic factors. Many migrants would probably have rather stayed in their homelands, but were driven to leave by economic conditions or war or oppressive regimes or cultures.

And there's a price for constant large scale relocations of people, within nations as much as between them. I'm not really making a big practical point, just that I'm not inclined to 'celebrate' immigration as such and that I'd rather see some solutions found to the situations that drive people to leave their homelands.

In particular I cite the immigration from Southern Europe, which is a consequence of the Euro being a bit of a fiasco.

So where do you stand on these issues on your previous claim?

"Furthermore, US immigration rules are quite selective, other countries are much less fussy in who they take."

The only limit on origin is the 7% rule which limits the maximum number of people that can come from one country relative to the total immigrants allowed in per year. There is no country that gets put ahead, just that there is a cap so that people from one country does not dominate immigration. There are also exemptions which allow for that 7% to be ignored.

Considering that the US gets its immigrants from far more diverse places, do you stills stand by your previous claim?

 

[pmv]

So where do you stand on these issues on your previous claim?

"Furthermore, US immigration rules are quite selective, other countries are much less fussy in who they take."

The only limit on origin is the 7% rule which limits the maximum number of people that can come from one country relative to the total immigrants allowed in per year. There is no country that gets put ahead, just that there is a cap so that people from one country does not dominate immigration. There are also exemptions which allow for that 7% to be ignored.

Considering that the US gets its immigrants from far more diverse places, do you stills stand by your previous claim?

If you look at the specifics of US immigration rules, yes, they are more selective than many (probably not the most selective of all, though). That doesn't relate to the total numbers, but to _who_ gets in and on what criteria. Canada takes that further, mind you, being ruthless about cherry-picking who it wants.

Show me where the US has rules equivalent to the EU's "free movement of peoples" for example. Do you treat the entire population of Mexico as if they were US citizens and let them freely come and go?

Also, the US has long had rules about minimum income for people bringing in a foreign spouse - the UK has only recently introduced such a rule, and it remains quite controversial. The US has not had the same form of chain-migration, on the whole people coming in through marriage are expected to be supported by their spouse or to have a high-earning job. Generally for a long time South Asian or Arab migrants to the US tended to be educated professionals (that seems to be changing, to be fair).

Though, conversely, where the US is very liberal compared to many is in granting automatic citizenship to anyone born within its borders (I think Ireland had the same till it was rescinded recently). Have to give credit for that.

Edit - to be clear, I think its justifiable for former colonial countries to have less demanding criteria for migrants from the countries they once lorded it over. But it bugs me when people used to point to the 'less radicalised' Muslim population of the US while ignoring the fact that the US has tended to take more educated and professional-class people from Muslim countries in the first place. Apart from its leaky Southern border, the US has tended to select migrants based on education and earning potential/wealth.

 

[realibrad]

If you look at the specifics of US immigration rules, yes, they are more selective than many (probably not the most selective of all, though). That doesn't relate to the total numbers, but to _who_ gets in and on what criteria. Canada takes that further, mind you, being ruthless about cherry-picking who it wants.

Do you mind expanding this, because I'm not sure I follow. I know of some individual qualifications but not selective as in by country, or race ect.

Show me where the US has rules equivalent to the EU's "free movement of peoples" for example. Do you treat the entire population of Mexico as if they were US citizens and let them freely come and go?

No sadly, but its like that going into Mexico as well. I will say that Mexicans get a bit of a fast track and can get a visitor visa which helps fast track entry for a 10 year period. Canada is different, but not Mexico.

To be fair though, Mexico is not the same as other European countries given the chaos in the south due to drugs. I just came back from a week vacation in Mexico and a few days before I got there someone was killed for drugs a few resorts down.

Also, the US has long had rules about minimum income for people bringing in a foreign spouse - the UK has only recently introduced such a rule, and it remains quite controversial. The US has not had the same form of chain-migration, on the whole people coming in through marriage are expected to be supported by their spouse or to have a high-earning job. Generally for a long time South Asian or Arab migrants to the US tended to be educated professionals (that seems to be changing, to be fair).

It depends on how you are applying, but that is correct. There must be a "sponsor" in most cases and the household income depending on size must be at 125% of the poverty line which really is not much. Its not really true it needs to be a high-earning job. A family of 4 must have a household income of $24,250 or about $12-$13/hr from one person. If two people in the house were making minimum wage then they should be well above this line.

Though, conversely, where the US is very liberal compared to many is in granting automatic citizenship to anyone born within its borders (I think Ireland had the same till it was rescinded recently). Have to give credit for that.

Low bar, but agreed.

Edit - to be clear, I think its justifiable for former colonial countries to have less demanding criteria for migrants from the countries they once lorded it over. But it bugs me when people used to point to the 'less radicalised' Muslim population of the US while ignoring the fact that the US has tended to take more educated and professional-class people from Muslim countries in the first place. Apart from its leaky Southern border, the US has tended to select migrants based on education and earning potential/wealth.

The majority of who comes over now are people trying to use their skills to compete in a way they could not in their previous country. We do have Visas for people that are well skilled but its not the majority of the people coming by a long shot. The Muslims we have here in the US mainly came in during a time when Muslims were less "radicalised". Thats why when studies about opinions are done the US Muslims tend to agree more with the freedoms and liberties that are inherent to western culture. That also goes back to the ability of the US to assimilate people when compared to Europe.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Have you guys seen where Trump is cutting staffing and resources to refugee agencies?